Governor sounds death knell for executions

Originally posted by Honor93
ok guys, hold up here a moment ... i'm having a really hard time accepting that the economic argument is null or void, inappropriate or even unimportant.
how can any of you say such when the "death industry" is certainly booming.
if dealing with death was dishonorable, why do so many volunteer to do it?
from the executioners to the directors to the drivers ... many ppl are employed because death is an industry.

ever priced funeral/internment arrangements? cremations ?? it certainly drains the finances.
why would forced executions be any different?
is it because the taxpayers pay for it?
is it because the cost is so extreme, ppl don't want to know what it's costing them?
is it because many Americans who favor the death penalty would donate bullets and reduce the costs immensely?

no seriously, human or not, guilty or not isn't the issue when discussing costs. either way, life in prison or execution, we pay for it ... shouldn't we at least discuss it ??

and, on the other side of the fence, look at the successes of the Innocence Project ... all of those released had to be re-tried (at taxpayer expense) ... so, in the cases where corruption and misleading the court was the course of business, what happened to the guilty parties who convicted this innocent ???
why are we still paying for them to be employed at all ??
[for those who don't know, in the US, prosecutors are employed by the State and paid via taxpayer funding]
and the experts they call are also paid by us, as are the makeovers for the criminals (each time they are physically present in the courtroom) example

considering the above, i'd prefer to pay for the innocent for as long as he/she is wrongfully accused and/or convicted mischievously. wouldn't you?

edit on 26-11-2011 by Honor93 because: add txt

Id pay for both the innocent and the guilty, for the simple reason I value life, even if those guilty of the most vicious/horrible crimes do not. You dont set examples by lowering yourself to the same standard of the criminals for one. The death penalty is obviously no deterrent, blind fury is called blind for a reason. Some people make mistakes they will regret for the rest of their lives, my point is every situation is different, with many of the so called perpetrators of the most evil crimes having been victims themselves in childhood or circumstance. How many serial killers were abused as children, and lived the most horrible lives. Then there are the mentally unstable, then there are straight up psychopaths. Murder of other people simply cannot be justified, that includes killing them in the name of justice. And the icing on the "do not kill" cake is the fact that many found guilty are actually innocent. I find it astounding that many "christians" support capital punishment even though their moral guidebook "the bible" states unequivocally that it is a cardinal sin to kill.
Justice and vengeance are two different things, sometimes seeking vengeance can cloud sound judgement and many times can have an adverse affect on justice.

reply to post by OneManArmy

Id pay for both the innocent and the guilty, for the simple reason I value life, even if those guilty of the most vicious/horrible crimes do not. You dont set examples by lowering yourself to the same standard of the criminals for one. The death penalty is obviously no deterrent, blind fury is called blind for a reason. Some people make mistakes they will regret for the rest of their lives, my point is every situation is different, with many of the so called perpetrators of the most evil crimes having been victims themselves in childhood or circumstance. How many serial killers were abused as children, and lived the most horrible lives. Then there are the mentally unstable, then there are straight up psychopaths. Murder of other people simply cannot be justified, that includes killing them in the name of justice. And the icing on the "do not kill" cake is the fact that many found guilty are actually innocent. I find it astounding that many "christians" support capital punishment even though their moral guidebook "the bible" states unequivocally that it is a cardinal sin to kill.
Justice and vengeance are two different things, sometimes seeking vengeance can cloud sound judgement and many times can have an adverse affect on justice.

i will graciously accept your moral position in lieu of argument of the unknown.
i can accept that we differ in our view yet, i propose nature trumps your morals every time.

yeah, yeah, we all had it rough, some rougher than others ... boo hoo.
sorry but those heart strings have been pulled out already.

if given the legal leverage, many victims would engage in vigilante justice which more often then not, resolves all sides of the conflict.

i never really understood why vigilante justice is frowned upon ... it's not your battle.
the balance of nature includes the premise that to take a life, one must give a life. it is balance.

since our justice system is so poorly executed at the onset, the rest is really irrelevant.
some would equate vengeance with vigilante justice so perhaps on that point we also disagree ... however, i would beg to differ.
sometimes, a spoonful of vengeance contains great healing powers.

edit to add --> imho, keeping the (truly) guilty in any state of suspension (prison) is akin to accumulating human guinea pigs. they have no rights, no protections and are completely at the whim of whatever psycho-maniac is in charge that day.
to me, this is far more morally reprehensible than equal punishment.

Originally posted by Honor93

i never really understood why vigilante justice is frowned upon ... it's not your battle.
the balance of nature includes the premise that to take a life, one must give a life. it is balance.

The main reason vigilante justice is frowned upon is because it sidesteps due process. Making the vigilante judge, jury and executioner.
That is no balance of nature, it is "an eye for an eye" as stated in the bible, the same bible that says "thou shalt not kill" and "judge not lest thee be judged" much of western law is deeply rooted in the bible.
Is not nature survival of the fittest, dog eat dog, kill or be killed? The rules that command the animal kingdom.
Are we not above that?

Originally posted by OneManArmy

Originally posted by Honor93

i never really understood why vigilante justice is frowned upon ... it's not your battle.
the balance of nature includes the premise that to take a life, one must give a life. it is balance.

The main reason vigilante justice is frowned upon is because it sidesteps due process. Making the vigilante judge, jury and executioner.
That is no balance of nature, it is "an eye for an eye" as stated in the bible, the same bible that says "thou shalt not kill" and "judge not lest thee be judged" much of western law is deeply rooted in the bible.
Is not nature survival of the fittest, dog eat dog, kill or be killed? The rules that command the animal kingdom.
Are we not above that?

i understand the legal argument of due process however, i don't agree with it in all circumstances.
there are times when the vigilante has every right to be judge, jury and executioner.
(why should their inherent, natural rights be dismissed?)

using the animal kingdom as an excuse is silly as we are members of the animal kingdom ... so yes, the rules of the kingdom should apply.

am i above or superior to any other creature large or small ??
nope, do you really believe you are?

and yes, when nature is left alone to do her thing, natural balance is evident everywhere.
ya know, just because some ppl believe in the scriptures doesn't mean it applies to everyone.
i prefer the golden rule myself and those who do bad should expect same, nothing less.

btw, if you indulged in a little nature you would discover that you are mistaken.
animals are naturally more compassionate than humans ... watch and see for yourself.
[and i mean, real nature, not the tv shows]
humans have to focus, animals do not -- to them, compassion is a natural reflex.

reply to post by Honor93


What you are saying makes a lot of sense, but I differentiate us from the animal kingdom because we have language, written and oral, we have innovation and invention leading to technology, to the stage we can and do affect every species on the planet. We have art, and philosophy and culture. It is these things that seperate us from the animal kingdom. Survival of the fittest doesnt apply because we have developed technology to allow the weak to survive along with the strong. Medicine allows us to defeat natural selection to some extent. We are not simply animals, although the way some people act, it could easily be argued that that is the case. We also have spirituality.

Great for that gov - only higher powers can judge us.

Sorry - one-liner.

reply to post by OneManArmy

big deal, we have technology ... did it ever occur to you that we survived without it ??
for quite some time even

please don't dismiss the language the animals share, both verbal and literal ... that's like saying English rules and we all know that's a bunch of malarkey.
they still teach phonetics so language in and of itself is highly subjective.

as for literal ... ok, they don't write words but they do "mark" and if hieroglyphics count as language, so should this ... and that's just one group of animals.

given the opportunity we ALL have remarkable skills to share .. all animals, everywhere.

as for affects and effects ... we intermingle and give and receive ... it is not a one way direction.
not even between the animals in the wild ... they too, give and receive, interact with others and practice compassion without a moment's hesitation --> can humans really say such?

art, philosophy and culture eh ??
ok, cause i'm extremely familiar with felines currently, let's use them as an example.
art --> see above link or this one, this one, or this linky

philosophy --> well, again this is subjective but since "pet therapy" is a functional health/medical treatment, clearly, they have or practice some form of philosophy.
true, they don't print any but is that a requirement?

culture --> they each have their own, just like us humans ... see most any tv documentary regarding animals and their independent culture is evident, from orangutans to dolphin to scorpions to birds to reptiles.
they each have and practice their own 'culture'.
just because you don't recognize or acknowledge it doesn't make it ok to deny it.

survival of the fittest has always been part of our culture whether we choose to admit it or not.
no point in denouncing, dismissing or eliminating what is naturally occurring anyway.

need examples? bullies, war, disease, handicaps, mental weakness, religion, pick any of 'em and there will be a multitude of examples.

and lastly, spirituality is rather encompassed in all animals, ask any spiritual human or Native American for that matter.

so, in conclusion, i really appreciate your input but what exactly is left of your argument ??
technology --> so, this and this alone separates us from the animal kingdom, eh?
'nuf said.

btw, i never said we were "simply" animals but we certainly, "simply" are Not above or superior to any of them.

Originally posted by OneManArmy

Originally posted by Honor93
ok guys, hold up here a moment ... i'm having a really hard time accepting that the economic argument is null or void, inappropriate or even unimportant.
how can any of you say such when the "death industry" is certainly booming.
if dealing with death was dishonorable, why do so many volunteer to do it?
from the executioners to the directors to the drivers ... many ppl are employed because death is an industry.

ever priced funeral/internment arrangements? cremations ?? it certainly drains the finances.
why would forced executions be any different?
is it because the taxpayers pay for it?
is it because the cost is so extreme, ppl don't want to know what it's costing them?
is it because many Americans who favor the death penalty would donate bullets and reduce the costs immensely?

no seriously, human or not, guilty or not isn't the issue when discussing costs. either way, life in prison or execution, we pay for it ... shouldn't we at least discuss it ??

and, on the other side of the fence, look at the successes of the Innocence Project ... all of those released had to be re-tried (at taxpayer expense) ... so, in the cases where corruption and misleading the court was the course of business, what happened to the guilty parties who convicted this innocent ???
why are we still paying for them to be employed at all ??
[for those who don't know, in the US, prosecutors are employed by the State and paid via taxpayer funding]
and the experts they call are also paid by us, as are the makeovers for the criminals (each time they are physically present in the courtroom) example

considering the above, i'd prefer to pay for the innocent for as long as he/she is wrongfully accused and/or convicted mischievously. wouldn't you?

edit on 26-11-2011 by Honor93 because: add txt

Id pay for both the innocent and the guilty, for the simple reason I value life, even if those guilty of the most vicious/horrible crimes do not. You dont set examples by lowering yourself to the same standard of the criminals for one. The death penalty is obviously no deterrent, blind fury is called blind for a reason. Some people make mistakes they will regret for the rest of their lives, my point is every situation is different, with many of the so called perpetrators of the most evil crimes having been victims themselves in childhood or circumstance. How many serial killers were abused as children, and lived the most horrible lives. Then there are the mentally unstable, then there are straight up psychopaths. Murder of other people simply cannot be justified, that includes killing them in the name of justice. And the icing on the "do not kill" cake is the fact that many found guilty are actually innocent. I find it astounding that many "christians" support capital punishment even though their moral guidebook "the bible" states unequivocally that it is a cardinal sin to kill.
Justice and vengeance are two different things, sometimes seeking vengeance can cloud sound judgement and many times can have an adverse affect on justice.

Thanks OneManArmy, You made the best post so far, at least for me.
Pity is the English barrier, I have to keep my posts simple.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by OneManArmy

 

big deal, we have technology ... did it ever occur to you that we survived without it ??
for quite some time even

please don't dismiss the language the animals share, both verbal and literal ... that's like saying English rules and we all know that's a bunch of malarkey.
they still teach phonetics so language in and of itself is highly subjective.

as for literal ... ok, they don't write words but they do "mark" and if hieroglyphics count as language, so should this ... and that's just one group of animals.

given the opportunity we ALL have remarkable skills to share .. all animals, everywhere.

as for affects and effects ... we intermingle and give and receive ... it is not a one way direction.
not even between the animals in the wild ... they too, give and receive, interact with others and practice compassion without a moment's hesitation --> can humans really say such?

art, philosophy and culture eh ??
ok, cause i'm extremely familiar with felines currently, let's use them as an example.
art --> see above link or this one, this one, or this linky

philosophy --> well, again this is subjective but since "pet therapy" is a functional health/medical treatment, clearly, they have or practice some form of philosophy.
true, they don't print any but is that a requirement?

culture --> they each have their own, just like us humans ... see most any tv documentary regarding animals and their independent culture is evident, from orangutans to dolphin to scorpions to birds to reptiles.
they each have and practice their own 'culture'.
just because you don't recognize or acknowledge it doesn't make it ok to deny it.

survival of the fittest has always been part of our culture whether we choose to admit it or not.
no point in denouncing, dismissing or eliminating what is naturally occurring anyway.

need examples? bullies, war, disease, handicaps, mental weakness, religion, pick any of 'em and there will be a multitude of examples.

and lastly, spirituality is rather encompassed in all animals, ask any spiritual human or Native American for that matter.

so, in conclusion, i really appreciate your input but what exactly is left of your argument ??
technology --> so, this and this alone separates us from the animal kingdom, eh?
'nuf said.

btw, i never said we were "simply" animals but we certainly, "simply" are Not above or superior to any of them.

Good reply, I take everything on board that you have said.
With regard to culture, I was more leaning towards verbal tradition and also written history, as a lot of our culture is derived from our written histories which give us our beliefs in who we are and where we came from and where we are going. Our domination of our planet in my opinion is what seperates us from the animal kingdom, it places us squarely at the top of the food chain, our domination of the food chain is testament that we are above the animals, even if only in that small sense. I think it goes much further and deeper than that, but I also respect your standpoint. I would say neither of us is right or wrong, maybe both right and even maybe both wrong. I enjoyed the links of feline art, but I wonder if fellow felines come along and "appreciate" another cats artwork. I ask you, do you honestly believe that cats are communicating ideas and philosophies through their artwork to their fellow cats?

reply to post by OneManArmy

Good reply, I take everything on board that you have said.
With regard to culture, I was more leaning towards verbal tradition and also written history, as a lot of our culture is derived from our written histories which give us our beliefs in who we are and where we came from and where we are going. Our domination of our planet in my opinion is what seperates us from the animal kingdom, it places us squarely at the top of the food chain, our domination of the food chain is testament that we are above the animals, even if only in that small sense. I think it goes much further and deeper than that, but I also respect your standpoint. I would say neither of us is right or wrong, maybe both right and even maybe both wrong. I enjoyed the links of feline art, but I wonder if fellow felines come along and "appreciate" another cats artwork. I ask you, do you honestly believe that cats are communicating ideas and philosophies through their artwork to their fellow cats?

thank you for your consideration
it's all any animal truly expects.

regarding the food chain, i agree that it is a valid consideration when studying the biology of the cycle of life ... when contemplating equality, to me being on "top" of that chain only reaffirms our inherent barbarianism.
meat is not a necessity in the human diet ... it is a choice
we could live in harmony with those we devour but we choose otherwise.
also, if you remove our technology, i doubt we'd remain at the top for long

think of it this way also ... we, humans, are the ONLY species who kill for sport.
does that really "elevate" us ???

glad i could help expand your perceptions of "culture" ... all of us have a history, some more obvious than others but again, that doesn't make it ok to deny the rest.

can't/won't speak as to their "appreciation" of other feline works but i will say they "admire" it, body language and all
when discussing perceptions, there is no such thing as right and wrong.
perceptions change and adapt, there is no harm in that.

hmmm, interesting question ... i really don't know that answer but i have serious suspicions that they do.
some of the artwork i've viewed (as abstract as it is) often relays a clear picture --> interpretations are subjective and totally debatable but it's not "scratch" if you know what i mean.

i tend to 13 of 'em and they certainly communicate in a variety of ways and quite clearly with practice.
2 of them have literally saved human lives and i respect them more than some of my human neighbors.
i would never be so conceited as to believe or infer that i am superior to any of them.
[and, i'm pretty sure, given natural, built-in weaponry, they could take me out any time they desired ]

reply to post by TechniXcality


Keep these state and Federal prisons nationalized as that maintains the ststus quo by not making incarceration be a "for profit" venture.

I applaud Oregon for this bold move as it is not up to us humans to sentence another to death. We do not have the right to play God!