Capital Punishment - Right or Wrong?

High Mage Serratus

My apologies.
_________________

If you see dreadlocks and a staff coming towards you very rapidly, you're in trouble.

Darth Suspiria

This all comes from the following source. www.libraryindex.com/pages/2562/Prisoners-Rights-Under-Law-Eighth-Amendment

The Supreme court has established several tests to determine whether conditions or actions violate the 8th amendment.

1. Did the actions or conditions offend concepts of "decency and human dignity and precepts of civilization which Americans profess to possess?

2. Was it disproportionate to the offense?
3. Was the punishment unnecessarily cruel?
4. Did the punishment go beyond legitimate penal purposes

High Mage Serratus

Darth Suspiria

If you read the posting of the law Glathn, the absolute minimum is a violation of our 8th amendment. Minimum and adequate are not necessarily the same thing. If you look at that statement it is not exactly a giant migration from your previous ones. I went and looked and linking to that site requires a link set up like you would for a signature. But you can easily get to the material by going to the site www.libraryindex.com.

Do you really believe that your differing positions are that different from one another? Frankly I don't see it. If a person doesn't wash for weeks and is allowed a bare amount of hygiene, that an odor wouldn't be pervasive? Of course it would. On that same site is a whole group of cases involving solitary confinement. That can also be considered cruel and unusal punishment depending on the reasons for it. "The punishment is being imprisoned, losing your liberty." What happens in prison has to be reasonable. It can not be considered punitive, or retribution.
_________________

High Mage Serratus

You continue to argue with this absurd notion that what other people have done in the past is an effective argument. Also, you seem to have cleverly overlooked my point that here we are assuming my idea is a sentence and does not go against the law and you are supposed to argue against it in that context. I honestly couldn't care less about your Consitution Adriel, but when someone explicitly ignores the context of a debate, it really does annoy me.
_________________

If you see dreadlocks and a staff coming towards you very rapidly, you're in trouble.

Darth Suspiria

I believe that the only questionable notions in this debate have come from you. I have not only not uttered absurdities, I have a least supplied information regarding the Constitution which is both very valid and relevant in this debate. It is the death penalty we were discussing in the United States. You brought up the subject of life imprisonment instead. I was not the only one who objected to your original "prescription" for imprisonment. Far from it. Several people did. That was when your argument shifted. Not before that Glathn.

Secondly the debate here has rules and they were not created by you. If I choose to argue from the context (which you can not refute) that the Constitution prohibits what you are suggesting then it is absolutely reasonable to do so. You do not decide everyone's context for debate. What is annoying you is that the debate isn't progressing as you would like it to. Which is that people agree with you. I argue on the basis of rationality, reason and the law. That is the context I am arguing from. Can you say the same? What you have been saying is not a sentence but an idea which I disagree with.

As individuals, society, culture and a nation we have an interest in not lowering ourselves to the level of the enemy. Whether that enemy be the terrorist outside the country, or the murderer in our midst it is not to our benefit to act as they do. When we do that we diminish ourselves as moral and ethical human beings and weaken our culture as a whole. When we abandon our principles for vengeance, we become the same as what we abhorr.
_________________

High Mage Serratus

High Commander Vexen

Darth Suspiria

Firstly, Emperor Shadow was the author of this thread. In his opening statement he presented his case as involving the death penalty in the United States of America. He had two precepts.

1. Is the use of capital punishment right or wrong? Please justify
2. What are the possible alternatives? Are they feasible?

That is the topic of the thread. Individuals in the debate as this is not team debating, present their point of view. Then it is rebutted in some manner. I have in front of me the rules of the St. George Toastmasters Debating Clubs. (an international debating society) http://www.stgeorge.freeservers.com/guide_debate.htm. Nowhere does it say as you suggest that an alternative must be offered. Emperor Shadow asks for an alternative but also doesn't say there HAS to be one offered. You offered an alternative. Which then became part of the debate. Said opinion became part of the debate which several of us disputed. The following are your statements.

High Mage Serratus

Eh, I'm not stopping them dying. I'm just stopping them killing themselves. Though admittedly, they could bash their heads off a wall until they got a concussion and died in their sleep, but that might not occur to them or they might knock themselves out before they got the concussion. On to my point though.

There is acutally only one difference between normal imprisonment and my idea of imprisonment; solitary confinement. And this is only for people who would ordinarily recieve the death penalty or a life sentence i.e. people who could be a threat to fellow inmates or prison staff.

And actually, now that you mention it, I remember my friend Danni once said that criminals could be given the choice between life imprisonment and death. Maybe that could work.

EDIT: I got postninja'd by Suspiria.

Okay, so now you're attacking me because...my idea changed!? And I have not conceded that part of my argument. What prisoners today are getting is not the daily necessities, they are getting more than what is needed to survive. I want them to get just their RDA of what is needed to survive and what is needed to stay clean and illness-free. I don't find the many luxuries awarded prisoners are necessary.

A recent inspection on contraband items in a prison yielded, wait for it, over 100 packets of cigarettes, over 50 mobile phones, several magazines and posters, 2 parrots and a flat-screen TV. All this and more can be achieved because prisoners have contact with one man who can get them whatever they want. If they were put in solitary confinement, contact with this man would be ended and that would stop the flow of contraband.

But back to your first point. "Expected" is not a word meaning "must". Emperor Shadow EXPECTED alternatives, he didn't say that we MUST have them. I said that most people EXPECTED alternatives, not that we MUST have them.

I have not fallen to the enemy's level. I am in favour of abolition of the death penalty and installation of life sentences with no parole in conjunction with mandatory solitary confinement. I am in favour of protecting prison staff from prisoners. I am in favour of protecting prisoners from other prisoners. I am in favour of the prevention of entrance of contraband items into prisons. I am in favour of limiting a prisoner's daily allowances to only what is necessary for life, not what others deem 'adequate'. In no way am I on the same ethical and moral level as John Wayne Gacy, Charles Manson and David Berkowitz. I find the comparison insulting on a personal level and hope that you can realise that I can be in favour of harsher treatment of prisoners than you and still be a moralistic person with out resorting to absolutes to make a point.
_________________

If you see dreadlocks and a staff coming towards you very rapidly, you're in trouble.

Darth Suspiria

There are some states Glathn where prioners have that right. The ones I know of are in the West. There have been two cases that I know of where convicted killers requested the death penalty and it was granted to them. Most don't choose that of course but a few do.
_________________

High Mage Serratus

Again with the postninjaing!
_________________

If you see dreadlocks and a staff coming towards you very rapidly, you're in trouble.

Darth Suspiria

There is no postninjaing going on. We are posting at the same time it is as simple as that. Contraband being snuck into prisons is not by the approval of the authorities. Nor the courts. Yes a better job must be done to control those types of items entering prisons. It is also a prisoner's right in the US to have visitors.

I continue to state Glathn that you can not have the debate in every direction which you pointed out yourself before that there was a context. You did not just suggest harsher treatment, you suggested originally TERRIBLE TREATMENT. So if you do not concede that your posts have migrated to where your position has moved far closer to everyone elses then we are back to your original position.(Your last post has migrated still farther, to you disagree with luxuries.) I am sorry if you find it offensive, but I find that original position immoral.

You also state "not what others find adequate." Are you a physician or a nutritionist to decide what is "necessary"? Who would decide that in your view of the situation? You do not want to be "judged by absolutes", yet you used absolutes to describe prisoner treatment originally. If we are all human beings then why do absolutes apply any less to you than they do to anyone else?
_________________

High Mage Serratus

Postninjaing is a term used to describe the effect of posting in response to a comment only to find that another comment has been posted between yours and the person to whom you are responding. I was not saying it was deliberate, I was describing the situation.

To quote John McCain (prick that he is): "I admire your eloquence."

You said initially that I must agree that I have conceded to the same level as you and others. Now you are saying that I must agree that I have conceded closer to the same level as you and others. Which is...exactly what I've said.

You are correct. I do not want to be judged in absolutes, which is what you are doing. Just because I have not conceded to the same level as you does not mean that I'm still at my initial position. I do not find it offensive that you find that position immoral. I find it offensive that you are placing me in a position that I am no longer in.

When I said 'not what others find adequate' I meant that what is 'necessary' should be decided by physicians or nutritionists. Your reasoning seems strange to me. 'Who would decide that in your view of the situation?'. That's what I'm trying to say, it's not up to anyone to decide what is adequate, only what is necessary. I'm sure that Paris Hilton would find what she has grown up with 'adequate'. I'm sure that an orphan in an orphanage would find what she has grown up with 'adequate'.

You keep saying 'original' and 'originally'. Why is it that I can change my position but you can keep using my old position against me. I used an absolute once in my idea. And it wasn't even my original idea. And then you said "you used absolutes to describe prisoner treatment originally". No I didn't. I used an absolute once in one of my later descriptions of the idea and the position has changed since then. Besideswhich, I never said that absolutes should apply to other people and not to me. I never even said that absolutes should apply to prisoners. You are consistently paraphrasing, twisting my words and putting words in my mouth. I judge no one by absolutes. There is no 'if you're not with me, you're against me'. The world isn't black and white, it's gray. And in the same post that you say that no one should be judged in absolutes any less than me, you judge in absolutes.
_________________

If you see dreadlocks and a staff coming towards you very rapidly, you're in trouble.

Darth Suspiria

It isn't actually what you have said until now. You have continued to argue, "my position has changed but I am still saying that I am right and have been right all along." Essentially that is what you are saying. When the truth is, that your position has repeatedly changed since the beginning of this discussion thread. Someone disputes your point, you change your position without ever saying, " I was wrong, my position has changed." I have not put any words in your mouth. I am quoted you exactly as a matter of fact.

You have been engaging since the beginning in a circular argument designed to be 'I won the discussion and debate' which you have not.

Why is my reasoning strange? I asked who you would have decide it. Adequate and necessary ARE NOT THE SAME. Though I believe that you attempted to say that as well in one post. You have now said who would decide it which is a point in the debate. Physicians and nutritionists which is what I say as well.

Have I judged you in absolutes? Perhaps. With the same harshness as your original argument. Why? Because I am not certain that your migration of arguments is about a true change of mind, or desiring to win a debate. If you want it recognized that your position has changed then you need to say, I have changed my mind and my position is now in accord with the other people in the thread. 'Close to or the same as' it has changed significantly since the thread began.
_________________

High Mage Serratus

[...]judged by absolutes[...]
[...]my position has changed but I am still saying that I am right and have been right all along.
[...]you used absolutes to describe prisoner treatment originally[...]
[...]why do absolutes apply any less to you than they do to anyone else?

I didn't say any of these things and I only used "judged in absolutes" after you used the phrase. That is putting words in my mouth.

I find it very ironic that you at first told me to concede one part of my argument. Now you are telling me to concede my whole argument. You do this without conceding that:

- You have twisted my words, taken my words out of context and put words in my mouth.

For example, I said that one was expected to give alternatives in a debate. You said I said one must give alternatives in a debate.

I never said "my position has changed but I am still saying that I am right and have been right all along" and that has never even been essentially what I have said.

- My position has changed yet you continue to use my initial argument against me. I have conceded my position to a more ethical one but you continue to tell me to concede that my position is the same as yours.

Though you have never explicitly said what your position is, so I can be forgiven for assuming it is something along the lines of 'same as now but no parole for life sentences'.

Mine is 'no parole for life sentences, life sentences must be served in solitary confinement and all current health, hygiene and sustenance must be cut back to only what is necessary'.

Again, maybe that is not your position, but you have failed to give it as of yet, so I can hardly be blamed for assumption.

I did not attempt to say that adequate and necessary are not the same. I did say that adequate and necessary are not that same. You are in the position of adequate sustenance, health and hygiene. I am in the position of necessary sustenance. health and hygiene. A physician or nutritionist can't tell you what adequate sustenance, health and hygiene are, because adequacy is a matter of perspective. However what is necessary has been outlined by physicians and nutritionists.

I am not locked in circular reasoning. I have most certainly not won the discussion and debate. There is plenty of capacity to defeat my idea. But I want it to be defeated by someone who does not have to use my outdated position, twist my words and use absolutes to defeat it. You may say that you have used the law to argue too. But unless you're arguing in favour of the death penalty, you want the law to be changed. So my argument is still valid. My position has changed I have admitted that. But you continue to use the same invalid arguments against me. Can you admit that?
_________________

If you see dreadlocks and a staff coming towards you very rapidly, you're in trouble.

Darth Suspiria

From the following link: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary

1. enough-occurring in such quantity, quality, or scope as to fully meet demands, needs, or expectations.

2. adequate-sufficient for a specific requirement; barely sufficient or satisfactory.

3. minimum-the least quantity assignable.

These are the three words which you have used interchangeably throughout this last part of the debate. The beginning argument was terrible, keep them barely alive. The above three words as you can see do not have the same meaning which is one of the points I have been making. Please pick one of the three and stick with it. They are not synonyms.

My position is what it has always been. I do not believe in abolishing the death penalty and have never said such. I believe in the death penalty in very limited circumstances. For heinous murderers who have killed children, the elderly or the disabled. With confirming DNA evidence which is not contaminated. This was stated clearly previously.
For all others I believe in life in prison w/o parole for those convicted of first degree murder. Their rights are proscribed by the United States Constitution, and supervised by the United States Supreme Court. As I brought to your attention there is a body of "settled law" in regards to this matter. Because the original topic involved the United States the Constitution, that body of law is sufficient in my opinion in how prisoners
are to be treated.

High Prophet Crozeus

As happy as I am to read such an intellectual debate between two very different and very intelligent individuals, I must ask that Glathn, you keep your language more moderated. As the Emperor said, no more than the occasional "hell" or a "damn."

Vexen - the whole point that he is making is that he knows that criminals would rather face death. Why on earth would we want to give criminals what they want? That's the price he wants them to pay.
_________________

High Mage Serratus

Suspiria, I have not used enough, adequate and minimum interchangably. I have not even used adequate at any part in my idea. That was your word. I used minimum and enough in a past part of the debate. And I falsely claimed that adequate and enough were synonymous. But I don't need to pick one of the three and stick with it. Because I have been using and continue to use the word 'necessary'.

I am getting quite infuriated with you. You continue to refuse to admit that you have been putting words in my mouth, you've just done it again. And then whenever I call you out to admit what you've done, admit that you have deliberately twisted and outright changed my words to suit your own purposes, you whip out another ridiculous, nonsensical argument. I asked you to admit that you are changing my words. You respond by changing my words.

You don't believe in abolition of the death penalty. I never said you did. I admit that I forgot about what you'd written previously but again, putting words in my mouth doesn't improve your argument. Any Constitution can be amended. The US Constitution has been amended to change prisoner rights before, it can be amended again.

Here again you more than put words in my mouth. You have deliberately altered a quote to put words in my mouth. I did indeed say "adequate and enough are synonymous with each other." But my words yesterday were "I did say that adequate and necessary are not that same." This was obvious and deliberate changing of my words to make a stupid point.

I personally think that I have been consistent as of late. I've stuck to the same idea and you have failed to defeat that idea, instead, you've attacked my consistency while failing to stick to an argument yourself. You've changed my words to make me look bad, when anyone reading the thread will simply have to glance back at my previous posts to see your subterfuge.

Whether or not you want the law changed is irrelevant. This does not make my reasoning circular.

And then we come to your next point, which just baffles me. You don't seem to have a very good grasp of English from what I've seen. My position has changed, as I pointed out. How has it not changed because I said that it my argument is still valid? Do you even know what you're saying at this point? I never said that you were in favour of abolishing the death penalty so why do you keep making it seem like I did. In fact, my exact words for what I thought your position was 'same as now but no parole for life sentences'.

You have once again brought up Constitutional Law. The Constitution was amended to change prisoner's rights to the ones you keep spinning. It can be amended again to change prisoner's rights to allow my sentence.

I have not "continued to Interchange words the entire time". The change in my position is concrete, it has never been circumstantial, this is the first time you have made this accusation. You have just put words in my mouth again. I am not holding my original position to be valid. I am holding my current position to be valid. You have twisted my words once again and I'm getting pretty sick of it. Your sheer ignorance is infuriating me to the point that I hardly want to come on to the forum, just because I know you'll have come up with some other ridiculous statement that twists my words, changed my words, put words in my mouth or actually ignores my words so that you can keep putting up more stupid arguments.
_________________

If you see dreadlocks and a staff coming towards you very rapidly, you're in trouble.

Lord Aequitas

Darth Suspiria

Supreme Prophet Aequitas. I am not necessarily disagreeing with your assessment. I entered this thread because I saw Glathn calling names. If you go back to the beginning, you will see it in several of his entries. The most recent his last posting in regards to me.

I have not engaged in any form of name calling. I have disagreed with his conclusions and been consistant in my disagreement. My grasp of the English language is actually far superior to his. I am 51 years old, highly educated and understand many languages other than English as you can see in Adriel's Song. I am also an old campaigner of debates like this. I had my own political forum for a time.

The points I have made to him are all valid. I persisted because in my opinion a lesson was necessary. A lesson in manners in particular which he obviously has not learned. I continue to and will continue to maintain the arguments as valid that I have been making. The United States Constitution is far from easily amended, as anyone who has truly studied it knows. The process is long and arduous and more often than not ends in failure. It has been some time since there was a successful amendment to the Constitution. Even the Equal Rights Amendment failed to gain passage. Anyone who believes it is simple lacks understanding of the process. It is very far from it. It would certainly never be amended for prisoners' rights.

To be honest I believe that this thread should be locked. I will request myself that the Emperor look at all the entries and make a decision.

ADDITION: Request for thread lock has been made to the Emperor.
_________________

High Mage Serratus

Have the thread locked if you wish but before you do so...

Why must you refuse to admit that you have changed my words, twisted my words and put words in my mouth, as you have just now?

I did not call names. In fact, I myself was called sickminded and told on many occasions that I needed help, I was even told to check into a mental hospital. I was compared by you yourself Suspiria to such people as Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy and David Berkowitz on more than one occasion.

But no, I'm the name-caller. Because, lemme check...I called murderers sick b*****ds. Oh and I called John McCain a prick. Both long after you entered the debate, which means if you were using these as your instances of name-calling, you are only proving my next point.

You downright lied about how you entered the debate. You entered the debate stating your beliefs on the matter, not because I called names.

Perhaps your grasp of the English language is far superior to mine. But that then raises the issue as to how you could confuse the words "current" and "original".

Then you proceed to make a nonsense point. Your points were valid? Your points were based on ignoring what I was saying and twisting what you didn't ignore. You also put words in my mouth once again, I didn't say the process of amending the Constitution was easy. I said it was possible. I said, and I quote, "Any Constitution can be amended." I did not say it was easy to amend the Constitution. I am aware of the difficulty of amending a Constitution, my country has its own Constitution. But you put words in my mouth once again.

You continue to refuse to admit that you have twisted and changed my words. You completely ignore my last post in which I pointed out that you deliberately switched the words "enough" and "necessary" to make a false point.

But no.

Have the thread locked. But know this:

I will never type in this forum again. You have completely put me off debating. I hope you feel accomplished.
_________________

If you see dreadlocks and a staff coming towards you very rapidly, you're in trouble.

Darth Suspiria

GLATHN LONG SAID:

Wed. Oct. 1, 2008 9:28 am

Malice your example is a stupid one.

At this point as Darth Malice was my mentor, I entered the debate as the postings clearly show.

Tues. Oct. 14 2008 2:06 pm

What crap. I mean god, how can anyone find that logical?

Tues. Oct 14 2008 5:05 pm

Ugh. Are you even reading what I am saying at this point?

Tues. Oct. 14 2008 6:38 pm

Do you even know what you're saying at this point? Honestly...It is ridiculous. I feel like I'm arguing with my nine-year old sister to be honest.

Thurs. Oct. 16, 2008 11:36 pm

You yourself look quite the fool

Thurs. Oct. 16, 2008 2:57 pm

You continue to argue with this absurd notion.

Sun. Oct 19, 2008 3:56 am

....This was obvious and deliberate changing of my words to make a stupid point.

Sun. Oct. 19, 2008 3:56 am

You don't seem to have a very good grasp of English

Your sheer ignorance is infuriating me.

...just because I know you'll come up with some other ridiculous statements.

You can keep putting up more stupid arguments.

Anyone besides Glathn believe all of those things are not name-calling or insults?

If you choose not to post in debate threads any longer then that is your choice. What the real issue is, is that someone called you on your premises and your manners. That is the real issue. Again I believe this thread should be locked.
_________________

Emperor Shadow

Okay, I'm guilty of letting this get out of hand.

Everyone, it is generally a BAD thing to insult the intelligence of another poster. Regardless of their position, it is no less valid than your's. Unless they are advocating genocide, I can't much think of a situation to call anyone misinformed, stupid, cruel, etc. Respect is critical to the continuation of this forum. If you can't respect opposing views, what are you doing participating in a debate?

This is a charged subject and no one has an absolute right or wrong answer.
_________________

That, that is, is; that, that is not, is not.

Today's Evil Overlord Mood/Thought Process of the Day: Gungan opera

The Realist Party. You can't repel appeal of our magnitude.

Darth Suspiria

Thank you for your input Emperor Shadow. I will respect your wishes.

_________________

Page 4 of 6		All times are GMT - 8 Hours Page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next