I am against the death penalty for the reasons stated in the video. Where are you on the death penalty? Check out this debate/discussion and let me know.
We let people have guns so they can execute people with no judge, no jury, no witnesses, and no questions asked so long as they can convince someone they felt threatened or thought they saw a gun.
Society will spend decades and millions of dollars to go through the process of trying to protect someone from incorrect execution (and still fail to protect the innocent in many cases) yet almost no effort at all is made to do the same to prevent private executions. Makes no sense.
I have no idea what you mean by "private executions"
I have a right to self defense whether it is with a gun, a stick, a 2x4, a rock, a metal pipe, my fist or anything else I can get my hands on. If you attack me and I strike you in the head with my fist and you have a brain injury and die. Did I execute you? or was I defending myself. The use or non use of a firearm has nothing to do with if it was self defense or not.
We let women go into abortion clinics and have the brains sucked out of their unborn babies and they don't even have to convince anyone they felt threatened.
If men had babies the right to abortion would be in the constitution. When there is an amendment that gives everyone a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness lets talk.
Oh and by the way, you don't let me have guns. I have guns because of my god given right to self defense which is reaffirmed by the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.
God did not give you the second amendment, men (and I mean men, not women) did and anyone who has read the DC v Heller decision knows that it was never intended for what people say it is now. It was quite literally for the security of the state. But Americans aren't so good with history and a 5-4 decision will one day be overturned and some states will decide they do not need unregulated militia for their security an more. I know that is scary for you, but many civilised non-"shit hole" countries (thank Don) manage very nicely without them.
We let people have guns so they can execute people with no judge, no jury, no witnesses, and no questions asked so long as they can convince someone they felt threatened or thought they saw a gun.
No, we let people have arms (which includes guns, knives etc) so they can defend themselves. If we have an inalienable right to life then we also have a right to defend our lives. If we don't have the right to defend our lives then we have no right to life.
yet almost no effort at all is made to do the same to prevent private executions.
You are incorrect. If a person meets the criteria for self-defense then it is not a private execution but self defense. If a person does not meet the criteria for self-defense then they are charged with a crime.
I’d rather have 100 guilty guys rot in a cell than one innocent person be wrongly executed. Until our system is error-free, I can’t support capital punishment.
In Texas where I live, there have been cases in which innocent people have been executed. Now granted, some of these guys were "bad" people, but the state executed them for murders they did not commit. We should take every step we can to guard against government tyranny--this includes limiting the death penalty drastically.
Yes I was heartened to see how much disapproval there was on your YT video for the death penalty. I tend to think of the American public as a bloodthirsty horde of gibbering madmen, so I was surprised to see this...
There is never going to be a human endeavor that is error free. To say we won't do X until it is error free is an idiotic stance to take and you should base your opposition to capital punishment on something else.
I found myself almost agreeing with Colin, because the people (Timothy McVeigh and Osama Bin Laden) so seem like people worthy of the death penalty. It's easy to start thinking those would certainly be instances in which the death penalty was truly warranted, but I always end up back on the anti-death penalty side.
As someone who believes that death is permanent and the absolute end of one's existence in all forms, I don't think death is a punishment. Sure, you're preventing this person from committing horrible crimes, but so is putting them in prison for the rest of their lives. You're also taking away any chance that them being alive could have ended up being useful to society in other ways.
My main takeaway from that interview was just how civil it was. I think a lot more could be accomplished if we didn't jump at each other's throats so quickly. That's one of my favorite things about The David Pakman Show.
I'm going off on a tangent here FOR SURE, but do you know how I first heard about TDPS? It was a little clip on Best of the Left that featured David saying "we even interview some of the crazies on the right, but don't worry... we don't agree with them" or something along those lines. I checked out some full episodes after hearing them on BOTL, and I've been here ever since. That was probably at least 5 years ago.
committing horrible crimes, but so is putting them in prison for the rest of their lives.
Because crimes are never committed in prison. Or is something only a crime when it is committed against someone with no history of criminal convictions?
You're also taking away any chance that them being alive could have ended up being useful to society in other ways.
And just how useful to society is someone that is in jail for the rest of their lives?
Well this guy is obviously not a libertarian. Republican, definitely, not a libertarian.
We are born with certain rights that are not granted by any government. We are living, therefor we have the right to live. Doesn't matter what we do, that is inherent in just the act of BEING.
He even makes it clear that it's a "principled stance", A.K.A. not founded in any rational or logical thought, but just on "principle". What's the principle? That governments have the right to exterminate the people they were entrusted to protect?
It's absurd to think that any institution can take your life for any reason. Once an institution is given the power to take your life for reasons they deem fit, where does that end?
EDIT
"Society has the right to remove people permanently"... Is this guy serious? Honestly, this sounds like he ripped a page right out of the playbook of Stalin. It's insane.
EDIT
"It's the right of the government to kill terrible people"
........I just can't.
First of all, the government has no rights. People have rights. Animals have rights. Living, breathing entities have rights. The government is an institution created by people, not the other way around. The government has powers that are entrusted to it, one of which is to protect the people it governs. Another is to ensure our rights are protected. One of those rights is the right to LIFE. Period.
That's the old internet... It's detrimental to an account's health and reputation to go around and randomly downvote people because you disagree with what they say. That will, eventually, cause your account to be flagged.
That governments have the right to exterminate the people they were entrusted to protect?
After being convicted of a crime that warrants the death penalty by a jury of their peers and granted an appeals process that can last up until the moment they are executed. You make it sound as if the American government wantonly executes people like a communist country.
Maybe not wantonly but they are not above or too good to make it impossible. I assume you feel that US State would not do atrocity to their own kids? If so you'd be wrong. I am less certain about federal level but lower levels seem to act and do what they think they can get away with. I would have doubted this was possible and it was being done to me. Problem is they self incriminate. So...
I assume you feel that US State would not do atrocity to their own kids?
Given our genocide of the First Nations People and the extra-judicial execution via drone during the Obama administration no I do not assume that the US couldn't but the fact is that they haven't at least not in the manner you are describing.
lower levels seem to act and do what they think they can get away with.
That is a function of power. Look at the #MeToo movement. Every single one of those accused did what they did because they thought they could get away with it.
Point is FBI is involved in this also, NY State Police, they have relations with my parents, children are missing, clergy and doctors are involved, so is Canada, an FBI issue for sure now.
I used to be a supporter of the death penalty, until it became painfully clear to me that it was both an ineffective deterrent and a means by which miscarriages of Justice could not be rectified. We as a society must move beyond this.
Problem is worse when State acts to euthanize people extra-judicially (Which many Americans assume can't happen in USA) to protect the guilty at expense of the victim.
And since it has to be done covertly, this is State sponsored murder, my view is execute them.
Of what was done to me? Yes. Medical proof of 5 homicides, a marriage they are having to annul, I am Stateless, involve and witness by Canada and Germany on child harms and a marital fraud. You can be sure.
I was told I had to leave Clarkson College first semester of my freshman year, I have likely 300 witnesses to that event alone. This is extremely serious. State will self incriminate and bring all with. Now you can be MORE sure.
The problem is the doctors knew and acted informally with County and likely State agents of law. They lied and acted to obscure forensics related to the crimes, they have mandated reporting laws related to child harms, and then later they as I was an adult did 2 homicides medically. Later one using my wife. The earlier one was done using a knife and ambulance in Wilson NY. They denied treatment to revive me and someone else had to come to do that. Hospital conspired as did local law and fire personnel. I have plenty of proof.
I have scars all over my body, many from executions done to me as a child, my adult teeth are mostly all ruined I was pandered to a dentist who took sexual pleasure from harming me and other children I assume... so to your point, yes. We have proof.
The State is involved as are Police. And they are obligated to act. Wrong again you are. State acted on some and on some they allowed others to do it etc...
My avatar image is of me. It is being misrepresented and sold to others online. It is another form of proof about the child harms done to me as of that age, less than 5 years. It all means something.
It gets more technical possibly. Do a hit and run felony as you flee another crime, felony, and kill someone accidentally? Many jurisdictions will charge you with murder.
IMO, the principled libertarian position is to not really have a position. I'm not a court a judge a jury or the family of someone who was killed, so why does my opinion really matter at all?
Things like this are similar to abortion to me, where I can have my personal beliefs of what seems right to me, or what I'm comfortable with, but not necessarily demand that other people do it the same way.
I don't really know how I'd feel if a loved one were killed by someone, but I don't think I'd feel any kind of satisfaction in killing back. I'm sure I'd want them excluded from civil society and for everyone to know what they did. But that seems like the most you can do. Sometimes a situation just isn't correctable.
That said (circling back to my first paragraph) I wouldn't try to stand in the way of people or courts who support the death penalty. It's probably not what I believe is the best way to respond to the situation, but I'm not going to try to make everyone else follow that belief.
If someone wants to kill back, perhaps that's the best way for them to grieve their loss, and perhaps it's best to let them.
Respectfully, I think you're confusing anarchists with libertarians... although 'libertarians' tend to be anarchists in my experience. An anarchist eschews the role of the state like you said, but a libertarian believes that the state, minimal though it may be, has a role to play in protecting its people.
Labels can be confusing. Many minarchist statists describe themselves as "libertarian", ya, but lots of people could describe themselves as that (any Republican who isn't afraid of gay people might identify as "libertarian"), and what does it even mean if you're not using it in a strict/principled way?
A strict use of the word is the same as anarchist.
So I was just using the word strictly, and not in the loosey goosey way that people sometimes use it inside of politics.
Not sure we are helping anything and protecting people by allowing government to kill them. Put it this way, what is lost if the state is prohibited from killing people? Not much, I would think. But I could be wrong.
What is lost is tax dollars that can be used to provide education, healthcare or lowering of taxes incarcerating someone for the rest of their natural days.
Killing a disarmed, caged prisoner is just killing a disarmed, caged prisoner.
This should read "Executing a person found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers and having availed themselves of the appeals process is an official execution"
I love how you, and others, try to make a convicted felon the victim. If the convicted felon didn't want to be on death row then they should not have lived their life in such a manner that they ended up on death row.
I'm against the death penalty, but I'm also against life imprisonment. I'm still unsure what the best solution is, just that the current solutions are not optimal.
Let me help you out. If you Murder someone you get locked away from the rest of society for the rest of your natural life. If you kill again while in Prison. Then you get terminated.
Let me help you out. You want your cake and to eat it too. What I mean is that you want to be protected from bad people but don't have the stomach to do what is necessary to protect society from those bad people.
We have all done something wrong, from stealing cookies from grandma's cookie jar or driving 65 in a 55. When we decided to do that bad thing, we didn't decide whether or not to do it based on the penalty for the act. We based our decision on the likely hood of getting caught. So the threat of the Death Penalty will not deter people who are inclined to kill, if they are convinced they can get away with it. That is all that matters. Just like you will not go 10 miles over the limit if you see a traffic cop in your mirror.
True but there is a vast difference between stealing cookies from the cookie jar or speeding, and being found guilty of a crime that can warrant the death penalty.
David: at about the 12:00 mark you ask, "What would change your mind on the death penalty? What evidence, if it were presented to you would make you say, 'you know what, I've re-examined my view, and I'm actually no longer for the death penalty'? Is there something that could change your mind?"
Just to play devil's advocate, I will ask you the same question, David: What would change your mind on the death penalty? What evidence, if it were presented to you would make you say, 'you know what, I've re-examined my view, and I'm actually now for the death penalty'?
I overall am against it but do support it in some cases, that being to euthanize those in law enforcement and military who abuse the death penalty to harm innocents.
US State will know they are guilty and of course that they likely tortured the children and innocents they hope to abuse capital punishment with.
These people euthanized me, more than once, to protect guilty Police and parents who harmed me, tortured me actually, and murdered me, as a child and adult.
I say kill them.
Point is you need to clean your house and the death penalty is the ultimate mistake that US Cops get wrong.
The rest is wrong also.
All lesser tasks are suspect.
Charge the cops with treason and murder and more and let them die in US DOD based military courts and/or kill them as armed invaders of US State.
Since US DOD owns the US law's intelligence assets. All of them.
I absolutely believe that a society has the right to establish a 'death penalty' for certain crimes.
I believe that our society does NOT administer the death penalty at all well. The richer and 'whiter' you are the less likely you are to get the death penalty.
I also personally believe that the endless wait between sentence and execution is 'Cruel and Unusual' and against our constitution.
So. I have no theoretical problem with a death penalty, but do not like it because of the practical problems. Better no death penalty than what we have now.
In fact since 1976 55.6 percent of executions were white and 34.5 percent were black. But 52 percent of homicides were committed by blacks while only 45 percent were committed by whites. So in fact you are MORE LIKELY TO BE EXECUTED IF YOU ARE WHITE!
Sadly we live in a world filled with really bad people, even if they wheren't born as "bad" people, the system create contexts that turns people "crazy", no one is bad because it want it.
sometimes is better for the world to get rid of people that is mentally ill (mentally ill as a serial killer or continous rapist).
No one, ever, having a healthy brain and a normal life will do anything that make them pass trrought death penalty.
I personally belive that death penalty is need but in a rightous system, not in our current corrupted system.
The Minnowhelper team is still looking for investors (Minimum 10 SP), if you are interested in this, read the conditions of how to invest click here!!!
ROI Calculator for Investors click here!!!
Would you rather tell a malicious murderer that the worst punishment he will get is a life in prison? Even if we don't do it, that is another conversation, wouldn't this scare tactic might be worth? Attempt to keep people more moral ideologically. Just thoughts for conversation. I enjoy your videos. Cheers gentlemen, great video.
I like the topic and the article, but on this point I would disagree with Thomas and David. Small, community sized government can, and often does (at least historically) use the death penalty as a way to maintain order in a community. It was very effective at preventing repeated homicide and discouraging future behavior. The problems with state execution in the current system and large government is not a correlative issue. The death penalty existed long before we had large governments and a perverse legal system.
Problem is when State uses it to torture and murder their victims
If someone committed a crime, was found guilty beyond any reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers and had access to an appeals process then how are they victims of the state?
Small as in Wilson NY USA likely will get it wrong. You need larger and deeper quorums. As in larger, well vetted, and some of it held in secret against others in the group. In my case it would be easy. No death warrant, no trial, no conviction, no appeal (2 of them), no formal charge levied, no arrest, no detention, stateless and immune person, etc... Murder.
You keep saying that the State euthanized/murdered you yet you are alive to post on Steemit. The fact that you are alive proves your assertion that the state euthanized/murdered you to be wrong.
Your views and points of logic, really are so fringe and wrong responding to them is a waste of time. You seem only to find fault with a problem without asking what it is first. Overall.
And in your mind medical intervention to revive a corpse somehow vindicates those who murdered a child.... EESH!
Your views and points of logic, really are so fringe and wrong responding to them is a waste of time.
I am still, at this point, trying to get a coherent and consistent statement out of you.
And in your mind medical intervention to revive a corpse somehow vindicates those who murdered a child.... EESH!
I thought the medical professionals colluded with agents of the law to prevent your resuscitation.
And in your mind medical intervention to revive a corpse somehow vindicates those who murdered a child.
I never even came close to saying that and I would appreciate you NOT putting words in my mouth simply because I am calling you on your incoherence and inconsistency.
"Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn abolished the death penalty Wednesday, more than a decade after the state imposed a moratorium on executions out of concern that innocent people could be put to death by a justice system that had wrongly condemned 13 men."
Those doing this to me used my murdering pedophile parents and others to threaten me with this process, NY had theirs taken away one year after my wife acted in 2003. There is a WHOLE constellation of frauds and behaviours around me and this problem by the way. They knew this was murder dressed up like some kind of home town spy biz...
I don't see why you can't have a limited government and the death penalty when someone has to be proven guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers and has an appeals process at their disposal. It is not like the government is plucking people off the street, making them dig their own graves and shooting them in the head.
a person that has been sentenced to death was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of a crime by a jury of their peers. Thus, they are not a victim but a criminal.
They had an appeals process which they could avail themselves of and the execution only proceeds after that process has been exhausted. Thus, an execution of a prisoner sentenced to death is not in cold blood.
The two are unrelated. You can support the death sentence and that innocents should be defended. To say otherwise is to create a false dilemma (do you want me to define it for you or can you take responsibility and google it yourself?).
The limits are covered in the first two points so no the execution of an death row inmate does not exceed any limits.
We let people have guns so they can execute people with no judge, no jury, no witnesses, and no questions asked so long as they can convince someone they felt threatened or thought they saw a gun.
Society will spend decades and millions of dollars to go through the process of trying to protect someone from incorrect execution (and still fail to protect the innocent in many cases) yet almost no effort at all is made to do the same to prevent private executions. Makes no sense.
I have no idea what you mean by "private executions"
I have a right to self defense whether it is with a gun, a stick, a 2x4, a rock, a metal pipe, my fist or anything else I can get my hands on. If you attack me and I strike you in the head with my fist and you have a brain injury and die. Did I execute you? or was I defending myself. The use or non use of a firearm has nothing to do with if it was self defense or not.
We let women go into abortion clinics and have the brains sucked out of their unborn babies and they don't even have to convince anyone they felt threatened.
If men had babies the right to abortion would be in the constitution. When there is an amendment that gives everyone a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness lets talk.
Oh and by the way, you don't let me have guns. I have guns because of my god given right to self defense which is reaffirmed by the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.
God did not give you the second amendment, men (and I mean men, not women) did and anyone who has read the DC v Heller decision knows that it was never intended for what people say it is now. It was quite literally for the security of the state. But Americans aren't so good with history and a 5-4 decision will one day be overturned and some states will decide they do not need unregulated militia for their security an more. I know that is scary for you, but many civilised non-"shit hole" countries (thank Don) manage very nicely without them.
No, we let people have arms (which includes guns, knives etc) so they can defend themselves. If we have an inalienable right to life then we also have a right to defend our lives. If we don't have the right to defend our lives then we have no right to life.
You are incorrect. If a person meets the criteria for self-defense then it is not a private execution but self defense. If a person does not meet the criteria for self-defense then they are charged with a crime.
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1909
https://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html
But there is no witness in these situations. I was he said, she said and one of the parties is dead.
Just the idea of killing some one that is not actively trying to kill you or some one else is just disgusting.
Governments as they currently exist can't be trusted with anything. Certainly don't want them choosing to gets to live.
Precisely. We should make it as hard as possible for governments to take human life.
7
Actually, it is a jury of citizens that determine if a person is guilty of a crime that warrants the Death Penalty.
I’d rather have 100 guilty guys rot in a cell than one innocent person be wrongly executed. Until our system is error-free, I can’t support capital punishment.
that's definitely a position shared by many
In Texas where I live, there have been cases in which innocent people have been executed. Now granted, some of these guys were "bad" people, but the state executed them for murders they did not commit. We should take every step we can to guard against government tyranny--this includes limiting the death penalty drastically.
Or eliminate it altogether.
Yes I was heartened to see how much disapproval there was on your YT video for the death penalty. I tend to think of the American public as a bloodthirsty horde of gibbering madmen, so I was surprised to see this...
Yes
There is never going to be a human endeavor that is error free. To say we won't do X until it is error free is an idiotic stance to take and you should base your opposition to capital punishment on something else.
I found myself almost agreeing with Colin, because the people (Timothy McVeigh and Osama Bin Laden) so seem like people worthy of the death penalty. It's easy to start thinking those would certainly be instances in which the death penalty was truly warranted, but I always end up back on the anti-death penalty side.
As someone who believes that death is permanent and the absolute end of one's existence in all forms, I don't think death is a punishment. Sure, you're preventing this person from committing horrible crimes, but so is putting them in prison for the rest of their lives. You're also taking away any chance that them being alive could have ended up being useful to society in other ways.
My main takeaway from that interview was just how civil it was. I think a lot more could be accomplished if we didn't jump at each other's throats so quickly. That's one of my favorite things about The David Pakman Show.
I'm going off on a tangent here FOR SURE, but do you know how I first heard about TDPS? It was a little clip on Best of the Left that featured David saying "we even interview some of the crazies on the right, but don't worry... we don't agree with them" or something along those lines. I checked out some full episodes after hearing them on BOTL, and I've been here ever since. That was probably at least 5 years ago.
oh, and it's David Gale. :)
Because crimes are never committed in prison. Or is something only a crime when it is committed against someone with no history of criminal convictions?
And just how useful to society is someone that is in jail for the rest of their lives?
Well this guy is obviously not a libertarian. Republican, definitely, not a libertarian.
We are born with certain rights that are not granted by any government. We are living, therefor we have the right to live. Doesn't matter what we do, that is inherent in just the act of BEING.
He even makes it clear that it's a "principled stance", A.K.A. not founded in any rational or logical thought, but just on "principle". What's the principle? That governments have the right to exterminate the people they were entrusted to protect?
It's absurd to think that any institution can take your life for any reason. Once an institution is given the power to take your life for reasons they deem fit, where does that end?
EDIT
"Society has the right to remove people permanently"... Is this guy serious? Honestly, this sounds like he ripped a page right out of the playbook of Stalin. It's insane.
EDIT
"It's the right of the government to kill terrible people"
........I just can't.
First of all, the government has no rights. People have rights. Animals have rights. Living, breathing entities have rights. The government is an institution created by people, not the other way around. The government has powers that are entrusted to it, one of which is to protect the people it governs. Another is to ensure our rights are protected. One of those rights is the right to LIFE. Period.
Lmao, I got down voted? Seriously? For just saying my opinion?
Welcome to the internet
That's the old internet... It's detrimental to an account's health and reputation to go around and randomly downvote people because you disagree with what they say. That will, eventually, cause your account to be flagged.
I was more joking than serious.
Ahhh my bad, lol
I might have downvoted you, I'm new and was trying to upvote. I didn't know downvoting was an option on this platform.
After being convicted of a crime that warrants the death penalty by a jury of their peers and granted an appeals process that can last up until the moment they are executed. You make it sound as if the American government wantonly executes people like a communist country.
Maybe not wantonly but they are not above or too good to make it impossible. I assume you feel that US State would not do atrocity to their own kids? If so you'd be wrong. I am less certain about federal level but lower levels seem to act and do what they think they can get away with. I would have doubted this was possible and it was being done to me. Problem is they self incriminate. So...
Given our genocide of the First Nations People and the extra-judicial execution via drone during the Obama administration no I do not assume that the US couldn't but the fact is that they haven't at least not in the manner you are describing.
That is a function of power. Look at the #MeToo movement. Every single one of those accused did what they did because they thought they could get away with it.
All that was done to me is done extra judicially. And I held positions of trust working for State.
Point is FBI is involved in this also, NY State Police, they have relations with my parents, children are missing, clergy and doctors are involved, so is Canada, an FBI issue for sure now.
I used to be a supporter of the death penalty, until it became painfully clear to me that it was both an ineffective deterrent and a means by which miscarriages of Justice could not be rectified. We as a society must move beyond this.
Very well said
Problem is worse when State acts to euthanize people extra-judicially (Which many Americans assume can't happen in USA) to protect the guilty at expense of the victim.
And since it has to be done covertly, this is State sponsored murder, my view is execute them.
Since this is murder by State.
I am sure you have concrete evidence of this happening in the US.
Of what was done to me? Yes. Medical proof of 5 homicides, a marriage they are having to annul, I am Stateless, involve and witness by Canada and Germany on child harms and a marital fraud. You can be sure.
I was told I had to leave Clarkson College first semester of my freshman year, I have likely 300 witnesses to that event alone. This is extremely serious. State will self incriminate and bring all with. Now you can be MORE sure.
What was the incident and was Clarkson College a private or state-funded institution?
Also, the state cannot self-incriminate. Agents of the state, however, can.
I attended both Clarkson (Private) and SUNY Buffalo (Public) as well as K-12 (Public) schools. ALL knew I was Stateless.
State will self incriminate as agents of State also do.
You are wrong again. Impossible for State NOT to self incriminate.
The problem is the doctors knew and acted informally with County and likely State agents of law. They lied and acted to obscure forensics related to the crimes, they have mandated reporting laws related to child harms, and then later they as I was an adult did 2 homicides medically. Later one using my wife. The earlier one was done using a knife and ambulance in Wilson NY. They denied treatment to revive me and someone else had to come to do that. Hospital conspired as did local law and fire personnel. I have plenty of proof.
Point is this is murder by State/Law. It can't work.
I have scars all over my body, many from executions done to me as a child, my adult teeth are mostly all ruined I was pandered to a dentist who took sexual pleasure from harming me and other children I assume... so to your point, yes. We have proof.
"I have scars all over my body, many from executions done to me as a child,"
You were executed many times as a child?
This was done by the individual not the state.
The State is involved as are Police. And they are obligated to act. Wrong again you are. State acted on some and on some they allowed others to do it etc...
You market too hard and make too much misguided effort to find fault. Bad faith. Fraud. Try asking direct questions about the events first.
And since you can't define murder or treason properly and offer false equivalency on someone's crime that seems, err, foolish really.
I'd say overall your views are of no use to anyone. Given how misguided you are. And how closed minded you are.
My avatar image is of me. It is being misrepresented and sold to others online. It is another form of proof about the child harms done to me as of that age, less than 5 years. It all means something.
It gets more technical possibly. Do a hit and run felony as you flee another crime, felony, and kill someone accidentally? Many jurisdictions will charge you with murder.
Aggravation.
Americans are WAY TOO CAVALIER with the lives and money of others.
IMO, the principled libertarian position is to not really have a position. I'm not a court a judge a jury or the family of someone who was killed, so why does my opinion really matter at all?
Things like this are similar to abortion to me, where I can have my personal beliefs of what seems right to me, or what I'm comfortable with, but not necessarily demand that other people do it the same way.
I don't really know how I'd feel if a loved one were killed by someone, but I don't think I'd feel any kind of satisfaction in killing back. I'm sure I'd want them excluded from civil society and for everyone to know what they did. But that seems like the most you can do. Sometimes a situation just isn't correctable.
That said (circling back to my first paragraph) I wouldn't try to stand in the way of people or courts who support the death penalty. It's probably not what I believe is the best way to respond to the situation, but I'm not going to try to make everyone else follow that belief.
If someone wants to kill back, perhaps that's the best way for them to grieve their loss, and perhaps it's best to let them.
interesting take!
Respectfully, I think you're confusing anarchists with libertarians... although 'libertarians' tend to be anarchists in my experience. An anarchist eschews the role of the state like you said, but a libertarian believes that the state, minimal though it may be, has a role to play in protecting its people.
Labels can be confusing. Many minarchist statists describe themselves as "libertarian", ya, but lots of people could describe themselves as that (any Republican who isn't afraid of gay people might identify as "libertarian"), and what does it even mean if you're not using it in a strict/principled way?
A strict use of the word is the same as anarchist.
So I was just using the word strictly, and not in the loosey goosey way that people sometimes use it inside of politics.
Not sure we are helping anything and protecting people by allowing government to kill them. Put it this way, what is lost if the state is prohibited from killing people? Not much, I would think. But I could be wrong.
What is lost is tax dollars that can be used to provide education, healthcare or lowering of taxes incarcerating someone for the rest of their natural days.
This should read "Executing a person found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers and having availed themselves of the appeals process is an official execution"
I love how you, and others, try to make a convicted felon the victim. If the convicted felon didn't want to be on death row then they should not have lived their life in such a manner that they ended up on death row.
I'm against the death penalty, but I'm also against life imprisonment. I'm still unsure what the best solution is, just that the current solutions are not optimal.
Let me help you out. If you Murder someone you get locked away from the rest of society for the rest of your natural life. If you kill again while in Prison. Then you get terminated.
Let me help you out. You want your cake and to eat it too. What I mean is that you want to be protected from bad people but don't have the stomach to do what is necessary to protect society from those bad people.
We have all done something wrong, from stealing cookies from grandma's cookie jar or driving 65 in a 55. When we decided to do that bad thing, we didn't decide whether or not to do it based on the penalty for the act. We based our decision on the likely hood of getting caught. So the threat of the Death Penalty will not deter people who are inclined to kill, if they are convinced they can get away with it. That is all that matters. Just like you will not go 10 miles over the limit if you see a traffic cop in your mirror.
True but there is a vast difference between stealing cookies from the cookie jar or speeding, and being found guilty of a crime that can warrant the death penalty.
I think it must be applied in very cases
It can be banned everywhere if people obey the laws
David: at about the 12:00 mark you ask, "What would change your mind on the death penalty? What evidence, if it were presented to you would make you say, 'you know what, I've re-examined my view, and I'm actually no longer for the death penalty'? Is there something that could change your mind?"
Just to play devil's advocate, I will ask you the same question, David: What would change your mind on the death penalty? What evidence, if it were presented to you would make you say, 'you know what, I've re-examined my view, and I'm actually now for the death penalty'?
I overall am against it but do support it in some cases, that being to euthanize those in law enforcement and military who abuse the death penalty to harm innocents.
US State will know they are guilty and of course that they likely tortured the children and innocents they hope to abuse capital punishment with.
These people euthanized me, more than once, to protect guilty Police and parents who harmed me, tortured me actually, and murdered me, as a child and adult.
I say kill them.
Point is you need to clean your house and the death penalty is the ultimate mistake that US Cops get wrong.
The rest is wrong also.
All lesser tasks are suspect.
Charge the cops with treason and murder and more and let them die in US DOD based military courts and/or kill them as armed invaders of US State.
Since US DOD owns the US law's intelligence assets. All of them.
Did you run out of medication again? You know they will deliver Prozac
What's funny is he thinks he some sort of genius.
dtube is my best channel..This news very nice..thanks for sharing this post..
I think Punishment is a form of justice that must be balanced
I absolutely believe that a society has the right to establish a 'death penalty' for certain crimes.
I believe that our society does NOT administer the death penalty at all well. The richer and 'whiter' you are the less likely you are to get the death penalty.
I also personally believe that the endless wait between sentence and execution is 'Cruel and Unusual' and against our constitution.
So. I have no theoretical problem with a death penalty, but do not like it because of the practical problems. Better no death penalty than what we have now.
In fact since 1976 55.6 percent of executions were white and 34.5 percent were black. But 52 percent of homicides were committed by blacks while only 45 percent were committed by whites. So in fact you are MORE LIKELY TO BE EXECUTED IF YOU ARE WHITE!
Sadly we live in a world filled with really bad people, even if they wheren't born as "bad" people, the system create contexts that turns people "crazy", no one is bad because it want it.
sometimes is better for the world to get rid of people that is mentally ill (mentally ill as a serial killer or continous rapist).
No one, ever, having a healthy brain and a normal life will do anything that make them pass trrought death penalty.
I personally belive that death penalty is need but in a rightous system, not in our current corrupted system.
Yes
👍
Punishment is a form of justice that must be balanced and every person who did wrong he must have punshied
.
This post has received a 5.48 % upvote from
thanks to: @bubbleboy.
For more information, click here!!!!
Send minimum 0.100 SBD to bid for votes.
Before sending a transfer to @minnowhelper, verify that your publication meets these conditions (http://www.minnowhelper.com/conditions.php). After the transfer is made, no claims will be received.
The Minnowhelper team is still looking for investors (Minimum 10 SP), if you are interested in this, read the conditions of how to invest click here!!!
ROI Calculator for Investors click here!!!
Would you rather tell a malicious murderer that the worst punishment he will get is a life in prison? Even if we don't do it, that is another conversation, wouldn't this scare tactic might be worth? Attempt to keep people more moral ideologically. Just thoughts for conversation. I enjoy your videos. Cheers gentlemen, great video.
Ok
nice
Tax dollars may be an argument with keeping Osama in prison.
Very true, death penalty is directly at odds with small government principles
I like the topic and the article, but on this point I would disagree with Thomas and David. Small, community sized government can, and often does (at least historically) use the death penalty as a way to maintain order in a community. It was very effective at preventing repeated homicide and discouraging future behavior. The problems with state execution in the current system and large government is not a correlative issue. The death penalty existed long before we had large governments and a perverse legal system.
Problem is when State uses it to torture and murder their victims and the abuse of the system to kill the innocent or use it for fun.
If someone committed a crime, was found guilty beyond any reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers and had access to an appeals process then how are they victims of the state?
None of those legal offers were present here. As I said no formal charges were ever levied against me. AND much of this is child harms.
You are quite simply wrong.
State interloped, used shills, including friends and wife and parents etc. Murder by State.
How can the state have murdered you yet you are still alive to post on Steemit.
Either they didn't murder you or you don't know what murder is.
Small as in Wilson NY USA likely will get it wrong. You need larger and deeper quorums. As in larger, well vetted, and some of it held in secret against others in the group. In my case it would be easy. No death warrant, no trial, no conviction, no appeal (2 of them), no formal charge levied, no arrest, no detention, stateless and immune person, etc... Murder.
How can you have been murdered and are still posting on Steemit?
I spoke to that already. Intervention proves the event. Your views are in error. Cause the death == Murder.
That SHOULD be obvious to you.
You keep saying that the State euthanized/murdered you yet you are alive to post on Steemit. The fact that you are alive proves your assertion that the state euthanized/murdered you to be wrong.
Your views and points of logic, really are so fringe and wrong responding to them is a waste of time. You seem only to find fault with a problem without asking what it is first. Overall.
And in your mind medical intervention to revive a corpse somehow vindicates those who murdered a child.... EESH!
I am still, at this point, trying to get a coherent and consistent statement out of you.
I thought the medical professionals colluded with agents of the law to prevent your resuscitation.
I never even came close to saying that and I would appreciate you NOT putting words in my mouth simply because I am calling you on your incoherence and inconsistency.
"Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn abolished the death penalty Wednesday, more than a decade after the state imposed a moratorium on executions out of concern that innocent people could be put to death by a justice system that had wrongly condemned 13 men."
https://www.npr.org/2011/03/09/134394946/illinois-abolishes-death-penalty
Those doing this to me used my murdering pedophile parents and others to threaten me with this process, NY had theirs taken away one year after my wife acted in 2003. There is a WHOLE constellation of frauds and behaviours around me and this problem by the way. They knew this was murder dressed up like some kind of home town spy biz...
Provide a news story about the "whole constellation of frauds and behaviors around me".
I don't see why you can't have a limited government and the death penalty when someone has to be proven guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers and has an appeals process at their disposal. It is not like the government is plucking people off the street, making them dig their own graves and shooting them in the head.
You are leaving several key points.
a person that has been sentenced to death was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of a crime by a jury of their peers. Thus, they are not a victim but a criminal.
They had an appeals process which they could avail themselves of and the execution only proceeds after that process has been exhausted. Thus, an execution of a prisoner sentenced to death is not in cold blood.
The two are unrelated. You can support the death sentence and that innocents should be defended. To say otherwise is to create a false dilemma (do you want me to define it for you or can you take responsibility and google it yourself?).
The limits are covered in the first two points so no the execution of an death row inmate does not exceed any limits.
did you give up on steemit?