Scout
Para-Noid
- 576
- 2
- 18
Well if you want to be smart, its a team flag, it could be blue, and its degrees not on off, i'm sure if i burned your team flag you would disagree but most people would't be offended.
No more death penalty....
- Thread starter CAOX3
- Start date
Well if you want to be smart, its a team flag, it could be blue, and its degrees not on off, i'm sure if i burned your team flag you would disagree but most people would't be offended.
EMS_rabbit
Forum Probie
- 12
- 0
- 0
HOLY CRAP well guess this means I'm bringing my vest to work now!
armywifeemt
Forum Lieutenant
- 114
- 1
- 18
No, my life is no more valuable than any other just by virtue of being an EMT... but the point at which I put on that uniform and go out and deal with chaos, death, and things that most people would wretch at the sight of... in that moment, there is a difference between killing me and killing the teenage couple in the park celebrating their third anniversary. It is not that those teenagers are not important. It is not that the pregnant woman (pregnant women tend to be targeted for crimes more often) is not important. They are all incredibly important.. I am trying to keep them alive when people do horrible things to them because they are important to me, even if I do not know them. No one should be murdered....
But there is something that is more intrinsically wrong about killing someone who is trying to save people's lives than killing someone who is minding their own business. It is not that my life holds more value... it is that the crime is somehow more depraved. It isn't that killing a teenager isn't horrific... it is that killing someone who is actively trying to protect other people is somehow more horrific.
Personally I believe capital punishment is underused. We should just execute anyone who kills another person in cold blood. Then we wont have to have this debate.
Edited for grammatical consistency.
But there is something that is more intrinsically wrong about killing someone who is trying to save people's lives than killing someone who is minding their own business. It is not that my life holds more value... it is that the crime is somehow more depraved. It isn't that killing a teenager isn't horrific... it is that killing someone who is actively trying to protect other people is somehow more horrific.
Personally I believe capital punishment is underused. We should just execute anyone who kills another person in cold blood. Then we wont have to have this debate.
Edited for grammatical consistency.
Last edited by a moderator:
adamjh3
Forum Culinary Powerhouse
- 1,873
- 6
- 0
Scout
Para-Noid
- 576
- 2
- 18
armywifeemt
Forum Lieutenant
- 114
- 1
- 18
I don't think this thread was intended to debate the merits and disadvantages of the death penalty, and I would strongly advise against a heated argument which will likely end in this thread being closed.
Since my previously stated opinion on the matter has been challenged, and I feel the need to defend it. This is in spite of the fact that as my opinion it does not need defense since I do not present it as anything more than a personal belief.
However, clarification can't possibly be a bad thing, and I do not intend this to be argumentative so much as to elaborate on what I've already said.
I believe the death penalty is underused. I believe it should be used in all cases of cold blooded murder. That said, I understand that all cases cannot be backed up with irrefutable evidence. Unless the evidence is irrefutable (multiple creditable witnesses, DNA, etc etc etc) yes, death is a little too final and irrevocable for my comfort. However, in those cases where the evidence is irrefutable, I think that they should be given fewer appeals and that the execution should be carried out quickly, and without mercy.
There are many things to be said against the death penalty, not the least of which is the fact that mistakes have been made in the past, and the wrong person has been executed for a crime they did not commit.
Zero tolerance societies seem to have a lot less murder in the first place, though. Why not strive to get a little closer to utopia?
Since my previously stated opinion on the matter has been challenged, and I feel the need to defend it. This is in spite of the fact that as my opinion it does not need defense since I do not present it as anything more than a personal belief.
However, clarification can't possibly be a bad thing, and I do not intend this to be argumentative so much as to elaborate on what I've already said.
I believe the death penalty is underused. I believe it should be used in all cases of cold blooded murder. That said, I understand that all cases cannot be backed up with irrefutable evidence. Unless the evidence is irrefutable (multiple creditable witnesses, DNA, etc etc etc) yes, death is a little too final and irrevocable for my comfort. However, in those cases where the evidence is irrefutable, I think that they should be given fewer appeals and that the execution should be carried out quickly, and without mercy.
There are many things to be said against the death penalty, not the least of which is the fact that mistakes have been made in the past, and the wrong person has been executed for a crime they did not commit.
Zero tolerance societies seem to have a lot less murder in the first place, though. Why not strive to get a little closer to utopia?
JPINFV
Gadfly
- 12,681
- 197
- 63
Which countries are these utopias?
Which appeals should be cut off? If a new technology becomes available (example would be when DNA testing first starting taking off), should an appeal be denied because it's too late?
JPINFV
Gadfly
- 12,681
- 197
- 63
Actually, there's ample case law stating that police do not have a duty to respond. See Balistreri v Pacifica Police Department, Gonzales v City of Castle Rock, and Warren v District of Columbia.
perspective as always
I hate to be the one to point this out, but there is such an abundance of special classes in US society (or any society for that matter) that attempting to eliminate it is a fools errand. In Fact I think it was the rally cry of communism, which didn't really eliminate a special class, just rearranged who was special.
Entertainment celebrities, politicians, sports figures, and a host of others are all protected classes. The tirck is to get into one of these protected species, not be Joe Average.
Having said that, and addressing the Police, EMS, Fire, Doctor, Nurse class, since the original tribal medicine men, medical persons and by extension healthcare workers have been considered a special class. It has not been until recently (the last 100 or so years) that the status of a "healer" has been diminished. Even then only in certain societies, not as a general rule.
As well, "An attack on the King's soldiers represents an attack on the King." While humans have largely moved on from monarchy and feudalism, a functionng society (which is important if Joe Average hopes to survive to reporduce) requires that the enforcers of sociological rules and values have the ability to police such. Otherwise a population degrades into anarchy. Which most average people would not survive in. The inefficency and often impossibility of "everyman for himself" is what lead to family units and by extension, communities and nations and our very modern values.
Without rules of society, there are no womens rights, racial equality, some semblence of social equality, or anything of the sort. The only right becomes "might is right." I know you don't want to live in such an environment. If you do, Somalia, Pakistan, or Afghanistan (and a few other places) may suit you better.
Having gone through this explanation, an attack on a uniformed officer (of any kind) is a direct assault to the order of society (notice I didn't say rules, which are more like guidlines
) It is a threat to not only public safety, but our very way of life. In most nations, the state hasmonopoly control on violence. In the US, great pains are taken to resist this monopoly in such measures as indiidual right to bear arms, castle laws, duty to not retreat, etc. It empowers Joe Average to defend himself on a primal level prior to or in the event law enforcement cannot respond in time. It doesn't provide protection, it simply maintains your ability to use violence against violence so you or those in your circle might survive to reproduce. When you look at armed insurrection around the world and through history, you can see why governments (aka protected class) fear not controlling the violence monopoly.
If you are willing to knowingly attack those who make it possible for people to live without constant threat, the response needs to be harsher than a crime of opportunity. Otherwise there is nothing that stops the strong from preying on the weak. Basically the unity of society backs the will to maintain it in the form of civil authorities.
A crime against a healthcare worker, in many places is considered a greater offense, perhaps legally, but often more morally and socially, because such is an attack on the very survival of the species as well as survival of the at risk or compromised individual.
A person willing to sacrifice their own very peace or survival for their impulsive urges or greed is a threat to all of humanity.
I hate to be the one to point this out, but there is such an abundance of special classes in US society (or any society for that matter) that attempting to eliminate it is a fools errand. In Fact I think it was the rally cry of communism, which didn't really eliminate a special class, just rearranged who was special.
Entertainment celebrities, politicians, sports figures, and a host of others are all protected classes. The tirck is to get into one of these protected species, not be Joe Average.
Having said that, and addressing the Police, EMS, Fire, Doctor, Nurse class, since the original tribal medicine men, medical persons and by extension healthcare workers have been considered a special class. It has not been until recently (the last 100 or so years) that the status of a "healer" has been diminished. Even then only in certain societies, not as a general rule.
As well, "An attack on the King's soldiers represents an attack on the King." While humans have largely moved on from monarchy and feudalism, a functionng society (which is important if Joe Average hopes to survive to reporduce) requires that the enforcers of sociological rules and values have the ability to police such. Otherwise a population degrades into anarchy. Which most average people would not survive in. The inefficency and often impossibility of "everyman for himself" is what lead to family units and by extension, communities and nations and our very modern values.
Without rules of society, there are no womens rights, racial equality, some semblence of social equality, or anything of the sort. The only right becomes "might is right." I know you don't want to live in such an environment. If you do, Somalia, Pakistan, or Afghanistan (and a few other places) may suit you better.
Having gone through this explanation, an attack on a uniformed officer (of any kind) is a direct assault to the order of society (notice I didn't say rules, which are more like guidlines
) It is a threat to not only public safety, but our very way of life. In most nations, the state hasmonopoly control on violence. In the US, great pains are taken to resist this monopoly in such measures as indiidual right to bear arms, castle laws, duty to not retreat, etc. It empowers Joe Average to defend himself on a primal level prior to or in the event law enforcement cannot respond in time. It doesn't provide protection, it simply maintains your ability to use violence against violence so you or those in your circle might survive to reproduce. When you look at armed insurrection around the world and through history, you can see why governments (aka protected class) fear not controlling the violence monopoly. If you are willing to knowingly attack those who make it possible for people to live without constant threat, the response needs to be harsher than a crime of opportunity. Otherwise there is nothing that stops the strong from preying on the weak. Basically the unity of society backs the will to maintain it in the form of civil authorities.
A crime against a healthcare worker, in many places is considered a greater offense, perhaps legally, but often more morally and socially, because such is an attack on the very survival of the species as well as survival of the at risk or compromised individual.
A person willing to sacrifice their own very peace or survival for their impulsive urges or greed is a threat to all of humanity.
Last edited by a moderator:
armywifeemt
Forum Lieutenant
- 114
- 1
- 18
My mother quite enjoyed living in Saudi Arabia during her childhood. That is one of those societies...
Now, that said, I am not saying we should adopt the strict religious laws that many of these countries have.. But certainly zero tolerance for violence can't be a bad thing.
JPINFV
Gadfly
- 12,681
- 197
- 63
I agree that violence isn't acceptable, but the problem I have with zero tolerance [anything] is that zero tolerance often goes along with zero thought. I understand, for example, why there's a difference between 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, special circumstances, manslaughter, etc. Premeditated murder and involuntary vehicular homicide shouldn't have the same punishment, however if a true zero tolerance philosophy is adopted, then it is. Take schools for example. Ok, children shouldn't be taking guns to school (and even then, it really depends as students get older depending on location. For example, rural schools during hunting season is a different situation than suburbeia), however should we really be considering suspending 4th graders for bring a 2 inch LEGO gun to school?
Another example. Sex offender registries. Ok... keep pedos away from schools (even though most sexual abuse is not from strangers). However when you start finding 18 year olds on the list for having relations with his 17 y/o girl friend or someone else for public urination on the list, then there's a problem. However any politician who tries to reform laws like the sex offender list are going to be branded as pedo loving politicians who are soft on crime even if the reform has nothing to do with real sexual predators.
Once you start going down the zero tolerance path, there is no way to back up and it gets harder and harder to put the breaks on.
Another example. Sex offender registries. Ok... keep pedos away from schools (even though most sexual abuse is not from strangers). However when you start finding 18 year olds on the list for having relations with his 17 y/o girl friend or someone else for public urination on the list, then there's a problem. However any politician who tries to reform laws like the sex offender list are going to be branded as pedo loving politicians who are soft on crime even if the reform has nothing to do with real sexual predators.
Once you start going down the zero tolerance path, there is no way to back up and it gets harder and harder to put the breaks on.
armywifeemt
Forum Lieutenant
- 114
- 1
- 18
We all know that different crimes have extenuating circumstances.
If a woman kills a man because the man has been abusing her for years, that isn't cold blooded murder. If a man kills a woman because she has been abusing him for years, the same goes.
Any situation that causes rational thought to go out the window (crimes of passion) the person cannot be held *FULLY* accountable for their actions. No, you can't execute those people. Those people should be imprisoned... I have been angry beyond rational thinking before, and I haven't snapped to the point of killing someone... We can't have loose cannons running around endangering anyone who does something they might perceive as mistreatment.
There is also this... there is a difference between killing someone and murdering someone. Murder is the wrongful killing of someone. The simple fact that we have two different words shows that we as a society are able to distinguish between the two.
Cold-blooded is the key to what I said. Without cause or mitigating circumstance, someone kills someone else. That is the key to it.
If a woman kills a man because the man has been abusing her for years, that isn't cold blooded murder. If a man kills a woman because she has been abusing him for years, the same goes.
Any situation that causes rational thought to go out the window (crimes of passion) the person cannot be held *FULLY* accountable for their actions. No, you can't execute those people. Those people should be imprisoned... I have been angry beyond rational thinking before, and I haven't snapped to the point of killing someone... We can't have loose cannons running around endangering anyone who does something they might perceive as mistreatment.
There is also this... there is a difference between killing someone and murdering someone. Murder is the wrongful killing of someone. The simple fact that we have two different words shows that we as a society are able to distinguish between the two.
Cold-blooded is the key to what I said. Without cause or mitigating circumstance, someone kills someone else. That is the key to it.
TransportJockey
Forum Chief
- 8,623
- 1,675
- 113
I think it sucks, cause damned right my life is more valuable than everyone elses 
Shishkabob
Forum Chief
- 8,264
- 32
- 48
Actually, unless he is actively in the process of beating her, yes, it still is 1st degree murder.
I think this may depend on the state. Ohio has several victim protection laws regarding this.
I am not a legal expert so I can only say from what I understand if there is a pattern or prolonged abuse if the victim kills the abuser in order to escape the abuse, even if the abuser is prone, they may not face charges at all or a much reduced one.