Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

peddlelies

oscarBravo wrote: »

So you're OK with the government torturing prison inmates?

In a case like his and reasoning behind it, I don't care what happens to an individual like that no.

He tried to murder a 6 year old with a shotgun then murdered a man and raped a women who he intending on killing before being apprehended. "Torture" - Jesus wept if he has a few blisters inside his throat might "explode" during the few minutes it takes lethal injection to work. He got off easy.

Leroy42

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The US seems to be very much built on the Protestant "God helps those who help themselves" strain of Christianity which is very much focused on individuals looking after themselves with minimal interference from others.

Well, except if they are gay or want an abortion of course!

batgoat

peddlelies wrote: »

In a case like his and reasoning behind it, I don't care what happens to an individual like that no.

He tried to murder a 6 year old with a shotgun then murdered a man and raped a women who he intending on killing before being apprehended. "Torture" - Jesus wept if he has a few blisters inside his throat might "explode" during the few minutes it takes lethal injection to work. He got off easy.

Problem is, this has far reaching consequences so you can't view it in isolation.

peddlelies

batgoat wrote: »

Also this opens up a potential to challenge if juveniles or mentally disabled people should be allowed to be executed. You also good with that?

Mentally ill people no. A juvenile who for e.g. murdered a random family I wouldn't care what happens. People who knowingly and willingly commit heinous crimes don't deserve any leniency. It should be dealt with on a case by case basis.

ancapailldorcha

serfboard wrote: »

That might have been the case one time, but it's not now.

It's now very much built on dynastic maintenance where rich slackers like Trump get further than hard-working people who don't come from money.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well, except if they are gay or want an abortion of course!

Oh yeah. No self-awareness at all, don't get me wrong. More than happy to interfere or worse when it comes to imposing their views on morality on others.

When you consider that the founding fathers owned slaves while the British at the time were trying to dial back on their expansion was part of the cause of the War of Independence, it's not surprising in the least to see someone like Trump winning the Presidency.

Leroy42

peddlelies wrote: »

Mentally ill people no. A juvenile who for e.g. murdered a random family I wouldn't care if he was strung up and quartered. People who knowingly and willingly commit heinous crimes don't deserve any leniency. It should be dealt with on a case by case basis.

Without knowing the list of crimes that may be settled on, would you accept that you or someone in your family should be tortured?

banie01

Leroy42 wrote: »

MARTIN NIEMÖLLER

Is torture ever right? Surely this is against the very ideals of Christianity, on which the US is, according to the right, built.

AHH but the Christianity de jour in the US is Baptist and Evangelical!

It's always struck me as a little mad how those folks can reconcile fire and brimstone, rapture and vengeful old testament Yahweh upon their enemies...

With New Testament Jesus and forgiveness!

The dichotomy is maddening

ECO_Mental

peddlelies wrote: »

In a case like his and reasoning behind it, I don't care what happens to an individual like that no.

He tried to murder a 6 year old with a shotgun then murdered a man and raped a women who he intending on killing before being apprehended. "Torture" - Jesus wept if he has a few blisters inside his throat might "explode" during the few minutes it takes lethal injection to work. He got off easy.

For fear of opening up a whole death penalty debate this will be my one and only question.


Are you ok with executing innocent people just to have the death penalty????


From Wikipedia

"In 2015, the Justice Department and the FBI formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an FBI forensic squad overstated forensic hair matches for two decades before the year 2000.[32][33] Of the 28 forensic examiners testifying to hair matches in a total of 268 trials reviewed, 26 overstated the evidence of forensic hair matches and 95% of the overstatements favored the prosecution. Defendants were sentenced to death in 32 of those 268 cases"



https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/03/27/opinion-my-wrongful-conviction-shows-why-to-abolish-death-penalty/


Personally the killing of even one innocent person is abhorrent just to be sen to be tough on crime....

oscarBravo

peddlelies wrote: »

In a case like his and reasoning behind it, I don't care what happens to an individual like that no.

OK. So are you in favour of the torture of all rapists and murderers? How about just rapists who haven't killed? If you're locked up for attempted murder, is a little light torture OK, maybe just on the weekends?

The problem with giving the government permission to suspend human rights when it feels like it is that the government will then suspend human rights when it feels like it.

The reason liberals don't want to allow governments to torture rapists and murderers is because liberals don't think it's OK for anyone to torture - or kill - anyone. As soon as you say that it's OK to torture and kill people because you don't like their behaviour, you've said that it's OK to torture and kill people.

What Bucklew did was egregious and evil. Does that make it OK for the state to act in an egregious and evil way in response?

Liberals say egregious and evil behaviour is wrong. Conservatives say egregious and evil behaviour is OK, as long as it's done to people they don't like.

One of those positions is morally valid.

banie01

peddlelies wrote: »

Mentally ill people no. A juvenile who for e.g. murdered a random family I wouldn't care if he was strung up and quartered. People who knowingly and willingly commit heinous crimes don't deserve any leniency. It should be dealt with on a case by case basis.

Judicially sanctioned murder is not a carte blanche to allow torture.

If the state wishes to impose the death penalty, surely it is that sanction and that sanction alone that should be imposed?

The punishment is the ending of life, of removing a person considered too dangerous to live in society, from it permanently?!

Not the imposition of a painful, tortuous or cruel death.

peddlelies

ECO_Mental wrote: »

Are you ok with executing innocent people just to have the death penalty????

Obviously not, that's not the question that was asked though. I think the death penalty should only be given to those where there isn't any doubt that person committed the crime. The death penalty is only given for heinous crimes and it's existence deters others from committing similar acts.

Leroy42

peddlelies wrote: »

O The death penalty is only given for heinous crimes and it's existence deters others from committing similar acts.

Have you evidence for this? There is no death penalty in Ireland, what are the comparative rates of heinous crimes between Ireland and the US? Or between death penalty states and non death penalty states?

And will torture help?

oscarBravo

peddlelies wrote: »

The death penalty is only given for heinous crimes and it's existence deters others from committing similar acts.

No, it doesn't. That's just one of the lies death penalty advocates tell themselves to justify their support for state-sanctioned murder.

DrumSteve

peddlelies wrote: »

Obviously not, that's not the question that was asked though. I think the death penalty should only be given to those where there isn't any doubt that person committed the crime. The death penalty is only given for heinous crimes and it's existence deters others from committing similar acts.

The death penalty is not a deterrent.

peddlelies

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK. So are you in favour of the torture of all rapists and murderers? How about just rapists who haven't killed? If you're locked up for attempted murder, is a little light torture OK, maybe just on the weekends?

I don't view blood blisters that might explode during an execution where he'll be unconscious after 30 seconds torture. In my view that person lost his right to negotiation when he knowingly murdered and raped innocent people.

The reason liberals don't want to allow governments to torture rapists and murderers is because liberals don't think it's OK for anyone to torture - or kill - anyone. As soon as you say that it's OK to torture and kill people because you don't like their behaviour, you've said that it's OK to torture and kill people.

Our definition of torture strongly differ.

What Bucklew did was egregious and evil. Does that make it OK for the state to act in an egregious and evil way in response?

Liberals say egregious and evil behaviour is wrong. Conservatives say egregious and evil behaviour is OK, as long as it's done to people they don't like.

One of those positions is morally valid.

Above paragraph you said you don't agree with executing people, so clearly you're not OK with him being executed even discarding the "torture" he might suffer. I'm perfectly fine with the likes of a child murderer in a proven case being executed and I wouldn't think twice about it. I'm not fine with someone who was suffering from extreme mental illness being dipped into a tank of piranhas. Each case should be treated on an individual basis.

Eric Cartman

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, it doesn't. That's just one of the lies death penalty advocates tell themselves to justify their support for state-sanctioned murder.

I welcome any state sanctioning the murder of paedophiles, serial killers, violent rapists etc.. ill hold my thumb firmly up at that one.

peddlelies

Leroy42 wrote: »

Without knowing the list of crimes that may be settled on, would you accept that you or someone in your family should be tortured?

Too many variables to answer that. Would need a specific situation where the crimes committed and the form of "torture" are defined. Anything I've said I'm only referring to the case in the article that was posted.

Leroy42

peddlelies wrote: »

I don't view blood blisters that might explode during an execution where he'll be unconscious after 30 seconds torture. In my view that person lost his right to negotiation when he knowingly murdered and raped innocent people.

But it won't be up to you to decide. You view blisters as nothing, others would see water boarding in the same light/

peddlelies wrote: »

Our definition of torture strongly differ.

bingo. You have voiced the major problem with your position. Who gets to define what torture is?

peddlelies wrote: »

Too many variables to answer that. Would need a specific situation where the crimes committed and the form of "torture" are defined. Anything I've said I'm only referring to the case in the article that was posted.

Right, so you want caveats and opt outs and special cases. So only the very worst. At that are totally guilty, unlike many miscarrages we have seen.

Leroy42

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I welcome any state sanctioning the murder of paedophiles, serial killers, violent rapists etc.. ill hold my thumb firmly up at that one.

But you already have many states that have the death penalty yet all these crimes still exist. It is almost as if it is not the deterent that it is claimed to be.

peddlelies

Leroy42 wrote: »

Right, so you want caveats and opt outs and special cases. So only the very worst. At that are totally guilty, unlike many miscarrages we have seen.

You asked me how I would feel if I committed such a crime. I'll give the opposite scenario, but a specific one.

How would you feel if someone tortured your family for days and then murdered them and then when the trial came laughed at you in the court room. Would you be "oh so very liberal" about it and advocate against the death penalty in that situation. What if he had a few blisters on his gums, would you advocate for his right to select how he's executed.

EltonJohn69

Looks like Biden is done... Is it only Harris left to take Trump down ?

oscarBravo

peddlelies wrote: »

Above paragraph you said you don't agree with executing people, so clearly you're not OK with him being executed even discarding the "torture" he might suffer.

Correct. I think it was wrong for him to commit murder; I think it is wrong in turn for Missouri to murder him.

I'm perfectly fine with the likes of a child murderer in a proven case being executed and I wouldn't think twice about it.

So you would have been OK with executing Steven Barnes for the murder of Kimberly Simon?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I welcome any state sanctioning the murder of paedophiles, serial killers, violent rapists etc.. ill hold my thumb firmly up at that one.

But, presumably, you disagree with Saudi Arabia murdering people for what they consider serious crimes, such as espionage or blasphemy?

oscarBravo

peddlelies wrote: »

How would you feel if someone tortured your family for days and then murdered them and then when the trial came laughed at you in the court room.

I'd be pissed off.

Would you be "oh so very liberal" about it and advocate against the death penalty in that situation.

Of course. What's so hard to understand about the idea that it's wrong to kill people?

Leroy42

peddlelies wrote: »

You asked me how would I feel if I committed such a crime. I'll give the opposite scenario, but a specific one.

How would you feel if someone tortured your family for days and then murdered them and then when the trial came laughed at you in the court room. Would you be "oh so very liberal" about it and advocate against the death penalty in that situation. What if he had a few blisters on his gums, would you advocate for his right to select how he's executed.

I notice you never actually answered the question I asked but I will answer yours.

I would want to kill the person. If someone hurt one of my family vengeance would be high on my list. And I would assume that it is similar to many people. But the reason society works is that we all agree to abide by the laws and that those that break them are punished. If we let that break down, then where does it stop? Why is society alone given this power. Why not allow vigilanties? Or roving mobs simply meet out punishment beatings when the feel somebody did wrong?

It is not about being liberal, it is about sticking to a set of morals, morals that you want others to live by (ie no murder) but which you want to put aside when it suits you. That is how society works.

But you don't agree. Yet you have failed to produce any evidence that the death penalty reduces crime rates. So now you want to up the ante to torture/

peddlelies

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'd be pissed off.

Pissed off, yeah. If I stub my toe I'd be pissed off. You're entirely underselling the emotional reaction facing such an incredibly soul destroying situation. Truth is you have no idea how you'd react. For many families and loved ones who are left as victims, their perpetrator being sent to jail for life undoubtedly feels like a total cop out. They get to live out their entire lives but their loved ones will never come back.

Leroy42

peddlelies wrote: »

Pissed off, yeah. If I stub my toe I'd be pissed off. You're entirely underselling the emotional reaction facing such an incredibly soul destroying situation. Truth is you have no idea how you'd react. For many families and loved ones who are left as victims, their perpetrator being sent to jail for life undoubtedly feels like a total cop out. They get to live out their entire lives but their loved ones will never come back.

Agree, but what will torturing them and killing them achieve?

If does nothing to deal with the

They get to live out their entire lives but their loved ones will never come back.

issue.

So is it simply a call for vengeance?

peddlelies

Leroy42 wrote: »

I notice you never actually answered the question I asked but I will answer yours.

I would want to kill the person. If someone hurt one of my family vengeance would be high on my list. And I would assume that it is similar to many people. But the reason society works is that we all agree to abide by the laws and that those that break them are punished. If we let that break down, then where does it stop? Why is society alone given this power. Why not allow vigilanties? Or roving mobs simply meet out punishment beatings when the feel somebody did wrong?

The death penalty is part of the law in the US at least. I wasn't talking about you personally murdering. You didn't answer what I asked, in those circumstances, would you advocate against the person being executed, and would you further advocate that person gets to inflict further pain on those left behind by deciding his own fate over some blisters that might explode while he's unconscious. What about if a bunch of liberal activists from the outside got involved telling you what to do and how immoral you are for wanting that person dead.

But you don't agree. Yet you have failed to produce any evidence that the death penalty reduces crime rates. So now you want to up the ante to torture/

Nope, on that point I stand corrected, from the little I've looked online about it I was wrong. It doesn't change my view however.

mcmoustache

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I welcome any state sanctioning the murder of paedophiles, serial killers, violent rapists etc.. ill hold my thumb firmly up at that one.

Same here. My only additional requirement is that the state ensures that no innocent person is ever executed.

oscarBravo

peddlelies wrote: »

...that person gets to inflict further pain on those left behind by deciding his own fate...

You're OK with the state murdering people - and you don't care how much they suffer in the process - but you're offended by the idea that someone might want to choose their own method of execution?

What a time to be alive. Or not.

peddlelies

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're OK with the state murdering people - and you don't care how much they suffer in the process - but you're offended by the idea that someone might want to choose their own method of execution?

What a time to be alive. Or not.

In certain cases it could be seen as further mocking the victims by demanding control back from the prosecutors/family members etc.