Dear Aguila1,
Again, thank you for your peaceful objections. This is the kind of discussion I was looking for. If I am found in the wrong, I thank you for it. But as it stands, I still believe in capital punishment.
1. "The Constitution says only what it says."
I couldn't agree more. This is why I have pointed, repeatedly, to the fifth amendment, which says, "No man can be deprived of life without due process of law."
2. "You can infer that capital crimes existed."
No inference is needed. I have shown, with simple logic, that the fifth amendment says, "A man can be deprived of life with due process of law." You have not argued this point, in fact, you simply ignored it, which leads me to think you have no way to deny what I say. If you do, I would love to listen.
3. "We also know slavery existed, too."
Sadly for you, however, slavery was not a right granted in the Constitution. Slavery was a topic avoided if at all possible. It didn't outlaw slavery, but it did promise to end the slave trade by 1807 (I think). It also said that slaves counted as 3/5th's of a person. But it didn't say, "You have the right to own slaves."
4. "Another contradiction. If the purpose is to protect the people from the psychopath, then how are we not protected if that person is sitting 'in a comfortable jail cell for the rest of his life'?"
Just to side track for a moment...
I said, "But you admit that the government has the right to take a human life." Do you admit that, as the Constitution is now written, the government has the right to the death penalty? Because I don't think you answered that for me.
Anyway, what I said was far short of a contradiction. Both incarceration and capital punishment are ways in which to protect society, the difference, in my opinion, being the severity of the crime deserves the severity of the punishment.
Also, incarceration is no better to the criminal. Often enough those who are incarcerated end up being tortured by the police officials. I'm sure if given the choice, they'd want to be put out of their misery than be exposed to beatings and sensory deprivation.
Finally, a criminal who is incarcerated, no matter how well locked up, always has the possibility of escaping and wreaking terror on society again. A dead criminal can do no such thing.
5. "Is it the taxpayer's money that you are worried about?"
It is a secondary concern of mine, just as much as taxpayer's money going to the Iraq war is yours. I see absolutely no reason why I should have to pay some scum of the human race to stay alive for a nice fifty years.
6. "so that non-statist means are used to provide revenue to incarcerate/rehabilitate the criminal."
I think I made myself clear when I said "incurable psychopaths," criminals which can never be rehabilitated. What should we do with them?
7. "If one innocent man goes to his death, then it is one death too many."
If perfection is what you seek, then you might as well ask the entire human race to roll over and die because nothing is perfect, yet.
"I'm sorry, doctors, but you can't use that medication that might save millions of lives because when you tested it, one man died due to the side effects. I'm sure you have everything worked out and you learned from that experience, but that one death was just one too many, and I sympathize with the millions of lives out there that are most likely going to die as the result of not getting this now very safe treatment, but I have a duty to sympathize with that one man first."
8. "In principle, no one can prevent this scenario from happening no matter how "perfect" the practice."
Read above.
9. "Foolish evasion of my point."
Simple honesty is my motto.
10. "Anyone can be caught up in a case of mistaken identity. Anyone can be set-up. Anyone can have their DNA placed at the scene of a crime."
Then the problem is not the death penalty, but corrupt detectives and faulty investigative techniques.
11. "If you don't believe this can happen to you, then you are not fully awake."
I appreciate your concern, but just so that you can rest easily tonight, I'll let you know that I happen to watch plenty of crime scene shows.
12. "In principle, I am against capital punishment and believe it should be abolished."
Really? Because up until now, your arguments have consisted around the practice of the death penalty, not the principle. You don't say things like, "The death penalty should be abolished because it is immoral, as written in [insert sacred and holy text]." You argue, instead, "The death penalty should be abolished because it has been shown to make some mistakes."
13. "The taking of a life in self-defense by an individual is justified."
But how do you know it was self-defense? You are just as fallible as anyone else. Let us assume that some college-aged student came up behind you late at night, tapped you on your shoulder. You immediately think it is some guy trying to mug you and, in an act of self-defense, you shoot him with your security gun. As he lays dying, he says all he wanted to do was ask you for directions.
No matter how certain you are, you cannot deny that this scenario could happen, even if it has 1% of happening. And if one innocent man dies, that is one man too many. Therefore, I think we should abolish self-defense as an argument in court (of course, I am satiring you right now).
14. "To take arms up against a tyranny is justified."
But how do you know a certain form of government is a tyranny? You know, the British colonies thought that King George III was being a tyrant to them, but in fact they had less taxes to pay by far when compared to the ones in Britain.
15. "To those that are found guilty of crimes of high-treason, namely government officials that use their office to betray the public trust and for their own personal gain, they forfeit their right to breath the same air as I."
You have just forfeited your entire argument against capital punishment.
First, how do you know the government official is guilty? Maybe somebody framed them. It's a possibility, and that would mean they would be innocent.
Second, why not simply incarcerate them?
Third, that is what I have been arguing this entire time. If a man is found guilty of certain crimes (you say "high treason," I say "murder"), he has forfeitted his right to breath the same air as I. This is what the fifth amendment says, no matter how much you try to or want to deny it.
~~~
Dear Don,
First off, I welcome you to the discussion. Thank you for joining us.
1. "You give to an admittedly fallible system the right to take the lives of innocents."
Let's get a few things straightened up here, okay? No, I am not giving the right to take the lives of innocents, I am giving the right to take the lives of duly convicted murderers. Second, I am not giving this right, this is a right that is already given to the government in the fifth amendment.
2. "I remember learning somewhere along the way to an education that 'it's better that 10 guilty men go free than than one innocent man be convicted.'"
I hate to be the one to break your bubble, but both are equally terrible choices and should never be pitted against each other.
3. "That premise worked well for us until about 20 years ago."
And it still works well for us now. See, the problem isn't with the death penalty now, it's with the death penalty then. People are using DNA testing to check the accuracy of convictions many years ago, and finding that it is poor. But those who advocate the abolishment of the death penalty fail to remind everyone that DNA testing has lead to accurate convictions now, thereby putting to death an duly convicted criminal.
~~~
Have a good day, both of you. It was my pleasure, and I look forward to our next encounter.
2008 an existentialist, all rights reserved.