Executed man's last request honored -- pizza for homeless

[GateandGarden]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

ahem: revenge would be the victim's family pursuing vigilante justice;
justice is letting the accused have his day in court w/representation and appeals and whatnot. People dont hit death row overnight. This man had plenty of time to impact his fate and was unsuccessful. Thus, your argument fails.

Not really. Your argument doesn't really make any sense to me. It isn't about revenge just because there's an involved procedure? All that does is make it seem fairer by comparison. It's still all about revenge. It's the exact same outcome as the family pursuing vigilante justice, in fact. It's just state-sanctioned murder.

[carrie721]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

Not really. Your argument doesn't really make any sense to me. It isn't about revenge just because there's an involved procedure? All that does is make it seem fairer by comparison. It's still all about revenge. It's the exact same outcome as the family pursuing vigilante justice, in fact. It's just state-sanctioned murder.

word! preach it! ita! etc.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

Not really. Your argument doesn't really make any sense to me. It isn't about revenge just because there's an involved procedure? All that does is make it seem fairer by comparison. It's still all about revenge. It's the exact same outcome as the family pursuing vigilante justice, in fact. It's just state-sanctioned murder.

no. revenge is not about justice. revenge is about getting even. concepts like representation and appeal and clemency do not apply in revenge.

Justice is about seeing that the right balance is struck between a wrong and reparation. Revenge doesnt do that.

Regardless of whether you think the death penalty is right or not, the basic law of the universe holds that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Many ancient cultures characterized it as the "eye for an eye" principle. Here, the defendant/convicted (CONVICTED) criminal has recourse to challenge the charges and/or sentence. In "revenge," no such recourse is available. You are making an emotional argument based on your dislike of the death penalty. You are totally missing the big picture of the wrongs committed, ie: the original crimes the defendant committed which harmed many innocents, either directly or indirectly.

BTW: an argument could also be made that the defendant had to pay a karmic debt from a past life and orchestrated events in THIS life to bring him to this point where he would pay the ultimate price. I happen to firmly believe this scenario. We all choose our circumstances based on the lessons we need to learn. I myself have looked death in the eye and said "if its my time, its my time." apparently it wasnt my time then.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by carrie721

word! preach it! ita! etc.

what is a synonym for "surprised?" cuz thats what I am. nuff said.

[carrie721]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

what is a synonym for "surprised?" cuz thats what I am. nuff said.

oh, get off it.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by carrie721

oh, get off it.

you first. cute shoes btw.

[carrie721]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

you first. cute shoes btw.

blah blah blah. i disagree with you, and i agree with hillary. i don't wanna get in an argument b/c issues like this never get resolved. there are just too many people who are executed who are later found innocent, so i can't support the DP.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by carrie721

blah blah blah. i disagree with you, and i agree with hillary. i don't wanna get in an argument b/c issues like this never get resolved. there are just too many people who are executed who are later found innocent, so i can't support the DP.

Im not saying that doesnt happen but in the grand scheme of things, the number of falsely executed prisoners doesnt amount to a hill of beans. You can agree with whoever you want to. I myself am conflicted regarding the death penalty but that doesnt mean that I can forgive a convicted murderer based on the fact that generous people everywhere fed the homeless because of his denied request. Sorry. oh and for good measure: blah blah blah blah.

[carrie721]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Im not saying that doesnt happen but in the grand scheme of things, the number of falsely executed prisoners doesnt amount to a hill of beans. You can agree with whoever you want to. I myself am conflicted regarding the death penalty but that doesnt mean that I can forgive a convicted murderer based on the fact that generous people everywhere fed the homeless because of his denied request. Sorry. oh and for good measure: blah blah blah blah.

who said anything about forgiveness? i certainly didn't ... i haven't read every word of this thread tho ...

blah blah.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by carrie721

who said anything about forgiveness? i certainly didn't ... i haven't read every word of this thread tho ...

blah blah.

forgiveness is divine by the way...

[GateandGarden]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

no. revenge is not about justice. revenge is about getting even. concepts like representation and appeal and clemency do not apply in revenge.

And you just decided that? Seems like the same thing to me, just with some formalities such as what you named.

Justice is about seeing that the right balance is struck between a wrong and reparation. Revenge doesnt do that.

But capital punishment restores that balance, you're saying? Just an example, but the Navajo are very much in favor of this concept of restoring balance in the universe, but their culture prohibits the death penalty. I guess, like me, they haven't figured out how putting blood on more people's hands restores balance.

Regardless of whether you think the death penalty is right or not, the basic law of the universe holds that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Many ancient cultures characterized it as the "eye for an eye" principle.

I don't see how Newton's Third Law applies to criminal justice. Are you proposing that we rape rapists? Rob robbers? As far as I know, "eye for an eye" only applies to homicide cases in the United States, and that's a severe one to decide to apply that little adage to, since miscarriages of justice are irreversible and all.

Here, the defendant/convicted (CONVICTED) criminal has recourse to challenge the charges and/or sentence. In "revenge," no such recourse is available. You are making an emotional argument based on your dislike of the death penalty. You are totally missing the big picture of the wrongs committed, ie: the original crimes the defendant committed which harmed many innocents, either directly or indirectly.

Do those people come back to life after "justice" is carried out? Sorry for the irritating rhetorical question. By bringing the victim into the equation, are you not playing on emotions? The pro-death penalty people are typically the emotional ones, talking about how the victim's family will feel so comforted once the defendant is put to death. What the hell does that matter in a court of law?

BTW: an argument could also be made that the defendant had to pay a karmic debt from a past life and orchestrated events in THIS life to bring him to this point where he would pay the ultimate price. I happen to firmly believe this scenario. We all choose our circumstances based on the lessons we need to learn. I myself have looked death in the eye and said "if its my time, its my time." apparently it wasnt my time then.

Yeah...okay. I've believed some bizarre spiritual things in my life...still cling to some of them. But none of that belongs in a supposedly secular debate pertaining to law if we have separation of church and state and all that good stuff. I mean, we hardly do in this country, but let's pretend.

Of course Carrie is right--there isn't really a point in talking about it but then I'm finished with exams so what the hell.

[GateandGarden]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

...the number of falsely executed prisoners doesnt amount to a hill of beans.

Well you just sound like seeker when you say that. I would say that if any innocent person is executed, that is inexcusable.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

And you just decided that? Seems like the same thing to me, just with some formalities such as what you named.

But capital punishment restores that balance, you're saying? Just an example, but the Navajo are very much in favor of this concept of restoring balance in the universe, but their culture prohibits the death penalty. I guess, like me, they haven't figured out how putting blood on more people's hands restores balance.

I don't see how Newton's Third Law applies to criminal justice. Are you proposing that we rape rapists? Rob robbers? As far as I know, "eye for an eye" only applies to homicide cases in the United States, and that's a severe one to decide to apply that little adage to, since miscarriages of justice are irreversible and all.

Do those people come back to life after "justice" is carried out? Sorry for the irritating rhetorical question. By bringing the victim into the equation, are you not playing on emotions? The pro-death penalty people are typically the emotional ones, talking about how the victim's family will feel so comforted once the defendant is put to death. What the hell does that matter in a court of law?

Yeah...okay. I've believed some bizarre spiritual things in my life...still cling to some of them. But none of that belongs in a supposedly secular debate pertaining to law if we have separation of church and state and all that good stuff. I mean, we hardly do in this country, but let's pretend.

Of course Carrie is right--there isn't really a point in talking about it but then I'm finished with exams so what the hell.

you give me too much credit. I didnt "decide" anything. Im just reiteriting it. (get a dictionary)

ok, as to your theory that the Navaho approach being the only one: sorry. I think its a bit presumptuous to engage in a discussion about what the Navaho believe without having them nearby.

I don't see how Newton's Third Law applies to criminal justice. Are you proposing that we rape rapists? Rob robbers? As far as I know, "eye for an eye" only applies to homicide cases in the United States, and that's a severe one to decide to apply that little adage to, since miscarriages of justice are irreversible and all.

this is a spectacular misstatement of my intent good work!

Please dont be so silly as to propose simplistic cause/effect isues: the law of Karma is even more exacting than Newton's Law of Gravity. I believe that as spiritual beings we choose situations that enable us to learn from our past mistakes.

more later.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

Well you just sound like seeker when you say that. I would say that if any innocent person is executed, that is inexcusable.

well, you just sounded like an alarmist to say otherwise. the sad fact is, when you compare justifiably condemded criminals with potentially innocent criminals, the numbers show that innocently condemned criminals are FAR in the minority;

If you want to indulge your bleeding heart tendancies, then go right ahead.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

Well you just sound like seeker when you say that. I would say that if any innocent person is executed, that is inexcusable.

ONLY if a KNOWN innocent is executed.

sorry. If a condemdend DEATH ROW criminal is executed, then he had plenty of time/opportunity to protest. if his protests FAILED< then too stinkin bad.