CA anti-death penalty measure qualifies for Nov. ballot

[greenforest32]

Hope it passes. I think the next states due for abolition are Maryland and Delaware.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States#Recent_abolition

[WhyteRain]

I think the best way to solve the death-penalty  views would be to implement affirmative action based on race and income in texas for death penalty and let them execute a few good ol boys. Although a revolution would be a lot more fun.

Most people here will think you are kidding with your call for a race-based system of punishments, with harsher punishments for whites.

I know you're not.  http://michellemalkin.com/2009/09/21/race-based-discipline-in-tucson-schools/

The problem is that the actions of the whites result in far more deaths than actions of blacks and hispanics

What?  How so?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, what?  How so?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Seatown, the first problem with that line of reasoning is that there are, at least at the moment, a lot more whites in this country than there are blacks and Hispanics. (I'm not sure if this is true in California any more.) The second problem is that it's ridiculous.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Keep it.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Keep it.

You do realize that the death penalty in California is now basically an extremely expensive form of life in prison, don't you?

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Keep it.

You do realize that the death penalty in California is now basically an extremely expensive form of life in prison, don't you?

Perhaps. I still don't favor abolishing it, however.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Keep it.

You do realize that the death penalty in California is now basically an extremely expensive form of life in prison, don't you?

Perhaps. I still don't favor abolishing it, however.

Any particular reason why an inoperative death penalty is better than no death penalty?

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Keep it.

You do realize that the death penalty in California is now basically an extremely expensive form of life in prison, don't you?

Perhaps. I still don't favor abolishing it, however.

Any particular reason why an inoperative death penalty is better than no death penalty?

I believe that the possibility of capital punishment should exist, even if it is not used. The fact that California has an inoperative death penalty, to me, is more of an argument against the fact that it is inoperative, not against the death penalty itself.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Keep it.

You do realize that the death penalty in California is now basically an extremely expensive form of life in prison, don't you?

Perhaps. I still don't favor abolishing it, however.

Any particular reason why an inoperative death penalty is better than no death penalty?

I believe that the possibility of capital punishment should exist, even if it is not used. The fact that California has an inoperative death penalty, to me, is more of an argument against the fact that it is inoperative, not against the death penalty itself.

That logic seems skewed to me, but it makes sense internally, so fair enough.

[stegosaurus]

Government, by nature, is too inept to be trusted with the privilege of executing (read:murdering, exacting vengeance on) it's own constituents.  One innocent person dead at the hands of the government charged with protecting him/her and their rights is one person too many. The fact that we still have the death penalty is the strongest argument against the existence of evolution that I can make, completely barbaric law to still have in the 21st century.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Government, by nature, is too inept to be trusted with the privilege of executing (read:murdering, exacting vengeance on) it's own constituents.  One innocent person dead at the hands of the government charged with protecting him/her and their rights is one person too many. The fact that we still have the death penalty is the strongest argument against the existence of evolution that I can make, completely barbaric law to still have in the 21st century.

I entirely agree, with the exception that I think it's an argument not against evolution but against the idea that evolution, biological or social, has any precise telos as such; thus the telos must be looked for elsewhere, no? This is where I part from Hegel and Marx, who were good diagnosticians but bad progonsticators.

[Free Palestine]

Governments shouldn't murder their citizens.  Citizens should murder their governments.

[RI]

Governments shouldn't murder their citizens.  Citizens should murder their governments.

How about nobody murders anybody?

[WhyteRain]

Governments shouldn't murder their citizens.  Citizens should murder their governments.

How about nobody murders anybody?

More reason to wonder about the appropriateness of that nick.

[WhyteRain]

Governments shouldn't murder their citizens.  Citizens should murder their governments.

I'll go along with that, but the sentiment is misplaced on this thread.

If capital punishment is murder, then imprisonment is kidnapping.

[Free Palestine]

I believe that every sapient individual has a fundamental right to life, something that no government can rightfully take away.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If I were in California, I would vote to keep it. I am very confused on the death penalty. I don't know if I support it or oppose it.

Well considering it's not really used in California and is just an expensive and resource-draining form of life in prison, why not just vote to abolish it if you have no real strong attachment to the death penalty?

[Free Palestine]

If I were in California, I would vote to keep it. I am very confused on the death penalty. I don't know if I support it or oppose it.

Opposing it would be the libertarian thing to do.

[WhyteRain]

I believe that every sapient individual has a fundamental right to life, something that no government can rightfully take away.

Only the sapient?  (I admit I had to look it up.)  So stupid and crazy people get no such right?

Anyway, by that standard you'd have to oppose a government using deadly force to oppose a military invasion.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I believe that every sapient individual has a fundamental right to life, something that no government can rightfully take away.

Only the sapient?  (I admit I had to look it up.)  So stupid and crazy people get no such right?

Anyway, by that standard you'd have to oppose a government using deadly force to oppose a military invasion.

Stupid and crazy people are generally considered sapient, unless you are Peter Singer.

[Free Palestine]

I believe that every sapient individual has a fundamental right to life, something that no government can rightfully take away.

Only the sapient?  (I admit I had to look it up.)  So stupid and crazy people get no such right?

Anyway, by that standard you'd have to oppose a government using deadly force to oppose a military invasion.

Stupid and crazy people are generally considered sapient, unless you are Peter Singer.

This.

I say "sapient" to preclude responses of "hurrdurr what about feetuses."

[WhyteRain]

I believe that every sapient individual has a fundamental right to life, something that no government can rightfully take away.

Only the sapient?  (I admit I had to look it up.)  So stupid and crazy people get no such right?

Anyway, by that standard you'd have to oppose a government using deadly force to oppose a military invasion.

Stupid and crazy people are generally considered sapient, unless you are Peter Singer.

This.

I say "sapient" to preclude responses of "hurrdurr what about feetuses."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure how y'all define "stupid" and "crazy", but in mine the words "wisdom" and "appropriate judgment" aren't usually included.

Maybe you meant "sentient"?  But that would screw up your fetus deal.

Besides, you still have to advise the Polish government what to do when sapient individuals wearing Wehrmacht uniforms start pouring over the border.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Sapient in the sense that it's being used here is more like what most people think sentient means. I'm not sure when this usage originated.

[WhyteRain]

Sapient in the sense that it's being used here is more like what most people think sentient means. I'm not sure when this usage originated.

Yeah, but he's trying to exclude fetuses.  I'm pro-choice on abortion so I don't have a dog in the fight other than a sensible statement.  It looks like neither "sapient" (excludes stupid and crazy) nor "sentient" (includes fetuses) will do what he wants.

[Dereich]

I believe that every sapient individual has a fundamental right to life, something that no government can rightfully take away.

Virtually every standard of fundamental rights, from the UN ICCPR to the US Declaration of Independence also lists liberty as a fundamental right, one which nobody disputes. Why can government take that? WhyteRain's objection also applies; you could compare executing a murderer to defending against a foreign aggressor. Both are cases of the state acting to remove the life of those who would harm its citizens.