CA anti-death penalty measure qualifies for Nov. ballot

[RI]

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

So governments aren't sapient to you, I take it?

[WhyteRain]

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

So governments aren't sapient to you, I take it?

"Governments are people, my friend!"

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[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.

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.

Sapient is used the way that he wants in utilitarian philosophy circles, but that obviously led to confusion. Conscious runs into obvious problems. Self-aware puts us in odd territory regarding the seriously retarded. So I'm really not sure.

[MaxQue]

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

So governments aren't sapient to you, I take it?

Well, government isn't a sapient individual, as it isn't an individual.

[RI]

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

So governments aren't sapient to you, I take it?

Well, government isn't a sapient individual, as it isn't an individual.

Shocking. I wasn't aware of that. *facepalm*

FallenMorgan specifically said that he wanted citizens to "murder their governments." You can't possibly murder an institution, you can only murder people. You can abolish, end, or reform  an institution, but you can't murder it. In order to "murder" a government, you'd have to murder the people who make up that government. From Morgan's argument, it sounds like he wants citizens to murder their legislators. If he meant otherwise, he should have used less extreme and more socially accepted language. By his logic that sapient individuals have to right to life, but legislators should be murdered implies that he doesn't think legislators are sapient.

[Associate Justice PiT]

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

So governments aren't sapient to you, I take it?

Well, government isn't a sapient individual, as it isn't an individual.

Shocking. I wasn't aware of that. *facepalm*

FallenMorgan specifically said that he wanted citizens to "murder their governments." You can't possibly murder an institution, you can only murder people. You can abolish, end, or reform  an institution, but you can't murder it. In order to "murder" a government, you'd have to murder the people who make up that government. From Morgan's argument, it sounds like he wants citizens to murder their legislators. If he meant otherwise, he should have used less extreme and more socially accepted language. By his logic that sapient individuals have to right to life, but legislators should be murdered implies that he doesn't think legislators are sapient.

     It's a figure of speech, you see.

[Free Palestine]

Well, I'm an anarchist, so...

[RI]

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

So governments aren't sapient to you, I take it?

Well, government isn't a sapient individual, as it isn't an individual.

Shocking. I wasn't aware of that. *facepalm*

FallenMorgan specifically said that he wanted citizens to "murder their governments." You can't possibly murder an institution, you can only murder people. You can abolish, end, or reform  an institution, but you can't murder it. In order to "murder" a government, you'd have to murder the people who make up that government. From Morgan's argument, it sounds like he wants citizens to murder their legislators. If he meant otherwise, he should have used less extreme and more socially accepted language. By his logic that sapient individuals have to right to life, but legislators should be murdered implies that he doesn't think legislators are sapient.

     It's a figure of speech, you see.

Not one I've ever heard.

[Free Palestine]

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

So governments aren't sapient to you, I take it?

Well, government isn't a sapient individual, as it isn't an individual.

Shocking. I wasn't aware of that. *facepalm*

FallenMorgan specifically said that he wanted citizens to "murder their governments." You can't possibly murder an institution, you can only murder people. You can abolish, end, or reform  an institution, but you can't murder it. In order to "murder" a government, you'd have to murder the people who make up that government. From Morgan's argument, it sounds like he wants citizens to murder their legislators. If he meant otherwise, he should have used less extreme and more socially accepted language. By his logic that sapient individuals have to right to life, but legislators should be murdered implies that he doesn't think legislators are sapient.

     It's a figure of speech, you see.

Not one I've ever heard.

IT WAS A JOKE, GOSH

[WhyteRain]

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

So governments aren't sapient to you, I take it?

Well, government isn't a sapient individual, as it isn't an individual.

Shocking. I wasn't aware of that. *facepalm*

FallenMorgan specifically said that he wanted citizens to "murder their governments." You can't possibly murder an institution, you can only murder people. You can abolish, end, or reform  an institution, but you can't murder it. In order to "murder" a government, you'd have to murder the people who make up that government. From Morgan's argument, it sounds like he wants citizens to murder their legislators. If he meant otherwise, he should have used less extreme and more socially accepted language. By his logic that sapient individuals have to right to life, but legislators should be murdered implies that he doesn't think legislators are sapient.

     It's a figure of speech, you see.

Not one I've ever heard.

IT WAS A JOKE, GOSH

I had no problem understanding it as a figure of speech.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'd vote for it.  I like the requirement to work while in prison, and in today's system of constant appeals, the death penalty is a financial drain on the justice system.

[MaxQue]

Anyways, today, the main consequence of death penalty is making lawyers more wealthy because of the multiplications of the appeals and other procedural moves to delay things.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

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."

I knew that that was your reason, and I've asked you this before:

Why should sapience be the deciding factor in determining one's right to life?

[WhyteRain]

I'd vote for it.  I like the requirement to work while in prison, and in today's system of constant appeals, the death penalty is a financial drain on the justice system.

Maybe this is just the Texas view, but it seems to us that if your state's getting a lot of appeals from Death Row, then maybe you need to make some adjustments in your prison system so that life there is not so "appealing".

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

I'd vote for it.  I like the requirement to work while in prison, and in today's system of constant appeals, the death penalty is a financial drain on the justice system.

Maybe this is just the Texas view, but it seems to us that if your state's getting a lot of appeals from Death Row, then maybe you need to make some adjustments in your prison system so that life there is not so "appealing".

That's an...understandable point of view, but in fact California has infamously crowded and nasty prison conditions, probably worse than those in Texas.

[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."

I knew that that was your reason, and I've asked you this before:

Why should sapience be the deciding factor in determining one's right to life?

Well, fetuses aren't sapient (neither are infants), but it's actually more of a matter of the fact that a fetus is dependent on another's body.  In addition to the fact that it isn't sapient.

[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?

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.

See, we're approaching a paradox here. The constitution guarantees a little thing called "due process", especially in capital cases. Having a proper due process (which still doesn't give you an absolute guarantee) simply costs money and, in U.S., it's far more expensive than having inmate locked up for life.

Death penalty hardly can be "operative", unless you hang em' all the next week without proper appeals and other safeguards. Especially in states that are unlikely to actually execute anyone in foresable future. And California is the case.

So, what's the use of having the death penalty in the books outside of having "the death penalty must be an option!" fetish?