@SY - They chose to take a life and, as we have gone round and round about, they therefore sacrifice the right to life given to them by society. I don't believe in natural rights that can't be stripped by society. You do. That argument is done. Neither of us will change our views.

Draugnar, do we agree that in any scenario if you have a straight choice between killing someone and not killing someone, with no other or equal factors to consider, it is better not to kill them?

I also want to know seen as you have a economic value attached to life, what it is:

-How much is a Aristotle/Einstein/Ghandi worth?
-How much is a average joe citizen worth?
-A Taxpayer? A soldier?
-How much is the life of a petty thief worth?
-A rapist?
-A murderer?
-A obese person who is destructive to the environment?
-A farmer?
-A wall street banker?

Please give me estimates to the nearest $1000

Yes, but serial killers and mass murderers have "other factors" that aren't equal to consider. I've said all along that a single instance of murder shouldn't get the death penalty. But Dahmer, McVeigh, and the more recent instances of mass shootings (although most of them end with the suspect dead anyhow) all warrant the death penalty. They aren't "equal factors" at all.

I can give you two estimates to the nearest thousand/ Everyone on that list except the rapist and murdered have a value of $infinity. The rapist and murderer have a value of $0.

And by the way, what does being obese have to do with the environment. Tread carefully cause I weigh 270 pounds.

And how I came to those estimates is thus. Everyone on the list save the two extreme examples does or can still contribute to society (yes, the petty thief can be reformed and become a contributor again). The rapist and the murderer can never undo the damage they have done to society so have no value to society.

"The rapist and the murderer can never undo the damage they have done to society"

There are a lot of murderers who have changed society dramatically. Ghengis Khan, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Oliver Cromwell. Mass murderers in fact.

You can't say that a murderer is worth nothing, as you're putting everybody who has ended another human life into a single sterotype group. There are many historical figures who have killed someone who you would claim as valuable. Many blues singers, for example.

"You can't say that a murderer is worth nothing, as you're putting everybody who has ended another human life into a single sterotype group."

No, I'm not. You conflate killing with murder, not me. Genghis Khan killed a lot of people, sure. But he was never convicted of murder by a jury of his peers. Therefore he was not a murderer.

Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Cromwell - These were leaders of nations or armies: no different than W., Obama, Churchill, Patton, Truman, MacArthur, or any of the other military and political leaders in a time of war. Again, not tried and convicted of murder so not murderers. Hussein was tried and convicted. I feel safe saying that, had he not taken his own life, Hitler would have been tried and convicted just as his surviving officers were. Bin Laden, had he not been killed in the raid on his compound, would have been tried and convicted.

So to clarify, I'm not referring to people accused of murder but not yet tried and convicted or even people we know responsible for killing or ordering the death of millions (did GK ever personally kill anyone?) but who were never tried and convicted (unless it is obvious they would have been tried and convicted like Hitler and Bin Laden). I'm referring to people tried and convicted of the two most heinous acts: rape and murder.

"So to clarify, I'm not referring to people accused of murder but not yet tried and convicted or even people we know responsible for killing or ordering the death of millions (did GK ever personally kill anyone?) but who were never tried and convicted (unless it is obvious they would have been tried and convicted like Hitler and Bin Laden). I'm referring to people tried and convicted of the two most heinous acts: rape and murder."

1. George Bush isn't guilty of murder in your opinion?
2. Who determines whether a trial is fair or correct? It seems to be your personal opinion.
3. Who determines whether a nonconvinced person "should" have been convincted? Seems like pure conjecture to me. O.J Simpson? Lee Harvey Oswald?
4. Why rape and murder (I used rape deliberatly to provoke you.) Presumably you mean child rape as well. Seems coincidental that these are the crimes used to provoke emotive response in the right wing press? For example you don't mention torture which can be far worse than rape if orchestrated over years.
5. Should a CIA torturer be found guilty of torture and condemned to death? What makes a rapist worse in your opinion?
and
6. Aren't you just promoting mobocracy? What makes a vigilante mob less of a legal organisation than a court room?

Draugnar, I am going to finalise this debate. We won't agree. I don't agree with extremist justice, orchestrated by individuals as a crowd or as a state, which is just a bigger crowd with crowd rules. I don't believe in shooting or hunting paedophiles or rapists, because I don't fear every day that there are masses of such people roaming around. I don't get emotive when I read newspaper articles about carjackings. I am not afraid of terrorists. I am simply not in the same crowd of people as yourself.

Put simply, I am tired of hearing that rapists and murderers should be shot. It's a typical extremist condensation of emotions that people can't really put into words - namely fear caused by the media and exploited by politicians to garner votes. I don't want anybody to be shot, but I understand why they are - from both sides. It's because words have run their course and the only resort left is violence.

I can't persuade you that all humans have value and that murder of someone (which morally I consider as the killing of a person who cannot defend themself) is abhorrent whether it's developed by a constitution and a set of legal authorities or by one of your boogiemen ghetto blacks. In such a case, if I want my will to be upheld, I need to resort to violence against you. THAT is why the majority of people are killed, because they are not willing to compromise. Israelis, palestinians, pro-lifers, pro-choicers, atheists, muslims. Because you're not willing to listen you leave people with no way to express themselves except with violence.

I got incredibly angry reading your posts, and have no way to change your mind or to outlet my answer. What can I do in such a situation?

My post is written with the greatest sincerity.

"1. George Bush isn't guilty of murder in your opinion?
2. Who determines whether a trial is fair or correct? It seems to be your personal opinion.
3. Who determines whether a nonconvinced person "should" have been convincted? Seems like pure conjecture to me. O.J Simpson? Lee Harvey Oswald?
4. Why rape and murder (I used rape deliberatly to provoke you.) Presumably you mean child rape as well. Seems coincidental that these are the crimes used to provoke emotive response in the right wing press? For example you don't mention torture which can be far worse than rape if orchestrated over years.
5. Should a CIA torturer be found guilty of torture and condemned to death? What makes a rapist worse in your opinion?
and
6. Aren't you just promoting mobocracy? What makes a vigilante mob less of a legal organisation than a court room? "

1. No - He hasn't been arrested or tired or convicted. W. isn't guilty of murder.
2. Society decides whether a trial is fair.
3. Oswald was killed. O.J. is innocent of murder in the eyes of the law (although he has plenty of other guilt that he is now serving time for) and that satisfies me. Personally, I think he did it, but he should not be killed because he was found innocent. Also, killing two people (or in the case of Oswald, one) does not warrant the death penalty in my view. I have repeatedly made that abundantly clear. I think their worth to society (if Oswald were still alive) is zero.

4. I would include torture. You mentioned rape and is the only reason I went there. That said, I don't believe either rapists or torturers deserve the death penalty unless they are *serial* rapists/torturers. The hypothetical Buffalo Bill of Silence of the Lambs would have warranted it even if he had just continued to keep his victims in the pits.

5. See 4, rapists aren't worse but you hadn't mentioned it before. As far as the CIA actions, they are sanctioned by the government (society), not considered torture (waterboarding hasn't yet been declared torture that I am aware of) and therefore not against the law. If they ever become against the law, than anyone who commits them after that time should be tried. If found to have continued the action repeatedly (serial torture) then they should be executed.

6. Mobs run on emotion at the time of the crime. Laws are (theoretically) passed by cooler heads and less emotion. That is one key difference. Additionally, laws are passed by the *majority* of society*. Mobs have never, to the best of my knowledge, been more than a handful of members of society. When they become larger and reach a majority, then they become a revolution and a new rule of law takes over (see 1776 America and 1789 France).

Re: your second post.

You continue to insist I think every single murderer or rapist should be shot. You ignore the serial and mass aspect to my argument because it is inconvenient to your vilification of me. So yeah, conversation over.

Well I don't think you've distinguished between a mob and an ochlocracy "the tyranny of the majority". I believe that people do use their emotions when passing laws and executing justice. For example paedophilia which has been dragged out in the press for years as something for people to unite against. I don't think someone who watches certain child videos deserves the death penalty - but there *are* people who disagree. These people vote and put pressure on politicians to pass policy with harsher sentences (see that book I linked before). Therefore society becomes the legal incarnation of an angry mob persecuting and exacting violence upon certain groups.

You might think this is a far cry from our society, but I'm talking about philosophical perspectives. As mentioned earlier killing Jews was legally passed by Germany society, and you have no opposition to it other than *another* society condemning it. What about the law that allowed an Englishman to shoot a Welshman in a time of peace with a bow?

Another point in the mechanics of how this works; people with extreme views are more likely to voice their opinions than the moderates. Also extreme views, such as holding a certain segment of the populace as enemies are beneficial to a well-ran state. There is nothing that suggests that democracy will naturally form a well-functioning fair society, and there is evidence that if allowed to a group of people will kill people they perceive as different. I don't think you have sufficiently thought about whether that process could occur under the guise of legality.

"I don't think someone who watches certain child videos deserves the death penalty "

I don't think they do either, but I do think the people who *make* said videos and *repeatedly* abuse the children in the process *do* deserve the death penalty.

" but there *are* people who disagree. These people vote and put pressure on politicians to pass policy with harsher sentences (see that book I linked before). Therefore society becomes the legal incarnation of an angry mob persecuting and exacting violence upon certain groups. "

But no politician is going to pass a law that makes it a crime worthy of death to watch the movies. That is the difference. At the end of the day, unless the pressure comes from the *majority* no politician is going to pass a law of such extreme penalty based on a admittedly loud but still minority voice.

What about the era of Mccarthy and the extreme prejudice faced by communist sympathisers? What about the imprisonment of Eugene Debbs for opposing the draft? That was a legal act by society, but in the opinion of some (perhaps even the majority) wrong. The majority of people in the UK opposed the Iraq war, yet we went into it anyway. How is that legal? Surely that is murder when one government opposes its people and goes ahead to murder unarmed civilians (I assume at least SOME people killed in Iraq were innocent bystanders).

And yes, I realize that society can be wrong. The idea of exterminating a race or other collective just because of differences is a risk. Look at Nazi Germany and the Jews. Look at Rwanda. Look at Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Look at Chechnya. Look at the present situation in Ukraine.

There is no proper and perfect solution to the problems mankind can cause for himself. But that doesn't mean we throw all law out just because it can be abused. Laws regarding guns and drinking and drugs and more are also emotionally passed. Both sides are guilty of this and politicians take advantage of it. But when it comes to obviously morally wrong crimes like murder rape, torture, and child abuse (not simply pedophilia), we need a way to make certain that repeat offenders will not continue to offend repeatedly and locking them up in jail doesn't do it. Three strikes you die when it comes to the big four listed before in my view. Kill at least three people in one act or a series of acts. Torture at least three people. Rape at least three people (or one person three times for that matter). Abuse a child at least three times (or three different children, which ever). Pay the ultimate price for your ability to not be part of society.

"The majority of people in the UK opposed the Iraq war, yet we went into it anyway. How is that legal? Surely that is murder when one government opposes its people and goes ahead to murder unarmed civilians (I assume at least SOME people killed in Iraq were innocent bystanders). "

Two issues here. The people elected the politicians who sent the military in. Therefore it was the will of the people and not murder. As far as the civilians, I'm sure there were some. It's called collateral damage and is very regretful and we try to avoid it, although I think the military in general could do a hell of a lot better at it, I view it as no different than a person caught in the crossfire of a police standoff. The blame isn't on the cops but on the criminals for forcing the situation. Most collateral damage is because the cowards hide behind and amongst the civilian population.

But quite honestly, war is hell and shouldn't be held at the same standard as a criminal trial and judgment, although it's participants should be held to a certain moral standard.

"Three strikes you die" is the most humane thing you've suggested thus far. But I still feel that there is always the potential for abuse, intentional or accidental (the mob mentality, Milgram et al type abuse), and therefore the death penalty is a step too far. Let the people abuse imprisonment and at least prisoners can live their lives, write books:- I also think prisoners should be allowed to procreate at least once, no matter what their crime. But once society kills someone you can't take it back. Think of when homosexuality was a death penalty offense, or witchcraft. Do you really think we are beyond all of that now?

So basically instead of outlawing the death penalty in the US as "cruel and unusual punishment," you would rather kill so many people that it would no longer be unusual, and then say that it's not cruel if the majority supports it. Ooooooookayyyyy......

As far as McCarthyism. Was anyone executed under it? I ask because I honestly don't know.

Scenario: the people elect a politician who abuses their mandate. 1 million people go to the streets to protest the war, the largest anti-war demonstration ever. The politician continues to go to war. How is that the will of the people?

You're saying that every political system is the "will of the people", including tyranny, as they didn't try hard enough to oust their leader.

"at least prisoners can live their lives, write books:- I also think prisoners should be allowed to procreate at least once, no matter what their crime."

Fuck no. I don't want them profiting form their crimes (writing books) or continuing their gene pool (procreating).

Re: Homosexuality and witchcraft. YEs and no. In a truly civilized society we have. But clearly there are places in the world 9
and backwoods places in the US) where we haven't unfortunately, until civilized society can make the subsets of humanioty where there are barbarians (even in our own midst) see the way of civility, this will continue. But banning the death penalty in civilized society isn't going to change those barbaric subsocieties anyhow. They'll still do it just as the KKK burns crosses and tortures blacks.

"Scenario: the people elect a politician who abuses their mandate. 1 million people go to the streets to protest the war, the largest anti-war demonstration ever. The politician continues to go to war. How is that the will of the people? "

The people can vote him out. The people (in the US at least) can vote in a set of congressmen who won't subsidize the war. I don't know British politics, but the president can go to war only until Congress revokes any funds he has for it. Considering the entire house and 1/3 of the senate are elected every two years, that means no more than two years of war if the people truly have a mandate in the US.

"You're saying that every political system is the "will of the people", including tyranny, as they didn't try hard enough to oust their leader. "

Again, I am talking about civilized society. Tyrannical rule is not part of civilized society. I would argue that true civilized society found it's birth in the American and French revolutions and only recently came into adulthood in Europe and is still a teenager in the US in many ways. Having your continent devastated by two wars can make your society grow up real quick. The US needs a real kick in the pants but is too large for an outsider to do it. It's going to take inside revolution to make it become more civilized and I believe the LGBTQ community will be the ones to make it happen.

"So basically instead of outlawing the death penalty in the US as "cruel and unusual punishment," you would rather kill so many people that it would no longer be unusual, and then say that it's not cruel if the majority supports it. Ooooooookayyyyy...... "

Death need not be cruel. You have that wrong. Cruel is locking someone away where they never see the light of day and lose all hope. That breaks the spirit as sure as torture breaks the will. *That* is cruel.

So you are saying we should have rehabilitative prisons which serve to bring a person back into society as opposed to locking political prisoners up in solitary so long that they start publicly proclaiming they are a woman (hint hint Bradley/Chelsea Manning hint hint).

Death is not cruel. Killing is cruel.