Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Death penalty for drug dealers? Trump Administration looking into it


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 290
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The death penalty is on my list of things that people 200 years from now will look back on and think we were barbarians. 

It's odd that the same people that want to argue that the second amendment as an absolute don't seem to care all that much about the first or eighth.  

I’m going to need to chew this over.

4 minutes ago, Bucky86 said:

@KCitons

Should the punishment be death penalty for you if you're out hunting, another hunter steps behind a buck, and you accidentally kill him?

 

ETA: Kill the Human, not the buck. Pretend you're a terrible shot.

Dick Cheney would have a big problem with this.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Zow said:

Victim of what? Again, the vast majority of DUIs do not result in there being a specific victim with a specific injury/economic loss. 

Ok, I'll compromise. Death penalty for DUI drivers that kill someone. 

Is that agreeable? (I already know the answer)

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

I’ve seen this on Law and Order - you look for motive

The model penal code breaks intent (referred to as "mens rea") into four categories: intentionally/purposefully, knowingly, recklessly, negligently (criminal negligence).*  Generally, the punishment gets more lenient/less harsh down the line.  Which makes sense because, as KC points out, we want people to be deterred from doing things (so, the deterrent impact becomes less meaningful in cases where a finder of fact determines that a person didn't actually mean to do something but may have been reckless or negligent).  Additionally, retribution (i.e. justice), another theory of punishment, calls for punishing the "evil mind" so it makes sense to punish more harshly the acts one intended to commit. 

We do have some crimes that, for policy reasons, the legislature has determined (again, this is jurisdiction specific) do not require evidence of intent be presented because they are that "bad."  Commonly, DUIs and statutory rape fall into this category. 

Edited by Zow
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bucky86 said:

@KCitons

Should the punishment be death penalty for you if you're out hunting, another hunter steps behind a buck, and you accidentally kill him?

 

ETA: Kill the Human, not the buck. Pretend you're a terrible shot.

Yes. I am the shooter. It's my obligation to make sure what is beyond my target. 

This is something that is taught in Hunters Safety courses across the country.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Ok, I'll compromise. Death penalty for DUI drivers that kill someone. 

Is that agreeable? (I already know the answer)

There's at least a real argument to be made for it, I'll concede that. 

Note for putting this into perspective: in my jurisdiction a person who kills somebody for drinking and driving (and doesn't have any significant prior felony history) is probably around ten years prison. 

ETA: This is most likely less harsh than the sentence for first or second degree murder because a drunk driver, unless facts demonstrate otherwise, doesn't specifically intend to kill somebody when they get behind the wheel.  Heck, oftentimes the victim is a friend or a loved one. 

Edited by Zow
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, -fish- said:

It's odd that the same people that want to argue that the second amendment as an absolute don't seem to care all that much about the first or eighth.  

Your right. Taking things away from law abiding citizens it much better than the death penalty for someone that isn't. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zow said:

There's at least a real argument to be made for it, I'll concede that. 

Note for putting this into perspective: in my jurisdiction a person who kills somebody for drinking and driving (and doesn't have any significant prior felony history) is probably around ten years prison. 

Are you saying that term is too lenient or too strict. I can't tell.

And how long does the victim stay dead?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Your right. Taking things away from law abiding citizens it much better than the death penalty for someone that isn't. 

...and another predictably absolutist argument.  Exactly the type of thinking that the eighth amendment is there to protect against.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Are you saying that term is too lenient or too strict. I can't tell.

And how long does the victim stay dead?

 

I'm conceding that, while I personally disagree that somebody who drives drunk and kills somebody should get the death penalty as to much such punishment is overly harsh considering intent, I recognize there's an eye for an eye rationale to it and respect that position. 

Edited by Zow
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Zow said:

I'm conceding that, while I personally disagree that somebody who drives drunk and kills somebody should get the death penalty as to much such punishment is overly harsh considering intent, I recognize there's an eye for an eye rationale to it and respect that position. 

And I concede that I'm jaded. I try to spend my days looking for the good in people. Often times falling far short. I live a simple life, treat others the way they want to be treated, while taking responsibility for my own actions. It may be unreasonable to expect others to do the same. But, I won't expect anything less. If I do, it feels like I've given up trying. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, KCitons said:

And I concede that I'm jaded. I try to spend my days looking for the good in people. Often times falling far short. I live a simple life, treat others the way they want to be treated, while taking responsibility for my own actions. It may be unreasonable to expect others to do the same. But, I won't expect anything less. If I do, it feels like I've given up trying. 

I assume that if your own child was involved in an accident involving drinking and someone was killed, you would want him/her put to death immediately.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -fish- said:

I assume that if your own child was involved in an accident involving drinking and someone was killed, you would want him/her put to death immediately.

:lmao: 

Still got me on ignore? I made nearly that exact retort to him earlier. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, proninja said:

"I treat others the way they want to be treated. I want to kill them for breaking laws" 

Solid old school Christian values (OT). Shall we bring back stoning people for adultery as well?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, proninja said:

Because then you're just as bad as they are. 

 

6 hours ago, proninja said:

"I treat others the way they want to be treated. I want to kill them for breaking laws" 

Just as bad as they are? I don't sell drugs, I don't drink and drive, I don't kill people. But, it's interesting that people can agree on a scale of punishment. So they must agree that different crimes must be punished differently. My scale just happens to be different. 

I should have said, do unto others as they do unto you?  Then it would be an eye for an eye. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, msommer said:

Solid old school Christian values (OT). Shall we bring back stoning people for adultery as well?

First off. Who said I was Christian. Just because I posted that I was raised Catholic, doesn't mean I agree with the values today. 

But no. I don't see adultery as a crime where someone could lose their life. So stoning, no death penalty. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, -fish- said:

I assume that if your own child was involved in an accident involving drinking and someone was killed, you would want him/her put to death immediately.

If your own child was a mass shooter, would you want him/her put to death immediately? 

7 hours ago, -fish- said:

I don't have time to catch up.  One or two pages max.

It was on the last page. This pretty much sums things up. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KCitons said:

First off. Who said I was Christian. Just because I posted that I was raised Catholic, doesn't mean I agree with the values today. 

But no. I don't see adultery as a crime where someone could lose their life. So stoning, no death penalty. 

I said nothing about you beliefs. I commented on the close proximity on your stances to the Old Testament morality code.

Should I congratulate you on your liberal stance concerning adultery?

YAY! KCitons does not believe that anyone should be stoned for adultery, in contrast to his other old fashioned attitudes on morality and punishment!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, msommer said:

I said nothing about you beliefs. I commented on the close proximity on your stances to the Old Testament morality code.

Should I congratulate you on your liberal stance concerning adultery?

YAY! KCitons does not believe that anyone should be stoned for adultery, in contrast to his other old fashioned attitudes on morality and punishment!

THANKS!

Funny that you think morality is old fashioned. What do you call your morality today? Did you invent it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Zow said:

The model penal code breaks intent (referred to as "mens rea") into four categories: intentionally/purposefully, knowingly, recklessly, negligently (criminal negligence).*  Generally, the punishment gets more lenient/less harsh down the line.  Which makes sense because, as KC points out, we want people to be deterred from doing things (so, the deterrent impact becomes less meaningful in cases where a finder of fact determines that a person didn't actually mean to do something but may have been reckless or negligent).  Additionally, retribution (i.e. justice), another theory of punishment, calls for punishing the "evil mind" so it makes sense to punish more harshly the acts one intended to commit. 

Despite my overall disagreement with the death penalty, this is what I don’t understand about KC’s argument - I don’t see how murder of 1 to N people deserves the same punishment as texting and driving and killing someone.  Does the person deserve a harsh punishment, absolutely.  Not sure how you then differentiate that from someone eating while driving or changing the radio or putting on makeup and killing someone.  Do we kill all of these people?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

Despite my overall disagreement with the death penalty, this is what I don’t understand about KC’s argument - I don’t see how murder of 1 to N people deserves the same punishment as texting and driving and killing someone.  Does the person deserve a harsh punishment, absolutely.  Not sure how you then differentiate that from someone eating while driving or changing the radio or putting on makeup and killing someone.  Do we kill all of these people?  

I see it as people know that texting and driving, drinking and driving, and distracted driving are all actions that can lead to accidents and possible death. There are tons of campaigns to make people aware of these things. And while you can say that someone's intent was to just drive home and not to kill someone, I say that they had the ability to prevent it by not driving under those conditions. Our city, as I'm sure others do too, has a free taxi service paid for by a local law firm. During the holiday season there is no reason to drive drunk, yet people still do. At that point, I feel the person has ways to prevent it and chooses not to. Therefor it's as if they did it with intent. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KCitons said:

I see it as people know that texting and driving, drinking and driving, and distracted driving are all actions that can lead to accidents and possible death. There are tons of campaigns to make people aware of these things. And while you can say that someone's intent was to just drive home and not to kill someone, I say that they had the ability to prevent it by not driving under those conditions. Our city, as I'm sure others do too, has a free taxi service paid for by a local law firm. During the holiday season there is no reason to drive drunk, yet people still do. At that point, I feel the person has ways to prevent it and chooses not to. Therefor it's as if they did it with intent. 

I find it hard to believe you’ve never been distracted while driving and it was your own fault - based on your criteria we should kill you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AAABatteries said:

I find it hard to believe you’ve never been distracted while driving and it was your own fault - based on your criteria we should kill you.

Please do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KCitons said:

THANKS!

Funny that you think morality is old fashioned. What do you call your morality today? Did you invent it?

I choose not to lean on fiction from 3000+ years ago.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, KCitons said:

If your own child was a mass shooter, would you want him/her put to death immediately? 

It was on the last page. This pretty much sums things up. 

This is not an answer to the question of whether you want your child to be put to death for a DUI accident resulting in a fatality.  I don't support the death penalty in any case, so my answer is no.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify, if you manufacture something that's not intended to kill people but someone uses it wrong and it kills a person, that should lead to the death penalty?  We're going on record with that, now?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Just to clarify, if you manufacture something that's not intended to kill people but someone uses it wrong and it kills a person, that should lead to the death penalty?  We're going on record with that, now?

We lawyers are going to be rich beyond all of our dreams of avarice combined.  Sweet!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if you institute the death penalty, the money is too good where people are always going to be willing to take that risk on.  Your small time guys may stop, but the big syndicates will always be around finding new ways to get people their product.  

Long story, short:  This will solve absolutely nothing.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Just to clarify, if you manufacture something that's not intended to kill people but someone uses it wrong and it kills a person, that should lead to the death penalty?  We're going on record with that, now?

It's almost like your not talking about Oxy anymore.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Gustavo Fring said:

Even if you institute the death penalty, the money is too good where people are always going to be willing to take that risk on.  Your small time guys may stop, but the big syndicates will always be around finding new ways to get people their product.  

Long story, short:  This will solve absolutely nothing.  

You seem like an expert on mass meth production. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

Just to clarify, if you manufacture something that's not intended to kill people but someone uses it wrong and it kills a person, that should lead to the death penalty?  We're going on record with that, now?

well on the plus side that type of a law would end the gun problem when gun company employees are all executed and here is the kicker it will be by firing squad take that to the bank bromigos

Edited by SWC
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...