Better add those that slurp their coffee real loud like - Please include mouth breathers as well - And finger tappers - My my, now you got me started -
New Mexico Abolishes Death Penalty.
- Thread starter SirJosephPorter
- Start date
Now we are on the same page, Colpy. We do all this to protect the rights of the innocent. But all this is expensive, costs a lot of money. But we do not let financial considerations overrule the rights of the citizens. It is worth spending money to make sure that rights of the citizens are protected.
And that is why when somebody says that life without parole is more expensive than death penalty (which it isn’t), that is a phony argument, even if true (which it is not). We do not let financial consideration take away anybody’s rights, including the rights of a convicted criminal. In my opinion, convicted criminals have a right to life, and that right may not be taken away, just because if happens to be the cheaper alternative.
Not sure about NM, but in Canada, prisoners can vote. So it seems that what you say is only partially accurate.
That's why the CIC leave the bad aliens alone and eject the nice ones.
I'd go along with that.
They are, Goober, but the progress is slow, too slow for my tastes. Besides, as New York did, some states are actually regressing.
It wasn't a statement of fact, it is an observation and we are not in Europe, we are North Americans. We think differently.
"And I say let us make sure that the government does not kill its own citizens. Nobody deserves to die, even people like Olsen or Paul Bernardo. Or maybe they deserve to die, but it is not the place of the government to kill them. If they commit suicide, I won’t be too unhappy. However, government has no rights to kill its own citizens."
It is not the goverment who is killing its citizens, it is the people who created the Law ( for a death penalty) in the first place. The goverment is just carrying out the wishes of the citizens as it should do. Any change in the law should be put thru a popular vote first, then the State legislators do their vote, not the other way around. It is always harder if not impossible to reverse a law already enacted by legislators.
It is not the goverment who is killing its citizens, it is the people who created the Law ( for a death penalty) in the first place. The goverment is just carrying out the wishes of the citizens as it should do. Any change in the law should be put thru a popular vote first, then the State legislators do their vote, not the other way around. It is always harder if not impossible to reverse a law already enacted by legislators.
What are you talking about, protecting the human rights, fundamental rights of a convicted murderer or what ever major crime this person was convicted of.
That is exactly what I am talking about, ironsides. It is easy to talk about human rights of upstanding citizens, somebody whose behavior is exemplary. It is easy enough to say that Mother Teresa should have human rights. But a commitment to preservation of human rights means that the least of us, the least deserving also must be given human rights, not because they deserve it, but because they are human. After all, if one is human, one deserves human rights.
Thus even convicted criminals, mass murderers have certain rights. They have the right to worship the God of their choice (or no God, though that is very rare). They must be given enough to eat, must be given proper shelter and clothing. They must not be tortured. In addition to this, I also think that they are entitled to the right to life.
Protecting the rights of a convicted murderer, protecting terrorists human rights do you know we give more rights to them than we do to unborn children. It is not so much the abortion issue I am defending.
In the abortion argument, nobody can prove that the fetus is a human being. If scientists ever tell us that fetus is a human being, then that will end the abortion debate right there. In death penalty we are talking of killing human beings, in abortion it is not at all clear that we are killing any humans.
In most States now a convicted felon is stripped of all rights except for any cruel or unusual punishment.
Exactly, and I consider death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment. And it is not true that convicted felons are stripped of all rights. They are entitled to food, clothing and shelter. Also they may not be tortured. So they do have reduced rights, by no means they are stripped of al rights.
Bottom line there are people living in this world that the world and society would be better off without.
Sure there are, but the question is, should the government kill them? In my opinion, government killing its own citizens is always wrong.
Keeping them alive will only increase the chances for a mistake that they can escape. No prison is 100% secure, death is.
Perhaps. On the other hand, if the wrong person is convicted and put to death and later it is discovered that the wrong person was convicted, there is no recourse. There is nothing left but to shrug one’s shoulders, say ‘oh well, better luck next time’ and go on with the next execution.
In life without parole situation, if it is discovered that wrong man was convicted, government can at least make partial restitution.
That is exactly what I am talking about, ironsides. It is easy to talk about human rights of upstanding citizens, somebody whose behavior is exemplary. It is easy enough to say that Mother Teresa should have human rights. But a commitment to preservation of human rights means that the least of us, the least deserving also must be given human rights, not because they deserve it, but because they are human. After all, if one is human, one deserves human rights.
Thus even convicted criminals, mass murderers have certain rights. They have the right to worship the God of their choice (or no God, though that is very rare). They must be given enough to eat, must be given proper shelter and clothing. They must not be tortured. In addition to this, I also think that they are entitled to the right to life.
Protecting the rights of a convicted murderer, protecting terrorists human rights do you know we give more rights to them than we do to unborn children. It is not so much the abortion issue I am defending.
In the abortion argument, nobody can prove that the fetus is a human being. If scientists ever tell us that fetus is a human being, then that will end the abortion debate right there. In death penalty we are talking of killing human beings, in abortion it is not at all clear that we are killing any humans.
In most States now a convicted felon is stripped of all rights except for any cruel or unusual punishment.
Exactly, and I consider death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment. And it is not true that convicted felons are stripped of all rights. They are entitled to food, clothing and shelter. Also they may not be tortured. So they do have reduced rights, by no means they are stripped of al rights.
Bottom line there are people living in this world that the world and society would be better off without.
Sure there are, but the question is, should the government kill them? In my opinion, government killing its own citizens is always wrong.
Keeping them alive will only increase the chances for a mistake that they can escape. No prison is 100% secure, death is.
Perhaps. On the other hand, if the wrong person is convicted and put to death and later it is discovered that the wrong person was convicted, there is no recourse. There is nothing left but to shrug one’s shoulders, say ‘oh well, better luck next time’ and go on with the next execution.
In life without parole situation, if it is discovered that wrong man was convicted, government can at least make partial restitution.
We should just let the gods do all the punishing. That'd sure free up a lot of public money. There'd be no need for cops at all then.
I am all for removing people like Olson from the rest of society. In a few cases, such as his, I don't care if they live or die.
I am all for removing people like Olson from the rest of society. In a few cases, such as his, I don't care if they live or die.
It is not the goverment who is killing its citizens, it is the people who created the Law ( for a death penalty) in the first place.
Ironsides, it is the government which is killing its own citizens. The fact that it is behaving within the constraints of the law is neither here nor there. Before women got the vote, the government used to deny women the right to vote, it was also acting according to the law. That doesn’t mean that its action was right.
So here we are not discussing what the people want, but what constitutes fundamental, basic right. If people want to bring back slavery or want to install apartheid, that dos not make it right. Similarly I think right to life is absolute, and just because American people disagree, does not mean that they are right.
Any change in the law should be put thru a popular vote first, then the State legislators do their vote, not the other way around. It is always harder if not impossible to reverse a law already enacted by legislators.
Again, I am not commenting on the process by which law could be changed, I am commenting on the current state of death penalty in USA.
Ironsides, it is the government which is killing its own citizens. The fact that it is behaving within the constraints of the law is neither here nor there. Before women got the vote, the government used to deny women the right to vote, it was also acting according to the law. That doesn’t mean that its action was right.
So here we are not discussing what the people want, but what constitutes fundamental, basic right. If people want to bring back slavery or want to install apartheid, that dos not make it right. Similarly I think right to life is absolute, and just because American people disagree, does not mean that they are right.
Any change in the law should be put thru a popular vote first, then the State legislators do their vote, not the other way around. It is always harder if not impossible to reverse a law already enacted by legislators.
Again, I am not commenting on the process by which law could be changed, I am commenting on the current state of death penalty in USA.
Ok, I can see we can go on forever on this topic. What I'm waiting to see if there will be a voter backlash in New Mexico over this issue, think we have a year and a half to wait. If they are anything like the residents of Texas and Arizona there might just be. I know in Florida at this time nothing will change.
Ironsides, this being USA, I assume voters will be able to bring back the death penalty by a 50% + 1 vote at the next referendum.
In my opinion, that is a major flaw in US system, minority rights are subject to a veto by the majority. In my opinion, minority rights is not something that should be decided by the mob, by 50% + 1 vote, but should be decided by the constitution, should be enshrined in the constitution. It is the job for the courts and the elected representatives, and not a fit subject for a referendum.
When we were having a debate about same sex marriage, some marriage opponents called for a referendum on the subject. However, the demand was muted, and not all the opponents of gay marriage called for a referendum (wisely, in my opinion). The talk of the referendum went nowhere.
Quoting SirJosephPorter
"In my opinion, that is a major flaw in US system, minority rights are subject to a veto by the majority. In my opinion, minority rights is not something that should be decided by the mob, by 50% + 1 vote, but should be decided by the constitution, should be enshrined in the constitution. It is the job for the courts and the elected representatives, and not a fit subject for a referendum."
We are not a country run by the minority (yet). Of course you do need a 3/4 vote to override or ratify a amendment. In this cases we are debating a very small minority (for which I'm thankful). I do not even consider it a in the same ballpark with Women's or Gay rights. I do not have any compassion for a killer, rapist, child molester etc. Now we do have degree's of severity for the crime. Murder 1st degree deserves the death penalty, then there is 2nd degree and Manslaughter. Congress cannot even get something as simple as getting a constitutional amendment empowering Congress to ban desecration of the American flag.
When it comes to changing something important like a amendment to the constitution it does take a 3/4 vote, not a simple majority. In the case of creating a amendment it first must go thru a public vote where a simple majority can get it submitted by their State senators to congress. (except for 16th Amendment -Federal Income Tax, illegal on paper but try and get that removed) I like our method better, looks like they tried and got away with your method with the taxes, don't want to see anything like that again.
"In my opinion, that is a major flaw in US system, minority rights are subject to a veto by the majority. In my opinion, minority rights is not something that should be decided by the mob, by 50% + 1 vote, but should be decided by the constitution, should be enshrined in the constitution. It is the job for the courts and the elected representatives, and not a fit subject for a referendum."
We are not a country run by the minority (yet). Of course you do need a 3/4 vote to override or ratify a amendment. In this cases we are debating a very small minority (for which I'm thankful). I do not even consider it a in the same ballpark with Women's or Gay rights. I do not have any compassion for a killer, rapist, child molester etc. Now we do have degree's of severity for the crime. Murder 1st degree deserves the death penalty, then there is 2nd degree and Manslaughter. Congress cannot even get something as simple as getting a constitutional amendment empowering Congress to ban desecration of the American flag.
When it comes to changing something important like a amendment to the constitution it does take a 3/4 vote, not a simple majority. In the case of creating a amendment it first must go thru a public vote where a simple majority can get it submitted by their State senators to congress. (except for 16th Amendment -Federal Income Tax, illegal on paper but try and get that removed) I like our method better, looks like they tried and got away with your method with the taxes, don't want to see anything like that again.
Ironsides, what you are describing is the procedure to amend the constitution of USA, the federal constitution. That sounds OK. However, many of the state constitutions can be amended by 50%+1 vote in the referendum.
I don’t know what is the procedure in new Mexico, I assume it is the same as in California, where they recently banned gay marriage by the slimmest of majorities.
So your federal constitution amendment procedure looks fine, but I think it is just not right to give the majority a veto over minority rights by the slimmest of majorities (as they do in many states).
looks like they tried and got away with your method with the taxes, don't want to see anything like that again.
Our method of amending the constitution is as difficult (or even more difficult) than yours. It takes ratification by seven provinces (out of nine), representing more than 50% of the population to amend the constitution.
Amending the Charter of Rights is even more difficult. It needs ratification by each and every province. All the fundamental rights are enshrined in the Charter. Thus the only way gay marriage can be banned in Canada would be for each and every province to approve the ban, an impossible task.
However, in Canada we do not have the provision whereby majority is given the veto power over the minority rights. Minority rights are enshrined in the constitution and can only be got rid of by amending the Charter, an almost impossible task.
I don’t know what is the procedure in new Mexico, I assume it is the same as in California, where they recently banned gay marriage by the slimmest of majorities.
So your federal constitution amendment procedure looks fine, but I think it is just not right to give the majority a veto over minority rights by the slimmest of majorities (as they do in many states).
looks like they tried and got away with your method with the taxes, don't want to see anything like that again.
Our method of amending the constitution is as difficult (or even more difficult) than yours. It takes ratification by seven provinces (out of nine), representing more than 50% of the population to amend the constitution.
Amending the Charter of Rights is even more difficult. It needs ratification by each and every province. All the fundamental rights are enshrined in the Charter. Thus the only way gay marriage can be banned in Canada would be for each and every province to approve the ban, an impossible task.
However, in Canada we do not have the provision whereby majority is given the veto power over the minority rights. Minority rights are enshrined in the constitution and can only be got rid of by amending the Charter, an almost impossible task.
I'm a big believer in capitol punishment, especially for crooked Republicans. They should be hung for any crime such as corruption, thievery, warmongering, drugs, etc. The best solution for solving the mess they create is the proverbial hanging tree:
BRING ON THE HANGMAN!!!
BRING ON THE HANGMAN!!!
So many factual errors:
First of all, the formula for amending the US Constitution is as follows: within a set time period, the proposed amendment must be passed by two thirds of the state legislatures, then it must pass the House of Representatives and the Senate (with 2/3 votes I believe, but may be wrong) and then be signed by the President.
There are 10 provinces....not nine.
The people that wrote the Charter did not include sexual orientation in the mix, therefore gay "rights" are not protected.....
It is ironic, Colpy, you start with your post ‘so many factual errors’. Actually in your post there are many factual errors. It is full of errors.
The formula for amending US constitution is as follows: I didn’t explain it in my last post because I assume (erroneously as it turns out) that most people already know it. Anyway, allow me correct you.
The formula is as follows:
First the amendment is passed in the House and the Senate by 2/3rd votes, it does not go to the states first. That is the next step. So first it is passed by House and the Senate by 2/3rd vote. I don’t think President has to sign it. As far as I am aware (and perhaps one of the Americans will correct me if I am wrong), it does not require President’s signature.
After that it goes to the states. And it must be ratified by 3/4th of the states, not 2/3rd of ht estates, within seven years. Here again, I don't think the Governor's signature is required. Once it is approved by 3/4th of the states, the amendment is approved. You had the order backwards, first it is passed by the Congress (not the President), then by the states (3/4th, not 2/3rd).
As to Canadian provinces, I forgot the most recent province, which became the province just recently. Anyway, I don’t think that changes the formula for amending the Canadians constitution. I assume it is still 7 provinces out of 10, totaling more than half the population, and for Charter it must be approved by every province.
The people that wrote the Charter did not include sexual orientation in the mix; therefore gay "rights" are not protected.
That was the original interpretation. But courts have read discrimination against gays into the Charter. So as of now, gays are included in the Charter and gay rights are protected by the Charter. The only way to take rights away from gays is to amend the Charter to specifically permit discrimination against gays. Good luck with that.
Last edited:
Isn't if funny - in a sad, tragical way - that the loudest opponents of the death penalty for vicious, convicted criminals, are also the the loudest proponents of abortion?
Indeed, nothing diminishes a society more than killing its own innocent human lives by abortion.
Indeed, nothing diminishes a society more than killing its own innocent human lives by abortion.
gopher, your bold lettered post (#34) was truly impressive and left no doubt about your feelings. The image of a hanging tree was an added bonus.
Would you have the courage to spew the same hateful message about gays, Muslims, handicapped, women, aboriginals etc.
Would you have the courage to spew the same hateful message about gays, Muslims, handicapped, women, aboriginals etc.
SirJosephPorter:
A simple majority cannot change our Constitution. What you seem to object to is each State has their own State Constitution and some of them do not follow the U.S. Constitution to the letter. We were founded as a Republic which allows certain state rights. States have to follow the U.S. Constitution of course, but can do their own thing within reason as long as it does not go against the U.S. Constitution. The Federal Goverment allows a death penalty, individual states have that choice also. The death penalty is not against anyone's civil or human rights. Those rights were forfeited when that individual committed the crime. In this case there is no majority having any veto power over a minority. There is a difference between a what a voter wants and what a criminal would like. Just because you vote for something and lose does not give you the right to claim to be a minority. Losing a election does not a minority make.
As I mentioned before, To add or remove a amendment from the U.S. Constitution you need 3/4 of the House of Representatives which comprise 435 members as well as 3/4 of the Senate which comprises 100 members. Very hard to tamper with the Constitution.
People who are given the 'Death Penalty" are not considered a minority. I would never put them in the same category with the Gay's, Women or anybody else for that matter.
A simple majority cannot change our Constitution. What you seem to object to is each State has their own State Constitution and some of them do not follow the U.S. Constitution to the letter. We were founded as a Republic which allows certain state rights. States have to follow the U.S. Constitution of course, but can do their own thing within reason as long as it does not go against the U.S. Constitution. The Federal Goverment allows a death penalty, individual states have that choice also. The death penalty is not against anyone's civil or human rights. Those rights were forfeited when that individual committed the crime. In this case there is no majority having any veto power over a minority. There is a difference between a what a voter wants and what a criminal would like. Just because you vote for something and lose does not give you the right to claim to be a minority. Losing a election does not a minority make.
As I mentioned before, To add or remove a amendment from the U.S. Constitution you need 3/4 of the House of Representatives which comprise 435 members as well as 3/4 of the Senate which comprises 100 members. Very hard to tamper with the Constitution.
People who are given the 'Death Penalty" are not considered a minority. I would never put them in the same category with the Gay's, Women or anybody else for that matter.
Why would you even consider a convicted murderer in the same catagory as gays, Muslims, handicapped, women, aboriginals etc? You insult them.(gays, Muslims, handicapped, women, aboriginals etc)