[Vision2020] Re: Question for Joe Campbell

[joekc at adelphia.net]

Dick,

First, I was talking about the innocent folks who are wrongly put to death for crimes that they did not commit. By definition, they are not criminals.

Second, you are assuming that I take a stand on abortion that I do not take. Have I ever mentioned my views on abortion to you? Don't be presumptuous.

Besides, even if my own views on this matter is inconsistent, that doesn't change the fact that it is illogical to allow the killing of innocent people when the topic is capital punishment or war yet not make room for similar allowances in the case of abortion. There is nothing to warrant that view. Your only response seems to be "I know you are but what am I?"

--
Joe Campbell

---- rvrcowboy <rvrcowboy at clearwire.net> wrote: 

=============
Joe Campbell wrote:
"Also, I've seen your posts on abortion where you state that it was always
wrong to kill inocent people. Now you suggest that it is OK to kill innocent
people so long as the right consequences result. Which is it? Is it always
wrong to kill inocent people or can the death of an innocent person
sometimes be justified by a "greater" social good?"


Joe,
There is a difference, of course, between criminals and the, as yet, unborn.
Libs always use this illogical argument when debating the death penalty.
You know, the argument that it is alright to kill those, still in the womb,
innocent of any crime what-so-ever, but wrong to kill even the most henious
criminal, even if he/she has admitted to the crimes accused of.

So, until you liberals can answer your own question, ie: "Which is it? Is it
always wrong to kill inocent people or can the death of an innocent person
sometimes be justified by a "greater" social good?"  You shouldn't be posing
it to others.

Dick


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <joekc at adelphia.net>
To: <ToeKneeTime at aol.com>
Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>; <kjajmix1 at msn.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 6:24 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Only the short sighted think Death PenaltyMust
Be Abolised...


> Tony,
>
> What evidence do you have that the death penalty reduces violent crime?
The US is one of a handful of civilized countries with the death penalty and
it also has one of the highest violent crime rates.
>
> Similar with this comment: "The net number of lives saved by eliminating
violent (repeat) offenders through capital punishment, far outweighes the
number  of lives lost to human error." What support do you offer for this
claim? Wouldn't life without parole result in the same "net number of lives
saved" as execution?
>
> Also, I've seen your posts on abortion where you state that it was always
wrong to kill inocent people. Now you suggest that it is OK to kill innocent
people so long as the right consequences result. Which is it? Is it always
wrong to kill inocent people or can the death of an innocent person
sometimes be justified by a "greater" social good?
>
> By the way, what did you do with that money that your mom gave you for
those logic classes?
>
> --
> Joe Campbell
>
> ---- ToeKneeTime at aol.com wrote:
>
> =============
> Nick n Keely,
>
> You are right, in rare instances the death penalty is applied to the
> innocent.  That is the price we must pay in order to reduce violent
crime.  No
> system is without mistakes so long as it is  administered by human beings.
The net
> number of lives saved by eliminating  violent (repeat) offenders through
> capital punishment, far outweighes the number  of lives lost to human
error.  The
> end result is a net saving of lives  through the application of this
> appropriate sanction.
>
> Have a logical day,  --Tony
>
> _____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????
>