~ The End of the Death Penalty - WORLDWIDE! ~

[Arising_uk]

Intuition about what?

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




Intuition is something that exists, to varying degrees, within each of us.


Intuition is wordless yet intuition speaks to us if we are able to hone ourselves to listen.


I can't really tell you the importance of your intuition to yourself and to your life. It is a personal revelation.


You may not be the type of person who is able to understand or realize intuition at all.


You could try to Wiki the word intuition to help you begin to understand.



When I was younger my intuition lead me to a deep understanding. Zen, pain, miracle.



Good luck to you in your journey to discover this important aspect of self.






.

[Arising_uk]

. Intuition is something that exists, to varying degrees, within each of us. ...

Is it? Give me an example.

Intuition is wordless yet intuition speaks to us if we are able to hone ourselves to listen. ...

Give me an example?

I can't really tell you the importance of your intuition to yourself and to your life. It is a personal revelation.

Sounds useful. What do you use it for?

You may not be the type of person who is able to understand or realize intuition at all.

I think you're probably talking about feelings or emotions and for myself I use these in conjunction with thinking as thought should be the integration of thinking and feeling. "Intuition" sounds all a bit vague, wishy-washy and wishful thinking.

You could try to Wiki the word intuition to help you begin to understand.

Doubt it.

When I was younger my intuition lead me to a deep understanding. Zen, pain, miracle.

And has left you back there from what I gather.

Good luck to you in your journey to discover this important aspect of self. [/size]

I think it a fairly unimportant thought as it's not backed with thinking so the thought is incomplete.

[HaHaHa]

No, I prefer that the death penalty remains as it is a hallmark and testament of moral hypocrisy or contradiction everywhere.

To immorally kill somebody who has themselves commited a heinous immoral act.

In the viewpoint of the so called moralist it is fighting immorality with immorality. Priceless.

Justice and revenge synonymous with one another.

[Arising_uk]

You appear to be a Christian of some kind? As you equate killing and murder.

You missed out punishment.

[HaHaHa]

You appear to be a Christian of some kind? As you equate killing and murder.

You missed out punishment.

If you read what I said clearly I was speaking of the perception of a moral philosopher and the inherent hypocrisy or contradictions within their beliefs.

[Arising_uk]

If you read what I said clearly I was speaking of the perception of a moral philosopher and the inherent hypocrisy or contradictions within their beliefs.

Fair point, I guess that's why we don't have such a thing over here, we are more moral although less christian, now there's an irony.

[Kayla]

I'd have thought a more just and fair legal and police process might mitigate the existence of a death penalty. Why should a multiple or serial murderer or a child killer live when the other is dead?

we are very far from having a fair and just legal process - and the USA is not even the worst in this respect

perhaps we can imagine a society and a legal system where the death penalty is administered in some sort of just way

we are so far from such an imaginary society that it seems hardly worth talking about

[Conde Lucanor]

The death penalty can be the just and ethical position against some crimes, given the due process and a proper method of execution. Under these circumstances, it's way much better than other legalized and socially accepted ways of killing people. And there are plenty of them, being war the most obvious.

[yiostheoy]

The death penalty is currently a political issue on a state by state or national basis. While I cringe at the reasons that the Saudi's have for their beheadings, I also cringe at states that have abolished the death penalty.

Some crimes are so heinous that they clearly warrant a death penalty. Examples are rape with murder, like the case of Kitty Genovese in NYC in 1964. Her killer lived a long life in prison until the finally died of old age there. Another example is multiple murder -- the killing of several people either all at once or one after another (spree or serial). Timothy McVeigh comes to mind -- he killed 168 innocent people in OKC.

Thus there is an a-priori self evident truth that in some cases the death penalty is without any question applicable.

A common fallacy against the death penalty is to say "well if it is wrong (for individuals) to kill others (without justification) then it should also be wrong for the state to kill (convicted murderers)." This fallacy is without justification. It is begging the question.

The only question is where do you draw the line for applying the death penalty?

My own personal view is that anyone who murders someone should be subject to the death penalty depending only on how certain the evidence against them was. If there was any measure of doubt, then life in prison should be the automatic sentence for any murder. Otherwise the deat penalty should apply even for a single murder. Currently the average sentence for a single murder is 10 to 15 years only. That seems disproportionate and very wrong to me.

For example, in the OJ Simpson trial, where the police detective went back to the crime scene with 2 vials of OJ's blood in his pocket, that would have constituted enough doubt to relegate OJ to a life sentence rather than the death penalty. However the crazy jury set him free on the basis of that act by the detective.

Abolishing the death penalty is wrong because it asserts a lesser disproportionate punishment for murder, such as in the case of Kitty Genovese's killer got.

[Ferdi]

Who am I to say that the Pope is wrong? He means well but has his head in Cardinal clouds.
History shows that man has killed and does kill.
Moreover, ‘death penalty’ is a misnomer. The dead are beyond our penalising; their surviving relations do some of the suffering.
IMO, if anyone is positively guilty by their own free will, of a capital offence, then such person should be given a ‘last’ supper laced with an unobtrusive deadly sedative to humanely end that life, and please without any media hype.
Positively guilty should be so positive that no legal expertise is required to cloud the issue (also saving a lot of public expense).
I for one was trained in a Defence Force and had it drummed into me that it was my national duty to kill the enemy. The enemy was defined by the politicians, with instructions down the line-of-Command to my Superior Officer. It included at-random killing by bombardments as applicable. That being allowed in war, it follows logically: if someone by their own free will declares war, declares by a capital offence to be an enemy of its society, then the society is allowed to eliminate such enemy in a civilised, humane manner.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Who am I to say that the Pope is wrong? He means well but has his head in Cardinal clouds.
History shows that man has killed and does kill.
Moreover, ‘death penalty’ is a misnomer. The dead are beyond our penalising; their surviving relations do some of the suffering.
IMO, if anyone is positively guilty by their own free will, of a capital offence, then such person should be given a ‘last’ supper laced with an unobtrusive deadly sedative to humanely end that life, and please without any media hype.
Positively guilty should be so positive that no legal expertise is required to cloud the issue (also saving a lot of public expense).
I for one was trained in a Defence Force and had it drummed into me that it was my national duty to kill the enemy. The enemy was defined by the politicians, with instructions down the line-of-Command to my Superior Officer. It included at-random killing by bombardments as applicable. That being allowed in war, it follows logically: if someone by their own free will declares war, declares by a capital offence to be an enemy of its society, then the society is allowed to eliminate such enemy in a civilised, humane manner.

But the premise that politicians can tell you to kill is wrong in the first place.