Maine Governor: "I think we ought to bring back the guillotine" for drug dealers - Polidicks

[QUOTE=phygon;49650906]I'm not moving any goalposts. The goal of a government is to protect its citizens natural rights. If a citizen is actively infringing on other citizen's natural rights, then it is the government's duty to stop that. Once they are in prison, they are no longer infringing on those rights, and killing them is murder. The government has to have money to protect the rights of its citizens, so by not paying taxes it could be argued that you're damaging the institution that protects those rights. I don't think it's necessarily right to jail people for that, but it's only a temporary punishment that's reversible. If you don't appear in court then you might not be able to be removed from society for other's safety if you are infringing on their natural rights see my taxes response Almost every single law has at least a tangential connection to protecting natural rights and laws that have zero connection to that should be immediately abolished[/QUOTE] TBH, those seems like ridiculously contrived reasons. Me not paying my speeding ticket doesn't hurt anyone else's rights. Me not getting a permit to build a wall in my backyard in the middle of nowhere doesn't hurt anyone else's rights. Me selling homemade quilts out of my house without a business permit doesn't hurt anyone else's rights. In fact, I would say the majority of possible things to be put in jail for have nothing to do with other people's rights. [QUOTE] I don't think it's necessarily right to jail people for that, but it's only a temporary punishment that's reversible.[/QUOTE] Specifically about this: you're moving again. You started off by saying that the government can't use the death penalty because they aren't protecting the person's rights, then you said that they can if it's in the name of protecting other's rights, and how you're saying it's OK if it's temporary and reversible. What is your actual position? You seem to be slowly chiseling away your original point down to where only the death penalty applies, basically making your point about protecting rights meaningless. [editline]1st February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=gastyne;49648982]So you think 4 % error (innocent people) getting killed is an acceptable fact? Do you think it's ok if a civilian kills innocent people? Of course you don't, so how can you defend it when the government does it?[/QUOTE] I found the study that I assume you're talking about, and it says that 4% of those CONVICTED are innocent, not 4% of those put to death are innocent. The same study also concludes: "The most charged question in this area is different: How many innocent defendants have been put to death? We cannot estimate that number directly but we believe it is comparatively low. If the rate were the same as our estimate for false death sentences, the number of innocents executed in the United States in the past 35 y would be more than 50 (20). We do not believe that has happened. Our data and the experience of practitioners in the field both indicate that the criminal justice system goes to far greater lengths to avoid executing innocent defendants than to prevent them from remaining in prison indefinitely. " ([URL]http://www.pnas.org/content/111/20/7230.full[/URL]) Ironically enough, they believe the rate of innocent people never exonerated is so high because a large number of those on death row are given life sentences instead, therefore taking them out of the spotlight, making it less likely that they'll be exonerated.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49651886]TBH, those seems like ridiculously contrived reasons. Me not paying my speeding ticket doesn't hurt anyone else's rights. Me not getting a permit to build a wall in my backyard in the middle of nowhere doesn't hurt anyone else's rights. Me selling homemade quilts out of my house without a business permit doesn't hurt anyone else's rights. In fact, I would say the majority of possible things to be put in jail for have nothing to do with other people's rights. Specifically about this: you're moving again. You started off by saying that the government can't use the death penalty because they aren't protecting the person's rights, then you said that they can if it's in the name of protecting other's rights, and how you're saying it's OK if it's temporary and reversible. What is your actual position? You seem to be slowly chiseling away your original point down to where only the death penalty applies, basically making your point about protecting rights meaningless. [/QUOTE] I'm not moving any goalposts, you can shuffle words around all day long and my points will still stand even if you aren't going to read them. [quote]Me not paying my speeding ticket doesn't hurt anyone else's rights.[/quote] Speeding threatens other's right to life. A ticket is the punishment for possible infringement on that right, and the law against speeding is built to protect that right. [quote]Me not getting a permit to build a wall in my backyard in the middle of nowhere doesn't hurt anyone else's rights.[/quote] Arguably that would threaten another's life to property; that is, they have reasonable expectations for what the location of the property that they're buying and that there won't be random ugly walls. Also, permits help fund the government. That being said, I don't really think that you should have to get a permit because building the wall doesn't [I]really[/I] infringe on anyone's rights. [quote]In fact, I would say the majority of possible things to be put in jail for have nothing to do with other people's rights.[/quote] Not at all. Almost every single law relates in some way to natural rights and protecting them, or maintaining the system that allows for protection of those rights. My positions haven't changed at all, no goalposts are being moved, you're just refusing to actually hear what I'm saying. This isn't even about building permits or whatever other shit that's completely unrelated, this is about the death penalty and about how it fundamentally infringes on citizen's natural rights when they are no longer a threat to anybody at all.

Heroin dealers definitely should be fucked over. You are ruining peoples lives and profiting off their addiction

[QUOTE=gastyne;49648982]So you think 4 % error (innocent people) getting killed is an acceptable fact? Do you think it's ok if a civilian kills innocent people? Of course you don't, so how can you defend it when the government does it?[/QUOTE] There's error in everything, from something as small as a typo in a paper to a drone striking civilians mistakenly thought as hostiles. To err is human, nothing is perfect and never will be.

[QUOTE=Jintei;49657130]There's error in everything, from something as small as a typo in a paper to a drone striking civilians mistakenly thought as hostiles. To err is human, nothing is perfect and never will be.[/QUOTE] Capital punishment serves no purpose that life sentences don't. Those errors can easily be avoided by not murdering anybody in the first place. Surprisingly, when you don't kill people for crimes they allegedly committed, you end up killing exactly 0% innocents. You using the argument "everybody makes mistakes" to defend the death sentence would be like someone shooting at an innocent person trying to intentionally miss the shot, ending up killing them anyway and then shrugging it off by saying "nobody's a perfect shot".

This guy is fucking hilarious, he said that drug dealers come to maine to impregnate young white girls I am appalled by the fact that he is still in office but at the same time the stuff he says is so hilariously stupid it becomes entertaining

[QUOTE=Jintei;49657130]There's error in everything, from something as small as a typo in a paper to a drone striking civilians mistakenly thought as hostiles. To err is human, nothing is perfect and never will be.[/QUOTE] "Oops, sorry. We accidentally killed your son. But hey, everyone makes mistakes, right?"

This just in: Maine is seceding and joining indonesia

[QUOTE=Jintei;49657130]There's error in everything, from something as small as a typo in a paper to a drone striking civilians mistakenly thought as hostiles. To err is human, nothing is perfect and never will be.[/QUOTE] Well as long as nothing is ever perfect, we shouldn't be dealing permanent irreversible punishments. [QUOTE=Kylel999;49656919]Heroin dealers definitely should be fucked over. You are ruining peoples lives and profiting off their addiction[/QUOTE] That's what cigarette companies do too. I think it should be legalized and taxed, and then put that tax money into treatment for addicts. Studies have shown that legalizing a substance does not increase the number of users. People know heroin is bad shit, but as it is currently heroin funds large illegal organizations such as Cartels etc, the product isn't clean so people can easily die from impurities, and many fear treatment because they fear becoming jailed.

[QUOTE=Jintei;49657130]There's error in everything, from something as small as a typo in a paper to a drone striking civilians mistakenly thought as hostiles. To err is human, nothing is perfect and never will be.[/QUOTE] So maybe we shouldn't risk peoples life hoping everything will be as it should. [editline]2nd February 2016[/editline] What an acceptable margin of error for the death penalty in you guys opinion?

[QUOTE=gastyne;49660022]So maybe we shouldn't risk peoples life hoping everything will be as it should. [/QUOTE] That's the problem with the justice system then and not the punishment. You're basically just blaming the guy which had the last touch on the ball rather than the guy who started it.

[QUOTE=Jintei;49660233]That's the problem with the justice system then and not the punishment. You're basically just blaming the guy which had the last touch on the ball rather than the guy who started it.[/QUOTE] The two are intertwined. So long as there is human error, there should not be absolute punishments. But fuck that, a death sentence is an absolutely barbaric punishment that goes against what a government exists for.

[QUOTE=Jintei;49660233]That's the problem with the justice system then and not the punishment. You're basically just blaming the guy which had the last touch on the ball rather than the guy who started it.[/QUOTE] No I'm blaming the holy system that allows it to go on.

[QUOTE=phygon;49660305]The two are intertwined. So long as there is human error, there should not be absolute punishments. But fuck that, a death sentence is an absolutely barbaric punishment that goes against what a government exists for.[/QUOTE] So is locking up people for the rest of their life in a prison. Might as well abolish all punishments because all punishments are barbaric right?

[QUOTE=Jintei;49661414]So is locking up people for the rest of their life in a prison. Might as well abolish all punishments because all punishments are barbaric right?[/QUOTE] At least life sentences can be reversed to an extent. Call us when you've figured out how to bring the dead back to life.

[QUOTE=Jintei;49661414]So is locking up people for the rest of their life in a prison. Might as well abolish all punishments because all punishments are barbaric right?[/QUOTE] If you lock someone up for life, you can un-lock them up if they're found innocent. [quote]all punishments are barbaric[/quote] No, death is. Putting people in a concrete box is. We need to go off of sweden's model. Theirs has a near-0% relapse rate while ours is super high.

[QUOTE=phygon;49661892]If you lock someone up for life, you can un-lock them up if they're found innocent. [/QUOTE] And said someone will already have years of their life taken away.

[QUOTE=Jintei;49662682]And said someone will already have years of their life taken away.[/QUOTE] What's worst, taking away a few years from someones life or taking away every single year that person will ever have?