Sad trumpet noises

Implying (((Legalize))) wouldn't be out after my first bid.

It’s a dip pen

Based Uncle Adolf, recognizing the true master writing implement.

No u

I don't get it.

comment on the call about BitChute. BitChute is working on live streaming.

Jazz is such interesting music

https://twitter.com/gematsucom/status/1195087321638612994?s=21

@Neon_Flipflop what musicians have you been listening to?

I listen to a variety of musicians anything from Chet Baker to Tito Puente

Miles, Coltrane?

Yup

I'm just now listening to the Wednesday show. When is this debate over the 19th happening on here? Definitely trying to be here for that.

Is there anyone that unironicly holds an opposing views to repeal?

I assume so since there's a debate scheduled?

Or maybe it's just an exercise in steelman'ing

Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."------Old Paragraph

Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.
Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that ‘the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person,’ and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.------New Paragraph

>possible

so you're a duty to retreat kinda thing?

It's naïve to think that everyone is redeemable. The person that assaults and kills others is a disruptive force to society. Not a perfect solution by a long shot, a really good argument can be made against the death penalty, but as humans sometimes we need to eliminate a negative influence for the greater good. Being human, mistakes can be made and injustice can be carried out but its better then a world with no justice or accountability.

Pragmatically speaking it's cheaper to hand out life sentences rather than death sentences what with the appeals process, so from that point of view we should probably only give the death sentence if we're also going to instate summary executions, which we probably ought not do.
As a matter of philosophy, however, I am not sure the death penalty is justifiable. After all are they not removed from their ability to harm society in a prison cell? Is it wise to hand the government the mandate to decide who is and is not redeemable? The downside to life in prison as opposed to the death penalty is nonexistent pragmatically as a matter of actual price, civilly as the perpetrator will be excised from society he has harmed either way, and philosophically as a matter of possible governmental wrongdoing. A society which frees the wrongly imprisoned is surely more just than one which laments the unjustly executed. Retributive justice does have its say, and those who commit crimes must be punished, but surely the remainder of a long life spent behind bars is just as much of a penalty as that of a short one, and at least if they're still alive there's a possibility of redemption no matter how slim.

No death penalty is also not perfect I'll give you but our country was founded partly on the idea that a hundred criminals going free is better than a single innocent man being punished, so I think we ought to bear that in mind in this issue, where punishment is so irreversible

If you have a prisoner who killed people and are in prison for life they will not hesitate to kill the other prisoners / guards. There is also the possibility of escape, I would submit that a life ended beats a life in a cage.

As for the wrongly accused, yes it probably happens but we are humans. It's not perfect and it's beyond horrible if you are the innocent one being punished.

The Salem Witch trials, none of them were actually witches and they all died. It was horrible, an injustice even.

But then you'd be essentially executing them on the (given, possibly quite strong) chance of their continued criminality, and the statistics surrounding inmates rather than the specific individual's case. I'd rather lock up a hundred absolute raving nigh subhuman monsters for the shot at that one who is redeemable or who ten years down the line we figure out is innocent through new forensic methods

I don't understand what you were trying to say 'I'd rather lock up a hundred absolute raving nigh subhuman monsters for the shot at that one who is redeemable'... for the shot at?

So if you give these people the death penalty and put them down as feral animals, you'll kill 101. If you just lock them up and work to attempt to make them better people, if you can redeem even one, if even one goes free due to new evidence, it's worth the cost of locking them all up rather than executing the lot

Also, it truly bears repeating that the real world pragmatic monetary cost is cheaper to just lock them up forever due to our legal system and without an overhaul of the way death sentences and death row are handled it just kind of makes sense to do it this way. After all either way odds are they actually die of old age in prison

To boil this down to a matter of economics is not wise. it's a complex issue, either you have security and order or you do not. If a murderer was set free, society would panic. ... This murderer moved in next door to me, I feel unsafe ...

I think it's inhuman to torture a person by removing their rights and locking them in a cage for the rest of their days

The left says this is the best thing because they get cheep/free labor from that inmate that they can exploit to make money

Surely it's a more stark removal of rights to permanently end their life? I'm not suggesting murderers be set free, I'm suggesting life in prison with the possibility of parole as an alternative. And it's not so much economics as it is the cold reality of the situation that the appeals process very frequently takes so long that the condemned dies of natural causes, and on top of that costs more money

Essentially causing the person to do society even more damage

Mandatory you probably can

I've always wondered why the homeless don't commit crimes so they can get 3 square meals a day and a warm bed, access to entertainment and books, the possibility to work and earn some money and medical care for free. What's so great about pushing a shopping cart around all day?