The Death Penalty

[mykcob4]

That doesn't make any sense... a person who is part of a criminal organisation while in prison is also still able to be part of that organisation and work against the same people he worked against to get him in prison in the first place. There is no reason why only someone commits treason would be able to do so.

And "because it's in the constitution" is an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy. Could be the constitution is just wrong.

Article III
Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
Every opinion from the onset of this nation has ruled that this is instruction for capital punishment under the law for acts of treason.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Death penalty isn't going away because the issue is debated over emotions not cold hard facts.
'Oh, what IF someone breaks in and murders your kids in front of you?'
Fact is the odds are against it and something else..
State sanctioned murder ought to be an option to anyone sentenced to life in prison. If you're facing life in prison or have the option of a quick painless death which are you going to pick?

[SGOS]

Taking their life away isn't justice, it's state sanctioned revenge. The state is saying "we're mad and all we can do is kill you right back".

This ^ I think it explains a lot.

[LikelyToBreak]

I used to be for the death penalty, when there was massive evidence against the accused, and the crime was particularly heinous.  And treason is a particularly heinous crime, as the traitor could cause the deaths of thousands.  Or even worse, embarrass a politician.  :oops:   But, I saw one too many cases of prosecutorial misconduct, to continue to justify my old view on the death penalty.  

One famous case of prosecutorial misconduct was the Dreyfus affair in France.  //http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair It involved treason, political agendas, and bias against Jews.  I don't see any reason whatsoever that it couldn't happen here.  It might not necessarily be a Jew to take the fall, but there are plenty of other minorities for us to pick on.

The judiciary branches of our government do not give us justice.  They are not after the truth or justice.  They give us jurisprudence.  So you have one guy getting out of jail for murder after seven years, while a guy said to have been carrying an ounce of crack cocaine gets a mandatory twenty-five years.  Which is easier to frame someone for?   Murder or possession?  

Anyway, I consider the prevalence of prosecutorial misconduct to be the main reason I am against the death penalty.

[Plu]

That doesn't make any sense... a person who is part of a criminal organisation while in prison is also still able to be part of that organisation and work against the same people he worked against to get him in prison in the first place. There is no reason why only someone commits treason would be able to do so.

And "because it's in the constitution" is an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy. Could be the constitution is just wrong.

Article III
Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
Every opinion from the onset of this nation has ruled that this is instruction for capital punishment under the law for acts of treason.

It's still an appeal to tradition. It could've been every opinion since the dawn of time and it'd still be a logical fallacy to claim it as an argument.

[Dreamer]

That doesn't make any sense... a person who is part of a criminal organisation while in prison is also still able to be part of that organisation and work against the same people he worked against to get him in prison in the first place. There is no reason why only someone commits treason would be able to do so.

And "because it's in the constitution" is an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy. Could be the constitution is just wrong.

Article III
Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
Every opinion from the onset of this nation has ruled that this is instruction for capital punishment under the law for acts of treason.

The US Supreme Court would disagree.  They ruled that the death penalty, except in cases of murder, was cruel and unusual punishment.

[mykcob4]

That doesn't make any sense... a person who is part of a criminal organisation while in prison is also still able to be part of that organisation and work against the same people he worked against to get him in prison in the first place. There is no reason why only someone commits treason would be able to do so.

And "because it's in the constitution" is an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy. Could be the constitution is just wrong.

Article III
Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
Every opinion from the onset of this nation has ruled that this is instruction for capital punishment under the law for acts of treason.

The US Supreme Court would disagree.  They ruled that the death penalty, except in cases of murder, was cruel and unusual punishment.

You will find that they ruling has the exception for treason. Treason is a capital offense under constitutional law.

[Colanth]

Every death certific issued for a person executed states "murdered by the state."

Nonsense.  The death certificate - in most jurisdictions - lists the medical cause of death.  While the coroner may rule a death homicide, suicide, accident, etc, the actual CoD would be heart failure, lethal injection, or whatever the proximal cause was.  No one ever died of "homicide", they die of exsanguination, gunshot wound, etc.

[LikelyToBreak]

I was only involved in filling out one death certificate when I worked at a hospital, but the cause of death was listed as "failure of the medulla oblongata."  Then some stuff about it failing because of organ failure due to cancer.  I asked the doctor about it and he said "failure of the medulla oblongata" is always the reason for death, it is how death is now defined.  

So, I got to agree with Colanth on the cause of death thing.  I realize filling out one death certificate doesn't make me an expert on them, but than has anyone here filled out more than me?

[Shiranu]

I am for the death penalty ONLY for acts of treason.

What makes treason so special, that your entire logical assessment of the death penalty goes out the window for it?

Because treason is a special case. It isn't revenge, it's prevention. A person that commits treason  that is held in prison is still able to be part of an organization that can work against this nation. The main reason though is that is a constitutional mandate for the act of treason.

So whats to stop a government deciding any perceived slander against it is treason (which we have done in the past) and begins to threaten executing anyone who does so?

Heck, what is to stop a government from saying, "You revealed crimes we committed, therefor you are a traitor." and executing people who reveal it's own crimes?

Sorry, for crimes that deserve the death penalty, treason is near the bottom. And the Constitution is flawed in multiple places, hence the reasons it has been amended quite a bit. Personally an old piece of paper isn't justification enough for me to think people should be put to death.

Also...

...or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

...is something that politicians have accused journalists who interview members of Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, and I would assume could be applicable to an American journalist who goes to Cuba or Iran to get their side of the issue as well.

Sorry, that is just too slippery of slope to be worth it.

[Dreamer]

The US Supreme Court would disagree.  They ruled that the death penalty, except in cases of murder, was cruel and unusual punishment.

You will find that they ruling has the exception for treason. Treason is a capital offense under constitutional law.

I found no such thing at all.  However, the Patriot Act and associated legislation has made it so that someone who *may* be guilty of treason is rather unlikely to have a proper trial at all.  And so there is little chance that they would be sentenced to the death penalty under circumstances which would then allow for a filing with the Supreme Court.  

BUT--Let's assume that a person was convicted of treason, and they were sentenced to death.  And then that case was heard by the US Supreme Court.  Case law (Coker v. Georgia) would be that the death penalty without first-degree murder violates the Constitution's eighth amendment protections--that the death sentence should only be applied for murderers.  Of course, case law doesn't automatically decide it--earlier case law (Fuhrman v. Georgia) ended capital punishment for a few years, while Gregg v. Georgia started it again.  Gregg v. Georgia set specific guidelines for capital punishment cases--that it is for first-degree murderers, that the trial occurs in two stages (guilt or innocence and then a trial about aggravating and mitigating circumstances).  There have been other cases, but I have not found an opinion specifically addressing treason.  So it is difficult to say if they would uphold the death penalty for treason--and they certainly would not preclude it to apply ONLY to treason.

[mykcob4]

Slander isn't treason. I posted the constitutional statement about treason. The US once had a sedition law which was ruled unconstitutional and well defined as NOT treason. It isn't a slippery slope at all. There are years of case law that has well defined treason and the difference between that and sedition.

[mykcob4]

Every death certific issued for a person executed states "murdered by the state."

Nonsense.  The death certificate - in most jurisdictions - lists the medical cause of death.  While the coroner may rule a death homicide, suicide, accident, etc, the actual CoD would be heart failure, lethal injection, or whatever the proximal cause was.  No one ever died of "homicide", they die of exsanguination, gunshot wound, etc.

Sorry but Texas the place where most executions are carried out, and California list executions as Homicide by the State.http://rationalist.org.uk/578
There is legislation in both states to change it but as of right now that is the case.

[Shiranu]

Slander isn't treason. I posted the constitutional statement about treason. The US once had a sedition law which was ruled unconstitutional and well defined as NOT treason. It isn't a slippery slope at all. There are years of case law that has well defined treason and the difference between that and sedition.

Assuming the Supreme Court will uphold the law... the same Supreme Court that argues that corporations are humans.

[Plu]

It's still an appeal to tradition. It could've been every opinion since the dawn of time and it'd still be a logical fallacy to claim it as an argument.

So we'll just leave it off at you admitting it's an appeal to tradition and nothing more then? Or do you still want to give a non-fallacious argument to keep treason as the only exception to an otherwise rational position?