Politician wants Schwarzenegger to lose citizenship

[frigidmagi]

You're overlooking the fact that Arnold is still an Austrian citizen.
Seeing how Austria abhors capital punishment, it is not entirely baseless to argue that he should not be.

Yes, because a citizen should always agree with his governments stand and do nothing to detract from them... Oh wait... That's right, we're suppose to be free men and women. Arounld is a free man to hold whatever beliefs he desires and is under no duty agree with his governments stands on anything.

[AMX]

Disagreeing with the government is one thing.
Directly counteracting the law is another.

Now, I'm not arguing that he should be stripped of his citizenship, and the Schwartzenegger stadion be renamed (as another politician demanded); but it's possible to make a case about this, and you can't just dismiss it.

[Howedar]

Why can't you dismiss it? What is illegal in another country is irrelivant to one's actions in this country. I don't see women from the middle east still wearing their burkhas here.

[Chmee]

Disagreeing with the government is one thing.
Directly counteracting the law is another.

"I am the law!"

Whoops, sorry, wrong musclebound line-mumbler .....

[brianeyci]

No they don't. Deterrance is only one purpose of punishment. There are many others, including upholding community standards and bringing closure to the victim(s).

If your community believes in "eye for an eye" punishment, I don't want to live in your community. Believing that "someone who kills another should be killed" is a slippery slope because it encourages the kind of vigilante thinking that we want to avoid (at least I hope you want to avoid that). What community standard is it if it is not "eye for an eye"? "killing is not tolerated under any circumstances?", good enough throw the guy in prison without parole for 25 years, you don't have to kill him to achieve this.

Closure to the victim(s) does not overrule the criminal's right to live, no matter how undeserving the criminal is of his life, because life is a fundamental human right.

Brian

[Master of Ossus]

If your community believes in "eye for an eye" punishment, I don't want to live in your community. Believing that "someone who kills another should be killed" is a slippery slope because it encourages the kind of vigilante thinking that we want to avoid (at least I hope you want to avoid that). What community standard is it if it is not "eye for an eye"? "killing is not tolerated under any circumstances?", good enough throw the guy in prison without parole for 25 years, you don't have to kill him to achieve this.

Throwing someone in prison for 25 years without parole for murdering judges is totally inadequate and you know it. There are crimes so heinous that the society has the right to utterly revoke the criminal's status as a member of society for committing, and 25 years without parole simply does not get the job done in those cases. Furthermore, the community does NOT have a standard that "killing is not tolerated under any circumstances." I've seen that multiple times in this thread and it is UTTER bullshit. No society has EVER had such standards, to the best of my knowledge. Furthermore, it can be directly observed that capital punishment does NOT encourage "vigilante thinking" because no posses have been organized in California since the days of the frickin' Gold Rush. Thus, your complaints are founded on slippery slopes.

Edit: Missed this part

Closure to the victim(s) does not overrule the criminal's right to live, no matter how undeserving the criminal is of his life, because life is a fundamental human right.

Brian

Fundamental human rights are violated all the time by the justice system. Freedom is ordinarily a fundamental human right, but the justice revokes it on a daily basis. Do you whine and scream that criminals are being detained as punishment? Of course not because the justice system has the moral authority to revoke people's freedoms in accordance with the law as punishment for crimes against society--just as the justice system has the moral authority to revoke people's right to life in accordance with the law as punishment for crimes against society.

[AdmiralKanos]

No they don't. Deterrance is only one purpose of punishment. There are many others, including upholding community standards and bringing closure to the victim(s).

If your community believes in "eye for an eye" punishment, I don't want to live in your community. Believing that "someone who kills another should be killed" is a slippery slope because it encourages the kind of vigilante thinking that we want to avoid (at least I hope you want to avoid that).

Wrong. Governmental execution is not the same thing as vigilante violence, nor does it necessarily lead to it. And the slippery slope is a fallacy.

No, the real ethical arguments against the death penalty are threefold:

• The execution inflicts pain, suffering, and death without justifying itself in a utilitarian sense by demonstrating that it will prevent a greater amount of pain, suffering, and death.
• The justice system has a poor track record of wrongly convicting innocent men, and cannot be trusted with life and death.
• Vengeance is not a positive value.

Of those, the third is most often cited, but is pretty much entirely subjective. The second is almost as often cited and has considerable merit, but leads to the question of why we do not reform this shitty system and why it's OK to let a wrongfuly convicted man rot in prison for the rest of his life but not to kill him. And the first is rarely cited because most people have trouble thinking that hard.

Closure to the victim(s) does not overrule the criminal's right to live, no matter how undeserving the criminal is of his life, because life is a fundamental human right.

While "balancing the scales" is not all of justice, it is part of justice. I would prefer to make murderers into slaves. All of their assets would be seized and given to the victim's family, any future income would be similarly confiscated, and they would be forced to work as slaves for the rest of their lives, with the income being sent to the victim's family as well.

[RedImperator]

No they don't. Deterrance is only one purpose of punishment. There are many others, including upholding community standards and bringing closure to the victim(s).

If your community believes in "eye for an eye" punishment, I don't want to live in your community. Believing that "someone who kills another should be killed" is a slippery slope because it encourages the kind of vigilante thinking that we want to avoid (at least I hope you want to avoid that).

I hope you realize that the slippery slope is a fallacy. By all means, demonstrate how the death penalty encourages vigilantism.

What community standard is it if it is not "eye for an eye"? "killing is not tolerated under any circumstances?", good enough throw the guy in prison without parole for 25 years, you don't have to kill him to achieve this.

If killing wasn't tolerate under any circumstances, cops wouldn't be armed and citizens could be jailed for kiling in self defense. The existance of the armed forces might present something of a moral dilemma, too.

There ARE times when killing is approppriate, and when the death penalty is an approppriate punishment. I have very serious concerns with how it's implemented in much of the United States, and I would restrict its application even if it were implemented perfectly, but for the most dangerous and irredemable members of society, it's not only approppriate, it's necessary.

25 years for premeditated murder, for torture murder, for psychosexual murder, for terrorism, is ludicrous.

Closure to the victim(s) does not overrule the criminal's right to live, no matter how undeserving the criminal is of his life, because life is a fundamental human right.

Brian

Liberty and property (or pursuit of happiness, if you prefer) are fundamental rights, too, and both can be suspended or revoked by the state under certain conditions. What do you think prison is?

[brianeyci]

Throwing someone in prison for 25 years without parole for murdering judges is totally inadequate and you know it.

It appears that 25 years without parole is insufficient to you or me, but the important thing is results. Before I was convinced, I would want to see statistics about a people committing crimes after serving their 25 year sentence. What is the threshold then, if even one criminal commits a crime after 25 years in prison then the whole system is flawed? We as individual citizens would like to see criminals who commit crimes locked up forever, but we know that will not happen. Nor should capital punishment, because then we are violating the same ideals we are professing to protect. Life is sacred.

There are crimes so heinous that the society has the right to utterly revoke the criminal's status as a member of society for committing, and 25 years without parole simply does not get the job done in those cases.

The problem with capital punishment is that it allows no room for error -- once a person is dead, a person is dead. And if the courts were wrong, then too bad there's no way to correct the mistake. I can name several high profile Canadian cases right off the top of my head where the convicted criminal who later had his conviction overturned would probably have been executed.

If one innocent man was executed, that is reason enough not to have capital punishment as an alternative. Which would inevitably happen. The reason why capital punishment is different than any other kind of punishment is because there is no way to seek redress. Once the guy is dead, he's dead and that's the end of it.

Furthermore, the community does NOT have a standard that "killing is not tolerated under any circumstances." I've seen that multiple times in this thread and it is UTTER bullshit. No society has EVER had such standards, to the best of my knowledge. Furthermore, it can be directly observed that capital punishment does NOT encourage "vigilante thinking" because no posses have been organized in California since the days of the frickin' Gold Rush. Thus, your complaints are founded on slippery slopes.

Fine, revise that to "killing is not tolerated except under specific circumstances". You can't deny that when an average layperson who is not interested in the details but only sees the headline "Man executed", he believes that the community standard is "eye for an eye" which is the wrong message to send. I never said there would be an increase in vigilantism, only that it encourages vigilante thinking which is belief in the "eye for an eye" principle.

Brian

[brianeyci]

Fundamental human rights are violated all the time by the justice system. Freedom is ordinarily a fundamental human right, but the justice revokes it on a daily basis. Do you whine and scream that criminals are being detained as punishment? Of course not because the justice system has the moral authority to revoke people's freedoms in accordance with the law as punishment for crimes against society--just as the justice system has the moral authority to revoke people's right to life in accordance with the law as punishment for crimes against society.

Fine I phrased this badly. The right to exist I argue, is more fundamental than Freedom, pursuit of hapiness, or anything else that you can name. For example "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person", I would rank the right to life higher than any other right. Obviously, human rights documents don't "rank" rights, but the right to exist itself I see as so fundamental that the only time you should threaten or take away someone else's right to exist should be when your own existence is threatened.

Brian

[AdmiralKanos]

Fine, revise that to "killing is not tolerated except under specific circumstances". You can't deny that when an average layperson who is not interested in the details but only sees the headline "Man executed", he believes that the community standard is "eye for an eye" which is the wrong message to send.

Why is it the wrong message to send?

I never said there would be an increase in vigilantism, only that it encourages vigilante thinking which is belief in the "eye for an eye" principle.

Judicially ordered retributive justice is not the same thing as vigilante thinking, moron.

[brianeyci]

Why is it the wrong message to send?

You don't think that telling the community "eye for an eye" is a bad message to send?

Judicially ordered retributive justice is not the same thing as vigilante thinking, moron.

Of course not, but we have to factor in the lowest common denominator here. When an average layperson sees "Man executed" headline, he thinks "that man was killed for killing another man" and won't worry too much about the details if he's not interested. Its not the actual gathering in mobs to lynch a person, its the way of thinking it encourages I'm against.

However if he sees "Man in prison for life", he'll think that the "community standard" that MoS is referring to is higher than "eye for an eye".

Brian

[AdmiralKanos]

Why is it the wrong message to send?

You don't think that telling the community "eye for an eye" is a bad message to send?

OK, what part of "answer the fucking question" do I need to spell out for you?

Judicially ordered retributive justice is not the same thing as vigilante thinking, moron.

Of course not, but we have to factor in the lowest common denominator here. When an average layperson sees "Man executed" headline, he thinks "that man was killed for killing another man" and won't worry too much about the details if he's not interested. Its not the actual gathering in mobs to lynch a person, its the way of thinking it encourages I'm against.

Read it again, moron. You are equating apples to oranges. "An eye for an eye" at the judicial level does not in any way translate to lawless vigilantism, nor are they even remotely related. So unless your argument is "everyone else is just as fucking stupid as me", I don't see what your case is.

[brianeyci]

OK, what part of "answer the fucking question" do I need to spell out for you?

"Eye for an eye" is a horrible message to send, because it tells people that it is okay to punish people by doing the same back instead of seeking redress another way.

Read it again, moron. You are equating apples to oranges. "An eye for an eye" at the judicial level does not in any way translate to lawless vigilantism, nor are they even remotely related. So unless your argument is "everyone else is just as fucking stupid as me", I don't see what your case is.

No, I agree state sanctioned killing isn't vigilantism. And yes, my argument is there are people stupid enough who only see the headline and nothing else and have their belief in "eye for an eye" reinforced and won't think of the details.

Brian

[AdmiralKanos]

OK, what part of "answer the fucking question" do I need to spell out for you?

"Eye for an eye" is a horrible message to send, because it tells people that it is okay to punish people by doing the same back instead of seeking redress another way.

Hey look, circular logic fallacy! Try not to be a dumbshit and answer the question. Simply saying that "an eye for an eye" is bad by rephrasing it and saying it again doesn't cut the mustard here, pal.

No, I agree state sanctioned killing isn't vigilantism. And yes, my argument is there are people stupid enough who only see the headline and nothing else and have their belief in "eye for an eye" reinforced and won't think of the details.

OK, what part of "eye for an eye" != "vigilantism" do you not understand? Yes, their belief in "an eye for an eye" will be reinforced. SO WHAT? How does this lead to vigilantism, you idiot?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Just because Europe thinks it does not make it correct. Their all-or-nothing opposition and view of capital punishment is brain-damaged.

[Illuminatus Primus]

It is perfectly relevant. Not only is the United States not particularly unique among western nations (sorry, right-wing motherfuckers, it's the truth and if you don't like it, too bad), the constitutions of many nations that have abolished capital punishment are explicitly based on ours. Not only that, many American states have abolished the death penalty, with minimal negative effects (if any effect at all) on the murder rate in those states. So unless you can demonstrate that the death penalty is a net social good, there is no compelling need for it.

There does not need to be a compelling need for it. Quite frankly we all know that serial murderers and whatnot are totally incorrigible. Their crimes are scarcely without equivalent punishment and quite frankly it seems to me that it is not an expression of justice for Ted Bundy to suffer the same fate as some fucker who killed one person to collect on some insurance or during a robbery, etc. He butchered and tortured dozens of people. A man like that forfits their right to life.

The whole point I think Joe and others are articulating is that after doing that, your life is worth a lot less than the emotional well-being and sense of justice brought by closure to the victims' families.

Fry the fucker.

[AMX]

Why can't you dismiss it? What is illegal in another country is irrelivant to one's actions in this country. I don't see women from the middle east still wearing their burkhas here.

Hmm, is that a red herring?
Let's try the same with a different example: Would you think that, say, paedophilia is perfectly all right, provided the person committing it travels to some third world country that happens not to have a law against it?
You know, it's illegal here, but that's irrelevant to the actions there, right?

Also note how nobody requested the US extradite him so he can be put on trial for murder.
They only say he shouldn't be Austrian citizen, since he is creating what we consider to be a bad image, damaging our reputation.

[salm]

There ARE times when killing is approppriate, and when the death penalty is an approppriate punishment. I have very serious concerns with how it's implemented in much of the United States, and I would restrict its application even if it were implemented perfectly, but for the most dangerous and irredemable members of society, it's not only approppriate, it's necessary.

what can the death penalty achieve that life in prison can not achieve that makes the death penalty necessary for specific crimes?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Why can't you dismiss it? What is illegal in another country is irrelivant to one's actions in this country. I don't see women from the middle east still wearing their burkhas here.

Hmm, is that a red herring?
Let's try the same with a different example: Would you think that, say, paedophilia is perfectly all right, provided the person committing it travels to some third world country that happens not to have a law against it?
You know, it's illegal here, but that's irrelevant to the actions there, right?

Also note how nobody requested the US extradite him so he can be put on trial for murder.
They only say he shouldn't be Austrian citizen, since he is creating what we consider to be a bad image, damaging our reputation.

A red herring was the wrong description, but simply stating how it is in other nations does not prove anything. It is an appeal to authority and without genuine merit as an argument.

[Broomstick]

As for the meddling Austrian... Arnie was elected to uphold the laws of California, NOT the laws of Austria. Clemency and pardon are supposed to be based evidence, not personal preference. No doubt this Austrian politician would be highly offended if the citizens of California suddenly started criticizing the laws of his province or country and insisting he conform to their standards, why does he feel justified in trying to impose his laws on them? The only reason I can see is that he feels morally superior to those unwashed colonials, which is the sort of European arrogance that the US has been getting from Europe for over three hundred years. We're still not terribly impressed. Why does Europe has this strange notion that we in the US want to be like them?

You're overlooking the fact that Arnold is still an Austrian citizen.
Seeing how Austria abhors capital punishment, it is not entirely baseless to argue that he should not be.

The law I need to obey is the law of the place I am.

For instance, there are numerous substances it is illegal to own or consume in the United States, which carry very stiff penalties. However, I could go to Amsterdamn or Peru and quite legally consume certain of those substances because they are legal there. As long as I do not attempt to enter the United States while possessing those substances I have, in fact, broken no law. US law does not apply in either the Netherlands or Peru.

As something closer to me personally - where I work, Chicago, Illinois, it is illegal for a civilian to own and carry a handgun. Where I live, in Indiana, we have some of the most liberal concealed-carry laws in the US. So long as I keep any guns I own out of Chicago, I am not breaking the law by owning and carrying a gun in accordance with the laws of Indiana. I can not be prosecuted in Chicago because my home in Indiana has a gun in it. Likewise, if someone is a resident of Chicago could he or she can own guns provided that person never brings them into the city - so if the situation was reversed and I lived in Chicago I could still own guns so long as they were kept somewhere where gun ownership is legal. I could not, for instance, be prosecuted in Chicago for ownership of a gun collection I store in my parents' home in Michigan.*

Capital punishment is outlawed in Austia. It is not, however, illegal in California. Unless you claim that Austrian law supercedes the laws of the United States or the individual states within that nation (and, by extension, Austrian law takes precedence over the laws of every other nation in the world), the Governor has, in fact, broken no laws. Austrian laws apply in Austria, and Californian laws apply in California.

* and just for the record - no, I do not, in fact, own any guns whatsoever. This example is hypothetical and provide as an analogy. The only distance weapon in my home arsenal is a crossbow, which has been sufficient to protect people and property so far.

[Darth Wong]

There ARE times when killing is approppriate, and when the death penalty is an approppriate punishment. I have very serious concerns with how it's implemented in much of the United States, and I would restrict its application even if it were implemented perfectly, but for the most dangerous and irredemable members of society, it's not only approppriate, it's necessary.

what can the death penalty achieve that life in prison can not achieve that makes the death penalty necessary for specific crimes?

Nothing, which is why I advocate making the murderer a lifelong slave of the victim's family, sentenced to perpetual hard labour with all of the proceeds lining their pockets.

[brianeyci]

Hey look, circular logic fallacy! Try not to be a dumbshit and answer the question. Simply saying that "an eye for an eye" is bad by rephrasing it and saying it again doesn't cut the mustard here, pal.

You want a specific example? If I believed in eye for an eye, rather than diffusing the situation last week with my brother throwing a five thousand page textbook at my head, I would have thrown the same book back at his head. If I did, I would have escalated the situation to the point half the shit in our house would be destroyed by now. You want more? Do you believe in eye for an eye? Do I need to convince you that it is wrong or are you just trying to nitpick my argument? Do you think rapists themselves should be raped, torturers themselves should be tortured, etc (state sanctioned or not if you want to differentiate)? You're an intelligent person DW I can't believe that you could agree with eye for an eye unless you agree with eye for an eye for limited circumstances only.

OK, what part of "eye for an eye" != "vigilantism" do you not understand? Yes, their belief in "an eye for an eye" will be reinforced. SO WHAT? How does this lead to vigilantism, you idiot?

If a person believes in "eye for an eye" he would be more likely to avoid the law entirely and seek redress himself. It doesn't matter that you, an intelligent person, doesn't see "eye for an eye" as vigilantism, but laypeople will likely gloss over the details. This directly ties in with MoS saying executing someone is necessary to "preserve community standards" and if someone's belief in "eye for an eye" is reinforced, that reinforces a standard detrimental to the community.

Brian

[Darth Wong]

You want a specific example? If I believed in eye for an eye, rather than diffusing the situation last week with my brother throwing a five thousand page textbook at my head, I would have thrown the same book back at his head.

Irrelevant. You are talking about personal actions, not governmental ones.

If I did, I would have escalated the situation to the point half the shit in our house would be destroyed by now. You want more? Do you believe in eye for an eye? Do I need to convince you that it is wrong or are you just trying to nitpick my argument?

Irrelevant. You are talking about personal actions, not governmental ones.

Do you think rapists themselves should be raped, torturers themselves should be tortured, etc (state sanctioned or not if you want to differentiate)?

Why not? I'm sick of you just saying "it's wrong, I don't have to explain why!"

You're an intelligent person DW I can't believe that you could agree with eye for an eye unless you agree with eye for an eye for limited circumstances only.

And how does my demand for you to back up your claims equate to limited intelligence on my part, asshole? Back up your bullshit, if you can. I suspect that you simply lack the brainpower to even understand this demand.

OK, what part of "eye for an eye" != "vigilantism" do you not understand? Yes, their belief in "an eye for an eye" will be reinforced. SO WHAT? How does this lead to vigilantism, you idiot?

If a person believes in "eye for an eye" he would be more likely to avoid the law entirely and seek redress himself.

Non sequitur.

It doesn't matter that you, an intelligent person, doesn't see "eye for an eye" as vigilantism, but laypeople will likely gloss over the details. This directly ties in with MoS saying executing someone is necessary to "preserve community standards" and if someone's belief in "eye for an eye" is reinforced, that reinforces a standard detrimental to the community.

Brian

Yet again, you treat your conclusion as a premise. Stop using circular logic, moron.

[AMX]

Broomstick, if you check the US laws, I'm sure you'll find a part that's aimed at US citizens abroad; if your laws are anything like ours, it'll include things like treachery, terrorism, paedophilia, and a few others.

Giving Austria a bad image happens to be punishable by removal of citizenship.