POL Politiek
Discussies en diepgaande gesprekken over de politiek in de breedste zin van het woord kun je hier voeren.
Becceria heeft het antwoord op deze stelling al gegeven. Overigens, als we over feiten willen praten. Binnen de VS hebben de staten die de doodstraf hanteren, overwegend meer te maken met zwaardere criminaliteit - ondanks de zware straf-, dan staten die de doodstraf niet hanteren.
Allah Al Watan Al Malik
komt die wijn nog TS??
Kein gewalt! Wir sind das volk!
Steps taken forwards but sleepwalking back again.
''And the Germans kill the Jews, And the Jews kill the Arabs, And the Arabs kill the hostages
And that is the news.''
Steps taken forwards but sleepwalking back again.
''And the Germans kill the Jews, And the Jews kill the Arabs, And the Arabs kill the hostages
And that is the news.''
Een hoop goedwillende mensen hebben best wel wat te verliezen (baan, vrijheid, etc) en doen daarom niets.quote:Op woensdag 3 december 2008 23:14 schreef Boze_Appel het volgende:
[..]
Dwaze mensen hebben zich nog nooit tegen laten houden door wetten van anderen.
Ik heb geen zaken gezien waarbij 100% duidelijk is dat de executie ten onrechte is uitgevoerd.quote:
quote:Op vrijdag 5 december 2008 23:16 schreef Halcon het volgende:
[..]
Ik heb geen zaken gezien waarbij 100% duidelijk is dat de executie ten onrechte is uitgevoerd.
Kein gewalt! Wir sind das volk!
Steps taken forwards but sleepwalking back again.
''And the Germans kill the Jews, And the Jews kill the Arabs, And the Arabs kill the hostages
And that is the news.''
Steps taken forwards but sleepwalking back again.
''And the Germans kill the Jews, And the Jews kill the Arabs, And the Arabs kill the hostages
And that is the news.''
Ik ben erg benieuwd naar de recedive van moordenaars en andere mensen die TS dood wil hebben.
Kun je me wat cijfers geven om je stelling te onderbouwen?
Kun je me wat cijfers geven om je stelling te onderbouwen?
"People that use Fiat currency as a store of value.
There is a name for it:
We call them Poor"
There is a name for it:
We call them Poor"
Lees anders het vorige topic eens door. De cijfers worden nog niet zo gek lang bijgehouden en het gaat over recidive binnen 7 jaar. You do the math?
THE RISK OF WRONGFUL EXECUTION OF INNOCENTS:
As for the penal system accidentally executing an innocent person, I must point out that in this imperfect world, nothing that is worth having comes without risk. After all, far, far more innocent lives have been taken by convicted murderers than the supposedly 23 innocents mistakenly executed this century. In fact, there is absolutely no evidence that the death penalty in this country has ever executed even ONE innocent in the past century! Also consider that thousands of American citizens are murdered each year by released and paroled criminals. These are the serious flaws in life sentences that abolitionists prefer to trivialize to nonexistence. There is no doubt whatsoever that keeping murderers alive is far, far more dangerous to innocents than putting them to death. One US Senate report stated this position this way:
All that can be expected of...[human authorities] is that they take every reasonable precaution against the danger of error... If errors are...made, this is the necessary price that must be paid within a society which is made up of human beings.
Also, the death penalty isn't the only institution that contain risks in exchange for social benifits. We, in fact, mindlessly use far more dangerous institutions that take the lives of innocents by the hundreds every day, like the three or four tons of lethal metal we call automobiles for example. After all, how can we accept the average 45,000 person a year death toll in this nation due to car wrecks for our personal conveniences when the slim risk of a wrongful execution is so unbearable?
Following the lines of that logic, we not only would have to sacrifice our vehicles, we would have to sacrifice the personal conveniences of using electricity and fire because of the lives they have taken. We would have to go back to living in caves because of our fear of taking risks for social benefits. Indeed, we accept and use far too many devices and institutions that kill far too many hundreds of innocents each and every day to justify focusing this much paranoia on the slimmest and unlikely of risks. In fact, as far as abolitionists are concerned, anything can kill any number of innocents with absolute impunity so long as they don't harm murderers.
Oregon District Attorney Josh Marquis had this to say about the effectiveness of our justice system:
Even according to Barry Scheck's Innocence Project there have only been 174 DNA exonerations for ALL crimes, more than 90% of which were not murder, let alone death penalty cases. In fact, the number of inmates taken off death row specifically because DNA cleared them is....FIVE. An additional nine inmates who were once on death row were eventually fully exonerated by DNA evidence. Some might say, 14 or 140, it doesn't make a difference. That makes as much sense as being told you have a 1% mortality risk from a surgical procedure versus a 10% risk.
To enjoy the privilege of using cars, airplanes, or any other device that improve the quality of our lives, we accept the risks and deaths that are caused by them completely in order to reap their full benefits. The same concept applies for the death penalty only on a far lesser scale. As long as we're entitled to recklessly endanger hundreds of innocent lives daily for our personal conveniences, then surely we should be allowed to take on lesser risks for something far less selfish and self serving like public safety. Every institution that is of great benefit to society always contain risks. The death penalty happens to be the least dangerous of them, yet it is focused on with the most paranoia.
Syndicated columnist Charley Reese stated:
I favor a fair trial, one quick appeal and prompt execution. I don't think murderers ought to live much beyond 12 months from the day their victim is buried...[and] As for not being able to correct a mistake, so what? Virtually all accidental deaths are deaths by mistake. Why impose a standard of perfection only on the criminal justice system? There are no perfect human institutions. Our system is, more than any other, designed to protect the rights of the defendant. The chance of a truly innocent person being executed is exceedingly slim. But if it happens, it happens just as things happen to people every day.
Abolitionists like to establish the delusion that the death penalty is the only risk that exists. That's why they rarely, if ever, pay any attention to the hundreds of innocent human beings that are brutally slaughtered daily by automobiles, airplanes, fire, and electricity, let alone violent crime including repeat offences. The only time they assign the most worth and reverence to human lives is when they help rationalize their own bias like the possible victims of wrongful executions. Outside of that, innocent lives are secondary in value and expendable.
For instance, abolitionists spend millions of dollars and countless man hours fighting the legal execution of dozens of our worst human rights violators per year under the guise that they are concerned about the innocents that might be executed by mistake, when they do nothing to eliminate the inhumane parole and probation release policies which result in the needless injury and slaughter of thousands of innocent people. This slaughter does not include violent crimes committed by repeat offenders who are released and who are not on "supervision". And where is the compassion in honoring the previous victim’s suffering and in protecting the human rights of future victims? Indeed, abolitionist actions show virtually no compassion for the victims of violent crime or concern for future victims, yet, they exhibit overwhelming support for those who violate our human rights and murder countless innocents each year. The only time assigning sanctity to innocent lives can be stomached is when they manipulate people into preserving murderers. They don't value innocent lives at all, they only refer to them to manipulate those who do. Indeed, their "regard" for innocents is nothing more than a self-righteous manipulative ploy. So don't be fooled by the guise of virtue they tend to don.
Our tendency to treat enormous human death tolls as though they were less tragic than smaller ones match former Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin's unique, and accurate insight on human nature when he stated:
"One death is a tragedy, but a million deaths are statistics."
It is that short-sightedness that allows so many mass murders and genocides to take place in the world.
Abolitionists keep talking about the risks of a wrongful execution in the death penalty's use. Well, being moral and just individuals, we will not avoid taking issue with that risk. However, the risks involving capital punishment is not nearly as dangerous or as insensitive to those it puts at risk as the risks that are associated with abolitionist standards. Indeed, under the liberal influences in our criminal justice system, the murder rate skyrocketed along with the number of repeat offences. But those who endorse these liberal standards never demonstrate the morality or the responsibility to take issue with these lethal flaws and work at least twice as hard to protect the innocents that are threatened by the murderers they are so dedicated to preserving. That is probably why the vast majority of people around the world favor capital punishment, because the death penalty never treats even the most hypothetical and highly unlikely of risks involved in its use with nearly as much contempt and disregard as abolitionists habitually treat countless of real life incidents as a consequence of their agenda. This is what confirms capital punishment's superior level of responsibility and morality.
And what abolitionists don't realize is that they would have a far better chance of convincing the public to accept the abolition of capital punishment if they set up actual life without parole as a prerequisite to abolition in order to minimize the rising crime rates and repeat offences that tends to follow. But that will never be, because no matter what abolitionists say, their first priority is to keep murderers alive while using whatever risk the death penalty poses to innocent lives as a means to that end. So they will never commit any honest or genuine effort to actually set up alternatives to capital punishment before its abolition. They, therefore, put the public at greater risk than otherwise and sabotoge their own cause.
Indeed, I can assure every abolitionist who uses this argument that there is not one retentionist out there who is not aware of the risks involved with the death penalty or the fact that he is putting his own life at risk. But they support it anyway. Why? Because we cannot find any moral justification to trivialize and subordinate the thousands of innocents that are brutally slaughtered every year due to violent crime to the slimmest risk in the world! To do so would be short-sighted and insensitive in the extreme!
Anyone who cannot understand why anybody would feel compelled to subject their life to the slimmest of risks in order to combat violent crime can't be bothered by violent crime by one slightest bit or have much regard for the importance of public safety either.
As for the penal system accidentally executing an innocent person, I must point out that in this imperfect world, nothing that is worth having comes without risk. After all, far, far more innocent lives have been taken by convicted murderers than the supposedly 23 innocents mistakenly executed this century. In fact, there is absolutely no evidence that the death penalty in this country has ever executed even ONE innocent in the past century! Also consider that thousands of American citizens are murdered each year by released and paroled criminals. These are the serious flaws in life sentences that abolitionists prefer to trivialize to nonexistence. There is no doubt whatsoever that keeping murderers alive is far, far more dangerous to innocents than putting them to death. One US Senate report stated this position this way:
All that can be expected of...[human authorities] is that they take every reasonable precaution against the danger of error... If errors are...made, this is the necessary price that must be paid within a society which is made up of human beings.
Also, the death penalty isn't the only institution that contain risks in exchange for social benifits. We, in fact, mindlessly use far more dangerous institutions that take the lives of innocents by the hundreds every day, like the three or four tons of lethal metal we call automobiles for example. After all, how can we accept the average 45,000 person a year death toll in this nation due to car wrecks for our personal conveniences when the slim risk of a wrongful execution is so unbearable?
Following the lines of that logic, we not only would have to sacrifice our vehicles, we would have to sacrifice the personal conveniences of using electricity and fire because of the lives they have taken. We would have to go back to living in caves because of our fear of taking risks for social benefits. Indeed, we accept and use far too many devices and institutions that kill far too many hundreds of innocents each and every day to justify focusing this much paranoia on the slimmest and unlikely of risks. In fact, as far as abolitionists are concerned, anything can kill any number of innocents with absolute impunity so long as they don't harm murderers.
Oregon District Attorney Josh Marquis had this to say about the effectiveness of our justice system:
Even according to Barry Scheck's Innocence Project there have only been 174 DNA exonerations for ALL crimes, more than 90% of which were not murder, let alone death penalty cases. In fact, the number of inmates taken off death row specifically because DNA cleared them is....FIVE. An additional nine inmates who were once on death row were eventually fully exonerated by DNA evidence. Some might say, 14 or 140, it doesn't make a difference. That makes as much sense as being told you have a 1% mortality risk from a surgical procedure versus a 10% risk.
To enjoy the privilege of using cars, airplanes, or any other device that improve the quality of our lives, we accept the risks and deaths that are caused by them completely in order to reap their full benefits. The same concept applies for the death penalty only on a far lesser scale. As long as we're entitled to recklessly endanger hundreds of innocent lives daily for our personal conveniences, then surely we should be allowed to take on lesser risks for something far less selfish and self serving like public safety. Every institution that is of great benefit to society always contain risks. The death penalty happens to be the least dangerous of them, yet it is focused on with the most paranoia.
Syndicated columnist Charley Reese stated:
I favor a fair trial, one quick appeal and prompt execution. I don't think murderers ought to live much beyond 12 months from the day their victim is buried...[and] As for not being able to correct a mistake, so what? Virtually all accidental deaths are deaths by mistake. Why impose a standard of perfection only on the criminal justice system? There are no perfect human institutions. Our system is, more than any other, designed to protect the rights of the defendant. The chance of a truly innocent person being executed is exceedingly slim. But if it happens, it happens just as things happen to people every day.
Abolitionists like to establish the delusion that the death penalty is the only risk that exists. That's why they rarely, if ever, pay any attention to the hundreds of innocent human beings that are brutally slaughtered daily by automobiles, airplanes, fire, and electricity, let alone violent crime including repeat offences. The only time they assign the most worth and reverence to human lives is when they help rationalize their own bias like the possible victims of wrongful executions. Outside of that, innocent lives are secondary in value and expendable.
For instance, abolitionists spend millions of dollars and countless man hours fighting the legal execution of dozens of our worst human rights violators per year under the guise that they are concerned about the innocents that might be executed by mistake, when they do nothing to eliminate the inhumane parole and probation release policies which result in the needless injury and slaughter of thousands of innocent people. This slaughter does not include violent crimes committed by repeat offenders who are released and who are not on "supervision". And where is the compassion in honoring the previous victim’s suffering and in protecting the human rights of future victims? Indeed, abolitionist actions show virtually no compassion for the victims of violent crime or concern for future victims, yet, they exhibit overwhelming support for those who violate our human rights and murder countless innocents each year. The only time assigning sanctity to innocent lives can be stomached is when they manipulate people into preserving murderers. They don't value innocent lives at all, they only refer to them to manipulate those who do. Indeed, their "regard" for innocents is nothing more than a self-righteous manipulative ploy. So don't be fooled by the guise of virtue they tend to don.
Our tendency to treat enormous human death tolls as though they were less tragic than smaller ones match former Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin's unique, and accurate insight on human nature when he stated:
"One death is a tragedy, but a million deaths are statistics."
It is that short-sightedness that allows so many mass murders and genocides to take place in the world.
Abolitionists keep talking about the risks of a wrongful execution in the death penalty's use. Well, being moral and just individuals, we will not avoid taking issue with that risk. However, the risks involving capital punishment is not nearly as dangerous or as insensitive to those it puts at risk as the risks that are associated with abolitionist standards. Indeed, under the liberal influences in our criminal justice system, the murder rate skyrocketed along with the number of repeat offences. But those who endorse these liberal standards never demonstrate the morality or the responsibility to take issue with these lethal flaws and work at least twice as hard to protect the innocents that are threatened by the murderers they are so dedicated to preserving. That is probably why the vast majority of people around the world favor capital punishment, because the death penalty never treats even the most hypothetical and highly unlikely of risks involved in its use with nearly as much contempt and disregard as abolitionists habitually treat countless of real life incidents as a consequence of their agenda. This is what confirms capital punishment's superior level of responsibility and morality.
And what abolitionists don't realize is that they would have a far better chance of convincing the public to accept the abolition of capital punishment if they set up actual life without parole as a prerequisite to abolition in order to minimize the rising crime rates and repeat offences that tends to follow. But that will never be, because no matter what abolitionists say, their first priority is to keep murderers alive while using whatever risk the death penalty poses to innocent lives as a means to that end. So they will never commit any honest or genuine effort to actually set up alternatives to capital punishment before its abolition. They, therefore, put the public at greater risk than otherwise and sabotoge their own cause.
Indeed, I can assure every abolitionist who uses this argument that there is not one retentionist out there who is not aware of the risks involved with the death penalty or the fact that he is putting his own life at risk. But they support it anyway. Why? Because we cannot find any moral justification to trivialize and subordinate the thousands of innocents that are brutally slaughtered every year due to violent crime to the slimmest risk in the world! To do so would be short-sighted and insensitive in the extreme!
Anyone who cannot understand why anybody would feel compelled to subject their life to the slimmest of risks in order to combat violent crime can't be bothered by violent crime by one slightest bit or have much regard for the importance of public safety either.
Moet je hier een causaal verband uit halen?quote:
eerst daalt het aantal moorden mee met de executies. Daarnaast stijgen en dalen het aantal moorden in een periode dat het aantal executies constant is.
Dat doet dus vermoeden dat er meer factoren van invloed zijn op het aantal moorden in een bepaalde tijd. Omdat een grafiek op sommige momenten verloopt zoals jij denkt dat het verband is, is natuurlijk geen enkele garantie dat het verband klopt.
Kein gewalt! Wir sind das volk!
Steps taken forwards but sleepwalking back again.
''And the Germans kill the Jews, And the Jews kill the Arabs, And the Arabs kill the hostages
And that is the news.''
Steps taken forwards but sleepwalking back again.
''And the Germans kill the Jews, And the Jews kill the Arabs, And the Arabs kill the hostages
And that is the news.''
Zeg ik dat dan? Heb juist altijd gezegd dat er meerdere factoren spelen, maar dat de doodstraf er zeker eentje van zou kunnen zijn.quote:Op vrijdag 5 december 2008 23:48 schreef One_of_the_few het volgende:
[..]
Moet je hier een causaal verband uit halen?
eerst daalt het aantal moorden mee met de executies. Daarnaast stijgen en dalen het aantal moorden in een periode dat het aantal executies constant is.
Dat doet dus vermoeden dat er meer factoren van invloed zijn op het aantal moorden in een bepaalde tijd. Omdat een grafiek op sommige momenten verloopt zoals jij denkt dat het verband is, is natuurlijk geen enkele garantie dat het verband klopt.
De correlatie is niet hard te maken, maar als illustratie bij de discussie is het zeker wel een aardige grafiek, net zoals onderstaande passage:
In Illinois verordonneerde de gouverneur in 2001 dat aan alle bewoners van de dodencel voor onbepaalde tijd uitstel van executie moest worden verleend. Er waren veel dwalingen in de procesgang ontdekt met mogelijk fatale gevolgen. Al had zo'n geval zich, voor zover kon worden nagegaan, nog nooit voorgedaan. Een onderzoek over de periode 2001-2005 becijferde dat in Illinois in de vier jaar na het opschorten van de executies 150 meer moorden werden gepleegd dan anders waarschijnlijk het geval was geweest.
Bron: http://www.meervrijheid.nl/?pagina=1695
de kop van de grafiek zegt genoeg..quote:Op vrijdag 5 december 2008 23:54 schreef Halcon het volgende:
[..]
Zeg ik dat dan? Heb juist altijd gezegd dat er meerdere factoren spelen, maar dat de doodstraf er zeker eentje van zou kunnen zijn.
tja.quote:De correlatie is niet hard te maken, maar als illustratie bij de discussie is het zeker wel een aardige grafiek, net zoals onderstaande passage:
In Illinois verordonneerde de gouverneur in 2001 dat aan alle bewoners van de dodencel voor onbepaalde tijd uitstel van executie moest worden verleend. Er waren veel dwalingen in de procesgang ontdekt met mogelijk fatale gevolgen. Al had zo'n geval zich, voor zover kon worden nagegaan, nog nooit voorgedaan. Een onderzoek over de periode 2001-2005 becijferde dat in Illinois in de vier jaar na het opschorten van de executies 150 meer moorden werden gepleegd dan anders waarschijnlijk het geval was geweest.
Bron: http://www.meervrijheid.nl/?pagina=1695
quote:De staat Florida had 3 jaar op rij het laagste moordcijfer van de hele VS, toen de doodstraf werd ingevoerd steeg na de eerste executie het aantal moorden met 28%
quote:De staat Georgia na de herinvoering van de doodstraf in 1983 steeg het moordaantal met 20%
quote:van 1952 tot 1967, toen Californie vaak mensen executeerde, steeg het aantal moorden jaarlijks met 100%!!! tussen 1967 en 1991 waren er geen executies; toen was de jaarlijkse stijgingen 4,8% gestegen inplaats van die 100%.
quote:Sinds de afschaffing van de doodstraf in Canada in 1976, liep het aantal moorden terug van 3 mensen per 100.000 inwoners naar 2 per mensen per 100.000 inwoners.
bron
Ik weet niet waar je bron je cijfers vandaan heeft.
bronquote:jaar: aantal moorden:
2001 982
2002 961
2003 895
2004 780
2005 770
2006 780
2007 752
je zou eerder zeggen dat het van 2001-2005 met 212 is gedaald.
Kein gewalt! Wir sind das volk!
Steps taken forwards but sleepwalking back again.
''And the Germans kill the Jews, And the Jews kill the Arabs, And the Arabs kill the hostages
And that is the news.''
Steps taken forwards but sleepwalking back again.
''And the Germans kill the Jews, And the Jews kill the Arabs, And the Arabs kill the hostages
And that is the news.''
je bronvermelding gaat over het artikel wat het beweert. Dat is geen bron dat de feiten ook kloppen, zoals ze in het artikel staan.quote:Op zaterdag 6 december 2008 00:16 schreef Halcon het volgende:
http://www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html#deter
Bronvermelding staat er bij.
Kein gewalt! Wir sind das volk!
Steps taken forwards but sleepwalking back again.
''And the Germans kill the Jews, And the Jews kill the Arabs, And the Arabs kill the hostages
And that is the news.''
Steps taken forwards but sleepwalking back again.
''And the Germans kill the Jews, And the Jews kill the Arabs, And the Arabs kill the hostages
And that is the news.''
http://books.google.com/books?id=U7Nx-lwlaQAC
In Google is een hoofdstuk compleet te lezen met een analyse uit 1989 van de 558 ter dood veroordeelden die in 1972 door de afschaffing van de doodstraf naar levenslang waren omgezet.
Door die groep zijn 4 medevangenen vermoord, 2 gevangenismedewerkers en er was een moord gepleegd door een vrijgelaten gevangene. Ook waren er 3 ontsnapt. Het onderzoek was gemaakt voordat Kenneth MacDuff opnieuw was gearresteerd die na zijn vrijlating 5 tot 11 moorden heeft gepleegd.
Daar tegenover staan 4 van de 558 die later vrijgesproken zijn van datgene waar ze veroordeeld waren. Die zouden misschien geexecuteerd zijn geweest zonder de afschaffing van de doodstraf in 1972. Of ze zouden ook zijn vrijgesproken voordat het vonnis zou zijn voltrokken, dat is niet te bepalen.
In Google is een hoofdstuk compleet te lezen met een analyse uit 1989 van de 558 ter dood veroordeelden die in 1972 door de afschaffing van de doodstraf naar levenslang waren omgezet.
Door die groep zijn 4 medevangenen vermoord, 2 gevangenismedewerkers en er was een moord gepleegd door een vrijgelaten gevangene. Ook waren er 3 ontsnapt. Het onderzoek was gemaakt voordat Kenneth MacDuff opnieuw was gearresteerd die na zijn vrijlating 5 tot 11 moorden heeft gepleegd.
Daar tegenover staan 4 van de 558 die later vrijgesproken zijn van datgene waar ze veroordeeld waren. Die zouden misschien geexecuteerd zijn geweest zonder de afschaffing van de doodstraf in 1972. Of ze zouden ook zijn vrijgesproken voordat het vonnis zou zijn voltrokken, dat is niet te bepalen.
Ik ga m'n leven toch niet af laten hangen van een of ander overheidsapparaat. Doodstraf, nee dank je. Doodstraf is de ultieme onderwerping aan de staat.
lege ton
Precies. Een democratie die haar eigen kiezers mag doden, is eigenlijk geen democratie meer.quote:Op zaterdag 6 december 2008 15:25 schreef nonzz het volgende:
Ik ga m'n leven toch niet af laten hangen van een of ander overheidsapparaat. Doodstraf, nee dank je. Doodstraf is de ultieme onderwerping aan de staat.
overigens vind ik hetzelfde van maatregelen als het afpakken van stemrecht van criminelen
Klinkt een beetje als: Een democratie die niet doet wat ik wil is geen democratie meer.quote:Op maandag 8 december 2008 09:17 schreef Pool het volgende:
[..]
Precies. Een democratie die haar eigen kiezers mag doden, is eigenlijk geen democratie meer.
overigens vind ik hetzelfde van maatregelen als het afpakken van stemrecht van criminelen
Een overheid dood per definitie. Door een leger in te zetten, door de politie van wapens te voorzien, door euthanasie toe te staan, door zijn onvermogen w.b.t wachtlijsten etc...
Onzin.quote:Op maandag 8 december 2008 11:53 schreef basilisk het volgende:
[..]
Klinkt een beetje als: Een democratie die niet doet wat ik wil is geen democratie meer.
Als mij niet bevalt dat de overheid de maximumsnelheid op de snelweg op 120 km/u bepaalt, dan is het nog steeds een democratie.
Het gaat hier echter om iets wat de fundamenten van de democratische procedure raakt. Als de overheid de kieswet zodanig wijzigt dat alléén ambtenaren nog mogen stemmen, dan wordt aan de poten van de democratische beginselen gezaagd en verdwijnt de democratie of wordt die beperkt. Zo geldt dat mijns inziens ook voor de doodstraf en voor het ontnemen van kiesrecht van criminelen. Met de doodstraf mag de overheid kiezers doden, wat de democratie rechtstreeks raakt.
Bij euthanasie en bij wachtlijstenbeleid doodt de overheid niet zelf. Leger en politie mogen alleen in noodsituaties doden, dus bij ernstig gevaar voor de levens of andere zwaarwichtige belangen van burgers of de staat als geheel.quote:Een overheid dood per definitie. Door een leger in te zetten, door de politie van wapens te voorzien, door euthanasie toe te staan, door zijn onvermogen w.b.t wachtlijsten etc...
