The Death Penalty

[Ram!rez]

Do you think the death penalty is necessary? I think having life in prison is more necessary than being executed because it lets the criminals suffer all their life and it gives them better punishment.

[Farson]

I fully support the death penality. for a number of reasons:

1) no chance of them buffing up in jail, beating down a few people, raping a few people, and then breaking out.

2) Life in prision would be complete hell, I would rather be dead.

3) no possible chance for them to get back into society.

4) Punishment shouldn't just be about making a person suffer.

[semiavrage]

An eye for an eye.

[ShavedMoose!]

ya just no the lethal injection i personly think they should feel the pain of hell right before they get there kinda like a sample of what there going to be doing for eternity

[EmeraldFalcon89]

Capital punishment is cheap, whereas life in prison costs millions.

[Lightbringer]

Well some people certainly deserve the death penalty. On the other hand you still need prisons for the lower criminals and those few that die compared to the rest don't free up that much space.

There is of course the fact that with the big boy's gone prisons might not need the same strict security precautions and thus lower the cost of prisons. And of course as Ram!rez said. What would be the most severe punishment? Spending the rest of your life in prison or the quick end?

[Typo_the_Lover]

Capital punishment is cheap, whereas life in prison costs millions.


Actually, its the other way around. A dead prisoner cant do anything, one thats alive can do cheap labor that people profit from. I'm against the death penalty because of that, leave the cheap manual labor to the slugs who dont deserve to live.

[Mr.Badguy]

We don't have the death sentence here but I think that we should.
For the paedophiles, mass murderers and really sick and twisted crimes.

[dEUS]

It depends. Death penalty isn't always a good solution.

[Ram!rez]

:2) Life in prision would be complete hell, I would rather be dead.


Thats the only reason i dont support the death penalty. I see a better solution through suffering.

[Sponge]

Thats the only reason i dont support the death penalty. I see a better solution through suffering.
Prison is supposed to be correctional and I can understand how having the person who commited a serious enough crime to warrant a life sentence would vindicate most people for a murder or whatever crime it is, but do the family of victims have to live in a space as large as a work cubicle and eat shit for food while facing the constant possibility of being raped or beaten?

What I'm saying is, death is never a necessary sentence for anyone for people that can be cured, you release them, and those who can't go to an insane asylum where the living conditions are better.

I'm sure the death penalty would be fully implemented if prison wasn't such a lucrative business venture.

[The muffin man]

The death penalty is not harsh enough, nor is it an effective way to prevent crimes. A drugdealer working in the streets of an average ghetto makes about 12K and has a 12% mortality rate per year. In texas, the capital punishment capital of the world, you a given a nice cell, food, clothing, and other necessities, and have a 7% mortality rate per year. These are real numbers, people.

[Hacky]

An eye for an eye.
makes the whole world blind.


Thought I'd finish up that quote for you. (I got it right this time too :) )

There are people that deserve the death penalty, but I think we can cut the number that do by a large portion.

"Remember the atrocity that was done on to us that forgives the atrocity that we are about to comit!"

Silly revenge.

[Crazy Legs]

ya just no the lethal injection i personly think they should feel the pain of hell right before they get there kinda like a sample of what there going to be doing for eternityI agree the needle of death is pointless. I mikss the good old days when old sparky used to kick criminal ass. An does anyone else think its odd that they used sterilized needles for death by injection. I mean why spend the money when they're going to die anyway.

[Ram!rez]

I think the Gov't uses the death penalty in order to scare people and show them what happens when you commit a crime like murder. The death penalty in my opinion does not prove useful.

[NichtTschad]

I don't think it should be allowed because it's basically murder, and they should still have a chance in jail to change. Also, the death penalty is not used correctly. One crime could warrent a death penalty and life in prison in two different cases. It is also influenced by face, because most minorities tend to have less money, and thus cannot afford a lawyer. They then have a court-appointed lawyer, who would most likely be less able to represent the victim properly. This could cause the difference between execution and life in prison. Also, the case itself goes to the jury. These people are not able to judge perfectly, and should not be able to control what happens to someone else's life. People inherently hold predjudices, which would affect the way they would judge the person. This is shown by this statistic I pulled up off a website. "After the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, only 12 white defendants have been executed for the murder of a black victim, but 202 black defendants have been executed for the murder of a white person." The supreme court has overturned studies based on racial discrimination for the death penalty, but the fact remains that the minorities have less money overall, and would then not be able to afford a better defandent.
The place in which the crime was committed also has a great effect on if the defendant will be exectuted. They should thus not be able to control someone's life or death with these factors affecting them and the case.

[The muffin man]

You may think minorities have a disadvantage, but a jury does not want to condemn a minority for fear of being racist. "A jury that gives a guilty verdit never meets the defendants eye." -To Kill a Mockingbird Again, capital punishment is not a deterrent, my previous numbers were all true.

[Hacky]

I'm somewhat split on it, I can't stand the Death Penalty, however there are certain people that no amount of jail will help.

There are people out there who might question that, but I ask you, look up the case of Dennis Rader (Also known as BTK) that went on last year here in Wichita, Kansas. The man is a saddistic fuck, who never showed the slightest guilt for anything he did. 12 painful murders of innocent people, and not even a shred of sorrow towards the families. However, this man does not recieve Death, insted he's got about 175* years in Prison becuase the time of the killings were all fitted around the time when Death Penalty wasn't in action.

*Yeah, that's how they read it off on his sentence, 175 years of punishment for the total killings he had done, yeah, it is easier to say life, but they like to think bigger and show just how horrible a person he was.

So, I am split sort of, I think it is a horrible thing, Revenge achieves absolutly nothing truly, eye for an eye is terrible logic, however there are certain people that will gain nothing from life in jail.

[NichtTschad]

You may think minorities have a disadvantage, but a jury does not want to condemn a minority for fear of being racist. "A jury that gives a guilty verdit never meets the defendants eye." -To Kill a Mockingbird Again, capital punishment is not a deterrent, my previous numbers were all true.
That may be true, but the fact remains that minorities have less money in general, and one without money cannot be represented in court as well as someone with more money could.

[The muffin man]

By law you must be supplied by a lawyer or defend yourself. What you're saying is mostly true in less serious crimes, but if you commit a high profile crime worthy of the death penalty, often a high priced lawyer will volunteer to defend you to increase his rep and possibly get some recognition if s/he wins.

[NichtTschad]

By law you must be supplied by a lawyer or defend yourself. What you're saying is mostly true in less serious crimes, but if you commit a high profile crime worthy of the death penalty, often a high priced lawyer will volunteer to defend you to increase his rep and possibly get some recognition if s/he wins.
Not nessecarily, not all cases would be huge and possibly not worth the time in the lawyers eyes. Also, if said lawyer did volunteer, you would still have a lot less choice as to who you would like to defend you than someone with more money.

[Darkraptor]

If a person wishes for death then so be it, they are already a dead man. But a man has the right to live in shame if he wants to. In Japan and in Norway, a man convicted of a crime was aloud two options. An honorable death or banishment to live in shame. This system worked very well because its not enforcing suicide because a suicidal wouldn?t need the governments helps to die anyways. And it gave the man an option about his life, again, if the person chooses death, then it is because for some reason his or her brain is telling them they will suffer if they choose to live, And because someone who wishes they were dead aren?t dead, they will go crazy and try to kill themselves and see life as a total suffering even when they should be happy. (This does not apply for everyone, but most people it will). So they would suffer to death, or maybe they would come out of it. Either way they are scard, and that cannot be taken away. If a man chooses life, he is willing to except is fate, and let it be.

[Sponge]

I miss the good old days when old sparky used to kick criminal ass.
You know the first half second of electricity knocks you completely unconscious right?

[WeTPaiNT]

Do you think the death penalty is necessary? I think having life in prison is more necessary than being executed because it lets the criminals suffer all their life and it gives them better punishment.
Suffering at the expense of my tax dollars. Kill the bastards.

[EmeraldFalcon89]

Prison isn't always hell. Maximium security prisons may be, but lesser prisons are much softer.

Activities, weight rooms, conjugal visits.

[The muffin man]

Kill tons more, or stop killing 'em.

[Sponge]

Suffering at the expense of my tax dollars. Kill the bastards.
Because the government is doing such a fucking GREAT job of spending those in the first place.

[The muffin man]

I like how they say we are in 3rd or so place in killing our citizens, yet the top two kill thousands, and we kill one or two.

Omg, we should exile them to the center of the Sahara or something.

[System_Zero]

Personally I feel that there should be an option to put better use to those who've showed no remorse for those they've killed by subjecting them to experiments and research that would otherwise seen as inhumane. After all they're no longer of any use to society and keeping them alive until they die is a waste.

[DonKing]

Personally I feel that there should be an option to put better use to those who've showed no remorse for those they've killed by subjecting them to experiments and research that would otherwise seen as inhumane. After all they're no longer of any use to society and keeping them alive until they die is a waste.


Provided they resist all forms of Re-education, and we have proof of them doing the act, I approve this.

[Hunkz H]

I agree in some way, but on the other hand, that means stealing other peoples job, not great jobs, but nevertheless other peoples jobb

[deafening5ilence]

I feel like we need to make more threads in the shark pool so newbs don't feel the need to practice necromancy.

[Xeroen]

This has been said before, and it is fairly true. I assume you negged him for not having made an intro yet?

[deafening5ilence]

No, I still need to rep you and xterior aaand... unknown.

[AmorpheousMass]

and me.

[Diablo]

Well this thread looks like it's on topic.

I want to kill you.

[deafening5ilence]

@AM
I repped you on like, the first day I started this bull. Now I'm finally done with it.

Death penalty - Yeah. Sometimes one life has to be taken to keep others safe. It should be a long road to get someone the death penalty, but it should definitely exist.

[Xeroen]

Death penalty should definitely still be in place - in the UK, piracy on the high seas is actually still punishable by hanging.

Where a person has intentionally killed another in an unlawful manner and the evidence is indisputable it should be used. The reason for this being that unfortunately the police are only human, they too are capable of making mistakes.

[LegionnaireZ]

what if the evidence is forged or circumstancial???

you always have to consider the possiblity that you could be convicting an innocent person.

I like the death penalty because it does relieve the strain from our taxes to keep the criminals sheltered and fed. And from what i hear (since i've never been to jail or prison)

is that the state prisons are more of a playground with built in living quarters. I had a couple friends come back and tell me they spent their last 6 months playing nintendo and playstation. WTF??? what happend to hard time?

I think insead of the the above, we should have every man signed for the death penalty or life in prison, chained together and beating rocks with a micro hammer for the rest of their miserable lives. only given a cup of water and a biscuit once a day... lmao...

that actuall sounds horrible... just the one buscuit per day is enough to get me not to do anything to terribly stupid

[AmorpheousMass]

I blame the noob with no intro for bringing back this awful thread.

Thanks, noob with no intro.

[Napalm]

I support the death penalty for murderers, rapists, and child molesters. The rest deserve to rot in prison, get the potheads out.

[MindCaster]

I agree with Napalm, some criminals deserve the death penalty; not only for there crimes, but because the prisons are over crowded, we have to pay for them to live, they get an easy life, and have better insurance then most of us who aren't in prison have, so it's way cheaper to use the death penalty on murders, rapists, and child molesters and they deserve it because about 90% are/will be repeat offenders.

I love your username, Napalm.

[Squall]

I like to adopt a Kantian view on all of this. If someone murders a person, then their life should be taken in a similar fashion.

I suppose that others would bring up "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" point of view. I honestly just don't believe we have enough prison space, time or money to accommodate this delusional point of view. People need to accept reality.

[Napalm]

An eye for an eye, you still got one more eye.

[Diablo]

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world without depth perception.

[I X N H]

Capital punishment is cheap, whereas life in prison costs millions.

True.

[MindCaster]

That "eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" saying is a bunch of crap; I doubt many people would feel that way if it was there friend or relative who was killed or raped. I studied the most famous serial killers in forensics this year and there are some sick bastards who DO NOT need to be alive. For example: the guy who thought his organs were moving and turning his blood into dust should be dead because he not only raped and killed, but he drank his victims blood and ate body parts, he was locked up and then he got out and killed a few many more people before he was finally caught again.

[ShadowMP]

I like to adopt a Kantian view on all of this. If someone murders a person, then their life should be taken in a similar fashion.

I suppose that others would bring up "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" point of view. I honestly just don't believe we have enough prison space, time or money to accommodate this delusional point of view. People need to accept reality.

This. qft

[The Badger's Sister]

I don't support the death penalty because I don't think anyone or anything should be murdered. No one but ones own self, God (or whatever you believe), and fate should have any say in taking someone's life.

And while some may find vengeance through death justifiable for murderers, pedophiles, and the like, I still don't see what gives another man the right to kill anyone.... even a murderer.

Executing a murderer is still murder.... so it makes supporters hypocrites in my eyes.

[MindCaster]

It's not just about revenge, the death penalty keeps the prisons from over flowing, and its the only was to make sure people can't get out again.
There are some really sick people who shouldn't be allowed to live, like sociopaths for example, you can't grow a conscious. Most people feel the death penalty lets the victims and their families finally move on and feel safer because the person can't hurt them anymore.

[Diablo]

I doubt many people would feel that way if it was there friend or relative who was killed or raped.


It's not just about revenge

Hmm...:think:

I'm not quite sure where I stand on this. On the one hand, as EF I think said earlier, it costs a lot to keep someone in prison for life, and the idea that taxpayers money is going towards feeding these fuckers is a bit disheartening. But then again, as TBS said, killing someone is murder. Who am I to say that person X should be killed, and why is that more justifiable than person X saying his wife should die, and doing it?

[unknown]

I don't see a problem with killing people who murder/rape/molest/etc.

I'd kill them myself if there wasn't a place in the justice system for it
oh wait, you can be a rapist and get less time than a pot dealer

[MindCaster]

Murders can get off too; pone of my best friends was killed by her bf when she was 18 because he was drinking and driving and flipped over a railing on the side of the road she dies on the scene while he livid and was put on probation. Then about three weeks later the asshole was caught again with and 18 yr old in the car while he was driving drunk and he only got 10-15.
The justice system really bites sometimes.

[LiquidFire]

I like to adopt a Kantian view on all of this. If someone murders a person, then their life should be taken in a similar fashion.

I suppose that others would bring up "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" point of view. I honestly just don't believe we have enough prison space, time or money to accommodate this delusional point of view. People need to accept reality.

I don't think Kant developed that.


Also,


Kant
...
reality.


lol

[Soul Sojourner]

Executing a murderer is still murder.... so it makes supporters hypocrites in my eyes.
This man is evil and twisted and the people he wants to kill are morally inclined and generally good people. If you had the choice to kill this man, who intends to kill 10,000 people, or allow 10,000 people to be killed to avoid killing the man, what would you choose?

Pick one or the other. Don't make any assumptions or implications as to the intent of the question; there are no inbetweens, he lives or dies. Simple question, really.

[Squall]

I don't think Kant developed that.


Also,




lol

My notes are at school, but I do distinctly remember this is one of his views. I haven't had a decent look at these notes since February/March, but I'll get onto it Monday.

[iLazz 2.0]

An eye for an eye.Leaves both sides blind.


I agree with Napalm, some criminals deserve the death penalty; not only for there crimes, but because the prisons are over crowded, we have to pay for them to live, they get an easy life, and have better insurance then most of us who aren't in prison have, so it's way cheaper to use the death penalty on murders, rapists, and child molesters and they deserve it because about 90% are/will be repeat offenders. I love your username, Napalm.This is the most disgusting thing I have heard anybody say in years. You would have gone well in Nazi Germany. Never mind the ones you want killed off, it's YOU who is the anti-social one.



I don't support the death penalty because I don't think anyone or anything should be murdered. No one but ones own self, God (or whatever you believe), and fate should have any say in taking someone's life. And while some may find vengeance through death justifiable for murderers, pedophiles, and the like, I still don't see what gives another man the right to kill anyone.... even a murderer. Executing a murderer is still murder.... so it makes supporters hypocrites in my eyes.Well said Young Lady.

[Inactive Cargo]

I AM THE LAW

YouTube - The Onion: Supreme Court: Death Penalty Is 'Totally Badass'

[Diablo]

My notes are at school, but I do distinctly remember this is one of his views. I haven't had a decent look at these notes since February/March, but I'll get onto it Monday.

Kant did talk about an eye for an eye, but he was hardly the first, that's what LF was saying. Hell, it's in the Bible for fuck's sake, not to mention Hammurabi's Code.

[MindCaster]

Leaves both sides blind.

This is the most disgusting thing I have heard anybody say in years. You would have gone well in Nazi Germany. Never mind the ones you want killed off, it's YOU who is the anti-social one.


Well said Young Lady.

I'm going to have to go with the previously stated, "You'll still have one eye left."
And I wasn't saying that the cost was the reason for the death penalty, but when it comes to the decision making in government they did take that into consideration and while it should not be the basis for such a decision it played a part, I did a research paper on this, which is why I mentioned it. I support the death penalty because I do not believe someone who commits such a despicably cruel crime, such as murder/rape/molestation, should not be allowed to continually harm there victims and/or their victims families and they do even while in jail because they can write letters and use the phone. I realize that due many personal experiences that my opinion on the subject is quite biased, but I still feel very strongly about my opinion.

[Squall]

But he adopted it to universalization, which branches off traditional retribution.

[Inactive Cargo]

The problem with an eye for an eye is you'd end up killing everyone if you took it literally. If I kill your daughter and cause anguish to your family, it would only be fair to kill me. And my daughter, to cause anguish to my family.

[PrecisioN]

If you're convicted of 1st degree murder. (You would have to know the COMPLETE and FULL definition of it) You should be killed yourself. If there is no doubt that the person did it. There is no reason they should not have done to them what they did to the victim. My father was murdered when I was 10 years old for no reason at all. So I am a little bias here though...

[The Badger's Sister]

This man is evil and twisted and the people he wants to kill are morally inclined and generally good people. If you had the choice to kill this man, who intends to kill 10,000 people, or allow 10,000 people to be killed to avoid killing the man, what would you choose?

Pick one or the other. Don't make any assumptions or implications as to the intent of the question; there are no inbetweens, he lives or dies. Simple question, really.

I wouldn't kill him. I couldn't take a life. That's why I'm against the death penalty. It(killing someone or something)'s not something I can fathom doing myself, so I don't understand why anyone, no matter the circumstance, would kill someone else.

[MindCaster]

The problem with an eye for an eye is you'd end up killing everyone if you took it literally. If I kill your daughter and cause anguish to your family, it would only be fair to kill me. And my daughter, to cause anguish to my family.

Yes, that could be true, but with he death penalty the murder would be killed by a court of law and I have never herd of family members trying to kill everyone involved in a court trial ending in a death sentence, so the death penalty get's rid of the murder so he/she can't kill again and stops the victims family from trying to extract there own revenge. A life sentence doesn't do this because prisoners kill other prisoners and victims families can get other prisoners to kill them, which has happened and quite often.

[Soul Sojourner]

I wouldn't kill him. I couldn't take a life. It(killing someone or something)'s not something I can fathom doing myself
I see, but what if it were someone else that did the killing and you didn't have to be a part of it in any way or even make the decision? Would you still want him to live, knowing full well that 10,000 people would die because of it?

[MindCaster]

What about the people who committed crimes like genocide, is it wrong that the death penalty is available for crimes against humanity and war crimes.
Joseph Kony, the leader of the Lords Resistance Army in Sudan have been committing genocide for years they have not only killed thousands, but they take children rape/kill everyone they know in front of them, take them out into the dessert, kill/torture 1/2 the boys in front of the other 1/2 to instill fear, then train them as soldiers to go do the same thing to other kids and fight the government, and then they take the little girls and use them as sex slaves. Kids in Sudan and Uganda travel miles every night, away from their homes, to get to big cities to sleep in the basement of a hospital of buss stops because they are afraid of being taken. The United Nations have issued warrants for Joseph Kony and his generals and if they are caught they will be tried and executed and in opinion, death by lethal injection is letting them off easy.
(invisiblechildren.com)

[iLazz 2.0]

I'm going to have to go with the previously stated, "You'll still have one eye left."Not after the second time.



And I wasn't saying that the cost was the reason for the death penalty, but when it comes to the decision making in government they did take that into consideration and while it should not be the basis for such a decision it played a part,So you ARE saying financial costs come into it. How bad do you want that tax cut? Are you really prepared to have people killed to fund it?



I did a research paper on this, which is why I mentioned it.Sounds like you failed that paper.



I support the death penalty because I do not believe someone who commits such a despicably cruel crime, such as murder/rape/molestationSo you torture perpetrators of violent crimes to death because you don't like violence?


..., should not be allowed to continually harm there victims and/or their victims families and they do even while in jail because they can write letters and use the phone.So just ban them writing to or phoning their victim. No need to kill people to stop them writing letters or telephoning.


I realize that due many personal experiences that my opinion on the subject is quite biased, but I still feel very strongly about my opinion.You feel "strongly" about this? Well in your case ignorance is strength. Your opinions are offensive and disgusting. You are just as anti social as the people you want locked up. Only difference is you would have people murdered by proxy of the executioner. At least murderers do it with their own hand. You don't have the courage or conviction to do that.


If you're convicted of 1st degree murder. (You would have to know the COMPLETE and FULL definition of it) You should be killed yourself. If there is no doubt that the person did it. There is no reason they should not have done to them what they did to the victim. My father was murdered when I was 10 years old for no reason at all. So I am a little bias here though...No. You can't say you will kill because killing is unacceptable. It's as stupid as "fighting for peace" or "fucking for virginity".



Yes, that could be true, but with he death penalty the murder would be killed by a court of lawSo what? It's still cold blooded murder.



and I have never herd of family members trying to kill everyone involved in a court trial ending in a death sentence, so the death penalty get's rid of the murder so he/she can't kill again and stops the victims family from trying to extract there own revenge.No. THe murderer's family get no vengeance. Killing somebody does not bring back the victim and might even make the victim's family feel worse. I know I would if somebody was killed supposedly to make me feel better. Law and order is conducted by disinterested third parties for a reason. Emotions are not and should not be allowed to interfere in the deliberate process we use.



A life sentence doesn't do this because prisoners kill other prisoners and victims families can get other prisoners to kill them, which has happened and quite often.What statistics do you have to back up your claim of "quite often"? None? And the best way to avoid this happening is to improve the prison system.


What about the people who committed crimes like genocide, is it wrong that the death penalty is available for crimes against humanity and war crimes.Good point. Let's start with prosecuting George HW Bush, George W Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Blair, Howard et al. Whatever some black man in the third world has done is beer money in comparison.



Joseph Kony, the leader of the Lords Resistance Army in Sudan have been committing genocide for years they have not only killed thousands, but they take children rape/kill everyone they know in front of them, take them out into the dessert, kill/torture 1/2 the boys in front of the other 1/2 to instill fear, then train them as soldiers to go do the same thing to other kids and fight the government, and then they take the little girls and use them as sex slaves. Kids in Sudan and Uganda travel miles every night, away from their homes, to get to big cities to sleep in the basement of a hospital of buss stops because they are afraid of being taken. The United Nations have issued warrants for Joseph Kony and his generals and if they are caught they will be tried and executed and in opinion, death by lethal injection is letting them off easy. (invisiblechildren.com)Who put Kony into power and bankrolled him? They should also be tried. Are the people fighting against Kony any better?



That "eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" saying is a bunch of crap; I doubt many people would feel that way if it was there friend or relative who was killed or raped.Junk statement there. We have laws to live by which are drafted by people using logic not emotion. We enforce those laws with disinterested third parties to try and preserve peace. Revenge is only part of the equation. Without clear heads and objective decisions the law would only make things worse, not better.



I studied the most famous serial killers in forensics this year and there are some sick bastards who DO NOT need to be alive. For example: the guy who thought his organs were moving and turning his blood into dust should be dead because he not only raped and killed, but he drank his victims blood and ate body parts, he was locked up and then he got out and killed a few many more people before he was finally caught again.The man who drank his victim's blood is insane. Serial killers invariably are. Maybe not by the narrow legal definition of the term but still crazy nonetheless. Such people should be in secure mental hospitals, not killed. Killing people for being sick is something a healthy society would never do. You wouldn't have people with bad backs murdered because their back aches. It makes no more sense to kill crazy people when their illness makes them do crazy things.

[MindCaster]

So you think that people who commit acts of genocide should get off with life in prison. The people who committed the Rwandan Genocide, the Lords Resistance Army, and the people who committed the Rape of Nanking, they should all just be put in jail after what they did. As for the death penalty being cold blooded murder, that's a bunch of crap. They put two IVs in the prisoner, they are knocked out with a drug, another drug then starts to stop his heart, and the last one stops their breathing.

[unknown]

Lazz stop bullying the new members.

No more nastiness. We'll have none of that.

Also, I agree with MindCaster.

[iLazz 2.0]

So you think that people who commit acts of genocide should get off with life in prison. The people who committed the Rwandan Genocide, the Lords Resistance Army, and the people who committed the Rape of Nanking, they should all just be put in jail after what they did. As for the death penalty being cold blooded murder, that's a bunch of crap. They put two IVs in the prisoner, they are knocked out with a drug, another drug then starts to stop his heart, and the last one stops their breathing.No. What I said was we need to prosecute ALL the people committing genocide. Not just the ones our genocidal rulers declare bad.


And Unkown, you can stop being so nasty.

[LegionnaireZ]

I wouldn't kill him. I couldn't take a life. That's why I'm against the death penalty. It(killing someone or something)'s not something I can fathom doing myself, so I don't understand why anyone, no matter the circumstance, would kill someone else.

In terms of killing a person... and mind you i have never taken a life...

Lets make an example/senario:

You and your family are sleeping, a person (male or female makes no difference in the dark) forces entry into your house.

the Bad Guy or BG bumps something and somehow wakes you...

You get up and look to see what that was and notice the BG walking in your home.

Lets say for instance like in my house, one room is at one end of the house and there are 4 others at the other side... imagine a "L" shaped house...

this BG starts walking towards the other rooms, relief for you huh? but wait a minute... the rest of your family is over there!!!

You just remembered that you have a loaded gun in your room and know how to use it...

you grab it and your phone, and call 911 (in the US i'm not sure what you guys have in place elsewhere) and they inform you that police are on the way... average response time for police in my area is about 10 minutes and i live within 2 miles of a police station!!!

so knowing this, you walk lightly in the general direction of where you last saw the BG... you walk down the dark hallway, come to the first bedroom where you find him standing over your brother or sister who is still sleeping...

Now not knowing his intention, could be a rapist, could be just a robber, etc... but you know one thing only... that this person is in your house and he is not invited to do such...

What do you do?

Ask him to leave?

Or shoot him/her without asking questions?

Remember if you shoot him that he could claim assault with a deadly weapon and in the US come back and sue you... so if you choose to shoot you better shoot to STOP him... and if he/she dies in the process then so be it...

This is capital punishment... and killing in defense is not much different than killing for retribution... the only difference being it was preventative instead of post tramatic..

And Lazz...

I agree with you there...

but i cant think of a good analogy for it...

Evil is only a matter of perception...

[iLazz 2.0]

No. Self defence, on the spur of the moment is totally different to putting somebody on death row then killing them at a predetermined time.

[Diablo]

This is capital punishment... and killing in defense is not much different than killing for retribution... the only difference being it was preventative instead of post tramatic..

There is a huge difference. Killing to prevent the loss of your brother's life versus killing after his life has already been taken? It's not going to bring him back, it's just vengeance. That's why self-defense is a reasonable argument, and saying "well he killed my friend last week, so I went to his house and beat him with a club" is not.

[The Badger's Sister]

In terms of killing a person... and mind you i have never taken a life...

Lets make an example/senario:

You and your family are sleeping, a person (male or female makes no difference in the dark) forces entry into your house.

the Bad Guy or BG bumps something and somehow wakes you...

You get up and look to see what that was and notice the BG walking in your home.

Lets say for instance like in my house, one room is at one end of the house and there are 4 others at the other side... imagine a "L" shaped house...

this BG starts walking towards the other rooms, relief for you huh? but wait a minute... the rest of your family is over there!!!

You just remembered that you have a loaded gun in your room and know how to use it...

you grab it and your phone, and call 911 (in the US i'm not sure what you guys have in place elsewhere) and they inform you that police are on the way... average response time for police in my area is about 10 minutes and i live within 2 miles of a police station!!!

so knowing this, you walk lightly in the general direction of where you last saw the BG... you walk down the dark hallway, come to the first bedroom where you find him standing over your brother or sister who is still sleeping...

Now not knowing his intention, could be a rapist, could be just a robber, etc... but you know one thing only... that this person is in your house and he is not invited to do such...

What do you do?

Ask him to leave?

Or shoot him/her without asking questions?

Remember if you shoot him that he could claim assault with a deadly weapon and in the US come back and sue you... so if you choose to shoot you better shoot to STOP him... and if he/she dies in the process then so be it...

This is capital punishment... and killing in defense is not much different than killing for retribution... the only difference being it was preventative instead of post tramatic..

And Lazz...

I agree with you there...

but i cant think of a good analogy for it...

Evil is only a matter of perception...

first of all, I don't live with my family lol nor in an L shaped house. I live alone on the third floor, so I'd be the last to know someone was in the house and surely our security system would go off and wake me up since we set it every day.

Secondly, shooting BG to stop him from whatever he's doing doesn't mean I'm trying to kill him.

Thirdly, I'm terrified of guns. I would definitely never own one and probably never shoot one--unless some hunk of a man I live with owns one and feels the need to teach me how to use it.... no, that would never happen because I'm terrified of guns, which would probably make the man hunk terrify me, as well.

So this scenario would never happen in the first place.... and, you idiot, I would never shoot someone.

It doesn't matter the situation. I would never kill someone or something. I couldn't even get my dog put to sleep when I knew she was in so much pain. My mom had to do that.

Which brings me to another point, euthanasia. I totally believe this should be legalized if and only if the person has no chance of living or is living a miserable life or if the person is ill and doesn't want to continue living in pain or humiliation or whatever the case may be.


finally, durp dah dur. When I say I can never take a life, that's exactly what I mean. I could NEVER do it, no matter the scenario.


EDIT: and like Diablo said, vengeance and self defense are two totally different concepts.

ALSO: I don't care what scenario you write next, my answer is still the same. You can traumatize me with the evil plots you're setting up, but you can never make me say that I'd kill or shoot someone. I've always wanted to secretly stab someone, though. I would probably do that.... but never with the intention to kill and only in self defense.

[MindCaster]

I agree there is a big difference between self defense and capital punishment, but unfortunately in some States killing someone in self defense is still murder and you can be charged. There's something about being able to use an equal amount of force, but if you use more the police charge you with murder, but most are given some kind of deal involving probation or something like that. Either way it sucks and makes no sense to me; you are allowed to own a gun, but if someone attacks you with something other than that and you shot them, then your in trouble.I'm not saying people should be allowed to go around shooting people, but if someone is attacked by someone with a knife and they shot the person before they are stabbed, then they shouldn't be charged with murder.

[Hacky]

I hate Eye for an Eye policies. It's the whole concept of Sinking to their level that bothers me. It ends up killing everybody. I kill you. Your son kills me. My son kills him. It never ends. Somebody needs to be the bigger man.

[=|+QWERT+|=]

I wish I could take Hacky's eye out.

[AmorpheousMass]

It's thinking like "eye for an eye" that made Hammurabi's society fail.

Bustin' out the history on your faces.

[=|+QWERT+|=]

This thread is nasty.

[Soul Sojourner]

finally, durp dah dur. When I say I can never take a life, that's exactly what I mean. I could NEVER do it, no matter the scenario.
Unfortunately, you can "never" know if you would "never" do it in any scenario, until you've been through absolutely every scenario and every single variation of every scenario, no matter how small or large the variation. An easy matter of logic. It's like you as a three year old trying to predict what you are capable of now.

From a technical perspective: "I can (could) never take a life" = "I am not able to take a life, and will never be able to." You are more than capable of killing. If you are able to move so much as a single a limb, such as your arm, you are a capable of killing. There's always a visible scenario in which you can kill.


---------------------------------------------------------------


This entire topic is mostly a discussion about when and/or how someone would be willing to kill rather than whether or not the death penalty is necessary. - Just to put things in perspective before I continue.

One side is arguing about killing in general being bad and unwanted. - Killing is, has, and will continue happening regardless of what you think, do, or attempt to do about it.
Another side is arguing about how killing killers stops killing. - Killing is, has, and will continue happening regardless of what you think, do, or attempt to do about it. If you kill a killer you're killing, and therefore not stopping killing.

So? So it boils down to morals.

-Those who are saying that killers should be killed to stop killing feel that this is better justice because this killer can no longer kill and has submitted to a similiar fate as their victims. Correct?
-Their prison system point: To them it is also convenient because people with "better" moral standards are not paying to keep the killer alive when the killer has just as easily ended the life of others, plus it solves some prison/jailing issues. Correct?

-Those who are saying that killing in general is a bad thing feel that killing the killers is stooping to a level just as low or lower. They feel that it is still murder and in some cases a form of vengeance, and it will not help anyone in anyway. The only thing it will do is take another life. Correct?
-Their prison system point: Better prisons and/or prison/jailing systems could effectively reduce costs and preserve life. Correct?

From this interpretation: The heart of this discussion is a moral dispute. Morals are are a "standard" for doing the "right" thing. "Right" and "wrong" are entirely opinions. Because of this, there are no facts or pieces of evidence to help in making the "best" judgement. Therefore the "fairest" thing that can be done is to allow a majority "opinion" to be the deciding factor. Majority doesn't mean "right," nor is it always "fair." The only other way is to concentrate on which way is most beneficial and to whom. The "fairest" way would be to concentrate on how it is most cost effective to the "majority." Which, isn't fair at all. Is it?

The most cost-effective argument would concentrate on killing more prisoners and improving the prison system and the system with which prisoners are killed.

In the end, someone is losing something regardless. The question is who ends up losing the most?

The prisoner on death row? The citizens paying the tax?
Neither. The victims and their families. Nothing you do now is going to fill their loss. In the end, killing is, has, and will continue happening regardless of what you think, do, or attempt to do about it.

What do I think? I think that the most productive thing I've seen said, was four words. "Improve the prison system." That doesn't hurt anything and is productive, everything else is opinion and there are no facts to attribute to a moral standard; only more opinions.

TL;DR: If you didn't read all of it, don't waste your time commenting.

[LegionnaireZ]

There's something about being able to use an equal amount of force, but if you use more the police charge you with murder, but most are given some kind of deal involving probation or something like that.

That's definitely not true... In the US if they are in your place of residence and there is reasonable cause... (remember that REASONABLE) that they mean to harm you, your family, or another person, the use of force to STOP them by any means is at your discretion. Now in most cases that i've read, (because i havent shot anyone either and mind you... i dont want to either) the people that were shot were in fact killed...

Now it seems that alot of you are thinking that Capital Punishment can only be called that AFTER someone commits a crime. When one can argue that it is also the death of someone by another's hands for some wrongdoing...

So the term Capital punishment... and Self-Defense Killing are only a difference in timing...

and Badger,

I wasn't asking you YOUR situation, i was asking you to place yourself in THAT situation... and you answered fine... you'd rather be killed than take a life in self-defense to live... That's settled... and if you shoot someone... that's use of deadly force... you must accept that if you shoot someone that whether you meant to kill them or not... that is shooting with the intent to kill and will be tried as such... which is why in most cases (that i've read) the BG was killed during the encounter.

and no i'm not going to write another scenario... its not worth my time.

and well said SS...

[MindCaster]

That's definitely not true... In the US if they are in your place of residence and there is reasonable cause... (remember that REASONABLE) that they mean to harm you, your family, or another person, the use of force to STOP them by any means is at your discretion. Now in most cases that i've read, (because i havent shot anyone either and mind you... i dont want to either) the people that were shot were in fact killed...



All 50 States do not have the same laws and it was only in 2005-06 that 15 States finally expanded laws of self defense, so if someone does kill in self defense they wont be tried and while a few more States might have expanded laws sense than not all 50 have. Read for your self...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/07/us/07shoot.html

[iLazz 2.0]

I win this thread.

[LegionnaireZ]

All 50 States do not have the same laws and it was only in 2005-06 that 15 States finally expanded laws of self defense, so if someone does kill in self defense they wont be tried and while a few more States might have expanded laws sense than not all 50 have. Read for your self...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/07/us/07shoot.html

Ok What you posted is more in the case that yu are attacked in public... in some states you have the right to meet force with force... and yes not all states have that law... at least not to my knowledge. However, that I'm referring to is the event of a possible attacker entering your home.

This link is much more appropriate however still off topic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

[Ice Nine]

I hate Eye for an Eye policies. It's the whole concept of Sinking to their level that bothers me. It ends up killing everybody. I kill you. Your son kills me. My son kills him. It never ends. Somebody needs to be the bigger man.

This is why punishment is not delivered by the people, but rather by a government system that determines and oversees all penalties. If someone were to commit murder, it is not the duty of the family members of the deceased to carry out revenge, rather an objective thrid party should execute the murderer.

Hacky's problem with the "eye for an eye" policy (many other members also seem to have this gripe) is moot in a well structured society that can control vigilantism.

I see no real problems with "eye for an eye" other than the fact that so many people think it's harsh. The fact that this mentality exists makes it impossible to successfully implement. So, it becomes more of an inherent flaw in the way that the masses perceive this form of justice, not a flaw in the justice itself.

[Hacky]

How about the fact that it does absolutely no good? You're just removing one more life, not necessarily saving any one else. I personally feel the Death Penalty should only be used in cases of multiple murders, where the murderer is deemed likely to kill again. Otherwise... what's the point? Why is it any better than jail or setting them free?

The Death Penalty should only be used in the most extreme of cases. I have nothing against its use, but feel that you should be absolutely certain that you not only have the right man, but that he's likely to kill again. Which, admittedly, is nearly impossible. But I just see no reason for it otherwise. It doesn't make the world a better place.

I disagree with the whole concept of revenge. If you've been wronged, then be the better person. This isn't just from a vigilante perspective, but for justice as a whole. I understand this is not exactly a popular idea, but it does have ties in Darwinism. It doesn't matter if it is the justice system or individuals getting the "revenge," it is still self destructive and should be below us as a society.

[Squall]

How about the fact that it does absolutely no good? You're just removing one more life, not necessarily saving any one else. I personally feel the Death Penalty should only be used in cases of multiple murders, where the murderer is deemed likely to kill again. Otherwise... what's the point? Why is it any better than jail or setting them free?

The Death Penalty should only be used in the most extreme of cases. I have nothing against its use, but feel that you should be absolutely certain that you not only have the right man, but that he's likely to kill again. Which, admittedly, is nearly impossible. But I just see no reason for it otherwise. It doesn't make the world a better place.

I disagree with the whole concept of revenge. If you've been wronged, then be the better person. This isn't just from a vigilante perspective, but for justice as a whole. I understand this is not exactly a popular idea, but it does have ties in Darwinism. It doesn't matter if it is the justice system or individuals getting the "revenge," it is still self destructive and should be below us as a society.

In instances where a person has been wrongly convicted, that is not the fault of the death penalty. The system is the only thing you can blame. I find that most people will never change. If the person cannot be changed which is more often than not, then they should pay for their crimes.

I do disagree with lethal injection. Not because it may be excruciating, but because of the expense involved. In fact, the more horrific the death, the more I condone it. I've not a very forgiving person.

[Ice Nine]

How about the fact that it does absolutely no good? You're just removing one more life, not necessarily saving any one else. I personally feel the Death Penalty should only be used in cases of multiple murders, where the murderer is deemed likely to kill again. Otherwise... what's the point? Why is it any better than jail or setting them free?

So, just to get things straight, you are proposing a system of anarchy where there are no laws and people should just be free to do as they please? While I disagree with this philosophy, I just want to make sure that this was your intended message when you said that instead of using the death penalty murderers should just be set free. There has been a decent amount of testimony to the fact that letting convicts rot in jail not only costs a lot of money, but does not effectively change the convicts destructive behaviour. I personally think that there needs to be a set of laws in a society in order for people to consider the consequences of their actions. Without laws, I think that common man is not ideological enough to realize how their actions affect society if they are not directly held responsible.


The Death Penalty should only be used in the most extreme of cases. I have nothing against its use, but feel that you should be absolutely certain that you not only have the right man, but that he's likely to kill again. Which, admittedly, is nearly impossible. But I just see no reason for it otherwise. It doesn't make the world a better place.

The purpose of a justice system is not to make the world a better place, it is to enforce rules and laws. The rules and laws are hopefully the things that have been designed to make the world a better place. Use of the death penalty should be seen as a deterrent, not a method by which anything is achieved other than enforcing laws. Explain to me how someone who takes the life of another human being deserves another chance? It should prove just as "difficult" as explaining why they don't deserve a second chance.


I disagree with the whole concept of revenge. If you've been wronged, then be the better person. This isn't just from a vigilante perspective, but for justice as a whole. I understand this is not exactly a popular idea, but it does have ties in Darwinism. It doesn't matter if it is the justice system or individuals getting the "revenge," it is still self destructive and should be below us as a society.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, but it again sounds like you don't want to hold people accountable for their actions...and I don't understand why. While I mentioned the idea of revenge in my previous post, I only did so in order to show that the idea of people wanting revenge is a bad thing...so I think on this point we somewhat agree. It is certainly the justice system's job to get "revenge" on the perpetrator, but it is the laws that define to what extent they can be punished, so in that sense there is revenge in any law enforcing system, it just may not be eye for an eye.

[sharknice]

The problem with an eye for an eye is you'd end up killing everyone if you took it literally. If I kill your daughter and cause anguish to your family, it would only be fair to kill me. And my daughter, to cause anguish to my family.

Eye for an Eye doesn't go like that though.
Murder kills someone. Justice System kills murder. End. There is no endless cycle, this isn't the wild west.


Money
I heard it actually costs more to use the death penalty than it does for life in prison. Because of all the extra processes and etc. Although I haven't seen any direct sources for this claim.

[Soul Sojourner]

There is but one thing more powerful than conviction, and that is mercy.

[LiquidFire]

Imo: It should be used when there is unequivocal evidence pointing to their guiltiness, and it is under the most seriousness business of cases.

tl;dr: Hacky said it.

[Hacky]

So, just to get things straight, you are proposing a system of anarchy where there are no laws and people should just be free to do as they please? While I disagree with this philosophy, I just want to make sure that this was your intended message when you said that instead of using the death penalty murderers should just be set free. There has been a decent amount of testimony to the fact that letting convicts rot in jail not only costs a lot of money, but does not effectively change the convicts destructive behaviour. I personally think that there needs to be a set of laws in a society in order for people to consider the consequences of their actions. Without laws, I think that common man is not ideological enough to realize how their actions affect society if they are not directly held responsible.

I have no idea how you got Anarchy from what I said. I asked why it's any better, I didn't suggest that as an alternative.


The purpose of a justice system is not to make the world a better place, it is to enforce rules and laws. The rules and laws are hopefully the things that have been designed to make the world a better place. Use of the death penalty should be seen as a deterrent, not a method by which anything is achieved other than enforcing laws. Explain to me how someone who takes the life of another human being deserves another chance? It should prove just as "difficult" as explaining why they don't deserve a second chance.

Why don't they deserve another chance? I've made mistakes. I've gotten speeding tickets, I've done many illegal things which have occasionally put my and friends' lives in danger. Should I be in jail right now? Shouldn't nearly everybody be in jail under this same rule? It's not a matter of why they deserve a second chance, it's simply a matter of morality. It's why people are innocent until proven guilty. I don't need to prove why they deserve a second chance, you need to prove why they don't. That's how the system works.

I simply feel that stooping to their level and punishing them the same way they broke the law does no good. It puts you on their turf. We need to be above murderers. It's the same philosophy people such as Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr., "Jesus", and even Bob Marley shared. Had such men held the idea of an Eye for an Eye, then their work would be nowhere nearly as grand, probably even completely forgotten. They are viewed as though they are better than human. I simply feel that this philosophy should not be put on a pedestal for the best of the best and revolutionary leaders: It should be the philosophy of all men.


This all being said, I do understand the costs related to keeping people in jail, the space issues, and the fact that it tends to not "correct" very many people if they are released. But simply arguing that these issues are solved by killing the inmates does not make that suddenly the better option. Cheap does not make it morally right.

From a strictly Darwinist perspective, early societies with Jails rather than "Eye for an Eye" punishments tended to perform better. To me, this shows that the jail system works, and the whole "removal of a hand when they steal" thing does not. Thus, Death Penalty for single murder, be it first degree or not, is anti-Darwinist.

[Diablo]

Imo: It should be used when there is unequivocal evidence pointing to their guiltiness, and it is under the most seriousness business of cases.

tl;dr: Hacky said it.
This. The simple fact that innocent people get convicted is reason enough for me to oppose the death penalty. You'd have to have one hell of a good reason to kill an innocent man.

I basically entirely agree with Hacky.


It's the same philosophy people such as Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr., "Jesus", and even Bob Marley shared.
One of these things is not like the other.


Had such men held the idea of an Eye for an Eye, then their work would be nowhere nearly as grand, probably even completely forgotten. They are viewed as though they are better than human.
The rest of this paragraph becomes amusing when you consider Bob Marley in the list.

[Hacky]

Hey, hey... Bob Marley kicks ass.

[unknown]

Moar like Bob Marley kicks bucketz

[Ice Nine]

This. The simple fact that innocent people get convicted is reason enough for me to oppose the death penalty. You'd have to have one hell of a good reason to kill an innocent man.

I don't believe that anyone here ever argued against the fact that a certain threshold of "proof" would be necessary in order to use the death penalty. Of course, innocent people should not have to pay for the actions of others. This is likely not something that people will debate. Of course this does raise the following problem: Worse crimes tend to and should carry worse punishments. People tend to want more evidence in order to convict someone who is going to receive a harsher punishment. Therefore, it becomes more difficult to convict people who have committed more serious crimes. Not really on topic, just food for thought.

[sharknice]

I don't believe that anyone here ever argued against the fact that a certain threshold of "proof" would be necessary in order to use the death penalty. Of course, innocent people should not have to pay for the actions of others. This is likely not something that people will debate. Of course this does raise the following problem: Worse crimes tend to and should carry worse punishments. People tend to want more evidence in order to convict someone who is going to receive a harsher punishment. Therefore, it becomes more difficult to convict people who have committed more serious crimes. Not really on topic, just food for thought.

Well it is actually relevant and on topic. With the death penalty it costs more money to deal with because they want to have more proof and be sure they aren't killing the wrong person.

[Ice Nine]

I heard it actually costs more to use the death penalty than it does for life in prison. Because of all the extra processes and etc. Although I haven't seen any direct sources for this claim.


Well it is actually relevant and on topic. With the death penalty it costs more money to deal with because they want to have more proof and be sure they aren't killing the wrong person.

Please try not to state something as fact when you have already stated it as hypothetical.

[sharknice]

Please try not to state something as fact when you have already stated it as hypothetical.

k, http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

[Diablo]

I don't believe that anyone here ever argued against the fact that a certain threshold of "proof" would be necessary in order to use the death penalty. Of course, innocent people should not have to pay for the actions of others. This is likely not something that people will debate. Of course this does raise the following problem: Worse crimes tend to and should carry worse punishments. People tend to want more evidence in order to convict someone who is going to receive a harsher punishment. Therefore, it becomes more difficult to convict people who have committed more serious crimes. Not really on topic, just food for thought.

I know no one is saying that we should put innocent people on death row, but the fact remains that innocent people do get convicted. And to actually kill an innocent man because evidence sucked or something would be near unforgivable.

My point is that the penalty is too harsh to fuck up, and fuck-ups will happen. Thus this is bad.

[DCLXVI]

I am all for the death penalty. Some people have no right to live. Sex offenders and rapists should be executed immediately, and on television. Have something like To Catch a Predator, but when the dudes leave the house, instead of them getting arrested there should be a sniper posted on a rooftop 30-06 who pops their skull open. That would be good television.

[Soul Sojourner]

I am all for the death penalty. Some people have no right to live. Sex offenders and rapists should be executed immediately, and on television
So I am following the assumption that you believe "rape" is "wrong." Correct?

Whether or not you realize this, what you just said was that you believe other people should be killed because they have a different opinion.

Right and wrong are opinions, so killing someone for doing something "wrong," is killing someone over a difference in opinion. Even if the person being killed believes it is "wrong," they still have a different opinion about just how "wrong" something is. If they didn't, they would have killed themselves or asked someone else to do so already because they agree with you on how "wrong" it was.

[Diablo]

So I am following the assumption that you believe "rape" is "wrong." Correct?

Whether or not you realize this, what you just said was that you believe other people should be killed because they have a different opinion.

Right and wrong are opinions, so killing someone for doing something "wrong," is killing someone over a difference in opinion. Even if the person being killed believes it is "wrong," they still have a different opinion about just how "wrong" something is. If they didn't, they would have killed themselves or asked someone else to do so already because they agree with you on how "wrong" it was.

You're retarded. Jailing someone because of an opinion is also wrong, but that's not the case. There are set rules. It may be your opinion that the rules are wrong, but you know that if you don't abide by them you will suffer the punishment. If you don't like the rules then try to change them, leave, or suck it up and deal.

I fail to see how this applies to the death penalty discussion, because life in prison for an opinion is also wrong. I also fail to see how you graduated 2nd grade with logic like that.

[MindCaster]

Innocent people being punished is wrong, but forensics has gotten a lot better then it used to be, so there are far less mistakes. As for making a mistake involving the Death Row; there are many, many appeals that take a very long time. For example: Scott Peterson was put on death row in 2005 and is still in the middle of they appeals process that will continue for a few more years.
@ the "Why shouldn't they get a second chance?"
A planned out murder is not an accident! When someone plans out a murder and does there best to hide any and all evidence pointing to them it is because it WAS NOT a mistake. It means not only did they know what they were doing, but they knew it was "wrong" because they did not want to be caught because they know there are consequences.
I'm not saying the Death Penalty is the perfect solution, that it will solve everything, or that it should be the punishment for every crime. However I do believe it is a necessary punishment for some: Serial killers, particularly horrible crimes (multiple murders and crimes like that of Scott Peterson), rapists, and molesters.

[DCLXVI]

Yes, while morals are subjective there are things called laws. Failure to abide by these laws yields consequences. While it may be my own subjective morality that classifies rape as wrong, or bad; I am sure I am not the only one who feels that way. None of what you said even comes close to swaying my position or at least re-evaluating it. Let em fry.

[Ice Nine]

I am all for the death penalty. Some people have no right to live. Sex offenders and rapists should be executed immediately, and on television. Have something like To Catch a Predator, but when the dudes leave the house, instead of them getting arrested there should be a sniper posted on a rooftop 30-06 who pops their skull open. That would be good television.

I originally completely ignored your post above because it was completely idiotic and obviously written by somebody who doesn't have the maturity level to intelligently discuss serious topics such as this. I had hoped that this meant that from then on you would not make another appearance in this thread. Unfortunately, I was wrong. I have nothing to say to the above post, I don't feel I have to say anything, I just wanted to draw attention to how stupid it was while I responded to your second post below.


Yes, while morals are subjective there are things called laws. Failure to abide by these laws yields consequences. While it may be my own subjective morality that classifies rape as wrong, or bad; I am sure I am not the only one who feels that way. None of what you said even comes close to swaying my position or at least re-evaluating it. Let em fry.

Please stay on topic. Just because SS posted a completely worthless and moronic post does not mean that it dignifies a response. Not only that, but if you choose to respond, please try to keep the discussion about the death penalty instead of a discussion about whether rape is right or wrong. Deciding what crimes are worthy of punishment is not what this thread is about.

That being said, why do you believe that rapists and sex offenders are most deserving of the death penalty?

[ryudo]

I heard it actually costs more to use the death penalty than it does for life in prison. Because of all the extra processes and etc. Although I haven't seen any direct sources for this claim.

Now if they could just come up with some cheaper methods than those tame and expensive injections then it wouldn't be a problem. How much does about 10 feet of rope cost, or flipping a switch and shocking em to death...or just get some depraved psycho who likes killing and make it his job to go in a room with the "dead man walking" and do what he does best. All good cheap methods. They might not be humane but the guy is supposed to die after the sentence has been filled so what does it matter about how he dies, only that in the end our guy is dead and that is one less killer out there.

[Mescal]

The death Penalty is a touchy subject. I think they should rid of people who deserve it to leave room in the jails.
Rapists, Serial Murderers, etcetc.
Extreme crimes should face the extreme penalty

[DCLXVI]

I would say that I am plenty mature and intelligent enough to discuss this matter. Just because you may not agree with my opinion doesn't mean I am not qualified to give it. Nor did I say that anyone was more deserving of it. I would just like to see those people recieve the death penalty for my own personal reasons that I feel no need to explain to you. Take it or leave it. Either way I don't give a shit.

[MindCaster]

The philosophy of whether or not a crime is "right" or "wrong" does not matter at this point. Now if you were discussing the severity of the crime and about how "wrong" a crime needs to be for the criminal to get the death penalty, it would be completely different because that would have relevance. There are already laws in place saying what is "wrong" this discussion is about the consequences or punishment (if that word is preferable) for breaking the law, not whether or not said laws are "wrong."

[Soul Sojourner]

Jailing someone because of an opinion is also wrong, but that's not the case. There are set rules.
"Jailing someone because of an opinion is also 'wrong'" is also an opinion. "Wrong" is an opinion. Rules regarding "right" and "wrong" are also made from opinions. I do not see what in my post you are disputing.


It may be your opinion that the rules are wrong
It isn't.
I actually didn't state my opinion on anything being "right" or "wrong" in my last post. I simply put what someone else said into different context. Did you mean to quote him?


If you don't like the rules then try to change them, leave, or suck it up and deal.
I have no problems with the current rules or laws. I have no reason to have any problems with the current rules or laws. I never stated having any problems with any rules or laws anywhere. In fact, I didn't state my opinion on anything at all. I did, however, add a different perspective to the topic. :)


I fail to see how this applies to the death penalty discussion, because life in prison for an opinion is also wrong.
Once again, you're stating that jail time or prison time over a difference in opinion is "wrong." But like I said, "wrong" is an opinion, I never said anything was "right" or "wrong." Which means, I also didn't say nor imply that a prison sentence was the "right" choice.


I also fail to see how you graduated 2nd grade with logic like that.
Slipping in insults doesn't raise a valid point, it only makes a mess of the message you're trying to get across. In this case, it's irrelevant anyway, because it seems you're disputing an opinion I didn't make.


It means not only did they know what they were doing, but they knew it was "wrong" because they did not want to be caught because they know there are consequences.
Actually, all it means is that they know that the law says it's "wrong," it does not necessarily mean they believe it is "wrong."


Yes, while morals are subjective there are things called laws. Failure to abide by these laws yields consequences. While it may be my own subjective morality that classifies rape as wrong, or bad; I am sure I am not the only one who feels that way. None of what you said even comes close to swaying my position or at least re-evaluating it. Let em fry.
Laws and their consequences are also built on the opinions of those who create and amend them. My purpose was not to change your opinion, I don't even disagree with you, I just wanted to put what you said in a different light for you to consider. Not everybody has an agenda. My opinion on the severity of the punishment for violent sex crimes isn't quite as harsh as yours, but it isn't too far off in the case of repeat offenders. Of course, I'm not including the whole television thing, I don't agree with that, sorry.


Please stay on topic. Not only that, but if you choose to respond, please try to keep the discussion about the death penalty instead of a discussion about whether rape is right or wrong. Deciding what crimes are worthy of punishment is not what this thread is about.
While I realize this is not directed towards me, you were so kind as to include me in it, so I'm going to throw in. This is not quite so, sir. It was not about rape being "right" or "wrong" it was about killing in any form, death penalty or otherwise, being over a difference in opinion. Seeing as this topic is about whether or not the death penalty is necessary, adding that it is "killing over a difference in opinion" is a valid perspective.

Furthermore, what crimes ("That being said, why do you believe that rapists and sex offenders are most deserving of the death penalty?") are more or less deserving of the death penalty isn't exactly a valid dispute about whether or not the death penalty is necessary, or had you planned to tie it to the topic question?

I'm sorry, I don't believe your question is without reason or validity, Ice Nine, but since you doubted me, I simply wanted to give you a comparison and my point of view. :)


I would say that I am plenty mature and intelligent enough to discuss this matter. Just because you may not agree with my opinion doesn't mean I am not qualified to give it. Nor did I say that anyone was more deserving of it. I would just like to see those people recieve the death penalty for my own personal reasons that I feel no need to explain to you. Take it or leave it. Either way I don't give a shit.
I respect your opinion, and I can easily come up with personal reasons (a girlfriend, a mother, a sister) in which you would feel more condemning towards those particular criminals. I do not blame you for feeling that way. :)

[Diablo]

Okay, let's break this down so that your kindergarten mind can comprehend it.

You said:

So I am following the assumption that you believe "rape" is "wrong." Correct?

Whether or not you realize this, what you just said was that you believe other people should be killed because they have a different opinion.

Right and wrong are opinions, so killing someone for doing something "wrong," is killing someone over a difference in opinion. Even if the person being killed believes it is "wrong," they still have a different opinion about just how "wrong" something is. If they didn't, they would have killed themselves or asked someone else to do so already because they agree with you on how "wrong" it was.

My point is that it doesn't matter whether or not anyone believes rape is right or wrong. If someone believes raping people isn't wrong, then they are not going to agree with any sort of punishment if/when they rape someone, be it jail or the death penalty. Your stupid "oh well it's not necessarily wrong in everyone's eyes because people have different perspectives" is dumb and irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You say it as if I should not be punished if I kill someone if I think it was okay to kill that person. Because then I don't think it's wrong, and punishing someone for that is punishing someone because of an opinion, right?

Oh wait, that makes no sense, because we have set laws that you are to abide by, regardless of whether or not you think the crimes they are punishing are right or wrong.

My overall point is that your stupid tangent applies to punishment in general just as much as it applies to the death penalty. And because of that, you're basically leading into some sort of inane "if you think it's okay you shouldn't be punished" type of argument, or at least suggesting that perspective. And that is irrelevant, though if you want to get into that discussion it's downright silly to hold that opinion.

[Soul Sojourner]

My point is that it doesn't matter whether or not anyone believes rape is right or wrong.
It wasn't about whether or not rape was "wrong." I asked him if that was what he thought, to show that I was making the rest of my reply based on the evidence that he thought something was "wrong." It doesn't matter what, in his case it was rape, but it goes for anything. Holding a butterfly can be considered "wrong."Replace "rape" with "butterfly holding." It had nothing to do with rape.


If someone believes raping people isn't wrong, then they are not going to agree with any sort of punishment if/when they rape someone, be it jail or the death penalty.
So you agree with me?

Even if the person being killed believes it is "wrong," they still have a different opinion about just how "wrong" something is. If they didn't, (didn't disagree) they would have killed themselves or asked someone else to do so already because they agree with you on how "wrong" it was.
Of course they wouldn't think they should be punished for doing nothing "wrong." We are in agreement on this. What I say there in that quote, is if they did agree, they would be just as likely to punish themselves if they thought it was wrong to the same extent as DCLXVI. Which is why there are plenty of both murder/suicides and flat-out murders. Or why some killers kill themselves for what they've done, and others don't. Many people don't agree on "right" and "wrong." That's why some people are willing to kill in the first place, while others kill themselves out of guilt, and others won't bring themselves to kill someone else. I wasn't implying that it is therefore okay for them to get away with it. Sorry.


Your stupid "oh well it's not necessarily wrong in everyone's eyes because people have different perspectives" is dumb and irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
I have to disagree. "it's not 'wrong' in everyone's eyes" = "difference in opinion."
Killing over a difference in opinion is more than relevant to whether or not the death penalty is necessary. Not because it says it is or it isn't, but because it is attributable to why it should or shouldn't be. Think beyond the box.

It's like a list of reasons why you should or shouldn't do something. Imagine a T on a piece of paper with Yes on one side and No on the other. Under the top line on each side you list reasons for why you should and why you shouldn't. It's not just a piece of paper with yes or no on it, and you just circle one as a decision without a list of reasons. That would be pointless.
Now imagine a group of people with the same piece of paper deciding the same thing with the same reasons. Each person is going to feel differently, so while some things are on the "no" side for some people, others would think they should be on the "yes" side, and vice versa. This means that people may feel differently about something, as they may feel some of the same reasons listed work better on the other side of the paper. So "a difference in opinion" is attributable to either side of the argument, depending on perspective (as is any reason in any situation). I come into the equation, not by circling a yes or a no, but by writing another reason on the paper that can be put on either side of the argument. Like I said, not everyone has an agenda. I never said yes or no to begin with, and I'm not promoting any either side or any other side in specific.


My overall point is that your stupid tangent applies to punishment in general just as much as it applies to the death penalty.
I never said it didn't. Furthermore I agree that it applies to more, and as I said, it's attributable to either side of the argument. I never said that it applied to only one thing, nor am I using it to promote either side of the argument. What more do you want? I don't see what you're disputing.


And because of that, you're basically leading into some sort of inane "if you think it's okay you shouldn't be punished" type of argument, or at least suggesting that perspective.
I am not leading to anything. You are assuming I am leading to something and are pointing out implications where I mean no implications. I'm sorry if you got the wrong idea, but I often throw things on the table that are attributable to a topic, regardless of my stance on the topic IF I even have one. If I don't clearly state my stance on the topic, I am neutral until I say otherwise.


And that is irrelevant, though if you want to get into that discussion it's downright silly to hold that opinion.
Be that as it may, it is not my argument nor my perspective so you can disagree with it all you like and it will still have no bearing unless someone here actually holds that particular opinion.

Time for a recap:

Morality is opinion.

"Right" and "wrong" are opinions.

Killing someone for doing something "wrong" is killing someone over a difference in opinion. Even if it is done through the death penalty or by the law.*

* Reason: The law is also created and amended by people and therefore what is "right" and "wrong" by the law is also just as much opinion.

The reason I state this regardless of the law, is because the topic is created regardless of the law. It is asking if something that is currently the law (in some places) is necessary, therefore opening up disputes against the the current laws. Or in other words "should this be the law?"

Nowhere whatsoever do I state that I believe the death penalty is "right" or "wrong." Therefore I do not state my opinion on whether or not it is "right" or "wrong" for killing to be done over a difference in opinion.

Diablo, unless you disagree with "right" and "wrong" being opinions, then we have no dispute. However, I apologize if I made it sound like I was implying an opinion I was not trying to imply. I wasn't trying to imply anything like what you posted, so I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. And please refrain from the insults, the more there are, the more I need to filter out to get to the actual material. :D

[LiquidFire]

So I am following the assumption that you believe "rape" is "wrong." Correct?

Whether or not you realize this, what you just said was that you believe other people should be killed because they have a different opinion.

Right and wrong are opinions, so killing someone for doing something "wrong," is killing someone over a difference in opinion. Even if the person being killed believes it is "wrong," they still have a different opinion about just how "wrong" something is. If they didn't, they would have killed themselves or asked someone else to do so already because they agree with you on how "wrong" it was.


Are you defending rape?

You're trying to say morality is subjective, but then you go an say killing someone because of it is wrong. By what standard--yours?




It wasn't about whether or not rape was "wrong." I asked him if that was what he thought, to show that I was making the rest of my reply based on the evidence that he thought something was "wrong." It doesn't matter what, in his case it was rape, but it goes for anything. Holding a butterfly can be considered "wrong."Replace "rape" with "butterfly holding." It had nothing to do with rape.


:facepalm:

It wasn't about whether or not holding butterfly knives was "wrong." I asked him if that was what he thought, to show that I was making the rest of my reply based on the evidence that he thought something was "wrong." It doesn't matter what, in his case it was holding butterfly knives, but it goes for anything. Pouring molten lead down Soul's throat can be considered "wrong."Replace "holding a butterfly knife" with "molten lead" It had nothing to do with butterfly knives.

[Soul Sojourner]

Are you defending rape?

You're trying to say morality is subjective, but then you go an say killing someone because of it is wrong. By what standard--yours?

:facepalm:

It wasn't about whether or not holding butterfly knives was "wrong." I asked him if that was what he thought, to show that I was making the rest of my reply based on the evidence that he thought something was "wrong." It doesn't matter what, in his case it was holding butterfly knives, but it goes for anything. Pouring molten lead down Soul's throat can be considered "wrong."Replace "holding a butterfly knife" with "molten lead" It had nothing to do with butterfly knives.
I am not defending anything.

Morality is opinion, yes.
I didn't say anywhere that I believed anything is wrong. Read it again.

Edit: Sorry for the misunderstanding, I meant to replace "rape" with "butterfly holding" in the quote, not in the current post. I only say "rape" one time in that quote.


So I am following the assumption that you believe "butterfly holding" is "wrong." Correct?

Whether or not you realize this, what you just said was that you believe other people should be killed because they have a different opinion.

Right and wrong are opinions, so killing someone for doing something "wrong," is killing someone over a difference in opinion. Even if the person being killed believes it is "wrong," they still have a different opinion about just how "wrong" something is. If they didn't, they would have killed themselves or asked someone else to do so already because they agree with you on how "wrong" it was.

[LiquidFire]

I think you have to defend your position before I can comment.

You are trying to say that rape is not wrong, but you turn around and say that killing over it is. I think you should justify that thought... Oh, wait. Your morality is subjective. Well, so is mine, I guess. In my mind, spiking your drink with cyanide and pouring molten lead down your throat is moral.


Also, if right and wrong are just a matter of opinion, you can't win this debate.

[Soul Sojourner]

I think you have to defend your position before I can comment.

You are trying to say that rape is not wrong, but you turn around and say that killing over it is. I think you should justify that thought... Oh, wait. Your morality is subjective. Well, so is mine, I guess. In my mind, spiking your drink with cyanide and pouring molten lead down your throat is moral.


Also, if right and wrong are just a matter of opinion, you can't win this debate.
You don't get it. I don't have a position.

I am not saying rape is "wrong." I am not saying rape is "right." I am not saying anything about rape except that I am not saying anything about it. I am not saying killing over it is "wrong." I am not saying killing over it is "right." Morality is opinion. I have not expressed my morals.

Since I'm not debating anything, other than misquotes, I wasn't planning to win anything in the first place.

I have said that killing for doing "wrong" (or "right") is killing over a difference in opinion.

That just about sums it up, even though I've needed to repeat it far too many times. :D

[LiquidFire]

In regards to rape, the topic being discussed, you expressed that it was just an opinion. You have said that killing because a difference of opinion is wrong, which is a moral attribute. Because you have not attacked the death penalty, you imply that it is not an issue. Now, we can conclude that you sanction rape by viewing it as an equal standard to live by.

I win this thread.

[deafening5ilence]

You could just say everything is subjective, but for practical purposes, someone has to enforce their ideas of right and wrong. Beyond that, with no position, there's no sense in arguing.

I agree that there's a lot of room for gray area, especially when someone's life is on the line, but gd, if that bitch is obviously going to do it again, fry him. We've got better scum to worry about.

*Ninja. :(

[Soul Sojourner]

You have said that killing because a difference of opinion is wrong, which is a moral attribute. Because you have not attacked the death penalty, you imply that it is not an issue. Now, we can conclude that you sanction rape by viewing it as an equal standard to live by.
Please quote me saying that I think killing over a difference in opinion is wrong.
I do not believe that and that is not what I said.
I imply nothing. I am not responsible for your assumptions.
I've said nothing of rape.

Since you keep persisting on saying that I've said things I didn't say, I'm concluding that you're trolling. Sorry if I'm wrong, but I've said my piece a few times over and made it as clear as possible.

[LiquidFire]

Please quote me saying that I think killing over a difference in opinion is wrong.

So I am following the assumption that you believe "rape" is "wrong." Correct?

Whether or not you realize this, what you just said was that you believe other people should be killed because they have a different opinion.

Right and wrong are opinions, so killing someone for doing something "wrong," is killing someone over a difference in opinion, which is wrong. Even if the person being killed believes it is "wrong," they still have a different opinion about just how "wrong" something is. If they didn't, they would have killed themselves or asked someone else to do so already because they agree with you on how "wrong" it was.

I bet you also think killing babies is fun, huh? You are a disgusting human being. I shutter at the though that you prowl the streets, waiting to attack, and stalk the public.


I win this thread.


Until Lazz comes inlol


edit: Nice job on editing your post.

[Xeroen]

What about soldiers. The ones that see active duty and end up taking the lives of other human beings because that is part of what their job entails. Should they be tried as murderers for killing somebody over what is ultimately, a difference of opinion?

[Soul Sojourner]

edit: Nice job on editing your post.
I don't need to point out the time frame between my post and the time you made your reply. There are editing limits when you can no longer edit a post.

I wanted a real quote. Go troll unknown. Go help him get upgraded. :P

[Diablo]

ITT: Soul Sojourner posts something stupid and largely irrelevant, and then tries to cover it up with the worst pile of bullshit ever.

[MindCaster]

It doesn't matter whether a criminal believes his crime was "right" or wrong," if it is viewed as wron gin a court of law your ass is in trouble so, SS yuor lack of position has to place on this thread. We are discussing wether or not the death oenalty ir right and if you don't have an opinion why are you wasteing your time and ours by posting here.

[Soul Sojourner]

It doesn't matter whether a criminal believes his crime was "right" or wrong," if it is viewed as wron gin a court of law your ass is in trouble so, SS yuor lack of position has to place on this thread. We are discussing wether or not the death oenalty ir right and if you don't have an opinion why are you wasteing your time and ours by posting here.
Incorrect. The topic question is not whether the death penalty is "right" or "wrong," but whether or not it is necessary. Some people believe it is necessary to reduce the costs of keeping prisoners, while others argue that that point of view is not "right." Those are valid points attributable to whether or not it's necessary. It is killing over a difference in opinion because morals are subjective. That is also a valid point attributable to whether or not it's necessary.

It can be used on either side of the argument, the problem people are having is that I'm not attributing it to either side or they are assuming I AM attributing to a side when I am not. Rather than simply accepting it as a valid point.

Also, claiming that it doesn't matter because it's the law is anti-discussion since the question is asking if the current law is necessary.

I didn't say I didn't have an opinion, I simply said I didn't express it.

I'm also not wasting your time by posting here, you're wasting your own time by posting here. I didn't force your hand and make you log on.

I could probably just quote my other posts instead of repeating myself every time, but it's fine, I don't mind. :D I think the other guys were just trolling me anyway. :P

[LiquidFire]

You admitted your support for rape through admission and a conclusion from several reasonable premises.

MindCaster is right. Your moral views are truly horrific.

[MindCaster]

I didn't say you didn't have a position on the topic. I said you haven't given one and that is why you are wasting our time. This tread was discussing the possessives and negatives of the death penalty and our positions on it, where as you are going off topic and supporting rape. If you want to discuss whether rape is "right" or "wrong" or if punishing someone even if they think what they did was "right" create a new thread. All everyone has been trying to tell you SS, is that if you can't add anything relevant to the conversation, don't bother posting. Especially considering that your posts have, for the most part been, obnoxiously long and pretty much the same exact thing. Actually yous said your self you could just quote yourself over and over again.

[Soul Sojourner]

I didn't say you didn't have a position on the topic.
Oh?

SS yuor lack of position has to place on this thread.
----------

I said you haven't given one and that is why you are wasting our time.
TL;DR?

you're wasting your own time by posting here.
----------

This tread was discussing the possessives and negatives of the death penalty and our positions on it,
Hmm....

Do you think the death penalty is necessary?
----------

where as you are going off topic and supporting rape. If you want to discuss whether rape is "right" or "wrong" or if punishing someone even if they think what they did was "right" create a new thread
I see...

I've said nothing of rape.

I am not saying rape is "wrong." I am not saying rape is "right." I am not saying anything about rape except that I am not saying anything about it.
----------

All everyone has been trying to tell you SS, is that if you can't add anything relevant to the conversation
Conversation: "Expression and exchange of individual ideas; talking with other people; also, a set instance or occasion of such talking."
Individual Idea: The death penalty is killing over a difference in opinion.
Relevance?
----------

don't bother posting.
Don't post... because? You don't agree?
----------

Especially considering that your posts have, for the most part been, obnoxiously long and pretty much the same exact thing.
TL;DR?

I didn't force your hand and make you log on.
----------

Actually yous said your self you could just quote yourself over and over again.
Yes.

I could probably just quote my other posts instead of repeating myself every time
Re-wording it doesn't seem to be working.
----------
TL;DR?

[LiquidFire]

Soul is just taking your words out of context.

I agree with what you said in our PM chat. Soul is a morally corrupt person. At the time I did not understand it completely, but now I can see your point of view.

[WestcoastRyder]

Death Penalty isn't a good penalty. Be in prison for lifetime is better.
People who deserve death penalty get often free and vice versa. Even Griselda Blanco who killed over 100 people is free and a guy gets killed for killing one man because of a fight... is this right justice ?

[Tingebing]

Death is never necessary.
It isn't even a punishment for the one who dies, in fact, it's more of a punishment for his friends and family.

Death Penalty is just another mistake.

That's my opinion.

[MindCaster]

Even Griselda Blanco who killed over 100 people is free and a guy gets killed for killing one man because of a fight... is this right justice ?

There are standards for the death penalty, killing a guy in a fight or a car accident would man slaughter and the death penalty can't be used. The death penalty is for people, like Blanco, who are convicted of 1st degree murder.