Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums

Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/index.php)
-   Critical Thinking (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/forumdisplay.php?f=33)
-   -   The Death Penalty (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/showthread.php?t=9038)

perfect_fat 04-9-2004 04:55 AM

The Death Penalty
 
China, Iran, the United States and Vietnam were the world's top users of the death penalty in 2003, accounting for 84 percent of known executions, human rights body Amnesty International said Tuesday.

More than half of known executions were in China, where the true toll could be more than 10 times higher, according to the British-based Amnesty's annual report.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=4764966

It's kind of a manipulative headline, china is responsible for the vast majority of that 84%, us has around 65 executions and china over 600.

Anyways, what do you guys think of the death penalty? I'm against killing in general, but if you've got a totally deranged psycho who's out of touch with reality, isn't it better to put them out of their misery sometimes, instead of paying for their meals until they finally die?

On the other hand, as many as 10% of all deathrow inmates are innocent, I heard that on A&E.

What's your take on it?

Chrissi 04-9-2004 09:55 AM

They not always 100% sure the people are guilty. I remember a long time ago when they found out that a guy who had been put to death ALREADY was completely innocent.. they gave the family a few billion dollars or something to "make up for it".

This is the main reason why I'm against the death penalty (and we don't have it here in Canada, yay). They're often not as sure as they think they are.

lightdarkness 04-9-2004 11:32 AM

I belive if there is enough evidence that i can be proven many different ways that they did the crime, then they should be put to death.

usamablackbelt 04-9-2004 12:14 PM

Why?
Money?
Because it will save us money?
It takes the perpetrator off the streets.

Then why execution?
There is a simple pill of a compound unknown to me.
Simple, nearly instant. Painless.

Electrocution.
Lethal Injection.

My understanding of Capital punishment is not a painless death.
Can the state not have humanity in its killing?

People want revenge.
Suffering.
We're not sure of afterlife. Even those who see hellfire in the executee's future. So there is the desire for his eye. From the taking of ours.

The state is made of the people.


Capital Punishment.

Toward our willingness to exact this punishment,
And our individual willingness to accept it,

Specforces

Specforces 04-9-2004 12:16 PM

^For some reason FFR is glitching and signed me in as that person above me, I've never seen that screenname before, weird, huh?

Specforces

boccobrock 04-9-2004 12:29 PM

I believe that the death penalty is not correct or right and that the people that are put to death should be given a second chance. The thing is, is that it is not possible to just not put them to death. Often the family members of the person that was killed, as that should be the only reason to put someone to death, wan't the murderer to get the death penalty. The thing is even though nobody really wants the person to die, we don't have any alternative. Putting them in jail for life isn't giving them a second chance, its just putting them in a concrete room, and wasting the goverments money. The best thing to do would be to try and find a talent they have, get them to contribute to society. But this can't be done without endangering other people if the murderer still is set on killing. So They can't give them a second chance and nothing can be done. That is why the death penalty is wrong and I do not like it, but I do realize that it is neccesary until we can find a way to let them become a better person without endangering others. So that is my statement on that.

On the subject of china killing so much, I simply think that they need to realize that by not being very friendly with other countries and by not having a vrey good goverment, they are effectively killing themselves. I think all of the asian countries need to try and make themselves better goverments.

Thanks for reading,
Boccobrock

perfect_fat 04-9-2004 01:18 PM

You also have to remember that china is a dictatorship and their population is 10 times the size of the united states, so they're close to equal per capita.

You can get the death penalty if you get caught with weed in Indonesia (i'm pretty sure it's indonesia). That's crazy.

But if somebody won't be rehabilitated, and I think we will all agree that drugging them up to the point where they're barely in touch with reality is cruel, and they are set on murdering more, they attack guards and other inmates, should they be put to sleep like a rapid dog?

Specforces 04-9-2004 07:16 PM

Firing squads, simple way to kill a killer. Cost-effective too.

Specforces

chardish 04-9-2004 08:08 PM

An unjust punishment.

MYTH: The death penalty is a fair punishment, because "the punishment suits the crime."
FACT: We do not use that same philosophy with our other punishments. We do not mug muggers. We do not rape rapists. We do not abuse abusers. There is no reason for us to kill killers.

MYTH: The death penalty is cheaper than life-in-prison
FACT: Because states require more prosecutors and longer cases and allow more appeals on death penalty cases, the average death penalty sentence costs the taxpayers tens of thousands more than the average life-without-parole sentence. In addition, while all the court proceedings are occuring, the defendant is spending years in prison spending the same amount of taxpayer money he would anyway.

MYTH: Lethal injection is painless.
FACT: There are many cases in which lethal injection has gone horribly wrong. Either not enough drug has been given to kill the person (sending them into excruciating pain) or a usable vein cannot be found (on heroin addicts.)

perfect_fat 04-10-2004 02:20 AM

chardish, got any sources to back up the cost comparison?

chardish 04-10-2004 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by perfect_fat
chardish, got any sources to back up the cost comparison?

Quote:

Originally Posted by From: The Case Against The Death Penalty
The latest mode of inflicting the death penalty, enacted into law by
nearly two dozen states, is lethal injection, first used in Texas in 1982.
It is easy to overstate the humaneness and efficacy of this method. There
is no way of knowing that it is really painless. As the U.S. Court of
Appeals observed, there is "substantial and uncontroverted evidence ...
that execution by lethal injection poses a serious risk of cruel,
protracted death.... Even a slight error in dosage or administration can
leave a prisoner conscious but paralyzed while dying, a sentient witness
of his or her own asphyxiation." (Chaney v. Heckler, 718 F.2d 1174 [1983])

Nor does the execution always proceed smoothly as planned. In 1985 "the
authorities repeatedly jabbed needles into ... Stephen Morin, when they
had trouble finding a usable vein because he had been a drug abuser."(40)
In 1988, during the execution of Raymond Landry, "a tube attached to a
needle inside the inmate's right arm began leaking, sending the lethal
mixture shooting across the death chamber toward witnesses."(41)

Indeed, by its veneer of decency and by subtle analogy with life-saving
medical practice, death by lethal injection makes killing as punishment
more acceptable to the public. Even when it prevents the struggles of the
condemned person and avoids maiming the body, it is no different from
hanging or shooting as an expression of the absolute power of the state
over the helpless individual.

http://users.rcn.com/mwood/deathpen.html

perfect_fat 04-10-2004 04:30 PM

I didn't see anything about the cost there?

But I think it's logical to assume that after somebody dies, you can't ask them if their lethal injection hurt.

chardish 04-11-2004 12:17 AM

By the same logic, you can say "After somebody dies, you can't ask them if their brutal multiple stabbings hurt."

perfect_fat 04-11-2004 02:58 AM

Yeah, maybe it felt good. An orgy of pain so overwhelming it actually felt good.

chardish 04-11-2004 06:58 PM

See the movie "The Passion Of The Christ" and then tell me that would feel good.

chillywilly 04-13-2004 04:45 PM

There is an easy way to solve the whole inaccurate death injection thing. Shoot them in the back of the head. That is a kill 100% of the time (in video games). Or to many this more interesting, they could do six executions in a row (with suspected innocent people), and play russian roulette. Sure, it would piss a lot of people off, but theres a new reality show on FOX.

frankiesmithra24 05-22-2007 12:15 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chillywilly (Post 141305)
There is an easy way to solve the whole inaccurate death injection thing. Shoot them in the back of the head. That is a kill 100% of the time (in video games). Or to many this more interesting, they could do six executions in a row (with suspected innocent people), and play russian roulette. Sure, it would piss a lot of people off, but theres a new reality show on FOX.

The movie directors also use that in action movies.

FishFishRevolution 05-22-2007 12:23 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Don't bump CT topics with nothing to add.

Kilroy_x 05-22-2007 12:47 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
It's possible to take a bullet through the head and live. People have done it. As for the death penalty, it's excessively costly, results in the deaths of innocents, doesn't serve as a deterrent to other criminals, is used highly disproportionately on minorities, and on top of that violent crime in states with the death penalty is generally much higher than in other states. Some have argued this is why the death penalty needs to be in place, others argue that the perpetuation of a mentality of justifiable violence through the death penalty erodes cultural mechanisms which prevent violent behavior.

There's absolutely no justification for the death penalty. The emotional rage of the family is hardly a basis for murdering someone, even when they're a murderer themselves. The only conceivable use would be if the death penalty was opted for by the criminal, but in that case that would imply life in prison was the less desirable sentence.

devonin 05-22-2007 01:11 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

There's absolutely no justification for the death penalty.
What, to you, is the purpose of the justice/prison system? You've already said that it isn't much of a deterrant. The usual second listed purpose is rehabilitation.

What do you do for violent, dangerous criminals who are not deterred by prison terms, who have been determined by experts to be completely uninterested in rehabilitation, and who, if released are almost 100% certain to simply continue offending and being a violent dangerous person? Such a person is a danger to society, and themselves.

I'm not actually advocating for the death penalty here, I'm just pointing out a situation where one could argue it would be justified. If someone is a serial killer, unrepentant, intending to continue, and the best psychologists and psychiatrists have determined that they are simply never going to "see the error of their ways" and rehabilitate, do you really think that the justice system lives up to its name to make taxpayers financially support such a person forever?

Dc-xBluex 05-22-2007 05:47 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
I am opposed to the death penalty. Simply because i believe that no human being has the right to take another persons life. It's just not their place. However, like the first post said, If you've got some psyhco deranged killer, I would much rather see them put to death then to waste my countries tax dollars on supporting them in prison until they die.

devonin 05-22-2007 06:02 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
So...you oppose it because it is wrong, and no human has a right to do it...except if the person is just a really bad guy? Doesn't that seem a little convenient to you?

trillobyite 05-22-2007 06:28 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Well, we can all sit and debate about the technical aspects of the death penalty, and sympathize with the poor man or woman strapped, restrained, and being injected with lethal chemicals. But when it is your sister, brother, or parent that was killed, you're not going to have any sympathy, and all this intellectual battle over the morality of the death penalty will go down the toilet.

As to a point chardish made- yes, the death penalty is expensive. But with the death penalty, money goes to appeals trials in an attempt to prove the potential innocence of the accused, whereas without the death penalty, money goes to convicted felons and monsters to get food and sustenance in prison.

WeissPraline 05-22-2007 07:07 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
I have mixed feelings about capital punishment.

On one hand, seeing an axe murderer get killed is, as awful as it is, gratfying(spelling?). While we may think "Oh my god, that's horriable", it is still human nature to want revenge. Humans are far from perfect.

I think the punishment should fit the crime, though. If you kill 20 people, then I say death penelty ftw. If you kill one person, in a painless way, even though it's wrong...

I say it's not worth it. Sure, 'Eye for an eye' sounds nice on paper, but doesn't really work in reality. We're in America (Assuming you're talking about America, which uses capital punishment. If you're not in America, then, my bad. :B), not Ancient Mesopotamia.

x-Thief 05-22-2007 08:13 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
The death penalty is appropriate in some cases.

I think that serial killers and other such people who have taken things to an extreme should be put to death. Also, like has been said, people who show no interest in rehabilitating or stopping their murder need to be put to death. True these cases are few and far between, but the death penalty should be there as a punishment if there is an absolutely necessity.

However, a murderer who doesn't take it to that extreme should just be reprimanded with a prison sentence. Besides, I think that the mental tourture of "life in prison without parrol" would detter more people from committing a crime. (But perhaps that's just my opinion)

devonin 05-22-2007 09:00 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
The justice system has so completely and utterly failed to make prison (even for life) any kind of deterrant. As I said in another thread once: The rights of a person in jail are among the most zealously protected out there.

I think that the quality of life you have in prison should be inversely proportional to the length of the prison term. Get 6 months for B&E? I'm okay with the current standards of library access, computer access, reasonably good food and so on that exist today in most prisons.

Get life with no parole for murdering a half dozen people? You get an empty cell, enough food and drink to keep you alive, and not one damn thing more.

When prison life is enough better than life on the streets, that there is a -major- problem in places with cold winters, where homeless people let themselves get arrested for a minor crime, hoping for a 6-month sentence to get them through the cold months, because the guarentee of food, shelter and access to resources is -better- than what they can get outside prison, something is wrong with the system.

Kilroy_x 05-23-2007 01:38 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 1538855)
What, to you, is the purpose of the justice/prison system?

It's first purpose is to minimize problems that occur as a result of actions of a non-voluntary nature. This implies in and of itself that the justice system should not inflict excessive punishment as a punishment is of a non-voluntary nature. Only as much punishment as is necessary. This function might also be argued to correspond to a restorative function for the justice system.


Quote:

If someone is a serial killer, unrepentant, intending to continue, and the best psychologists and psychiatrists have determined that they are simply never going to "see the error of their ways" and rehabilitate, do you really think that the justice system lives up to its name to make taxpayers financially support such a person forever?
Sure. It's keeping them off the streets and in a place where they can't hurt others. The cost is also generally less to the taxpayer. The justification for lifetime imprisonment is surely there as well. Oh, and putting the lives of anyone in the hands of anyone else, no matter how "professional" or "enlightened" they may be, is a complete abuse of power.

Kilroy_x 05-23-2007 01:45 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by trillobyite (Post 1539417)
But when it is your sister, brother, or parent that was killed, you're not going to have any sympathy, and all this intellectual battle over the morality of the death penalty will go down the toilet.

Oh get over yourself. Not everyone is as shallow as you. I've personally had conversations with people who have had their whole families murdered in front of them and who still opposed the death penalty.

Quote:

As to a point chardish made- yes, the death penalty is expensive. But with the death penalty, money goes to appeals trials in an attempt to prove the potential innocence of the accused, whereas without the death penalty, money goes to convicted felons and monsters to get food and sustenance in prison.
Because they certainly aren't eating while they stay in prison during the appeals! Great argument! So the death penalty is better than life because it makes taxpayers spend money helping a person fight a battle they probably won't win, regardless of their guilt or innocence, and this in addition to the other costs a life sentence would impose... GREAT THINKING!

Kilroy_x 05-23-2007 01:50 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 1539900)
he rights of a person in jail are among the most zealously protected out there.

A questionable assertion.

Quote:

When prison life is enough better than life on the streets, that there is a -major- problem in places with cold winters, where homeless people let themselves get arrested for a minor crime, hoping for a 6-month sentence to get them through the cold months, because the guarentee of food, shelter and access to resources is -better- than what they can get outside prison, something is wrong with the system.
The system which has the problem isn't necessarily the prison system though. The economic and social situations which lead to the individual being homeless and incapable of providing sustenance are more likely at fault.

ashleychauntel 05-23-2007 01:54 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
In all honesty I am not that crazy about the death penalty. I don't think that it is really justifiable: You kill someone, it was wrong, you shouldn't have done that, but we are going to kill you to make it right? Hypocrisy anyone?

On the other hand, completely deranged people don't exactly need to be walking around free... and putting them in jail just lets them live out their days in confinement, where nothing is happening to them that is nearly as bad as what they have done that would constitute a death penalty conviction...

So...

I don't think that the death penalty is completely the right thing, or completely the wrong thing. If someone murders another person many will rush to the conclusion that they should die in return, eye for an eye, Hammurabi's Code and all that jazz. And I guess sometimes that the death penalty should be seen as a fitting punishment, but other times no.

The A&E statistic quoted earlier is something I have heard not only on TV but in a few classes I have taken. 10% of convictions aren't right, so therefore, 10% of the time we would be killing the wrong person!?

IF and WHEN the death penalty is considered I think it should only be used if there in undeniable evidence that the crime was committed by the individual on trial and that beyond a shadow of a doubt it can in no way be anyone else's doing; that the punishment is that fitting the crime.

When it comes down to it I suppose I am a bit indifferent... I'm not the one injecting people with lethal doses of drugs or flipping switches to electrocute people or anything else; and fortunately me or my family have never been put in a position where we have to deal with such a thing and don't want to.

In short I suppose: Don't do it if you aren't sure about it, and even then, really think. Then, if the death penalty still seems fitting, then okay.



As for paying for those sentenced to life, I don't like that aspect; keeping criminals alive for life after committing such horrible acts. But, something has got to give.

Kilroy_x 05-23-2007 02:05 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
You're paying money no matter what. You're actually paying more for the death penalty.

Oh, and to the constant argument "they did something bad, it doesn't feel right for them not to suffer in return"; **** that. The willingness to hurt others is at the core of the problem in the first place. Are you jealous of murderers or something? You hate them for choosing to satisfy themselves at the cost of another, so you use them to do the same? Get the hell over yourselves.

Scythe_Star 05-23-2007 12:29 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Let me drop my opinion :), ok the death penalty, there comes a time when we have to look at a person and really judge if they are a menace to society or not. Ive known people that have did things to support their family, sure it was bad what they did and it wasnt right but should they die for trying to support their family? sure they could get a job, unless you are constantly judged by your color or the workplace you are at is discriminating you and there is nothing you can do about it. well I do believe certain people just shouldnt be let loose into society, I say the victim's family kill them the not government. I have no natural desire to hurt anyone, but if we dont hurt someone then they would ultimately hurt you or walk all over you and your family and do you really want that? personally I beleive we really dont have the right to judge someone, but sometimes you have to go against your beliefs to better support your life and family.

Kilroy_x 05-23-2007 12:41 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
You're missing the point. You can prevent such a person from killing or injuring other people by imprisonment as easily as by the death penalty, and imprisonment is the lesser of the two evils. If you're going to go against your values you might as well choose the manner in which you sacrifice the least of them.

slipstrike0159 05-23-2007 06:53 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
I have mixed view on this as well...

Honestly i agree that jail life (because of humanitarians) is a lot better than you think. The only thing you really have to worry about in jail is the other people with you and going insane from boredom. This is significantly less to worry about than if you are on the street where most criminals come from.

Spending life in prison: as humane as it sounds, would suck hardcore. The person would be placed in the jail cell for the rest of their known life with nothing to do. They would almost literally be suffering everyday mentally until they die. The only reason i could see this as good is that the only time it is too late to prove their innocence due to new evidence is when they die nearly 30 years later.

If someone knows that from the crimes they have committed will land them life in jail then they will know that they have nothing to lose but their life. So in this case they will continue their crime spree as long as they can. (Dont know how this fits into the conversation but it was a random on topic thought to consider).

Also, getting the death sentence (as i would only be able to imagine) wouldnt scare a hardened criminal so thinking of making it a legal practice to 'scare' them is not very logical.

Opposing this, although it gives more trials that could prove their innocence, giving the death sentence severely limits the chance someone who is innocent will be freed.

One last though, we as humans are not all knowing and as such do not have the ability to judge someone and say that they deserve to die. Through their actions we can judge them according to the crimes they have committed, however this does not give any one person (or group of people) any kind of right to say "YOU DESERVE TO DIE" and then do it.

Even with all the unethical arguments against it and having said all that, i am leaning more towards the pro death sentence side but still remain fairly moderate on the subject.

unkdavar 05-23-2007 07:17 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
How much is a life worth? If someone can solve that we wouldn't have to think about this question at all. If one life was worth as much as another then kill them all.


By leaving someone who commits a murder alive we are saying that the criminal's life is worth more then the person he murdered.

krazykhalid 05-23-2007 07:31 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
i tihnk the death penalty should be used for the people who are obviously guilty, for the worst of the worst of crimes, EG: Karla Homolka, i dont want this freakshow living in possibly my neighbourhood, knowing what she and her husband have done to their victims, its retarded that she's free now... she should have been put to death along with her husband, too bad Canada does not have the death penalty.

P.S if you dont know who karla homolka is, look her up on google or wikipedia...

*EDIT* adding onto my original lil post,

the death penalty should only be put on people, who have commited the worst of the worst of crimes, such as first degree murder, and which looking at the evidence, the credability of the witnesses, and other factors, whether they are indeed 100% guilty, and depending on the way they had done the crime, like did the victim suffer, and to what degree they suffered, while they had died, or how severe the crime had been, they should have been put to death.

slipstrike0159 05-23-2007 08:00 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
You cant really measure how much the victim suffered though unless you ask them like someone said about asking the person if the stabs hurt. Also, i agree with unkdavar, in that we cannot show how much one life is worth in comparison to another.

trillobyite 05-23-2007 09:01 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x (Post 1540453)
Oh get over yourself. Not everyone is as shallow as you. I've personally had conversations with people who have had their whole families murdered in front of them and who still opposed the death penalty.

What the hell type of word is shallow to describe it? There are a significantly larger number of families who DON'T oppose the death penalty after seeing their families murderered in front of them. The victim should really have the right to choose the punishment for the killer. If someone massacred my family, I would strongly prefer to see them dead, and I don't care how "shallow" that makes me. I'd rather not see deeper into the "poor" criminal.

If the family forgives the killer then I don't see why the death penalty should be instituted. But in most unreasonable homicides, I doubt that is the case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x (Post 1540453)
Because they certainly aren't eating while they stay in prison during the appeals! Great argument! So the death penalty is better than life because it makes taxpayers spend money helping a person fight a battle they probably won't win, regardless of their guilt or innocence, and this in addition to the other costs a life sentence would impose... GREAT THINKING!

That is one terrible argument. How in the world is the food that a person on trial happens to eat before the jury comes to a decision relevant? Their guilt isn't proven, so they have the right to be fed and treated well until (if) proven so. Then you make fun of my argument with sarcasm but haven't actually made a point.

devonin 05-23-2007 09:12 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by trillobyite (Post 1542098)
That is one terrible argument. How in the world is the food that a person on trial happens to eat before the jury comes to a decision relevant? Their guilt isn't proven, so they have the right to be fed and treated well until (if) proven so. Then you make fun of my argument with sarcasm but haven't actually made a point.

The point he was making (and admirably at that) was that the "it is so expensive to keep a criminal in prison forever, the death penalty is much less burdensome on taxpayers" logic doesn't actually hold that much water, because those sentenced to death are allowed a great number of appeals (for which there are costs) and the entire time they are on death row (often years) they are still being housed, fed, and recieving the same costly things that someone in prison for life gets -on top of- the costs from the DAs office in having to go through all of the lengthy appeals.

trillobyite 05-23-2007 09:51 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 1542128)
The point he was making (and admirably at that) was that the "it is so expensive to keep a criminal in prison forever, the death penalty is much less burdensome on taxpayers" logic doesn't actually hold that much water, because those sentenced to death are allowed a great number of appeals (for which there are costs) and the entire time they are on death row (often years) they are still being housed, fed, and recieving the same costly things that someone in prison for life gets -on top of- the costs from the DAs office in having to go through all of the lengthy appeals.

Ohhh. Ok. I don't agree though. Like I said, I'd rather tax money go to feeding and housing people who have not been convicted of a major felony than I would people who have been convicted. Obviously the cost is higher when added to payment for the DA and possibly defense, but I wasn't arguing that the cost is less burdensome on taxpayers, I was arguing that I'd rather extra money go to proving the potential innocence of an accused over money going to feeding and helping someone who is already convicted. As to the fact that people end up on death row for years and the appeals process takes forever....that is a problem, but not a problem inherent in the death penalty itself. Just like alleged racism (the whole 50% of people who kill blacks given the DP while 90% of people who kill whites given the DP) is a huge problem, I don't think that's a problem inherent in just the concept of a death penalty.

slipstrike0159 05-23-2007 11:46 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
I think the biggest problem people have with this issue is not about the money necessarily, its about the ethics associated with making such a decision.

Kilroy_x 05-24-2007 01:00 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by trillobyite (Post 1542098)
What the hell type of word is shallow to describe it?

A good word.

Quote:

There are a significantly larger number of families who DON'T oppose the death penalty after seeing their families murderered in front of them.
So?

Quote:

The victim should really have the right to choose the punishment for the killer.
Why? Wait; what? The victim is typically dead. Are you counting witnesses/family as victims? So because someone the family cared about is no longer with them, they now own the person responsible and can do with him as they wish? "You took away my husband's life, so I'll substitute my ownership of his life with yours"? One on top of the other, every meaning which reveals itself in minds like yours shows interaction only in terms of coercion, subjugation, and ownership of others. These are the feelings which allow human beings to murder other human beings, please don't try to pretend they're rational or justifiable. This is the hypocrisy which is responsible for all worldly ills.

Quote:

If someone massacred my family, I would strongly prefer to see them dead, and I don't care how "shallow" that makes me.
That's a shame. You're refusing to be the better person because it feels more satisfying to satiate hatred.

Quote:

I'd rather not see deeper into the "poor" criminal.
This is the best part. You think I must be defending the criminal's actions, or giving his life more consideration than your families because I don't think you have the right to do what he did not, no matter how "just" your feelings might be. I don't care about your feelings, they don't justify anything. There is no way of showing which feelings are legitimate and which are not. All feelings are arbitrary, subjective, and ultimately baseless. This isn't to say people shouldn't have feelings, but that the important consideration is what the feelings are used for, and for a murderer or for you to employ your feelings to dehumanize others and justify violence is something at the root of all existing death and ill-will, and all to come.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trillobyite (Post 1542343)
I don't agree though. Like I said, I'd rather tax money go to feeding and housing people who have not been convicted of a major felony than I would people who have been convicted.

...you're going to end up doing it with or without the death penalty...

Quote:

Obviously the cost is higher when added to payment for the DA and possibly defense, but I wasn't arguing that the cost is less burdensome on taxpayers, I was arguing that I'd rather extra money go to proving the potential innocence of an accused over money going to feeding and helping someone who is already convicted.
........ .... ... An appeal is done on behalf of someone already convicted. The money ...

oh for crying out loud. You're feeding a convicted person no matter what. Get used to the idea. The argument you've chosen is quantifiably baseless.

Quote:

As to the fact that people end up on death row for years and the appeals process takes forever....that is a problem, but not a problem inherent in the death penalty itself.
It's a problem which manifests much more seriously within the death penalty.

Quote:

Just like alleged racism (the whole 50% of people who kill blacks given the DP while 90% of people who kill whites given the DP) is a huge problem, I don't think that's a problem inherent in just the concept of a death penalty.
Perhaps not, but it's a problem worsened significantly by the fact this inequity manifests in terms of life or death rather than in terms of freedom or a reasonable amount less freedom.

trillobyite 05-24-2007 03:28 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x (Post 1542797)
A good word.

Well I can't get over myself. I have enough pride to abhorr a killer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x (Post 1542797)
Why? Wait; what? The victim is typically dead. Are you counting witnesses/family as victims? So because someone the family cared about is no longer with them, they now own the person responsible and can do with him as they wish? "You took away my husband's life, so I'll substitute my ownership of his life with yours"? One on top of the other, every meaning which reveals itself in minds like yours shows interaction only in terms of coercion, subjugation, and ownership of others. These are the feelings which allow human beings to murder other human beings, please don't try to pretend they're rational or justifiable. This is the hypocrisy which is responsible for all worldly ills.

Yes. If the killer feels he has the right to subjugate and kill someone important to me, I feel I have the right to subjugate and kill him. I don't see the logic behind how this thought denotes that my mind can only think of human relationships in terms of coercion and subjugation. Not every human interaction is in the context of the specific discussion we are having now about murder.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x (Post 1542797)
That's a shame. You're refusing to be the better person because it feels more satisfying to satiate hatred.

I acknowledge that other people follow different moral codes, and that's why I said if the victim's family can sympathize with the killer, no execution should take place. I myself think differently than most. I grew up in a ****hole in Iraq, and personally, if someone chooses me as an enemy without provocation, I have no qualms in stooping to his/her level to defeat him/her. I know that seems brutal to you (and probably most non-middle easterners), but that's the way I operate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x (Post 1542797)
This is the best part. You think I must be defending the criminal's actions, or giving his life more consideration than your families because I don't think you have the right to do what he did not, no matter how "just" your feelings might be. I don't care about your feelings, they don't justify anything. There is no way of showing which feelings are legitimate and which are not. All feelings are arbitrary, subjective, and ultimately baseless. This isn't to say people shouldn't have feelings, but that the important consideration is what the feelings are used for, and for a murderer or for you to employ your feelings to dehumanize others and justify violence is something at the root of all existing death and ill-will, and all to come.

So which feelings should the government support and which they should condemn? Feelings of revenge are out of the question, right? What about feeling bad for the poor? Well, they only make the GDP look worse by taking in welfare and depriving the government of money, so screw them right? Should sympathy, as irrelevant and baseless as it is, be ignored? What about fun? Should the government promote conventions and activities and fairs, or is fun just another baseless feeling? Is retribution somehow morally *lower* than those other feelings? I have the right to feel what I feel. The government has no right to make sure I can't feel satisfied by retribution if a killer has chosen someone important to me to satisy himself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x (Post 1542797)
...you're going to end up doing it with or without the death penalty...

No, with the death penalty he/she is fed and treated until the day the person is proven guilty. The few months between the a final conviction and execution can't really be said to count. Without the DP the person has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt for committing a crime and is now being given sustenance by taxpayers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x (Post 1542797)
........ .... ... An appeal is done on behalf of someone already convicted. The money ...

oh for crying out loud. You're feeding a convicted person no matter what. Get used to the idea. The argument you've chosen is quantifiably baseless.

Ok, let me be more clear. I don't mean until the first legal conviction. I mean until the final point, the pont of no return, at which the execution date has been set and sealed. Though, I do believe clemency hearings should be given. If the person is granted clemency and gets life in prison then fine, money should go to feeding him/her. I don't want every murderer killed. If the person has an IQ below 80 or something, or killed someone who emotionally ruined his/her life, that's a different story. Even if the victim's family wants the person dead, if the victim wasn't qutie innocent, I can agree that the DP should not be used.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x (Post 1542797)
It's a problem which manifests much more seriously within the death penalty.

...?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x (Post 1542797)
Perhaps not, but it's a problem worsened significantly by the fact this inequity manifests in terms of life or death rather than in terms of freedom or a reasonable amount less freedom.

That's true. It's a damned significant problem, and one which must be corrected immediately. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing the death penalty significantly be declined in use until those sorts of kinks are out of the system.

Kilroy_x 05-24-2007 04:12 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by trillobyite (Post 1543508)
Well I can't get over myself. I have enough pride to abhorr a killer.

...except when the killer kills a person you aren't fond of.


Quote:

Yes. If the killer feels he has the right to subjugate and kill someone important to me, I feel I have the right to subjugate and kill him.
Neither of you have that right. If a person breaks a rule that doesn't mean all rules are out, let alone that the new rule should be along the exact same lines as the violation of the past rule.

Quote:

I don't see the logic behind how this thought denotes that my mind can only think of human relationships in terms of coercion and subjugation. Not every human interaction is in the context of the specific discussion we are having now about murder.
No it isn't, but I doubt your thoughts about other issues would be any less impure if you can think in the way you do at all. Maybe I should give you more credit, but having seen people make a certain type of mistake once and continue to make similar errors in their judgment in other fields, whether politics, sociology, whatever, I tend to get a certain picture of a person whenever they manifest any of these traits in thought I see so often.

Quote:

I acknowledge that other people follow different moral codes, and that's why I said if the victim's family can sympathize with the killer, no execution should take place.
This may seem like a concession to you, but the fact that it places a persons life, even a murderers, beneath another persons emotions hardly strikes me as a good way for human beings to think or interact.

Quote:

I myself think differently than most.
I'm sorry to tell you, but you don't. If you look through the topic you'll see more opinions in line with yours than in line with mine.

Quote:

I grew up in a ****hole in Iraq, and personally, if someone chooses me as an enemy without provocation, I have no qualms in stooping to his/her level to defeat him/her. I know that seems brutal to you (and probably most non-middle easterners), but that's the way I operate.
This is actually understandable to me, and I'm sorry that you've had to deal with that type of interaction in your life, but I think there's an important consideration to make in terms of this. Self-defense is perfectly justifiable. You're defending your own life. Similarly defending others is justifiable in almost all instances. The problem is that the death penalty isn't an act of self defense. You've captured the enemy. They are at your disposal to do with as you please. To kill them when they pose no threat to you doesn't have the same degree of legitimacy as to kill them out of necessary self preservation.

Quote:

So which feelings should the government support and which they should condemn?
Only thinking in terms of government is silly, but if the government has any place in the affair it should be this. They should only condemn feelings which lead to violence against persons and property. All other emotions should be neither supported nor condemned.

Quote:

Feelings of revenge are out of the question, right?
When they result in violence, yes. If by revenge you intend to beat someone in a sporting contest that's fine, but I don't think that's how you mean it.

Quote:

What about feeling bad for the poor?
This is fine.

Quote:

Well, they only make the GDP look worse by taking in welfare and depriving the government of money, so screw them right?
I personally don't think the government should play any role in the economy at all. Government intervention even in trying to help the poor inevitably just creates more poor and makes those who are already impoverished worse off. That's a separate discussion though.

Quote:

Should sympathy, as irrelevant and baseless as it is, be ignored? What about fun?
Both should be left up to individual discretion as neither leads to harm. If for some reason certain types of sympathy or fun seeking lead to harm of others, these specific types should be restricted.

Quote:

Should the government promote conventions and activities and fairs, or is fun just another baseless feeling?
Fun is subjective to the point of being baseless. Or rather, the basis of fun is individual taste, and the basis of individual taste is something no one can discern or prove as having any level of legitimacy for others. So, no, the government shouldn't promote anything relating to "fun". They shouldn't restrict it either. As long as fun doesn't hurt anyone, people are entitled to it, and are entitled to decide for themselves what fun constitutes.

Quote:

Is retribution somehow morally *lower* than those other feelings?
In some sense of morality, absolutely. Retribution in terms of the death penalty is something which places one human being above another, and even though the problem is that this was done to begin with, the "solution" is just an extension of the problem.

Quote:

I have the right to feel what I feel.
True.

Quote:

The government has no right to make sure I can't feel satisfied by retribution if a killer has chosen someone important to me to satisy himself.
Maybe they don't, but you don't have the right to retribution either. The only reason I would say the government doesn't necessarily have this right is because in order to prevent you from killing the killer, it would have to detain you, or take away your ability to kill him in some other way. Generally however it does this by simultaneously taking away the killers freedom by putting him in prison. In this case, it doesn't seem to violate your rights to prevent you from going into the prison to kill them.

Quote:

No, with the death penalty he/she is fed and treated until the day the person is proven guilty.
You don't understand what an appeal is. The prisoner is fed well after they've been proven guilty. They're just re-proven guilty 2-8 times over in the course of 10-40 years, during which time yes, they eat.

Quote:

The few months between the a final conviction and execution can't really be said to count.
Sure it can. Even if it doesn't count for much in your opinion, in counts for something.

Quote:

Without the DP the person has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt for committing a crime and is now being given sustenance by taxpayers.
... .... .... .... ... ... ....

Ok, so your argument then seems to be that because under the death penalty the criminal can tie up the justice system for a long period of time, as long as they keep their guilt in contention it's fine for them to eat, but a soon as they can't do this anymore it's wrong for them to eat.

... .... ...

WHAT? So the justice in feeding a person is based on whether or not some arbitrary and expensive custom is in place?


Quote:

Ok, let me be more clear. I don't mean until the first legal conviction. I mean until the final point, the pont of no return, at which the execution date has been set and sealed.
This doesn't make any sense. It's ok to pay for food to keep them alive, likely until the same age, until they die of unnatural causes, but not of natural causes?

Quote:

Though, I do believe clemency hearings should be given. If the person is granted clemency and gets life in prison then fine, money should go to feeding him/her. I don't want every murderer killed. If the person has an IQ below 80 or something, or killed someone who emotionally ruined his/her life, that's a different story. Even if the victim's family wants the person dead, if the victim wasn't qutie innocent, I can agree that the DP should not be used.
So now you're weighing life on a more carefully calibrated scale, but you're still weighing life nonetheless.



Quote:

...?
Because under the death penalty a person dies. That strikes me as more serious.

Quote:

That's true. It's a damned significant problem, and one which must be corrected immediately. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing the death penalty significantly be declined in use until those sorts of kinks are out of the system.
No offense, but all the the concessions you've been trying to make ultimately seem to have no effect the problems with your position.

trillobyite 05-24-2007 06:53 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Edit: If we go on like this I'm going to end up leaving the debate, because I get tired out really, really easily when dealing with a massive amount of text. It's a big fault and I may not belong on CT for it, but I should let you know....I will most likely respond though...


Quote:

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x (Post 1543595)
...except when the killer kills a person you aren't fond of.

My opinions on a killer who kills someone I'm not fond of are irrelevant. I would have no right to interfere.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x (Post 1542797)
Neither of you have that right. If a person breaks a rule that doesn't mean all rules are out, let alone that the new rule should be along the exact same lines as the violation of the past rule.

Well, frankly, I dont see why I can't punish the killer by the same rule he breaks. That itself is a human trait. In Dante's inferno, people are punished ironically as a result of whatever sin they commit. Hammurabi says "eye for an eye". Like I said, I operate differently than others. I think two wrongs make a right. The source of human ill is those who initially choose to break the rules, not those who respond.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x (Post 1542797)
No it isn't, but I doubt your thoughts about other issues would be any less impure if you can think in the way you do at all. Maybe I should give you more credit, but having seen people make a certain type of mistake once and continue to make similar errors in their judgment in other fields, whether politics, sociology, whatever, I tend to get a certain picture of a person whenever they manifest any of these traits in thought I see so often.

Well we've already had run-ins in the past, me and you, so I think we'll come to be very much judgemental of each other here on CT :(

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x (Post 1542797)
This may seem like a concession to you, but the fact that it places a persons life, even a murderers, beneath another persons emotions hardly strikes me as a good way for human beings to think or interact.

Well in my eyes, as soon as someone murders another, that person forfeits his/her right not to be punished in turn. Whether the victim's family chooses to use that to seek revenge or chooses instead to forgive is up to them. The problem with this debate is that I define society's ills not in the desire of humans to kill and then for revenge to be sought after, but for anyone to believe they have the right to kill initially with no good reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x (Post 1542797)
I'm sorry to tell you, but you don't. If you look through the topic you'll see more opinions in line with yours than in line with mine.

No I don't mean in terms of just the death penalty. I'm one of those people who sees things more in black and white than in grey. I think sometimes there is no compromise and that sometimes there can be only two sides or two options.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x (Post 1542797)
This is actually understandable to me, and I'm sorry that you've had to deal with that type of interaction in your life, but I think there's an important consideration to make in terms of this. Self-defense is perfectly justifiable. You're defending your own life. Similarly defending others is justifiable in almost all instances. The problem is that the death penalty isn't an act of self defense. You've captured the enemy. They are at your disposal to do with as you please. To kill them when they pose no threat to you doesn't have the same degree of legitimacy as to kill them out of necessary self preservation.

Well of course it doesn't have the same degree of legitimacy, but that's because self-defense is the ultimate legitimate excuse for killing another.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x (Post 1542797)
Only thinking in terms of government is silly, but if the government has any place in the affair it should be this. They should only condemn feelings which lead to violence against persons and property. All other emotions should be neither supported nor condemned.

Plenty more feelings other than revenge can lead to rage. But I don't see the anger that results from adultery being outlawed, or adultery itself outlawed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x (Post 1542797)
I personally don't think the government should play any role in the economy at all. Government intervention even in trying to help the poor inevitably just creates more poor and makes those who are already impoverished worse off. That's a separate discussion though.

Actually I strongly agree with you on that. I guess I had trouble finding a good example, but I think you know the point I was getting at.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x (Post 1542797)
In some sense of morality, absolutely. Retribution in terms of the death penalty is something which places one human being above another, and even though the problem is that this was done to begin with, the "solution" is just an extension of the problem.

We're going to reach a loop again here. In my view, a killer places him/herself lower than those hurt by his/her actions through killing. Not everyone in the world is equal. A politician convicted for scandal should not be entrusted to hold his position and should not be treated with sympathy. That person is a criminal. That person placed himself below, as a human being, everyone else who is qualified to be an effective politician who wouldn't engage in corruption. A dictator who murders his own people is below other humans. By your logic, people like Adolf Eichmann or Mussolini shouldn't have been hanged because they were no longer a threat. Now I can actually see the argument behind that, but I just don't agree. By doing what they've done those people are officially lower, in every sense of the word, than those they have harmed. They have subjected themselves to the will of those they have harmed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x (Post 1542797)
Maybe they don't, but you don't have the right to retribution either. The only reason I would say the government doesn't necessarily have this right is because in order to prevent you from killing the killer, it would have to detain you, or take away your ability to kill him in some other way. Generally however it does this by simultaneously taking away the killers freedom by putting him in prison. In this case, it doesn't seem to violate your rights to prevent you from going into the prison to kill them.

Well of course there shouldn't be some honor revenge killing on the spot. Procedures have to be followed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x (Post 1542797)
You don't understand what an appeal is. The prisoner is fed well after they've been proven guilty. They're just re-proven guilty 2-8 times over in the course of 10-40 years, during which time yes, they eat.

Ok yeah you're right. But that's a problem with the American implementation of the death penalty more than with the Dp itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x (Post 1542797)
Sure it can. Even if it doesn't count for much in your opinion, in counts for something.

As cold-hearted as I've been sounding this whole thread, even I believe the most brutal of killers should be given food, hell in fact, the best food there is, if they are going to be executed shortly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x (Post 1542797)
... .... .... .... ... ... ....

Ok, so your argument then seems to be that because under the death penalty the criminal can tie up the justice system for a long period of time, as long as they keep their guilt in contention it's fine for them to eat, but a soon as they can't do this anymore it's wrong for them to eat.

... .... ...

WHAT? So the justice in feeding a person is based on whether or not some arbitrary and expensive custom is in place?

I think we're getting way too deep into this eating thing...my only point is that without the DP a murderer will be proven guilty and convicted and will be given sustenance by taxpayers, and with the DP a murderer will be proven guilty and convicted (at some point- and that seems to be the problem here, since at what point ends up a huge mess because of the appeals system), and won't be fed forever by taxpayers.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x (Post 1542797)
This doesn't make any sense. It's ok to pay for food to keep them alive, likely until the same age, until they die of unnatural causes, but not of natural causes?

Well the emphasis here is the "likely until the same age" and that once again goes into the whole appeals problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x (Post 1542797)
So now you're weighing life on a more carefully calibrated scale, but you're still weighing life nonetheless.

I think it's fair for an impartial jury to make the decision of whether the killer's motives were legitimate enough not to be killed or whether they were twisted enough for him/her to deserve death.
But, and here's another pointless concession, clemency is not enough. For instance, Wanda Jean's victims' family were mostly forgiving, and she had a borderline retarded IQ. She was not granted clemency, and she did not deserve the death penalty. And Texas and many of the states who use the DP really overuse it. The very fact that innocent people could be on death row is terrifying. Imo, that's the greatest argument against the DP and one I have trouble responding to.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x (Post 1542797)
Because under the death penalty a person dies. That strikes me as more serious.

Yes I've acknowledged a thousand times the seriousness of the appeals problem and the necessity of a more effective- but no more harsh- method of finalizing conviction.

Kilroy_x 05-24-2007 07:50 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by trillobyite (Post 1544511)
My opinions on a killer who kills someone I'm not fond of are irrelevant. I would have no right to interfere.

This is a fairly ambiguous statement, but virtually every interpretation still strikes me as wrong.

If you're saying: I don't have the right to interfere with a killers actions, that's a somewhat shocking statement.

If you're saying: I don't have the right to prevent the government from killing someone I don't like, that seems to contradict an earlier statement.

Why don't you just clarify what you mean?

Quote:

Well, frankly, I dont see why I can't punish the killer by the same rule he breaks. That itself is a human trait.
It sure is. A horrible, indefensible, inexcusable human trait.

Quote:

In Dante's inferno, people are punished ironically as a result of whatever sin they commit. Hammurabi says "eye for an eye".
Your first justification is literature, your second the first legal code ever enacted which happens to be millenniums old.... ... right.

Quote:

Like I said, I operate differently than others.
You don't. People may give lip service to a perspective that contradicts yours, but by and large they don't think or act that way.

Quote:

I think two wrongs make a right.
You feel that two wrongs make a right. No offense, please try to understand the context in which I mean this, I doubt you think much on the subject at all.

Quote:

The source of human ill is those who initially choose to break the rules, not those who respond.
Great. So, being religious like we apparently are, Adam and Eve are to blame, and perhaps Cain as well. That's great news.

No, to mimic the senseless and hypocritical educators of this country "I don't care who started it, if you continue it you're just as bad as anyone else". Except I don't go on to prove my lack of character by forcibly restraining you and putting you in confinement.

Quote:

Well we've already had run-ins in the past, me and you, so I think we'll come to be very much judgemental of each other here on CT :(
Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. Sticks and stones...

Quote:

Well in my eyes, as soon as someone murders another, that person forfeits his/her right not to be punished in turn. Whether the victim's family chooses to use that to seek revenge or chooses instead to forgive is up to them.
Assuming the first part is true, I would still hold that the minimum effective punishment should be employed. However, I don't consider the first part to be true. The only justification, period, for aggression against another human being is self-defense. Punishment should thus be pragmatic based on its effect in preventing and minimizing further damage.

Quote:

The problem with this debate is that I define society's ills not in the desire of humans to kill and then for revenge to be sought after, but for anyone to believe they have the right to kill initially with no good reason.
What constitutes "good reason"? For that matter, what constitutes "initially"?

Quote:

No I don't mean in terms of just the death penalty. I'm one of those people who sees things more in black and white than in grey. I think sometimes there is no compromise and that sometimes there can be only two sides or two options.
Ironically this is also fairly common, although at least the specifics of your dogmatism vary from others. I have to give you that.

Quote:

Well of course it doesn't have the same degree of legitimacy, but that's because self-defense is the ultimate legitimate excuse for killing another.
The same "degree" of legitimacy? How quickly you betray your black and white perspective. Well this is where mine comes in then. There either is legitimacy or there isn't legitimacy in terms of things such as murder. Self defense isn't so much the "ultimate" legitimate excuse for killing another as it is the only legitimate excuse for killing another.

Quote:

Plenty more feelings other than revenge can lead to rage. But I don't see the anger that results from adultery being outlawed, or adultery itself outlawed.
Right. You can't outlaw feelings. There's also no guarantee that a human being will act on their feelings in an immoral way, meaning preemptive restriction is a violation of liberty. I just want people to have enough self-awareness to prevent their feelings from getting the better of them.

Quote:

We're going to reach a loop again here. In my view, a killer places him/herself lower than those hurt by his/her actions through killing.
Perhaps, but killing people isn't justified merely because they're "lower".

Quote:

Not everyone in the world is equal.
In terms of rights we generally assume that they are. When rights aren't universal, they become privileges. How would suggest determine who has the "privilege" to life? Doesn't this question itself strike you as repugnant?

Quote:

A politician convicted for scandal should not be entrusted to hold his position and should not be treated with sympathy.
Isn't that up to the voters?

Quote:

That person is a criminal. That person placed himself below, as a human being, everyone else who is qualified to be an effective politician who wouldn't engage in corruption.
I think he placed himself below them as a politician, but not as a human being. At least not in terms of rights. Similarly a murderer places themselves below others in terms of morality, but they're still human. There is necessity in treating the murderer differently to prevent further crime , but I don't think the maximum possible punishment, death, should really be called for.

Quote:

A dictator who murders his own people is below other humans.
A threat to other humans, but no less human.

Quote:

By your logic, people like Adolf Eichmann or Mussolini shouldn't have been hanged because they were no longer a threat. Now I can actually see the argument behind that, but I just don't agree. By doing what they've done those people are officially lower, in every sense of the word, than those they have harmed. They have subjected themselves to the will of those they have harmed.
There's a number of senses in which this is both right and wrong. They may not have constituted a threat in terms of individual potential to harm, but remember that both of those individuals were most threatening by how they influenced others. Keeping them alive at all permits them the opportunity to do this. This isn't unfounded paranoia either, when the US finally conquered Japan at the end of WWII, we were faced with the option of hanging a number of similar figures, which we ultimately didn't do because we wanted a strong Asian ally to offer strategic military benefits to our country. Now, many conservative Japanese politicians point to the lack of executions as evidence that no war crimes were committed by the Japanese people.

The other issue is that while generally I would disagree that they waive their humanity as a result of their crimes, I think there is a potential argument that as a person entrusted with power over a populace by the populace, by failing this contract they have deprived themselves of something or other, although I'm having difficulty weighing specific considerations at the moment.

Quote:

Well of course there shouldn't be some honor revenge killing on the spot. Procedures have to be followed.
I'm not sure what difference the procedures make, except for making something which is already horrible into something both mechanical and cultural custom.

Quote:

Ok yeah you're right. But that's a problem with the American implementation of the death penalty more than with the Dp itself.
I'm highly skeptical over whether a superior implementation could be achieved.

Quote:

As cold-hearted as I've been sounding this whole thread, even I believe the most brutal of killers should be given food, hell in fact, the best food there is, if they are going to be executed shortly.
You haven't sounded cold-hearted, you've just sounded unduly passionate.

Quote:

I think we're getting way too deep into this eating thing...my only point is that without the DP a murderer will be proven guilty and convicted and will be given sustenance by taxpayers, and with the DP a murderer will be proven guilty and convicted (at some point- and that seems to be the problem here, since at what point ends up a huge mess because of the appeals system), and won't be fed forever by taxpayers.
They won't be fed "forever" either way, you realize. Oh, and if spending money on food is wrong because of what it accomplishes, keeping a murderer alive, isn't spending money on appeals wrong as well because it accomplishes the same thing? But this can't be right, because now we've ruled out the ability of a person to defend themselves, opened up the likelihood of ever more innocent deaths, and all because we were so hasty in our emotions we threw the baby out with the bathwater.

You know what the best guarantee is that an innocent person might be exonerated? If they're alive. If you're willing to spend money to give a person the opportunity to prove their innocence, there's no reason paying to keep them in prison for life and to feed them contradicts this.

Quote:

Well the emphasis here is the "likely until the same age" and that once again goes into the whole appeals problem.
There's no way to solve the appeals problem without turning the death penalty into something with no redeeming merit at all.

Quote:

I think it's fair for an impartial jury to make the decision of whether the killer's motives were legitimate enough not to be killed or whether they were twisted enough for him/her to deserve death.
I don't think there are impartial juries. I also don't think a killers motive is ever legitimate unless it's self-defense.

Quote:

The very fact that innocent people could be on death row is terrifying. Imo, that's the greatest argument against the DP and one I have trouble responding to.
Innocent people are on death row. I guarantee it. If you have no response to this, perhaps you should consider adopting an alternate stance.

Quote:

Yes I've acknowledged a thousand times the seriousness of the appeals problem and the necessity of a more effective- but no more harsh- method of finalizing conviction.
Such a method doesn't exist.

-SPONG3Y--DDR--M4N!4C- 05-25-2007 08:11 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
I don't criticize or go against death penalty. In fact, death penalty was here to destroy all evil inside these humans (hopefully they don't destroy their minds).

The Catholic Church was trying to "ban" death penalty because it was trying to remove the very essense and meaning of life itself. It was a complete mockery to kill someone just because he or she did such a terrible disgrace.

Capital Punishment also has a looooooooong history. Firstly they used beheadings by using guillotines. It was quick and painless solution. Secondly next to the invention of electricity was the electric chair, used to fry the skin out of humans. After that they used gas chambers to smoke out remaining breaths of criminals. Now in the modern times they used lethal injections. All were in the books except for hangings. Hanging was not a quick solution, it was meant to rot out a human throat in order of the victim to die. It requires a lot of time, usually a minute or two.

Death can always be the end. Some people deserve death, some do not. What only controls our desires like this the control of overflow of emotions, misuse of intellectual thoughts and (most importantly) the lack of common-sense.

But it must go on. Surely, choices can be reversed, but not this one. We should only accept reality and not go on completely with theory. I agree to death penalty, heh, maybe because I hate humans too much.

devonin 05-25-2007 02:42 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by -SPONG3Y--DDR--M4N!4C- (Post 1545997)
The Catholic Church was trying to "ban" death penalty because it was trying to remove the very essense and meaning of life itself. It was a complete mockery to kill someone just because he or she did such a terrible disgrace.

Um...are you quite sure about that? The Catholic Church has been responsible for not a small number of executions over the years. The wicth hunts, the inquisition etc. The bible contains 'eye for an eye' logic in plenty of places, and while a non-trivial number of catholics cleave to the new testament ideals of forgiveness and second chances, an equally non-trivial number still feel that those who commit the most grevious acts against God ought to have their trip to hell hastened.

Quote:

Capital Punishment also has a looooooooong history. Firstly they used beheadings by using guillotines. It was quick and painless solution. Secondly next to the invention of electricity was the electric chair, used to fry the skin out of humans. After that they used gas chambers to smoke out remaining breaths of criminals. Now in the modern times they used lethal injections. All were in the books except for hangings. Hanging was not a quick solution, it was meant to rot out a human throat in order of the victim to die. It requires a lot of time, usually a minute or two.
Well, there were executions for -centuries- before the guillotine was invented in France, and hanging was a legal method of execution in many places (Still is, in a few, though most places that have the death penalty use the electric chair, lethal injection or firing squad)

Quote:

Death can always be the end. Some people deserve death, some do not. What only controls our desires like this the control of overflow of emotions, misuse of intellectual thoughts and (most importantly) the lack of common-sense.
If you aren't using emotions, or intellect to determine who deserves death or not, could you please explain how you're making that distinction?

Quote:

But it must go on. Surely, choices can be reversed, but not this one. We should only accept reality and not go on completely with theory. I agree to death penalty, heh, maybe because I hate humans too much.
No it mustn't. Why can't this 'choice' be reversed? Many countries that had capital punishment don't anymore, they made that choice, and it no longer goes on there.

Silent assasin 05-27-2007 03:34 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
I didn't read all of this crap, but if you ask me the death penalty is wrong. If we murder them we are stooping down to their level, remember the saying "Two wrongs don't make a right"? Hope this was'nt a dead thread........

devonin 05-27-2007 05:48 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Silent assasin (Post 1551673)
I didn't read all of this crap, but if you ask me the death penalty is wrong. If we murder them we are stooping down to their level, remember the saying "Two wrongs don't make a right"? Hope this was'nt a dead thread........

1/ Read all this crap. That is the point of a -discussion and debate- thread. This isn't a "State your random opinion in a vaccuum" thread.

2/ Yes we remember the saying, would you care to connect it to the topic at hand? Isn't locking someone up forever also a "wrong"? In that case, you seem to support two wrongs making a right.

3/ It wasn't dead, but that doesn't mean that a random lagrely empty bump isn't still a bad call.

Silent assasin 05-27-2007 08:55 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 1552139)
1/ Read all this crap. That is the point of a -discussion and debate- thread. This isn't a "State your random opinion in a vaccuum" thread.

2/ Yes we remember the saying, would you care to connect it to the topic at hand? Isn't locking someone up forever also a "wrong"? In that case, you seem to support two wrongs making a right.

3/ It wasn't dead, but that doesn't mean that a random lagrely empty bump isn't still a bad call.

You are a very critical thinker, lol unlike me. The only reason I said that is, when I turn to my ethics, it seems "more" right then killing them. I meant that if we killed them, it could still be thought as murder, since they did it for what seems to be punishment. Would'nt that in a way make it revenge?






That's the best I can say, lol.

trillobyite 05-28-2007 09:45 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
I'm sorry I didnt make a response, I have half of it saved on notepad but I find myself way too lazy to continue the second half. It takes me almost 30 minutes for these responses and it tires the hell out of me. Also there is another issue which is 20 times more important to me that I'm debating on with many other people in other forums (gaza) and that is why I didn't put this on high priority. But if/when I do finish the response I'll edit this post and put it here.

madmatt621 05-28-2007 09:50 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
If you kill someone, we will kill you back.

devonin 05-28-2007 10:17 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by madmatt621 (Post 1553870)
If you kill someone, we will kill you back.

The logic inherent in the death penalty is that your right to your own life is abrogated as a result of you taking away another's right to their own life. It isn't especially -useful- logic but it does make people who work as an executioner feel better about themselves, I imagine.

hayatewillown 05-28-2007 07:59 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrissi (Post 139084)
They not always 100% sure the people are guilty. I remember a long time ago when they found out that a guy who had been put to death ALREADY was completely innocent.. they gave the family a few billion dollars or something to "make up for it".

This is the main reason why I'm against the death penalty (and we don't have it here in Canada, yay). They're often not as sure as they think they are.

Well then let me go against this.

I approve of the death penalty. Very few times does this happen. I would know, speaking as a person that lives with a detective type family.

Asia, somewhat like America, has people that are ****y ( boasting a lot- if it cuts out) , and that like to do things fast. Most of the time, the detective agencies there judge to quickly, without a lot of hard work.

I believe that America works harder, and that about (researched) 2% of all cases, is there ever a false convict.

devonin 05-28-2007 08:42 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
"It is better that one hundred guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer."

Kilroy_x 05-28-2007 08:42 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
edit: beat me to it, but that quote is off. Well, considering it originally had to do with witches I suppose the revision is called for.

devonin 05-28-2007 09:02 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Actually, if you look up the history of the quote, the particular version I stated was attributed to Ben Franklin. A similar quote referencing the witch trials is also stated, along with plenty of others. It is a useful quote, and it has been adapted plenty of times.

hayatewillown 05-28-2007 09:50 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 1555199)
"It is better that one hundred guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer."

I have a question. Would it matter if the crimes that the 100 people that escaped are less off than the one person? Meaning that the crimes are minuscule compared to the extraordinary.

devonin 05-29-2007 12:45 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
The statement is less an objective one of actual numbers (Like, it isn't therefore saying that if only 10 guilty persons escape it is therefore justified for one person to suffer) and more of a statement of the purpose of the justice system as a whole.

The numbers are irellevant, the statement is saying that if there is even the -slightest most miniscule tiny chance that maybe the person is not guilty - then they ought not to be punished because, as the saying implies: It is better than -any number- of guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer.

Unfortunately, since that level of incontrovertable truth is functionally impossible to obtain, we have to settle for "Beyond a -reasonable- doubt" but even "reasonable" is a term up for debate.

gnr61 05-29-2007 05:21 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Capital punishment is a barbaric institution with absolutely no justification. This thread is littered with the already effectively countered cost arguments, and people claiming that if what a person does is "really really bad and they are a threat to society" that it is our obligation to kill that person on the basis that it will remove said threat to society and serve as a deterrant of violent crime.

First point: Killing someone does not deter crime, but merely institutionalizes it in the form of governmental practice.

Killing someone does not remove the threat from society any more than does life in prison, which is--given statistics--a much more cost-effective option.

Second Point: I want to start off by saying that these issues are not inherent with the death penalty per se, but rather problems that have developed as a result of its poor execution.

Statistics imply massive problems with the death penalty in regard to its distribution based on race (statistics have already been given) and minorites are with disturbing frequency the brunt of this practice.

The practice of capital punishment has become incredibly expensive through the process of appeals and maintenance of criminals during their time on death row. Tax payers money is being wasted on an institution that does not benefit society in ANY way, but only exists to satisfy the vengeful wishes of a victim's loved ones.

Final statements: The death penalty simply cannot be justified as anything except a violent, brutal method of meeting a victim's family's desire for revenge. The emotions of loved ones is an empathizable story indeed, but not one that can legally or morally justify the eye for an eye philosophy that cannot exist in a truly equal society.

TwilightPrincess 05-29-2007 05:33 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
I do not approve of the death penalty. Why? While it may be "humane" (which I don't entirely approve of either), they fail to think of the consequences. I mean sure, that person may have killed 10-20 people (just using an example), but seriously. It doesn't give them the right to kill. In my opinion, Capitol Punishment should be ended and 'il'legalized.

I know quite a few people who have friends who have faced the Capitol Punishment. Luckily for me I live in Canada, one of the few places where Capitol Punishment is not believed in, nor legal.

JasonKey 05-29-2007 05:35 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
/ships our deathrow inmates to Canada :0

tsugomaru 05-29-2007 07:09 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
All America's secret operations happens outside of the country for a reason.

They aren't really secret because we all know they use inhumane ways of torture on people the government doesn't like.

~Tsugomaru

Kilroy_x 05-30-2007 10:56 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
First of all, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, second of all at least within the past 50 years or so secret detainment and torture have occurred within the United States.

hayatewillown 05-30-2007 04:09 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 1555860)
The statement is less an objective one of actual numbers (Like, it isn't therefore saying that if only 10 guilty persons escape it is therefore justified for one person to suffer) and more of a statement of the purpose of the justice system as a whole.

The numbers are irellevant, the statement is saying that if there is even the -slightest most miniscule tiny chance that maybe the person is not guilty - then they ought not to be punished because, as the saying implies: It is better than -any number- of guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer.

Unfortunately, since that level of incontrovertible truth is functionally impossible to obtain, we have to settle for "Beyond a -reasonable- doubt" but even "reasonable" is a term up for debate.

So without needless expressions. I am skimming, so do you really support the death penalty? Or do you have limits to what happens. With me, shooting someone in the heart, or a more simple way, gassing/hanging is a much better way of eliminating the unjustly.

Still, I support it.

hayatewillown 05-30-2007 04:13 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 1555860)
The statement is less an objective one of actual numbers (Like, it isn't therefore saying that if only 10 guilty persons escape it is therefore justified for one person to suffer) and more of a statement of the purpose of the justice system as a whole.

The numbers are irellevant, the statement is saying that if there is even the -slightest most miniscule tiny chance that maybe the person is not guilty - then they ought not to be punished because, as the saying implies: It is better than -any number- of guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer.

Unfortunately, since that level of incontrovertible truth is functionally impossible to obtain, we have to settle for "Beyond a -reasonable- doubt" but even "reasonable" is a term up for debate.

So without needless expressions. I am skimming, so do you really support the death penalty? Or do you have limits to what happens. With me, shooting someone in the heart, or a more simple way, gassing/hanging is a much better way of eliminating the unjustly.

Still, I support it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwilightPrincess (Post 1556948)
I do not approve of the death penalty. Why? While it may be "humane" (which I don't entirely approve of either), they fail to think of the consequences. I mean sure, that person may have killed 10-20 people (just using an example), but seriously. It doesn't give them the right to kill. In my opinion, Capitol Punishment should be ended and 'il'legalized.

I know quite a few people who have friends who have faced the Capitol Punishment. Luckily for me I live in Canada, one of the few places where Capitol Punishment is not believed in, nor legal.

Inhumane? I disagree. There are children that are raped and killed. There are also terrorists who killed our people and a more remembering day, 9/11, where hundreds of people were killed.

If someone shoots someone, I say shoot them back. If someones life is taking, than equivalent exchange needs to take place. If Iraq kills 1000 of our people, we will kill 1000 of their people.

President Bush, being smart, will kill all of the terrorists that live in Iraq.

Still, I support.

[SORRY DOUBLE POSTED!]

Kilroy_x 05-30-2007 10:51 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by hayatewillown (Post 1558797)
With me, shooting someone in the heart, or a more simple way, gassing/hanging is a much better way of eliminating the unjustly.

Still, I support it.

What's your moral justification?

Quote:

Inhumane? I disagree. There are children that are raped and killed. There are also terrorists who killed our people and a more remembering day, 9/11, where hundreds of people were killed.
Several thousand people were killed in 9/11. I still don't see what your point is. "There's evil in the world"? How does that make it humane to introduce more evil, even in reciprocation?

Quote:

If someone shoots someone, I say shoot them back. If someones life is taking, than equivalent exchange needs to take place. If Iraq kills 1000 of our people, we will kill 1000 of their people.
Iraq is a country. Countries can't kill people. Thus the problem is revealed, there's no conceivable way for effective exchange in terms of lives. If 1 person kills 1000, that's only one guilty party, but you demand the full sacrifice to satiate your killers conscience. If someone you care about is killed, you support killing the killer, if someone you don't care about is killed you don't. You condone the killing of people who care about the killer, or who care about the people you're killing in reciprocation. What kind of morality is this? It's blood lust, blind rage directed at anyone associated with, similar to, or standing next to whoever it is that agitated you. And this agitation isn't even direct. You know who doesn't deserve to live? You. But I'm not going to do anything about it, because even if you or people like you go on to kill thousands I'm not entitled to take your life. I'm not going to make the same mistakes as you.

Quote:

President Bush, being smart, will kill all of the terrorists that live in Iraq.
He'll kill a good deal more people than that, which is itself somberly impressive because Iraq has degenerated further and further since American military intervention. Terrorists, once virtually non-existent in the country, now control it. They keep flooding in. Saddam Hussein may have been brutal but his brutality kept the region tightly policed and controlled. Now that he's gone the subsequent power vacuum has allowed for our enemies to thrive like they never have before. So keep on supporting things based on your hatred, you're only bringing death upon yourself, your friends, your family, and me. But I don't care, if that's the only way peace can be attained then so be it.

AquaTeen 01-19-2009 05:41 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
[/quote]On the other hand, as many as 10% of all deathrow inmates are innocent, I heard that on A&E.

What's your take on it?[/quote]

Even if they are guilty, it's still not right because you're stooping down to that death row inmate's level of homicide (supposing that's why he/she's there). The death penalty is murder and should therefore be illegal.

1961casey 03-24-2009 11:17 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Let us see if this works.

First, it is agreed by one and all that the sanctity of life is paramount and must be protected above all else. In order to protect life a systematic codification of laws, consequences and exceptions has been instituted. As part of legal consequences to be considered, the death penalty is included.

Secondly, the death penalty is just that: a penalty. It is supposed to be meted out, not by vengeful relations, but by a dispassionate legal system. Therefore it is not a person getting revenge but a systematic judgement of one's actions and the consequences for those actions.

Third, the justice system has a comprehensive system of checks and balances designed to protect the individual's rights to a fair trial such that, in the end, it could be said that the criminal had a chance to plead his case.

It is possible that if all the conditions were properly and adequately met, then very few people would argue that the death penalty was unjust.

The problem is not with the penalty itself, but with the inadequacies of the legal system. There only needs to be one false conviction, one misstep, and the fear of further errors freezes the confidence the society has in the justice system and in the fairness of a death penalty conviction and that is the real issue facing our society.

The death penalty is a fair and proper consequence for inappropriate actions if it is available at the time of the crime. It is not a matter of stooping down to any level but standing up to what is wrong. If the perpetrator commits a crime, then he must be subject to the consequences for that crime and we as a society must declare our support for law and order by supporting the punishment for that crime.

Zythus 03-25-2009 12:38 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
As if one "The Death Penalty" thread wasn't enough for eager exhibitionists to exercise their pseudo-intellectual knowledge on topics as inflexible and controversial as this. And shame on me for posting in the previous thread as well as this one. Using Guidohunter's fine analogy, this topic is simply a meaningless tier of consecutive arguments. One person suggests red and others presents it as green to which subsequent posts babbles about the exact tonalities of the green with full loads of purple proses and pedantic observations. It's all too common with the conventional bravado and psychodrama of individuals who enjoys presenting themselves as "intelligent" on, ironically, a gaming site.

Take it any way you will. I feel shamed to have been a participant in this thing called "Critical Thinking".

devonin 03-25-2009 02:50 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Take it any way you will. I feel shamed to have been a participant in this thing called "Critical Thinking".
So don't post. Postwhoring to shoot your mouth off just as subjectively about the quality of the threads in the forum does nothing to endear you to those who actually know of what they speak.

The proper course of action in this thread would be to have reported it for being a bump of the older and less posted in thread, instead of the one which was the proud winner of the 2008 forum awards best thread of the year.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution