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=91213)

tha Guardians 07-22-2008 03:12 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rzr (Post 2342800)
Why would it matter what the family thought? I mean, it sucks for them, yes. But, think about the family of the person who was murdered.


Oh, sorry. That's what I meant.
I guess I phrased it wrong.

Kynosaur 07-24-2008 07:07 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Why should we decide who lives and who dies? IMHO it shouldn't be a human right.

Mjosue 07-25-2008 03:46 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
the death penalty is the best way for certin situations like if that person kills another then that person must face the penalty so bad karma pretty much

rzr 07-25-2008 05:30 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kynosaur (Post 2385644)
Why should we decide who lives and who dies? IMHO it shouldn't be a human right.

Why? The murderer decided that his/her victim's life was no longer valid. S/He's just as human as we are. Does that mean that the murderer has more of the right to judge who can live and who can't than a twelve person unbiased jury?

devonin 07-26-2008 04:36 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Why? The murderer decided that his/her victim's life was no longer valid. S/He's just as human as we are. Does that mean that the murderer has more of the right to judge who can live and who can't than a twelve person unbiased jury?
So your solution is "If a murderer is allowed to decide that someone else's right to life is unimportant, surely we also have the right to decide someone else's life is unimportant"? I find that ridiculous. The answer is: "Nobody has the right to decide someone else's life is unimportant" and that extends to the killer, who had no right to kill someone; and to the people in the justice system, who have no right to kill the criminal.

NFD 07-26-2008 04:39 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Also, the cost to give somebody the death penalty is quite a sum compared to just giving them life in prison.

tha Guardians 07-26-2008 04:49 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 2393172)
So your solution is "If a murderer is allowed to decide that someone else's right to life is unimportant, surely we also have the right to decide someone else's life is unimportant"? I find that ridiculous. The answer is: "Nobody has the right to decide someone else's life is unimportant" and that extends to the killer, who had no right to kill someone; and to the people in the justice system, who have no right to kill the criminal.


I don't think that was the point he was trying to make.
He's opposing the death penalty in his post because he opposes the right to kill others. He doesn't think it any fairer to kill a murderer than for a murderer to kill his victim.

He did not say it was a right of the murderer to kill in the first place. Either you overlooked part of his post or your trying to twist his words.

Neither of your outlooks are really important to me, I was just trying to clear a misunderstanding.

Personally, I think the murderer should choose his form of punishment, whether it be prison, death, or any reasonable justification.

devonin 07-26-2008 04:50 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
He didn't say it was right of the murderer to kill. What he -did- say was "Does that mean that the murderer has more of the right to judge who can live and who can't than a twelve person unbiased jury?"

The blatant implication of that statement is "If the murderer can kill people, then the justice system can also kill people"

tha Guardians 07-26-2008 05:16 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 2393188)
He didn't say it was right of the murderer to kill. What he -did- say was "Does that mean that the murderer has more of the right to judge who can live and who can't than a twelve person unbiased jury?"

The blatant implication of that statement is "If the murderer can kill people, then the justice system can also kill people"


In a roundabout way, maybe. Either way, it's irrelevant. He doesn't believe in the right to kill, whether it be a person or a group of people.

2 + 2 = 4
-2 + -2 = -4

2 + 2 ≠ -2 + -2

Just because he believes that a jury has the same right to kill as a person does, doesn't mean that he believes either have the right to kill.

devonin 07-26-2008 05:47 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Except he clearly does, as he's been in support of the death penalty for the whole discussion.

tha Guardians 07-26-2008 06:00 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 2393275)
Except he clearly does, as he's been in support of the death penalty for the whole discussion.

Oh, my bad.
He clearly supports murder.

tuv 07-26-2008 07:19 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
I would much rather be killed then serving the remainder off my years in the torture of prison. So I think your doing the criminals a favor by ending it much sooner.

tha Guardians 07-26-2008 07:34 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by tuv (Post 2393405)
I would much rather be killed then serving the remainder off my years in the torture of prison. So I think your doing the criminals a favor by ending it much sooner.


I completely agree. Life in prison is life spent miserably and life wasted.

Soul Slayer 07-26-2008 08:32 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
An eye for an eye.

And I have to agree with tuv. Even though the death penalty is meant to torture them, it is actually helping them. Also, recent studies show that death row inmates are more likely to be well-behaved in prison, because they have nothing left to fight for.

rzr 07-28-2008 05:17 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 2393172)
So your solution is "If a murderer is allowed to decide that someone else's right to life is unimportant, surely we also have the right to decide someone else's life is unimportant"? I find that ridiculous. The answer is: "Nobody has the right to decide someone else's life is unimportant" and that extends to the killer, who had no right to kill someone; and to the people in the justice system, who have no right to kill the criminal.

The people in the justice system have more of a right to kill the criminal than the original criminal did to kill his/her victim. However, it's not a matter of if a 12 person jury wants to kill them. The jury can't. The jury decides the innocence or guilt of the suspect. He judge, who's proved their adequacy, decides the punishment.

The fact that the judge has proven that they are worthy to decide a person's fate by a long journey of being a lawyer, or other legal official, and shown their honor is what gives them the right to decide a murderers fate, as well.

If this isn't proof enough, let's give a real example. How about someone like Hitler. Would he hat deserved prison, where he could escape and run another holocaust? No. In some instances, where it's dangerous to keep the suspect alive, they must die. If it risks the greater good to simply keep a killer alive, they should be executed.

devonin 07-28-2008 04:24 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

The people in the justice system have more of a right to kill the criminal than the original criminal did to kill his/her victim.
I feel that they both have an identical right: none at all.

Quote:

The fact that the judge has proven that they are worthy to decide a person's fate by a long journey of being a lawyer, or other legal official, and shown their honor is what gives them the right to decide a murderers fate, as well.
Yes, but that doesn't magically give them the right unavailable to every other human being, to decide to kill another human being with no consequences.

Quote:

How about someone like Hitler.
Godwin's Law, you lose.

Quote:

Would he hat[sic] deserved prison, where he could escape and run another holocaust? No.
I'm hoping you understand how patently ridiculous this line of reasoning is. One, when I say that nobody has the right to take the life of another human except in self-defense I mean it. When I say that I oppose the death penalty on the same grounds, I mean it. Just describing a "really bad guy" isn't going to make me go "Oh...right, him you can kill"

To your specific example: "Run another holocaust"?!? Do you seriously think that if Hitler had been captured at the end of the war and sentenced to say, life in solitary confinement subsisting on bread and water with no contact to the outside world, he could a) escape b) evade recapture c) somehow manage to get re-elected to the leadership of a country with a functioning military and d) persuade that country to start persecuting another race? How ridiculous can you get? Your example is nonsense, and does nothing at all to prove your point.

rzr 07-30-2008 04:25 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 2407075)
I feel that they both have an identical right: none at all.

Opinion, not fact.

Quote:

Yes, but that doesn't magically give them the right unavailable to every other human being, to decide to kill another human being with no consequences.
I specifically said that they earned their right through showing they're worthiness by proving to be unbiased and intelligent.

Quote:

Godwin's Law, you lose.
I'm not aware of thing law...

Quote:

I'm hoping you understand how patently ridiculous this line of reasoning is. One, when I say that nobody has the right to take the life of another human except in self-defense I mean it. When I say that I oppose the death penalty on the same grounds, I mean it. Just describing a "really bad guy" isn't going to make me go "Oh...right, him you can kill"
Just because you say it, doesn't make it a fact. It's still just your opinion.

Quote:

To your specific example: "Run another holocaust"?!? Do you seriously think that if Hitler had been captured at the end of the war and sentenced to say, life in solitary confinement subsisting on bread and water with no contact to the outside world, he could a) escape b) evade recapture c) somehow manage to get re-elected to the leadership of a country with a functioning military and d) persuade that country to start persecuting another race? How ridiculous can you get? Your example is nonsense, and does nothing at all to prove your point.
The question was not can Hitler get back in power. The question is does a man or women who creates deeds like he did deserve to live? My opinion is no. Apparently, yours is yes?

devonin 07-30-2008 06:47 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rzr
Opinion, not fact.

And yours is fact?

Quote:

I specifically said that they earned their right through showing they're worthiness by proving to be unbiased and intelligent.
I specifically said that nobody can ever have that right, regardless of what they think is their worthiniess to exercise that right.

Quote:

I'm not aware of thing law...
"As an online discussion continues, the liklihood of a comparison to Hitler coming into the discussion approaches 1. Once Hitler has been mentioned in the discussion, the discussion immidiately ends, and the person who drew the comparison loses whatever the subject at hand is." Basically it says "Eventually someone will get desperate enough to push the Hitler button, at which point they lose."
Quote:

Just because you say it, doesn't make it a fact. It's still just your opinion.
Yes Rzr, this is a discussion forum, here we discuss our opinions. If there were any fact at all in this matter, there would be nothing to discuss. Saying "Well that's just your opinion" in a CT forum thread is like saying "Well that's just your opinion" when you ask someone what they want for dinner. Your statements are also opinion.

Quote:

The question was not can Hitler get back in power.
If the question was not could Hitler get back into power, you shouldn't have raised the idea that he could bring about a repeat event on the scale of the holocaust, since I'm pretty sure we all agree that you need to be a large-scale leader of people who idologically follow you to carry out something on that scale. Don't describe a situation where he'd need to regain power if his regaining power isn't supposed to enter into it.

Quote:

The question is does a man or women who creates deeds like he did deserve to live? My opinion is no. Apparently, yours is yes?
My opinion is that nobody has the right to kill another human being for any reason under any circumstances. Whether they might or might not deserve it has nothing whatsoever to do with my position. Yes he absolutely deserves to die, no he absolutely does not deserve to live. However, I'm prepared to accept that he must continue living because I feel that nobody has the right to end another human's life. That doesn't mean I can't try to have him kept barely alive at the minimum quality of life I can manage.

Arch0wl 08-2-2008 10:17 AM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
Violence is an otherwise endless cycle of vengeance that does not stop until one of the involved stops voluntarily. The death penalty is hypocritical, state-supported violence that de-legitimizes law enforcement.

MrRubix_MK5 08-2-2008 06:35 PM

Re: The Death Penalty
 
I am too fscking lazy to read through this entire thread, but I will say this.

The death penalty, to me, sends a conflicting message. Say a criminal murders a few people because he feels the victims deserve death given some justification. So, in return, our justice system says "Murdering people is wrong and punishable by death" and so, using that justification, we execute that criminal.

The reason why I feel there's a gray line here is because we're technically using some sort of rationalization to justify killing, much like in the same vein that the criminal did when he executed his victim. What makes our justice system somehow inherently "above" abiding by this right? I just don't see why one has "more of a right" to kill a killer than a killer does his victim. I think killing is not justifiable by any entity, no matter the circumstances.

Besides, it costs a LOT more to execute someone than it does to throw them in jail and feed them for life. The paperwork/legalities involved are so incredibly dense (I recall seeing something on TV where they give you an idea what all has to go into an execution, legally speaking -- and it's absolutely disgusting).

http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42

Anyways, I just feel that the moral implications involved, coupled with the high costs, make the death penalty something I generally disagree with. Besides, if someone commits atrocious murders, I'd rather they be tossed into jail for life. That kind of long-term suffering is, to me, a far more reasonable punishment for taking the lives of others, especially when compared to actually executing them in return for their crimes.

Besides, the death penalty is, uh, permanent. There have been cases where innocent people have been wrongfully exterminated. At least in jail you have the opportunity to be released if new evidence exonerates you far beyond reasonable doubt (and they do compensate you for your time spent in prison). If you're dead, you can't really do a whole lot. They compensate the surviving family members, I believe, but at that point I don't think money can possibly replace the death of a wrongfully executed family member.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:54 PM.

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