NationStates Jolt Archive

A new resolution put forward from our humble comunity requires support to become a UN resolution.

The resolution supports a ban on capital, and other forms of phisycal punishment.


I implore delegates to offer there support.

yours

Comnity leader justin

A new resolution put forward from our humble comunity requires support to become a UN resolution.

The resolution supports a ban on capital, and other forms of phisycal punishment.


I implore delegates to offer there support.

yours

Comnity leader justin

Um isn't jail a form of physical punishmnet?

Yes, heaven forbid that an unpleasant experience should follow a transgression.

It is only just that criminals be punished harshly--with physical pain if possible.

Is that the kind where you can paddle kids when the misbehave?

You're thinking of corporal punishment.

Capital punishment refers to execution--they used to chop your head off, and "capo" means "head".

You're thinking of corporal punishment.

Capital punishment refers to execution--they used to chop your head off, and "capo" means "head".

"...and other forms of phisycal punishment."

But I think that capital just means "very severe" and that's the epitmology

My country tests biological weapons on prisoners, dissenters, citizens, etc. The death penalty is a thing of the past when you can instead conduct military weapons experiments on them!

Anthrax and AK47s for everyone!

Mate, I've tried banning it. The UN is full of Americans who agree with it (no offense to Americans, tho I probably have offended some of you in other topics). Americans and Europeans have different views on gun control, terrorism and the death penalty mainly. That's why it won't get passed. But well done for trying.

I agree with the death penalty because it is the only just punishment for those who kill, maim, thieve, or rape.

To be opposed to the death penalty or other forms of severe physical punishment is to be irrationally unjust.

I agree with the death penalty because it is the only just punishment for those who kill, maim, thieve, or rape.

To be opposed to the death penalty or other forms of severe physical punishment is to be irrationally unjust.

Okay Ithuania, now you're becoming a little too extreme... The punishment should match the crime... having the death penalty for theft is irrational... I'm not opposed to the death penalty, I'm opposed to the death penalty for things other than murder with circumstances...

A thief has taken what belongs to another individual. In return, he has something taken from him. That is justice.

yes, but not their life. maybe their fingers, but not their life

Why not? One's life is just as valuable as any other propety--if anything, one's life is the only thing one has that has objective, intrinsic value.

Why not? One's life is just as valuable as any other propety--if anything, one's life is the only thing one has that has objective, intrinsic value.

But as I said... the punishment should MATCH the crime.

If someone takes a 25 cent piece of gum from his neighborhood food store, I don't think the death is necessarily an approprate punishment.

A theif should have something taken away from him: His liberty. By being put in jail and made to do forced labor for a few years.

A new resolution put forward from our humble comunity requires support to become a UN resolution.

The resolution supports a ban on capital, and other forms of phisycal punishment.


I implore delegates to offer there support.

yours

Comnity leader justin

Let's debate on this.

Why do you want to ban the death penalty?

So, we can beat people if we feel like it? Can we add capital punishment to corporal punishment? What about removing people's limbs? Can we ban that too (As a punishment. Not out of necessity)...

God Forbid that we mistreat a rapist, serial killers, or murderers.

Actually treating them appropraitely is synonmyous with treating them justly. So "mistreating" a murder could consist of letting him go free.

God Forbid that we mistreat a rapist, serial killers, or murderers.

Are you saying we should end their life or remove an apendage?

God Forbid that we mistreat a rapist, serial killers, or murderers.

Are you saying we should end their life or remove an apendage?

I stated my position already: forced labor, except when the person is physically unfit for such labor, in which case he should simply be kept in physical isolation, or in extreme circumstances, in which case the death penalty is a legitimate tool.

God Forbid that we mistreat a rapist, serial killers, or murderers.

Are you saying we should end their life or remove an apendage?

I stated my position already: forced labor, except when the person is physically unfit for such labor, in which case he should simply be kept in physical isolation, or in extreme circumstances, in which case the death penalty is a legitimate tool.

Death to all prisoners!!!

Can one of the anti-death penalty folk here give me a single good reason why the death penalty should be abolished? :?

Can one of the anti-death penalty folk here give me a single good reason why the death penalty should be abolished? :?

"Innocent people dying" is considered "bad"

Why not? One's life is just as valuable as any other propety--if anything, one's life is the only thing one has that has objective, intrinsic value.

This post has been brought to you by the letter E (for EXTREME)

If one's life is the only thing truely worth anything, why even punish the thief for stealing material items? If he didn't take another persons life, obviously he didn't hurt them enough to warrent the taking of HIS life. In fact doing so would make YOU unjust in my eyes. And we know the punishment for taking one's life, no matter who it is, don't we? :twisted:

Can one of the anti-death penalty folk here give me a single good reason why the death penalty should be abolished? :?

"Innocent people dying" is considered "bad"

Yeah around 10% (I think) of the prisioners executed in the United States are innocent. That's a good reason to be against capital punishment. 'But what about those that were guilty!!!11!1' Can't we just keep them in prison for the rest of their life? People say that criminals going to jail doesn't solve problems. I call bullshit. When a criminal is in jail he is not at the same time elsewhere commiting a crime. It's a physical law. It's math. This should not be a grey area. The real issues are cost and justice.

Besides, I personally think rotting in a jail cell for 30 years is worse then death.

Can one of the anti-death penalty folk here give me a single good reason why the death penalty should be abolished? :?

"Innocent people dying" is considered "bad"

Yeah around 10% (I think) of the prisioners executed in the United States are innocent. That's a good reason to be against capital punishment. 'But what about those that were guilty!!!11!1' Can't we just keep them in prison for the rest of their life? People say that criminals going to jail doesn't solve problems. I call bullshit. When a criminal is in jail he is not at the same time elsewhere commiting a crime. It's a physical law. It's math. This should not be a grey area. The real issues are cost and justice.

The United States of Oppressed Possums do not execute their prisioners. They execute themselves. :evil:

I was agreeing with you.

Why not? One's life is just as valuable as any other propety--if anything, one's life is the only thing one has that has objective, intrinsic value.

Who are you to make such a determination? There is no meter or graduated stick by which value of abstract ideals can be determined.

Yeah around 10% (I think) of the prisioners executed in the United States are innocent. That's a good reason to be against capital punishment. 'But what about those that were guilty!!!11!1' Can't we just keep them in prison for the rest of their life? People say that criminals going to jail doesn't solve problems. I call bullshit. When a criminal is in jail he is not at the same time elsewhere commiting a crime. It's a physical law. It's math. This should not be a grey area. The real issues are cost and justice.

Way to quote "The Dilbert Future" verbatim...

Why not? One's life is just as valuable as any other propety--if anything, one's life is the only thing one has that has objective, intrinsic value.

Who are you to make such a determination? There is no meter or graduated stick by which value of abstract ideals can be determined.

Yes, there is.

It's called "reason".

Everone defines "reason" differently. What you are talking about is essentially "morality." Morality differs from person to person, it's not universal, and it cannot be argued with facts.

You have no business shoving your idea of morality down everybody else's throat. I myself am not a fan of the death penalty for much, much different reasons; but I believe that Wisconsin should be allowed to have different laws regarding the death penalty then Texas, because the two states have such wildly different ideals of morality.

If you can't bring up a factual argument against the death penalty then abandon this foolish crusade. Enacting an across-the-board ban is the equivalent of enacting a single state-sponsored religion; neither is justifiable and both are contrary to the spirit of democracy.

Who said I was opposed to the death penalty?

And morality IS objective.

Who said I was opposed to the death penalty?

You would appear to be arguing against it.

And morality IS objective.

How? Nothing that lacks physical substance is objective.

Who said I was opposed to the death penalty?

You would appear to be arguing against it.


No, I was arguing for the death penalty for thieves. Read the ENTIRE thread. A thief has taken something that does not belong to him. The only just punishment, then, is to take something from him that he values. Since it is impossible to prove that he values anything else, the only thing that can be justly taken from him is something with objective, intrinsic value. And the only such thing is his life.

And morality IS objective.

How? Nothing that lacks physical substance is objective.

How much of an explanation do you want? I'm working on an essay on this very topic that explains both why moralitly must be objective as well as what that morality is--do you mind waiting for me to finish it or do you want a brief summary now?

Who said I was opposed to the death penalty?

You would appear to be arguing against it.


No, I was arguing for the death penalty for thieves. Read the ENTIRE thread. A thief has taken something that does not belong to him. The only just punishment, then, is to take something from him that he values. Since it is impossible to prove that he values anything else, the only thing that can be justly taken from him is something with objective, intrinsic value. And the only such thing is his life.

And morality IS objective.

How? Nothing that lacks physical substance is objective.

How much of an explanation do you want? I'm working on an essay on this very topic that explains both why moralitly must be objective as well as what that morality is--do you mind waiting for me to finish it or do you want a brief summary now?
Looking back at the thread now, I see you were in fact arguing for the death penalty. My mistake -- you were the first to respond so I assumed you were arguing my point! I apologize.

A summary would be nice. I'd like to see exactly what this essay is going to be saying, and perhaps give you an insight into the rebuttals you'd most certainly be receiving.

Morality is objective to a point. That is you should respect the rights of others. But some things, like what artists and music you perfer, whether or not you think PRIVATE charity is good or not ... are strictly subjective and depend largely on personal experience.

Those properly fall under personal codes of behavior, not morality.

Can one of the anti-death penalty folk here give me a single good reason why the death penalty should be abolished? :?

"Innocent people dying" is considered "bad"

The fact that mistakes are made now does not necessitate the tearing down of the entire system...when your computer has an error, do you immediately go and buy a new one? Of course not; to simply junk a system, item, etc. because of a flaw without attempting to rectify said problem is ridiculous. Instead of demonstrating a need to abolish the death penalty, the argument of "mistakes are made" instead would suggest a need to reform the system.

Can one of the anti-death penalty folk here give me a single good reason why the death penalty should be abolished? :?

"Innocent people dying" is considered "bad"

The fact that mistakes are made now does not necessitate the tearing down of the entire system...when your computer has an error, do you immediately go and buy a new one? Of course not; to simply junk a system, item, etc. because of a flaw without attempting to rectify said problem is ridiculous. Instead of demonstrating a need to abolish the death penalty, the argument of "mistakes are made" instead would suggest a need to reform the system.

I agree. Most arguments against the death penalty deal with minor systemic errors but they are treated with the typically liberal "let's ban it!" response. Were these errors fixed, it would not lessen opposition to the death penalty.

Like the Gay Marriage Resolution, this is one that can be openly violated by anyone who gets a certain issue.

Yeah around 10% (I think) of the prisioners executed in the United States are innocent. That's a good reason to be against capital punishment. 'But what about those that were guilty!!!11!1' Can't we just keep them in prison for the rest of their life? People say that criminals going to jail doesn't solve problems. I call bullshit. When a criminal is in jail he is not at the same time elsewhere commiting a crime. It's a physical law. It's math. This should not be a grey area. The real issues are cost and justice.

Way to quote "The Dilbert Future" verbatim...

Well it's true. Glad you know where I'm coming from anyway. By the way, is that supposed to discredit the argument? Just curious because even trying to discredit me by saying that I took the quote from a book (I did, and I assumed a lot of people here would pick it up) doesn't change the fact that it's true.

On that subject, if you haven't read The Dilbert Future yet, do so. I don't know why someone wouldn't have though.

No, I just get annoyed when someone fails to give credit where it's due.

Ithuania, your death penalty for theives seems more accustomed to theocratic reigns of terror than typical US-Euro values (for the record, I'm an American who does support the death penalty).

The value of a life has historically and still today is considered far higher than ANY for of property no matter how valuable. This judgement is made in US majority common law when you look at rules regarding the defense of persons and property in tort and criminal law. While a person may use deadly force to defend themselves or someone else (if deadly force is used on them), one may NEVER use deadly force to protect property, no matter what force is brought upon it or the value of the property. The only exceptions to this legal standard have been made statutorally in a few southern US states which did allow people to defend property with deadly force, but I'm not sure if those laws are still on the books today.

To a certain extent, I believe in the eye-for-an-eye doctrine - you murder someone and you deserve the death penalty. In my eyes, a serial killer deserves more than the death penalty - perhaps torture for his/her crimes.

Rape, theft, etc. is somewhat different but also the same - in my opinion, serial rapists deserve the death penalty while rapists who only rape one person deserve to be confined to prison, where they themselves will be raped anyway.

As for theft, a person who is guilty of theft in an extreme case should be forced to donate all of their possessions to the government - if a first time offender or a minor (under the age of 18) they should be given the chance to rehabilitate.

No, I just get annoyed when someone fails to give credit where it's due.

Ok, if you've worked through the initial blind rage, can you tell me why someone who steals material things should have the only thing 'of real worth' taken from him or her? If someone stole a pen from me, should they die?

Yeah around 10% (I think) of the prisioners executed in the United States are innocent. That's a good reason to be against capital punishment. 'But what about those that were guilty!!!11!1' Can't we just keep them in prison for the rest of their life? People say that criminals going to jail doesn't solve problems. I call bullshit. When a criminal is in jail he is not at the same time elsewhere commiting a crime. It's a physical law. It's math. This should not be a grey area. The real issues are cost and justice.

Way to quote "The Dilbert Future" verbatim...

Well it's true. Glad you know where I'm coming from anyway. By the way, is that supposed to discredit the argument? Just curious because even trying to discredit me by saying that I took the quote from a book (I did, and I assumed a lot of people here would pick it up) doesn't change the fact that it's true.

On that subject, if you haven't read The Dilbert Future yet, do so. I don't know why someone wouldn't have though.

So you think that the death penalty is too expensive and doesn't serve justice?

(Just to be sure, are you anti-death penalty? :))

Can one of the anti-death penalty folk here give me a single good reason why the death penalty should be abolished? :?

"Innocent people dying" is considered "bad"

The fact that mistakes are made now does not necessitate the tearing down of the entire system...when your computer has an error, do you immediately go and buy a new one? Of course not; to simply junk a system, item, etc. because of a flaw without attempting to rectify said problem is ridiculous. Instead of demonstrating a need to abolish the death penalty, the argument of "mistakes are made" instead would suggest a need to reform the system.

Computers are a different matter. If a computer breaks, you can throw it away and buy a new one. If a person breaks, you can't just "junk" them.

The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. It violates the right to life. It is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent and has never been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments.

The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. It violates the right to life. It is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent and has never been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments.

Just so you know, I'm against the death penalty execpt in extreme circumstances because of ceretain problems with it, like an innocent person being killed, and the cost, it's cheaper to do forced labor. In this case, "justice" from an objectivist standpoint must be balanced with pragmatism. But that said, you are mistaken about the right to life.

Criminals don't have any inalienable rights. They only have the rights that we choose to give them. In other words, if a government executes a convict, so long as that person was duly convicted, even if he is innocent, it does NOT delegitimize the government (and justify a revolution or coup d'etat). But if the government kills a non-convict, than it does.

The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. It violates the right to life. It is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent and has never been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments.

It cuts down on repeat offenders. If I announced that everyone that commits a crime is going to be put to death, I think that would deter some people.

The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. It violates the right to life. It is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent and has never been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments.

Cruelty is a matter of opinion. Some are crueler then others; electrocution is obviously crueler then firing squad. If we got rid of the crueler punishments, would this quell your opposition to it?

Inhuman is also wrong. Humans kill for a variety of reasons and serving justice is only one of them. Inhuman would be, saying, forcing him to screw a badger.

Degrading? Well, hell, the criminal doesn't care. He's dead.

As has been said, once a person is convicted of crime his rights are gone. We restrict his right to movement by placing him in prison, restrict his right to choice of diet by forcing him to eat one of a few things, restrict his contact with the outside world, and so on. Conviction destroys his right to vote, his right to own a gun, and (to the best of my knowledge) his right to receive a Social Security check.

Yes, it can be inflicted on the innocent. It's possible but since the American death penalty was reinstated in the late 70's it has yet to have happened. Furthermore, the risk exists that we imprison an innocent person but we don't empty out all the jails; our justice system hinges on the fact that we take a jury's verdict as truth.

No one places a deterrent value on the death penalty anymore.

I don't think anyone here made the argument that the death penalty is a deterrent. I support the death penalty, but I'm not going to fool myself and say it is a deterrent when all the numbers and statistics point the other way. However, I am perfectly comfortable with a retributive justification for the death penalty... pure punishment for the act committed.

And while I believe that people have the basic right to live, when one takes another's life in a heinious crime, they have forfieted that right, in my opinion.

No, I just get annoyed when someone fails to give credit where it's due.

Ok, if you've worked through the initial blind rage, can you tell me why someone who steals material things should have the only thing 'of real worth' taken from him or her? If someone stole a pen from me, should they die?

The proper punishment for theft is for the thief to have something he values taken from him. Since the only thing that can be proven to be of value to him (since it is the only thing with objective intrinsic value) is his life, then it must be his life that is taken from him.

Can one of the anti-death penalty folk here give me a single good reason why the death penalty should be abolished? :?

"Innocent people dying" is considered "bad"

The fact that mistakes are made now does not necessitate the tearing down of the entire system...when your computer has an error, do you immediately go and buy a new one? Of course not; to simply junk a system, item, etc. because of a flaw without attempting to rectify said problem is ridiculous. Instead of demonstrating a need to abolish the death penalty, the argument of "mistakes are made" instead would suggest a need to reform the system.

Once again, the argument is not that mistakes will happen, and live with it. Rather, it is illogical to completely remove a system with errors without first seeking to rectify its problems first, is it not?

Computers are a different matter. If a computer breaks, you can throw it away and buy a new one. If a person breaks, you can't just "junk" them.

No, I just get annoyed when someone fails to give credit where it's due.

Ok, if you've worked through the initial blind rage, can you tell me why someone who steals material things should have the only thing 'of real worth' taken from him or her? If someone stole a pen from me, should they die?

The proper punishment for theft is for the thief to have something he values taken from him. Since the only thing that can be proven to be of value to him (since it is the only thing with objective intrinsic value) is his life, then it must be his life that is taken from him.

His liberty and property are of value to him... why not fine/jail him?

That said, Ithuania, I think Ayn Rand would even agree with me that executing someone who steals a 5cent piece of gum from a convenience store isn't very ... rational?

Aside. If life is the only thing with intrinsic value... and theft is the violation of property... then shouldn't theft not be a crime?

Property and liberty are valuable, as is life. That's why they are the THREE inalienable rights, not just one.

The last code of law to have the death penalty for theft was that of the Athenian archon Draco. This was 2,600 years ago. The Draconian code failed miserably when most of the population rose up against the ruling government and overthrew it and chose a new lawmaker Solon.

Here is my view: What does the Death Penalty accomplish? Does having a death penalty or capital punishment stop murderers and what not from commiting crimes? Would knowing about the death penalty stop a psychopath from waltzing into a kindergarden and shooting up the place? From the way I see it, no. The death penalty isn't much of a deterant at all, and those of you that will pounce on me with statistics should understand that statistics can support any issue.

The Nomadic Peoples of Manton has a Prison Corps, inmates work on state owned farms, manufacturing lines, and even as soldiers in a seperate unit. So far we have found no problems with this kind of punishment.

OOC: ofcourse the enforced castration of child molesters would be worth looking into

Here is my view: What does the Death Penalty accomplish? Does having a death penalty or capital punishment stop murderers and what not from commiting crimes? Would knowing about the death penalty stop a psychopath from waltzing into a kindergarden and shooting up the place? From the way I see it, no. The death penalty isn't much of a deterant at all, and those of you that will pounce on me with statistics should understand that statistics can support any issue.

The Nomadic Peoples of Manton has a Prison Corps, inmates work on state owned farms, manufacturing lines, and even as soldiers in a seperate unit. So far we have found no problems with this kind of punishment.

OOC: ofcourse the enforced castration of child molesters would be worth looking into

I have forced labor in my country too.

As Ithuania pointed out the issue with the death penalty is that it is just to use on hardened murderers. Pragmatic problems with it don't apply (except the possibility of an innocent person being executed).

I support the death penalty but only in a very limited application.

The last code of law to have the death penalty for theft was that of the Athenian archon Draco. This was 2,600 years ago. The Draconian code failed miserably when most of the population rose up against the ruling government and overthrew it and chose a new lawmaker Solon.

I hate to be difficult.... No, that's wrong, I like being difficult. Therefore, with no attempt being made to argue either way (my opinion has been made clear in other places)...

In 1699, in the United Kingdom. The Shoplifting Act defined shoplifting to the value of 5 shillings (25 pence) as a capital crime. This remained in force until Robert Peel abolished the death penalty for many crimes between 1832-4.

1713. An Act of Parliament made stealing from a dwelling house in the value of 40 shillings (£2) a capital crime.

So capital punishment for theft existed long after Draco.

Yours in the service of pedantry

The last code of law to have the death penalty for theft was that of the Athenian archon Draco. This was 2,600 years ago. The Draconian code failed miserably when most of the population rose up against the ruling government and overthrew it and chose a new lawmaker Solon.

I hate to be difficult.... No, that's wrong, I like being difficult. Therefore, with no attempt being made to argue either way (my opinion has been made clear in other places)...

In 1699, in the United Kingdom. The Shoplifting Act defined shoplifting to the value of 5 shillings (25 pence) as a capital crime. This remained in force until Robert Peel abolished the death penalty for many crimes between 1832-4.

1713. An Act of Parliament made stealing from a dwelling house in the value of 40 shillings (£2) a capital crime.

So capital punishment for theft existed long after Draco.

Yours in the service of pedantry

Ech, I guess that's my bad. But the only one that had death penalty for ALL theft was by Draco. Either way... I don't think it's a good idea.

Can one of the anti-death penalty folk here give me a single good reason why the death penalty should be abolished? :?

"Innocent people dying" is considered "bad"

The fact that mistakes are made now does not necessitate the tearing down of the entire system...when your computer has an error, do you immediately go and buy a new one? Of course not; to simply junk a system, item, etc. because of a flaw without attempting to rectify said problem is ridiculous. Instead of demonstrating a need to abolish the death penalty, the argument of "mistakes are made" instead would suggest a need to reform the system.

Computers are a different matter. If a computer breaks, you can throw it away and buy a new one. If a person breaks, you can't just "junk" them.

Once again, the argument is not that mistakes will happen, and live with it. Rather, it is illogical to completely remove a system with errors without first seeking to rectify its problems first, is it not?


Again, computers are a different matter. Some times it is cheaper, more efficient, and effective to just replace it rather than fix it.

In some cases, yes. But no sane person would automatically rid themselves of something unless it was

1. More feasible to replace it
2. It was hopelessly flawed

Seeing as there is no clear mandate against the death penalty, the former does not apply, and unless a serious attempt at reform is made, it is unfair to declare it hopelessly flawed... I do not advocate keeping in place a system like the current American one, but with the proper reforms, I fail to see any definitive reason to be rid of it.

No, I just get annoyed when someone fails to give credit where it's due.

Ok, if you've worked through the initial blind rage, can you tell me why someone who steals material things should have the only thing 'of real worth' taken from him or her? If someone stole a pen from me, should they die?

The proper punishment for theft is for the thief to have something he values taken from him. Since the only thing that can be proven to be of value to him (since it is the only thing with objective intrinsic value) is his life, then it must be his life that is taken from him.

GOD DAMN IT! A PEN DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME FUNDAMENTAL VALUE AS A HUMAN LIFE! With that reasoning, before you judge the thief you have to judge the person who he stole from and see if what the thief stole was of value to the person stolen from. Since the only thing that can be proven to be of value to ANYONE is their life, then that makes the only theft you can prove to be unjust is the theft of life, or murder.

The fact that mistakes are made now does not necessitate the tearing down of the entire system...when your computer has an error, do you immediately go and buy a new one? Of course not; to simply junk a system, item, etc. because of a flaw without attempting to rectify said problem is ridiculous. Instead of demonstrating a need to abolish the death penalty, the argument of "mistakes are made" instead would suggest a need to reform the system
I agree. Most arguments against the death penalty deal with minor systemic errors but they are treated with the typically liberal "let's ban it!" response. Were these errors fixed, it would not lessen opposition to the death penalty.
Computers are a different matter. If a computer breaks, you can throw it away and buy a new one. If a person breaks, you can't just "junk" them.

Agreed Oppressed Possums! How can you compare a human life to a defect in a computer?! Not even the same league. I might agree with Argyres except for the fact that you state that if hundreds of innocent people are executed (let's face it, if 111 people, most in the last 7 years, have been found innocent while on death row, more then 100 have been executed unjustly) it can just be compared to a computer. Let's get rid of the bad part of the system. Ok, let's. I'm all for it. But people have ALREADY died unjustly. "...arguments against the death penalty deal with minor systemic errors..." Like the one with about 10% of the people executed so far are presumed to be innocent with the current pattern? How fucking minor can you get? You'd change your tune if YOU were on death row for a crime you didn't commit.

So you think that the death penalty is too expensive and doesn't serve justice?

I'm not sure about the figures with the death penalty, but as stated above forced labor is MUCH cheaper; even profitable. As to whether is serves justice, justice is in the eye of the beholder. To some the execution of a serial killer who killed 10 people would be just, and to others it wouldn't be. But my opinion personally? I think that a social hierarchy comes into play with it myself. I won't attempt to explain this, as the ACLU does a better job here http://www.aclu.org/DeathPenalty/DeathPenaltyMain.cfm. If you actually want to understand my argument instead of shouting 'ACLU is nothing but liberal whiners' you can browse through that. If you want to call me a liberal whiner, go right ahead, but I'm not going to argue your middle class white male viewpoint. Before I offend people who are against upholding the Bill of Rights, let me get back on subject. When you factor in that almost every person on death row didn't have money to hire a good attorney, that some states have MANY more executions then others, and that 81% of the death sentances involve a white victim (178 black people have been executed for killing a white person, but only 12 white people have been executed for killing a black person) things look fishy. It could be argued that it's circumstantial evidence but it doesn't look good no matter what it is. One other problem I have with social hierarchy is that if someone killed the President, for instance, he would be guaranteed a death sentance. But if someone were to kill me right now, I assure you they won't get the death penalty. Does that make the Presidents life worth more then mine? Before the President was President, he was in my same place. If he were killed his killer probably wouldn't get the death penalty. If someone killed everyone in my house right now, they might not get the death penalty. Does that make 5 people's lives worth less then the Presidents? Whether it's me or the President being killed, a life is a life. If we were killed under the same circumstances (let's say they walked into our respective houses, put a bullet in our heads, and walked out) shouldn't both get the same sentance be it death or imprisonment for 10 years? I know there's federal laws and state laws, but what gives the Presidents life more value then mine? His power? Ok, but if Bush can become President so can I.

(Just to be sure, are you anti-death penalty? )

Two wrongs don't make a right. Eye for an eye justice is just a double standard. I think of prison as a place of keeping people who are likely to harm me AWAY from me. I do think for every wrong that someone commits they should be deprived of the rights given to them on the agreement that they act responsibly. But life can't be taken from ANYONE except in self defense or you're guilty in my eyes. Death is only a last resort. If someone is behind bars and you then execute that person, you are guilty of murder. I don't think the right to life is something we can take from ANYONE.

I might also support the three strikes and your out policy. You can't send someone to jail for life if they shoplift a fucking twinkie in those three crimes. It has to be a case by case basis. When people are in jail they are not elsewhere committing crimes at the same time. Just send the person back to jail every time he steals a twinkie. Jail isn't a very strong deterrent for a lot of people, and it doesn't have to be. Go ahead and break the law, but you're going to jail. I'll send half the United States to jail if they're all caught breaking laws. Of course that would cost a LOT in the terms of taxpayers money, but breaking a law is breaking a law. If you think no one cares if you steal music off the Internet, you have another thing coming. If I were the IRAA I'd have ALL your asses up for trial. Breaking a law is breaking a law in my eyes. There's a punishment for every crime you commit and you should receive it. I do NOT think that if someone steals my pen that they should be executed. That's fucking stupid. I think if it were a real nice pen that person would deserve a punch in the arm. If it were one of those disposable pens I'd probably give the offender a 20 second speech about how no one steals my pen or something. A crime is a crime, that's something that you can argue in black and white. Proving that the crime is in fact unjust (see the civil rights movement and activists being jailed) can't be seen in black and white. Punishment for broad areas of crime (theft, murder, etc.) cannot be seen in black and white. Stealing a pen doesn't warrant the same punishment as stealing money from a poor person. Stealing money from a poor person isn't as bad as breaking that persons arm. And breaking that persons arm isn't as bad as killing them.

There's a line between an annoyance and a crime. There's a line between a crime and a horrible crime. The question is where is that line? That's up to each individual person to decide, because everyone will see things differently. The best we can do is seeing what the majority of people say and go with that. After all, we live in democracies remember? The people get to decide.

With props to Neil Gaiman, I believe that the death penalty is just only as long as one can trust the criminal justice system 100%... and only the direst of fools would trust the criminal jsutice system 100%. In otherwords, death is a just punishment for murder, but the execution of even a single innocent human is too great a risk. Remember... life sentences in solitary confinement can be rescinded should the person be proven innocent; death cannot be.

And, to Ithuania:
The death penalty applied to thievery is a terrible, incredibly foolish concept... and it always has been, historically. Mind you, this is ignoring any question of justice or morality in terms of punishment/crime inequality... If a criminal knows that he will be put to death regardless, do you think he would ever, ever stop at just stealing your wallet? Why would he, when he could kill you, removing any witnesses - and not risking any further punishment? That's the very reason it's not been used in nearly 300 years.

(P.s. - would you execute someone for "stealing" an mp3?)

Yes, it can be inflicted on the innocent. It's possible but since the American death penalty was reinstated in the late 70's it has yet to have happened. Furthermore, the risk exists that we imprison an innocent person but we don't empty out all the jails; our justice system hinges on the fact that we take a jury's verdict as truth.



Do you really believe that no innocent has been put to death in the US since the 70's?

There are innocent men and women in jail there are innocent men and women on Death row there have been innocents murdered by the state. Jury trials can be flawed however someone alive can appeal, or have an appeal mounted for them.

That there are innocent people in prison doesn't mean that we should abolish prisons it means that we should reform the trial system.

That there are innocent people being murdered by the state does mean that the death penalty should be abolished.

Even if you have 100% certainty of someon's guilt however I believe that no person or state has the right to take a life no matter what that person has done.

Tobes
Today's spokesman for Nebbyland

One problem with punishment in general as a deterrent is that many criminals, at the time of committing the crime, believe that they will NOT be convicted of the crime. Also, there are those who want to kill an enemy more than they want to live (virtually any suicide attackers), so punishment will not deter those either.

Oh hey, this is a pretty interesting story concerning this issue.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/09/02/death.penalty.ap/index.html

We could start burning people at the stake again...

No, I just get annoyed when someone fails to give credit where it's due.

Ok, if you've worked through the initial blind rage, can you tell me why someone who steals material things should have the only thing 'of real worth' taken from him or her? If someone stole a pen from me, should they die?

The proper punishment for theft is for the thief to have something he values taken from him. Since the only thing that can be proven to be of value to him (since it is the only thing with objective intrinsic value) is his life, then it must be his life that is taken from him.

GOD DAMN IT! A PEN DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME FUNDAMENTAL VALUE AS A HUMAN LIFE!

That's exactly what I'm saying. In fact, you can't prove that a pen has any value at all to the thief. Therefore, you must take from him the only thing he has whose value CAN be proven--his life.

No, I just get annoyed when someone fails to give credit where it's due.

Ok, if you've worked through the initial blind rage, can you tell me why someone who steals material things should have the only thing 'of real worth' taken from him or her? If someone stole a pen from me, should they die?

The proper punishment for theft is for the thief to have something he values taken from him. Since the only thing that can be proven to be of value to him (since it is the only thing with objective intrinsic value) is his life, then it must be his life that is taken from him.

GOD DAMN IT! A PEN DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME FUNDAMENTAL VALUE AS A HUMAN LIFE!

That's exactly what I'm saying. In fact, you can't prove that a pen has any value at all to the thief. Therefore, you must take from him the only thing he has whose value CAN be proven--his life.

Well how do you prove that the pen had value to the original owner :shock:

Or better yet, how do you prove the criminal isn't suicidal?

The punishment should match the crime. "Giving each his due" is what justice is...

yes lets ban capitol punishment, and when someone comits a violent act such as oh lets say murdering a family of 6, we should reward them with free room&board, and food. Capitol punishment if anything should be used for more ofenses such as rape, and child molesters should be shot onsight. You euro trash faggots would have the world become a gigantic prison before god forbid we kill someone for doing something morally and legally wrong.

yes lets ban capitol punishment, and when someone comits a violent act such as oh lets say murdering a family of 6

Killing them in return makes you better? What ever happened to 'two wrongs don't make a right'? From what I remember respect toward others is helping others to keep their dignity, as in making sure they don't do something morally wrong. Just because one person doesn't think that killing a family of 6 is undignified, doesn't mean everyone else won't want their head. That's why you stop someone at all costs from doing something like that. If they do it once, stop them from doing it again. But killing them doesn't make YOU a good person.

we should reward them with free room&board, and food.

I wouldn't say solitary confinement for the rest of your life is a GIFT that anyone would WANT.

Capitol punishment if anything should be used for more ofenses such as rape, and child molesters should be shot onsight.

What makes killing someone on sight for rape a just punishment?

You euro trash faggots would have the world become a gigantic prison before god forbid we kill someone for doing something morally and legally wrong.

Now now, directly insulting someone is against the rules of a debate. It makes you look stupid if you have to resort to name calling to make your 'point'. Most people won't even respond to you if you call them names to their face.

While we're on the topic...

Who is the most wrong...

The doctor who kills at the abortion clinic?

The priest who kills the doctor hoping to become a martyr to his cause?

The State who kills the Priest?

Most of you who've read my posts probably know I'm a bleeding heart liberal and can guess at my views, what are yours?

Ben
Today's spokesman for Nebbyland.

edit: added more emotive language

death penalty for stealing ?!! I am glad you guys have no real power :!:

There is an old expression: An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

And I've always thought it hipocritical for the state to say "Murder is wrong... so we're gonna kill you". I understand how the families of a victim might want retribution, but I don't see that the state has an obligation to satisfy the anger and blood lust. It should rise above that else it makes itself no better than a vigilante, and there are just too many chances of mistakes because the legal system is what it is.

But, for an entertaining point of view on this subject

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/execution.html

(requires flash/sound)

There is an old expression: An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

And I've always thought it hipocritical for the state to say "Murder is wrong... so we're gonna kill you". I understand how the families of a victim might want retribution, but I don't see that the state has an obligation to satisfy the anger and blood lust. It should rise above that else it makes itself no better than a vigilante, and there are just too many chances of mistakes because the legal system is what it is.

But, for an entertaining point of view on this subject

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/execution.html

(requires flash/sound)

I couldn't agree more Zeppistan.

'An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.' Mohandas K. Gandhi

Peace,
Stephanie.

We the People's Republic Of Amyth would like to mention, since we are on the topic of death penality, that in our nation, when a citizen is convicted of a capital crime they have the option of death, if deemed appropriate by the presiding jury, or participation in a Roman-Inspired death league. We have simply taken the American sport of Football (as opposed to Football), and increased the allowable violence in the game. This method allows us an almost certainty that convicted prisioners will be executed, and we feel happy that no civil servant had to perform such an unpleasant task. If any "player" manages to survive the 5 season minimum sentance, he then has the option of joining the league as a paid player (many do, it seems that after 5 years of fighting to survive, many don't have the necessary skills to re-intergrate into society) or freedom.

We thank you all for your parallel universes...

Capital punishment should most definetly be allowed...we will keep it alive.

Nice quoting there, Stephistan. I've heard it before.

I mght make "Stephistan Appreciation Day".
Then again, I might make "Cheese Appreciation Day".

Capital punishment should most definetly be allowed...we will keep it alive.

So much for forgiveness or if you're a religious person the 10 commandments for that matter huh!

Peace,
Stephanie.

Nice quoting there, Stephistan. I've heard it before.

I mght make "Stephistan Appreciation Day".
Then again, I might make "Cheese Appreciation Day".

Hehe thanks. I think you should go with the cheese though... I like cheese. *yummy*

Peace,
Stephanie.

It doesn't take much to have a national holiday in Demo-Bobylon.
When someone got a million on WWTBAM, there was one...

It doesn't take much to have a national holiday in Demo-Bobylon.
When someone got a million on WWTBAM, there was one...

I understand, why today is actually a holiday in Stephistan. We are paying tribute to Wednesday! Wooo :lol:

Peace,
Stephanie.

We've got Thursdayday tomorrow. Lots of parades then.

Sundays are our special days...surprisingly! :lol:

yes lets ban capitol punishment, and when someone comits a violent act such as oh lets say murdering a family of 6, we should reward them with free room&board, and food. Capitol punishment if anything should be used for more ofenses such as rape, and child molesters should be shot onsight. You euro trash faggots would have the world become a gigantic prison before god forbid we kill someone for doing something morally and legally wrong.

The death penalty should only be used for extreme cases of murder.

As for "shot on site" that would insure that so many innocent people are killed taht the government would be delegitimized and a revolution justifiable. By far the BIGGEST problem of the death penalty is government legitimacy... executing an innocent person delegitimizes the government (in terms of republican social contract theory).

Also under my plan no criminal gets FREE room and board... they are put to forced labor. And jail overcrowding isn't an issue either... we should legalize victimless crimes like drugs which make up 2/3 of the total jail population, far more than the number of murderers and rapists.

No, I just get annoyed when someone fails to give credit where it's due.

Ok, if you've worked through the initial blind rage, can you tell me why someone who steals material things should have the only thing 'of real worth' taken from him or her? If someone stole a pen from me, should they die?

The proper punishment for theft is for the thief to have something he values taken from him. Since the only thing that can be proven to be of value to him (since it is the only thing with objective intrinsic value) is his life, then it must be his life that is taken from him.

GOD DAMN IT! A PEN DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME FUNDAMENTAL VALUE AS A HUMAN LIFE!

That's exactly what I'm saying. In fact, you can't prove that a pen has any value at all to the thief. Therefore, you must take from him the only thing he has whose value CAN be proven--his life.

Well how do you prove that the pen had value to the original owner :shock:
That doesn't matter--the fact remains that it wasn't the criminal's to take.

Or better yet, how do you prove the criminal isn't suicidal?

The punishment should match the crime.
So for the crime of theft the thief should have something taken from him--something with a provable value.

What makes the life yours to take?

The Global Market is right. Forced labor might be a good way to go. Some people might call it slavery, but then some people won't be happy no matter WHAT we do.

On THAT thought, you'd have to argue it not being slavery because there's already anit-slavery resolutions in the game. You'd have to make a good case. That or hope people are as unperceptive as they've been.

And I've always thought it hipocritical for the state to say "Murder is wrong... so we're gonna kill you".

Here's the thing.

A person who kills another human being has renounced his own humanity for barbarism. Since he is no longer human, he does not enjoy the same protections and rights that humans do.

And I've always thought it hipocritical for the state to say "Murder is wrong... so we're gonna kill you".

Here's the thing.

A person who kills another human being has renounced his own humanity for barbarism. Since he is no longer human, he does not enjoy the same protections and rights that humans do.

That's a two way street. 'A person who kills another human being' Your death penalty is killing another human being. The blood will be on your hands too.

But as I already said, the first murderer, by killing a human being, is no longer a human being--note the "has renounced his humanity for barbarism".

Killing a human being except in self-defense means that you are no longer human. And there is nothing wrong with killing that which is not human; therefore, there is nothing wrong with executing murderers.

But as I already said, the first murderer, by killing a human being, is no longer a human being--note the "has renounced his humanity for barbarism".

Killing a human being except in self-defense means that you are no longer human. And there is nothing wrong with killing that which is not human; therefore, there is nothing wrong with executing murderers.

I refuse to believe that a person has renounced his humanity when he kills. It's human nature to strike out at others if we're angry. Morals are in place because we're greedy enough that we don't want OTHERS to strike out at us, and have enough of a will to survive that we also follow our own rules usually. But killing someone is a breach of morals whether it's them or you. Think of morals as a trust system. Accept these and we won't harm you. But you have to promise not to harm anyone else. The moment you do, you lose your credibility. The executioner and the executed have both lost their credibility.

Another issue that capital punishment has to deal with is righteous punishment. OK, say you allow the death penalty or "like-punishment for like-crimes"...what happens when you put someone to the electric chair, fry their butts and then find out a month later that they were innocent? Then what?

I, personally, believe in the like-punishment for like-crime way to go, taking off the hand of a thief, castrating rapists...but for punishment to be effective and correct, the crime should be 100% proven before the accused is subject to punishment.

No, I just get annoyed when someone fails to give credit where it's due.

Ok, if you've worked through the initial blind rage, can you tell me why someone who steals material things should have the only thing 'of real worth' taken from him or her? If someone stole a pen from me, should they die?

The proper punishment for theft is for the thief to have something he values taken from him. Since the only thing that can be proven to be of value to him (since it is the only thing with objective intrinsic value) is his life, then it must be his life that is taken from him.

GOD DAMN IT! A PEN DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME FUNDAMENTAL VALUE AS A HUMAN LIFE!

That's exactly what I'm saying. In fact, you can't prove that a pen has any value at all to the thief. Therefore, you must take from him the only thing he has whose value CAN be proven--his life.

Well how do you prove that the pen had value to the original owner :shock:
That doesn't matter--the fact remains that it wasn't the criminal's to take.

Or better yet, how do you prove the criminal isn't suicidal?

The punishment should match the crime.
So for the crime of theft the thief should have something taken from him--something with a provable value.

Yeah, his LIBERTY. You haven't addressed my points that:

In fact there are people who vlaue liberty above life, like Patrick Henry.

a) It is EXTREMELY easy to frame someone for theft (since theft is its own motive) AND
b) What if the person is suicidal and doesn't value his life?

What makes the life yours to take?

The Global Market is right. Forced labor might be a good way to go. Some people might call it slavery, but then some people won't be happy no matter WHAT we do.

On THAT thought, you'd have to argue it not being slavery because there's already anit-slavery resolutions in the game. You'd have to make a good case. That or hope people are as unperceptive as they've been.

Forced labor for convicts isn't slavery. The 13th amendment of the US Constitution reads:

"Nor shall any person be subjected to slavery or involuntary servitude EXCEPT AS A PUNISHMENT FOR A CRIME, FOR WHICH SAID PERSON SHALL HAVE BEEN DULY CONVICTED."

Another issue that capital punishment has to deal with is righteous punishment. OK, say you allow the death penalty or "like-punishment for like-crimes"...what happens when you put someone to the electric chair, fry their butts and then find out a month later that they were innocent? Then what?

I, personally, believe in the like-punishment for like-crime way to go, taking off the hand of a thief, castrating rapists...but for punishment to be effective and correct, the crime should be 100% proven before the accused is subject to punishment.

Actually you can never 100% prove anything using scientific or legal methods. This is a fundamental rule of logic. I'll prove this logically (which can be done since this is a logical proof) if you want. That's why juries say "we find the defendant guilty BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT."

I refuse to believe that a person has renounced his humanity when he kills. It's human nature to strike out at others if we're angry.

You don't have the right to kill someone just beceause your angry.

But killing IS sometimes a crime of passion which is why we draw a distinction between "murder" and "manslaughter".

The executioner and the executed have both lost their credibility.

As I said I support the death penalty in a VERY LIMITED APPLICATION. The issue here isn't one of credibility; it's one of legitimacy.

A government loses its legitimacy the moment it takes away the life, liberty, or property of an innocent person without due process of law (applied more strictly towards the right to life than the other two), thus justifying revolutions and all that republican social contract stuff.

No, I just get annoyed when someone fails to give credit where it's due.

Ok, if you've worked through the initial blind rage, can you tell me why someone who steals material things should have the only thing 'of real worth' taken from him or her? If someone stole a pen from me, should they die?

The proper punishment for theft is for the thief to have something he values taken from him. Since the only thing that can be proven to be of value to him (since it is the only thing with objective intrinsic value) is his life, then it must be his life that is taken from him.

GOD DAMN IT! A PEN DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME FUNDAMENTAL VALUE AS A HUMAN LIFE!

That's exactly what I'm saying. In fact, you can't prove that a pen has any value at all to the thief. Therefore, you must take from him the only thing he has whose value CAN be proven--his life.

Well how do you prove that the pen had value to the original owner :shock:
That doesn't matter--the fact remains that it wasn't the criminal's to take.

Or better yet, how do you prove the criminal isn't suicidal?

The punishment should match the crime.
So for the crime of theft the thief should have something taken from him--something with a provable value.

Yeah, his LIBERTY. You haven't addressed my points that:

a) It is EXTREMELY easy to frame someone for theft (since theft is its own motive) AND
It is easy to frame someone for any crime. That doesn't diminish a certain punishment's justness for someone who did in fact commit the crime.
b) What if the person is suicidal and doesn't value his life?
If he doesn't value his life then it will end shortly regardless.

It is easy to frame someone for any crime. That doesn't diminish a certain punishment's justness for someone who did in fact commit the crime.

Much easier for theft... since it's an internal motive.

And as I said before, I'm sure that one day you will accidnetally put something in your pocket and forget to pay for it... I don't think that death is an appropraiate punishment in this instance.

If he doesn't value his life then it will end shortly regardless.

What if he values his liberty as much or more than his life? Patrick Henry said "liberty or death" but he died naturally, many years after the revolution.

Justice is "giving each his due". A criminal should be punished by having something of value taken from him COMPARABLE to the crime...

A person stealing a pen should be made to return it and then do 30 hours of forced labor to the person he stole it from or whatever the pen might be worth.

I really can't see why this topic is open for debate my fellow members

Surely if a person kills another person in cold blood the nation should have the right to execute the murderer if that person is found guilty by a jury of his peers.

I would support the proposal if the ban only applied to people who were under the age of 18 when they commited their crime but at this early juncture the proposal is too restrictive for my liking

I really can't see why this topic is open for debate my fellow members

Well then perhaps you should read some of the previous arguments?

Anne
Today's spokesman for Nebbyland

I really can't see why this topic is open for debate my fellow members

Well then perhaps you should read some of the previous arguments?

Anne
Today's spokesman for Nebbyland

Perhaps I should rephrase.

The argument is noble but I don't think it will get much support. As I pointed out I believe that if a person murders another in cold blood then that person if found guilty should be executed

The only exception as I said is if the ban only covered those under the age of 18 when they commited the crime

If you're anything religious, as said that let God judge those who have sinned. For us, let us forgive those who have wronged us.

It is not right for us to play "god" over someone else's life in judging their deaths. True, their crimes committed may be horrific in detail, but unless they are some lunatic, anyone would already be tortured for their remainder of their life and scarred in memory of their crimes. Is that not enough? Do we need to persecute those who have already received such a punishment?

Even if you say yes, that is still wrong. If you enact the death penalty on those who have committed a horrific crime and are suffering, you are only doing them a great favour in ending their life quickly and comfortably.

So either way, the death penalty should be banned, to on either choice, either let the offender suffer for the rest of his life, or let us forgive those who have persecuted and let God judge them

Right I can see no justification ever for a state killing a person, ever, under any circumstances, for any crime.

Nebbyland therefore neither endorces state sponsored murder, nor will extradite anyone to countries who allow such.

We have a difference of opinion. Our countries will deal with these things differently, if the NS UN were to rule that all states had to impliment the death penalty for Murder, or the NS UN were to outlaw the death penalty one of us would have to leave the NS UN.

Anne
Today's spokesman for Nebbyland

Is the murderer not playing God when he chooses to kill though?

The victim had no choice when his life was ended, the murderer shouldn't have the choice either

In the Anti Socialist Alliance we have banned the death penalty for all but the most brutal of crimes (such as serial killing). This has resulted in a greater degree of law and order and has also caused the region to become more stable as a result. If anyone is interested in joining our region please contact me, The Republic of Frankiia or The Empire of Sarapin.

Is the murderer not playing God when he chooses to kill though?

The victim had no choice when his life was ended, the murderer shouldn't have the choice either

Two wrongs don't make a right!

Peace,
Stephanie.

Is the murderer not playing God when he chooses to kill though?

The victim had no choice when his life was ended, the murderer shouldn't have the choice either

Two wrongs don't make a right!

Peace,
Stephanie.

We the People's Republic Of Amyth would wonder if taking away a person's freedoms and civil liberties, confining them to the company of undesireables wouldn't qualify as a "wrong". Probablly not, as two wrongs don't make a right.

Is the murderer not playing God when he chooses to kill though?

The victim had no choice when his life was ended, the murderer shouldn't have the choice either

Two wrongs don't make a right!

Peace,
Stephanie.

We the People's Republic Of Amyth would wonder if taking away a person's freedoms and civil liberties, confining them to the company of undesireables wouldn't qualify as a "wrong". Probablly not, as two wrongs don't make a right.

I believe we still need to protect society from criminals, but to take their life is a step I'm not willing to take nor is it the right of any one to do so.

Peace,
Stephanie.

We at the PROA respect your decision, as we feel that aside from the right or wrong of capital punishment, no one should be asked to perform the cold blooded murder of anybody, even criminal scum, by their goverment. We know that while there may be PROA citizens who would feel nothing at this it is still too much to ask, and cannot be good for the executioners moral health.

However, that said, we at the PROA are tired of hearing "Two wrongs don't make a right", because, sometimes all your options are wrong.

It is easy to frame someone for any crime. That doesn't diminish a certain punishment's justness for someone who did in fact commit the crime.

Much easier for theft... since it's an internal motive.
It still doesn't diminish the justness of a certain punishment for one who actually did commit the crime.

And as I said before, I'm sure that one day you will accidnetally put something in your pocket and forget to pay for it... I don't think that death is an appropraiate punishment in this instance.
Theft is by definition an intentional act.

If he doesn't value his life then it will end shortly regardless.

What if he values his liberty as much or more than his life? Patrick Henry said "liberty or death" but he died naturally, many years after the revolution.[/quote]
Just because you value A more than B doesn't preclude you from valuing B.

Is the murderer not playing God when he chooses to kill though?

The victim had no choice when his life was ended, the murderer shouldn't have the choice either

Two wrongs don't make a right!

Peace,
Stephanie.

I understand that two wrongs don't make a right but where do you draw the line here? If a terroist act occurs on our shores and 10 thousand people are killed by the acts of one man should we not have the right to make that judgement on the man if we so wish?

There is a thought that runs throughout history called an eye for an eye. If the murder of innocent civilians is perpitrated by an adult a state should hold that right in check if it is deemed nessicary by a jury of the persons peers.

What would you do if it was your child that was the victim? It is a sad fact of life that children and people still are being murdered to this day and capital punishment should stand as a deterrent to these people.

As I have said we of the Republic of WNA do not support capital punishment against minors nor will we ever but if an adult kills a child then it is our belief that that adult doesn't deserve to live in prison even if it would be only for a short time.

Actually you can never 100% prove anything using scientific or legal methods. This is a fundamental rule of logic. I'll prove this logically (which can be done since this is a logical proof) if you want. That's why juries say "we find the defendant guilty BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT."

OK, yeah, I do agree with you there. But as I spend time thinking about this issue I find that perhaps capitol punishment for extreme crimes is too easy. Why fry a murderer? That's far too easy. I say jail 'em, and not just any jail. I say develop an extreme crime jail. Its underground, the 5x5 cells have no windows and they don't get TV, or radios, or books, or nothing. They are cut off from humanity and left there to rot as they so deserve. If they try to escape or show signs of aggression, then they can always be subject to something torturous...using POW tactics, like being made to kneel for hours with punjy sticks placed all around them so if they sway, they get stabbed by them. Now THAT's what I call proper punishment.

If you're anything religious, as said that let God judge those who have sinned. For us, let us forgive those who have wronged us.

It is not right for us to play "god" over someone else's life in judging their deaths. True, their crimes committed may be horrific in detail, but unless they are some lunatic, anyone would already be tortured for their remainder of their life and scarred in memory of their crimes. Is that not enough? Do we need to persecute those who have already received such a punishment?

Even if you say yes, that is still wrong. If you enact the death penalty on those who have committed a horrific crime and are suffering, you are only doing them a great favour in ending their life quickly and comfortably.

So either way, the death penalty should be banned, to on either choice, either let the offender suffer for the rest of his life, or let us forgive those who have persecuted and let God judge them

Couldn't any form of punishment be considered playing "God", as only God should have the ability to judge the criminal? Or are we simply drawing a line and saying that humans are allowed to judge their own except in cases where capital punishment is in order?

Incidentally, since the anti-death penalty side seems to enjoy using platitudes and catchy (and not-so-catchy) sayings, here's one for you:

By executing the criminal, we are allowing God to judge them...we're just ensuring that they make their court appearance on time! ;)

Actually you can never 100% prove anything using scientific or legal methods. This is a fundamental rule of logic. I'll prove this logically (which can be done since this is a logical proof) if you want. That's why juries say "we find the defendant guilty BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT."

OK, yeah, I do agree with you there. But as I spend time thinking about this issue I find that perhaps capitol punishment for extreme crimes is too easy. Why fry a murderer? That's far too easy. I say jail 'em, and not just any jail. I say develop an extreme crime jail. Its underground, the 5x5 cells have no windows and they don't get TV, or radios, or books, or nothing. They are cut off from humanity and left there to rot as they so deserve. If they try to escape or show signs of aggression, then they can always be subject to something torturous...using POW tactics, like being made to kneel for hours with punjy sticks placed all around them so if they sway, they get stabbed by them. Now THAT's what I call proper punishment.

Two words: FORCED LABOR

-From the desk of Tembat the Destroyer, dictator of the Armed Republic of Blood-drinking Wagods-

While all sides--for, against, and fence-saddlers--of this argument have good points, one must wonder if we're really in any position to say that a person should live either.

I'm not going to get philosophical, I'm just making something abundantly clear: we're bringing deities we can't all agree upon, scientific methods we can't all agree upon, moral codes we can't all agree upon and everything else we can possibly bring into a debate that we will most likely never all agree upon. The only way to do that is to become a utopia, which I doubt will happen anytime in this century.

All we can do for now is either come to a compromise or simply let an individual nation deal with their criminals as they see fit, not as their neighbors do.

--Tembat the Destroyer, dictator of the Armed Republic of Blood-drinking Wagods
("We'll gnaw on your intestinal tract for only a nickel!")

[For those to whom it matters, I am a 16-year-old, American girl who is for the death penalty when a murderer is convicted in a court of law. to kill a person because they stole a trinket--or a pen--is more disgusting than to kill a person who killed another, as I see it.]

[For those to whom it matters, I am a 16-year-old, American girl
That's nice...I'm an 18-year-old American guy who scored 1580 on the SAT and is majoring in Astronautical Engineering, History, and Philosophy at Purdue University. Doesn't change anything.
who is for the death penalty when a murderer is convicted in a court of law. to kill a person because they stole a trinket--or a pen--is more disgusting than to kill a person who killed another, as I see it.]
That's nice. Do you have a logical reason for that position, or do you hold it simply because it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

That's nice...I'm an 18-year-old American guy who scored 1580 on the SAT and is majoring in Astronautical Engineering, History, and Philosophy at Purdue University. Doesn't change anything.

Damn, beat me by 10! LoL! Well I still have a year and a half to try :).


That's nice. Do you have a logical reason for that position, or do you hold it simply because it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

I don't know about her, but the logical reason I think is because a punishment should be comparable to the crime committed... as justice is "giving each his due."

Right--and so what do you plan to take away from the thief that is provably of value, if not his life?

Right--and so what do you plan to take away from the thief that is provably of value, if not his life?

Well, since everything has an objective value, the thief should:
- Pay back teh value of the pen
- Do forced labor comparable to the amount of damage caused (maybe a week of forced labor to his victim and another week to the state

His liberty and property have value, just as his life does.

And aside, what if like your signing somethjing and you accidnetally put the pen in your pocket than leave with it? I've done this once, though I returned the pen the next day. Should the death penalty be used for this?

But objects do not have an objective value. An object's value is literally "in the eye of the beholder". Depending on my situation, an ink pen may be of more value to me than a chair, or vice-versa. These inanimate objects have no intrinsic value.

I believe the issue to be moot. The UN has far too long infringed on member nations' sovereignty. It has no right passing laws which have the force to override naitonal laws. Reclaim the UN and vote for "Rescinder of Past Wrongs" instead.

Two words: FORCED LABOR

We the People's Republic Of Amyth would like to know why all these nations against the death penality are so eager to take paying jobs away from it's citizens. We at the PROA note that there are some jobs nobody in their right mind would want, like executioner, however for the most part, we believe that by taking jobs away from taxable citizens and giving them to criminal scum (who probablly won't take much pride in their work) will not save the government any money, just put more money into the pockets of huge corporations.

We thank you all for your consideration...

Two words: FORCED LABOR

We the People's Republic Of Amyth would like to know why all these nations against the death penality are so eager to take paying jobs away from it's citizens. We at the PROA note that there are some jobs nobody in their right mind would want, like executioner, however for the most part, we believe that by taking jobs away from taxable citizens and giving them to criminal scum (who probablly won't take much pride in their work) will not save the government any money, just put more money into the pockets of huge corporations.

We thank you all for your consideration...

It's the sweatshop principle... if anything this will encourage corporatiosn to use less third-world labor. Since criminals aren't gonan work as efficiently as paid citizens will.

death penalty for stealing ?!! I am glad you guys have no real power :!:

Don't you think that is a deterant to where people would think twice before stealing?

Two words: FORCED LABOR

We the People's Republic Of Amyth would like to know why all these nations against the death penality are so eager to take paying jobs away from it's citizens. We at the PROA note that there are some jobs nobody in their right mind would want, like executioner, however for the most part, we believe that by taking jobs away from taxable citizens and giving them to criminal scum (who probablly won't take much pride in their work) will not save the government any money, just put more money into the pockets of huge corporations.

We thank you all for your consideration...

It's the sweatshop principle... if anything this will encourage corporatiosn to use less third-world labor. Since criminals aren't gonan work as efficiently as paid citizens will.

So what you are saying is that if I need to increase productivity, wealth, and the economy, we can just arrest everyone as prisoners and force them into sweatshops? That would eliminate crime...

We the People's Republic Of Amyth would like to know why all these nations against the death penality are so eager to take paying jobs away from it's citizens.

The going rate for organs counter acts that argument...

Any nation could make substantial profits from "organ donations"

Surely if a person kills another person in cold blood the nation should have the right to execute the murderer if that person is found guilty by a jury of his peers.

No. Like Stephistan said, two wrongs don't make a right. "Killing is bad. Just to show how bad killing really is, we'll kill you. Killing you is good." The whole pro-death penalty argument is just illogical. Who'll execute the executioner?

"The death penalty is as inhuman as the crime that motivates it."

There's something death penalty opponents are ignoring.

A human being who initiates violence against another human being ceases to be a human being and so no longer enjoys the same rights that human beings do. He is no longer a human, he is a barbarian.

So let's say A attacks B unprovoked. A is therefore no longer human. B can kill him if he wishes without losing his own humanity since killing a non-human does not deprive one of his humanity. Alternatively, C (the executioner) can step in as a proxy for A, and the same will hold true--since A is no longer human, there is nothing wrong with killing him.

There's something death penalty opponents are ignoring.

A human being who initiates violence against another human being ceases to be a human being and so no longer enjoys the same rights that human beings do. He is no longer a human, he is a barbarian.

So let's say A attacks B unprovoked. A is therefore no longer human. B can kill him if he wishes without losing his own humanity since killing a non-human does not deprive one of his humanity. Alternatively, C (the executioner) can step in as a proxy for A, and the same will hold true--since A is no longer human, there is nothing wrong with killing him.

How can you show that they lose their humanity though? I mean this is one of those things that can be solved with the scientific method, and it's pretty clear that they still retain the same biological composition.

I'm not absolutely for or against the death penalty, it has its uses, but they should be limited.

There's something death penalty opponents are ignoring.

A human being who initiates violence against another human being ceases to be a human being and so no longer enjoys the same rights that human beings do. He is no longer a human, he is a barbarian.

So let's say A attacks B unprovoked. A is therefore no longer human. B can kill him if he wishes without losing his own humanity since killing a non-human does not deprive one of his humanity. Alternatively, C (the executioner) can step in as a proxy for A, and the same will hold true--since A is no longer human, there is nothing wrong with killing him.

a) The idea of being allowed to kill things because they're "not human" would anger many animal liberationists. I'm sure most people would think killing animals like that is inhumane.
b) They are human. "If you prick us, do we not bleed?". The idea that people are not human, that they are sub-humans, is the idea that has brought about the Inquisition and the Holocaust. You seem to want this history to live on.

a) The idea of being allowed to kill things because they're "not human" would anger many animal liberationists. I'm sure most people would think killing animals like that is inhumane.

It's our evolutionary birthright. It isn't inhumane at all.

Miweenia, being a bunch of cold-hearted bastards, have considered the points surrounding this issue, and have come to the conclusion:

Morality has no place in this issue.

Good/Evil is a function of the community that justice serves, not justice itself.

Punishment should be commensurate with the damage done to the society itself. It should also take the long view of damage in regards to the society for prolonged existence of offenders.

Should a "perp" that repeatedly kills be released back into society? What value does that have for the society?

The damage done by these creatures far outstrips the benefit of having them around.

Fry 'em.

Tomus Cone, SCHMUCK
Mouthpiece for the CEO
Funky Chicken of the Board
Centrifuge, Miweenia

There's something death penalty opponents are ignoring.

A human being who initiates violence against another human being ceases to be a human being and so no longer enjoys the same rights that human beings do. He is no longer a human, he is a barbarian.

So let's say A attacks B unprovoked. A is therefore no longer human. B can kill him if he wishes without losing his own humanity since killing a non-human does not deprive one of his humanity. Alternatively, C (the executioner) can step in as a proxy for A, and the same will hold true--since A is no longer human, there is nothing wrong with killing him.

a) The idea of being allowed to kill things because they're "not human" would anger many animal liberationists. I'm sure most people would think killing animals like that is inhumane.
b) They are human. "If you prick us, do we not bleed?". The idea that people are not human, that they are sub-humans, is the idea that has brought about the Inquisition and the Holocaust. You seem to want this history to live on.

1) the people of Miweenia don't consider humanity.
b) They are human animals, like the rest of us. Sub-humanity is a non-issue.

If a rabid wolf strikes down a member of our populace, the wolf is exterminated. The same applies to humans.

Miweenia, being a bunch of cold-hearted bastards, have considered the points surrounding this issue, and have come to the conclusion:

Morality has no place in this issue.

Good/Evil is a function of the community that justice serves, not justice itself.

Punishment should be commensurate with the damage done to the society itself. It should also take the long view of damage in regards to the society for prolonged existence of offenders.

Should a "perp" that repeatedly kills be released back into society? What value does that have for the society?

The damage done by these creatures far outstrips the benefit of having them around.

Fry 'em.

Tomus Cone, SCHMUCK
Mouthpiece for the CEO
Funky Chicken of the Board
Centrifuge, Miweenia

Actually it's better for society to just make them do forced labor.

The only possible reason for having a death penalty is because the death penalty is, as Ithuania said, just... in some circumstances. In terms of pragmatism, teh death penalty is stupid. And we exterminate wolves regardless so I don't see how that analogy applies...

It is NOT our evolutionaty birthright to kill animals. That's got the same amount of sense as nobility. And I'm sure millions of Hindus and Buddhists (and other people besides) would disagree with you there.

It is NOT our evolutionaty birthright to kill animals. That's got the same amount of sense as nobility. And I'm sure millions of Hindus and Buddhists (and other people besides) would disagree with you there.

And Darwin would disagree with you there. It's called "selection pressure". Go back to biology class. We have NO responsibility towards nature. We only protect nature insofar as it helps us (we wouldn't be very healthy if nature was unhealthy). But nature exists to serve us.

I am perfectly able to study biology, thank you. I know about natural selection. But Nature does not merely serve us, we serve it.

Is that the "nature versus nurture" debate?

I am perfectly able to study biology, thank you. I know about natural selection. But Nature does not merely serve us, we serve it.

If people thought that 100,000 years ago we would've gone extinct and you wouldn't be here right now. Natural selection is about self-interest.

We serve nature only insofar as it bring benefit back to us.

Is that the "nature versus nurture" debate?

I don't think it is...

Global Market: The simplest idea of morality is not to use any other living thing as only a means and not an end.

According to Immaneul Kant, that violates rationality...

According to Immaneul Kant, that violates rationality...

According to Kant, reason violates rationality... what's your point?

Thinking is bad.

Man is superior to the other animals because man alone has the capability to reason.

Man is superior to the other animals because man alone has the capability to reason.

and eat any animal...

Miweenia, being a bunch of cold-hearted bastards, have considered the points surrounding this issue, and have come to the conclusion:

Morality has no place in this issue.

Good/Evil is a function of the community that justice serves, not justice itself.

Punishment should be commensurate with the damage done to the society itself. It should also take the long view of damage in regards to the society for prolonged existence of offenders.

Should a "perp" that repeatedly kills be released back into society? What value does that have for the society?

The damage done by these creatures far outstrips the benefit of having them around.

Fry 'em.

Tomus Cone, SCHMUCK
Mouthpiece for the CEO
Funky Chicken of the Board
Centrifuge, Miweenia

Actually it's better for society to just make them do forced labor.

The only possible reason for having a death penalty is because the death penalty is, as Ithuania said, just... in some circumstances. In terms of pragmatism, teh death penalty is stupid. And we exterminate wolves regardless so I don't see how that analogy applies...

Soylent Green!
Fertilizer!
Lamp shades!

All made at your local prison... support the guards!

Forced labor is poor management. No one will ever get the amount of work from prisoners in a chain gang that can be gotten with good benefits and a family to go home to.

You may replace "wolves" with "St. Bernards" if it helps you. The people of Miweenia do not needlessly destroy animals. Including the human population.

death penalty for stealing ?!! I am glad you guys have no real power :!:

Don't you think that is a deterant to where people would think twice before stealing?

We the People's Republic Of Amyth think this would be more of a deterrent to getting caught than stealing.

death penalty for stealing ?!! I am glad you guys have no real power :!:

Don't you think that is a deterant to where people would think twice before stealing?

We the People's Republic Of Amyth think this would be more of a deterrent to getting caught than stealing.

Bullets are cheaper than prison...

death penalty for stealing ?!! I am glad you guys have no real power :!:

Don't you think that is a deterant to where people would think twice before stealing?

We the People's Republic Of Amyth think this would be more of a deterrent to getting caught than stealing.

Bullets are cheaper than prison...

The CEO of Miweenia, being a cost minded individual, fully backs this position. Training for firearms is low in cost. And what good is the military if they aren't shooting something?

Surely if a person kills another person in cold blood the nation should have the right to execute the murderer if that person is found guilty by a jury of his peers.

No. Like Stephistan said, two wrongs don't make a right. "Killing is bad. Just to show how bad killing really is, we'll kill you. Killing you is good." The whole pro-death penalty argument is just illogical. Who'll execute the executioner?

"The death penalty is as inhuman as the crime that motivates it."

What? Your logic is illogical.

The excecutioner is acting in the interests of justice and the state and at there behest. The blood is not on his hands and he is not accountable for it.

Just like a soldier is not accountable for murder when he fights a war, the excutioner is not accountable.

Murder is evil, not killing there's a difference, learn it.

There is this thing called justice the left loves to ignore. They all whine about the rights of the criminal, but what about the victim? S/He didnt' choose pot eb klilled, raped, murdered, tortured, or whatever happened. The murderer has brung the death upon himself by violating the law. The state isn't responsible for his death, neither is the excutioner.

The murderer is responsible for his own death.

ah well, so sum guy kills say 20 ppl, lets only give him a 2 star room, tv if hes good, food, all free, instead all murderors should be killed, one of the accesories to 9 11 is only being givin 2 days per person he killed, hell be out in something like 35-45 years

What? Your logic is illogical.

The excecutioner is acting in the interests of justice and the state and at there behest. The blood is not on his hands and he is not accountable for it.

Just like a soldier is not accountable for murder when he fights a war, the excutioner is not accountable.

Murder is evil, not killing there's a difference, learn it.

There is this thing called justice the left loves to ignore. They all whine about the rights of the criminal, but what about the victim? S/He didnt' choose pot eb klilled, raped, murdered, tortured, or whatever happened. The murderer has brung the death upon himself by violating the law. The state isn't responsible for his death, neither is the excutioner.

The murderer is responsible for his own death.

But what is the difference?! It all results in a death. And what is justice? Is murdering someone because they were abused day after day and murdered the abuser "justice"? Is it "fair"?
And what good will murdering the murderer do? Bring the victim back? If it pleases the family, they must be pretty sadistic...

ah well, so sum guy kills say 20 ppl, lets only give him a 2 star room, tv if hes good, food, all free, instead all murderors should be killed, one of the accesories to 9 11 is only being givin 2 days per person he killed, hell be out in something like 35-45 years

What "accessory to 9-11"... they're all dead... it was a suicide attack... that supposed "20th hijacker" and the dirty-bomb guy are both being held with less evidence than is needed to convict a Jew in Nazi Germany...

And we should force criminals to work... that way the jail isn't free... they can be forced to build much of their own prison or something...

But what is the difference?! It all results in a death.
The difference is one of justice.

And what is justice? Is murdering someone because they were abused day after day and murdered the abuser "justice"?
Murder is a subset of killing. Not all killing is murder. Killing in some cases (such as self-defense, or serving justice on a murderer) is perfectly justified.
Is it "fair"?
Do murderers deserve to be treated fairly?
And what good will murdering the murderer do? Bring the victim back?
No, but it will be a just punishment for the murderer.

ah well, so sum guy kills say 20 ppl, lets only give him a 2 star room, tv if hes good, food, all free, instead all murderors should be killed, one of the accesories to 9 11 is only being givin 2 days per person he killed, hell be out in something like 35-45 years

I'm not a math major, but doesn't that imply that he killed 6387.5-8212.5 people? (35-45 years * 365 days/year / 2 days/person)

According to this page: http://www.newyorkmetro.com/news/articles/wtc/1year/numbers.htm , only 2819 people died in the attacks on 9/11.

Respectfully yours,
The FLOT

But what is the difference?! It all results in a death.
The difference is one of justice.

And what is justice? Is murdering someone because they were abused day after day and murdered the abuser "justice"?
Murder is a subset of killing. Not all killing is murder. Killing in some cases (such as self-defense, or serving justice on a murderer) is perfectly justified.
Is it "fair"?
Do murderers deserve to be treated fairly?
And what good will murdering the murderer do? Bring the victim back?
No, but it will be a just punishment for the murderer.

From a justice standpoint, the death penalty is an absolutely just thing FOR MURDER... but from a pragmatic standpoint it's stupid... it either costs exorbitant amounts of money OR violates citizens' right to due process and we all know what happens then... so I like to take the middle-ground and have it only for murder under certain circumstances or when said criminal is still in danger in prison.

The excecutioner is acting in the interests of justice and the state and at there behest. The blood is not on his hands and he is not accountable for it.

Just like a soldier is not accountable for murder when he fights a war, the excutioner is not accountable.

Murder is evil, not killing there's a difference, learn it.



We the People's Republic Of Amyth would like to say that soldiers can be held accountable for murder when he fights a war.

Murder is not armed war time combat, killing is, there's a difference, learn it.

Murder is a subset of killing. Not all killing is murder. Killing in some cases (such as self-defense, or serving justice on a murderer) is perfectly justified.

In your opinion. I disagree, I can think of no justification for any pre-meditated killing, accidentially killing someone who is trying to attack you is completely different to going back after the attack and murdering them.

Is it "fair"?
Do murderers deserve to be treated fairly?
Yes every human deserves to be treated fairly no matter who they are, or what they have done. That's not to say they deserve a second chance, or to ever have their liberty no one should have the right to take another's life.
And what good will murdering the murderer do? Bring the victim back?
No, but it will be a just punishment for the murderer.
How is it just, only in the school yard he hit me so I hit him back, or the really badly taken out of context..." an eye for an eye" here is the whole verse and following verse (KJV Matt 5 38 and 39) 38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. I'm not suggesting that we allow murders to murder again, just suggesting that murdering a murderer isn't something a civilised society does (in my opinion).

Dave
Today's spokesman for Nebbyland.

day after day and murdered the abuser "justice"? Is it "fair"?
And what good will murdering the murderer do? Bring the victim back? If it pleases the family, they must be pretty sadistic...[quote]

It keeps the murderer from killing again and it deters other murderers who may place no value on anything but their own life.

[quote]How is it just, only in the school yard he hit me so I hit him back, or the really badly taken out of context..." an eye for an eye" here is the whole verse and following verse (KJV Matt 5 38 and 39) Quote:
38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
I'm not suggesting that we allow murders to murder again, just suggesting that murdering a murderer isn't something a civilised society does (in my opinion).

Actually the verse you're quoting is quoting another verse from Exodus, maybe LEveticus. Which says something to the effect of eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life, hand for hand, foot for foot.

The Exodus verse is the law for the Nation of Israel and if you ask me a simple law like that is a lot better than 50 pages of lawyer speak examining every last aspect that could pertain to it in any way.

The verse you quote is Jesus talking about the misinterpratation of the Exodus verse. The Exodus verse is a rule of law, while the Matthew verse is for the individual level. Just thought I'd explain it.

We the People's Republic Of Amyth would like to say that soldiers can be held accountable for murder when he fights a war.

Murder is not armed war time combat, killing is, there's a difference, learn it.

Are you agreeing with me or arguing with me? Killing when fighting within the rules of war on behest of your nation is not murder. WHich is what, I believe, both of us said.

All that being said, I have no objections to a state using the death penalty but I don't believe in it myself. I prefer corporal punishment.

Public floggings for violent crimes. And violent castration for non-statuatory rape and child molestation.

But what is the difference?! It all results in a death.
The difference is one of justice.

And what is justice? Is murdering someone because they were abused day after day and murdered the abuser "justice"?
Murder is a subset of killing. Not all killing is murder. Killing in some cases (such as self-defense, or serving justice on a murderer) is perfectly justified.
Is it "fair"?
Do murderers deserve to be treated fairly?
And what good will murdering the murderer do? Bring the victim back?
No, but it will be a just punishment for the murderer.

From a justice standpoint, the death penalty is an absolutely just thing FOR MURDER... but from a pragmatic standpoint it's stupid... it either costs exorbitant amounts of money OR violates citizens' right to due process and we all know what happens then... so I like to take the middle-ground and have it only for murder under certain circumstances or when said criminal is still in danger in prison.

the biggest problem i see with your logic global is that the death penalty being more expensive is just not true. while statistics will show your point to be valid those statistics don't even come close to telling the whole story. in truth what those statistics prove is that for the most part the only people in this country who get a true defense and don't get their rights violated are those facing the death penalty. if this is not true please explain to me how it is that the defense costs more for someone who is facing the death penalty. shouldn't someone facing life in prison be entitled to exactly the same defense?

the true issue and only real cost comparison that should ever be taken into account would be the price of imprisoning feeding clothing a person for life versus the cost of the actual execution. that is comparing apples to apples, any other comparison is comparing apples to oranges.

From a justice standpoint, the death penalty is an absolutely just thing FOR MURDER... but from a pragmatic standpoint it's stupid... it either costs exorbitant amounts of money OR violates citizens' right to due process and we all know what happens then... so I like to take the middle-ground and have it only for murder under certain circumstances or when said criminal is still in danger in prison.

That's assuming you have the right to due process in the first place...

day after day and murdered the abuser "justice"? Is it "fair"?
And what good will murdering the murderer do? Bring the victim back? If it pleases the family, they must be pretty sadistic...[quote]

It keeps the murderer from killing again and it deters other murderers who may place no value on anything but their own life.

[quote]How is it just, only in the school yard he hit me so I hit him back, or the really badly taken out of context..." an eye for an eye" here is the whole verse and following verse (KJV Matt 5 38 and 39) Quote:
38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
I'm not suggesting that we allow murders to murder again, just suggesting that murdering a murderer isn't something a civilised society does (in my opinion).

Actually the verse you're quoting is quoting another verse from Exodus, maybe LEveticus. Which says something to the effect of eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life, hand for hand, foot for foot.

The Exodus verse is the law for the Nation of Israel and if you ask me a simple law like that is a lot better than 50 pages of lawyer speak examining every last aspect that could pertain to it in any way.

The verse you quote is Jesus talking about the misinterpratation of the Exodus verse. The Exodus verse is a rule of law, while the Matthew verse is for the individual level. Just thought I'd explain it.

We the People's Republic Of Amyth would like to say that soldiers can be held accountable for murder when he fights a war.

Murder is not armed war time combat, killing is, there's a difference, learn it.

Are you agreeing with me or arguing with me? Killing when fighting within the rules of war on behest of your nation is not murder. WHich is what, I believe, both of us said.

All that being said, I have no objections to a state using the death penalty but I don't believe in it myself. I prefer corporal punishment.

Public floggings for violent crimes. And violent castration for non-statuatory rape and child molestation.

No you said a soldier is not accountable for murder during war.
I said he was, but not doing his duty which is killing...

Whoops. I made a mistake. I sort of expressed that poorly. What I meant was he's not charged with murder when he kills in act of war.

Whoops. I made a mistake. I sort of expressed that poorly. What I meant was he's not charged with murder when he kills in act of war.

Whoops. I made a mistake. I sort of expressed that poorly. What I meant was he's not charged with murder when he kills in act of war.

the biggest problem i see with your logic global is that the death penalty being more expensive is just not true. while statistics will show your point to be valid those statistics don't even come close to telling the whole story. in truth what those statistics prove is that for the most part the only people in this country who get a true defense and don't get their rights violated are those facing the death penalty. if this is not true please explain to me how it is that the defense costs more for someone who is facing the death penalty. shouldn't someone facing life in prison be entitled to exactly the same defense?

the true issue and only real cost comparison that should ever be taken into account would be the price of imprisoning feeding clothing a person for life versus the cost of the actual execution. that is comparing apples to apples, any other comparison is comparing apples to oranges.

People facing teh death penalty have more urgency so often they recieve more legal aid quicker, hence higher costs.

If you keep them alive you can force them to work... which would make up for the cost of keeping them in jail.

Also remember that before an execution a person usually spends a decade or more on death row... and that's necessary anything less violates due process, which contradicts justice AND pragmatism.

the biggest problem i see with your logic global is that the death penalty being more expensive is just not true. while statistics will show your point to be valid those statistics don't even come close to telling the whole story. in truth what those statistics prove is that for the most part the only people in this country who get a true defense and don't get their rights violated are those facing the death penalty. if this is not true please explain to me how it is that the defense costs more for someone who is facing the death penalty. shouldn't someone facing life in prison be entitled to exactly the same defense?

the true issue and only real cost comparison that should ever be taken into account would be the price of imprisoning feeding clothing a person for life versus the cost of the actual execution. that is comparing apples to apples, any other comparison is comparing apples to oranges.

People facing teh death penalty have more urgency so often they recieve more legal aid quicker, hence higher costs.

If you keep them alive you can force them to work... which would make up for the cost of keeping them in jail.

Also remember that before an execution a person usually spends a decade or more on death row... and that's necessary anything less violates due process, which contradicts justice AND pragmatism.

I feel that the death penalty is good and bad. It does not provide a deterrant to someone that thinks they can get away (Scott Peterson), it also does not if you are fighting to stay alive (South Central Los Angeles, The Bronx, A criminal running because he killed someone). It does however provide a deterrant if the person is going to try to get back at someone (AKA Organized Crime). Rather than go kill someones brother, mother, or son, just beat them up bad enough to land them in the hospital.

The death penalty also does not work when there is corrupt law enforcement and racisim. This goes for all states east of texas and east of florida to all states south of Vriginia. This is where 90% of the neo-nazi's and racist americans live. The other 5% live in rich suburban homes, and the last 5% are related to their brother/sister by blood AND marrige.


Just the Comments from an American.

EDITED BECAUSE IT SAID WEST OF TEXAS, I MEANT EAST OF TEXAS

I feel that the death penalty is good and bad. It does not provide a deterrant to someone that thinks they can get away (Scott Peterson), it also does not if you are fighting to stay alive (South Central Los Angeles, The Bronx, A criminal running because he killed someone). It does however provide a deterrant if the person is going to try to get back at someone (AKA Organized Crime). Rather than go kill someones brother, mother, or son, just beat them up bad enough to land them in the hospital.

The death penalty also does not work when there is corrupt law enforcement and racisim. This goes for all states west of texas and east of florida to all states south of Vriginia. This is where 90% of the neo-nazi's and racist americans live. The other 5% live in rich suburban homes, and the last 5% are related to their brother/sister by blood AND marrige.



Just the Comments from an American.

wow that leaves like 5 states that have totally eradicated racist people both black and white. what kind of a dream world do you live in? there is no such thing as a state in the united states that has no racists or bigots they exist everywhere.

let me go ahead and repeat this for those who didn't get it the first time. there is absolutely no way to determine whether the death penalty is a deterent or not. for all anyone knows if the death penalty had been totaly abolished years ago the violent crime rate could be triple what it is now. the best way to get an idea of whether the death penalty is a deterent or not is to ask yourself if you decided you were going to commit a crime would the fact that you'd be killed if you were caught make you think twice about doing it? if the answer is yes then it is a deterant if the answer is no then it wouldn't be a deterant for you.

wow that leaves like 5 states that have totally eradicated racist people both black and white. what kind of a dream world do you live in? there is no such thing as a state in the united states that has no racists or bigots they exist everywhere.



All the oppossums in the United States are shades of gray.

We should perform medical experiments on murderers and other death row inmates. They are disposable after all.

wow that leaves like 5 states that have totally eradicated racist people both black and white. what kind of a dream world do you live in? there is no such thing as a state in the united states that has no racists or bigots they exist everywhere.



What I meant by my comments was that most of the racists live in the deep south, AKA the Alabama region, after all they still have confederate flags which (correct me if I am wrong) were the flags of a government THAT WAS IN REBELLION AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. What really pisses me off the most are the people that display a confederate flag on their car like the american flag. In the south there is a lot more resentment towards the north because it is much richer than them. The confederate flag stands for racisim and slavery. I saw this in florida on my many vacations there, but there are a few ignorant rednecks that live here in Massachusetts.

Yes there are bigots that live in the US, I understand that. But the majority (ok maybe not 90%, but about 75%) live in the deep south. The others are ignorant and do not know very much.

kahta your first mistake is in believing that the south was in rebellion against the united states. the south seceeded from the union, which means they left it. the north decided that they were not going to allow the south to leave as that would have put the northern states into a situation where they would have had to depend o the south and pay the prices they asked for things. the south had the right to choose to leave the union the north decided they weren't going to allow it. remember kahta history is written by the victor and seldom is true. the flag you have such a problem with is not about racism, it is about heritage.

if you really wanted to get to the heart of the matter, you would actually find there is more racism in cities than there is in the country.

kahta your first mistake is in believing that the south was in rebellion against the united states. the south seceeded from the union, which means they left it. the north decided that they were not going to allow the south to leave as that would have put the northern states into a situation where they would have had to depend o the south and pay the prices they asked for things. the south had the right to choose to leave the union the north decided they weren't going to allow it. remember kahta history is written by the victor and seldom is true. the flag you have such a problem with is not about racism, it is about heritage.

if you really wanted to get to the heart of the matter, you would actually find there is more racism in cities than there is in the country.

kahta your first mistake is in believing that the south was in rebellion against the united states. the south seceeded from the union, which means they left it. the north decided that they were not going to allow the south to leave as that would have put the northern states into a situation where they would have had to depend o the south and pay the prices they asked for things. the south had the right to choose to leave the union the north decided they weren't going to allow it. remember kahta history is written by the victor and seldom is true. the flag you have such a problem with is not about racism, it is about heritage.

if you really wanted to get to the heart of the matter, you would actually find there is more racism in cities than there is in the country.