NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't believe in the death penalty. Scratch that... it exists, I admit it, so denying belief in it would be redundant. Okay... I don't like it, and I think we should be working to get rid of it no matter where it exists. Oh there are times when my first response to hearing of a crime, especially one that involves children, where I say "kill that bastard, forget the trial", but for the most part I am for due process. Now that is not to say I am fine with the current legal system in Canada (and I'm sure they could all use a reform). I think it stinks. Resorting to the murder of murderers (and assorted horrible people) however does not seem to be the deterrant it was promised to be, and there have been too many cases of wrongful convictions. (Remember that coroner in the States who was falsifying evidence for like 20 years or so??) Well....whaddayathink??

I think people who commit serious crimes (murder, rape, etc.) should be used as test subjects for drugs and such... instead of using animals. That way, we don't hurt innocent animals or risk innocent people's health, and if something goes wrong, the person wasn't a good person anyway, so it's no big loss to society.

I don't have a problem with it. If you do the crime...

The death penalty is bullshit most of the time.

I think people who commit serious crimes (murder, rape, etc.) should be used as test subjects for drugs and such... instead of using animals. That way, we don't hurt innocent animals or risk innocent people's health, and if something goes wrong, the person wasn't a good person anyway, so it's no big loss to society.


Good idea.

I think people who commit serious crimes (murder, rape, etc.) should be used as test subjects for drugs and such... instead of using animals. That way, we don't hurt innocent animals or risk innocent people's health, and if something goes wrong, the person wasn't a good person anyway, so it's no big loss to society.
yes so people can stop calling nations with the death penalty cruel bastards

Don’t know how I feel on the death penalty honestly … part of me agrees that they NEED to be taken out of civ for the good of others

BUT I don’t know if killing is the best answer

What I think is we NEED to find a way to make them PRODUCTIVE to society. Anything from helping garden to produce their own food to building and fixing and that sort of stuff …

Some people are just beyond our ability currently to rehabilitate … we need to make those members at least productive in an environment that keeps us safe as well. AND for those that can be rehabilitated we need to at least try

I think people who commit serious crimes (murder, rape, etc.) should be used as test subjects for drugs and such... instead of using animals. That way, we don't hurt innocent animals or risk innocent people's health, and if something goes wrong, the person wasn't a good person anyway, so it's no big loss to society.

Doesn't that have the same drawbacks as the death penalty? I mean in terms of wrongful convictions? Sounds more like torture to me....

I don't have a problem with it. If you do the crime...

some people actually don't do the crime... And as death penalty in unrevokeable(is that the right word for "no way you can change it" or something ike that?) after it's carried out I am against it.

Don’t know how I feel on the death penalty honestly … part of me agrees that they NEED to be taken out of civ for the good of others

BUT I don’t know if killing is the best answer

What I think is we NEED to find a way to make them PRODUCTIVE to society. Anything from helping garden to produce their own food to building and fixing and that sort of stuff …

Some people are just beyond our ability currently to rehabilitate … we need to make those members at least productive in an environment that keeps us safe as well. AND for those that can be rehabilitated we need to at least try

I agree that they should be productive in an environment that keeps US safe as well... and currently I don't think too many prisoners are all that productive. I don't mean a return to chain gangs or the introduction of sweat shops... I just think that the current penal system is basically a "lock 'em up and forget about 'em" system instead of a sytem encouraging reform. Sure, we've all heard of cushy jail cells and satellite t.v.....but we've also all heard of rape and brutality sometimes encouraged by the guards.... and a lot of people come out worse criminals than when they went in.

Revenge is pointless an accomplishes nothing. State endorsed revenge is idiotic.
A life is something only the owner of it can choose to end.

some people actually don't do the crime... And as death penalty in unrevokeable(is that the right word for "no way you can change it" or something ike that?) after it's carried out I am against it.

Thats true...and there are nearly endless appeals. After all appeals have been exhausted....carry it out. I do find it funny that the anti death penalty protesters that are always present for rapists and simple murders were nowhere to be found when Ted Bundy and Timothy Mcveigh were executed. Rather hypocritical if you ask me. :rolleyes:

I know a lot of death-penalty supporters argue that we shouldn't have to pay to keep someone in jail for life when in clear cases they should be executed...but wouldn't the amount of appeals inherent in any death penalty case probably add up to about the same? I'm just guessing here.

I do find it funny that the anti death penalty protesters that are always present for rapists and simple murders were nowhere to be found when Ted Bundy and Timothy Mcveigh were executed. Rather hypocritical if you ask me. :rolleyes:

Gotta agree on that.

Let me then say:

I don't think Ted Bundy should have been executed cause i don't think it's a good idea.

I don't think Timothy Mcveigh should have been executed cause i don't think it's a good idea.

Btw, assuming Timothy Mcveigh is another famous massmurderer like Ted Bundy. That's correct?

um yeah timothy was the person behind the oaklahoma city bombing

The death penalty is illogical in a fallible system of jurisprudence. Executing the innocent is hardly a show of justice and executing the guilty merely makes us no different morally than criminal.

In the US, what is even more illogical is that children can be executed; a child is held to the same standard of punishment and responsibility as an adult in a criminal court and yet a child cannot sign contracts because the child is percieved as too irresponsible.

Btw, assuming Timothy Mcveigh is another famous massmurderer like Ted Bundy. That's correct?

Yeah, he killed 168 people.....many of them children. Not a protester in sight at his execution, just angry family members of his victims. No chance he can ever do that again.

I'd just like to pose a simple question..if technology improves to the point that they'd be able to convict a man and be 100% sure it's him/her...would you then be in favor of the Death Penalty for certain crimes...as from what I'm hearing their major objection is that it's not 100% certain.

So I'd like to pose that question:...If it could be determined with 100% veracity..would your opinion on the DP change.

The death penalty is illogical in a fallible system of jurisprudence. Executing the innocent is hardly a show of justice and executing the guilty merely makes us no different morally than criminal.

In the US, what is even more illogical is that children can be executed; a child is held to the same standard of punishment and responsibility as an adult in a criminal court and yet a child cannot sign contracts because the child is percieved as too irresponsible.


Understanding a legal document is a bit more confusing then pulling a 9mm Glock and shooting someone over their sneakers..

I'd just like to pose a simple question..if technology improves to the point that they'd be able to convict a man and be 100% sure it's him/her...would you then be in favor of the Death Penalty for certain crimes...as from what I'm hearing their major objection is that it's not 100% certain.

So I'd like to pose that question:...If it could be determined with 100% veracity..would your opinion on the DP change.

Human error would still keep the system fallible. So, no, I'd still be against the death penalty.

I'd just like to pose a simple question..if technology improves to the point that they'd be able to convict a man and be 100% sure it's him/her...would you then be in favor of the Death Penalty for certain crimes...as from what I'm hearing their major objection is that it's not 100% certain.

So I'd like to pose that question:...If it could be determined with 100% veracity..would your opinion on the DP change.

No, cause I have more reasons then that to be against it. Such as no thking revenge got anything to do with it.

However, I think that I would have a harder time tearing the fact that innocent get killed and that can't be revoked apart then anything else if I was thinking death penatly would be a good idea. Prolly the others(or most of them) who are against death penalty thinks somewhat in the same way as I do.

There seem to be 2 sets of arguments here.
1. We can't be sure we have the verdicts right so we might be killing an innocent person (What if it was you!)
2 We should make them repay society.

Nobody seems to think that killing anybdy at all is just wrong. I don't think the commandment said "Thou shalt not kill except in the following circumstances.................."

I undertstand that logic and yes, sometimes innocent people are convicted of crimes. The appeals process is set up to make the death penalty expensive. Endless appeals to present evidence such as DNA are granted. IF, after all of those have been exhauted, the sentence is carried out.

I think McVeigh was executed in record time, something like 3-5 years. The usual wait is 15 years.

Nobody seems to think that killing anybdy at all is just wrong. I don't think the commandment said "Thou shalt not kill except in the following circumstances.................."

Yes, and an earlier scripture said "An eye for an eye"

There seem to be 2 sets of arguments here.
1. We can't be sure we have the verdicts right so we might be killing an innocent person (What if it was you!)
2 We should make them repay society.

Nobody seems to think that killing anybdy at all is just wrong. I don't think the commandment said "Thou shalt not kill except in the following circumstances.................."

Actually..that last bit is incorrect..the orginal aramaic/hebrew states "Thou shalt not Murder"...there are judicial instances thruout the old testament to justifable killing..and even killing by the State.

As for me..I have no problem executing a Bundy or McVeigh....then again..I suppose if must get life in prison...I would simply transfer him to General Population....cons have their own system of punishment.

It shouldn't matter if a bunch of over-paid bureaucrats sign the necessary papers or if a crazed maniac destroys a building full of innocent women and children. Murder is murder, and each murderous act should be properly justified. The death penalty is just an extremely costly form of suicide by cop.
I think that some of these people's basic rights should be revoked upon commiting major crimes, though. Don't let the Paul Bernardo's of the world get special treatment (segragation), make all major case criminals go through a re-education while in prison and if at the end of their delegated time, they are not ready to re-join society, make them stay in prison.

I'd just like to pose a simple question..if technology improves to the point that they'd be able to convict a man and be 100% sure it's him/her...would you then be in favor of the Death Penalty for certain crimes...as from what I'm hearing their major objection is that it's not 100% certain.

So I'd like to pose that question:...If it could be determined with 100% veracity..would your opinion on the DP change.

Not at all. The Death Penalty is wrong. Period. To take a life is wrong. Period. You can not commit the same crime you stand in judgement on and expect to get out of it with your sense of justice intact. Even if you managed to clean up all the procedural errors, such as the racial preference in assigning death penalty cases, the possibility of an incorrect verdict and the extreme expense a death penalty case incurrs, it is still fundamentally wrong and amounts to little more than state-sanctioned vengence, robbing the state of it's moral authority to mete out punishment and robbing the people of their most basic humanity.

Like the Reverend Bernice King said, "Having lost my father and grandmother to gun violence, I will understand the deep hurt and anger felt by the loved ones of those who have been murdered. Yet I can't accept the judgement that their killers deserve to be executed. This merely perpetuates the tragic, unending cycle of violence that destroys our hope for a decent society."

Not at all. The Death Penalty is wrong. Period. To take a life is wrong. Period. You can not commit the same crime you stand in judgement on and expect to get out of it with your sense of justice intact. Even if you managed to clean up all the procedural errors, such as the racial preference in assigning death penalty cases, the possibility of an incorrect verdict and the extreme expense a death penalty case incurrs, it is still fundamentally wrong and amounts to little more than state-sanctioned vengence, robbing the state of it's moral authority to mete out punishment and robbing the people of their most basic humanity.


Berk...I have a whole lotta respect for ya..but of those on Death Row..you'd find few that still have their most basic humanity....take Charlie Manson, that man lost his years ago...he deserves to die..the spirits of those he and his ilk murdered cry out for vengeance...to allow them to go onto the next world..And that goes for the majority on Death Row..they ain't there just for one time thing....some of their rap sheets are longer then both my arms put together...

The death penalty does not deter. The death penalty is retribution. Say what you want to say. If someone you loved was brutally raped and murdered, you would want to open the murderer's throat with your own hands.

Berk...I have a whole lotta respect for ya..but of those on Death Row..you'd find few that still have their most basic humanity....take Charlie Manson, that man lost his years ago...he deserves to die..the spirits of those he and his ilk murdered cry out for vengeance...to allow them to go onto the next world..And that goes for the majority on Death Row..they ain't there just for one time thing....some of their rap sheets are longer then both my arms put together...

But Salishe, I'm not just concerned with the basic humanity of those on death row. I'm concerned with all of our basic humanity. We must judge it on how we treat others, even those who have transgressed against society. How can we ensure a better world for ourselves and our children by committing the same crime we stand in judgement upon? The question isn't, is Charles Manson still human, but are we?

As for spirits crying out for vengence, they don't have that right. They're dead. Either they're no longer there at all, or they should be getting on to enjoying whatever afterlife awaits us all.

We are still here, still alive and we must provide for our safety and, contrary to popular opinion, that is not done by the death penalty. Not only does it not act as a deterrance, studies have shown that states with death penalty options actually experience an increase in violent crimes. So not only do we sacrifice our moral compass, but we do so to only imperil the very safety which we are supposedly trying to secure.

You can not commit the same crime you stand in judgement on and expect to get out of it with your sense of justice intact.

Why not? To murder in cold blood and to kill as punishment are two very different things.

[it] amounts to little more than state-sanctioned vengence ...

You're absolutely right -- it is vengeance, but that doesn't make it wrong. Last time I checked, vengeance wasn't a sin, nor was it a solidly black moral.

... robbing the state of it's moral authority to mete out punishment and robbing the people of their most basic humanity.

Surely you do not imply that a serial rapist deserves any basic rights. That a murderer deserves to be pitied and pampered. As someone said below, "they did the crime." They knew the consequences of their actions, and took the actions anyway. They signed their fate, and it's our right -- hell, our duty to make sure that those consequences are carried out. How do you know that the threat of the death penalty hasn't already stopped men from murdering? Hm?

But Salishe, I'm not just concerned with the basic humanity of those on death row. I'm concerned with all of our basic humanity. We must judge it on how we treat others, even those who have transgressed against society. How can we ensure a better world for ourselves and our children by committing the same crime we stand in judgement upon? The question isn't, is Charles Manson still human, but are we?

As for spirits crying out for vengence, they don't have that right. They're dead. Either they're no longer there at all, or they should be getting on to enjoying whatever afterlife awaits us all.

We are still here, still alive and we must provide for our safety and, contrary to popular opinion, that is not done by the death penalty. Not only does it not act as a deterrance, studies have shown that states with death penalty options actually experience an increase in violent crimes. So not only do we sacrifice our moral compass, but we do so to only imperil the very safety which we are supposedly trying to secure.

I guess it must be a cultural thing...by Cherokee systems of jurisprudence I'd have every right as a victim's relative to kill their murderer...we simply see nothing wrong with the concept of vengeance...in fact by my culture it would be mandated, not just assumed.

The death penalty does not deter. The death penalty is retribution. Say what you want to say. If someone you loved was brutally raped and murdered, you would want to open the murderer's throat with your own hands.

Maybe in my first wave of anger. And if I did it, i sure hope i would regret it and condem it afterwards. If I wouldn't, then I would have become a cold person who I don't wanna be.

Also, read the qoute from Bernice King.

I'd just like to pose a simple question..if technology improves to the point that they'd be able to convict a man and be 100% sure it's him/her...would you then be in favor of the Death Penalty for certain crimes...as from what I'm hearing their major objection is that it's not 100% certain.

So I'd like to pose that question:...If it could be determined with 100% veracity..would your opinion on the DP change.

No, I wouldn't be for it even then. Killing someone doesn't fix the horrible thing they did. Our justice system should be based on reparation, not punishment. If you kill a man you should have to work to the end of your days to support his widow and her children...preferably in a place where you could never hurt anyone again.

How do you know that the threat of the death penalty hasn't already stopped men from murdering? Hm?

I don't think when you are about to murder someone you hold for a second and try to figure if you're in a state/country with death penalty or not.

There seem to be 2 sets of arguments here.
1. We can't be sure we have the verdicts right so we might be killing an innocent person (What if it was you!)
2 We should make them repay society.

Nobody seems to think that killing anybdy at all is just wrong. I don't think the commandment said "Thou shalt not kill except in the following circumstances.................."

I absolutely believe killing is wrong...and state-sanctioned killing even worse. If the government says it's okay in certain circumstances, and we hold our governments to higher principles than we often do ourselves (and they just as often let us down:)), then I think it sets a bad precidence for a society.

The death penalty does not deter. The death penalty is retribution. Say what you want to say. If someone you loved was brutally raped and murdered, you would want to open the murderer's throat with your own hands.


Of course you would...but wouldn't you lose part of your humanity if you did? Letting the state do it for you is the easy way out, but I think we as a society ALL lose some of our humanity when we sanction executions.

... studies have shown that states with death penalty options actually experience an increase in violent crimes. So not only do we sacrifice our moral compass, but we do so to only imperil the very safety which we are supposedly trying to secure.

Those studies did not prove that the death penalty caused that increase. Those doing the studies did not go up to criminals and go, "Hey! Why'd you shoot that woman in the face?!", nor were they answered with "Because I hate the death penalty, man! I hate it! So she should die!" etc.

We must judge it on how we treat others, even those who have transgressed against society.

Crockery. Simply having such a criminal alive is a detriment to society. When Manson killed those people, he established himself as a threat to this country, and was dealt with accordingly.

Here's another slant on this one, for you religious fanatics:

Let's say Mike murders four people and is jailed. We have two options: We kill him or we slam him for life. For a moment, let's bar the societal aspects of these two options, and look at the moral aspect. He just committed unforgiveable atrocities. He deserves nothing more than a grisly death, or, for you the morally squeamish, a grisly life. However. The Bible says that those who repent will be forgiven. That those who cast their sins onto the shoulders of Jesus Christ will be let into Heaven on the day of reckoning.

So Mike is thrown in jail. He repents. He is forgiven. We've just let a serial killer into heaven. Good job! What kind of deterrent is that?

Second option: Kill him on the spot. Why? Because we do not have the right to choose whether he is rewarded or punished. We are mere humans, specks in the Universe compared to God, and we should let him decide the man's fate. But the only way to do that is to give him to God without clearing his slate; put him up there as he stands. That's fair. That's just.

Not exactly what I believe, but an interesting view on it nonetheless.

I personally believe the Ten Commandments are crockery. :p

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of people complaining about things like this on a moral ground. It comes down to whether or not it's good for the society's welfare. That's what's important. Let morality show in your everyday life; things like the death penalty aren't coming against you as a person, because you can't do anything about it. Those who can aren't, because they are not morally flawed by allowing it. It's a necessity.

Why not? To murder in cold blood and to kill as punishment are two very different things

How so?

Cold blooded murder is killing an unarmed, restrained or defenceless opponent.
Surely the prisoner being executed is all of these things?

I guess it must be a cultural thing...by Cherokee systems of jurisprudence I'd have every right as a victim's relative to kill their murderer...we simply see nothing wrong with the concept of vengeance...in fact by my culture it would be mandated, not just assumed.

Hey Salishe...I'm Cree, and by our system we look for restitution, not vengeance...the idea being in the old days we couldn't afford to lose a productive (re:healthy) member of the community. So in a case of murder, the murderer would have to hunt for and provide for the family of the deceased. He wouldn't be forced on them (in terms of living with them, which would be repugnant), and he would be shunned, but he would remain productive.

How so?

Cold blooded murder is killing an unarmed, restrained or defenceless opponent.
Surely the prisoner being executed is all of these things?

Executing the prisoner is doing it because the prisoner asked it to be done. He knew what would become of him and had a choice to make: To murder, or not to murder. He chose the former and got what was coming to him. In that sense, it is he who killed himself, by signing the warrant with his victim's blood.

The victim did not have a choice in the matter.
Neither should he.

Why not? To murder in cold blood and to kill as punishment are two very different things.

They're not. They're the same thing with two very different rationalizations. Life is lost. Period. Dress it up however you will, the fundamental root is the same.


You're absolutely right -- it is vengeance, but that doesn't make it wrong. Last time I checked, vengeance wasn't a sin, nor was it a solidly black moral.

But it is in this case. Vengence flies in the face of justice and directly attacks the idea of rule by law. It doesn't seek to regain parity, simply to cause anguish equal to that felt. How can that ever be right?


Surely you do not imply that a serial rapist deserves any basic rights. That a murderer deserves to be pitied and pampered. As someone said below, "they did the crime." They knew the consequences of their actions, and took the actions anyway. They signed their fate, and it's our right -- hell, our duty to make sure that those consequences are carried out. How do you know that the threat of the death penalty hasn't already stopped men from murdering? Hm?

Studies show no drop in violent crimes and murders in states with the death penalty. In fact, they show a rise in these types of crimes. There isn't a single shred of evidence to support capitol punishment as a deterrant.

And yes, I do imply that serial rapists deserve basic rights because that is what separates us from them, the fact that we acknowledge people have fundamental rights which they can not be alienated from, either by our action or our lack of action. It's that fundamental respect for those rights that all people share that allow us to live together in a society. If you start removing it, then you risk toppling the society in savage barbarism.

I never suggested "pampering" anyone, although I do feel pity for death row inmates, ones that I've worked with an in general. Pity for a system that let them slip so far through it's fingers that it only took notice when someone's life ended and pity for them for making a choice that has surely scarred their immortal souls far more deeply than anything we could possibly do to them. Our job is not to condone vengence, but to promote justice. Parity. Two deaths is two deaths, not one death turned miraculously back into a life by a second death.

I guess it must be a cultural thing...by Cherokee systems of jurisprudence I'd have every right as a victim's relative to kill their murderer...we simply see nothing wrong with the concept of vengeance...in fact by my culture it would be mandated, not just assumed.

Haven't done any research from where I come, but I see myself as a swede from the region that I was born in.

I think the oldest printed laws in my area crimes could be punished by death. But my culture have, thank god, stoped that.

Executing the prisoner is doing it because the prisoner asked it to be done. He knew what would become of him and had a choice to make: To murder, or not to murder. He chose the former and got what was coming to him. In that sense, it is he who killed himself, by signing the warrant with his victim's blood.

The victim did not have a choice in the matter.
Neither should he.

Choice is irrelevent. My definition of cold-blooded murder was correct and execution fits the description. Therefore, execution is still cold-blooded murder. Revenge or Justice are just motive; even a murderer has motive.

Besides, execution is not the punishment for ALL murderers. Some recieve life sentences which is far more just for it gives him time to prove without doubt his possible innocence. If he cannot prove it, then he is guilty. He will have wasted his life rotting inside prison with only other brutes and his own thoughts to accompany him.

Hey Salishe...I'm Cree, and by our system we look for restitution, not vengeance...the idea being in the old days we couldn't afford to lose a productive (re:healthy) member of the community. So in a case of murder, the murderer would have to hunt for and provide for the family of the deceased. He wouldn't be forced on them (in terms of living with them, which would be repugnant), and he would be shunned, but he would remain productive.

I understand completely...and to an extent our tribe demanded the same, if you stole one blanket....the convicted person is to recompense with a blanket of his own..etc..etc...but for criminals where murder was the charge, the victims family was by rights allowed to execute the murderer...in fact if the murderer was from another clan...that clan was obligated to produce said murderer and if there was no family of the victim..that clan was supposed to do the execution.

There isn't a single shred of evidence to support capitol punishment as a deterrant.

For one, you have no way of knowing whether or not the absense or presence of the death penalty affects the mind of a man on a daily basis. You have no way of knowing if someone stopped himself from murdering someone else just because of it, and you have no way of knowing if someone murdered someone just because of it.

But that aside, deterrants be damned, it's a punishment! I don't give two shits if it scares the willies out of someone (frankly, if death doesn't scare criminals, nothing else will); I care about getting that murdering bastard away from the rest of my peers. I care about him never seeing another person for the rest of his life.

They're not. They're the same thing with two very different rationalizations. Life is lost. Period. Dress it up however you will, the fundamental root is the same.

See my explanation above.

...simply to cause anguish equal to that felt. How can that ever be right?

How can it be right? How about letting the punishment fit the crime? The criminal knows what he's getting himself into and does it anyway; why shouldn't we go ahead with it?

Mike: "I'm going to die if I kill this person. I'll kill him anyway!"
Bob: -dies-
Mike: -doesn't die-
Mike: "Hmm. Lesson learned: I'm not going to die because I killed that person. Sweet!"

And yes, I do imply that serial rapists deserve basic rights because that is what separates us from them, the fact that we acknowledge people have fundamental rights which they can not be alienated from, either by our action or our lack of action. It's that fundamental respect for those rights that all people share that allow us to live together in a society. If you start removing it, then you risk toppling the society in savage barbarism.

The murderer sets himself apart and takes away his own rights when he murders another human being. -He- establishes himself as the animal, -not- us. Once that is established, what we do to him ceases to matter: He's an animal. He doesn't HAVE rights. Like I said, he took them from himself. The death penalty isn't going to reduce us to savage barbarism any sooner than a martian is going to be elected President of Earth.

I never suggested "pampering" anyone, although I do feel pity for death row inmates, ones that I've worked with an in general. Pity for a system that let them slip so far through it's fingers that it only took notice when someone's life ended and pity for them for making a choice that has surely scarred their immortal souls far more deeply than anything we could possibly do to them. Our job is not to condone vengence, but to promote justice. Parity. Two deaths is two deaths, not one death turned miraculously back into a life by a second death.

Oh, boo -hoo-. The poor serial killer was "a victim of the system." Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. The "system" is no more than a framework, an established set of circumstances that does nothing to hinder our free will. The murderer chose to murder, and that is what landed him on death row. NOTHING else. Nothing anyone said to him or did to him made him decide it.

Unless the man's insane, in which case, he's fucked anyway.

Choice is irrelevent.

Oh. All right. Let's just throw free will right out the window, shall we? Yes, and while we're at it, let's replace every human being on the planet with a perfectly just, perfectly reasonably-minded automaton.

The death penalty is not the punishment for all murderers.

It should be.

Now, I'm not saying that it should be instant: The judicial system, right now, is, admittedly, flawed in determining whether or not someone is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. There have been innocents slain. However, if we -can- prove that the man is guilty, then off with his head.

I understand completely...and to an extent our tribe demanded the same, if you stole one blanket....the convicted person is to recompense with a blanket of his own..etc..etc...but for criminals where murder was the charge, the victims family was by rights allowed to execute the murderer...in fact if the murderer was from another clan...that clan was obligated to produce said murderer and if there was no family of the victim..that clan was supposed to do the execution.

I can see that...especially if there is no real way to restitute...and I certainly won't pretend that my people were pacifists...:).

Those studies did not prove that the death penalty caused that increase. Those doing the studies did not go up to criminals and go, "Hey! Why'd you shoot that woman in the face?!", nor were they answered with "Because I hate the death penalty, man! I hate it! So she should die!" etc.



Crockery. Simply having such a criminal alive is a detriment to society. When Manson killed those people, he established himself as a threat to this country, and was dealt with accordingly.

Here's another slant on this one, for you religious fanatics:

Let's say Mike murders four people and is jailed. We have two options: We kill him or we slam him for life. For a moment, let's bar the societal aspects of these two options, and look at the moral aspect. He just committed unforgiveable atrocities. He deserves nothing more than a grisly death, or, for you the morally squeamish, a grisly life. However. The Bible says that those who repent will be forgiven. That those who cast their sins onto the shoulders of Jesus Christ will be let into Heaven on the day of reckoning.

So Mike is thrown in jail. He repents. He is forgiven. We've just let a serial killer into heaven. Good job! What kind of deterrent is that?

Second option: Kill him on the spot. Why? Because we do not have the right to choose whether he is rewarded or punished. We are mere humans, specks in the Universe compared to God, and we should let him decide the man's fate. But the only way to do that is to give him to God without clearing his slate; put him up there as he stands. That's fair. That's just.

Not exactly what I believe, but an interesting view on it nonetheless.

I personally believe the Ten Commandments are crockery. :p

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of people complaining about things like this on a moral ground. It comes down to whether or not it's good for the society's welfare. That's what's important. Let morality show in your everyday life; things like the death penalty aren't coming against you as a person, because you can't do anything about it. Those who can aren't, because they are not morally flawed by allowing it. It's a necessity.

Lol at your argumantation. Really made me laugh. at least about how you think they should make the study...


And for the example. Wouldn't Mike go to heaven either way? That would not make us the ones to send him to heaven.

Also, I don't think we should judge on who should live and who should die. This will prolly sound a lill wierd, but Gandalf says a very nice thing in Fellowship of the Ring(the movie). Something like:

You shouldn't take the life from people you think deserve to die unless you can bring those back to life that you think deserves to live.

And no, that's not an exact quote.

Btw, how come there are alot of nations and also states that works if the death penalty is necessary?

Oh. All right. Let's just throw free will right out the window, shall we? Yes, and while we're at it, let's replace every human being on the planet with a perfectly just, perfectly reasonably-minded automaton.

In relation to whether the execution is cold-blooded, of course free will is irrelevent. Execution is cold-blooded and whether the criminal commited his crime of his own accord does not change that fact.

I love the death penelty. It should be instated in every corner of the earth. Murder, rape, generaly being an asshole, opposing the government, and opposing the death penelty should be punishable by death.

Also, I don't think we should judge on who should live and who should die. This will prolly sound a lill wierd, but Gandalf says a very nice thing in Fellowship of the Ring(the movie). Something like:

You shouldn't take the life from people you think deserve to die unless you can bring those back to life that you think deserves to live.


I believe, more accurately that is said;

"Many that lived deserved death, and many that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment, even the very wise cannot see all ends....."

Very wise it is as well.

Jalad: You have a point, and now I see it; however, it does not change that the criminal signed himself up for it in the first place.

La: You mispelled "argumentation." Which isn't a word. Also, you took Gandalf's quote ENTIRELY out of context. He was scolding Frodo for so hastily deciding that Golem deserved to die, and was referring to Golem's possession by the Ring. Don't misuse quotes. It's annoying.

No, Mike would not go to heaven either way! You completely missed the point, and then laughed at it? You also seem to have missed that I said that it wasn't something I believed in -- just another facet of the argument.

"Btw, how come there are a lot of nations that work ..."

Whether or not a nation works is not dependent upon the death penalty. I believe it is a necessary punishment, but the sake of our nation does not depend on it. C'mon. Think before you type.

Oh, boo -hoo-. The poor serial killer was "a victim of the system." Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. The "system" is no more than a framework, an established set of circumstances that does nothing to hinder our free will. The murderer chose to murder, and that is what landed him on death row. NOTHING else. Nothing anyone said to him or did to him made him decide it.

Unless the man's insane, in which case, he's fucked anyway.

Aside from really violent crimes, do you not think that some crime is a product of the sub-society a person grew up in? I'm thinking here of the slum my husband grew up in, in Chile. (no, the hubby's not a criminal:)) The unemployment rate in Chile is pretty high, and not too many people he lived around were very educated, so a lot of them made a living selling pirated music, videos,perfumes, even designer clothes. Officially, a crime...but it was a living that didn't hurt their fellow citizens (as robbery and murder does). It was the only option for a lot of people if they wanted to put food on the table.

...executing the guilty merely makes us no different morally than criminal.

I beg to differ. I see a significant moral difference between an individual that takes the life of another human being for his own ends and society as a whole which, through due process, establishes the guilt of that individual and to protect society from further such acts, executes him.

Second option: Kill him on the spot. Why? Because we do not have the right to choose whether he is rewarded or punished. We are mere humans, specks in the Universe compared to God, and we should let him decide the man's fate. But the only way to do that is to give him to God without clearing his slate; put him up there as he stands. That's fair. That's just.

Not exactly what I believe, but an interesting view on it nonetheless.



Kill him on the spot? I know you say it's not exactly what you believe, but you do say that it is fair and just. It's fair and just to kill a man without a trial?

The whole idea of capital punishment is troubling. The government should not have the power to kill. Period. That's way too much power. And, being humans, mistakes will be made, and innocent people have been, and will continue to be killed.

So my question for pro-death penalty advocates is this:

How many innocent deaths are acceptable?

You stupid D&D idiots, quoting The Lord of the Rings on a subject as important as the death penelty. I'll deal out death when ever the hell I want and I don't need to bring back someone from the dead. In that case if I were to bring back a person from the dead that didn't deserve to die, I'll be justityed to kill someone who deserves to die. Cool. I need to discover the secret behind reincarnation.

Aside from really violent crimes, do you not think that some crime is a product of the sub-society a person grew up in?

I cannot speak for Chile, having never been there and having had no experience with it, but in the United States, there are always alternatives. People speak of the streets of the US as being crime-riddled shitholes, when in all honesty, it's the people living there that make them that way, and they don't have to do it. Thus, though the living conditions of the place may be horrible, crime is not always the only alternative. And we are speaking of crimes that are worthy of the death penalty here. We aren't talking "Mike killed Bob because Bob was going to kill Mike for being on his turf"; we're talking "Mike killed Bob because Mike felt like killing Bob."

Jalad: You have a point, and now I see it; however, it does not change that the criminal signed himself up for it in the first place.

The death penalty is not always used, the majority of the time a life sentence is judged as the punishment. By that logic, he may have signed himself up for the life sentence.

Now, I'm not saying that it should be instant: The judicial system, right now, is, admittedly, flawed in determining whether or not someone is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. There have been innocents slain. However, if we -can- prove that the man is guilty, then off with his head.

So, as long as i can frame you for murder you think you should be a head shorter?

Kill him on the spot? I know you say it's not exactly what you believe, but you do say that it is fair and just. It's fair and just to kill a man without a trial?

Alright, I admit, I spoke rashly and harshly: I do firmly believe that every man deserves a trial (unless it's a case of "Camera caught guy stabbing other guy" or something obvious like that).

How many innocent deaths are acceptable?

As I said before, I only support it if the criminal's guilt is without a doubt. 100%. Somewhere up there, I said that if there's no way to ascertain for absolute certain that he did indeed commit the crime, then it shouldn't be done, but I do stand by that he -should- be punished as such if it is.

Besides which ... I don't think the death penalty debate comes down to that topic, in particular. I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that the killing of innocents just isn't cool.

So, as long as i can frame you for murder you think you should be a head shorter?

I said prove, La. Not convince. Prove. This debate isn't about whether or not we should kill a man that we -think- killed another man. It's about whether or not we should kill a man who DID kill another man. We aren't talking practicality here; we're talking moral and conceptual ideals.

Of course you would...but wouldn't you lose part of your humanity if you did? Letting the state do it for you is the easy way out, but I think we as a society ALL lose some of our humanity when we sanction executions.

I'm not sure I disagree with you. However, I am a prosecuting attorney. My job is to seek justice for the state and the victims of the crime. I am to uphold the laws of the land. In the State of New Jersey where I practice, capital punishment is legal. I see and talk to victims of crime everyday. It is very difficult not to feel something for them. Yes, in a way society loses some humanity. However, society gains as well by ridding itself of these killers. Some people should lose the classification of human being because of the acts they perpetrate. Society puts down dogs that bite and wild animals that kill humans because it has tasted human flesh. Some of these murderers are no different than mad dogs. They, too, should be put down. But, I think society should feel some loss or remorse or regret everytime it is done lest we start to enjoy it.

As I said before, I only support it if the criminal's guilt is without a doubt. 100%.

Then by that logic, there can be no way that you can support the death penalty. In anything that involves choice, there is always a certain degree of doubt, it may be a very small degree but then again the doubt that he is guilty may be very high.

Some of these murderers are no different than mad dogs. They, too, should be put down.
Well said.

Besides which ... I don't think the death penalty debate comes down to that topic, in particular. I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that the killing of innocents just isn't cool.

I disagree. I think the death penalty comes down to exactly this issue. We're dealing with huge bureaucracies, notorious for making errors. In addition to human error, you have witnesses who lie or are coerced, cops with vendettas, people with faulty memories, forensic scientists misinterpreting or losing evidence. Some people have been convicted without a body even being found. The system is far from perfect. And when this system goes wrong, it's innocent people who die. When someone is kept incarcerated (which is miserable, for those who think it's like a country club), at least they have the chance of being exonerated. And at least they will be alive. There are no do-overs once you kill somebody.

Then by that logic, there can be no way that you can support the death penalty. In anything that involves choice, there is always a certain degree of doubt, it may be a very small degree but then again the doubt that he is guilty may be very high.
Not true. There are always ways to prove something. It may be difficult, and it may completely rely on circumstance, but there are always ways. What if the scene was recorded by a security camera? Most of them can't be edited, as it'd be against their nature. Or perhaps there was a struggle, the murderer was cut, and his blood mixed with the victim's? A DNA test would flush it out and you'd have your proof.

Hardscrabble: I believe that the topic at hand is whether or not killing someone for having murdered someone else is morally right. When a killer goes on death row, he's there having been proved to have killed to the satisfaction of everyone involved; at -that- point, in their eyes, it no longer matters whether or not he actually did it. He's condemned. So the debate is, now that they're convinced he killed, is it right or wrong to kill him?

It is undeniable that it is wrong to kill an innocent, and it is undeniable that our system is pretty shoddy in figuring out who did what and who didn't. The death penalty should be used only in cases where doubt is -proven-, not assured and not convinced, but -proven-. If that does not arise in this country for the next three centuries, so be it, but that's how it should be. Perhaps in my arguments I have painted the picture that I believe we are capable of handling the death penalty as it should be handled. This is not so. To be blunt, we aren't. We shouldn't be trying until we know we can.

So the question becomes, is it right or wrong to kill he who killed? That is the core of this debate.

I'd just like to pose a simple question..if technology improves to the point that they'd be able to convict a man and be 100% sure it's him/her...would you then be in favor of the Death Penalty for certain crimes...as from what I'm hearing their major objection is that it's not 100% certain.

So I'd like to pose that question:...If it could be determined with 100% veracity..would your opinion on the DP change.

I'd just like to repost this....how many of you only oppose the death penalty because of the margin of error? How many are against the actualy killing of the criminal?

Not true. There are always ways to prove something. It may be difficult, and it may completely rely on circumstance, but there are always ways. What if the scene was recorded by a security camera? Most of them can't be edited, as it'd be against their nature. Or perhaps there was a struggle, the murderer was cut, and his blood mixed with the victim's? A DNA test would flush it out and you'd have your proof.

However, one must always note that even forensics in some cases can be misleading.

In the larger point of view, sometimes evidence can be interpreted the wrong way by the jury. Juries are only human and all humans are flawed. Flaw creates doubt..

Aye, it can be misleading, and yes, there is a factor of human error.

I feel I should refer you to my post previous to this one. I do not believe we are ready to act on the death penalty as it stands right now, and we shouldn't until we are.

But I -do- believe that the answer to Salishe's original question is yes, it's right. We should kill the killer.

Aye, it can be misleading, and yes, there is a factor of human error.

I feel I should refer you to my post previous to this one. I do not believe we are ready to act on the death penalty as it stands right now, and we shouldn't until we are.

But I -do- believe that the answer to Salishe's original question is yes, it's right. We should kill the killer.

You are entitled to your view and interpretations of the moral facets of justice, even if I find them irrational. Nice debating with you.

Aye, and with you.
I admit, I always come into debates like this with the full knowledge that I'm not going to change any minds, but this has been one of the rare cases when someone has presented intelligent points instead of going "stfu god hates you" and such. :)

Jalad: You have a point, and now I see it; however, it does not change that the criminal signed himself up for it in the first place.

La: You mispelled "argumentation." Which isn't a word. Also, you took Gandalf's quote ENTIRELY out of context. He was scolding Frodo for so hastily deciding that Golem deserved to die, and was referring to Golem's possession by the Ring. Don't misuse quotes. It's annoying.

No, Mike would not go to heaven either way! You completely missed the point, and then laughed at it? You also seem to have missed that I said that it wasn't something I believed in -- just another facet of the argument.

"Btw, how come there are a lot of nations that work ..."

Whether or not a nation works is not dependent upon the death penalty. I believe it is a necessary punishment, but the sake of our nation does not depend on it. C'mon. Think before you type.


If I misspell a word or not, really doesn't matter now, does it?

Surely Gandalf and Frodo did not have a discussion about deathpenalty. But it is about if it's right to take other peoples life. So, imo it's not a missquote. Maybe it's annoying cause you find it logic but against your believes?

In the example you said he would, so.... eventho I knew that you didn't believe in it. Anyway, why give the example in the first place if you don't believe in it? Anyway, I thought your first paragraph was the funny one in that post.

And if you quote me, quote me properly, or I might get annoyed, you know...

I don't believe in the death penalty. Scratch that... it exists, I admit it, so denying belief in it would be redundant. Okay... I don't like it, and I think we should be working to get rid of it no matter where it exists. Oh there are times when my first response to hearing of a crime, especially one that involves children, where I say "kill that bastard, forget the trial", but for the most part I am for due process. Now that is not to say I am fine with the current legal system in Canada (and I'm sure they could all use a reform). I think it stinks. Resorting to the murder of murderers (and assorted horrible people) however does not seem to be the deterrant it was promised to be, and there have been too many cases of wrongful convictions. (Remember that coroner in the States who was falsifying evidence for like 20 years or so??) Well....whaddayathink??

Here is the original post, and I believe that my comments are appropriate and on-topic. Even if they weren't, what's wrong with going off on a related tangent?

And the question of killing innocents is the essence of the debate, when you think about it. You are asking is it morally wrong to kill those who kill others. Since the state is always responsible for the executions, it becomes a question of "is it right or wrong to have the state kill he who killed?" You're not going to have individuals mete out the death penalty, so that responsiblity falls to the government. Are they competent or fair enough to do it? Obviously not.

The death penalty is revenge. It's a poor deterrent, if it's one at all. And this question of right or wrong based on moral grounds (i.e. morals found in religion, mainly Christianity), is moot, since in theory, our laws are not based on religious doctrine.

I realize some of the pro-death penalty advocates are truly pragmatic, and do have a real concern for the public welfare. But what we see too often is this bloodlust. This rates right after gun-ownership as a treasured American institution. Why are we so proud of it? Hell, Mexico doesn't even execute people anymore.

Gandalf didn't expressly say, "Don't kill him." He said to find out more, first.

I just threw that post in because I thought it was an interesting religious side of the argument. I think it's crock simply because I believe religion shouldn't affect any part of our government's activities, but eh. What can you do?

You stupid D&D idiots, quoting The Lord of the Rings on a subject as important as the death penelty. I'll deal out death when ever the hell I want and I don't need to bring back someone from the dead. In that case if I were to bring back a person from the dead that didn't deserve to die, I'll be justityed to kill someone who deserves to die. Cool. I need to discover the secret behind reincarnation.

Heh. So you assume playing D&D makes you an idiot?

Anyway, even if the film is fiction, it's message and what it's characters say is not.

And it doesn't say that if you can resurect someone you automaticly are allowed to kill people.

Those studies did not prove that the death penalty caused that increase. Those doing the studies did not go up to criminals and go, "Hey! Why'd you shoot that woman in the face?!", nor were they answered with "Because I hate the death penalty, man! I hate it! So she should die!" etc.

I never said they did. I'm simply pointing to factual data and saying there may be a correlation and, at the very least, there's absolutely no proof to suggest that the death penalty serves as more of a deterrant that any other system of punishment.


Crockery. Simply having such a criminal alive is a detriment to society. When Manson killed those people, he established himself as a threat to this country, and was dealt with accordingly.

Yes, he was removed from society, a society that understood that to kill him would be to become him and that this is the most dangerous threat of all.


Here's another slant on this one, for you religious fanatics:

Let's say Mike murders four people and is jailed. We have two options: We kill him or we slam him for life. For a moment, let's bar the societal aspects of these two options, and look at the moral aspect. He just committed unforgiveable atrocities. He deserves nothing more than a grisly death, or, for you the morally squeamish, a grisly life. However. The Bible says that those who repent will be forgiven. That those who cast their sins onto the shoulders of Jesus Christ will be let into Heaven on the day of reckoning.

So Mike is thrown in jail. He repents. He is forgiven. We've just let a serial killer into heaven. Good job! What kind of deterrent is that?

That's the concept of forgiveness and redemption. I'm not going to touch any specific belief modalities, but it's the basic concept that people can change and change for the better.


Second option: Kill him on the spot. Why? Because we do not have the right to choose whether he is rewarded or punished.

How did this come to be about "rewarding" someone? Life in prison is certainly not a "reward". This isn't about rewards and punishments. That isn't proactive. It does nothing towards solving the root causes of the problem, simply reacts when the problem has expressed itself. Simply because I'm anti-death penalty doesn't mean I'm for coddling prisoners or "rewarding" law-breaking. It just means I don't see how two wrongs make a right.


We are mere humans, specks in the Universe compared to God, and we should let him decide the man's fate. But the only way to do that is to give him to God without clearing his slate; put him up there as he stands. That's fair. That's just.

If that God wants him, let that God come down here and get him. You seem to have a rather nightmarish presumption of faith here. That God is some slathering demon on high, just waiting for an unrepentant sinner to be offered up to him so he can rend their soul apart. Again, the point of faith and God isn't judgement (or at least, it shouldn't be), but redemption and forgiveness


Not exactly what I believe, but an interesting view on it nonetheless.

I personally believe the Ten Commandments are crockery. :p

Yes, you've decided everyone who believes anything you don't agree with is crockery. And, while I'm not sure why calling people's beliefs ceramics is important, it's certainly your right to do so.


Frankly, I'm sick and tired of people complaining about things like this on a moral ground. It comes down to whether or not it's good for the society's welfare. That's what's important. Let morality show in your everyday life; things like the death penalty aren't coming against you as a person, because you can't do anything about it. Those who can aren't, because they are not morally flawed by allowing it. It's a necessity.

Well, I'm sorry sick and tired of people having opinions that are different from yours, but you don't have to get involved if you don't want to. Society's welfare is not supported by the death penalty and human suffering. Society is fundamentally undermined by the death penalty, at least a society of equality based on the potential of mankind. I do let morality show in my everyday life, and one of those shows is working with anti-death penalty causes and speaking out against the death penalty because I believe that life is fundamentally important and that to say anyone's life, even those who have taken the life of others, is somehow forfeit, must not and forever be wrong.

I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that the killing of innocents just isn't cool.

And is just one of many reasons why the death penalty should stop to exist.

I said prove, La. Not convince. Prove. This debate isn't about whether or not we should kill a man that we -think- killed another man. It's about whether or not we should kill a man who DID kill another man. We aren't talking practicality here; we're talking moral and conceptual ideals.

If I frame you for a murder and it holds in a court of law it's "proven", don't you think?

And, while I'm not sure why calling people's beliefs ceramics is important, it's certainly your right to do so.



I'm sorry, that's just too funny.

On Timothy McVeigh:
Yeah, he killed 168 people.....many of them children. Not a protester in sight at his execution, just angry family members of his victims. No chance he can ever do that again.

Many of them children? There were 19 children, and though I do agree one is even too many, I don't think 19/168 (11%) represents enough to be "many of them children", sorry.

Yes, and an earlier scripture said "An eye for an eye"

What about Romans 12:19? Hmm, where it says:
'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord'.

You think one might think this to mean that only God has the moral right to exact revenge in ones Faith.

My my, it looks the Bible sure is full of contradictions.

I'm not sure I disagree with you. However, I am a prosecuting attorney. My job is to seek justice for the state and the victims of the crime. I am to uphold the laws of the land. In the State of New Jersey where I practice, capital punishment is legal. I see and talk to victims of crime everyday. It is very difficult not to feel something for them. Yes, in a way society loses some humanity. However, society gains as well by ridding itself of these killers. Some people should lose the classification of human being because of the acts they perpetrate. Society puts down dogs that bite and wild animals that kill humans because it has tasted human flesh. Some of these murderers are no different than mad dogs. They, too, should be put down. But, I think society should feel some loss or remorse or regret everytime it is done lest we start to enjoy it.

But those people were created by the society that is now punishing them. How is that right?

http://www.deathpenaltyreligious.org/education/perspectives/politicsoffear.html

In this article, there is a case where a woman doesn't wish the state to pursue the death penalty for her son's killers because "she never wanted another mother to experience the agony she had experienced in losing a child." That is humanity. Right there. Because no matter how you dress it up, it's just more death. It doesn't make society safer. It doesn't bring the dead person back. It just plants one more corpse in the ground. This time, it's the state doing it, though, so somehow that's all right.

There has to be a better way than simply condemning people to death because we have created monsters we don't know how to deal with.

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of people complaining about things like this on a moral ground. It comes down to whether or not it's good for the society's welfare. That's what's important. Let morality show in your everyday life; things like the death penalty aren't coming against you as a person, because you can't do anything about it. Those who can aren't, because they are not morally flawed by allowing it. It's a necessity.

If you want to talk about society's welfare, you never thought about whether capital punishment isn't good for society's welfare? You know, in a lot of places it costs about three times the amount of money to execute a person because of their society-given rights to appeal and all that then it does to imprison them for 40 years.

La la: In both of your previous posts, you seem to have ignored everything that I have said about us being able to prove it or not. Please go back and read my posts before you comment on them.

Berk: You've never heard crockery used in such a way? Pah! I like it. :)

I never said they did. I'm simply pointing to factual data and saying there may be a correlation and, at the very least, there's absolutely no proof to suggest that the death penalty serves as more of a deterrant that any other system of punishment.

Then why bother mentioning it at all? Basically, we've established that that data doesn't support either of our arguments. Let's just drop it, neh?

On the scenario with God, like I said, it was just something I was throwing out there. I won't comment on comments toward it, as it's not really my argument.

Yes, he was removed from society, a society that understood that to kill him would be to become him and that this is the most dangerous threat of all.

To kill him is to become him? Since when? I cannot recall his name, unfortunately, but the person who made the reference to mad dogs put it best. Just because we take out the dog does not mean that we become one. It comes down to this: Two people making the same action can be completely different people. It all depends on context and circumstance. Yes, death is death, but it's the reason for that death that is important, not the thing itself. If we put down a dog because the dog is biting people, then woe be to the dog, but it shouldn't have been biting people in the first place! Bad dog, bad person!

Yes, you've decided everyone who believes anything you don't agree with is crockery.

I have done no such thing. In fact, the only person I said it to was you, and that's because much of what you're saying is argumentatively flawed. The reason I believe the Ten Commandments are crockery is because people these days seem to think of them as very strict rules. They aren't. Some guy wrote guidelines into rock slabs -- so what? Big deal; we're still the ones who are supposed to decide what's right and what's not. Following the Ten Commandments like some unthinking robot would just turn us all into sheep.

Well, I'm sorry sick and tired of people having opinions that are different from yours, but you don't have to get involved if you don't want to. Society's welfare is not supported by the death penalty and human suffering. Society is fundamentally undermined by the death penalty, at least a society of equality based on the potential of mankind. I do let morality show in my everyday life, and one of those shows is working with anti-death penalty causes and speaking out against the death penalty because I believe that life is fundamentally important and that to say anyone's life, even those who have taken the life of others, is somehow forfeit, must not and forever be wrong.

First of all, you seem to be under the impression that I think anyone who argues with me is stupid. I refer you to the interchange between Jalad and myself, in which no hostility was exchanged. He (she?)'s not stupid.

Second: Society's welfare is not supported by the death penalty? Alright, let's just keep letting people kill other people. Whee! Oh, no, that's wrong. Okay, let's lock them up. What? An inmate murdered another inmate? Oh no! What now? Okay, let's throw them in solitary. What? It's getting more and more expensive? Gah! Tax the society! They don't want to be taxed? Well, too bad! We have lives to protect here! We aren't going to just put down these mad dogs! They deserve to live, despite that they've murdered and raped countless of innocent people!

Like I said. The criminal signed himself up for it when he stabbed the guy with the knife. The dog should not have bitten the man's leg.

For one, you have no way of knowing whether or not the absense or presence of the death penalty affects the mind of a man on a daily basis. You have no way of knowing if someone stopped himself from murdering someone else just because of it, and you have no way of knowing if someone murdered someone just because of it.

I have no way of knowing of the absence of presence of McDonald's McRibb sandwiches affects the mind of man on a daily basis and convinces him to kill or not. What I do have are hard statistics that show that the death penalty does not work as a deterrant because CRIME DID NOT GO DOWN. Yes, maybe one criminal won't commit another crime, but that means jackall if there's another criminal ready to take his place. It doesn't work, objectively and statistically, it does not solve the problem.


But that aside, deterrants be damned, it's a punishment! I don't give two shits if it scares the willies out of someone (frankly, if death doesn't scare criminals, nothing else will); I care about getting that murdering bastard away from the rest of my peers. I care about him never seeing another person for the rest of his life.

Well, so why is what you want more important than what I want? Or what nearly every religious organization in this country wants? Or what a growing number of individuals want? Or what many parents of murder victims want? What makes you so special, other than your unreasoning bloodlust?


How can it be right? How about letting the punishment fit the crime?

See The Mikado for a satire about what's wrong with this statement.


The criminal knows what he's getting himself into and does it anyway; why shouldn't we go ahead with it?

Simple. Because we are not the criminal. By killing them, we however become one.


The murderer sets himself apart and takes away his own rights when he murders another human being. -He- establishes himself as the animal, -not- us. Once that is established, what we do to him ceases to matter: He's an animal.

Gosh, this argument was also very popular at the beginning of this century with a certain gentleman who shall remain nameless.


Like I said, he took them from himself. The death penalty isn't going to reduce us to savage barbarism any sooner than a martian is going to be elected President of Earth.

Course it is, it's already got you braying for blood just in the abstract.


Oh, boo -hoo-. The poor serial killer was "a victim of the system." Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. The "system" is no more than a framework, an established set of circumstances that does nothing to hinder our free will. The murderer chose to murder, and that is what landed him on death row. NOTHING else. Nothing anyone said to him or did to him made him decide it.


I never said it did. I'm not releasing anyone from personal responsibility for their actions, including society in general. If we kill, we're killers. Plain and simple. Dress it up however else you want to but the fundamental thing is we have taken a life. Period.


Unless the man's insane, in which case, he's fucked anyway.

Charming.

But those people were created by the society that is now punishing them.

I said it earlier, in more detail, and I'll say it again, more bluntly: Bullshit. Society didn't push the knife into the man's chest. Society didn't pull the trigger.

Yes, maybe one criminal won't commit another crime, but that means jackall if there's another criminal ready to take his place.

The EXACT same thing can be said for incarceration. Like I said, the data supports neither of our arguments. Drop it already.

Or what nearly every religious organization in this country wants? Or what a growing number of individuals want?

Religion shouldn't be in this picture in the first place. It's us who decide what is right and what is wrong, not some shoddy book and an invisible God. Haven't you ever heard of the separation of church and state? It was created for a reason.

Well, so why is what you want more important than what I want?

The same could be said for you. Another bit that doesn't support either of us. Drop that one, too.

... your unreasoning bloodlust?

I have offered solid points and reason. That statement was unnecessary and does not help your case.


See The Mikado for a satire about what's wrong with this statement.
Did you just tell me to consult a satire for evidence in a debate? You're the one arguing, not Gilbert and Sullivan.

Simple. Because we are not the criminal. By killing them, we however become one.

I have time and time again offered refute to this "we become one" concept, and you have not argued it yet. Stop trying to use it if you aren't going to defend it.

Gosh, this argument was also very popular at the beginning of this century with a certain gentleman who shall remain nameless.

Sarcastic comments have no weight in a debate. The above statement was ignored.

Course it is, it's already got you braying for blood just in the abstract.

Offer evidence toward this sudden reversion of The United States of America to a bloodlusted nation. In fact, offer evidence toward any modern-day country that has reverted to complete and utter anarchy because of the death penalty. Oh. Wait. What's that? You can't? Because there aren't any? Yes, that's what I thought. That point is completely moot: The one does not, and will not, cause the other.

I never said it did. I'm not releasing anyone from personal responsibility for their actions, including society in general.

Oh? So, basically, the criminal killed because society made him a criminal, but that's only because our society is a great and overbearing evil? I see, I see. So what are we to do then, Great Messiah of the Light? Offer us guidance -- give us a solution to completely stop crime in its tracks.

Until then, people will still die. Sorry if it bothers you, but that's the way it works. You can't say nay to something without a feasible alternative, and, incidentally, incarceration of a serial killer is not a feasible alternative. You say that the death penalty does not decrease the crime rates? I have a news flash: Neither does life in jail.

We believe that people are a product of thier environment. The true test however is to rise above that and whoa...THINK FOR YOURSELF! Society is not to blame for anything. In the end, you and only you have the choice to take action or not to and if you do not take an action whether right or wrong you still have made a choice. Free will my friends, it is what separates us from pure morons and idiots. If a person is not be held acountable for thier actions then we are not teaching them respect for anything. People want to blame everything on something or someone else because our nation is now raising a bunch of pansies and non confronters. Society does teach fear, conformity, non confrontation, political correctness because we have all become so damn afraid of hurting someone's feelings..WAH..Tough Sh**ski,
Be a strong person, question everything, and damnit, take responsibility for your actions. If a person w/o a doubt commits murder that was calculated, if they rape, molest, spy, commit treason w/o ANY DOUBT then end thier life quickly and be done w/ it. We do not live in a world where everyone turns the other cheek. Wars are fought over resources everyday. Is it right? no. Does it make sense? no. Is it the human condition? yes. Want to change things? then do it by thinking for yourself.

The EXACT same thing can be said for incarceration. Like I said, the data supports neither of our arguments. Drop it already.

I absolutely agree that our current system of incarceration leaves a lot to be desired. And the data certainly does support the argument that capital punishment is no good as a deterrant. The figures show that in states where it was reintroduced, specifically as a deterrant, crime rates have either stayed consistant or increased.


Religion shouldn't be in this picture in the first place. It's us who decide what is right and what is wrong, not some shoddy book and an invisible God. Haven't you ever heard of the separation of church and state? It was created for a reason.

Yeah, I've heard of it and yeah, I'll admit that my faith views play a part in my basic assumption that all human life is sacred, but even without them I still strongly feel that a death penalty, particularly when subjected to the marginalization factors that society imposes upon it, serves no other point than vengence and vengence is never a good reason for anything. I agree with you that we're the one's who make our own morality and that makes it all the more important to apply that morality fairly and hold to it. Killing can't just be immoral "sometimes". It's either wrong or it isn't because regardless of situation, the end result, a life gone, is the same. That is where the morality comes into play, at that base result, not on some relativistic level where we can say, "Well, sometimes it's okay to kill, but other times it's not and it all depends on who's doing it."


I have offered solid points and reason. That statement was unnecessary and does not help your case.

And so have I and it boils down to a difference in our basic assumptions.


Did you just tell me to consult a satire for evidence in a debate? You're the one arguing, not Gilbert and Sullivan.

Why not? You haven't offered any hard evidence either way and the evidence I offered you dismissed out of hand with a completely specious argument. And this isn't a debate. I offered evidence. You dismissed it out of hand. You, however, haven't offered any evidence and that's a key ingredient to a debate. This is at best a discussion quickly turning into an argument because we're both so entrenched in our opinions that we're not willing to allow the other side might have a point. Which is odd, because I'll admit that Salishe has a point, but not you.


I have time and time again offered refute to this "we become one" concept, and you have not argued it yet. Stop trying to use it if you aren't going to defend it.

Where is this refutation? I made a basic statement, society can not stand in judgement on an act that it performs itself. There is no advantage to the death penalty. There is no deterrance factor (regardless of your dismissal of the overwhelming amount of evidence showing this) and the core situation, the taking of life is the same across the board. If society kills, then society is a killer. You haven't touched that core statement once except to provide rationalization for situational morality.


Sarcastic comments have no weight in a debate. The above statement was ignored.

Then don't make them yourself.


Offer evidence toward this sudden reversion of The United States of America to a bloodlusted nation.

Oh, where to start. How about Iraq? Or we could look at the rise of crime in states that have the death penalty. Just look at Texas.


In fact, offer evidence toward any modern-day country that has reverted to complete and utter anarchy because of the death penalty. Oh. Wait. What's that? You can't? Because there aren't any? Yes, that's what I thought. That point is completely moot: The one does not, and will not, cause the other.

On it's own, no, perhaps not, but it is a symptom of a greater ill in that society, that human life, all human life, regardless of the perfections of it's actions, is not valued.


Oh? So, basically, the criminal killed because society made him a criminal, but that's only because our society is a great and overbearing evil? I see, I see. So what are we to do then, Great Messiah of the Light? Offer us guidance -- give us a solution to completely stop crime in its tracks.

You have continuously tried to portray my arguments as somehow removing personal responsibility from individuals for their actions. I have at no time and in no way endorsed this. People kill because they make that choice. What I have argued is that society then has the same choice to make and how can we punish one with the other?

As for solutions, there are many. Life imprisonment for recidivists is certainly an option. Working in our society to remove the pressures and stresses that lead people to take life casually is another. Education, empowerment, options. Proactive measures towards solving the problem, not just cleaning up the mess. Killing people certainly isn't working. Maybe trying to rehabilitate them might.


Until then, people will still die. Sorry if it bothers you, but that's the way it works. You can't say nay to something without a feasible alternative, and, incidentally, incarceration of a serial killer is not a feasible alternative.

Why not?

I think people who commit serious crimes (murder, rape, etc.) should be used as test subjects for drugs and such... instead of using animals. That way, we don't hurt innocent animals or risk innocent people's health, and if something goes wrong, the person wasn't a good person anyway, so it's no big loss to society.
Sick logic to say the least.

That's simply torture, and no human being deserves that. While I am all for the death penalty it should be a quick death. In the grand scheme of things torturing someone isn't going to help anything, they're still going to die so there is no reason to do it as a punishment. And people still have rights, even if they are going to die soon, and forcing them to take drugs is a violation of that. Now giving them the option to take these drugs and prolong their life is fine, if the person really wants that then by all means let their miserable life help further science.

I don't know if this was said, or not, but I never bother to read every page of these things, so, yeah.

I believe that if we could reform the prison system to the point where it's actually prison, then life in jail could be worse than the death penalty. That is, if life means life, and you couldn't earn a college degree, and things of the sort.

I think people who commit serious crimes (murder, rape, etc.) should be used as test subjects for drugs and such... instead of using animals. That way, we don't hurt innocent animals or risk innocent people's health, and if something goes wrong, the person wasn't a good person anyway, so it's no big loss to society.

This has to be a joke. If it isn't, you are a seriously warped person. What is wrong with you?