NationStates Jolt Archive

I've often flipped back and forth across the capital punishment fence. Usually, I'm against it, but I have felt justifications for it. Murder is not one of them. With the recent execution of that Food and Drug guy in China over corruption, I have started thinking again about capital punishment. As it is applied in the US, it's really only for murder. Arguments against it are strong: one doesn't really think about the consequences, it is more expensive (it actually is) than life imprisonment, it is cruel and inhumane (lethal injection is, in my opinion).

When one feels the need to kill, they are obviously pushed over the moral and psychological edge, so it's unreasonable to expect them to think about what will happen if they are caught. Murders are also hard to solve sometimes and people are often convicted on prejudices or the inability to get adequate defense.

Anyway, the crime the man in China was convicted of might actually be justifiable for the death penalty. Corruption, bribery, etc. involve more thought and the criminal is virtually always much more mentally sound when just lining their pocket. Therefore, it seems to me that the threat of death may actually work in crimes such as this.

Anyone agree, see my point...

PS: I also think the death penalty might be justifiable for poaching (animals not eggs) and destroying things like libraries.

You are joking right?

Capital punishment is never justifiable.

There are better ways of deterring crime.

Public humiliation and stocks are one way to go. It's a good way to raise money to fund the system. Sell a packs of rotten fruit to visitors to huck at criminals put into the stocks. Put the criminals out on display in public. Make a show of it; sell tickets!

Capital punishment is never justifiable.

There are better ways of deterring crime.

Public humiliation and stocks are one way to go. It's a good way to raise money to fund the system. Sell a packs of rotten fruit to visitors to huck at criminals put into the stocks. Put the criminals out on display in public. Make a show of it; sell tickets!

why not sell tickets and have tours at the jail itself?

why not sell tickets and have tours at the jail itself?

And out the criminals out on display and give people stuff to throw at them like rancid fruit? :D

I believe that there should be a special punishment reserved for the most grievous crimes: life imprisonment with torture. Ideally, the torture would be so excruciatingly painful as to be a very potent deterrent.

Edit: of course, I also believe in the death penalty as a separate punishment.

I believe that there should be a special punishment reserved for the most grievous crimes: life imprisonment with torture. Ideally, the torture would be so excruciatingly painful as to be a very potent deterrent.


So basically, you hate justice. Therefore you hate your constitution, and thus you hate America.

Capital punishment is never justifiable.

There are better ways of deterring crime.

Public humiliation and stocks are one way to go. It's a good way to raise money to fund the system. Sell a packs of rotten fruit to visitors to huck at criminals put into the stocks. Put the criminals out on display in public. Make a show of it; sell tickets!

Yeah, throwing fruit at them. That will deter them:rolleyes:.

Do you have any serious arguements against the death penalty?

The death penalty is there to keep people who have commited despicable crimes & have a record showing a history of violent crime from committing more crime.

They can't rape, murder, etc. if they are dead.

I believe that there should be a special punishment reserved for the most grievous crimes: life imprisonment with torture. Ideally, the torture would be so excruciatingly painful as to be a very potent deterrent.

Edit: of course, I also believe in the death penalty as a separate punishment.

Deterrant simply does not work. Criminals do not, let me repeat that, do not, expect to get caught, and therefore, do not figure on the punishments. Its simple criminological fact.

Capital punishment should be reserved for the worst crimes, which at the very least involve malice or depraved indifference toward the lives of others. I don't think poaching or arson (where no one's hurt) qualify, though those should be punished severely.

So basically, you hate justice.

If you kill a man or commit some other heinous crime, you deserve whatever you get. If 100 people need to be horrifyingly tortured to save one innocent life, it's worth it.

Yeah, throwing fruit at them. That will deter them:rolleyes:.

Do you have any serious arguements against the death penalty?

The death penalty is there to keep people who have commited despicable crimes & have a record showing a history of violent crime from committing more crime.

They can't rape, murder, etc. if they are dead.

But why are there still cases of rape, murder... etc if capital punishment is supposed to be a deterrent?

Excellent idea. Murderers, rapists and those who commit in excess of 7 violent crimes should be executed, as should all those convicted of terror offences.

Execution should constitute public hanging.
Now that's a timewarp!

I didn't realise Jolt was in such a bad way; you seem to have landed in the 18th century.

Excellent idea. Murderers, rapists and those who commit in excess of 7 violent crimes should be executed, as should all those convicted of terror offences.

Execution should constitute public hanging.

But why are there still cases of rape, murder... etc if capital punishment is supposed to be a deterrent?

It is not a sufficiently potent deterrent; that's why we must introduce torture. Perhaps it will strike fear in the decayed hearts of the most ruthless monsters who prey on the innocent.

Capital punishment should be reserved for the worst crimes, which at the very least involve malice or depraved indifference toward the lives of others. I don't think poaching or arson (where no one's hurt) qualify, though those should be punished severely.

The point is to deter not to punish. The gravity of the crime is seen from a biased human point of view, which values its own lives above all else. Regardless, how many murderers think how of the consequences before they act? Not many, if any.

They can't rape, murder, etc. if they are in prison.

Fixed

Fixed

Incorrect. Firstly, murders and rapes can, and do, occur within prisons; not that I would consider this of any great consequence, given that all those correctly interred are scum.

Secondly, murderers and rapists released from prison are more than capable of reoffending. Indeed, what with life sentences comprising little more than 30 years in Britain, and statistical evidence suggesting that reoccurence is a probability, such murders and rapes would be a tragically regular event.

Now that's a timewarp!

I didn't realise Jolt was in such a bad way; you seem to have landed in the 18th century.

Or rather, the right side of prudent and pragmatic. Most young, radical muslims and juvenile delinquents require nothing more than a sharp demonstration of the likely implications of their actions; seeing a man twitching his life away on a gallows would have that effect, I feel.

Or rather, the right side of prudent and pragmatic. Most young, radical muslims and juvenile delinquents require nothing more than a sharp demonstration of the likely implications of their actions; seeing a man twitching his life away on a gallows would have that effect, I feel.
I just don't agree that behaviour should be instilled through fear.

If the state moderates behaviour through fear of death, then where's the need for etiquette or, indeed, morality within society?

One shouldn't refrain from doing a morally wrong action because of the fear of possible consequences, but from the knowledge that it is wrong. That's prudence and pragmatism.

One shouldn't refrain from doing a morally wrong action because of the fear of possible consequences, but from the knowledge that it is wrong. That's prudence and pragmatism.

That's the very anti-thesis of pragmatism. Willing people to be upstanding, moral individuals is perhaps a noble goal, but deluded. Men will not adopt a favonian demeanor simply because such behavior is in the best interests of society. I, too, wish for the justice system to become antiquated as wrong-doing abates; but I recognize that this will not happen on its own. Sometimes, a parent's firm hand is necessary to teach his children proper manners; similarly, harsh punishment is sometimes necessary to teach society how to behave.

Punishment never teaches behaviour, it merely conditions it; a sorry state of affairs.

Punishment never teaches behaviour, it merely conditions it; a sorry state of affairs.

And what, pray tell, is the difference between "teaching" and "conditioning"? Indeed, conditioning is a highly practical and effective method of teaching.

And what, pray tell, is the difference between "teaching" and "conditioning"? Indeed, conditioning is a highly practical and effective method of teaching.
Teaching imparts knowledge.

Conditioning merely instils behaviour.

A dog is conditioned. A human is taught.

Teaching imparts knowledge.

Yes, well, what students are "taught" about drugs and their harmful effects is often disregarded. What they are "conditioned" to know, through sitting in a jail cell, they'll never forget. You cannot "teach" something that isn't an absolute fact. Saying "don't kill" isn't the same as saying "1 + 1 = 2." Teaching transfers information whereas conditioning imparts understanding of abstract concepts.

...conditioning imparts understanding of abstract concepts.
Like how to salivate when a bell is rung? :p

Why FAG, I never knew you were interested in epistemology.

The point is to deter not to punish. The gravity of the crime is seen from a biased human point of view, which values its own lives above all else. Regardless, how many murderers think how of the consequences before they act? Not many, if any.

The point is incapacitation. The death penalty might not be absolutely necessary, but it's ethical when applied to the most extreme crimes. Murderers think about the consequences before they act, I'm sure. Not always, but in many cases. Either way, the death penalty is a valuable tool to extract confessions and the like.

Like how to salivate when a bell is rung?

Well, yes. There is no absolute truth that dictates that salivation must occur when bells are rung. It is an acquired behavioral pattern that conforms to what the owner deems to be a satisfactory response.

Why FAG, I never knew you were interested in epistemology.

No, I just make sh-t up as I go along.

Either way, the death penalty is a valuable tool to extract confessions and the like.

I'm afraid I must disagree with you there. What you describe lends itself to the possibility of egregious abuses of power and downright coercion. The innocent must never be compelled into pleading guilty for fear of death. Punishments must be administered as fits the crime -- confession or not.

Excellent idea. Murderers, rapists and those who commit in excess of 7 violent crimes should be executed, as should all those convicted of terror offences.

Execution should constitute public hanging.

Yeah... but with Bush here everyone will be convicted of those terror offenses they didn't commit (at least those people from India he thinks are from the Middle East...)

...pwn'd

Well, yes. There is no absolute truth that dictates that salivation must occur when bells are rung. It is an acquired behavioral pattern that conforms to what the owner deems to be a satisfactory response.
And that's what we call 'conditioning'.

No, I just make sh-t up as I go along.
:D

At least your telling the truth now.

I believe that there should be a special punishment reserved for the most grievous crimes: life imprisonment with torture. Ideally, the torture would be so excruciatingly painful as to be a very potent deterrent.

Edit: of course, I also believe in the death penalty as a separate punishment.This is disgusting.

And that's what we call 'conditioning'.

Yes. By necessity, behavioral patterns cannot be "taught"; they must be "acquired" through experience (ie, conditioning).

Anyway, the crime the man in China was convicted of might actually be justifiable for the death penalty. Corruption, bribery, etc. involve more thought and the criminal is virtually always much more mentally sound when just lining their pocket. Therefore, it seems to me that the threat of death may actually work in crimes such as this.

Anyone agree, see my point...

No. Bribery never deserves death.

PS: I also think the death penalty might be justifiable for poaching (animals not eggs) and destroying things like libraries.

Neither do poachers.

Yeah... but with Bush here everyone will be convicted of those terror offenses they didn't commit (at least those people from India he thinks are from the Middle East...)

...pwn'd

Who are all these people from India you speak of? I'd like to see some facts.

You my friend should think before you speak.....

No. Bribery never deserves death.

Neither do poachers.
Neither does any crime, IMO.

Neither does any crime, IMO.

Except pre-meditated murder and killing a police officer.

Except pre-meditated murder and killing a police officer.
I don't believe in "an eye for an eye". Why bring yourself (or the state) down to the level of the criminal?

Nor do I think that the death penalty is a good deterrent for murder, or any other crime. Indeed, I haven't seen any evidence to support this whatsoever.

Finally, why should the murder of a police officer be any worse than the murder of another human being?

If you kill a man or commit some other heinous crime, you deserve whatever you get. If 100 people need to be horrifyingly tortured to save one innocent life, it's worth it.

Yes… definitely worth it… completely ruin 100 lives to save one…
:rolleyes:

Capital punishment is desirable in principle, since it treats criminals as equal human members of society capable of free will and responsible choice, but it is very impractical, since the chance of killing innocent people is very real.

If we had a perfect judicial system, or at least one with a separate class of guilt for capital cases, I would be in favor of capital punishment. With the real world's judicial system though, I am opposed to it on practical grounds.

By "separate class of guilt" I mean one which was entirely unequivocal, a "more certainly guilty" standard which exceeded the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard of finding ordinary guilt.

This wouldn't pass legal muster in the US, and is probably impractical on the grounds of treating people fairly.

I don't believe in "an eye for an eye". Why bring yourself (or the state) down to the level of the criminal?

Nor do I think that the death penalty is a good deterrent for murder, or any other crime. Indeed, I haven't seen any evidence to support this whatsoever.

A murder for a murder makes the whole world murdered?
Hmm, Gandhi's version was better. :D

Finally, why should the murder of a police officer be any worse than the murder of another human being?

Because police officers, being armed, are more capable of defending themselves than the average people. Wait, what?

completely ruin 100 lives to save one…

They ruined their own lives when they decided to commit appalling crimes.

Finally, why should the murder of a police officer be any worse than the murder of another human being?

Because it is a crime both against the policeman himself and also against justice system, civil society, and the rule of law.

In a wicked society, like the soviet union or third reich, killing a policeman would be good inasmuch as it damaged the soviet justice system, society and rule of law.

The special, aggravating (or ameliorating) factor in killing a policemen is the rightness or wrongness of the system that he enforces.

By "separate class of guilt" I mean one which was entirely unequivocal, a "more certainly guilty" standard which exceeded the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard of finding ordinary guilt.

This wouldn't pass legal muster in the US, and is probably impractical on the grounds of treating people fairly.

Why wouldn't it pass legal muster? It would be novel - as far as I know - but you could have a bifurcated trial I imagine, with the latter stage determining whether or not the evidence supported 'capital' culpability.

Since it's already perfectly constitutional to execute people, I can't imagine adding additional safeguards would be a problem.

I don't believe in "an eye for an eye". Why bring yourself (or the state) down to the level of the criminal?

Because I do believe that those who committ murder should die.

Nor do I think that the death penalty is a good deterrent for murder, or any other crime. Indeed, I haven't seen any evidence to support this whatsoever.

When people wait 30 years to be executed, of course it will not be a detterent.

Finally, why should the murder of a police officer be any worse than the murder of another human being?

It is not.

Why wouldn't it pass legal muster? It would be novel - as far as I know - but you could have a bifurcated trial I imagine, with the latter stage determining whether or not the evidence supported 'capital' culpability.

Since it's already perfectly constitutional to execute people, I can't imagine adding additional safeguards would be a problem.

It seems to me that finding a person guilty, but not guilty with enough certainty to get the death penalty, would imply that there was some reasonable doubt about the guilt.

Because it is a crime both against the policeman himself and also against justice system, civil society, and the rule of law.
But the same could be argued for killing judges, witnesses, bailiffs, prison warders, lawyers, soldiers, civil servants, politicians, councillors, teachers, doctors, janitors, firemen/women, and so on.

In a wicked society, like the soviet union or third reich, killing a policeman would be good inasmuch as it damaged the soviet justice system, society and rule of law.

The special, aggravating (or ameliorating) factor in killing a policemen is the rightness or wrongness of the system that he enforces.
But this reduces the policeman to merely the tool of a state, and says nothing about taking a human life.

Moreover, it would legitimise killing on a vast scale, so long as those you killed were servants of a state that was considered 'bad'.

They ruined their own lives when they decided to commit appalling crimes.

So now we will torture their empty bodies to save their souls…
It's that time… INQUISITION HOUR! :p

But the same could be argued for killing judges, witnesses, bailiffs, prison warders, lawyers, soldiers, civil servants, politicians, councillors, teachers, doctors, janitors, firemen/women, and so on.

Police and Firemen along with soldiers are sworn to protect the lives of those they serve while staring death right in the face.

But this reduces the policeman to merely the tool of a state, and says nothing about taking a human life.

They swore an oath to protect and defend the citizens of the towns that they are policemen/women in.

Moreover, it would legitimise killing on a vast scale, so long as those you killed were servants of a state that was considered 'bad'.

In conversation, we would call that a revolution.

But the same could be argued for killing judges, witnesses, bailiffs, prison warders, lawyers, soldiers, civil servants, politicians, councillors, teachers, doctors, janitors, firemen/women, and so on.


But this reduces the policeman to merely the tool of a state, and says nothing about taking a human life.

Moreover, it would legitimise killing on a vast scale, so long as those you killed were servants of a state that was considered 'bad'.

1) In many cases, it already is a more serious crime to hurt or kill people in those professions.

2) It doesn't reduce the wrong in killing a human being, it just balances it against doing some good in the process. In the case of killing a "good law policeman," it adds to the wrong done.

There have been many cases in history where killing all the NKVD agents, Deaths Head SS, &c &c would have accomplished a great deal of good. It does *sometimes* legitimize killing on a mass scale, just like *some* wars do.

Because I do believe that those who committ murder should die.

How very christian of you. It's lucky that your religion doesn't have any rules against killing.

Wait...fuck.

Because I do believe that those who committ murder should die.
But why? If not as a deterrent, then what is the point?

When people wait 30 years to be executed, of course it will not be a detterent.
But even in those countries which, unfortunately, still execute people without the infamous Death Row, murder still arises. Capital punishment is not a deterrent.

It is not.
I'm glad you think that.

This scheme for "capital guilt" might possibly pass muster:

A person could be eligible for the death penalty if and only if certainty about his guilt were such that no reasonably conceivable new evidence, at any point in the future, could exonerate him.

A person is not eligible for the death penalty if, even though he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on all the evidence available, it is conceivable that some new evidence could exonerate him at some point.


Not claiming it would work, just that it *might* work.

How very christian of you. It's lucky that your religion doesn't have any rules against killing.

Wait...fuck.

You mean thou shall not committ murder? I see people have no concept of what its actual meaning is. It has nothing to do with executing a murderer.

It seems to me that finding a person guilty, but not guilty with enough certainty to get the death penalty, would imply that there was some reasonable doubt about the guilt.

Good point. But reasonable doubt is not the same as absolute certainty. So, in theory at least, I think it would be possible to hold a second stage under a higher burden of proof without compromising the first finding.

Police and Firemen along with soldiers are sworn to protect the lives of those they serve while staring death right in the face.
Finished with the rhetoric?

They swore an oath to protect and defend the citizens of the towns that they are policemen/women in.
And does this somehow remove their status as human beings?

In conversation, we would call that a revolution.
Some revolution.

I'd call it mass murder.

In many cases, it already is a more serious crime to hurt or kill people in those professions.
That's appalling.

Why should the life of an employee of the state be worth more than any other life?

It doesn't reduce the wrong in killing a human being, it just balances it against doing some good in the process. In the case of killing a "good law policeman," it adds to the wrong done.
So justice is reduced to a cost-benefit analysis, eh?

There have been many cases in history where killing all the NKVD agents, Deaths Head SS, &c &c would have accomplished a great deal of good. It does *sometimes* legitimize killing on a mass scale, just like *some* wars do.
But it wouldn't just be killing the baddies in Castle Wolfenstein. Your argument would apply to all employees of said 'bad' state. So, killing the hundreds (if not thousands) of cleaners in the corridors of the Kremlin would be morally justified, as it would disrupt the workings of the USSR.

You mean thou shall not committ murder? I see people have no concept of what its actual meaning is. It has nothing to do with executing a murderer.

aww, that's cute.

one problem though. That particular commandment has always been translated, in every english version as "thou shalt not kill".

Not "commit murder", kill. It has always been written as thou shalt not kill.

It takes a very slimey and pathetic individual to profess a faith while at the same time blatantly ignoring one of the core tenants of that religion and twisting it to justify his own hypocritical and disgusting bloodlust.

The fact that you would profess a faith while taking extraordinary efforts to intentionally ignore one of the very fundamental principles of that faith is, frankly, disgusting.

It takes a very slimey and pathetic individual to profess a faith while at the same time blatantly ignoring one of the core tenants of that religion and twisting it to justify his own hypocritical and disgusting bloodlust.

Well, I'm offended that you lump hypocrites in with the slimey and pathetic. We don't want their kind here. :p

aww, that's cute.

one problem though. That particular commandment has always been translated, in every english version as "thou shalt not kill".

Kill...murder..it is the same thing Neo Art. The bible I have says murder.

Not "commit murder", kill. It has always been written as thou shalt not kill.

Wrong! From the Bible I have right here in front of me. It says you shall not murder From The Holy Bible which is the NKJV translation.

Now that we settled that, it has nothing to do with executing criminals.

Finished with the rhetoric?


And does this somehow remove their status as human beings?


Some revolution.

I'd call it mass murder.


That's appalling.

Why should the life of an employee of the state be worth more than any other life?


So justice is reduced to a cost-benefit analysis, eh?


But it wouldn't just be killing the baddies in Castle Wolfenstein. Your argument would apply to all employees of said 'bad' state. So, killing the hundreds (if not thousands) of cleaners in the corridors of the Kremlin would be morally justified, as it would disrupt the workings of the USSR.

1) For the reasons already given

2) Is there something wrong with that kind of accounting? merit/demerit system, or, *fancy that* a scales is more accurate a characterization than cost/benefit.

3) Now you're arguing against a strawman.

At no point did I assert that all employees of a government are equally complicit in its wrongness. NKVD agents and deaths head SS were not janitors.

The extra good or bad attached to killing a state instrument person could easily be considered scalar, where in only a few cases does the good outweigh the bad, and this can be tied directly to the actions of the individuals who are killed, so that they are directly personally responsible for whether their death incurs merit.

For instance, a deaths head SS soldier has the opportunity to pursue another career, one where he isn't responsible for mass murder, and I cannot imagine the circumstances where a person might be forced to become an NKVD agent.

A janitor's job description does not include machine gunning people into mass graves or dragging them off in the night to be tortured.

A person's volitional complicity in what makes a bad government bad can be what the scale of merit/demerit is tied to.

Kill...murder..it is the same thing Neo Art
…
Now that we settled that, it has nothing to do with executing criminals.

So, executing someone is not killing them? How about that South Korean "executed" by the Taliban? That wasn't killing?
/real world events

A janitor's job description does not include machine gunning people into mass graves or dragging them off in the night to be tortured.

Maybe not your janitors… one hears stories… :p

So, executing someone is not killing them? How about that South Korean "executed" by the Taliban? That wasn't killing?
/real world events

Notice I said executing criminals. What the Taliban did was indeed murder.

Kill...murder..it is the same thing Neo Art. The bible I have says murder.



Wrong! From the Bible I have right here in front of me. It says you shall not murder From The Holy Bible which is the NKJV translation.

Now that we settled that, it has nothing to do with executing criminals.

you know, it's funny. First you were arguing that "OMG IT SAYS MURDER NOT KILL!" and now you say "kill...murder...it is the same thing"

As we both know, it's not the same thing, and murder quite literally means to kill a human being unlawfully. Now let's look at a few things here. According to the myth, god delivered the 10 commandments to Moses. And you are saying that one of those commandments is, and has always been "thou shalt not murder", aka "thou shalt not take a human life unlawfully".

God told moses to deliver the message that god tells you not to take a huma life unless sanctioned by law, to a nomadic tribal culture with no real legal or judicial system to speak of.

Right.

OK.

This whole "oh, it really says MURDER, not kill" crap is a recent invention by the right wing evengelical movement to satisfy their rampant bloodlust while at the same time trying to be pious "oh, it's ok to kill them, they're murderers...we think. Really, that's what it says, god is FINE with us shoving lethal poisons into someone's bloodstream because we managed ot convince 12 people that he killed someone. Really, it's ok!"

It is, as I have said, disgusting, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Notice I said executing criminals.

"Criminal" is a subjective term.

"Criminal" is a subjective term.

Now there I cannot argue with you.

This whole "oh, it really says MURDER, not kill" crap is a recent invention by the right wing evangelical movement to satisfy their rampant bloodlust while at the same time trying to be pious "oh, it's ok to kill them, they're murderers...we think. Really, that's what it says, god is FINE with us shoving lethal poisons into someone's bloodstream because we managed ot convince 12 people that he killed someone. Really, it's ok!"

Now tell me when this so called recent invention by right wing evangelicals came about.

It is, as I have said, disgusting, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Study theology.

Now there I cannot argue with you.

NMS for the touchdown! Whoo!
To be fair, I can sort of see why some support captial punishment, although I would never dream of supporting it myself. The problem is (aside from my opinion that it's immoral) that a corrupt state will easily take captial punishment much too far.

Study theology.

No thanks, I read a lot of mythology in highschool, I don't feel like wasting any time on those who pretend that it's real.

Besides, I don't have to. I study history, and the idea that God would command a group without any real concept of a judicial system not to kill unlawfully is laughable.

And to use such a blatantly slimy and hypocritical position is, as I said, disgusting, and you should be deeply ashamed.

This whole "oh, it really says MURDER, not kill" crap is a recent invention by the right wing evengelical movement to satisfy their rampant bloodlust while at the same time trying to be pious "oh, it's ok to kill them, they're murderers...we think. Really, that's what it says, god is FINE with us shoving lethal poisons into someone's bloodstream because we managed ot convince 12 people that he killed someone. Really, it's ok!"

Be realistic, Neo Art. That wasn't a recent invention. Only in geological terms! :D

NMS for the touchdown! Whoo!
To be fair, I can sort of see why some support captial punishment, although I would never dream of supporting it myself. The problem is (aside from my opinion that it's immoral) that a corrupt state will easily take captial punishment much too far.

Now there we can agree 100%.

Now there we can agree 100%.

Kids! Compromise and reach settlements: it's hip!

:p

No thanks, I read a lot of mythology in highschool, I don't feel like wasting any time on those who pretend that it's real.

That is fine but then, you will be ill equipped to discuss the matter of capital punishment in theological terms.

Besides, I don't have to. I study history, and the idea that God would command a group without any real concept of a judicial system not to kill unlawfully is laughable.

According to you at least. I disagree but then, we are both entitled to our own opinions.

And to use such a blatantly slimy and hypocritical position is, as I said, disgusting, and you should be deeply ashamed.

Why? For actually studying theology?

you know, it's funny. First you were arguing that "OMG IT SAYS MURDER NOT KILL!" and now you say "kill...murder...it is the same thing"

As we both know, it's not the same thing, and murder quite literally means to kill a human being unlawfully. Now let's look at a few things here. According to the myth, god delivered the 10 commandments to Moses. And you are saying that one of those commandments is, and has always been "thou shalt not murder", aka "thou shalt not take a human life unlawfully".

God told moses to deliver the message that god tells you not to take a huma life unless sanctioned by law, to a nomadic tribal culture with no real legal or judicial system to speak of.

Right.

OK.

This whole "oh, it really says MURDER, not kill" crap is a recent invention by the right wing evengelical movement to satisfy their rampant bloodlust while at the same time trying to be pious "oh, it's ok to kill them, they're murderers...we think. Really, that's what it says, god is FINE with us shoving lethal poisons into someone's bloodstream because we managed ot convince 12 people that he killed someone. Really, it's ok!"

It is, as I have said, disgusting, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

I don't know. I seem to remember that god was pretty keen on smiting and telling people to smite and such. And the dashing of the heads of babies upon rocks. So I can see where people get confused.

Not to mention the whole eternal hellfire thingy. Or the stoning/

According to you at least. I disagree but then, we are both entitled to our own opinions.

Of course you're entitled to your wrong opinion.

Why? For actually studying theology?

No, that just makes you silly and misguided. The fact that you pervert your so called faith to somehow make it seem like it supports killing people in direct opposition to one of its fundamental and core tenants is what makes you a disgusting and dispicable human being.

For the reasons already given
Round and round and round we go. :p

Is there something wrong with that kind of accounting? merit/demerit system, or, *fancy that* a scales is more accurate a characterization than cost/benefit.
A utilitarian-esque cost/benefit analysis of justice is completely impracticable, and leads to al sorts of bizarre conclusions. Is the policemen who is implicit in the crimes of his state, yet is nice to his granny and neighbours suddenly less worthy of death, for example? Utilitarian justice does indeed seem a nice, tidy concept. But, somewhat unfortunately, it is somewhat impracticable.

At no point did I assert that all employees of a government are equally complicit in its wrongness. NKVD agents and deaths head SS were not janitors.
No, but you did say that you would be justified in killing a policemen of the USSR because it would have "damaged the soviet justice system, society and rule of law". Surely damaging any employee of said state would damage the system?

God told moses to deliver the message that god tells you not to take a huma life unless sanctioned by law, to a nomadic tribal culture with no real legal or judicial system to speak of.

Of course, the command was part of the establishment of exactly that "legal and judicial system"... and while there are inconsistencies in the Bible, the inconsistency of commanding people not to kill and then commanding them to do exactly that repeatedly almost immediately afterward does seem a bit much.

And "tirtzach" is pretty reliably translated as "murder", anyway.

Of course you're entitled to your wrong opinion.

At least according to you but not to me.

No, that just makes you silly and misguided. The fact that you pervert your so called faith to somehow make it seem like it supports killing people in direct opposition to one of its fundamental and core tenants is what makes you a disgusting and dispicable human being.

At least I can say I actually study the bible and not denounce what is in it. You are forgiven and I pray that God will show you mercy on the day of judgement.

No, that just makes you silly and misguided. The fact that you pervert your so called faith to somehow make it seem like it supports killing people in direct opposition to one of its fundamental and core tenants is what makes you a disgusting and dispicable human being.

How does studying theology make you silly and misguided? Does studying fine art make you flakey? Does studying computer science make you nerdy? Does studying business make you sleazy? Are rhetorical questions far too abundant in this post?

At least I can say I actually study the bible and not denounce what is in it.

I have studied it, a great deal in fact. That's exactly WHY I denounce it.

You are forgiven and I pray that God will show you mercy on the day of judgement.

Awww, how sweet.

Here's my little opinion. I don't think I'll be needing it.

How does studying theology make you silly and misguided?

Well, let me clarify. STUDYING it doesn't.

BELIEVING in it does.

Well, let me clarify. STUDYING it doesn't.

BELIEVING in it does.

kthxbye.

Man, I am on a roll. :D

you know, it's funny. First you were arguing that "OMG IT SAYS MURDER NOT KILL!" and now you say "kill...murder...it is the same thing"

As we both know, it's not the same thing, and murder quite literally means to kill a human being unlawfully. Now let's look at a few things here. According to the myth, god delivered the 10 commandments to Moses. And you are saying that one of those commandments is, and has always been "thou shalt not murder", aka "thou shalt not take a human life unlawfully".

God told moses to deliver the message that god tells you not to take a huma life unless sanctioned by law, to a nomadic tribal culture with no real legal or judicial system to speak of.

Right.

OK.

This whole "oh, it really says MURDER, not kill" crap is a recent invention by the right wing evengelical movement to satisfy their rampant bloodlust while at the same time trying to be pious "oh, it's ok to kill them, they're murderers...we think. Really, that's what it says, god is FINE with us shoving lethal poisons into someone's bloodstream because we managed ot convince 12 people that he killed someone. Really, it's ok!"

It is, as I have said, disgusting, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

I think the 'murder' translation is more accurate in context, seeing that capital punishment is advocated in the OT. ;) Not that I don't love the outrage. :p

I think we should all respect each others beliefs and opinions and not flame each other. And by respect, I mean not call every other person's beliefs, which don't agree with your own, stupid/silly/retarded. Most of these replies seem to be just exchanges of attacks on ones beliefs, religious or political, based on the current argument.

The main disagreement here is between those who think capital punishment is immoral, and those who think it is justified. I do not, however, believe that it is a debate between your respective ideologies. Insults do nothing except show that you have no better argument at the moment, and also show that you don't respect others opinions. When you put out your opinion, generally you want others to take it and appreciate it as a stand alone argument, not dismiss it as just a bunch of garbage that a troll is trying to bait someone with.

I'm sure we could either come to a consensus, or at least have the decency to show a modicum of respect for each other and not insult anyone. As for your arguments, both sides have convincing ones, you just haven't got up from your flamefest to find them.

I've often flipped back and forth across the capital punishment fence. Usually, I'm against it, but I have felt justifications for it. Murder is not one of them. With the recent execution of that Food and Drug guy in China over corruption, I have started thinking again about capital punishment. As it is applied in the US, it's really only for murder. Arguments against it are strong: one doesn't really think about the consequences, it is more expensive (it actually is) than life imprisonment, it is cruel and inhumane (lethal injection is, in my opinion).

When one feels the need to kill, they are obviously pushed over the moral and psychological edge, so it's unreasonable to expect them to think about what will happen if they are caught. Murders are also hard to solve sometimes and people are often convicted on prejudices or the inability to get adequate defense.

Anyway, the crime the man in China was convicted of might actually be justifiable for the death penalty. Corruption, bribery, etc. involve more thought and the criminal is virtually always much more mentally sound when just lining their pocket. Therefore, it seems to me that the threat of death may actually work in crimes such as this.

Anyone agree, see my point...

PS: I also think the death penalty might be justifiable for poaching (animals not eggs) and destroying things like libraries.

I'm against capital punishment, because (in the US) it's cheaper to lock someone up for the rest of their lives, than to put them to death.

No, but you did say that you would be justified in killing a policemen of the USSR because it would have "damaged the soviet justice system, society and rule of law". Surely damaging any employee of said state would damage the system?

I didn't say you'd be justified, I said that to the extent that killing a policeman is a 'worse crime' than killing a non policeman, killing a soviet policeman could be a 'less-worse' crime.

You *could* be justified in killing a soviet policemen, but you are not necessarily justified.

There are surely some American policemen who deserve one in the back of the head, and plenty of soviet policemen who didn't deserve to die.