NationStates Jolt Archive

So, are you for aganst the death penalty (I get right to the point don't I?:) ). I have mixed feelings about the death penalty. On one hand, it dosen't bring the victim back, and what if an innocent man gets the death penalty and they don't find out till later. On the other hand, if you have no concience to speak of, then what are they gonna do after your in prison for life? Give you a few more years? You already have a life sentence! (Of course this dosen't apply to most people, but still). Also, are you gonna let a convicted murder who has a reputation for spreading unrest and starting riots into your prison? I've got mixed feelings and I'm waiting till I see some strong arguments on either side to choose. What about my fellow NSGers?

I'm very mildly for it. Not enough to really give a shit, but enough to think that death is more humane that life without parole. *nod*

I am all for it, it really is awesome when you think of it. An eye for an eye is so retro. And retro is so in right now. Staying with the trends FTW!

The most dangerous people should be kept alive so they can be studied by psychologists and even historians (think of Saddam, future historians would love to talk to him... but he's dead.)

Murdering people just plain isn't nice, it doesn't make anything safer, it doesn't make the criminal sadder, it doesn't deter crime, it doesn't do anything except satisfy someone's need for revenge.

I'm against on the grounds that it is foolish to entrust the state with powers of life and death.

I am astounded that the death penalty is still legal in any "civilized" nation on the planet.

It is ludicrous.

In theory I think some people should die for their crimes, but given how many people are wrongfully convicted I dont think the state should have that power.

There is a problem with 'punishment' for crime in general.
There shouldn't be any punishment, for a government should not have the right to limit a humans right (any right) if it isn't for the reason to protect other people's rights and freedoms.
'Punishment' is not the concept to go by. Rehabilitation and containment are the concepts.
A criminal should only be held imprisoned until he is no longer an immediate threat to other people's rights and freedoms.

Anything above this necessary containment is an arbitrary and baseless usage of the governments monopoly on violence. And Capital Punishment is the epitome of it.
A Government which deems itself high enough above it's citizens to decide whether they may or may not live is inherently oppressive.

considering it raises crime immediately after an execution, costs a huge amount of money and causes immense psychological harm

I think its rather barbaric to even consider such a policy especially as it says that basically society is going to just give up on a citizen (presumably because they are possessed by evil spirits or something)

I'm very mildly for it. Not enough to really give a shit, but enough to think that death is more humane that life without parole. *nod*

yes spending years knowing your going to die any day soon is a barrel full of monkeys

Against. People convicted to it are far more useful in "slave" labour.
Slaves with well vented rooms and some non-work time of course - but restricted to the prison and not receiving wages for their work.

With life imprisonment atleast they can build an almost "new life" albeit a sucky one.

Capital Punishment has been outdated for centuries. My mind is fucking blown that America is seriously so fucking stupid to still have the death penalty.

It is more expensive than even life without parole. It is less than a deterrent than life without parole. From a rational standpoint, it is therefore completely useless.

It is more expensive than even life without parole. It is less than a deterrent than life without parole. From a rational standpoint, it is therefore completely useless.

eh?

eh?

You fear death more than a life of imprisonment ? Why ?

eh?

Studies have repeatedly demonstrated that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent.

Studies have repeatedly demonstrated that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent.

I bet the rate of re-offense is astonishingly low though. ;)

Capital Punishment has been outdated for centuries. My mind is fucking blown that America is seriously so fucking stupid to still have the death penalty.

You say stupid, we say don't mess with Texas. And easy on the F bombs. Profanity is the crutch of those who have but the most elementary of vocabularies.

I bet the rate of re-offense is astonishingly low though. ;)

True - but it is still a waste of resources. The offender was fed, clothed, educated and so on for years - and then we just kill them ?

Seriously - let them work off their debt to society.

I'm for the death penalty.

I bet the rate of re-offense is astonishingly low though. ;)

You could say the same for life without parole.

True - but it is still a waste of resources. The offender was fed, clothed, educated and so on for years - and then we just kill them ?


China has a turn around rate of about a week, so the death penalty doesn't always have to waste a lot resources. Hell, I bet they don't even feed them during that week.

You fear death more than a life of imprisonment ? Why ?

I'm not sure that I do, but it's not like many people don't. The latter always has hope, but this is completely subjective anyway.

Studies have repeatedly demonstrated that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent.

Yes, yes, but less so than life without parole?

Against. People convicted to it are far more useful in "slave" labour.

doesn't that assumption completely ignore the history of indentured work? it was abolished in the civilized world for a reason

I bet the rate of re-offense is astonishingly low though. ;)

looking at the crime rate of US death penalty states vs non....zombies must clearly exist :p

China has a turn around rate of about a week, so the death penalty doesn't always have to waste a lot resources. Hell, I bet they don't even feed them during that week.

Unless you wish to convict children, they were still fed and provided for for at least 18 years.

Let them work. We currently outsource a lot of work to sweatshops - I daresay local prisons with unpaid workers would be more humane.

Death is very permanent. There's no way to fix it if you find out later you were wrong. I favor prison sentences of hard labor for those convicted of violent crimes. If there is any profit from the work, it can cover restitution to the victim or the victim's family and can cover the costs of housing and guarding the convict.

I wouldn't mind getting Joseph Duncan in the ol' electric chair though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III

I am astounded that the death penalty is still legal in any "civilized" nation on the planet.

It is ludicrous.

The hallmark of civilized nations is killing. How can you not know this?

Studies have repeatedly demonstrated that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent.

And the problem is?

It get rids of scumbags once and for all, satisfies the need for revenge, and sets and example-if rarely heeded example.

The only problem with it is that it takes too long to carry out, which makes it more costly.

Yes, yes, but less so than life without parole?

considering the death sentence is the only form of punishment still in use that has been shown to increase violent crime...

doesn't that assumption completely ignore the history of indentured work? it was abolished in the civilized world for a reason

No - it was moved to low wage countries. We still use it. No claim for moral superiority there is justified.

The hallmark of civilized nations is killing. How can you not know this?

odd I seem to remember civilization being formed on agriculture

It get rids of scumbags once and for all

instead of like giving them the help they need and stuff

satisfies the need for revenge, and sets and example-if rarely heeded example.

which has any reason to do so?

odd I seem to remember civilization being formed on agriculture That's one important feature. If you look at history, the most civilized nations are those with the most ways of killing people. Is that good or bad? Who knows!



instead of like giving them the help they need and stuff


The people on death row don't deserve help. They only deserve a bullet, a noose, or 1000s of volts of electricity.


which has any reason to do so?

Can you clarify your question?

When it comes to the death penalty my opinion is always divided. I´m in for those who commit a heinous crime to be punished accordingly. If a man kidnaps, rapes and kills a child, I feel like this person should get the death penalty. But then again, how would I feel if the person on death row happens to be a dear friend or a family member? So, I´m not sure.

I think only someone capable of murder is capable of excecution implying that it is one and the same thing.
Only evil or people lacking a moral compass[generally called evil or immoral anyway], would kill people espeically as a punishment, and death or body damage is a cruel and unusual punishment so is forced labour.

No - it was moved to low wage countries. We still use it. No claim for moral superiority there is justified.

1) penal servitude was abolished in many European states during the 18th century, so no it hasn't moved to "low wage countries" (which is odd to say because that would not effect its profitability or much else)

2) I suggest studying penal servitudes history before you go about advocating it but here is a snippet (that I had to type myself because the Internet is a POS when it comes to finding anything remotely useful:mad:)

Chain gangs became abolished (I'm using Frances experience here) due to violence erupting at the sites where it was taking place leading to an increase in the security required to protect both prisoners and the public eventually proving so costly, difficult and inefficient that it was eventually abolished for sheer cost (this is a typical case of what always happens when punishment is brought into the public eye, that violent mobs just emerge like magic)

now you could easily come back with "well what about the rope making in British prisons used during the time of Napoleon and such"

to which I would mention that this was not profitable in the slightest and was used as part of the insane punishments such as the wheel that where used during the day (oddly also abolished due to cost from the increased security needed from having unhappy prisoners and because suicide makes prisons look bad)

3) it worries me that I need to bring this up at this day and age

That's one important feature. If you look at history, the most civilized nations are those with the most ways of killing people. Is that good or bad? Who knows!

no its not, the age of the greatest scientific and culutral advancement took place during the Pax Britannica rather than from a set of barbaric warlords killing left, right and center

The people on death row don't deserve help. They only deserve a bullet, a noose, or 1000s of volts of electricity.

because they are evil demons or something I presume?

Can you clarify your question?

why would vengeance need to be carried out?

I´m in for those who commit a heinous crime to be punished accordingly.

any reason behind this?

I favor the death penalty with a few very steep regulations:

To be sentenced to death you must have directly, and purposefully, with the average person's understanding of what you were doing.

You must have been given a fair and speedy trial.

You must have been sentenced with almost complete certainty that you did what you did.

You must have been convicted using DNA evidence, video-tape evidence, or other evidence that directly and obviously proves your guilt.

There should be an appeals process, but it needs to be reasonably speedy, no hanging around death row for 10-20 years or more.


I think it is completely unjust to the victims and their loved ones that someone is able to duck an equal and reasonable punishment. If you steal, you are punished in a way that equals what you did, if you attack someone you must face punishment equal to what you did, if you kill it should be the exact same thing.

It won't bring the dead back, just like locking someone up for rape won't bring back that part of the victim's life. It isn't about fixing the past, it is about justice, it is about making people take responsibility for their actions.

I would like to know why it is unjust to execute a murderer, so long as that person actually did murder another human being. Remember, we have this thing called a "justice system", it is supposed to compensate the people hurt and affected by those that do harm and make those that do wrong face consequences equal in severity to their crime. How is it fair to them to let killers off the hook?



Oh, and by the way, I should clear up a couple misconceptions that I noticed on this board:

1. People who are put in prison for life do not commit crime.

That is patently false, prison life is well-known for violence, murder, rape, and other serious offenses. This is especially true for populations with absolutely no hope of getting out.

Putting people in prison for life is like telling them that there is no reason to do good, this puts themselves and other prisoners in danger. I don't see how this is any better than simply executing murderers.


2. States with high execution rates have high crime rates.

That's true, but it's taken out of context. It could just be that states with high violent crime (especially murder) rates have that tendency with or without the death penalty, and because of such violence the people have decided to put in place the death penalty in response. It isn't known how much higher the violence crime rates would be if the death penalty were eliminated, but in most states the death penalty is rarely, if ever, used.

Most states have the death penalty on the books, and taking a look comparatively at maps showing states with the death penalty and states without it looks as though there is no real correlation between the two concepts.

Now, this does help defeat the "deterrent" argument, but it isn't as if deterrent is the only reason to have these laws in place. If something is wrong it should be punished equal in severity to the wrong committed. I would assume most people believe in the concept of justice, of course.

I would like to know why it is unjust to execute a murderer, so long as that person actually did murder another human being. Remember, we have this thing called a "justice system", it is supposed to compensate the people hurt and affected by those that do harm and make those that do wrong face consequences equal in severity to their crime. How is it fair to them to let killers off the hook?

ah the old eye for and eye logic I don't think I need to bring up the statistics of how many people have risen back from the dead after an execution do I?

That is patently false, prison life is well-known for violence, murder, rape, and other serious offenses. This is especially true for populations with absolutely no hope of getting out.

this is also true of gangs in the outside world and is very much overblown (at least in Europe in the US its rather more shaky)

Putting people in prison for life is like telling them that there is no reason to do good, this puts themselves and other prisoners in danger. I don't see how this is any better than simply executing murderers.

1) prisons do have further methods for punishment along with rewards for good behavior

2) you don't do good because if you don't you will get in trouble or at least I hope you don't

3) so clearly what you would need to do is kill said prisoners instead of having a sentence that can be worked off with good behavior?

That's true, but it's taken out of context. It could just be that states with high violent crime (especially murder) rates have that tendency

for that to be true you would also need the odd connection that murder rates in all these states shoot up immediately after an execution due to some bizarre coincidence

If something is wrong it should be punished equal in severity to the wrong committed.

and the reason to do this is?

I would assume most people believe in the concept of justice, of course.

Justice involves righting a wrong, which is oddly what punishment never does and rehabilitation succeeds in doing oh so well (because helping an Axe murderer see what he has done and making sure he doesn't do it again is far more successful way of righting a wrong)

Justice involves righting a wrong, which is oddly what punishment never does and rehabilitation succeeds in doing oh so well (because helping an Axe murderer see what he has done and making sure he doesn't do it again is far more successful way of righting a wrong)

The only way to be absolutely sure that said axe murderer does not commit another murder is capitol punishment.

The only way to be absolutely sure that said axe murderer does not commit another murder is capitol punishment.

which is not actually what Justice is about :p

not that I won't feel the need to point out that studies show violence causes more violence:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterbrut.gif

I'm very mildly for it.

What, so we zap them with a toaster? :p

I'm very much against it. Killing is, quite simply, wrong.

which is not actually what Justice is about :p

not that I won't feel the need to point out that studies show violence causes more violence:

If violence causes more violence, then why is Singapore one of the safest countries in the world? They also, might I add, have one of the highest rates of execution in the world.

Personally I am in favour of the death penalty, if it is done in the manner that it is done in Singapore, swiftly and efficiently (with room of course if there is some doubt in some cases). The death penalty, if handled properly, should act as a good deterrent. The only reason why it doesn't act as a deterrent in the United States is because, essentially, it is a thirty-year prison sentence, with death attached to it. Also, it is far too kind; you don't actually know you are dying with a lethal injection - with a hanging, you know you are going to die.

If violence causes more violence, then why is Singapore one of the safest countries in the world? They also, might I add, have one of the highest rates of execution in the world.

1) safest is rather broad term, do tell me what you mean by safety so I can tear the argument apart with appropriate statistics

2) if we look at countries by per capita homicide rate we see something else

and for the fun: http://youtube.com/watch?v=k4L6-0WRfSA

Personally I am in favour of the death penalty, if it is done in the manner that it is done in Singapore, swiftly and efficiently (with room of course if there is some doubt in some cases).

too bad you seem to be basing your whole argument rests on one rich city state

The death penalty, if handled properly, should act as a good deterrent.

that is if this deterrent mentality actually works which as corporal punishment has shown it does not

it is far too kind; you don't actually know you are dying with a lethal injection - with a hanging, you know you are going to die.

ah so now we go onto torture as a means of justice, tell me then why it seems nations with less severe punishments like (I'll be kind) Canada have a lower per-capita homocide rate

or how about (as my previous posted source image shows) when the death penalty is stopped crime falls

If they are guilty, fry em.

If they are guilty, fry em.

sounds suspiciously like a McDonald's policy ;)

The people on death row don't deserve help. They only deserve a bullet, a noose, or 1000s of volts of electricity.


So there have never been innocent persons on Death Row?

When it comes to the death penalty my opinion is always divided. I´m in for those who commit a heinous crime to be punished accordingly. If a man kidnaps, rapes and kills a child, I feel like this person should get the death penalty. But then again, how would I feel if the person on death row happens to be a dear friend or a family member? So, I´m not sure.

This statement gets to the heart of the matter. Do we react with equal violence or do we react with compassion? If we loved all life as much as we love the life that we know intimately, we would be much more likely to react compassionately. We should remember that none of us are innocent, that all of us have caused pain and harm to other beings. Should we judge others in a harsher light than we judge ourselves or those we love?

This is not to say we shouldn't protect ourselves, but we must measure the cost of doing so. To isolate a person from society who is a physical threat to that society seems reasonable. Better yet would be to try to foster a spiritual change in that person so that his or her behavior would change. Reducing their fear and strengthening their compassion reduces our fear and strengthens our compassion.

Some people, like the leaders in our governments who decide to wage war, cause more suffering to more people than any individual serial killer or rapist or pedophile could possibly do in a full life time, yet we allow these leaders to remain free from punishment. In fact, we support heinous acts committed by groups (NationStates) when done to protect the group's interests or in retaliation for a perceived offense or to preempt a possible threat. Why is it that an individual who commits heinous acts and who is, at that time, more than likely operating from one of the same rationals, be punished, but the group isn't? Why is killing by group consensus, i.e. the death penalty, accepted, but killing committed by the individual condemned?

Punishment is about power and control and has nothing to do with justice. Had the Nazi's won WWII, the war-crime defendants at Nuremberg would have been Brits and Americans.

For. There are certain people, like it or not, who cannot be allowed to live in a civilized society, and prove this by their actions. Such people could either be incarcerated eternally or killed; I consider death to be the more merciful option.

Seriously - let them work off their debt to society.

Anytime I hear this phrase, "debt to society," it makes me wonder if the person using it would be cool with criminals just opting to pay a fee for whatever their crime was.

Seems like that's more or less how the system works anyway; the more money you have, the better legal defense you can afford, the better your chances of escaping real punishment are. So why not just officialize it?

In all cases I'm against the death penalty. It makes me sick to think of one human being thinking they have the right to end the life of another human being. And I know people say "Well then it's okay to kill murderers, as they've forfeited their right to humanity" but I disagree. When a government executes a murderer it brings itself down to the same level as them.

There is a problem with 'punishment' for crime in general.
There shouldn't be any punishment, for a government should not have the right to limit a humans right (any right) if it isn't for the reason to protect other people's rights and freedoms.
'Punishment' is not the concept to go by. Rehabilitation and containment are the concepts.
A criminal should only be held imprisoned until he is no longer an immediate threat to other people's rights and freedoms.

Anything above this necessary containment is an arbitrary and baseless usage of the governments monopoly on violence. And Capital Punishment is the epitome of it.
A Government which deems itself high enough above it's citizens to decide whether they may or may not live is inherently oppressive.I agree. Punishment should be done for a reason, and revenge is never a sufficient reason to hurt others.

When a government executes a murderer it brings itself down to the same level as them.

When a government takes away the freedom of a kidnapper, is it bringing itself down to the same level?

When a government takes away the freedom of a kidnapper, is it bringing itself down to the same level?

Good point. I'll have to respond that freedom and actual life are two different things. Prisoners still have civil rights though, and I agree with that.

I have friends who relish imagining getting all the incarcerated murderers, giving them all weapons, putting them in a rink together and watching them all kill and maim each other. They say this smiling.

I'm all for civil rights for prisoners, and I'm all for incarcerating them.

Good point. I'll have to respond that freedom and actual life are two different things. Prisoners still have civil rights though, and I agree with that.

I have friends who relish imagining getting all the incarcerated murderers, giving them all weapons, putting them in a rink together and watching them all kill and maim each other. They say this smiling.

I'm all for civil rights for prisoners, and I'm all for incarcerating them.

Freedom and life may be different (Patrick Henry and the State of New Hampshire might disagree) but one can hardly say freedom and civil rights are two different things. One might even say that the whole POINT of imprisonment is to strip prisoners of their rights, primarily that of personal liberty but certainly others as well.

Prisoners may have *some* rights but they are most certainly not equivalent to those of free citizens. So I ask again, is not the taking away those rights (the right of liberty; kidnapping) the same thing, regardless of whether the state or the criminal is doing it?

Ahh GT is back, I notice you never managed to respond to my earlier challenge, shall I repost it here?

Ahh GT is back, I notice you never managed to respond to my earlier challenge, shall I repost it here?

What are you even on about?

On one hand, it dosen't bring the victim back, and what if an innocent man gets the death penalty and they don't find out till later.

Also, the latter happens. I heard some time ago something about death penalty being "the perfect (that is, ultimate and definitive) product of an imperfect system (human justice and law)".


On the other hand, if you have no concience to speak of, then what are they gonna do after your in prison for life? Give you a few more years? You already have a life sentence!

Why should they give you anything more if you're already in prison for life? You're supposed to be unable to commit crimes when you're jailed.

Also, are you gonna let a convicted murder who has a reputation for spreading unrest and starting riots into your prison?
See 41.bis detention in Italy (harsh jail regime). Isolation etc. No need for killing.

The best argument I have against death penalty is this one:
Killing a man is homicide.
Homicide can be justified only when you have no other options to avoid innocent deaths, in an emergency situation (like a sniper firing at a crowd).
Once a criminal has been arrested and jailed, he's unable to threaten other lives (mostly... anyway that's what jails are for).
So, killing a person who has already been jailed is an unjustified homicide.
I don't want my State to commit unjustified homicides.

What are you even on about?

Oh just a little post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13348373&postcount=153)I made in a similar thread sometime. back. A post that, despite your frequent activity in the thread, you somehow never commented on, and ceased to post in that thread after I made it.

Now a more cynical person might suggest that, having no response to the challenge, you left the thread and pretended you never saw it, to avoid having to attempt a clumsy and inadequate defense to an indefensible position. But I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and belief that that you just oh so very coincidentally stopped posting in a thread you had been active in just before I posted that. So I'm gonna give you another chance right now. Feel free to respond to what I said earlier (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13348373&postcount=153)right now. I give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you did not hide away from my question with your tail between your legs, please, I would hate to have to reevaluate my position on that.

To give you, and those playing at home, let me give you once again the basic highlight of the question:

now I know I gave you a lot to chew on, so I'll let you take your time. Please, get back to me whenever you can, explaining to me how, as the death penalty is necessary for our society to function, Australia, Belgium, Bermuda, Canada, Denmark, France, Finland, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom are not functioning societies.

You'll forgive me of course, if I don't hold my breath.

Good thing for me I didn't.

Or to distill this even further, to take from a slightly later post of mine:

All I want a death penalty supporter to do is explain to me why we need the death penalty while at the same time 19 countries (actually, more than that, just those are the ones I picked) maintain developed nations, continued democracies, and functioning economies while at the same time having less murders, per capita, than we do.



Now would you care to addres sthat question this time? or are you going to pretend you didn't see it again?

Oh, damn. That's me being cynical isn't it?

Freedom and life may be different (Patrick Henry and the State of New Hampshire might disagree) but one can hardly say freedom and civil rights are two different things. One might even say that the whole POINT of imprisonment is to strip prisoners of their rights, primarily that of personal liberty but certainly others as well.

Prisoners may have *some* rights but they are most certainly not equivalent to those of free citizens. So I ask again, is not the taking away those rights (the right of liberty; kidnapping) the same thing, regardless of whether the state or the criminal is doing it?

Freedom of movement and Live are different in so far that limiting someones freedom of movement can be necessary to contain an socially incompatible person, while taking away a live is not necessary except in immediate defense situations.
So using the Capital Punishment is (grossly) disproportional use of force.

I feel that the death sentence should only be carried out if and only if, a person guilty of a violent felony continues to harm others while in prison. This alleviates many problems of the current death sentence; it prevents innocents from being executed, it will act as a deterrent, hopefully lowering prisoner on prisoner crime, and by the time a person has warranted the death sentence, the only other option would be solitary confinement, which would be worse than death.

Oh just a little post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13348373&postcount=153)I made in a similar thread sometime. back. A post that, despite your frequent activity in the thread, you somehow never commented on, and ceased to post in that thread after I made it.

Now a more cynical person might suggest that, having no response to the challenge, you left the thread and pretended you never saw it, to avoid having to attempt a clumsy and inadequate defense to an indefensible position. But I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and belief that that you just oh so very coincidentally stopped posting in a thread you had been active in just before I posted that. So I'm gonna give you another chance right now. Feel free to respond to what I said earlier (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13348373&postcount=153)right now. I give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you did not hide away from my question with your tail between your legs, please, I would hate to have to reevaluate my position on that.

Actually, I tend not to respond to you simply because you say this kind of stupid "LOL U RUNS AWAY WITH TAIL BETWEEN YOUR LEGS, I R TEH MANLY WINZ!" shit that's rather disgusting.

But it amuses me that apparently this has been a major issue for you ever since the last death penalty thread that you have to come blurting out here, seeking me out just so you can begin your pointlessly egotistical fap yet again.

I will do you the gracious honour of responding to your first linked post, and then you will do yourself the honour of claiming yet more victory and ultimate superiority and whatnot, and eventually I'll get tired of hearing it and then you can come at me in another half year or whatever to repeat the process.

No, not really, because, see, here we have a problem, you haven't actually demonstrated that the death penalty is in any way required of society. I think everyone here will agree that a society needs some form of punishment for crimes, that we require punishment for crimes,

I don't need to demonstrate that the death penalty is "required for society," because MY point was that you justify imprisonment because YOU BELIEVE imprisonment is required for society. This is the core - you accept injustice as long as you believe it necessary.

Well. So do I.

Now you want to argue about whose beliefs are CORRECT.... might as well piss in the wind. This is a death penalty thread. I am never going to share your beliefs and it's clear you're not going to share mine. My position, and it's far from indefensible (but you seem to have never understood it to begin with), is that our positions are not very much different at all.

Your argument is that not only does society require punishment for crimes, but society requires the death penalty. Now, there's a problem with this argument. Actually, a great deal more than just one problem. In fact, just to name twenty of them:

Oh well you know, laws protecting sexual or ethnic minorities aren't necessary for society, and here I'll just whip out a list of countries that do not have such laws, thus proving my point.

The death penalty isn't universally, absolutely required for the survival of any state. That it is was never my argument, and that it's demonstrably untrue doesn't even address my argument at all. Funny, you've been clinging to a strawman all this time... and apparently congratulating yourself for some sort of internet victory about it too...

Perhaps I'm blind but, living as I do in Massachusetts, I have yet to see society crumble around me because our state government decided to stop executing people.

And, as I note, the last time I checked, the governments of Australia, Belgium, Bermuda, Canada, Denmark, France, Finland, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom have yet to decend into anarchy.

So unless you're able to show me how these twenty nations, as well as the aformentioned 10 states, are on the brink of overthrow and about to be plunged into anarchy, your argument that the death penalty is somehow required for the function of society should, at the risk of being "punny", taken out back and shot.

Now, please, enlighten me, you say that implementation of your brand of "justice" would neuter our justice system and/or bring about anarchy, I have given you the perfect setup to prove your argument. I have listed twenty nations, and ten states.

Please, demonstrate for me how they are in anarchy. Tell me how I, right now, in Boston, am living in an anarchical state.

Here's your chance, redeam yourself. All you need to do is prove to me how these 20 nations have a "neutered justice system" and are on the brink of anarchy and you would have proven yourself and made me look the fool.

Hey, why don't you just go on a gigantic rant, repeating the same stupid strawman like a pompous fool, just sucking the desire of anyone to communicate with you at all?

And let me say that making you "look the fool" was not my argument, any more than that a lack of death penalty leads to anarchy. I said - and you damn well know it, unless you're illiterate or pretending to be dumber than you are - that a lack of justice system would lead to anarchy. Which was your OWN argument.

Now of course I believe the death penalty is necessary for justice. You believe the opposite. We will never consolidate this difference in belief. My only point was to show that you are just as callous as I to judicial error, errors that lead to pain, death and suffering, as long as you believe they are made in the pursuit of a good cause (i.e, justice).

Now, unfortunatly, we can't stop wrongful imprisonment, no matter how hard we try, it will never go away completely. We try very hard to prevent it, but we know it will happen and we can never, ever, stop it entirely.

We will, regretably, imprison the wrong people from time to time, that's unavoidable. We can, however, with absolute, 100% certainty, be completely sure we never again execute the wrong person, through one very simple method.

Don't execute anybody.

We can stop with 100% certainty wrongful imprisonment too. Don't imprison anybody!

But until then, there's going to be incidents of people being put into prison, even though they're innocent. Incidents of such people being mistreated, abused, raped, sent into suicidal depression and drug abuse, maybe even killed...

And you are fine with that. It's "regrettable." Pay lip service to their anguish, so you can get back to the meat of the matter - self-righteous indignation at how much abuse pro death penalty advocates are callous to the suffering of innocents. You're just as callous and you know it.

So, boo hoo. An innocent gets executed, occasionally. That's not morally worse than an innocent being ass-fucked for decade after decade.

Good thing for me I didn't.

Didn't you? Seems like you've been waiting with baited breath. Certainly you are apparently bothered by all of this a lot more than I am.

All I want a death penalty supporter to do is explain to me why we need the death penalty while at the same time 19 countries (actually, more than that, just those are the ones I picked) maintain developed nations, continued democracies, and functioning economies while at the same time having less murders, per capita, than we do.


Now would you care to addres sthat question this time? or are you going to pretend you didn't see it again?

Oh, damn. That's me being cynical isn't it?

That's not you being cynical, that's you hoping to annoy and bore people into "losing."

Your question is pretty silly. Obviously, we need the death penalty because, unlike those other countries, we have a high rate of violent crime. If perhaps we had the violent crime rate of Bermuda, we too could get away with their justice system.

Freedom of movement and Live are different in so far that limiting someones freedom of movement can be necessary to contain an socially incompatible person, while taking away a live is not necessary except in immediate defense situations.

Who came up with that rule? It's obviously contradictory. Human rights are optional, except the right to life? So what other rights can we just shit all over in the case of "socially incompatible persons?" Right to not get raped in the asshole, perhaps?

Furthermore if people really believed this whole "except in immediate defense situations" thing, how come no one (or at least no one sane) calls for the imprisonment of soldiers? In general. Or is that exception OK cuz of the "Well, it's still defense! even though we bombed their infrastructure, landed troops on their soil, overthrew their government and attacked their armed forces" defense.

To Call To Power:

Let me inform you of some glaring errors in your argument:

"ah the old eye for and eye logic I don't think I need to bring up the statistics of how many people have risen back from the dead after an execution do I?"

That is not an argument, that is a labeling what I believe in a negative way and attaching something nonsensical as if it actually refutes it.

"this is also true of gangs in the outside world and is very much overblown (at least in Europe in the US its rather more shaky)"

I think you ought to rethink that, at least in the United States. According to these graphs, there seems to be a rather direct correlation between prison violence rates and the U.S. execution rate:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/shipj.htm
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Death_sentences_United_States.png
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/exetab.htm

Prior to when the death penalty was in use, after its temporary cancellation by the U.S. Supreme Court, violence in prisons was 50 per 100,000 people, it is now slightly lower than the outside world's average ( I am not sure, however, if the average violent crime rate of the outside world includes prison violence statistics as well).

"1) prisons do have further methods for punishment along with rewards for good behavior

2) you don't do good because if you don't you will get in trouble or at least I hope you don't

3) so clearly what you would need to do is kill said prisoners instead of having a sentence that can be worked off with good behavior?"


1:I think you are sorely mistaken when you think human beings are motivated by petty "rewards" such as pats on the head, television time, and a piece of cake every now and again.

2: You, again, have no clue about human psychology. It's as if you think putting a kid in a corner for ten years will actually improve his behavior, especially when he knows he can never, ever leave that corner. Even if you might punish him further, what's the worst you can do, he or she is still a prisoner for the rest of their life.

People want to be able to express their freedom and individuality, so they tend to act out when in situations of oppression and extreme confinement.

3:I think it is absolutely sickening that you would allow someone who has murdered another human being off, under any circumstance. You are basically telling the dead and the dead's loved ones:

"Well, we know he viciously raped and murdered your daughter, but while in prison he was so nice that we decided to let him off".

Real progressive, sweetheart, real progressive.


"for that to be true you would also need the odd connection that murder rates in all these states shoot up immediately after an execution due to some bizarre coincidence"

I would like to see these statistics.


"and the reason to do this is?"

It's a philosophy; both of us are employing philosophies which we base our morals and values off of. Don't ask me for an objective basis when you don't have one either.

"Justice involves righting a wrong, which is oddly what punishment never does and rehabilitation succeeds in doing oh so well (because helping an Axe murderer see what he has done and making sure he doesn't do it again is far more successful way of righting a wrong)"

And you believe this why?

ahh, it's good to know so very little changes in this world

In principle, I am for the death penalty at the request of the victim. However, I believe that the death penalty, and indeed the current model of incarceration, is woefully uneconomic and simply imposes a burden on those forced to support it. Being a proponent of restitution as the basis of criminal punishment I think that murderers, rather than being executed, should be put to work with no restriction on their economic activities (prisoners are greatly limited in what they may do in prisons concerning their activities) to provide restitution for the victim on a for-profit basis.

The most dangerous people should be kept alive so they can be studied by psychologists and even historians (think of Saddam, future historians would love to talk to him... but he's dead.

You know, that's a really interesting outlook on the death penalty. I've never thought of anything like that before.

only for war crimes/genocide or other crimes against humanity.

only for war crimes/genocide or other crimes against humanity.and against the environment, ecosystems, and life on the planet

I'm all for the death penalty or we could just enslave people going on death row and forcew them to do do labor jobs and experiments on the themselves by doctors

It costs taxpayers 40,000 dollars a year per prisoner. Were paying for someone who harmed the community :headbang:, I believe the death penalty should be extended to drug dealers and abusers.

I'm all for the death penalty or we could just enslave people going on death row and forcew them to do do labor jobs and experiments on the themselves by doctors

Now there is a good idea :D, unfortunately the damn constitution gets in the way of that ;)

I'm pretty sure if they started draw and quartering again to rapest and child molesters they would think twice and that would lower the crime rate... or just go out and shoot people who pray on children and other helpless people.

and against the environment, ecosystems, and life on the planet

that is dumb. so people in logging companies and hunters should get the death penalty? What a great idea and next lets get the farmers and everyone one who drives a car cause they're polluting the environment and farmers kill cows and steer.:upyours:

that is dumb. so people in logging companies and hunters should get the death penalty? What a great idea and next lets get the farmers and everyone one who drives a car cause they're polluting the environment and farmers kill cows and steer.:upyours:

Excellent point.

I'm strongly against the death penalty for all manner of reasons. First and foremost in my mind is the idea of taking a life for the sake of revenge is abhorrent to me. We often need to imprison people for the sake of protecting the rest of society, but to actually take a life serves no purpose other that of revenge.

Given that a small percentage of people convicted of a crime will be innocent (can't be helped, nobody's perfect), could you in conscience say that to murder even one innocent person could be justified by killing of any number of guilty ones for no other purpose than revenge. Remember, at any stage of an innocent person's incarceration there is always a chance of exonerating them, obviously not useful option after we've killed them.

From a much more selfish point of view (the "people as commodities view"), each citizen of society has been invested in by the rest of society - to give them an education, keep them free of illness etc. - in order to create something useful which will contribute to society. They may end up mentally disturbed enough to become a horrible killer, but that doesn't mean there isn't anything useful mixed up with that. It's in our interests to do what we can to remove the danger from said people, and if we can be confident that they are no risk to others, release them back into society to justify the investment we've put into them.

If we start to take the eye-for-an-eye view, what then happens when the state murders an innocent man. Would his family then be entitled to call for the death of the state?

Who came up with that rule? It's obviously contradictory. Human rights are optional, except the right to life? So what other rights can we just shit all over in the case of "socially incompatible persons?" Right to not get raped in the asshole, perhaps?
All rights and freedoms of those who don't adhere to the rules can be limited if this is necessary to protect those who do.
Limiting the freedom of movement and the right to privacy is about the only thing I can imagine necessary in non-emergency situations.
There is no reason to infringe upon the right to live and the right of being protected from bodily harm if not for the reason to protect yourself or a third person from immediate harm.
It's as simple as that. Proportionality.


Furthermore if people really believed this whole "except in immediate defense situations" thing, how come no one (or at least no one sane) calls for the imprisonment of soldiers? In general. Or is that exception OK cuz of the "Well, it's still defense! even though we bombed their infrastructure, landed troops on their soil, overthrew their government and attacked their armed forces" defense.
Yeah, wait... are you aware WHY wars of aggression are tightly regulated by the UN, which is supposed to only allow such a thing in the case of immediate defense of the population of another sovereign nation?
Are you aware WHY every civilized nation went ape shit against the unilaterally declared War of Aggression from the US to the Iran?
Exactly, cause people DO believe in the principle of self defense, even on an international scale.
Soldiers are not allowed to shoot at unarmed or innocents either, and if they do, they ARE imprisoned (except if they are soldiers of the US, which still refuse to submit to the international court)

So why is it that when something in the world goes wrong, everyone looks for the U.S. to do something about it (including the UN)? But when we do go and do something to help another country, we are told to mind our own business?

All rights and freedoms of those who don't adhere to the rules can be limited if this is necessary to protect those who do.
Limiting the freedom of movement and the right to privacy is about the only thing I can imagine necessary in non-emergency situations.
There is no reason to infringe upon the right to live and the right of being protected from bodily harm if not for the reason to protect yourself or a third person from immediate harm.
It's as simple as that. Proportionality.



Yeah, wait... are you aware WHY wars of aggression are tightly regulated by the UN, which is supposed to only allow such a thing in the case of immediate defense of the population of another sovereign nation?
Are you aware WHY every civilized nation went ape shit against the unilaterally declared War of Aggression from the US to the Iran?
Exactly, cause people DO believe in the principle of self defense, even on an international scale.
Soldiers are not allowed to shoot at unarmed or innocents either, and if they do, they ARE imprisoned (except if they are soldiers of the US, which still refuse to submit to the international court)

Shhh, don't point out GT's inherent contradictory statements and poorly thought out positions. He might call you names and become pouty.

You say stupid, we say don't mess with Texas. And easy on the F bombs. Profanity is the crutch of those who have but the most elementary of vocabularies.

Sorry, I was using it as a "sentence enhancer". The death penalty is wrong on so many levels, and it really irks me that somewhere like America would still permit murdering a murderer. If you condone an eye for an eye you are a fool.

Against. People convicted to it are far more useful in "slave" labour.
Slaves with well vented rooms and some non-work time of course - but restricted to the prison and not receiving wages for their work.

Behold, the great-grandson of Lenin lives.....

seriously, i do agree with death for severe crimes, but other criminals can be useful slave labor

Just ask good old Lenin - his forced labor camps built:

9 new cities
12 railway lines
6 Heavy industry centers
3 hydroelectric station
2 highways
3 ship canals

all in the space of only 30 years

SLAVE LABOR FTW:D

I'm against it.

Pretty much every argument has been said, but what I believe personally is that killing is always wrong, whereas imprisonning someone isn't always wrong. It's as simple as that.

Even if there was any way killing could be "right", I sure as hell would not entrust such power to anyone.

I'm from Texas, so I am totally for it. And people saying that it gives the government the power over life and death and it's oppressive or some such thing are just dumb. It's not like the government is going around killing random people, they are killing people who deserve to die(and personally I think they still have a lot more to go).

Now I'm not here to try to change you mind, I'm not going to start spouting off a bunch of statistics or quoting some obscure book. I'm here to tell you my opinion. Of course somebody is going to think I'm an idiot, but everybody thinks everybody else is an idiot anyway so whatever.

I have seen some very good studies done by economists that the death penalty is an effective deterrent. But I voted against.

I'm from Texas, so I am totally for it. And people saying that it gives the government the power over life and death and it's oppressive or some such thing are just dumb. It's not like the government is going around killing random people, they are killing people who deserve to die(and personally I think they still have a lot more to go).

Now I'm not here to try to change you mind, I'm not going to start spouting off a bunch of statistics or quoting some obscure book. I'm here to tell you my opinion. Of course somebody is going to think I'm an idiot, but everybody thinks everybody else is an idiot anyway so whatever.

I totally see where you are coming from.

I'm from Texas, so I am totally for it.

On my short forum life, this is the stupidest sentence I have ever seen. It's like you're justifying your moral views with your place of birth. Correct me if that's not the case, because I feel like you have some mental problem.

The rest of your post, I would think it is trolling if you didn't write that sentence, though.

I'm from Texas, so I am totally for it. And people saying that it gives the government the power over life and death and it's oppressive or some such thing are just dumb. It's not like the government is going around killing random people, they are killing people who deserve to die(and personally I think they still have a lot more to go).

Now I'm not here to try to change you mind, I'm not going to start spouting off a bunch of statistics or quoting some obscure book. I'm here to tell you my opinion. Of course somebody is going to think I'm an idiot, but everybody thinks everybody else is an idiot anyway so whatever.

Didn't Texas put in a express lane? but I do agree with the death penalty but more for rapist and child molesters

Didn't Texas put in a express lane? but I do agree with the death penalty but more for rapist and child molesters

I strongly oppose the death penalty, I also even more strongly oppose the death penalty for rapists.

I'm against the death penalty, because bringing People to Justice is still, even with todays morern technologies available a human process.
And with that, comes Murphey's Law.

I find the risk, no matter how small, that Innocent People could be killed by a accident in justice far more unacceptable compared to sitting in jail for years, because then we could still compensate them for their lost lives.

that is dumb. so people in logging companies and hunters should get the death penalty? What a great idea and next lets get the farmers and everyone one who drives a car cause they're polluting the environment and farmers kill cows and steer.:upyours: That is not dumb at all. Why limit death penalty to crimes against humans? Are humans so special that harming them is the only deathworthy crime?

:upyours: That is not dumb at all. Why limit death penalty to crimes against humans? Are humans so special that harming them is the only deathworthy crime?

yes.

That is not dumb at all. Why limit death penalty to crimes against humans? Are humans so special that harming them is the only deathworthy crime?
Yep. Even then, they may not be worthy of death.

yes.no. that's just your anthropocentric arrogance.

no.

Yes.

that's just your anthropocentric arrogance.

That's just common sense that brings us to the belief that a human being is worth more than a rat.

I strongly oppose the death penalty, I also even more strongly oppose the death penalty for rapists.

AS bad as murder is, atleast its something the person mudered doesn't have to live with. If somebody is raped or molested, they have to deal with that for the rest of there life.

The death penalty is better than letting someone back out into the public who is a threat. But of course you have to decide which crimes will result in the death penalty.

And a human life is worth more than that of a worm's, a tiger's, or a panda's.

*snip*
And a human life is worth more than that of a worm's, a tiger's, or a panda's.

Not that I disagree, but every person that says that seems unable to say why.

And please don't say "intelligence" because that's an arbitrary criteria, that we could just as easily replace with "strength", "speediness", number of tentacles, etc.

AS bad as murder is, atleast its something the person mudered doesn't have to live with. If somebody is raped or molested, they have to deal with that for the rest of there life.

And it is for the victim that I say rape should not carry the death penalty.

Let's imagine a hypothetical world where killing someone is a crime that gets you executed. Let's also say that the nation also execustes people who hit strangers in the face with a trout. So murder gets you executed, hitting people in the face with a trout gets you executed.

Let's also say that, for whatever reason, I like to hit people in the face with trouts. For whatever reason it is, maybe I enjoy it, maybe I have no impulse control, maybe I just have a lot of anger, maybe it's pathological and I can't help it, but one day I come up to you and hit you in the face with a trout.

Now, after I've hit you in the face with a trout I come to the realization that you're probably going to go to the police. You're going to tell them I hit you in the face with a trout, you're going to give them a description, they're going to collect evidence, and they might find me. And if they find me, I get executed for hitting you in the face with a trout.

I then also realize that if I decide to kill you after I hit you in the face with a trout, you can't go to the police. You can't give a description. You can't testify against me in court. If I beat you to death after I hit you in the face with a trout, I'm far more likely to get away with it.

If I hit you in the face with a trout, and I get caught, I get executed. If I hit you in the face with a trout, then beat you to death, and I get caught, I get executed. After I hit you in the face with a trout, I can either let you live, or kill you. Either way, I get executed if I'm caught. If I kill you, I'm far more likely to get away with it, and I will suffer no further consequences should I get caught. So after I hit you in the face with a trout, I beat you to death, because that way I'm far less likely to get caught, and if I do get caught, I'm no worse off than if I let you live.

Because hitting you in the face with a trout carries the same penalty as death, all this does is encourage people who hit others in the face with trouts to kill them after they're done.

Now replace "hit you in the face with a trout" with "rape you" and you'll see my point. The only thing the death penalty for rape will do is encourages rapists to kill their victims. Is that something you want?

Yes.Prove it.

That's just common sense that brings us to the belief that a human being is worth more than a rat.Beliefs are irrelevant. Please prove that a human is worth more than a rat. And which scale of worth do you apply anyway?

Prove it.

Prove they're the same.

And it is for the victim that I say rape should not carry the death penalty.

Let's imagine a hypothetical world where killing someone is a crime that gets you executed. Let's also say that the nation also execustes people who hit strangers in the face with a trout. So murder gets you executed, hitting people in the face with a trout gets you executed.

Let's also say that, for whatever reason, I like to hit people in the face with trouts. For whatever reason it is, maybe I enjoy it, maybe I have no impulse control, maybe I just have a lot of anger, maybe it's pathological and I can't help it, but one day I come up to you and hit you in the face with a trout.

Now, after I've hit you in the face with a trout I come to the realization that you're probably going to go to the police. You're going to tell them I hit you in the face with a trout, you're going to give them a description, they're going to collect evidence, and they might find me. And if they find me, I get executed for hitting you in the face with a trout.

I then also realize that if I decide to kill you after I hit you in the face with a trout, you can't go to the police. You can't give a description. You can't testify against me in court. If I beat you to death after I hit you in the face with a trout, I'm far more likely to get away with it.

If I hit you in the face with a trout, and I get caught, I get executed. If I hit you in the face with a trout, then beat you to death, and I get caught, I get executed. After I hit you in the face with a trout, I can either let you live, or kill you. Either way, I get executed if I'm caught. If I kill you, I'm far more likely to get away with it, and I will suffer no further consequences should I get caught. So after I hit you in the face with a trout, I beat you to death, because that way I'm far less likely to get caught, and if I do get caught, I'm no worse off than if I let you live.

Because hitting you in the face with a trout carries the same penalty as death, all this does is encourage people who hit others in the face with trouts to kill them after they're done.

Now replace "hit you in the face with a trout" with "rape you" and you'll see my point. The only thing the death penalty for rape will do is encourages rapists to kill their victims. Is that something you want?

that is a good point but you don't think that there would be less rapist in the United States if a death penalty was carried with it?

that is a good point but you don't think that there would be less rapist in the United States if a death penalty was carried with it?

I have yet to see anything convincing that suggests that the death penalty is a proper deterrant. As such, because the results are inconclusive, at best the results would be only a minimal decrease in the amount of rape, but a noticeable increase in the amount of rapists who kill. I'm unsure if a minor decrease in rape is worth a noticable increase in rapists/murderers

I have yet to see anything convincing that suggests that the death penalty is a proper deterrant. As such, because the results are inconclusive, at best the results would be only a minimal decrease in the amount of rape, but a noticeable increase in the amount of rapists who kill. I'm unsure if a minor decrease in rape is worth a noticable increase in rapists/murderers


So its better to be raped and live then be raped and killed?

Prove they're the same.

Surely the burden of proof is on the person who wants to discriminate?

So its better to be raped and live then be raped and killed?

Considering most rape victims don't commit suicide after the fact, I would hazard to assume that they think living after a rape is better than not living after a rape. Who are you to speak for them?

I support the proposition that gets less people killed.

Surely the burden of proof is on the person who wants to discriminate?

The burden of proof is on the one who suggests existing legislation should be changed to demonstrate why it should be changed.

The burden of proof is on the one who suggests existing legislation should be changed to demonstrate why it should be changed.

Don't you find "This legislation has no rational reason to exist" a sufficient reason?

The burden of proof is on the one who suggests existing legislation should be changed to demonstrate why it should be changed.

What nonsense. The status quo does not get a pass at justification just because it is the status quo.

Prove that there is no relevant difference between blacks and whites... or straights and gays... or women and men....

Don't you find "This legislation has no rational reason to exist" a sufficient reason?

Only if there is no rational reason for its existance. I can think of several reasons why eatting a steak should not be considered murder

Any time there is a chance of rehabilitation we should not use the death penalty.

Therefore, it should only be used for serial killers (ie sociopaths) because it is psychologically impossible for them to be rehabilitated.

Only if there is no rational reason for its existance. I can think of several reasons why eatting a steak should not be considered murder

Ok, first, eating human is not considering murder either if you haven't killed said human.

Now , do tell me why killing a cow should not be considered murder, whereas killing a human should.

Now , do tell me why killing a cow should not be considered murder, whereas killing a human should.

Let me answer that question with a question. Have you ever taken an antibiotic? Do you deserve to be in prison?

Let me answer that question with a question. Have you ever taken an antibiotic? Do you deserve to be in prison?

Appeal to consequences and slippery slope. Nice.

What nonsense. The status quo does not get a pass at justification just because it is the status quo.

Prove that there is no relevant difference between blacks and whites... or straights and gays... or women and men....

Thats the way the world works however. If somethings a law, one who wants to change it must give reason why it should be changed.

If somethings a law, one who wants to change it must give reason why it should be changed.

Right, but the reason here, as Guibou noted, is obvious: "This law makes no sense, because it makes an arbitrary distinction."

The burden is on the defender of the distinction to show that it is not arbitrary.

Soheran, what the hell are you talking about?

If you say that all animals should be treated equally to humans you are talking about ALL animals, including bacteria, insects, spiders, snails, frogs, mosquitoes..etc..etc..

Let me ask you, why is it okay to kill plants and not animals?

Also, animals kill each other all of the time; are you going to start putting lions on trial? Why is it okay for animals to kill each other but humans aren't allowed to kill other animals?


But I will answer give you a few reasons why humans should be treated better than animals:

Humans have a duty to protect and honor other human beings for the sake of continuing our species and allowing it to prosper.

Humans are sentient, and sentient life is worth more than non-sentient life. Intelligence is valuable and must be protected.

Animal consumption is necessary for a healthy human existence; many nutrients cannot be obtained in sufficient quantities in plants.

It is impossible to go through life without killing a single animal; every single human being would be a murderer.

Appeal to consequences and slippery slope. Nice.

It is neither. Antibiotics have a specific purpose of killing bacteria. Their sole function is to kill living organisms. If that poster has ever intentionally taken an antibiotic, he has intentionally, willfully, and knowledgeably engaged in an activity the purpose of which is to kill living things.

Taking antibiotics is willfully killing billions of organisms. If he feels that he does not deserve to be in prison, then he feels that this act, this willful killing of billions of individual living organisms is not a criminal act, nor should it be a criminal act. If he feels that he did nothing wrong, than he must obviously feel that killing some living things is not a moral wrong.

If he's comfortable with the killing of some living organisms, feels no moral qualms or issues with killing billions of lives, he clearly values some types of life higher than others. And once we admit that not all life is equal, and killiong biollions of lives should not be a criminal offense if those lives are bacteria, then we've already conceded that simply taking a life should not be criminal, and it depends on what kind of life you take.

From there it merely becomes a matter of placing a line, and I place that line on creatures capable of self awareness, intellect and rationality. To claim I shouldn't place that kind of line is hypocrtical and intellectually dishonest, since nobody here seems to cry out in defense of those poor defenseless bacteria wiped out by a dose of penicillin.

If it is an insanely brutal and haneous crime, then it is too quick.

I strongly oppose the death penalty, I also even more strongly oppose the death penalty for rapists.

so by saying "let rapists live" you mean, let them either go free to rape more, or go free to become a social outcast as a registered sex offender that no-one wants anything to do with?

I say give the 'russian treatment' to sex offenders, put them into regular prisons, and tell the other inmates exactly what they did

'prison justice' is such a sweet indirect death sentence that the courts can get away with

Now , do tell me why killing a cow should not be considered murder, whereas killing a human should.Anthropocentrism.

Anthropocentrism.

I'll ask you too, ever take an antibiotic? Ever swat a mosquito? Ever use bug spray?

Are you aware of the fact that in the time it's taken me to type this post your immune system has killed more living organisms than there are people on the planet?

*snip*
But I will answer give you a few reasons why humans should be treated better than animals:

Humans have a duty to protect and honor other human beings for the sake of continuing our species and allowing it to prosper.

Humans are sentient, and sentient life is worth more than non-sentient life. Intelligence is valuable and must be protected.

Animal consumption is necessary for a healthy human existence; many nutrients cannot be obtained in sufficient quantities in plants.

It is impossible to go through life without killing a single animal; every single human being would be a murderer.

At last, someone who answers!

1) Where does that duty come from? Instinct =/= duty!

2) You choose sentience as a criteria. Why not beauty, strength, or whatever? Again, you're just using your instinct here.

Edit: I'm sorry I got carried away. That should read: You choose intelligence as a criteria.

3) We can survive without eating animals. But hey, if you say the veggies out there are fakes, who am I to say otherwise?

4) Just because it is impossible never to do so does not mean we should be doing it on purpose. It is impossible not to get hurt in your life, so we should go around hurting each other? That's the right thing to do?

If it is an insanely brutal and haneous crime, then it is too quick.

Death Sentence too quick?

182BLINK182AWA, i promote you to torturer general

*puts 182BLINK182AWA into a KGB uniform and hands him a set of 'punishment' tools*:D

If you say that all animals should be treated equally to humans

Straw man. I merely insist that those who want to make a distinction actually provide a justification.

Let me ask you, why is it okay to kill plants and not animals?

Easy. Plants aren't sentient.

Also, animals kill each other all of the time; are you going to start putting lions on trial?

Let's say that the positions you have imputed to me are actually mine (they aren't), and that putting animals on trial would actually follow from them (it wouldn't).

So what? Say I say yes, we should put animals on trial. What does it prove?

But I will answer give you a few reasons why humans should be treated better than animals:

Finally!

Humans have a duty to protect and honor other human beings for the sake of continuing our species and allowing it to prosper.

You're begging the question. The whole point is that the species distinction is arbitrary. What's so special about being part of the human species?

Humans are sentient, and sentient life is worth more than non-sentient life.

Agreed. Of course, a wide variety of animal life is sentient, too.

Intelligence is valuable and must be protected.

Why is that?

Animal consumption is necessary for a healthy human existence;

First, no, it isn't, and second, not in anywhere close to the quantities we have.

many nutrients cannot be obtained in sufficient quantities in plants.

The simple fact is that there are millions of healthy vegetarians, and not just in developed countries either.

Easy. Plants aren't sentient.

Funny how you were complaining about "arbitrary distinctions" early. How is "sentient" life any more an arbitary distinction than "human" life?

4) Just because it is impossible never to do so does not mean we should be doing it on purpose. It is impossible not to get hurt in your life, so we should go around hurting each other? That's the right thing to do?

Death Sentences may be harsh, but consider it this way

By removing a problem person from society, such action ends with that the person can no longer cause further harm

think of a death sentence as Chemotherapy for society - just like chemo, it may have bad side effects, but they go away and the end result is a better choice than having the cancer remain

It is neither. Antibiotics have a specific purpose of killing bacteria. Their sole function is to kill living organisms. If that poster has ever intentionally taken an antibiotic, he has intentionally, willfully, and knowledgeably engaged in an activity the purpose of which is to kill living things.

I thought you were referring to animal testing. This argument is, admittedly, not an appeal to consequences (as much, anyway)--it's just a slippery slope.

And once we admit that not all life is equal, and killiong biollions of lives should not be a criminal offense if those lives are bacteria, then we've already conceded that simply taking a life should not be criminal, and it depends on what kind of life you take.

That's right. Thankfully, virtually everyone admits this. Your argument assumes that anyone who questions putting the line where you do actually opposes any line at all. Slippery slope.

From there it merely becomes a matter of placing a line, and I place that line on creatures capable of self awareness, intellect and rationality. To claim I shouldn't place that kind of line is hypocrtical and intellectually dishonest, since nobody here seems to cry out in defense of those poor defenseless bacteria wiped out by a dose of penicillin.

Again, slippery slope. Just because we don't agree with your criteria--this is, of course, the first time you've provided us with them--doesn't mean we reject any criteria at all.

What's so special about self-awareness, intellect, and rationality? Can we torture mentally disabled humans that lack some of those traits? What about infants?

How is "sentient" life any more an arbitary distinction than "human" life?

Are you for real?

It's the difference between suffering and lack of suffering.

Death Sentences may be harsh, but consider it this way

By removing a problem person from society, such action ends with that the person can no longer cause further harm

think of a death sentence as Chemotherapy for society - just like chemo, it may have bad side effects, but they go away and the end result is a better choice than having the cancer remain

It also ends ends with that the person can no longer do further good. The same logic applies to everyone, not just prisoners. Persons aren't in themselves problems, they have problems. The cells you talk about ARE problems. They will never change behavior, not matter what you do.

Are you for real?

It's the difference between suffering and lack of suffering.

and where did I ever claim that causing animals to suffer shouldn't be a criminal offense?

Did you forget the topic of the thread? I never said that causing suffering to animals should not be punishable. I said that killing of animals is not, and should not be, legally equivalent to killing humans. I challenged the assumption that crimes against "the enviornment" should be worthy of the death penalty.

If I shoot you in the back of the head, you die without suffering, yet I have commited murder. Should my punishment be the same if I shot a cow in the back of the head and killed it, without suffering? Not at all.

Should needlessly causing pain in animals be punishable? of course. But should animals be afforded the same legal protections as people? No.

The death penalty is excessively costly, it is an irreversible punishment, it is, at best, morally questionable, and given that any human legal system is anything but infallible, it is unacceptable.

Further, the greater punishment would be to allow a prisoner to rot in his or her cell for life, for crimes they have committed. An existence of dull drudgery, intense boredom, rigid routine, and insufferably restricted freedom. There does seem a significantly greater degree of justice in this deal, made all the sweeter given that the convicted might someday repent for what they have done, and bring a more just balance to the world.

The death penalty is less just than the alternatives, and the risk for error is, quite simply, too ghastly to comprehend.

If I shoot you in the back of the head, you die without suffering, yet I have commited murder. Should my punishment be the same if I shot a cow in the back of the head and killed it, without suffering? Not at all.

Finally, you actually make a good point. This is where the distinction between persons and non-persons might actually have merit, because of exactly what you say: suffering (simple sentience) isn't the issue.

But you haven't yet met the original challenge, because you still haven't actually provided any support for the distinction. Strange, for something that's so clearly "common sense."

If I shoot you in the back of the head, you die without suffering, yet I have commited murder. Should my punishment be the same if I shot a cow in the back of the head and killed it, without suffering? Not at all.Why not at all? Is a cow's desire to live less than that of a human? You take the freedom to determine which species is more valuable? Based on what authority? Except your might to force your arbitrary evaluation of life onto the other species?

In short:


People are wrongfully convicted
That would mean killing innocents
Unacceptable
View every other thread on this subject

Why not at all? Is a cow's desire to live less than that of a human? You take the freedom to determine which species is more valuable? Based on what authority? Except your might to force your arbitrary evaluation of life onto the other species?

I'll ask you again, have you ever taken an antibiotic? If so you clearly made a determination that your life was worth more than the life of the millions of bacteria that died as a result.

On what authority did you determine that your life was worth more than the billions of bacteria you killed? On what authority do you determine that your ongoing life is worth more than the million sof lives your immune system snuffs out of existance every day of your life?

On what authority do you continue to live at the expense of billions of living organisms?

do you guys have any idea how expensive it is to put a man to death in humane way now a days, too much, in my opinion it should be like the old days where being imprisoned meant working for society instead of just being locked up and dying slowly inside. its cruel and economic, but the alternative is costly and it helps no, one.

and if it had to be an eye for an eye, then the victim or victims relatives should have the honor of looking the perpetrator straight in the eyes and kill another human being with their bare hands, while looking them straight in the eyes....cost efficient and abhorrent

That's just common sense that brings us to the belief that a human being is worth more than a rat.

I'm not sure it is common sense as much as it is perspective. Rats (and everything else that has self awareness) might feel their being is of the utmost importance. But no matter how we feel, life is a temporary state of being; eventually all individual life forms must die. This is the reality of form; it is ever changing.

Death is not the issue. The reason for and the way of death are the issues. All sentient life seeks pleasure and seeks to avoid pain. Humans are conscious of cause and effect, also referred to as Karma. In this world of change, our present thoughts and actions determine our future thoughts and actions. Violence is followed by revenge, revenge is followed by pain, pain is followed by violence. All parts of the cycle are imbued with suffering. Compassion is followed by tolerance, tolerance is followed by peace, peace is followed by compassion. All parts of the cycle are imbued with happiness.

As beings with the ability to make choices, which of those two hamster wheels do we prefer to travel on?

I’m not sure it is common sense as much as it is perspective. Rats (and everything else that has self awareness) might feel their being is of the utmost importance.
As Spinoza says, if a rock gained sentience just as it was thrown up in the air, it would assume it could fly.

Easy. Plants aren't sentient.

Plants respond to stimuli. They also have a rudimentary chemical nervous system. It's entirely possible that plants are sentient.

If you have a death penalty, then no matter how good your justice system, or how many caveats you put on the death penalty, somewhere along the line an innocent person will be executed. I wouldn't shed a tear over the execution of the guilty, but the execution of the innocent is something I cannot accept.

So I'm against it.

So, are you for or against the death penalty.

In theory I'm for it, in practice opposed.

America's government is so debauched I wouldn't dream about putting the decision of life or death in their hands. They are already murdering thousands in the east, why must it be done in the homeland?

I'll ask you again, have you ever taken an antibiotic? If so you clearly made a determination that your life was worth more than the life of the millions of bacteria that died as a result.

On what authority did you determine that your life was worth more than the billions of bacteria you killed? On what authority do you determine that your ongoing life is worth more than the million sof lives your immune system snuffs out of existance every day of your life?

On what authority do you continue to live at the expense of billions of living organisms?


I'll point out first of all I have no problem with purposefull killing of animals/plants. However the argument in favour which makes the comparison with taking antibiotics is flawed. Taking antibiotics would be classed as direct self defence. The bacteria is in the process of harming you physically and in some cases killing you. If something was available that allowed you to remove each bacterium and gently let it run free in the back yard, and yet you chose to use antibiotics then this would be the same as choosing to kill animals for food.

In principle, I am for the death penalty at the request of the victim.

Oooooooooooooooooooooooooh-kay . . .

Know a lot of good mediums, do you?

1) penal servitude was abolished in many European states during the 18th century, so no it hasn't moved to "low wage countries" (which is odd to say because that would not effect its profitability or much else)

2) I suggest studying penal servitudes history before you go about advocating it but here is a snippet (that I had to type myself because the Internet is a POS when it comes to finding anything remotely useful:mad:)

Chain gangs became abolished (I'm using Frances experience here) due to violence erupting at the sites where it was taking place leading to an increase in the security required to protect both prisoners and the public eventually proving so costly, difficult and inefficient that it was eventually abolished for sheer cost (this is a typical case of what always happens when punishment is brought into the public eye, that violent mobs just emerge like magic)

now you could easily come back with "well what about the rope making in British prisons used during the time of Napoleon and such"

to which I would mention that this was not profitable in the slightest and was used as part of the insane punishments such as the wheel that where used during the day (oddly also abolished due to cost from the increased security needed from having unhappy prisoners and because suicide makes prisons look bad)

3) it worries me that I need to bring this up at this day and age



no its not, the age of the greatest scientific and culutral advancement took place during the Pax Britannica rather than from a set of barbaric warlords killing left, right and center



because they are evil demons or something I presume?



why would vengeance need to be carried out?



any reason behind this?

Because sometimes the system´s too lax when it comes to administer punishment. How can a judge sentence a man that killed his entire family to 20 years to life in prison and just because this man has excellent behavior he can get out after serving only 6 years? Is it fair to the memory of the family that was brutally murdered or to the survivors of such a horrible crime? I don´t think so.

But as I wrote before, my opinion on the death penalty is divided because I don´t know if I would like to see a friend or a family member on death row.

China has a turn around rate of about a week, so the death penalty doesn't always have to waste a lot resources. Hell, I bet they don't even feed them during that week.

and I bet the never execute someone who was innocent....

Reason it takes so long, is for the massive process of checking to make sure you've got the right guy.

And they still manage to execute a scary number of innocents. (that we know about now- then there must be more we don't know about, logically)

and I bet the never execute someone who was innocent....

Reason it takes so long, is for the massive process of checking to make sure you've got the right guy.

And they still manage to execute a scary number of innocents. (that we know about now- then there must be more we don't know about, logically)

And that right there would be why, in practice, I'm opposed to the death penalty.

seriously.
To justify taking a life implies such confidence in the absolute correctness of the judge-ee's (all those who have judged them to deserve death) opinions and morals... how can anyone be so up themselves?
how can anyone put a value to human life? to say 'this crime means you deserve to die', 'this crime doesn't'.
And you are so sure that you are right, that you would take a life? Think of everything a human life is. And how totally irrevocable the decision to delete that life is.
Think about your opinions. You think 'this' is bad, 'that' is good, 'this person is bad', 'this person is good'. You read the newspapers, you form opinions.
In other words, you take the evidence presented to you, and you judge people. If the newspapers say 'xxx' has done 'xxx' you judge them as a certain degree of bad person (usually, because the newspapers rarely tell you about people doing good things).
Often, people may call for someone who has done something really bad, to be executed. Yes, even in Britain.
Yet not all people will agree with your judgement that their crime deserves this.
what I ask is... Who are you? Who are you, to judge that someone else should die? To say, I have decreed that you can no longer live? To give yourself, the importance, the moral absolute correctness, the powers of judgement and perceptiveness, that you can take something so great?
If I believed in God, I would say that only God would be able to make that choice- he is the only one with the absolute moral code and clear perception, who can choose this.
As I don't believe in God, I say the death penalty should be illegal in all developed nations.
Besides- laws are meant to keep people from doing anything that negatively effects other people beyond a certain 'tolerated' point- they are not meant to get revenge for crimes commited. The punishment is there as a deterrent, not revenge.

I'll ask you again, have you ever taken an antibiotic? If so you clearly made a determination that your life was worth more than the life of the millions of bacteria that died as a result.
You forget they aren't sentient...

Oops wait, whose definition of sentient and where do you draw the arbitrary line? :D

Because sometimes the system´s too lax when it comes to administer punishment. How can a judge sentence a man that killed his entire family to 20 years to life in prison and just because this man has excellent behavior he can get out after serving only 6 years? Is it fair to the memory of the family that was brutally murdered or to the survivors of such a horrible crime? I don´t think so.

But as I wrote before, my opinion on the death penalty is divided because I don´t know if I would like to see a friend or a family member on death row.

because laws are there to protect people, not to get revenge after a crime has been commited.

If someone commited murder, and was sentenced to 20 years, but then (magically ;p ) the judge was able to be 100% sure that the man would never commit another crime, and that his release would not in any way make it more likely for anyone else to commit murder (ie because of lack of deterrent) is it really right to keep him in prison? destroy one life to pay back another? an eye for an eye makes no sense. and at the end of the day the family of the victim will feel no solace if the guy is behind bars, or even if the guy is executed. They will feel some... bitter part of themselves, satisfied. But it won't actually lessen the hurt at losing someone close to you.

All it does is destroy a second life.

At first, you do not think about the murderer as someone who matters.
but then you think about their family, their friends, their wife and children. You remember that this was a person- someone who loved, and laughed. Someone who had a life OTHER than murder. Just because someone murders, does not mean their life is worthless. If you knew them personally you would know this, and would think that it mattered if they were in prison even if they would not reoffend.

If you are talking about whether it's 'fair' to the family of the victim, then that would mean, logically, that someone who murdered a homeless guy with no friends or family would recieve a lighter sentence than someone who murdered a father of 3 kids with a close .. close family. That is clearly not a justice system we'd want.

Oh and... life isn't fair. Which is a shame, but also true. And as far as I can see, there's no way it ever can be.

because laws are there to protect people, not to get revenge after a crime has been commited.

If someone commited murder, and was sentenced to 20 years, but then (magically ;p ) the judge was able to be 100% sure that the man would never commit another crime, and that his release would not in any way make it more likely for anyone else to commit murder (ie because of lack of deterrent) is it really right to keep him in prison? destroy one life to pay back another? an eye for an eye makes no sense. and at the end of the day the family of the victim will feel no solace if the guy is behind bars, or even if the guy is executed. They will feel some... bitter part of themselves, satisfied. But it won't actually lessen the hurt at losing someone close to you.

All it does is destroy a second life.

At first, you do not think about the murderer as someone who matters.
but then you think about their family, their friends, their wife and children. You remember that this was a person- someone who loved, and laughed. Someone who had a life OTHER than murder. Just because someone murders, does not mean their life is worthless. If you knew them personally you would know this, and would think that it mattered if they were in prison even if they would not reoffend.

If you are talking about whether it's 'fair' to the family of the victim, then that would mean, logically, that someone who murdered a homeless guy with no friends or family would recieve a lighter sentence than someone who murdered a father of 3 kids with a close .. close family. That is clearly not a justice system we'd want.

Oh and... life isn't fair. Which is a shame, but also true. And as far as I can see, there's no way it ever can be.

No shit Sherlock.
And you obviously haven´t been reading my posts to answer with this testament. The justice system doesn´t always work. Death penalty relative. Let me explain:

If your best friend (God forbid) is killed and the killer caught, he faces the death penalty if found guilty, wouldn´t you be alright if he gets it? Now, what if this killer happens to be your own father? How would you feel if he get the death penalty? I would absolutely hate it if one of my loved ones is on death row. That´s why my opinion on this sentence is and will always be divided.

In practice, I oppose it. In theory, I support it for poaching, corruption, bribery, and arson committed against certain buildings (libraries, etc...).

No shit Sherlock.
And you obviously haven´t been reading my posts to answer with this testament. The justice system doesn´t always work. Death penalty relative. Let me explain:

If your best friend (God forbid) is killed and the killer caught, he faces the death penalty if found guilty, wouldn´t you be alright if he gets it? Now, what if this killer happens to be your own father? How would you feel if he get the death penalty? I would absolutely hate it if one of my loved ones is on death row. That´s why my opinion on this sentence is and will always be divided.

Correct, I only read the OP and a few posts on that page, and the posts on this page.

No, if my best friend was murdered, I would not want the death penalty for the murderer.

Thought that was pretty clear from what I said... :/

Correct, I only read the OP and a few posts on that page, and the posts on this page.

No, if my best friend was murdered, I would not want the death penalty for the murderer.

Thought that was pretty clear from what I said... :/

I know you were clear on your assertions. As I was in my ambiguity in regards to the death penalty. I understand it´s inhumane quality, as I understand that some people would clamor for it according to a crime. I don´t know if I would, mainly because I wouldn´t want to see a loved one on death row.

What I´m trying to say is that I put myself on the position of both the victim´s family and the criminal´s family.

I know you were clear on your assertions. As I was in my ambiguity in regards to the death penalty. I understand it´s inhumane quality, as I understand that some people would clamor for it according to a crime. I don´t know if I would, mainly because I wouldn´t want to see a loved one on death row.

What I´m trying to say is that I put myself on the position of both the victim´s family and the criminal´s family.

yes, I see that, but I would think it was obvious that the victims family are likely to think the death penalty is appropriate, and the murderers family are likely to disagree.
What I'm saying is that the law has no real relation to such emotions- it's not the laws jobs to appease them.

yes, I see that, but I would think it was obvious that the victims family are likely to think the death penalty is appropriate, and the murderers family are likely to disagree.
What I'm saying is that the law has no real relation to such emotions- it's not the laws jobs to appease them.

Unfortunately the judicial system, our laws, are the ones that deal with this sort of thing. And it´s unfortunate that it´ll be up to it to decide the fate of a human being.

These threads always remind me of this story. (http://www.classicreader.com/read.php/bookid.240/sec./)

For. I see no logical reason for keeping someone in prison for life without parole. If you're never going to let them see the light of day then put them out of their misery. It's a waste of both prison space and funding to keep them around. Funding that can be better used housing criminals that don't earn such a harsh sentence for themselves.

Also, it's plain rediculous how people who DO get a death sentence can avoid the executioner by being too sick or too old to be executed. Is it just me or is it only natural to die when you're too sick or too old?

For. I see no logical reason for keeping someone in prison for life without parole. If you're never going to let them see the light of day then put them out of their misery. It's a waste of both prison space and funding to keep them around. Funding that can be better used housing criminals that don't earn such a harsh sentence for themselves.

Also, it's plain rediculous how people who DO get a death sentence can avoid the executioner by being too sick or too old to be executed. Is it just me or is it only natural to die when you're too sick or too old?

didn't someone already say that it costs more to execute than to imprison? (this seems likely to me)
also, before you say that life imprisonment is worse than death, ask the prisoners what they'd choose... the ones who are in there for life.

I'm from Texas, so I am totally for it. And people saying that it gives the government the power over life and death and it's oppressive or some such thing are just dumb. It's not like the government is going around killing random people, they are killing people who deserve to die(and personally I think they still have a lot more to go).

Now I'm not here to try to change you mind, I'm not going to start spouting off a bunch of statistics or quoting some obscure book. I'm here to tell you my opinion. Of course somebody is going to think I'm an idiot, but everybody thinks everybody else is an idiot anyway so whatever.I'm from Texas, and I don't agree with you at all. Clearly it's not being in Texas that made you "totally for it." I am curious if you support this statement: "revenge is intrinsically wrong." Because that's all the motivation I see in the death penalty. Revenge. It doesn't look so pretty when it's not dressed up in words like "justice" and "deserved."

"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends." - Tolkien

Too many are too free with lives not their own.

Too many think that by stealing justice from the innocent that they are doing good.

Sure, you save good men and women from the chair, but most people on death row probably should be there.

If you let the guilty go without paying their full debt you are cheating the innocent, I don't see how you can take such a lofty moral high-ground, it's as if you don't care about anyone but the criminals.

I am all for criminal rights, they are people to, but they must pay their full debt to society and to those they harmed, that's justice.

why would vengeance need to be carried out?


Why would vengeance not need to be carried out?


So there have never been innocent persons on Death Row?

Cry me a freaking river.

I am curious if you support this statement: "revenge is intrinsically wrong." Because that's all the motivation I see in the death penalty. Revenge. It doesn't look so pretty when it's not dressed up in words like "justice" and "deserved."

"Revenge is intrinsically wrong"

Nope. That is a wrong statement.


Revenge is intrinsically right, is what you should be saying.


An eye for an eye is the system I live by.

If someone hurts you, you hurt them back, harder.

An eye for an eye is the system I live by.

If someone hurts you, you hurt them back, harder.

Er.. wouldn't that be 'An eye for an eye and a little bit more.'?

Er.. wouldn't that be 'An eye for an eye and a little bit more.'?

Sure, why not?

I am for the death penalty for certain crimes:
-Murder
-Rape
-Treason
-Pedophilia
...
things like that

it is a sad state of affairs to have a policeman say "it's happened before, because we failed the first time"

-Rafe

I am for the death penalty for certain crimes:
-Murder
-Rape
-Treason
-Pedophilia

Pedophilia is not a crime!

Pedophilia is not a crime!

It is when it evolves into child molestation.

However, it is not grounds for capital punishment (no crime is).

Too many think that by stealing justice from the innocent that they are doing good.I think you're equivocating "justice" with "revenge." The concepts are not the same.

Sure, you save good men and women from the chair, but most people on death row probably should be there. Killing innocents is the cost of doing business, eh. Oh well, one or two dead is fine in order to keep grieving families' bloodlust satisfied.

If you let the guilty go without paying their full debt you are cheating the innocent, I don't see how you can take such a lofty moral high-ground, it's as if you don't care about anyone but the criminals. 1. What are the innocent being 'cheated out of' with relation to to the death penalty? Revenge? I don't think anyone has a right to revenge. 2. Criminals are scum, sure. But what made them bad was their actions, and if their actions are under control then they are no longer fair game. If someone's got a gun and is shooting people up, then I'll take a gun and shoot him myself - because that is protecting other people (myself and others). If he surrenders and is captured, then any threat he represented is gone and there is no need or reason to kill-- save one. And I don't condone revenge.

I am all for criminal rights, they are people to, but they must pay their full debt to society and to those they harmed, that's justice.Debt? How can they fill the void of someone they killed? They can't. The dead are dead. Nothing will change that; no amount of additional death will resurrect the innocents. So tell me: how just is more, completely senseless killing? Killing with no purpose other than "she did it so it must be ok for us to do the same back to her"? Killing for "we can't stand the thought of that person alive because of what they did"? That is not justice, my friend. No, that's a mockery of justice: emotional outrage dressed up in judicial proceedings to give it a veneer of legitimacy. It's a lynch mob reading a "sentence" to those it kills in order to convince its members that they're doing the right thing.

"Revenge is intrinsically wrong"

Nope. That is a wrong statement.


Revenge is intrinsically right, is what you should be saying.


An eye for an eye is the system I live by.

If someone hurts you, you hurt them back, harder.Then your ethics is composed of force, and nothing more. So be it.

I have nothing to discuss with you.

It is when it evolves into child molestation.
No, child molestation and abuse are crimes. Pedophilia is a mental disturbance, pretty much like idiocy. Idiocy is no crime, not even if leading to murder or the downfall of nations.

However, it is not grounds for capital punishment (no crime is).
There I agree whole-hearty.

So, are you for aganst the death penalty (I get right to the point don't I?:) ). I have mixed feelings about the death penalty. On one hand, it dosen't bring the victim back, and what if an innocent man gets the death penalty and they don't find out till later. On the other hand, if you have no concience to speak of, then what are they gonna do after your in prison for life? Give you a few more years? You already have a life sentence! (Of course this dosen't apply to most people, but still). Also, are you gonna let a convicted murder who has a reputation for spreading unrest and starting riots into your prison? I've got mixed feelings and I'm waiting till I see some strong arguments on either side to choose. What about my fellow NSGers?

You could put him in permanent solitary confinement.

Let me get this straight, Justice, to you, is what exactly?

This perhaps:

Mr. X rapes and murders a ten year old girl who belonged to family A. Demon family A, filled with evil and satan, thinks that the only just punishment is making them pay exactly what Mr. X stole, a life. However, justice is to let Mr. X, the murdering rapist, stay in prison for the rest of his life because killing is bad.

First off, let's just get rid of this pretentious "Killing is always wrong" B.S.

There is a difference between execution, murder, and killing in self-defense, wouldn't you agree?

This is the same difference between arrest, kidnapping, and detaining someone who attempted to commit a crime against you so the police can come and pick him or her up.


Executing a criminal will not bring anyone back to life, but it certainly isn't senseless.

Eye for an eye is a really dumbed-down, simplified, childish interpretation of equalization justice. It isn't about revenge, though revenge may be sought through capital punishment. Revenge is not the deciding factor; if it was torture and a number of other unequal punishments would be involved.

Equalization Justice is about making people take responsibility for what they have done to others; making people pay their due back to society and to those they have harmed.

If you agree that there is nothing more precious than human life no amount of time or money will ever equal that of a human being, the only thing equal to human life is another human life (the killers).


From your attitude it just seems as though you really don't care about victims or their families, you are not concerned about justice at all. You are only concerned with defending your pretentious assertion that the death penalty is somehow inherently unjust.

I find it sad that you would not only neglect the justice owed to people who have been cheated, out of their own lives or the lives of people they love, but would openly attack them and call them "blood-thursty".

Would you really tell someone who's been robbed of all their money that you just sent the criminal to rehab because it's wrong to hold people against their will? Would they be evil, kidnap-loving jerks for wanting someone in prison?

Why is it that the people who suffer the most are the only ones you want to cheat out of justice?

Why is it that the people who suffer the most are the only ones you want to cheat out of justice?

Strange that you use the word 'justice' yet what you describe is actualy vengance.

Either the taking of a life is bad or it is not. If it is such a bad thing that sociaty deems punishment for those who do it, then the taking of the life of the man who took a life also needs to be punished.

I am for the death penalty for certain crimes:
-Murder
-Rape
-Treason
-Pedophilia
...
things like that...and adherence to abrahamic religions :p

Personally I stand firmly for the death penalty. The manner of which is actually more humane than most people realize. For christssake they use an alcohol swab before they give you a lethal injection.

While the idea of impending death may not deter emotionally unstable criminals, I would like to believe that it does (on some level) keep most stable people from say... walking into the office and shooting their boss and half of their co-workers.

I also feel that the death penalty should also be expanded to cover child molesters as well... but I'm sure that is simply my maternal instincts talking and not common sense rising above on this particular issue.

Personally I stand firmly for the death penalty. The manner of which is actually more humane than most people realize. For christssake they use an alcohol swab before they give you a lethal injection.

While the idea of impending death may not deter emotionally unstable criminals, I would like to believe that it does (on some level) keep most stable people from say... walking into the office and shooting their boss and half of their co-workers.

I also feel that the death penalty should also be expanded to cover child molesters as well... but I'm sure that is simply my maternal instincts talking and not common sense rising above on this particular issue.

I would have thought that the thing that keeps most stable people from walking into the office and shooting their boss, would be that they are stable.

We don't have the death penalty in the UK, and you know what, we also don't have a spate of boss shooting.

While the idea of impending death may not deter emotionally unstable criminals, I would like to believe that it does (on some level) keep most stable people from say... walking into the office and shooting their boss and half of their co-workers.
Strangely enough, I've yet to see that happen in the UK, and we've not had the death penalty for 40 years.

I would have thought that the thing that keeps most stable people from walking into the office and shooting their boss, would be that they are stable.

We don't have the death penalty in the UK, and you know what, we also don't have a spate of boss shooting.

True, but I'm also of the opinion that my fellow Americans while are mostly mentally stable, are not the brightest crayons in the box.

After all... if we didn't have some kind of determent for making a very stupid and brash decision... we might go to war on the wrong country. =/ *mumbles incomprehensible things about the stupidity of the elected officials of her country*

Let me get this straight, Justice, to you, is what exactly?

This perhaps:

Mr. X rapes and murders a ten year old girl who belonged to family A. Demon family A, filled with evil and satan, thinks that the only just punishment is making them pay exactly what Mr. X stole, a life. However, justice is to let Mr. X, the murdering rapist, stay in prison for the rest of his life because killing is bad.

First off, let's just get rid of this pretentious "Killing is always wrong" B.S.

There is a difference between execution, murder, and killing in self-defense, wouldn't you agree?

This is the same difference between arrest, kidnapping, and detaining someone who attempted to commit a crime against you so the police can come and pick him or her up.


Executing a criminal will not bring anyone back to life, but it certainly isn't senseless.

Eye for an eye is a really dumbed-down, simplified, childish interpretation of equalization justice. It isn't about revenge, though revenge may be sought through capital punishment. Revenge is not the deciding factor; if it was torture and a number of other unequal punishments would be involved.

Equalization Justice is about making people take responsibility for what they have done to others; making people pay their due back to society and to those they have harmed.

If you agree that there is nothing more precious than human life no amount of time or money will ever equal that of a human being, the only thing equal to human life is another human life (the killers).


From your attitude it just seems as though you really don't care about victims or their families, you are not concerned about justice at all. You are only concerned with defending your pretentious assertion that the death penalty is somehow inherently unjust.

I find it sad that you would not only neglect the justice owed to people who have been cheated, out of their own lives or the lives of people they love, but would openly attack them and call them "blood-thursty".

Would you really tell someone who's been robbed of all their money that you just sent the criminal to rehab because it's wrong to hold people against their will? Would they be evil, kidnap-loving jerks for wanting someone in prison?

Why is it that the people who suffer the most are the only ones you want to cheat out of justice?

tl; dr Justice is about revenge and punishment, if you don't think so you don't care about the families and victims.

Let me get this straight, Justice, to you, is what exactly?

This perhaps:

Mr. X rapes and murders a ten year old girl who belonged to family A. Demon family A, filled with evil and satan, thinks that the only just punishment is making them pay exactly what Mr. X stole, a life. However, justice is to let Mr. X, the murdering rapist, stay in prison for the rest of his life because killing is bad.Filled with evil and satan, eh? I said nothing of the sort. They're just bloodthirsty, which is a completely natural reaction to having someone in your family murdered. I don't equivocate this natural reaction with the right thing to do, however.

First off, let's just get rid of this pretentious "Killing is always wrong" B.S.You'll notice I said nothing of the sort. I said something more like: "Killing in the kind of situation that the death penalty is used in is alway unjustified."

There is a difference between execution, murder, and killing in self-defense, wouldn't you agree?Certainly. I think I said what execution was previously: "It's a lynch mob reading a 'sentence' to those it kills in order to convince its members that they're doing the right thing" - see murder. Murder is killing someone without extreme extenuating circumstances. Self defense is killing with said circumstances.

Executing a criminal will not bring anyone back to life, but it certainly isn't senseless. Then what purpose is served by it, save satisfaction of base desires?

Eye for an eye is a really dumbed-down, simplified, childish interpretation of equalization justice. It isn't about revenge, though revenge may be sought through capital punishment. Revenge is not the deciding factor; if it was torture and a number of other unequal punishments would be involved.

Equalization Justice is about making people take responsibility for what they have done to others; making people pay their due back to society and to those they have harmed.

If you agree that there is nothing more precious than human life no amount of time or money will ever equal that of a human being, the only thing equal to human life is another human life (the killers).So they "pay" back society by being killed? In what kind of strange reasoning does this qualify as 'equivalent pay'? Last I heard, people are unique individuals.

I have no interest in attempting to justify equalization justice. If it's not about revenge then tell me what it's about. Tell me what purpose it serves other than revenge (and don't start coming up with side effects either). If this equalization justice is in place for no other reason than because we like it, then I submit that that's the wrong reason to have it. I don't believe that feeling someone should die is sufficient reason to kill them.

From your attitude it just seems as though you really don't care about victims or their families, you are not concerned about justice at all. You are only concerned with defending your pretentious assertion that the death penalty is somehow inherently unjust.

I find it sad that you would not only neglect the justice owed to people who have been cheated, out of their own lives or the lives of people they love, but would openly attack them and call them "blood-thursty". Tell me what they are, then, if not that. A natural reaction, yes-- but the question here is, do rational people control their emotions, or do their emotions control them?


Would you really tell someone who's been robbed of all their money that you just sent the criminal to rehab because it's wrong to hold people against their will? Would they be evil, kidnap-loving jerks for wanting someone in prison? Justice in this case would be that 1. The original crime is made good (money is paid back in full, possibly a fine too). 2. The criminal is held in accordance with the severity of the crime to act as a deterrent, 3. The criminal is given rehab of some type in order to make him less of a threat to society. 4. Criminal is released when his time expires.

I don't think that's unreasonable to ask of someone who's had their money stolen. I imagine you probably agree with my assessment of the appropriate sentence as well. It's not prevention that I have a problem with. It's not justice I have a problem with. It's only, and I mean only, the death penalty that I have a problem with.

Why is it that the people who suffer the most are the only ones you want to cheat out of justice?The cause of their suffering will not be relieved until they die. I propose to cause no more suffering.

tl; dr Justice is about revenge and punishment, if you don't think so you don't care about the families and victims.

Justice is absolutely nothing to do with revenge.

I'm against the death penalty, a sentence should protect society by deterring and rehabilitating criminals, death penalty does neither (or at least not much better than any other sentence). Other than that, it can't be undone, it costs a lot and I think there is something fundamentally wrong with (the government) killing.

I also find it ironic that some people who want to give the state the power to kill (support DP) are often almost paranoia when it comes to other forms of government involvement (gun control, taxes etc).

The manner of which is actually more humane than most people realize. For christssake they use an alcohol swab before they give you a lethal injection.

I don't see why using an alcohol swab makes killing someone more humane. It's not the manner of execution that most people oppose, rather the fact that someone is executed.

While the idea of impending death may not deter emotionally unstable criminals, I would like to believe that it does (on some level) keep most stable people from say... walking into the office and shooting their boss and half of their co-workers.

Do you really think that someone stable would suddenly become a mass-murderer? Besides, life sentences are pretty harsh too, if you don't care about being put into prison for a large amount of time you'll probably also don't care about being executed (which is all irrelevant since stable people don't go on killing-sprees).

What on earth do you people think that blind lady is holding, cups? She's thirsty for Justice? Those are scales sweetheart, Justice is about equalization.

You can attach negative sounding names to Justice all you want, I am sorry if being Just is scary, or sad, or uncomfortable for you.

Lemme' give you a visual aid:

http://www.spectator.co.nz/images/justice.gif


Justice is the mediation of vengeance, of revenge, to the extent that it punishes the guilty in due course for what they have done. I didn't realize punishing people, equally, for their bad behavior was such a terrible thing. I guess you just want to stop when it makes you feel all queasy inside.

Poor thing, well, I guess us bloodthirsty savages are going to be over here punishing people for what they've done to others. You can have your fairy land where murderers get to kill whomever they want without being put to the scale of justice.

Please, though, sweetheart, quit calling it justice; it's forgiveness, it's letting people off easy, it's charity. You can call it in whatever nice words you want, but don't lie and call it Justice, you have no right to own what you are spitting on.

Justice is absolutely nothing to do with revenge.Punishment is revenge, and justice is (sometimes) to seek punishment.

Personally I stand firmly for the death penalty. The manner of which is actually more humane than most people realize. For christssake they use an alcohol swab before they give you a lethal injection.

While the idea of impending death may not deter emotionally unstable criminals, I would like to believe that it does (on some level) keep most stable people from say... walking into the office and shooting their boss and half of their co-workers.

I also feel that the death penalty should also be expanded to cover child molesters as well... but I'm sure that is simply my maternal instincts talking and not common sense rising above on this particular issue.

Every bit of evidence out there now suggests the Death Penalty is NOT a deterent.


What amusses me is the rising evidence showing the DP does not deter criminals coincides with INCREASED support for the death penalty in American. Why? Because Americans are idiots and still follow that childish Eye for an Eye BS.

What on earth do you people think that blind lady is holding, cups? She's thirsty for Justice? Those are scales sweetheart, Justice is about equalization.

You can attach negative sounding names to Justice all you want, I am sorry if being Just is scary, or sad, or uncomfortable for you.

Lemme' give you a visual aid:

http://www.spectator.co.nz/images/justice.gif


Justice is the mediation of vengeance, of revenge, to the extent that it punishes the guilty in due course for what they have done. I didn't realize punishing people, equally, for their bad behavior was such a terrible thing. I guess you just want to stop when it makes you feel all queasy inside.

Poor thing, well, I guess us bloodthirsty savages are going to be over here punishing people for what they've done to others. You can have your fairy land where murderers get to kill whomever they want without being put to the scale of justice.

Please, though, sweetheart, quit calling it justice; it's forgiveness, it's letting people off easy, it's charity. You can call it in whatever nice words you want, but don't lie and call it Justice, you have no right to own what you are spitting on.



Revenge =/= Justice. You have yet to present a convincing arguement that the Death Penalty is justice and not vegence.

Ill say it again, Revenge =/= Justice.

Punishment is revenge, and justice is (sometimes) to seek punishment.

The retributivist approach is just one take on justice. I take your point that punishment is essentially revenge but by society rather than by individuals. I suppose I prefer the approach that justice should be about ensuring fairness.

Say someone murders another person....and their "punishment" is a life in a warm cell,with 3 meals a day,a warm bed and cable TV,a gym,etc. all for free.

there's citizens that don't live that well

I'm very mildly for it. Not enough to really give a shit, but enough to think that death is more humane that life without parole. *nod*

I think it depends on the manner of death now, doesn't it? I mean you might prefer life without parole to being pecked to death by ducks...

Say someone murders another person....and their "punishment" is a life in a warm cell,with 3 meals a day,a warm bed and cable TV,a gym,etc. all for free.

there's citizens that don't live that well

This is my favorite arguement. Have you seen a prison? Its really not as pleasent as pro-death penalty advocates like to paint it.

This is my favorite arguement. Have you seen a prison? Its really not as pleasent as pro-death penalty advocates like to paint it.

Heh exactly, nobody I know who has done prison time, actualy prefers it to being out.

This is my favorite arguement. Have you seen a prison? Its really not as pleasent as pro-death penalty advocates like to paint it.

Actually, some of them are. If you're a well-behaved person, a supermax is actually quiet and serene. The food is pretty good, too. No lobster, but then most people don't get lobster on the outside.

This is my favorite arguement. Have you seen a prison? Its really not as pleasent as pro-death penalty advocates like to paint it.

I also find it.. intruiging.. that so many people here took my slavebait. Denouncing employing prisoners as well-treated slaves as being a repugnant concept (hey - it is obviously much worse than the death penalty, right ?) - while at the same time ignoring all references to sweatshops and minimal wage workers.

Which leads to the conclusion:
- If a slave is black or a criminal slavery is repulsive, no matter how well treated the slaves are.
- If a slave is yellow or a poor single mum trying to make ends meet it is perfectly fine and acceptable.

According to the wise and noble people of NSG of course.

You could put him in permanent solitary confinement.

From my point of view, that would be the absolute worst punishment you could place on me. I'd be liable to try to kill myself, rather than endure that for years. Death would come as a mercy, rather than as a punishment.

What on earth do you people think that blind lady is holding, cups? She's thirsty for Justice? Those are scales sweetheart, Justice is about equalization.

You can attach negative sounding names to Justice all you want, I am sorry if being Just is scary, or sad, or uncomfortable for you.

Lemme' give you a visual aid:

http://www.spectator.co.nz/images/justice.gif


Justice is the mediation of vengeance, of revenge, to the extent that it punishes the guilty in due course for what they have done. I didn't realize punishing people, equally, for their bad behavior was such a terrible thing. I guess you just want to stop when it makes you feel all queasy inside.

Poor thing, well, I guess us bloodthirsty savages are going to be over here punishing people for what they've done to others. You can have your fairy land where murderers get to kill whomever they want without being put to the scale of justice.

Please, though, sweetheart, quit calling it justice; it's forgiveness, it's letting people off easy, it's charity. You can call it in whatever nice words you want, but don't lie and call it Justice, you have no right to own what you are spitting on.You've just stated a definition, here (which I am in no way obligated to accept), but you have given no reason to use that definition. You're not too interested in reasons, apparently.

"JUSTICE MUST NOT BE DENIED!"

And yes, I do agree with you. But whatever this 'justice' is, it should not be blind to the circumstances it creates. If in following some sort of law of 'justice', you lose your ability to analyze the situation as it is, then I think you may have confused "letter of the law" with "spirit of the law." Why are you saying that justice is "an eye for an eye"? Possible reasons: prevention of recidivism, deterrence. Possible excuses: "But it's Justice so it can't be wrong!"

I don't think too highly of that last excuse, if you can believe it. The only people who use it are those who cannot come up with a rational justification for their actions.

Punishment is revenge, and justice is (sometimes) to seek punishment.

Justice is the restoration of balance, and I do not see how killing someone because they've done something restores balance. Balance would be best restored through a lifetime of penance, not through revenge. Making them deal with the consequences of their decisions for the rest of their natural lives, make them pay the cost of what they've done.

From my point of view, that would be the absolute worst punishment you could place on me. I'd be liable to try to kill myself, rather than endure that for years. Death would come as a mercy, rather than as a punishment.

That's why I believe suicide should be legal.
Than the prisoner can decide himself whether he finds life long imprisonment better than death. Or even if he would prefer Death over the shame of the crime itself.


On a related note: I once saw a documentary, where a religious man, a Capital Punishment protester, had put into his last will, that in case he is murdered, his murder shall NOT receive the death Penalty.
Unfortunately such a wish is irrelevant to the law.
So really, 'Justice' for the victims is not the reason for Capital Punishment. Not in the US, not anywhere.

Not only am I for it, but it should be imposed more widely and for crimes beyond murder, namely terrorist acts, espionage, and repeated child rape.

And it should be done publicly, except for terrorists, who should be executed without any press coverage or publicity of any kind and not be permitted to make any statements. Ideally they should be made to crawl like dogs to their deaths (admittedly this may be unlikely to be implemented, alas).

There is a difference between execution, murder, and killing in self-defense, wouldn't you agree?

Yes, a difference in intent.

...no amount of time or money will ever equal that of a human being, the only thing equal to human life is another human life...

True. So how do we achieve justice when someone is unjustly killed? If justice is a matter of fairness, how do we balance the scales?

A life can only be owned by the being that lives that life and can not be given away or taken away; although we use those words to describe death, they are metaphors. Once a life is "taken", there is no giving it back, no replacement for it. Does this make justice impossible? It certainly does for the dead person, but what about the people the murdered person was "stolen" from? It could be argued that they are the greater victims because they suffer the loss of their loved one. Does taking the life of the person who took their loved one's life satisfy justice? I don't think it does. The only true justice would be to kill something of equal worth to the killer that would cause him to suffer the same loss they have. This means taking the life of his friend, mother, child, etc., as every person who was affected by the loss of the murdered person would be able to claim compensation.

The scales are balanced. Is it worth it? Through our desire for fairness and justice, we have created untold suffering and some might even say we have taken life "unjustly". And we created 10 times as many victims - all the living people who loved those lives. Now they are entitled to compensation and the cycle of killing progresses.

Maybe we need to rethink justice. Maybe it isn't as important as preserving life. Maybe it's just a fantasy and in trying to achieve it we do more harm than good, create more pain, less pleasure, more hate, less love.

Yes, a difference in intent.



True. So how do we achieve justice when someone is unjustly killed? If justice is a matter of fairness, how do we balance the scales?

A life can only be owned by the being that lives that life and can not be given away or taken away; although we use those words to describe death, they are metaphors. Once a life is "taken", there is no giving it back, no replacement for it. Does this make justice impossible? It certainly does for the dead person, but what about the people the murdered person was "stolen" from? It could be argued that they are the greater victims because they suffer the loss of their loved one. Does taking the life of the person who took their loved one's life satisfy justice? I don't think it does. The only true justice would be to kill something of equal worth to the killer that would cause him to suffer the same loss they have. This means taking the life of his friend, mother, child, etc., as every person who was affected by the loss of the murdered person would be able to claim compensation.

The scales are balanced. Is it worth it? Through our desire for fairness and justice, we have created untold suffering and some might even say we have taken life "unjustly". And we created 10 times as many victims - all the living people who loved those lives. Now they are entitled to compensation and the cycle of killing progresses.

Maybe we need to rethink justice. Maybe it isn't as important as preserving life. Maybe it's just a fantasy and in trying to achieve it we do more harm than good, create more pain, less pleasure, more hate, less love.

That is pretty much the main argument against the death penalty, apart from the cost I think.

Edit: Well said, too.

The retributivist approach is just one take on justice. I take your point that punishment is essentially revenge but by society rather than by individuals. I suppose I prefer the approach that justice should be about ensuring fairness.What fairness is appropriate for a killer?

What fairness is appropriate for a killer?

Life in prison seems fair. Prison labor works well... And they must live with what they have done for the rest of their existence.

Life in prison seems fair. Prison labor works well... And they must live with what they have done for the rest of their existence.

Solitary confinement for the rest of his/her life. That seems more fitting for a convicted killer.

Solitary confinement for the rest of his/her life. That seems more fitting for a convicted killer.

Meh solitary confinement will only drive him crazy. Then how conscious about his situation will he even be?

Life in prison seems fair. Prison labor works well... And they must live with what they have done for the rest of their existence.I really don't see how that is a punishment and where the fairness is in it. Why should a killer regret the killing? I would imagine all a killer regrets is having been caught.

I really don't see how that is a punishment and where the fairness is in it. Why should a killer regret the killing? I would imagine all a killer regrets is having been caught.

Sure, because all killers are sociopaths? Killing never happens in a passion or before people can think clearly about it etc. ?
People have regrets about way less serious stuff all the time, it would surprise me if not many murderers have regrets.

There is a problem with 'punishment' for crime in general.
There shouldn't be any punishment, for a government should not have the right to limit a humans right (any right) if it isn't for the reason to protect other people's rights and freedoms.
'Punishment' is not the concept to go by. Rehabilitation and containment are the concepts.
A criminal should only be held imprisoned until he is no longer an immediate threat to other people's rights and freedoms.

Anything above this necessary containment is an arbitrary and baseless usage of the governments monopoly on violence. And Capital Punishment is the epitome of it.
A Government which deems itself high enough above it's citizens to decide whether they may or may not live is inherently oppressive.
On one hand, someone murdered all his children and raped the bodies. On the other hand, he said he's sorry. So he should go free?
(Something no ones brought up, it costs $20,000 a year to keep an inmate. If the purpose of a life sentence is to take away the rest of their life, why not just kill them?)

On one hand, someone murdered all his children and raped the bodies. On the other hand, he said he's sorry. So he should go free?

I think the important part in Nokvok's post that you missed was:

A criminal should only be held imprisoned until he is no longer an immediate threat to other people's rights and freedoms.

Why do you think that someone who kills his own children and rapes their bodies but says he's sorry isn't a threat to other people's rights and freedoms?


(Something no ones brought up, it costs $20,000 a year to keep an inmate. If the purpose of a life sentence is to take away the rest of their life, why not just kill them?)

The purpose of a life sentence often isn't to take away the rest of their life. Besides, as has been shown on this thread CP costs more than life sentence.

I think the important part in Nokvok's post that you missed was:

A criminal should only be held imprisoned until he is no longer an immediate threat to other people's rights and freedoms.

Why do you think that someone who kills his own children and rapes their bodies but says he's sorry isn't a threat to other people's rights and freedoms?




The purpose of a life sentence often isn't to take away the rest of their life. Besides, as has been shown on this thread CP costs more than life sentence.
Assuming the guy has no mental disorders. And if the purpose of a life sentence isn't to take away the rest of their life, what is it?

Assuming the guy has no mental disorders. And if the purpose of a life sentence isn't to take away the rest of their life, what is it?

A person who kills and rapes his children without mental disorders? :confused:

The purpose is to take a dangerous person away from society for a long time and, depending on the severity of his crimes, to rehabilitate him if possible.

A person who kills and rapes his children without mental disorders? :confused:

The purpose is to take a dangerous person away from society for a long time and, depending on the severity of his crimes, to rehabilitate him if possible.

If it's a life sentence, they're not being rehabilitated, they're being supported by my money.

Not only am I for it, but it should be imposed more widely and for crimes beyond murder, namely terrorist acts, espionage, disagreeing with me, and repeated child rape.

And it should be done publicly, except for terrorists, who should be executed without any press coverage or publicity of any kind and not be permitted to make any statements. Ideally they should be made to crawl like dogs to their deaths (admittedly this may be unlikely to be implemented, alas).

Wow, that's pretty severe...
;)

Wow, that's pretty severe...
;)

You don't get shot for disagreeing with me, unless you're also a murderer, spy, terrorist or multiple child rapist.

If you make enough idiotic leftist and/or ad hominem arguments, however, you may get ignored ;)

You don't get shot for disagreeing with me, unless you're also a murderer, spy, terrorist or multiple child rapist.

If you make enough idiotic leftist and/or ad hominem arguments, however, you may get ignored ;)

:D

Then your ethics is composed of force, and nothing more. So be it.

I have nothing to discuss with you.

Your 'ethics' are based on weakness and compassion to monsters.

I have nothing to discuss with you. :rolleyes:


What amusses me is the rising evidence showing the DP does not deter criminals coincides with INCREASED support for the death penalty in American. Why? Because Americans are idiots and still follow that childish Eye for an Eye BS.

It isn't a deterrent because it IS NOT used correctly in the US.

And and the eye for an eye mentality is not childish. It is the correct mentality.

Not only am I for it, but it should be imposed more widely and for crimes beyond murder, namely terrorist acts, espionage, and repeated child rape.

And it should be done publicly, except for terrorists, who should be executed without any press coverage or publicity of any kind and not be permitted to make any statements. Ideally they should be made to crawl like dogs to their deaths (admittedly this may be unlikely to be implemented, alas).

Agreed.

It isn't a deterrent because it used correctly in the US.

What? Its used correctly and thats why it ISNT a deterrent?

And and the eye for an eye mentality is not childish. It is the correct mentality.


History and any basic understanding of ethics outside of the Old Testament and Nazi ideology will say otherwise. You can grandstand and say its right all you want, but you really dont have anything backing you up.

Wow, that's pretty severe...
;)

New Mitanni is a rightist pig... you will see that all of his statements are "severe"

New Mitanni is a rightist pig... you will see that all of his statements are "severe"

No flaming now.

Anyway, I'm politically opposed to the Death Penalty. It's far, far too much power to give to the state. It's also really expensive.

Your 'ethics' are based on weakness

No, yours are. You cannot rationally move beyond the emotional reaction that mindlessly chants "revenge." That's real weakness.

and compassion to monsters.

I don't feel compassion for lots of people. That doesn't mean that I, or anyone else, is entitled to kill them.

And some of us, unlike you, aren't inclined to casually dismiss the prospect of killing innocent people.

What? Its used correctly and thats why it ISNT a deterrent?

Forgot two important words in my post...it was supposed to read," It isn't a deterrent because it IS NOT used correctly in the US."



History and any basic understanding of ethics outside of the Old Testament and Nazi ideology will say otherwise. You can grandstand and say its right all you want, but you really dont have anything backing you up.

And you have nothing backing up your claim. Yours is a viewpoint, and mine is a viewpoint.

No, yours are. You cannot rationally move beyond the emotional reaction that mindlessly chants "revenge." That's real weakness.

Nonsense. First reactions are usually the right ones.

I know if someone killed anyone I cared for I would want them dead.



I don't feel compassion for lots of people. That doesn't mean that I, or anyone else, is entitled to kill them.

And some of us, unlike you, aren't inclined to casually dismiss the prospect of killing innocent people.

In most cases not feeling for compassion for someone does not entitle you to kill them.

Its different for murderers.

against.

these are valuable workforce. slave for their whole lives, and no visits from family members. they have no name, and given only numbers.

Nonsense. First reactions are usually the right ones.

An excellent indication that you never bother to think beyond them.

I know if someone killed anyone I cared for I would want them dead.

So would I, probably. But I'm rational enough to recognize that what I want is not the standard. Just because I want something does not mean I should get it.

There's nothing wrong with anger at people who have unjustly harmed people close to you--or anyone at all, for that matter. But there is something wrong with that anger getting in the way of reason.

Its different for murderers.

Your posts have, so far, been short of an argument. What is it? Why are murderers different? Why should we kill them?

And what about the prospect of the death penalty killing innocent people? Why do you always dodge or dismiss this point? Can you give a real response?

New Mitanni is a rightist pig... you will see that all of his statements are "severe"

And you're a leftist pig.

What's the problem with pigs anyway?

Forgot two important words in my post...it was supposed to read," It isn't a deterrent because it IS NOT used correctly in the US."

Then thats what you should have posted?


What would be using it correctly, reverting back to the dark ages? Oh wait, this is you Im talking to.


And you have nothing backing up your claim. Yours is a viewpoint, and mine is a viewpoint.

I can provide a wealth of philosophical insight post-Dark Ages as well as that little book that the right tend to cling to but ignore half of when it convienent and then ignore the other half when its convenient.

Nonsense. First reactions are usually the right ones.

Acting without thinking is weakness. Giving into the mob mentality is weakness. Doing whats easier is weakness. Your viewpoint is all of those things.

Everything above is based on logic and reasoning as well as opinions of several minds greater than you and I. You have...Trollgaard's opinion. Good stuff.


In most cases not feeling for compassion for someone does not entitle you to kill them.

Its different for murderers.

Why?

New Mitanni is a rightist pig... you will see that all of his statements are "severe"

Just ignore him. Thats what I do. Except when he posts something really fucking stupid....which is about half the time actually.

An excellent indication that you never bother to think beyond them.

People have to make decisions, and not spend copious amounts of time agonizing over said decisions.

When taking tests your first guess is usually right.



So would I, probably. But I'm rational enough to recognize that what I want is not the standard. Just because I want something does not mean I should get it.

There's nothing wrong with anger at people who have unjustly harmed people close to you--or anyone at all, for that matter. But there is something wrong with that anger getting in the way of reason.

Its all about making things equal first off. Someone hurts you, you hurt them back so everything is equal. Then you hurt them a little more so the know not to fuck with you again.


Your posts have, so far, been short of an argument. What is it? Why are murderers different? Why should we kill them?

And what about the prospect of the death penalty killing innocent people? Why do you always dodge or dismiss this point? Can you give a real response?

What is what?

Murderers are different because they killed someone. They took away a life, so they should pay for their crime with their life.

Innocents dying is sad, but rarely happens today with all the DNA technologies and such.

Besides, and innocent death here and there, while extremely sad, is worth the price of getting rid of scumbags such as rapists, murderers, etc.

Another point: Not every murder necessitates the death penalty. It should always be used on a case by case basis.

People have to make decisions, and not spend copious amounts of time agonizing over said decisions.

When taking tests your first guess is usually right.

So do you read the question first, or do you just look at it and then circle it? You think about it first.



Its all about making things equal first off. Someone hurts you, you hurt them back so everything is equal. Then you hurt them a little more so the know not to fuck with you again.


Childish mentality.



Murderers are different because they killed someone. They took away a life, so they should pay for their crime with their life.

So its vengence, not justice. At least you admit it.

Innocents dying is sad, but rarely happens today with all the DNA technologies and such.

This is wrong.

Besides, and innocent death here and there, while extremely sad, is worth the price of getting rid of scumbags such as rapists, murderers, etc.

This is stupid.

So do you read the question first, or do you just look at it and then circle it? You think about it first.

And usually the first option is right.


Childish mentality.


Oh, you must be such and enlightened person, so high and evolved to look down on me so.

This mentality teaches people to not mess with you-it prevents future problems.



So its vengence, not justice. At least you admit it.


I don't give a fuck.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with vengeance.


This is wrong.

How many innocent people are actually put to death? I'd wager a very, very low percentage.


This is stupid.

Not really.

People have to make decisions, and not spend copious amounts of time agonizing over said decisions.

Yes, obviously with some decisions, it makes sense to make them quickly.

But one would think that a decision as important as whether or not to kill someone should be undertaken with care and rational consideration.

When taking tests your first guess is usually right.

When taking tests, your emotions usually aren't caught up with the answers.

Its all about making things equal first off. Someone hurts you, you hurt them back so everything is equal.

Equality in hurtfulness? Equality in murderousness? What kind of world are you advocating?

Is there never a place for mercy? Is there never a place for humility? Is there never a place for saying, "You have committed an awful wrong, but I do not claim sufficient knowledge and wisdom to pass judgment"?

Then you hurt them a little more so the know not to fuck with you again.

Since when does your fear determine justice?

Murderers are different because they killed someone. They took away a life, so they should pay for their crime with their life.

Why? So we can be as bad as them?

Innocents dying is sad, but rarely happens today with all the DNA technologies and such.

Besides, and innocent death here and there, while extremely sad, is worth the price of getting rid of scumbags such as rapists, murderers, etc.

Why? Why is a single innocent life taken unjustly a worthy price for needless killing?

What good accomplished by the death penalty is so compelling that you are willing to sacrifice innocent lives to it?

New Mitanni is a rightist pig... you will see that all of his statements are "severe"

I'll repeat what I said in another thread: Grow up, little boy.

And judging by your date of joining, I'd say you know little if anything about "all" of my statements.

I'll repeat what I said in another thread: Grow up, little boy.

And judging by your date of joining, I'd say you know little if anything about "all" of my statements.

Funny how hes new yet very accurate in his description of you.


I thought you prided yourself on how blunt and open you were?

And usually the first option is right.

Prove it.


Oh, you must be such and enlightened person, so high and evolved to look down on me so.

More so than you at least.

This mentality teaches people to not mess with you-it prevents future problems.

Prove it.


I don't give a fuck.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with vengeance.

Civilized society as well as most sources of morality, from all corners of the world and various religions, tends to disagree.


How many innocent people are actually put to death? I'd wager a very, very low percentage.

Percentage? Yes. Actual number? No. Besides, most sane people would say one innocent life is bad enough.

You critisize murders for killing innocent people and yet you stand here and tell me that killing innocents is acceptable if it accomplishes your ends. Hypocrisy.

Not really.

See above.

New Mitanni is a rightist pig... you will see that all of his statements are "severe"

You do realize that I edited his post and was responding in jest, yes?

So wait Trollgaard, I have a question for you...


If your philosophy is might makes right, and that people with strength have a right to do as they please to accomplish their ends, why are you against murderers? They were clearly stronger than their victims, and used the means they could to accomplish their ends. Or is might makes right only ok for you? Same goes for rapists. The rapist was clearly stronger than the woman, therefore might makes right.

But it was an innocent you say? Well, by your own omission earlier that the death of innocents is ok to accomplish your ends (killing murders is the goal and its ok if a few innocents die) then why is it not ok for the murder to accomplish his ends?

What about those murderers who got cheated out of money, so they go and brutally kill the guy who cheated them? Hes only getting them back and then some, which you yourself said was how it should be. That'll teach people not to fuck with John C. Killer.


It seems that these murderers you detest so much are merely opperating from the same life philosophy as you are. Might makes right, if you have strength use it, get the guy who hurt you back and then some, and the death of a few innocents is OK if it is done to achieve a goal.

Whats your issue with murderes then? Or does it only work when your the one on the winning side?

Prove it. Ever heard of intuition? Instinct? Gut feelings?

More so than you at least.

LMAO.

It is possible you are an evolutionary dead end.

Prove it.

It lets people know that they are in deep shit when they fuck with you. It inspires a little bit of fear in them, which discourages people form fucking with you.

Can you grasp this concept? I wouldn't think it would be hard to understand for one as 'evolved' as you.



Civilized society as well as most sources of morality, from all corners of the world and various religions, tends to disagree.


Which religions, and what sources of morality?



Percentage? Yes. Actual number? No. Besides, most sane people would say one innocent life is bad enough.

You critisize murders for killing innocent people and yet you stand here and tell me that killing innocents is acceptable if it accomplishes your ends. Hypocrisy.



See above.

Not at all.

A serial killer murders for no reason. Executions occur for punishment and law an order.

Which religions, and what sources of morality?


Well, Christianity, the building blocks of current western concepts of morality, for starters.

"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you."
-Lukke 6:27-31. NIV

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."
—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV


I dont think either of those mean "If someone fucks with you get the fucker back."


Want more? Or are you ready to admit that civilized society does indeed view such petty vengence as misguided.


I love using scripture against the right. Where is NM when I need him...

So wait Trollgaard, I have a question for you... Ask away.


If your philosophy is might makes right, and that people with strength have a right to do as they please to accomplish their ends, why are you against murderers? They were clearly stronger than their victims, and used the means they could to accomplish their ends. Or is might makes right only ok for you? Same goes for rapists. The rapist was clearly stronger than the woman, therefore might makes right.

I don't think killing someone just because you want money, a jacket, or sex is right. Killing is only appropriate in certain circumstances, such as war, self defense, and for certain crimes.


But it was an innocent you say? Well, by your own omission earlier that the death of innocents is ok to accomplish your ends (killing murders is the goal and its ok if a few innocents die) then why is it not ok for the murder to accomplish his ends?

For the larger sake of law and order, a few innocents dying is acceptable.


What about those murderers who got cheated out of money, so they go and brutally kill the guy who cheated them? Hes only getting them back and then some, which you yourself said was how it should be. That'll teach people not to fuck with John C. Killer.

That is taking it over the top. Use judgement on the level of force you use.

See above-killing is only acceptable in certain circumstances.


It seems that these murderers you detest so much are merely opperating from the same life philosophy as you are. Might makes right, if you have strength use it, get the guy who hurt you back and then some, and the death of a few innocents is OK if it is done to achieve a goal. I don't go around killing and hurting to get what I want.


Whats your issue with murderes then? Or does it only work when your the one on the winning side? I don't use force unless force was used against me or someone I care for.

That is the difference.

Well, Christianity, the building blocks of current western concepts of morality, for starters.

"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you."
-Lukke 6:27-31. NIV

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."
—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV


I dont think either of those mean "If someone fucks with you get the fucker back."


Want more? Or are you ready to admit that civilized society does indeed view such petty vengence as misguided.


I love using scripture against the right. Where is NM when I need him...

I'm not Christian.

Swing and a miss.

Any more?

Ask away.



I don't think killing someone just because you want money, a jacket, or sex is right. Killing is only appropriate in certain circumstances, such as war, self defense, and for certain crimes.



For the larger sake of law and order, a few innocents dying is acceptable.



That is taking it over the top. Use judgement on the level of force you use.

See above-killing is only acceptable in certain circumstances.

I don't go around killing and hurting to get what I want.

I don't use force unless force was used against me or someone I care for.

That is the difference.

This all just proves your double standard. Im done with that now, its apperant for all to see.

I'm not Christian.

Swing and a miss.

Any more?

Nor am I. But western society is based off the morality espoused by that book, for good and ill. So, when I say civilized western society as a whole rejects petty vengence, I am correct.

This all just proves your double standard. Im done with that now, its apperant for all to see.

...

Come again?



Nor am I. But western society is based off the morality espoused by that book, for good and ill. So, when I say civilized western society as a whole rejects petty vengence, I am correct.

Vengeance is rejected by a large portion of society, but embraced by another large portion of society.

A serial killer murders for no reason. Executions occur for punishment and law an order.

This I will say is the only time executions are acceptable. In this case, rehabilitation is impossible, remorse is impossible, and antisocial personality disorder is not cureable. Thus keeping them alive is a waste, as the goal of justice is rehabilitation to prevent recidivism, and this is impossible with sociopaths.

It is late, and I have class tomorrow early. But Ill be back

...

Come again?


Forget it. It has been demonstarted to others.




Vengeance is rejected by a large portion of society, but embraced by another large portion of society.

Vengence is rejected by the vast majority of the west. Its with certian Americans that it is acceptable.

But that is because America is a young country. States and religions evolve like organisms. We'll come around.

This I will say is the only time executions are acceptable. In this case, rehabilitation is impossible, remorse is impossible, and antisocial personality disorder is not cureable. Thus keeping them alive is a waste, as the goal of justice is rehabilitation to prevent recidivism, and this is impossible with sociopaths.

It is late, and I have class tomorrow early. But Ill be back

We don't go around killing people because they're 'a waste'.
If rehabilitation seems impossible (and you never EVER know if it really is), then you have to take care of this person who is too sick to ever get back into society. NOT snuff him of so he won't cause you any bother anymore.

Forget it. It has been demonstarted to others.

Oh I see...

It was because a few innocents dying for the sake of the larger good part...






Vengence is rejected by the vast majority of the west. Its with certian Americans that it is acceptable.

But that is because America is a young country. States and religions evolve like organisms. We'll come around.

Bah!

The rest of the West have lost their goddamn balls!

Nor am I. But western society is based off the morality espoused by that book, for good and ill. So, when I say civilized western society as a whole rejects petty vengence, I am correct.

For someone who dislikes Christians and Christianity you sure do have a hard-on for the Bible.

I am astounded that the death penalty is still legal in any "civilized" nation on the planet.

It is ludicrous.

Hardly any.

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/1581/deathpenaltyworldmap2bnn4.png
In blue, countries which have abolished the death penalty de jure, or no longer use it de facto. In red, countries which retain the death penalty.

No country whatsoever in Oceania applies to death penalty. No country in Europe does either, with the sole exception of Belarus (which the US government describes as an "outpost of tyranny"). Very few countries in Latin America retain it. A large number of African countries have ceased using it. The world's least progressive region in this regard is Asia, and particularly the Middle East.

In 2007, at least 1,252 people were executed, in 24 countries. 88% of these were killed in the world's "top five" executors - China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the US. (Delightful company the US is keeping there!) In addition, thousands of "hidden" executions may have taken place in China, according to Amnesty International.
There were 407 known executions in China, 317 in Iran, 147 in Saudi Arabia (of which 76 at least were foreigners), 135 in Pakistan and 42 in the US. At least 204 people were also executed in 19 other countries.
Up to 27,500 people are currently on death row around the world.

(link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7346938.stm))

Since 2000, the following countries have officially abolished the death penalty:
Côte d'Ivoire, Liberia, Rwanda, Senegal, Armenia, Bhutan, Kyrgyzstan, the Philippines, Uzbekistan, Albania, Cyprus, Greece, Malta, Turkey, Ukraine, Bermuda, Mexico, Cook Islands, Samoa, Chile.

In addition, the following countries have not executed anyone for the past ten years, despite not having officially abolished the death penalty:
Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Comoros, Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, and at least fourteen others in Africa alone, not to mention the rest of the world. Outside of Asia, the entire world is moving towards putting an end to the death penalty.

Hardly any.

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/1581/deathpenaltyworldmap2bnn4.png
In blue, countries which have abolished the death penalty de jure, or no longer use it de facto. In red, countries which retain the death penalty.

No country whatsoever in Oceania applies to death penalty. No country in Europe does either, with the sole exception of Belarus (which the US government describes as an "outpost of tyranny"). Very few countries in Latin America retain it. A large number of African countries have ceased using it. The world's least progressive region in this regard is Asia, and particularly the Middle East.

It is interesting to note the three most populations countries in the world all retain the death penalty.

the entire world is moving towards putting an end to the death penalty
The rest of the world can bitch and moan all it wants. We'll keep on doing whatever we damn well please.

It is interesting to note the three most populations countries in the world all retain the death penalty.

And that is relevant... how, exactly?

You can't find any other criterion, so you latch on to that, do you?

I find that rather amusing.


The rest of the world can bitch and moan all it wants. We'll keep on doing whatever we damn well please.

Oh, I think eventually the US will catch up with the rest of the Western world (and much of Africa) in terms of human rights. They're getting there, very slowly. And in the meantime, of course, the US has dropped behind Rwanda...

I'm not interested in debating it with you, though. You've shown time and time again that you simply react on the basis of your primitive instincts, rather than reason. There's no point in discussing an issue with someone if you can't reason with them, and, in your case, it would be a waste of time.

The rest of the world can bitch and moan all it wants. We'll keep on doing whatever we damn well please.

Quoting Slobodan Milosevic now?

That's why I believe suicide should be legal.
Than the prisoner can decide himself whether he finds life long imprisonment better than death. Or even if he would prefer Death over the shame of the crime itself.
Morally, pushing a person towards suicide is equal to homicide. So, a prison should NEVER be so harsh to push a person to choose death as means of escape.

Morally, pushing a person towards suicide is equal to homicide. So, a prison should NEVER be so harsh to push a person to choose death as means of escape.

Umm so what should it be then?

Justice is absolutely nothing to do with revenge.

I was summing up Athenae Magnus' point, and making fun of it a bit.

Umm so what should it be then?

Is it so difficult to conceive of a prison which aims to turn you into a productive and useful member of society (even if it keeps you locked up)?

Why is it that so many people irrationally believe the primary focus of prisons should be on punishing prisoners so harshly that they come out of prison as hardened criminals set to re-offend, after initially entering prison for a minor offence, rather than on rehabilitating them? It makes absolutely no sense.

What on earth do you people think that blind lady is holding, cups? She's thirsty for Justice? Those are scales sweetheart, Justice is about equalization.

You can attach negative sounding names to Justice all you want, I am sorry if being Just is scary, or sad, or uncomfortable for you.

Lemme' give you a visual aid:

http://www.spectator.co.nz/images/justice.gif


Justice is the mediation of vengeance, of revenge, to the extent that it punishes the guilty in due course for what they have done. I didn't realize punishing people, equally, for their bad behavior was such a terrible thing. I guess you just want to stop when it makes you feel all queasy inside.

Poor thing, well, I guess us bloodthirsty savages are going to be over here punishing people for what they've done to others. You can have your fairy land where murderers get to kill whomever they want without being put to the scale of justice.

Please, though, sweetheart, quit calling it justice; it's forgiveness, it's letting people off easy, it's charity. You can call it in whatever nice words you want, but don't lie and call it Justice, you have no right to own what you are spitting on.
If that's what you call justice then I want no part of it.
Ever heard of intuition? Instinct? Gut feelings?

I'm wearing 5 items of clothing, counting my socks as one item, not counting my belt or my glasses. Why don't you try and intuit what they are and what they look like? I know that you'll be able to say that I'm lying if you get it wrong, but I'd be interested to see if you're right about this whole 'first guess is probably right' thing for myself.

Umm so what should it be then?

The purpose of detention (not of justice, rehab etc) is to isolate a human who poses a potential danger to society - not to "punish" him.

While he's kept isolated from the rest of society, he is a human being still, and so has inhaerent human rights: life, health, housing, working in decent conditions.
A State should - whenever it has the chance - always treat humans, even criminal humans, better than how criminal humans treat other humans.