do think it is right or wrong?
justify your answer
you might think this is just an easy question, but it can get interesting
Printable View
do think it is right or wrong?
justify your answer
you might think this is just an easy question, but it can get interesting
Questions like this are the reason that I do not believe in universal concrete moral standards.
Murdering murderers does seem counter-intuitive but on the other hand if someone takes a life, they obviously dont respect life so why should their right to live be respected? I don't necessarily support the death penalty but I also don't really like murderers so:whyme:
I kinda feel the same way. But I value every life as equal regardless, I don't support it, it doesn't make me happy knowing someone died, but I dunno, its sorta toughQuote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
death is very interesting , also we dont know what will happen when we die..
someone say so ,
someone say something different ,
religion says the more different what will happen.
its just too Mysterious to find out what happens after death , you may wake up in other life turn to a animal or whatever who knows .
so i think death is normal and right cus gettin older and more older , what would u do being so old ? sure u want to leave but there is an end for everything and its natural u cant change it :D.
also what most ppl think after death is paradise or hell ... i think its like a dream . if u were good in ur life u and u havent done alot of bad things u will go in a peace place and so..
if u were allways doing bad stuff , fighting people stress with family and everything then u might go somewhere else .
thats just what i think cus i think everything comes by ur self , its ur choice where to go =)
Sry for my bad english =D
KarLi*
The death penalty shouldn't exist, those people can be put to better use.
Eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind, etc.
But really I just don't think anyone/anything has the right to decide on the question of someone else's life. No matter what.
we dont deceide on the question of someone else's life , we just discuss what we think about it =)
I think the world is a better place without certain people in it. I'm not particularly opposed to killing such people.
However, I am against the death penalty. Not because of moral concerns (though the current methods of execution do trouble me - why not asphyxiate with an inert gas? Current methods seem inhumane), but for pragmatic ones. Namely that when miscarriages of justice occur, whether that's due to corruption, or aggressive prosecution that cares not for the truth but achieving the prosecution itself, then the end result is worse off.
If someone is wrongly jailed, then the verdict can at least be partially corrected. But it won't bring an innocent man back to life.
Why? People are not equal. Their deeds and actions are not equal. Their effects on society are not equal.Quote:
But I value every life as equal regardless
When you equate the best humanity has to offer with the value of the worst it can provide, you cheapen the lives of good people.
because we all deserve a chance. we are all people. we are all the same if you think about it, sure some people do horrible things, but it doesn't mean they should be treated as worthless and complete shitQuote:
Originally Posted by Photolysis
I don't really like incarceration either; locking people in cages.
However, eventually you get to a point where you have to ask the question: What kind of adequate punishment IS humane?
In an ideal world we would be able to rehabilitate these kinds of people, and show them the error of their ways and whatever...
...but does that take away free will?
I know that this is a little off-topic, because this thread is about the MORAL implications, but I found this to be interesting, if it is accurate:
Costs of the Death Penalty | Death Penalty Information Center
•Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.
•The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year.
•The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year.
•The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year.
I agree, I think people need to be rehabilitated, but what if they don't want to...exactly....I don't know D:Quote:
Originally Posted by sloth
erible it's terrible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff777
Jeff777 it's the opposite of heaven
you rhymer, you
See... this is so hard to answer... I seem to agree with getting 'revenge' with the murderer. kill my mother i'll kill you sorta thing....
But death penalities.... hellz no :/
I don't believe in the death penalty. No one has the right to take a life, no matter what they did. But I think SOME kind of beneficial rehabilitation is in order. If you don't want those kind of people in our society, send them to another country..a third world country.
Let them deal with their own demons at night when they sleep. Killing them only relieves them of their suffering and makes us no better than them.
I have no idea whatsoever why this is so hard to answer. What are the arguments for it?
An eye for an eye? Nobody ever heard that? Capital punishment is a purely emotional reaction. The only reason is revenge. By engaging in this behaviour we demean ourselves as humans and become animals; how can you possibly serve justice by denying the most crucial human character, that of rationality, temperament, and forgiveness? This kind of barbaric, unthinking reflex is the major source of all violence in the world today, anybody with the slightest faculty of discernment knows this.
Not to mention the absolute fucking no-brainer, don't give the state, a fallible and often duplicitous entity, the power to kill you.
For fuck's sake you people, the entirety of the rest of the Western world and half of the developing world has had this figured out for decades. Catch the fuck up.
Spoiler for Because North Africa and China are such fantastic fucking role models:
I'm against the death penalty because it is extremely expensive (so I hear) and because there's always the possibility that they got the wrong guy.
However, if the eyes of justice were all-seeing and incorruptible, I can see no reason why we wouldn't put the worst of criminals to death. It would be a resource-efficient way to eliminate risk.
I support the Death Penalty. Criminals, specially the serial killers and such, should get what's coming for them. Though, I would put in some sort of system to there would be a 5-10 year period before it actually happens, just to be sure they have the right guy. Also, perhaps exceptions for the ones who aren't in the right state of mind.
I'm definitively against it. There are many practical reasons why (Could have gotten the wrong guy, it's expensive, studies show prejudice is an important factor in whether or not you'll be sentenced to it, etc), but most importantly I just don't see how a self-respecting country can figure it's all right to kill people.
In a perfect world where it could be absolutely undoubtedly certain that nobody ever got falsely accused, that no person ever was punished because he / she was innocent, I would be for it for some extreme crimes such as intentional murders, months long abuse towards someone, etc. However, that perfect world does not exist, and therefore I'm against it.
EDIT: It should also be considered that ones religious beliefs play a role in whether they think the death penalty should be allowed or not
Even if you could be certain; are you really saying you'd kill this guy?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_atW2inZj-G...REDEMPTION.jpg
But who's going to kill the executor?
Please don't make that argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvo
I'd say in a metaphorical sense it's totally pertinent.
Since when is the function of society to 'reduce risk in a resourceful manner'? That argument by itself is nonsense; how about we ban all cars? Yes society should reduce hazards to citizens, but you're supposed to take into consideration what is a reasonable and moral approach, not what costs less.
I'm very surprised the open minded, liberal population of DV is so illiberal. I guess that's just the inevitable consequence of being surrounded by people who are nuts; you say you're open minded but in reality you have been percolated by it. Visit Europe some time and try to find somebody who won't think you're a bit wrong in the head. Or Russia, or Mexico, South America, Canada, Japan, Australia; basically anywhere that isn't China, the Middle East, or some fucked up, corrupt hellhole like Zambia. These are the people you're siding with; the only people. Some role models, huh?
How did this even happen in the free world? A country supposedly renowned for its veneration of the liberty of the individual over the collective?
I am dead serious. A 5 year old thinks far enough to ask a question like that. And there's no legitimate answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Eagle
Equating an execution with a murder is as asinine as equating murder with manslaughter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvo
Similarly, no rational person would advocate jailing jailers, but would advocate locking up a kidnapper.
Not if intetional murder is universally wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Photolysis
Which it is, unless it's self defense.
An execution is not the same as murder (though someone could be murdered by an execution).Quote:
Not if intetional murder is universally wrong.
Killing in self-defense is also not murder. A soldier killing an enemy combatant in a legal war is not a murderer. Someone who accidentally hits someone with their car and kills them is not a murderer.
Just because the end result is the same (someone kills someone else), the morality and background can be completely different, as evidenced in my "you don't want to jail the jailers" comment, which you ignored. If convicting someone of a serious offense and executing them is murder, then jailing people is equally as bad a crime as kidnapping, or holding someone hostage.
You can't have it both ways; you have to recognise that convicting and sentencing someone through the process of law can be completely different. And you then have to justify the statement "executing someone is murdering them", instead of just claiming it on no basis as you've done so far.
Killing a man through law is pointless. It serves no purpose, except for some kind of sick revenge. Law driven by revenge has no place in modern society in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Photolysis
I still consider an execution murder. A person kills another person for no good reason.
Oh, there's plenty of really great reasons for killing someone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvo
^ I can't think of any. ._.
What if someone kidnapped, raped, and murdered your child? You would probably want to kill them, and you would probably be justified in doing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinGill
Honestly, I'd want them imprisoned and rehabilitated. Killing them wouldn't bring my child back. Even if I did do something in a fit of rage, I'd feel like a sack of shit for doing it as soon as I settled down. =/
Fair enough. I think I'm just a less forgiving person than you.Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinGill
Not to worry Scherron, we'll have you fixed up in no time. =D
-----
I'd rather we focused on rehabilitating inmates and integrating them back into society once it's safe to do so rather than going ahead with the death penalty. And like it was mentioned earlier, it's just too risky in the event of a miscarriage of justice and the wrong person being put to death. My Law teacher also told us that historically, in nations where the death penalty is enforced, these states have used it to their advantage to put people to death when they shouldn't have. No state should have the power to legally get away with the murder of it's own citizens.
Even if it's perfectly understandable that you as an individual would want that, doesn't mean that it's all right for a government to sanction it.Quote:
Originally Posted by buriedmonsters
Some are beyond rehabilitation.Quote:
Honestly, I'd want them imprisoned and rehabilitated.
For it, as long as what they did was really horrible, and there is no doubt that they did it, and they are mentally competent. No executing retarded people, Texas.
Yet another generally liberal, educated, and pacifistic DV member from the US in favour of revenge killing. This is really interesting.
Punishment has 2 main purposes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
1: To revenge
2: When people know that there's a high chance of punishment after doing something "wrong", they're (supposed to be ) less likely to do that thing "wrong"
The way I see it, both prison sentence and death penalty are a mix of both. It's not purely revenge. It's not purely a control system. It's both.
I fully also support death sentence if the prisoner chooses that instead of a life in jail.
When people are in a state of circumstances or a state of mind that permits murder they are clearly not in the business of weighing up the consequences of their actions.
I'm not really going to argue this point because here comes our good old friend empiricism!
Murder Rates Nationally and By State | Death Penalty Information Center
There is no evidence at all that capital punishment deters homicide.
Hence the reason is purely revenge and, as I've detailed before, the state should never engage itself in something so emotional and unthinking.
I'm ambivalent about people opting in for the death penalty. I suppose that falls under personal autonomy.
By the way, I'm not remotely religious, but I heard somewhere on the internets that the U.S. really is. And... I'm pretty sure there aren't any caveats in the Ten Commandments. Just an interesting thought.
I've never been religous at all, and i live in finland.
Your point with this all is? My point here is: Why waste money on life sentence in prison? Waste of resources, and the prisoner is never going to benefit the society in any way whatsoever anyhow (he/she is in prison, after all, and trapped there) How is this an emotional impulse? It's really none at all. I'm fine both ways, but I don't think the death sentence is bad in the way most people make it out to be.
But aren't you Christian?Quote:
Originally Posted by buriedmonsters
0___________________0
Erm what? My points were refuting yours... that was the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by JussiKala
That wasn't your point, your point was that capital punishment is as a deterrent, as well as for revenge. This is a new point. Come on, if your arguments are shown to have an incorrect basis then accept it and modify your position if necessary, don't maintain exactly the same position with some totally different reason as if nothing happened; that should be raising some self-critical flags.Quote:
My point here is: Why waste money on life sentence in prison?
The measure of human worth is only one's value to society? This is seriously the argument..? Humans aren't intrinsically valuable?Quote:
Waste of resources, and the prisoner is never going to benefit the society in any way whatsoever anyhow (he/she is in prison, after all, and trapped there) How is this an emotional impulse? It's really none at all.
And I've already addressed this 'it costs money therefore don't do it' argument;
"Since when is the function of society to 'reduce risk in a resourceful manner'? That argument by itself is nonsense; how about we ban all cars? Yes society should reduce hazards to citizens, but you're supposed to take into consideration what is a reasonable and moral approach, not what costs less."
Do we pull the plug on recoverable coma patients because they aren't providing any benefit to society in the long term, and they're very expensive? Of course not. We consider our morals way before we consider how efficiently implement them. So the argument makes no sense. The only 'emotion' a state should relay is compassion, or at least tolerance, for every citizen. Revenge killing is not permitted because that is a non-compassionate emotion; a violent emotion. But if we kill criminals out of consideration for resources, i.e. a totally unemotional response, then that is not permitted either because the state is supposed to show compassion/tolerance to the criminal. In both of the aforementioned circumstances it is very easy indeed to envisage other circumstances in general where the touted principle is unequivocally a bad one.
No, yet what kind of value do these people have if they are for life in jail? It does not have to be valuable for the society. What value do these people have, if we disregard the usual "every human is equal and very important" notion? I personally don't believe that every human should be considered equal or worthy of something merely because they exist. (does not apply to everything)Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Because cars benefit people and prisoners do not benefit anyone, aside from maybe small talk buddies with other prisoners, therefore this metaphor is inaccurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Life sentence in prison and recoverable coma are not comparable like that. Life sentence and UNrecoverable coma are the same thing in my eyes. The person will never get out of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
The appeal to morality is kind of odd, since morality is subjective, and people can consider life in prison worse than death sentence too.
I dont believe in the death penalty. I think we should lock up the murdurers in small cramped dark cells and treat them like animals. Murderers are animals that don't deserve the peace of death. They deserve to rot in a small cell and given only enough food and water to survive. We should encase them into devices that only allow them to move thire heads and leave them in the cramped cell for 18 hours a day every day until they die. Of course there is this voice in my head telling me it dissagrees but this is still how I feel wrong or not.
So no death penalty.
we are all animalsQuote:
Originally Posted by Osmodin
Then keep them behind bars and put their to work so their time in prison is being put to good use. eg. Working the cafeteria, washing clothes, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Photolysis
If all you do is keep them locked in a cell, then they don't benefit anyone. Put them to work around the prison and they'll be benefiting all the other inmates as well as the prison staff.Quote:
Originally Posted by JussiKala
I pity you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Osmodin
Someone has watched one too many SAW movies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Osmodin
Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seroquel
I have actually read a story of a man who spent 28 years in isolation. He had a little more freedom than what you're describing, but basically all he had was himself, a toilet and a bed, for 28 years. You wouldn't want any man to go through that, no matter how evil they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Osmodin
That's horrible. How did he handle it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvo
He's still in there. He wrote the story in order to win some sympathy from the state, so they would perhaps move him to a little more open facility.Quote:
Originally Posted by khh
Actually, now that I think about it, there are some very good reasons why you would not kill a terrible criminal even if there was no doubt as to whether or not he committed the heinous acts.
If you keep him in jail, you can always convince those people who cry out for the death penalty that he is actually suffering more than if he were simply put to death. And if he were in jail, it would silence the moralizers who have the "killing is always bad no matter what" mindset. You could also put the prisoners to work doing some form of slave labor. It's a full win.
There are only two possible functions of penal systems. Reduce risk from humans who break the law or to take revenge. Most systems are a combination of the two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Please explain to us all your conception of a "reasonable, moral approach" when judging a predatory serial killer.
A five year old would ask such a question because he is only able to analyze a situation based on the superficial details.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvo
Killing is not universally wrong. Nothing is universally wrong. Though I disagree with execution in these modern times, what if resources were very scarce? What if you had to make the decision to imprison somebody or get rid of him and feed an innocent person?
Killing is most definitely universally wrong. It may be the most efficient way, or quite possibly the only way, to handle certain situations but I'd still say it's wrong even if it is necessary. In my eyes at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Eagle
Put him in prison until he dies?Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Eagle
I don't understand how this was supposed to trip me up.
By the way, you don't seem to be aware of an extremely important function of prison, besides deterrence (which, with respect to capital punishment, demonstrably does not work for homicide) and revenge (which is savage); protecting the populace from a dangerous individual.
I'm not sure how you managed to forget such a basic aspect of the modern, enlightened approach to punishment... DV is repeatedly failing to impress me in this thread.
I think that it is fine...
As long as you can garantee it wont happen to an innocent person.
But how will you do that?
It should be avoided, sure. I just don't see any purpose in calling it wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinGill
Why is this the more moral option?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
...Which falls under the tent of risk mitigation/prevention. As in, reducing the risk of any given innocent person being murdered by throwing certain individuals who have proven capable of the crime in prison.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I'm going to tone down my language. Or at least try.
Because this isn't the option motivated by revenge. This is the option necessitated by protecting the public.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackEagle
Killing is immoral, and two wrongs do not make a right. These are the two extremely basic moral bases.
Such black and white thinking is unbecoming of you.Quote:
Killing is immoral
State executions are exactly the same. It's carried out for the protection of the public, which is why the state carries out the act, not the wronged parties.Quote:
Because this isn't the option motivated by revenge. This is the option necessitated by protecting the public.
Not to mention that wronged parties also seek imprisonment as a form of revenge.
This is tiresome. 'You're wrong' doesn't count as an argument. Claiming I'm dichotomising an ambiguous situation is ridiculous and concerning. Killing is only permissible when it's necessary to stop another act as serious (shooting somebody on a killing spree; arguably waging war with a tyrannical regime; etc.), but that's of absolutely no relevance here. That you can't recognise 'don't kill somebody if there's no reason' as a pretty good shot as an unconditional moral law is what is unbecoming here. Go on, be the first person to explain why we can waive the moral principles of 'don't kill if it isn't necessary', 'turn the other cheek', even the universal golden rule 'do as you would be done by'.
Your second response just suggests you don't understand the word 'necessitate'.
this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
actually, this pretty well sums up a paper I turned in for Ethical Theory titled 'Revenge of the State' (Star Wars connotation FTW). I got an A.
The death penalty is completely wrong. This is an issue that's black and white, and there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to wish the death of a detained human being unless it's out of hatred or fear. It's the murder of a fellow human being who poses absolutely no threat to society. Imprisonment for life is always an option. The number of people who actually escape prison is extremely low, and it wouldn't do any harm to the community if a felon was imprisoned for life. A large number of "criminals" have been found to have been innocent after execution with the use of new DNA evidence, and there's very rarely any certainty that the person convicted even committed the crime in the first place. There's also the deep racism in capital punishment; look at the statistics compared to the general U. S. population, and you'll see that judges and juries are disproportionately sentencing ethnic minorities.
Is it really right to judge other human beings and decide who gets to live and who dies? There are so many psychological factors that go into a crime, I would almost go so far to say that the criminal was not entirely responsible. People are often products of their environment, and had the criminal been raised in a different household, there's a significant chance that he/she would not have committed the crime. People can reform, and criminals aren't always evil monsters for life out to harm as many people as they can. Prison needs to be focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment. The concept of prison is good because it keeps those who pose a threat to society quarantined, therefore keeping society safe; however, rather than give up on people who have made mistakes, the prison needs to be focused on reforming them so that they can reenter society and become happy citizens. Everyone has a right to life, and it's really not fair to take away someone's life because he/she made a mistake. (If you even think about responding with the "life's not fair" cliche, know that you hold a terribly pessimistic and defeatist worldview. If a society possesses the means by which to make things fairer, it is the moral obligation of all those with power to do so.)
This isn't a good reason to do something, but I'm going to say it anyways: sentencing people to death is economically indefensible. It's much cheaper to sentence people to life in prison, complete with food, clothing, and shelter than it is to execute, primarily due to legal fees. If the government outlawed capital punishment, it would save a significant amount of money that could be placed in other areas where funds are needed.
[sarcasm]Of course. We should just give murderers and rapists a good "talking to."[/sarcasm]Quote:
Originally Posted by GMoney
He didn't say they shouldn't be punished, he just said that it's stupid to put someone to death. Rehabilitate when possible and indefinitely imprison the ones that are beyond rehabilitation but make sure they're time behind bars is being put to good use.
I am against the death penalty. The only reason to kill is emotional. It doesn’t help anyone. The only reasonable argument I can understand for the death penalty is that it scares people into not killing, but statistics prove this isn’t true.
Let’s put our emotions aside for a moment here (because of course, if someone were to kill one of my family members, I would be completely consumed by emotion, and would post a completely different argument). The fact that the criminal “gets what they deserve” is irrelevant. This doesn’t help us. They could be served grapes in utopia if it further prevented murders.
The purpose of imprisonment should be for safety (confining criminals) and rehabilitation. And of course, rehabilitation often is not a possibility, but denying anyone that right demoralizes us. If you could magically wave a wand and turn a serial killer into a good doer, would you not, because they should get what they deserve? That satisfying your deep anger is more important than improving society?
This debate is simple. The death penalty doesn’t help anyone. It satisfies your emotions. It’s not easy to say “let’s help a murderer become better”, but its morally right (in my opinion).
Xei is right - two wrongs do not make a right. Execution probably does not even deter criminals more than life imprisonment, and on top of that it may only serve to evoke hatred and anger and encourage further violence.
On an economic standpoint, it's cheaper to keep them alive and in prison. On a moral standpoint, what if there is even a fraction of a percent of a chance that they didn't do it? DNA evidence has exonerated various "life" sentences already.
An eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye... eventually the whole world will go blind.
Well, that's a really difficult question to answer!
To be honest, there are a lot of criminals (murderers, rapists, etc.) out there which - in my opinion - should receive an unadorned 'eye for an eye'-treatment so that they experience the cruelty of their deeds firsthand; they shall suffer just as much as their victims did. And though I do know that the rule of law does not acquiesce revenge at all, I feel like someone who intentionally (!) caused pain and/or took life away completely loses his right on inviolacy.
Generally speaking, I'm pro death penalty as it does not bring back someone to life but at least frees the society from subjects like above-mentioned criminals. But: It's irrevocable, so it can only be executed when there's not the least bit of skepticism!
Now you can lapidate me for my view on this topic.
It has very little to do with hatred or fear, especially fear....lol!!Quote:
This is an issue that's black and white, and there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to wish the death of a detained human being unless it's out of hatred or fear.
Do you know what happens in the animal kingdom when one its members never quite "develops" the basic skills to whatever?
No, fear only has a small roll in the decision to take out the trash, if any fear is to blame it's on the part of the individual's moral stand point who becomes hung up on some false sense of morality.
We all instinctively know what needs to be done, some of us more than others.
I'm sorry if this has been mentioned already, but to anyone here who hasn't, I highly reccomend you read Truman Capote's In Cold Blood. It's very well written and serves as a pretty interesting reality check on the issue of capital punishment.
I say get rid of the bad people, or make life time in prison actually mean lifetime in prison.
I am sick of all this "good behavior" bullshit. They took away someone's life, to me they forfeit their own life by taking another's, so they should either: die or work till they die.
My ideas on this topic are varied. I don't really subscribe to any particular opinion.
More than the question of "Should we enforce the death penalty?", I wonder "Is there a way to live happily without the threat of force hanging over our heads?". If we could give all of the people in an area satisfaction, and raise them away from external influences that often lead to lives of crime, is it possible that we could have so few murderers or criminals that the death penalty would become a non-issue in itself? I don't know that humans have the right to kill other humans, but I also don't know that we shouldn't. I'm not even sure if the threat of prison or death is an efficient way to prevent crime. Based on our current practices, AKA killing enemy soldiers in war, I'm not so sure it's all that wrong to kill enemy (murderers) individuals in our own country.
Then again, I don't really think war is justified, either.
It's a problem, for sure. The best way to solve it, I think, would be to have the country (whichever one you live in) systematically define what is wrong and right. As it is now, we are hypocrites. The things we consider wrong and right are really not so different from each other. (Not really "we" as in individuals, but "we" as in "our country")
Yep.
in canada we dont have death penalty and i think that is wrong there was this guy down in calgary who decapatted a guy and he was let out of jail and im just like wtf thats not right its really stupid
so yes i do
no, I say we just execute them by a single bullet to the head. Feeding a man, keeping him clothed, running water, and general sanitation costs a fortune. One bullet costs maybe a couple cents and makes society saferQuote:
Originally Posted by ThePreserver
With over 139 people in the United States alone exonerated (while on death row) do you really think we should kill people who might be innocent? 139 is a big number when it comes to wrongful imprisonment on death row... how do we know we haven't killed people who aren't innocent?Quote:
Originally Posted by Suicideking
We have to follow certain standards for executions, not to mention the amount legal fees cost for such a trial. It's cheaper to keep them alive, because the trials for potentially executable "criminals" require massive amounts of research and digging. Each potential death row case costs millions of dollars. If you don't have death row as an option, immediately it's cheaper.
Imagine you were one of the 139 plus people who was wrongfully-convicted? You'd be happy that you weren't executed, but a little upset that you spent years on death row, not knowing if you'd ever be found truly innocent. Now imagine you were someone who wasn't found innocent even though you were innocent? And then you are executed. On a statistical basis, this is more likely than not to have happened at least once, based on the number of people found innocent on death row since 1970 and the number of people executed.
i would rather die then spend life in prison, even if I was wrongfully convicted, if thats what you are sayingQuote:
Originally Posted by ThePreserver
No I'm saying there have been hundreds of exonerated people worldwide... so if you ARE convicted, you can get out a few years later, rather than being executed. I'd rather not have the death penalty constantly hanging over my head, or the knowledge that I may be executed as an innocent person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suicideking
Our justice and prison system is so fucked up it's intolerable even without execution.
I agree with that. Prison conditions themselves are intolerable. Rampant plea bargaining (which is unconstitutional) is intolerable. The fact that the death penalty is still in place is the fucked up icing on the fucked up cake.
It's a self sustaining economic burden left alive by useless drug statutes. More and more, prisons are catering to the private sector, for example many prisoners are required to pay 3rd parties to talk to their relatives on the phone. Because the prison system is rewarded by failure to rehabilitate, it thrives on corruption so long as we treat it like a financial institution. Its bottom line is in direct conflict with its purpose for existence.
Does that mean you are supporting executions? I don't see a clear answer to the original question of the thread...
End the drug war. Free up the prison system.
Right, I'm more concerned with ending the drug war and worthless statutes and focusing on the punishment of actual criminals. Once we're just dealing with actual criminals, I'm more interested in removing the junk intricacy from the laws and making them into straight forward human philosophy than can be commonly comprehended. The death penalty is also lunacy, but changing it won't fix our system.
Getting rid of the death penalty WILL change the system. With the death penalty you need to spend hundreds of thousands more dollars for a trial, because you need TWO trials.
Without the death penalty, you can do one standard trial, and if new evidence appears, BAM you can release the person. It will save hundreds of millions of dollars.
Ending the war on drugs will do nothing. It will simply just create more big business(think of lobbying drug companies that want little taxes on their products so ppl will buy them) problems rather than cartel issues. The only way to solve all of this is by fixing the education system. Coming from a very well-to-do private school I can tell you that the inner city kids they bring (diversity stuff, not for it but whatever) in changed from wanna be thugs to very motivated, normal kids. Unfortunately public schools nowadays suck because of cuts back in the 80s. They cut spending from schools because it is not an effect you see quickly and you can put that money elsewhere, it takes years to realize that those cuts just fucked over a jersey shore loving generation that thinks being smart and successful should be on the back-burner of being cool, even if it is completely unethical (murder, drugs, robbery). Then those choices end them in jail and now look where we are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
So let's ban private schools. Force rich parents to give a shit and elect non-douches to office.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suicideking
Really though, education is not the key to utopia, there are still plenty of dysfunctional people in the world, even if they don't grow up glorifying gangsters. That being said, it's still just as necessary for society to protect education as it is for society to regulate their illegal markets and socialized health care.
And Preserver - You're right about that, government regulation can sometimes just be a means to make the criminals wear ties. But it all comes down to Patents.
DCA is a perfect example of how evil pharmaceutical companies are and how legalizing drugs could actually fuck them over in the long run. DCA was discovered over a century ago and cannot be patented, so there's not much money in researching its effect on cancer but so far it seems to have success rates 40 times greater than chemotherapy. If we legalized drugs we could start to strangle these malicious companies of their excessive profits from their patented alternatives and castrate their endeavors to keep Americans sick.
Ending the drug war won't solve all of the drug problems, but it will solve some border/immigration issues and prisons that are over capacity... Also it will allow people to do what they wish freely by repealing a prohibition on substance. How is it different than alcohol? It's a mind-altering substance that isn't good for you but people do it regardless of whether or not it is legal to them. Just decriminalize marijuana for God's sake... it won't make kids potheads... because any kid who wants access to marijuana already HAS access to marijuana.
Thought you were serious about the private school thing at first. And never heard of DCA before, probably is full of bullshit anyway if no one has used it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
See how my uneducated view of that quickly shoots down everything you have to say. Tunisia invested heavily in education before the revolution and the people revolted because they were all educated and thought that knowledge was important and they realized they were being put down. The same would happen with America and every problem the nation has if the people were more educated
"Probably full of bullshit if no one has used it."Quote:
Originally Posted by Suicideking
Niels Bohr is disappoint with your logic, son. No one uses it because you can't patent it so there's no money in it.
But seriously, I am serious about banning private schools. If you want to educate people, then force them to take responsibility for the society they live in as a whole. Private schools enable the only people capable of changing anything to be completely apathetic about education at large.
Banning adults from teaching whoever they want. Sure is authoritarian in here.
Humor is a fine arguing mechanism. Fallacies are not. If you're going to respond to my point, make sure I actually made it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
you didnt read past my first sentence, way to go.
No private schools? Why shouldn't parents choose where they want to educate their kids? Unless of course you are a communist, in which case, communism doesnt work
"communism doesn't work" prove it, bitchQuote:
Originally Posted by Suicideking
TROLOLOLOLOLO JKJK
Right, putting education before the financial system is communist. And I did read your entire post, I know the power of education. I know the importance of education. I am not trying to refute your point that education is important. I'm just saying private schools are part of what's hindering the development of our education system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suicideking
How do you see that to be true?Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
As I stated above, it disincentivizes the people who have the power to do anything. It ranks your opportunity based on your parents wealth, thus the wealthy never have to worry about the education system because they can send their kids elsewhere and not partake. Imagine if people weren't forced to partake in Social Security, so the poor are supporting the poor and the rich don't have to help with shit because they're successful. But they're successful off the backs of the fucking poor, the self-made man is a myth, every successful person go there off the work of the common people. The wealthy want to give themselves a rich alternative to everything so they can wash their hands of the problems of the poor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
Well looks like someone is channeling Elizabeth Warren.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
You said you wanted to ban private schools. So you want to ban people from privately educating others in exchange for money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
in that case wont be too long till religion is outlawed to hahaQuote:
Originally Posted by Xei
You have an Avatar therefore you are a James Cameron fan?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Three wrongs don't make a right:
1)The family of the victim gets no monetary restitution whatsoever, even though they should be entitled, given they've suffered and lost a source of income.
2)The murderer is killed, thus preventing him from recovering from the emotional trauma that led him to kill.
3)The taxpayer is fucked as they have to pay the huge costs associated with execution.
Actually, this argument also applies for putting people in cages. Ideally (and in a free society), the murderer would have to pay or work restitution to the family and they would need to go through an actual rehabilitation program. And rehabilitation doesn't involve being locked in cages with other violent people who want to rape you...
Well no but we also don't know how to rehabilitate every type of murderer.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
Has psychology at least advanced to the stage where we can definitively say that putting them in cages with other violent criminals probably won't make them less violent?Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
I agree. The Justice System is being treated like a Financial Institution. Any action that expands and sustains the criminal population is being rewarded.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind