Thread: Capital Punishment

Universal mind.

Giving murderers excuses and acceptance would be one of the social elements you are talking about. [/b]

No it isn't. I am not talking about defending murderers. Or accepting their behaviour.
I mean keeping those things away from society and keeping dangerous people away, but at the same time trying to help them, rather than merely kill them for what they have done.
All attack is really just a cry for help. They are basiclly lost. The ideal is to eliminate the behaviour, which may include eliminating dangerous beliefs, ignorance or whatever. But it does not include killing them. That's a cheap, wrong, and redundant solution.

Though it might not be possible.

Originally posted by Alric
What about normal killers? You just kill one or two people because you hate them. Or for money or something. Thats the kind of person who would not kill someone because of capital punishment, not the crazy people.

You just said if someone was motivated enough to kill someone they wont care. What is killing someone though? Its a pretty simple task, anyone could do it. You don't need to be highly \"motivated\" to do it. Infact it could be that you made a horribly stupid mistake.

Of course most people don't think they will get caught and life in jail is almost as bad as dieing. So in the end it might not matter that much.

What makes a 'normal killer' different from a 'unnormal killer' ? How is murdering 2 children different from murdering 4? Your logic doesn't add up. Regardless of the motives; whether it be money, vengeance or lack of mentality, killing someone is still wrong. That said, the punishment for killing should then be an equal sentence for all states of person. Giving a clynically insane person more support and less of a punishment would then become a flaw in the system.

Maybe I'll make a very long post discussing Capital Punishment when I get home from work; but for now I am too tired and offset to reply to all the posts.

Originally posted by NirvanaStarseed
Universal mind.

Giving murderers excuses and acceptance would be one of the social elements you are talking about.

No it isn't. I am not talking about defending murderers. Or accepting their behaviour.
I mean keeping those things away from society and keeping dangerous people away, but at the same time trying to help them, rather than merely kill them for what they have done.
All attack is really just a cry for help. They are basiclly lost. The ideal is to eliminate the behaviour, which may include eliminating dangerous beliefs, ignorance or whatever. But it does not include killing them. That's a cheap, wrong, and redundant solution.[/b]

Giving murderers excuses and acceptance sends them the wrong message. I have watched a lot of interviews with murderers, and the last thing that horrible scum needs is an excuse. They will run with it as far as they can take it. "Oh, well I came from a rough neighborhood!" is a common one. Too much of society has told them that they are not to blame, and that encourages future murder behavior. I too agree that we should eliminate the social influences of murder to the extent we can without taking away legitimate freedoms, but what I don't agree with is not blaming the murderers, which is the philosophy you expressed when you said, "You do not blame the person." I say we blame them before we put them through Hell or death. They do not have my sympathy, and they never will. The people who have my sympathy are the people who come from the same social circumstances and become stable, decent people. I give those people the thumbs way up, not the scum that ruins the lives of the innocent and act like everybody should feel sorry for them because they did it. My sympathy is with the victims and the people who loved them, not the excuse making selfish scum that ruined them.

3.) "Yes, some people should not be given the chance to re-offend"

I don't think it's quite cut and dry as "an eye for an eye"

There is a big difference. If you get pleasure from killing and you already killed 14 other people, that is a lot different than someone who tries to rob a bank and shoots the guard. The first one won't care if they die or not, the second might decide not to shoot the guard if he thought he was going to get caught.

I never said there should be a different standard though. I am just saying there is an affect on some what normal people, and not all people who kill are totally nuts.

The comments about murderers killing for sex is so blatantly wrong, it bothers me.
Rape is not, contrary to popular belief, all about sex. Most rapists do it to obtain a sense of power and control.
Nevertheless, I don't think the motive is all that important to this discussion anyway.

Originally posted by Placebo
The comments about murderers killing for sex is so blatantly wrong, it bothers me.
Rape is not, contrary to popular belief, all about sex. Most rapists do it to obtain a sense of power and control.
Nevertheless, I don't think the motive is all that important to this discussion anyway.

Some murderers, such as Karla Faye Tucker (sp?), say they got sexual arousal off killing their victims.

Ok, I figured using a VICTIM for sex was generally deemed as sex, y'know, probably because the person's a victim, and isn't likely to be like "Oh yeah you can have sex with me before killing me."

And judging whether or not they're doing it to get a sense of control you shouldn't be claiming to know, because no one knows what a serial killer actually thinks about unless they are that serial killer.

Ah, that's like saying that criminal psychology is completely pointless, because it's all just theories proposed by psychologists.
Anyway, I said 'most', not all. And it's neither here nor there for this discussion (I think)

I dunno, I've never been a fan of psychology. Not because of what Psychologists study or whatever, but when they tell you what you're thinking and why. Like if I said to one "A mirage is one of the most unexplained and weird things there is." They'd just contradict me with a long and pointless explanation that I wouldn't listen to. Then I'd say "No. It's a very unexplained and weird thing. Take your scientific proof and shove it. Why don't you actually look at a mirage, instead of just knowing what it is from your textbook."

I believe in real experience over knowledge. People should never be able to tell you how you think because of reading it in a book. Like the guidance counsellors in schools who say "When somebody does something that you don't like, you can tell them and they'll stop. Or tell a teacher."

That won't stop the problem, if some kid's gettin' picked on, he'll picked on more if he says "Hey, you're hurting my feelings, please stop." and just the same as if he goes to a teacher, but then they'd be regarded as a pansy, coward, etc.

Originally posted by Vampyre


Take your scientific proof and shove it. Why don't you actually look at a mirage, instead of just knowing what it is from your textbook.\"

I believe in real experience over knowledge. People should never be able to tell you how you think because of reading it in a book. Like the guidance counsellors in schools who say \"When somebody does something that you don't like, you can tell them and they'll stop. Or tell a teacher.\"

Hmm that's an interesting viewpoint you have there, but knowledge is nothing more than accumulated experiences, and can be very valuable in it's own right. Through knowledge you can discover other people's experiences of things you may never experience yourself, and yet it may aide you. It is also true that you should never hesitate to question knowledge and 'test' it rather than simply accepting it, but throwing it away without even testing it yourself is, in my mind, ignorant.

The whole point of science is that people can develop a uniform, accurate and measureable way of turning their experiences into knowledge that others can use and trust. This is why there are such things as independant and dependant variables, control samples, averages etc. Telling someone to go shove their scientific proof isn't very intelligent, the intelligent thing to do would be to listen to their proof, test it and make your mind up for yourself, because what if they are actually right?

I have a conclusion for this thread.

Capital Punishment = Capital Muder = Wrong (wrong + wrong = 2 wrongs.

conclusion:

Capital Punishment is enforced by entitys of death, and babies.

I always found this ironic. It seems that most of the people (at least here in America) that speak out against the death penalty are the same people that are for abortion. Apparently killing babies is okay to them but killing convicted murderers and rapists isn't.

I agree with abortions and death penalties. Judging by how much people love their kids and such, I think if they decide that they can't have a baby, then they should have that right. And any teen who gets knocked up is probably gonna need an abortion too. It's wrong to force someone to throw away their life when there's a plausible solution.

And if abortions were banned, then people would be performing them on their own probably. By falling down or jumping or something. It might make them feel like shit, sick, etc but I guess that could be better than having a kid.

Originally posted by Vampyre
And if abortions were banned, then people would be performing them on their own probably. By falling down or jumping or something. It might make them feel like shit, sick, etc but I guess that could be better than having a kid.

Agreed. There's the demand for abortion - a law won't prevent all abortions, just the more 'on the fence' ones. You'd also have a lot of dodgy people who would attempt to perform abortions illegally for women - and cause a lot of injury and death in the process.

But it is a bit different from the death penalty. A child can't defend it's position.
My own view on the death penalty is quite undecided, because I can see the problem with both sides.

Originally posted by Vampyre
I agree with abortions and death penalties. Judging by how much people love their kids and such, I think if they decide that they can't have a baby, then they should have that right. And any teen who gets knocked up is probably gonna need an abortion too. It's wrong to force someone to throw away their life when there's a plausible solution.......

They shouldn't have the option for an abortion, because it was technically their choice whether or not to get pregnant in the first place. And loving their kid isn't KILLING them, it's actually giving the child a chance to live and then putting it for adoption or something.

"It's wrong to force someone to throw away their life when there's a plausible solution..." -- No one is forcing anyone to throw away their life. Again, it was their choice in the first place to go get themselves laid.

I always found this ironic. It seems that most of the people (at least here in America) that speak out against the death penalty are the same people that are for abortion. Apparently killing babies is okay to them but killing convicted murderers and rapists isn't.[/b]

I agree! However, I'm for both Capital Punishment and Pro Choice for the simple reason that more people need to be dead.

With overpopulation comes overtaxed societies. We (as humans) need to contribute towards helping nature keep our numbers in check. I mean natural disasters can only do so much, so it is our responsibility to regulate the number of beings populating this fragile planet.

Nature is indiscrimanite when it comes to taking lives. However, we as conscious beings (given our ability to reason) can and should make such choices. Now I ask, can you think of a better source of human waste to eliminate than convicted murderers?

/me rest my case

They shouldn't have the option for an abortion, because it was technically their choice whether or not to get pregnant in the first place. And loving their kid isn't KILLING them, it's actually giving the child a chance to live and then putting it for adoption or something.[/b]

If some 14 year old girl gets raped, then it's definitely not a good idea for her to have a baby. And she didn't choose to have it then did she? It's not like she was being raped and then went "Wait, or sure you want me tohave a baby? Because otherwise you should put on a condom."

And the baby might not kill her, but it would definitely send her life down the shitter. With a kid, she would have to quit school for the longest part so that she can raise her kid. Then after a couple years she goes back to school and tries to get through it, meanwhile she's preoccupied with her kid and what she's going to do. Then a few years down the track, she's trying to get a job, or college/university education to get a good job. All this time, she has to get tons of babysitters, so she's got tons of costs, because not only does she need to pay for her food and everything, but has to pay every day for someone to look after the kid while she's gone trying to get more money.

Meanwhile, the kid grows up without a mother around and gains more of a motherly figure from a nanny or a daycare worker, than their own mother. And it would be all because of people who protest against abortions.

A fetus does not develop the neurons necessary for consciousness until the third trimester. That means that until the third trimester, a fetus has no consciousness. You cannot murder something that has never had the capacity for consciousness. With no history of a mind, the person does not exist yet, only the parts the person is going to use. Abortion is not murder. It is birth control, just like not having sex in the first place. Am I a murderer for not getting Britney Spears pregnant when we have a potential child waiting to be concieved? Also, is masturbation murder? Think of all of the dead sperm cells that could have been humans.

Universal Mind

According to you. You could kill anything without it being murder. because you do not believe consiousness or life is really anything other than an artifical piece of machinary with no free choice.

You cannot murder something that has never had the capacity for consciousness. [/b]

It is obvious to me you do not understand the nature of consiousness or what it is.

Is masturbation murder? Think of all of the dead sperm cells that could have been humans.[/b]

This is getting silly and has little to do with killing another human being.
Abortion is another subject different to capital punishment.

Is breathing murder. Think of all the oxygen you are wasting that someone else could have used.

I dont want to sound cynical but it needed to be said.

God, this argument is degrading into "I can't hear you! I can't hear you! Stick my fingers in my ear LA LA LA I can't heeeeeeaaaaaarrrrrr youuuuuuuuuuuuuu". And just when it was getting interesting.

PS: I'm pro-abortion up until the fetus gets consciousness (third trimester, see wikipedia about it).

Originally posted by NirvanaStarseed
Universal Mind

According to you. You could kill anything without it being murder. because you do not believe consiousness or life is really anything other than an artifical piece of machinary with no free choice.

CONSCIOUSNESS IS \"ARTIFICIAL?\" WHEN DID I SAY THAT? WHEN DID I SAY I DON'T CARE ABOUT IT? I AM A HUMAN, SO I AM CAPABLE OF CARING ABOUT THINGS. YOUR POINT IS VERY BIZARRE AND ILLOGICAL.

You cannot murder something that has never had the capacity for consciousness.

It is obvious to me you do not understand the nature of consiousness or what it is.

MORE VAGUENESS FROM YOU. I HAVE SPENT A LOT OF MY LIFE STUDYING PSYCHOLOGY AND HAVE BEEN INTO MANY CONSCIOUSNESS IMPROVEMENT PRACTICES. I AM ALSO A WRITER WHO WRITES A LOT ABOUT THE NATURE OF CONSCIOUSNESS. I HAVE ALSO READ MANY BOOKS ON IT. COULD YOU POSSIBLY EXPLAIN THE ABSURD POINT YOU JUST MADE?

Is masturbation murder? Think of all of the dead sperm cells that could have been humans.[/b]

This is getting silly and has little to do with killing another human being.
Abortion is another subject different to capital punishment.

MORE VAGUENESS FROM YOU. MY POINT WAS THAT SPERM CELLS ARE POTENTIAL HUMANS, SO THE ARGUMENT THAT FETUSES ARE POTENTIAL HUMANS CARRIES VERY LITTLE WEIGHT IN THE ABORTION ARGUMENT. DID YOU REALLY NOT UNDERSTAND THE ANALOGY? IF YOU DID UNDERSTAND IT, THEN WHY DIDN'T YOU TRY TO COUNTER IT? CAN YOU?

Is breathing murder. Think of all the oxygen you are wasting that someone else could have used.

NO, BREATHING IS NOT MURDER. THERE IS PLENTY OF OXYGEN FOR US ALL. WHAT WAS YOUR POINT HERE?

I dont want to sound cynical but it needed to be said.[/b]

YOU DIDN'T REALLY SAY ANYTHING AT ALL. YOU JUST HURLED SOME STRANGE INSULTS. INSTEAD OF INITIATING RUDENESS INTO THE DISCUSSION, YOU SHOULD TRY COMING AT ME WITH SOME LOGIC. DO YOU THINK YOU ARE CAPABLE OF THAT?

Uh... Guys? Calm Down? Please?
Try be nice (both of you)
If you're sick of this thread, maybe ignoring it would be better?