CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Right, you suggested that we cut off a rapist's balls. I then disputed you with, "Well, in order to not be sexist, you should have said, "Let's cut off their balls/vaginas."
An alternative to actual cutting off would be disabling certain organs, but that would also include a bit of cutting. Unless there are some drugs that make it permanent.
Point is that the hormones or whatever make them rape others are no longer produced. If that still doesn't work then death penalty, or some other use for them away from society.
The whole "CEO" thing was said to dispute the fact that you said "Well, women make up such a small amount of rapists." This is absolutely true with CEO's, as well. Men make up the greater majority of CEO's, as they do rapists.
I said earlier that you shouldn't be sexist because you said, "Let's cut their balls off!" (This obviously leaves out the female gender)
So I said, "Hey, wait! You must say balls/vaginas to include women!"
Then you said, "Oh, they make up such a small percentage of rapists, I'm just going to say balls."
I then used the CEO example to state this: So, according to your logic, because women make up such a small demographic of a certain entity, it would be okay to say "CEO's are a vital part of a country's economy. In an average business day, he will hire this many people and fire this many people etc." Notice how I said, "he" instead of "he/she".
The whole "CEO" thing was said to dispute the fact that you said "Well, women make up such a small amount of rapists." This is absolutely true with CEO's, as well.
So what if it is true about CEO's? It is irrelevant.
There are more males in higher positions because males are the dominant sex. They are dominant in physical aspect and in intelligence. It is a fact.
The "Well, women make up such a small amount of rapists." is not something I said.
"Oh, they make up such a small percentage of rapists, I'm just going to say balls."
I never said a sentence like that either.
How many rapes done by females have you heard about? And how many done by males have you heard? See the difference? Rapes done by males are a far bigger problem than those done by females.
"CEO's are a vital part of a country's economy. In an average business day, he will hire this many people and fire this many people etc."
So a rapists in an average raping day will take up for raping this many people and not rape this many? And they are a vital part of society? What the f are you talking about?
"he" instead of "he/she"
Just so you knew, English does not have a gender-neutral word.
DUDE, I would LOVE to get raped by a hot girl LOL. You guys are HILARIOUS. Oh and as for "How many rapes done by females have you heard about?" It's actually very common in Russia. In Russia, women rape YOU! LOL, though I actually know of three particular cases where a woman will drug a man, take him to her car, drive him to her house, then rape him. BUT, it's not rape if you enjoy it LOL. This is hilarious. I can't believe this is an actual argument. You sure made my day a whole lot brighter.
"Just so you knew, English does not have a gender-neutral word."
DUDE, I would LOVE to get raped by a hot girl LOL. You guys are HILARIOUS.
I had the same thought myself, if the the raper was a hot girl then why not? But then it wouldn't be rape because you want it, she has your approval. But if it's an ugly, big, and fat female... best not to even think about it (shivers).
It's actually very common in Russia. In Russia, women rape YOU! LOL,
Russia is decades behind rest of the world. Russia is no country to be taken as an example to justify something negative as "normal" or common. That country and a large number of its people are SERIOUSLY fucked up. I know, I live right next to it.
though I actually know of three particular cases where a woman will drug a man, take him to her car, drive him to her house, then rape him.
Men do it far more than women.
BUT, it's not rape if you enjoy it LOL. This is hilarious. I can't believe this is an actual argument. You sure made my day a whole lot brighter.
I just go with the arguments wherever they lead. This one did turn out rather funny.
"Just so you knew, English does not have a gender-neutral word."
They?
When it comes to calling one person as you can with the words "he" and "she". "It" is used when referencing objects, things, and animals, but not humans.
What's wrong about it a killer destroys a persons life well a rapists does the same thing just becuase there alive doesn't mean that they don't live with that for the rest of thier lives u have no idea what they go threw unless u have been in that position or know someone really close that has had that happen to him or her don't tell me ur sticking up for rapists maybe ur one of them
Wow, you obviously are the most ignorant person to post on this argument yet. Spelling errors, grammar errors, the run on sentences, and the solecism in your sentences; are you 5 years old?
I'm ignorant how? lol well let me tell u how it works were I'm from in california people fight with each for the opportunity to stab rapists yea I'm not to good at sentences or spelling I spent time learning more important things I have never needed spelling or how to write anything really important to b honest but I do have a g.e.d LOL let me guess why ur mad becuase u still live with ur mom
Wow, you have a G.E.D. What happened? Dropped out of high school? Or did you flunk out? Judging by you sentences (if you can call them that), you flunked out. And as for me, I have a Computer Engineering Associates degree and I'm working towards my Bachelors of Science in Computer Engineering, so keep that in mind. I suppose the "really important things" that you are learning that aren't reading and writing is how to roll a joint or take LSD since I couldn't imagine what a person who still lives in his mom's basement learns.
I have 2 bodyshops and own 2 house outright no I didn't flunk out I was in prison for a few years shit happens well if ur ever in northern California let me know and will see how smart u are face to face tuff guy I doubt u have ever even have had real life experience with criminals or people that have killed people u just think u know everything and open ur mouth
I'm licensed to carry a gun in 21 states. It doesn't matter how tough you are when you are staring down the barrel of a .45, so I'll gladly meet you face to face.
Oh, and by the way, it's two, you're (you are), you, tough, you; and these are some punctuation marks: . , ; : ? !
This is an apostrophe: ' These are quotation marks: " These are parentheses:()
I hope you learned a lot from this post. In our next post, we can learn basic grammar rules. If you feel confident enough, we can even learn advanced sentence structure. I can even teach you how to diagram sentences.
You think your the only one that has a gun computer tough guy yea let me know when your in northern California but I'm done going back and fourth with u its just a big waste of time u have nothing to learn from and all ur grammar and bullshit is a waste of time for me if u know what I'm saying that's all that matters
So somebody should have their life, their supreme possession, taken away from them simply because a small part of their body went inside of another person's body?
People are destroyed mentally for life and some even kill them selves.due to what happened to them becuase it was so traumatic and most get away with one and do it again some even start killing thier victims so yea .I'm surprised that you are sticking up for rapists
"He who takes a man's life, so shall his life be taken."
It's not just the act of murder that's bad, but also the thought process leading up to the actual murder. It takes a really hateful, spiteful, incurable mind to do something as think about murder until he actually does it. Death to rapists and murderers.
In which case, why is the death penalty acceptable? By your definition, the death penalty is hateful, spiteful, etc. And how is life imprisonment a less effective solution?
No the death penalty in not hateful because it is performed due to the fact that he killed someone. Unlike the murderer who was probably robbing a bank or something like that.
Well, what't the point of leaving him in prison until he dies? Just kill him right then and there.
No the death penalty in not hateful because it is performed due to the fact that he killed someone. Unlike the murderer who was probably robbing a bank or something like that.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. How can we teach society that murder is wrong by murdering those that do it?
Well, what't the point of leaving him in prison until he dies? Just kill him right then and there.
Because there's nothing to say that life imprisonment is a less harsh punishment. Humans are group animals, an entire life separated from those closest to you is potentially a fate worse than death.
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. How can we teach society that murder is wrong by murdering those that do it?"
An eye for an eye won't make the whole world blind if the person never took the eye in the first place. By allowing the death penalty, you are setting an ultimate standard for those who murdered. If you want to kill somebody, then expect the consequences of your actions.
"Because there's nothing to say that life imprisonment is a less harsh punishment. Humans are group animals, an entire life separated from those closest to you is potentially a fate worse than death."
Because prisons don't have visitors lists? So much for "separation from those closest to you". And death would do a better job.
An eye for an eye won't make the whole world blind if the person never took the eye in the first place.
The death penalty does not prevent murder. Sticking with the phrase, people will take eyes no matter what the punishment is. Thus the punishment set should not be one that is hypocritical and morally questionable.
By allowing the death penalty, you are setting an ultimate standard for those who murdered. If you want to kill somebody, then expect the consequences of your actions.
What of those who care not for life or death? The death penalty does not faze sociopaths, suicide bombers, and indoctrinated fundamentalists. For them, death is not the ultimate standard: and they carry out the worst crimes.
Because prisons don't have visitors lists? So much for "separation from those closest to you". And death would do a better job.
I don't support the idea of a visitor's list. I prefer complete solitary confinement. And what do you mean by "death would do a better job"?
Neither does life in prison. In fact, my state doesn't have the death penalty, but it has one of the highest murder rates in the country. So I guess your statement was wrong. (Oh wait! You're going to post some B.S. website statistic that will some how "prove" that I'm wrong. Well keep these things in mind if you are going to do something stupid like that, the statistic has to take these into accountability: border control/illegal immigration, gun control, and population size. These are the minimum amount of things that have to be accounted for in order for me to know you aren't blowing smoke out your ears.)
"Thus the punishment set should not be one that is hypocritical and morally questionable."
Well, if your profile is correct, your an atheist. You don't believe in absolutes. So stop allowing all this B.S. to spill out you mouth when you think morality is relative; because it's really stinking up the place.
"I don't support the idea of a visitor's list. I prefer complete solitary confinement. And what do you mean by "death would do a better job"?"
I mean death would do a better job of separating them from those close to them. And hey, if you think man is just an animal, then the death penalty shouldn't matter to you since you can't say life has any intrinsic value (remember, you believe in relativity). And since you don't believe in life after death, it's not like he's going anywhere; so there's can't be a negative side affects to his death anyways. After all, when he dies, he'll simply cease to exist. Therefore is just the past, and therefore; will never have existed (remember, existence is what's in your mind according to atheism) so you can put all this behind you. Now I've just killed off any "moral" and "physical" argument you might have. Good luck.
Oh wait! You're going to post some B.S. website statistic that will some how "prove" that I'm wrong. Well keep these things in mind if you are going to do something stupid like that, the statistic has to take these into accountability: border control/illegal immigration, gun control, and population size. These are the minimum amount of things that have to be accounted for in order for me to know you aren't blowing smoke out your ears.)
Well, if your profile is correct, your an atheist. You don't believe in absolutes. So stop allowing all this B.S. to spill out you mouth when you think morality is relative; because it's really stinking up the place.
Do you really think that an atheist can't believe in absolutes? I believe in absolute morality, what's so shocking about that?
I mean death would do a better job of separating them from those close to them.
Not necessarily. If you're dead, you can't acknowledge eternal separation from your loved ones. But if you are alive, you can.
then the death penalty shouldn't matter to you since you can't say life has any intrinsic value (remember, you believe in relativity).
Wrong. Your psychic powers need work.
After all, when he dies, he'll simply cease to exist. Therefore is just the past, and therefore; will never have existed
Wrong again. When you die, you do not become non-existent. You become without consciousness (or so we can assume). This is different from non-existence, UNLESS you are a solipsist, which I hope you're not, because it's impossible to debate with them.
remember, existence is what's in your mind according to atheism
You've confused atheism with solipsism. Atheism does not have anything to say about relatives or absolutes, it is merely a disbelief in God.
Now I've just killed off any "moral" and "physical" argument you might have. Good luck
Hardly, you didn't even know that an atheist can believe in absolutes. Now let's not have any more brash statements, and continue this formally.
Of course it doesn't. I was merely using it as an example to show you that you can't just say a statement as fact without taking a minimum amount of statistics into accountability (border control/illegal immigration, gun control, and population size). My state just happens to have illegal immigration and a large population. But your previous statement didn't take any of these statistics into accountability.
"OK, download this paper, which shows that there is no certain deterrent effect caused by the death penalty."
Well according to your own paper, it says that you can't prove that the death penalty increases the murder rate. (HA! I used your own paper against you.) Though to be fair, it also says you can't prove it's a deterrent. Which is why I hate your paper. It proves nothing. It's just a fence sitter that doesn't back your opinion, nor does it back mine. It just remains neutral, proving nothing.
"Do you really think that an atheist can't believe in absolutes? I believe in absolute morality, what's so shocking about that?"
What's so shocking about that? What standard do you use as a foundation to back your absolute morality? I bet your answer is as shocking as your belief. The problem with atheism is you have no standard with which to back an absolute.
"Wrong. Your psychic powers need work."
Wrong? How am I wrong? You didn't even say how I was wrong. Oh right, I forgot you believe in relativity. So I suppose just because you believe I'm wrong, I must be wrong. Looks like your psychic powers need work.
"Wrong again. When you die, you do not become non-existent. You become without consciousness (or so we can assume). This is different from non-existence, UNLESS you are a solipsist, which I hope you're not, because it's impossible to debate with them."
"You've confused atheism with solipsism. Atheism does not have anything to say about relatives or absolutes, it is merely a disbelief in God."
Ah yes, I did confuse atheism with solipsism. Sorry about that. But I only confused them because my college professor did to. The way he was teaching me about atheism made it seem like solipsism and atheism go hand in hand. And my college professor said atheists can't believe in absolutes because they don't have a standard by which to back them with. That's why on the first day of my science class, he made it clear by telling the class that there are no absolute truths (to which he got really pissed off at me when I asked him if that was an absolute truth LOL). That's also why I find it shocking that you believe in absolute morality.
"Hardly, you didn't even know that an atheist can believe in absolutes. Now let's not have any more brash statements, and continue this formally."
All right, sorry for the brash statements, but atheists can't believe in absolutes. They don't have a standard by which to back them with.
Of course it doesn't. I was merely using it as an example to show you that you can't just say a statement as fact without taking a minimum amount of statistics into accountability (border control/illegal immigration, gun control, and population size). My state just happens to have illegal immigration and a large population. But your previous statement didn't take any of these statistics into accountability.
Which is why I then linked you a 56 page paper.
Well according to your own paper, it says that you can't prove that the death penalty increases the murder rate.
I didn't claim it did. I just said it didn't stop murder.
(HA! I used your own paper against you.)
Well done.
Though to be fair, it also says you can't prove it's a deterrent.
Which proves your point wrong.
It proves nothing.
It proves that you were wrong in saying "An eye for an eye won't make the whole world blind if the person never took the eye in the first place." That comment implies that you see the death penalty as a deterrent.
It's just a fence sitter that doesn't back your opinion, nor does it back mine. It just remains neutral, proving nothing.
It's not neutral, it's uncertain. Which matches my opinion. I didn't say that the death penalty increases or decreases murder, simply that it doesn't prevent it. If you study some of the graphs in the paper, you'll find that this is true. In fact, the ONLY certainty is that it doesn't prevent murder, we just don't know whether it deters it or not.
What standard do you use as a foundation to back your absolute morality?
Moral rationalism my friend, moral rationalism.
Wrong? How am I wrong? You didn't even say how I was wrong.
I didn't need to, all you need to do is to make a simple logical inference. I'll help. If you say I'm X, and I say you're wrong, then you're wrong because I'm not X. I shouldn't have to explain that.
And my college professor said atheists can't believe in absolutes because they don't have a standard by which to back them with.
The next time you see him, call him an enormous ignoramus.
All right, sorry for the brash statements, but atheists can't believe in absolutes. They don't have a standard by which to back them with.
"I didn't claim it did. I just said it didn't stop murder."
Neither does life in prison. Just ask truthteller. He actually went to prison. It just makes you more bitter inside, turning you into a more violent killer when you get out.
"Moral rationalism my friend, moral rationalism."
Are your beliefs known via inference or not? If so, then it can't hold on it's own (Here is one reason why it can't hold on it's own). If not, then you are actually a rationalist ethical intuitionist. And if that is the case, we have a problem. Because then you still need some sort of foundational truth in which you can back your absolutes.
"I didn't need to, all you need to do is to make a simple logical inference. I'll help. If you say I'm X, and I say you're wrong, then you're wrong because I'm not X. I shouldn't have to explain that."
Yes you do because you have to prove you are not X. By your logic, I can say black is white and if you disagree with me, then you are wrong.
"The next time you see him, call him an enormous ignoramus."
LOL, sounds like a plan. But didn't you hear your professor talk like this in college? I thought they all tried to get the point across day one that "there are no absolute truths".
Probably not. Which means that arguing on grounds of prevention/deterrence is futile.
Neither does life in prison. Just ask truthteller. He actually went to prison. It just makes you more bitter inside, turning you into a more violent killer when you get out.
Which is why I'm having a personal debate with myself. Because the more I think, the more I realize how morally abhorrent solitary confinement is. And it wouldn't surprise me if what you say is true. But then, if we take death and solitary confinement as being equally, or similarly abhorrent, then what punishment could we possibly instill?
Are your beliefs known via inference or not? If so, then it can't hold on it's own
Yes. Now, I did skim your paper, but I didn't read everything. So if I say anything erroneous, correct me.
I believe the paper's main contention to conceptual rationalism is how to deal with psychopath's lack of motivation. To which I must say, I don't know. Normally I would say that there is a lack of sincerity when a psychopath discusses his requirements. But I see the empirical flaws with that.
Kantian morality is the latest moral theory I subscribe to, but I am not overly convinced by any school of moral objectivism. It is just something I instinctively believe. I'm sorry I can't offer a more enlightening debate on the foundations of our morality, but right now I am debating myself more than anyone else.
Yes you do because you have to prove you are not X. By your logic, I can say black is white and if you disagree with me, then you are wrong.
I can't prove a negative to you.
But didn't you hear your professor talk like this in college? I thought they all tried to get the point across day one that "there are no absolute truths".
Alas, I am only 14. The most stimulating education I have received is how to put a condom on a banana.
"Which is why I'm having a personal debate with myself. Because the more I think, the more I realize how morally abhorrent solitary confinement is. And it wouldn't surprise me if what you say is true. But then, if we take death and solitary confinement as being equally, or similarly abhorrent, then what punishment could we possibly instill?"
Well, I'm assuming the one with the most lasting effects (death penalty).
"Kantian morality is the latest moral theory I subscribe to, but I am not overly convinced by any school of moral objectivism. It is just something I instinctively believe. I'm sorry I can't offer a more enlightening debate on the foundations of our morality, but right now I am debating myself more than anyone else."
I suppose finding out what you really believe is one of the hardest things you can do. So to relieve the pressure, I won't press this matter further. But I suggest you at least give Christianity a try before dismissing it altogether.
"I can't prove a negative to you."
But it's fun to try.
"Alas, I am only 14. The most stimulating education I have received is how to put a condom on a banana."
I see. Trust me, when you get to college, the education becomes less stimulating and just pisses you off ;)
If you kill people you should die too. But only in that case. It's not right to kill someone who hasn't actually killed anyone. If it was a crime other than murder they should just be jailed.
Yes the death penalty is good for society. Why should someone have to suffer in prison for the rest of their life? People who commit bad crimes shouldn't be allowed to suffer in prison for the rest of their life. Just give those who do bad crimes lethal injections.
As controversial as this topic is here is something else to consider. I live in a country where the justice system is corrupted and rapists and murderers walk scott free without even facing imprisonment, and they continue to terrorise people daily. Regular citizens live like prisoners in their own homes and that is clearly not the way society is meant too be.
Perhaps a death penalty will be more effective in such a country, it is succesfully implemented in others, and these horrible people need to have some fear, something stopping them, they have no damn right to do what they do.
In some countries no, not at all. Government could kill someone for now reason but in America I do, I mean I think it might be demoralizing but after it goes through the legislative system I think it's pretty fair.
I am a deep, caring hearted woman first off. I do believe in the death Penalty, eye for and eye. I've seen docs about a man killing a child and gets the death penalty, then I also seen on a doc that someone killed a grown woman and raped her, and get life in behind bars. To me if that I was my daughter or something, I would want the dude dead. It shouldn't be picked on the crime, I do believe in eye for eye.
Yes you're a deep caring hearted women to children but you should'nt base on your emotion and affection. Condolensce but If the kid is already dead then their dead. We should care to the people who our alive than those who are dead. We should focus more on disciplining the inmate instead of making another mess and don't base on Eye for an eye , it's just reacting to evil by doing evil, there's no good at that. there are no morals, you're just doing what you want , you're just basing with your emotion and not on the right thing. Dispute me if I'm wrong.
Imagine how tortured and twisted serial killers et.c's minds are, the constant cycle of suffering that they must be going through. And we don't even let them end it for themselves.
Nope, the most humane solution to people with mental illness is sending them to a mental hospital, while the rehabiliator is lecuring them the inmate must be locked from head to fingers
Many believe that the possibility of winding up on death row is a powerful argument against committing a capital crime (i.e., murder. The last execution in the US for a crime other than homicide, in this case, robbery, occurred in 1964). If indeed the death penalty is a significantly stronger deterrent than the usual alternative, life in prison, then a case could be made that the existence of the death penalty is likely to save more lives than it takes, and that the lives saved are likely to be those of innocent people.
A variation of this argument is that, regardless of how effectively the death penalty might deter potential murderers in general, it is 100% effective in deterring executed murderers from repeating their crimes.
If there is good reason to believe that a particular convicted murderer might kill again, given the chance, then the alternative to execution would be a long, perhaps lifetime, prison sentence, to protect the general public. For such people, costly prisons are needed, and it is necessary to have prison guards whose working lives are spent in proximity to very dangerous individuals. In effect, for each killer so sentenced, we are sentencing prison guards as well. If not needed for such work, these guards might serve society in other useful and less onerous occupations.
In primitive societies lacking formal mechanisms for apprehending and punishing criminals, it is common for families, or broader kinship groups, to try to avenge the killing of members. This is generally undesirable as it can lead to endless cycles of killing. An important function of a criminal justice system is to head off such reactions. But, in the case of particularly horrific murders, the families of the victims sometimes feel that anything short of death would be grossly inadequate punishment. So the death penalty might be considered as satisfying the need for justice, or, in some cases, vengeance, on the part of people who lose loved ones to brutal killers.
We have to pay to keep these f*ers alive. I don't feel good knowing my tax dollars are taking care of murders and rapists. The county next to mine just cut the jail budget and had to let out a bunch of petty criminals. If we put all the really bad criminals to death there would be room to keep the petty criminals in jail.
The solution is not to kill the life of an imperfect person but to the extent of the prison or to transfer the criminal to another prison, not just the money that moves people to work, people can voluntarily assist the expansion of the prison if they know the benefits of doing so.
We need to take care of criminals because they can not afford to pay for their own salary and they still receive their imprisonment penalty.
They must be alive today because we are too moral to do violent things.
I would rather taxes be spent on a bullet than a home for someone for the rest of their life. Inhumane ways of execution are unnecessary, if you are going to execute someone, do it quickly.
However, there are other ways of punishing people. I think it is in Norway, where they send people to a place that they must take care of, it is different to Papillon in some ways because they still have some connection to the outside world. However because of the efficiency of it the reoffending rate in England is much higher. Norway has the lowest reoffending rate. An interesting website on Norway's experiment is here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/ article-1384308/Norways-controversial-cushy-prison-experiment--catch-UK.html
There are alternatives to the death penalty, but to completely eliminate any chances of reoffending the death penalty is the best thing I know of. I think it is better than prison.
Death is the best deterrence. Imprisonment can be waited out, fines can be paid. Before one commits a crime, in the face of possible death they will seriously be forced to reconsider their actions. Unless one welcomes death.
It's not about the inmate's death or the saved lives , it's about what we are doing ,we aren't humane, we aren't right, we are contradicting ourselves if we kill the prisoners we're violent.
I agree in the death penalty for extreme cases. Jeffrey Dahmer and David Westerfield both deserved the death penalty, in my opinion, so do most serial murderers. However, the problem comes in trying to codify which people deserve the death penalty. I don't think all murderers deserve the death penalty. Most people would agree that someone who kills someone in self defense doesn't deserve the death penalty, but there have been a couple of recent cases where someone killed someone in revenge for molesting their children. Here you have a case where someone is doing something most of us would applaud, but since there was no trial, you're really depending on the parent to use good judgement on how certain they are that they're getting the right person.
What about someone who walks in on their spouse in bed with another person? Some people might call this justified, some wouldn't. I think ideas on this are shifting to the not-justified side, but the mere fact that attitudes are changing means that it's not cut-and-dried. Personally, I think crimes of passion like this should be punished, but I think the death penalty might be a little extreme.
To summarize, I think the death penalty should be used, but only in extreme cases. I think we should err on the side of caution, and only use it when the evidence is solid, and the murder shows a level of social deviance that almost everyone would find abhorrent.
Can we kill someone because everyone's angry with him? It's not right, because morality is not based on emotions but what is right for everyone, even if we want someone to die, it's always wrong to kill someone, because they are human just like us and we should not kill each other
Yes. I believe that people who have killed, raped, tortured, or have done any other extreme act of violence should get the death penalty. Whatever the offender did should have the same done to him/her. It may be savage and against a civilized society, but the evil people in this world should receive the consequences for their actions.
Yes. I don't understand why people think it's a good idea to keep serial rapists and murderers alive on our tax dollars instead of bidding them adieu.
The point is, life is not just inherently sacred, it has to earn its worth. When someone kills a bunch of people and rapes a buch of women, that's when their life is no longer sacred. And keeping them alive with my money, paying for their food, their bedding their drink, is repulsive to me.
I believe that people should only be put to death because of an inability to keep the general public safe from the individual. With today's system of prisons, we are able to do this and should put them in jail to suffer for the rest of their life. Death is also permanent. People have been found out to be innocent after the death penalty ha already been carried out....
Violence and death only begets more violence and death. Killing a man for killing a man just makes you as despicable as him. There is nothing righteous about the death penalty. There's righteousness in the protection of the innocent and the such, but not the killing of a helpless prisoner.
All you do when killing a killer is make people around you subtly believe that killing a killer will somehow put an end to all murder, when this is oxymoronic and hypocritical.
Not really. The murderer killed an innocent person. Killing him was the punishment for the crime. By your obviously flawed logic (a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid) murderers are innocent. I'll remember that if someone kills you. I'll make sure the judge knows you thought murderers are innocent.
Killing him was the punishment for the crime. By your obviously flawed logic (a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid) murderers are innocent.
My logic is to treat him better then he treated his victim. 'An eye for an eye' is a silly means of interpreting violence, because then everyone ends up blind. Just because we don't commit the crime against him that he committed upon an innocent person doesn't mean he's innocent himself. He's not. But the point is to be better then him and punish him in a different manner.
It's like you assumed that I think we shouldn't kill them and instead release him, which is most definitely not what I said.
I'll remember that if someone kills you. I'll make sure the judge knows you thought murderers are innocent.
Ooh, look at you, full of righteous fire.
So I think it's not right to kill someone as a punishment means I want to let them go? Again, I never said this. They're criminals, no doubt, but killing them just makes us murderers that adds to cycle of violence.
And since you're so full of hatred and sadism yourself, apparently, just because a human being is a criminal, think of it this way: death is a mercy, suffering while living is not. Certainly since you're a violent person yourself, why not just keep the prisoner alive and whip them everyday? You'd like that, huh?
"And since you're so full of hatred and sadism yourself."
Look who's talking! Here, I'll quote you:
"Killing a man for killing a man just makes you as despicable as him."
Yeah, so since you are so full of hatred and sadism yourself, I think you would love to just let him walk away, free as a bird. You'd love that, huh?
"'An eye for an eye' is a silly means of interpreting violence."
Better than a eye for nothing (or less). The funny part about your side is it's OK if someone else has to sacrifice as long as it isn't you; but if it is you then OOOOHHH NO! IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD! (E.G. For example, we should tax the pants off the rich because they have too much money, but apparently there is no such thing as the middle class having too much money.)
"Just because we don't commit the crime against him that he committed upon an innocent person doesn't mean he's innocent himself."
There you go again with your obviously faulty logic (and again it's a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid). Will you please stop using logical fallacies in your arguments? You can't just assume the death penalty is a crime. It isn't. It's like saying this: "Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people all the time, therefore surgeons are criminals." You can't just assume stuff like that. Therefore your logic (and entire argument) is invalid. But then again, you proved to us all that your logic sucks when you said this:
"My logic is to treat him better then he treated his victim."
Yeah, so since you are so full of hatred and sadism yourself
I'm a sadist for calling you despicable for wanting to murder someone? Right...
I think you would love to just let him walk away, free as a bird. You'd love that, huh?
Even if I wanted him to walk away, how is that sadist?
And no, a murderer getting away is very, very bad. We should keep them locked up for life. Not once have I said I wanted them to be let go.
The funny part about your side is it's OK if someone else has to sacrifice as long as it isn't you; but if it is you then OOOOHHH NO! IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD!
Okay, let me try and understand this.
So I think it's okay for someone to sacrifice themselves? Frankly, if the person thought it was worth making the sacrifice, then yes, I would agree with them. But how does that pertain to this topic? Are you implying that I think it's okay for people to sacrifice themselves to a murder? Because that's not sacrifice. 'Sacrifice' implies to give something up of yours, expecting that something good will come of it eventually, even if giving it up was tough. Murder's murdering people is not murder's sacrificing people. And since sacrifice is intentional, murder would not be the crime being committed by the killer; assisted suicide would.
As for the second half of the incoherent statement you made: what exactly am I supposed to be sacrificing and for what purpose am I supposed to make the sacrifice? Because last I checked, I'm not sacrificing anything but brain cells by replying to you.
You can't just assume the death penalty is a crime.
I'm not assuming anything. The only difference between the death penalty and murder is that the government says it's okay to kill the criminal. Okay. Then why is murder illegal if the purpose of that law is to stop people from killing each other, except that if they succeed in killing someone, we act just a violent and kill them?
Saying the death penalty is a justified method of punishment for a crime just because the criminal is a killer himself is a completely contrived reason. All that 'justification' is, is an excuse for people to be violent, except with the law on their side... because apparently violence and killing is better when it's lawful? Are you joking with me?
You can attempt say I'm being illogical, but you have yet to explain why the death penalty is preferable to imprisonment. All you have been doing is insulting my argument, not actually providing an argument of your own. Why should we kill people just because they're killers? Why is that not a completely contrived, arbitrary excuse to act just as bad as the criminal?
Yeah, that's sure teaching him a lesson.
He's being taught a lesson by having no freedom the rest of his days. That's the point. We are taking his life away without actually taking it away. We are showing him that we can punish him without being barbaric and violent. He will never be able to do anything freely except think freely to himself.
Imprisonment has the same outcome as if we were to kill someone.
The difference is that we are not stooping to the level of the criminal by committing an act that our laws are supposedly supposed to stop us from doing. And all for what? Self righteousness? To send a message to other criminals? Is that why you believe in killing someone for an utterly contrived reason?
I thought that was obvious. The cost of keeping a prisoner on death row, combined with the cost of lengthy appeals and court cases, and you'll find that the cost dwarfs that of life imprisonment.
Then instead of getting rid of the death penalty, maybe we should lower the cost of the lengthy appeals and court cases. Eliminate the costs, not the punishment.
Then you end up with miscarriages of justice. The price is necessary for a completely fair trial, with no stone left unturned, and no appeal rejected without thought.
Yes, but you also don't account for how many people escape from prison and don't get caught. It's more than the "miscarriages of justice". So before you try to fall back on the "killing someone who's innocent" wooden leg, don't forget the murderers who escaped from prison and weren't caught. And the funny thing is it's a higher number than what your stupid number is. Don't believe me? Just check out your local law enforcement's website, or the FBI's website and see how many escaped convicts there are. The FBI even give out generous rewards for capturing them. Then you could spend the money on learning the facts about the death penalty.
Historically, the death penalty has not had any effect on crime. For example, in England, the crime for pick-pocketing used to be public hanging. During the hangings, there was a high rate of pick-pocketing. Also, studies show that the serverity of a punishment is unrelated to it's effectiveness. The swiftness and certainty of it are. Therefore, to decrease crime, there should be court reform to make courts more effective, not a death penalty.
I simply think that since we are all humans, and since none is superior to anybody by right, to think to have the right to kill, or make kill, someone has no logical sense? Please, don't forget what all the great Religions, irrespective of where they are spreading, base on the same, deep, ideal: love anyone, even your worst enemy. Most people could, erroneously, answer saying: "it's easy for you to talk like that, what would you do if someone killed your daughter? Wouldn't you kill him? Or, at least, wouldn't you ask politics for a sentence to death?" Well, let me tell you one thing: this is right the reason why judges and courts were established; when someone gets hurt, immediately he wants revenge: right in this moment there should be a super partes administrative body who, far-off to be involved emotionally, it would help you to have justice, without yielding to one of the worst diseases in the world: resentment.
Why kill someone for doing wrong. If they killed someone, killing them won't bring the deceased back to life. It won't make everything better. You're just sinking to as low/lower than them. If you're innocent, and you are on death row for 10, 20, maybe even 50 years, i cannot think of any worse mental torturer.
Yeah it will! If one of my friends/family was murdered, and his punishment was death; then at least justice was served.
And the amount of people who are innocent as compared to the amount of people who are guilty; it doesn't add up. So quit trying to weasel that in. It only matters if it's a huge number.
Killing shouldn't be considered as justice bro. Ask the executioners, they feel like they did something wrong, they will just think they're doing the right thing because they have avenged the victim but there's still guilt on their system since they victimized the inmate.
First off all Idk if u have ever been in a life or death situation but Idk if u would be saying the same thing if u had and there is alote of killers behind bars still killing people on the our streets without even doing it them selves I don't think most of these people on this site know realty having more time in jail just makes u a better killer inside/ out execution stops some from acting on killing not everybody
No. The death penalty is completely, irrevocably wrong.
What makes the man who pulls the trigger or adminsters the injection any different from the killer himself? At the end of the day the killer is being punished for ending a life. How is it NOT hyprocritical and moronic to punish him by ending his life?
More importantly, what gives a regular person, a judge, the jury, what gives any of them the right to decide if a person should live or die? Nothing gives them that right. We're all the same.
My final point is, whether you believe in the afterlife or whether you think once we're dead this is it, do you not think death is the least punishing form of punishment? If there is an afterlife, the killer will go where he deserves to (and that will differ - everyone will have a different opinion) if there is nothing, then that's it, nothing. The murderer ceases to exist and I think we can all agree that that cannot be a form of punishment since he no longer exists.
If you want to punish a murderer, I'm all for life sentence. This will sound horrid, but I'm even for a little bit of torture. The family and friends of the deceased will want to see that murderer put through the same amount of pain they went through.
I think those debating the cost factor in this whole issue are, frankly, ridiculous. What you're saying is that you would basically kill someone if it saves you some money. Life and death decisions should NOT be based on money.
You're right on one thing: the death penalty is morally wrong and a horrific way to "rehabilitate" someone. That's what prison's about, right? Rehabilitation?
Anyways, what you say about torture is so out of this world that I don't feel like I should respond to it, but I will.
We must look into why the person raped a child or murdered a father. Under what conditions was this person raised for them to have been able to shoot someone in the head or to physically abuse a child?
Taking revenge is a short term fix that will wear off quickly. You will find your true solace after you make peace with what that murderer/rapist did.
No. Death penalty is not the solution to the rising crime rate.
If death penalty were the solution for such criminal actions, then people who are "good" and have contributed to society deserve to live forever.
Instead of death penalty for nefarious criminals, we could keep them alive and make them useful by allowing them to contribute back to the society (Community Service).
the death penalty is wrong because killing is wrong. i say this not on any kind of religious basis, but one of humanity. if a person kills another person it is murder, whether it is sanctioned by the state or not. the fact that it has been shown not to be a deterrent in preventing crime shows that it is not effective, since part of its use was the fear of being put to death. the use of the death penalty is an act of revenge which cannot be undone, so should the state be put on trial for putting to death an innocent person? after all they just committed a murder. i think that life without opportunity of parole is the more humane and just punishment instead of the death penalty.
if a person kills another person it is murder, whether it is sanctioned by the state or not.
Remember that when you're attempting to defend your family or yourself from an attacker, especially when that attacker intends on murder, rape or torture you or your family.
And by your statement, accidental killing is also murder.
should the state be put on trial for putting to death an innocent person? after all they just committed a murder.
The term "Murder" is a legal argument. Murder is the inlawfull killing of a human being. If they follow due process, they did the best they could do. I'm certainly not arguing in favor or disfavor of the death penalty, I'm only responding to some of your claims that I disagree with.
"remember that when you're attempting to defend your family or yourself from an attacker, especially when that attacker intends on murder, rape or torture you or your family."
This is the kind of fear mongering that keeps the people in a state of paranoia, holding their guns in shaking hands, just waiting to shoot whoever comes through their door. I will accept that the possibility exists that someone would want to injure me or my family, but in a rational and logical argument you have to accept that the possibility of this happening is lowered by my actions such as living in a rural area where overall crime is lower, educating my family on what kind of threat is real and what kind is only put into place by the media in order to keep them afraid, and by being aware of whats happening in my community.
"the term murder is a legal argument. murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. if they follow due process, they did the best they could do."
tell that to the innocent people who have been executed. over 1200 people have been executed since 1976, in that same time at least 140 have been released from death row for having been found innocent of their crimes and at least two dozen have been commuted to life sentences for having it been found that their participation in their crimes were less than originally thought. with technological advances in not only investigation but in evidence collection and preservation (dna is a huge one) more and more could be proven innocent, which makes no difference if they are already dead at the states hand.
tell that to the innocent people who have been executed. over 1200 people have been executed since 1976, in that same time at least 140 have been released from death row for having been found innocent of their crimes and at least two dozen have been commuted to life sentences for having it been found that their participation in their crimes were less than originally thought.
That only shows the law system is wrong and very flawed, not that killing is wrong.
Killing is always wrong because we forcely take away the life of others, we do unto others what we don't want to do to ourselves. If we kill an inmate, we're doing what the criminal does which is mercilessly killing and being inhumane just like them.
This is the kind of fear mongering that keeps the people in a state of paranoia, holding their guns in shaking hands, just waiting to shoot whoever comes through their door.
That's laughable. No. It's realistic. I, by no means am paranoid that I will be attacked at any second, holding a gun in a shaking hand. I am trained on the proper use of a gun if in the worse case scenario happens and I need to protect my family. I intend to call the law enforcement and emergency response if I am able to do so, I also intend to only use a gun if no other option is available, but I am not afraid to use it if that scenario becomes reality.
I will accept that the possibility exists that someone would want to injure me or my family, but in a rational and logical argument you have to accept that the possibility of this happening is lowered by my actions such as living in a rural area where overall crime is lower, educating my family on what kind of threat is real and what kind is only put into place by the media in order to keep them afraid, and by being aware of whats happening in my community.
I've lived in a rural area. But most of my life I lived in a popular city, crime happened everyday. Police, fire and ambulance sirens were normal by the hour. This is not the "media" twisting what crime really happens for a story. It's reality.
I have lived in the city, I've lived in the country where crime rarely occurred, and I now live in a suburb, crime is medium. I am educated about what types of attacks are more likely to occur in what scenarios and how to act accordingly. My education has paid off. I would much rather know what do to and have the resource to defend myself or my family, than to assume that I do not need to simply because "crime is low" and will take the risk of my life or my family's life by ignoring how to defend myself or them.
tell that to the innocent people who have been executed.
Apparently you ignored my statement that includes "If they follow due process". If they follow due process, innocent people being convicted would be rare. And even in the rare situations, it's sad, but it's the best method we have right now.
I find it interesting that you focus on my wording of the argument rather than the argument, this is the mentality of someone who has no basis for their own. you obviously have your obtuse view of the world in which the gun toting, john wayne (or waynette) guns down the bad guy and everything is hunky dory when the curtain drops. Your point about your view of the crime rate goes to prove my point that you are uneducated in what kind of crime you are really afraid of. Because sirens go off does not mean there is someone being murdered. Fire and Ambulance run sirens as well, and police will run sirens based on their initial reports, too many of those turn out to be nothing calls where no one is hurt or even in danger.
Due process relies on human judgement, which you prove can be swayed by personal bias. Until there is a fool proof method you cannot rely on human judgement which has proven time and again to be faulty.
Your entire argument is based on ZERO fact, and your opinion of your small view of the world only.
"Because sirens go off does not mean there is someone being murdered."
Yeah, but because sirens go off does not mean there is not someone being murdered. Do you know exactly what the siren to murder ratio is, or do you just choose not to educate yourself about what kind of crime you are really afraid of?
"...you cannot rely on human judgment which has proven time and again to be faulty."
Yeah, including the human judgment that says that the death penalty is wrong. That could be faulty too.
This entire straw man (and yeah, this is a straw man) is based on ZERO fact, and your opinion is only a small view of the world only (I think that's what the second half of your sentence was meant to say; and no, I'm not trying to be a grammar nazi, it's just kinda unclear).
This one will show you the national crime statistics by the FBI for year 2010 (2011 isn't available yet) this will emphasize my point that while in 2010 there were 12996 murders (nationwide) there were 5,391,580 thefts....statistically you are more likely to be the victim of a theft than a murder. This is how I educate myself.
This is a well written article about how the US is almost now alone (in civilized countries) in keeping the death penalty. This is not a "small view of the world" this is factual information that you could find for yourself if you turned of FOX news long enough to try.
I find it not only ignorant of you to make claims like "do you know what the murder ratio is" and telling me to educate myself about crime when it is blatantly obvious you have not done the same. I also am a bit offended that you would say that my argument is based in fallacy when I have given factual examples and citations previously to defend my argument. But let me put this in a way that even the reddest of necks can understand...I'd just be happy as a flea on a hound dog if'n you all would pull head outta ass long enuff to smell the fresh air, you caint keep livin on yesterdays cornbread. (or something like that).
"This is the kind of fear mongering that keeps the people in a state of paranoia, holding their guns in shaking hands, just waiting to shoot whoever comes through their door. I will accept that the possibility exists that someone would want to injure me or my family, but in a rational and logical argument you have to accept that the possibility of this happening is lowered by my actions such as living in a rural area where overall crime is lower, educating my family on what kind of threat is real and what kind is only put into place by the media in order to keep them afraid, and by being aware of whats happening in my community."
What, and you can't educate you family on how to responsibly own and use a gun? Well, you already admitted you can't with your "holding their guns in shaking hand, just waiting to shoot whoever comes through the door" statement. What you are trying to do is eliminate responsible gun ownership by trying to force a one way opinion. I mean after all, if you "claim" you could "educate" your family about what threat is real and what is not, then logically you could educate them about responsible gun ownership. And it's this type of fear mongering that keeps people in a state of paranoia, holding their anti-gun pamphlets in shaking hands just waiting to arrest whoever holds a gun. Remember, an argument works both ways.
"tell that to the innocent people who have been executed. over 1200 people have been executed since 1976, in that same time at least 140 have been released from death row for having been found innocent of their crimes and at least two dozen have been commuted to life sentences for having it been found that their participation in their crimes were less than originally thought. with technological advances in not only investigation but in evidence collection and preservation (DNA is a huge one) more and more could be proven innocent, which makes no difference if they are already dead at the states hand."
Yeah, tell that to the innocent people who have been murdered by a criminal! There have been more than 1000X the amount of innocent people killed by murderers as compared two your two dozen statistic. So it doesn't add up. If someone came into your house while you were at work, shot your kids, then raped your wife and then brutally cut her up into pieces while she was still alive, I think you would want him to have the death penalty, and not just 10 years and then parole. And yes, a similar case happened in my state.
As a former law enforcement officer, who has had many guns in the home, i can and have educated my family about the safety of firearms. I also can say from personal experience that the majority of people I have dealt with who have guns in their homes are untrained, uneducated, and are more apt to cause accidental deaths or commit unlawful assaults with those same guns. as for my family we choose not to be the type of people that would shoot just because we can.
of course arguments work both ways...this is a debate forum.
as for the innocent people who have been murdered by criminals, of course the statistics show more people having been the victim. this is due to not only to multiple people killed by one person, but also the numerous unsolved cases each year. and if you re read my post, the two dozen are the ones who are still in prison, but have come off death row, the number of people who have been released from prison totally is at least 140. i have not and do not condone violent behavior and agree 100% that there should be punishment, but not the death penalty. proof has been given that mistakes have been made, and as i have stated in my argument, you cannot undo this mistake. as humans we commit errors, if you were picked up on the street because you vaguely resembled an attacker would you still hold onto the argument that its ok because there are many more victims than offenders proven innocent? studies show that the death penalty is not a deterrent (which is one half of the reason for it's use) and murder rates are actually higher in states that have the death penalty (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty- have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates#stateswithvwithout).
My opinions are based on relevant facts that are readily available to anyone willing to do a little research and my personal experience, they are not based on skewed judgements based on the fear that is put into the general public by the media focusing on stories such as the one you quoted. I have a hard time believing that anyone who committed such a heinous crime was allowed to walk free after 10 years, but i am not a judge.
by committing to the idea that someone deserves to die, you are committing to the revenge side of human nature, not the idea of punishment for crimes committed.
Again I want to reiterate that I am not in favor of an anarchist society where there is no consequences for committing crimes, my point is that society is better served by life imprisonment than the death penalty.
The problem with your website statistic is there are too many variables that aren't accounted for. For example, due to the border control problems, of course Texas would have more murders. But that doesn't mean it's the fault of the death penalty. And I can say from my personal experience that all of the people I've met who've owned guns are both responsible and less apt to cause accidental deaths or commit unlawful assaults with those same guns (to be fair though, all the people I've met are hunters, which, on a totally unrelated point; is a plus for Hunters' Education); so yeah, as an officer, I expect you to meet a lot of schmucks.
"I have a hard time believing that anyone who committed such a heinous crime was allowed to walk free after 10 years, but i am not a judge."
You want to hear something worse? A guy who killed a parrot was sentenced to two life sentences. See the problem is, if you kill a human, eh it's bad; but if you kill an animal, OOOOOOHHHHHHH NO YOU DIDN'T! It's the end of the world! PETA will chop your head off. BIG problem with judges these days.
Well, it's not necessarily revenge as much as it is the fact that the crime of murder is so bad, that death is the only punishment worthy of such a horrible crime (even then, too lenient if you ask me). I wish the death penalty were allowed in my state, but we can carry concealed weapons in my state so it keeps down on the amount of murders (another thing that wasn't accounted for in your website statistic).
And no, society is not better served by life imprisonment than the death penalty because society then learns that consequences aren't very severe for committing an act of murder. I mean after all, have you seen our prisons? Cable TV, both heating and air conditioning. Quality food, and a Gym in which you can work out. Ways to make money, and tons of leisure time. Yeah, that's showing them.
The fact that there are bad and evil people means that killing is not wrong. It means that in certain situations it is necessary to kill, if possible.
By not killing those who deserve it you are condoning their actions. Essentially showing everyone that it is okay to do it.
[assuming you are a good guy] If someone (a bad guy) tried to kill you and the only way for staying alive is you killing your attacker, would you not kill him to save yourself from death? You'd be stupid if you didn't.
here is the problem with your statement "bad and evil people, where it is necessary to kill if possible"..who decides who is bad/evil? who decides that it is necessary to kill? the obvious answer is the judge who hears the case based on the law of the land. The problem is that the judge is human and there are no black and white answers but instead a million shades of gray.
"by not killing those who deserve it"....do rape victims deserve it? do children who are victims of molestation deserve it? do the victims of these murderers deserve it? of course not...and neither do innocent people who were wrongly convicted, and there lies the problem.
thank you for your assumption that im a good guy..i like to think i am.
in your basic question you are bringing up basic human survival instincts, no one wants to die and one will do whatever is necessary to survive. but that is the absolute last resort with no other recourse, and all other options have been exhausted. this is not the case when talking about the death penalty, we are not talking about survival instinct then, we are talking about retribution not punishment or survival.
Not who but what. Their actions. And why they did it.
but instead a million shades of gray.
Not always but mostly.
and neither do innocent people who were wrongly convicted, and there lies the problem
That means the law is flawed.
If law is flawed you don't ban death penalty, you fix the law.
we are talking about retribution not punishment or survival.
Retribution has punishment in its meaning.
Locking people up for murder, rape, and else very bad is a waste of resources, unless they are put to forced labor so they could compensate for the wasted resources. There is no point just keeping someone, who may not be free, alive when they are totally useless to the rest. Because of their actions they should either be used as, basically, slaves, or be killed. It was them who made the wrong choices (not talking about small and simple things like stealing but very serious crimes) that led them to their state, they are responsible for their actions. They knew what they were doing when they did it.
I myself would prefer forced labor over death penalty. Still, in some cases death penalty would be the right thing to do (no point keeping mentally insane murderers just locked up for their whole life, although there could be some ways to use them).
Not who but what. Their actions. And why they did it.
this makes no sense. the criminals actions and reasons determine what is evil? then it is not evil as they would never say it was. we as society, as a whole have determined that murder is illegal, and we place judges in their positions to determine the legitimacy of the claim that a killing was self defense, or murder, etc.
and neither do innocent people who were wrongly convicted, and there lies the problem
That means the law is flawed.
If law is flawed you don't ban death penalty, you fix the law.
fixing laws that have a permanent solution, by making more laws only causes more problems. until we are able to drink a magic potion that gives us the ability to never make a mistake, to never convict an innocent person to death you have to set aside the idea that it is ok to take a life in the name of the state.
we are talking about retribution not punishment or survival.
Retribution has punishment in its meaning.
Locking people up for murder, rape, and else very bad is a waste of resources, unless they are put to forced labor so they could compensate for the wasted resources. There is no point just keeping someone, who may not be free, alive when they are totally useless to the rest. Because of their actions they should either be used as, basically, slaves, or be killed. It was them who made the wrong choices (not talking about small and simple things like stealing but very serious crimes) that led them to their state, they are responsible for their actions. They knew what they were doing when they did it.
I myself would prefer forced labor over death penalty. Still, in some cases death penalty would be the right thing to do (no point keeping mentally insane murderers just locked up for their whole life, although there could be some ways to
you are correct in that retribution has punishment in its meaning, perhaps i should have used the word vengeance instead.
locking people up is a punishment and not a waste of resources. forced labor is slavery, which is another crime in itself. it is not totally outside the realm of possibility that a person can become a better member of society through a rehabilitation process while incarcerated. You cannot lump every "bad" crime into the same pile. If you had to work a double shift every day at work to support your family and you fell asleep behind the wheel on the way home from sheer exhaustion, then you accidentally ran over a child because you had drifted off, should you be placed into the same category as someone who walked into a convenient store and shot a clerk? of course not. BUT when you look at the reason behind both examples it may come down to an economic insecurity. you working double shifts to support your family / the other person committing the robbery in order to support theirs. should you both be killed for your parts in another persons death? i prefer to think that through rehabilitation during your punishment of being incarcerated you both would come out better educated as to what needs to be done in order to help society instead of being a harm. and yes there would always be some that would never get out of prison due to the heinous nature of their crimes, but even in that isnt it the more humane way to go to try to learn why they are the way they are so that we can help prevent future problems instead of throwing them on the fires of our revenge? I appreciate your comments as you offer your opinion in a clear, respectful way. while i like to consider myself open to ideas that could change my mind, i hope that you are as well. unfortunately i have yet to see any valid argument as to why the death penalty is still practices. the u.s. and japan are the only fully developed countries to still use the death penalty and the u.s. is the only western nation to use it, this is not an argument that we should just be like everyone else, but it does say something to the fact that if countries who are supposedly beneath the u.s. have said that it is no longer useful, there must be something to it.
this makes no sense. the criminals actions and reasons determine what is evil? then it is not evil as they would never say it was. we as society, as a whole have determined that murder is illegal, and we place judges in their positions to determine the legitimacy of the claim that a killing was self defense, or murder, etc.
If their actions have a negative impact on others who themselves don't do something as negative to others, then they are bad/evil.
As a whole has been decided that murder, that killing someone without a justifiable reason, is wrong. The law says it is illegal and the law could easily say killing fish for food is also illegal. Laws can be, and in many cases are, wrong.
fixing laws that have a permanent solution, by making more laws only causes more problems.
No, not making more laws. Replacing the flawed one's with new and corrected ones, and perhaps add more detail to them.
until we are able to drink a magic potion that gives us the ability to never make a mistake, to never convict an innocent person to death
The further it goes the more mistakes are made, the more we learn from them, and eventually we should get to a point where the coming mistakes are foreseen and predicted with precision and thus prevented.
you have to set aside the idea that it is ok to take a life in the name of the state.
Taking someone's life in the name of a state is idiotic. A life may be taken if it is detrimental to others (assuming the others are toward "good"), and in some rare cases to humanity as a whole.
you are correct in that retribution has punishment in its meaning, perhaps i should have used the word vengeance instead.
It has both vengeance and punishment in its meaning. Seems more like a mix of both.
locking people up is a punishment and not a waste of resources.
It is a waste of resources if they don't compensate for the resources used on them.
forced labor is slavery, which is another crime in itself.
It is, if the person put to slavery has done nothing to deserve it. In case of murderers this is not the case. They may not be kept in freedom, and keeping them simply locked up when they don't compensate for it is a waste of resources. Resources that largely come from taxes, taxes from the people who suffered in the hands of the criminals. Thus death, or slavery. They chose to kill someone, thus choosing a path for themselves.
it is not totally outside the realm of possibility that a person can become a better member of society through a rehabilitation process while incarcerated.
In some cases. When that person had a rough childhood and has had a bad influence, for example, and can see it and correct oneself.
You cannot lump every "bad" crime into the same pile.
I don't. That was what I meant with, "Not who but what. Their actions. And why they did it."
If you had to work a double shift every day at work to support your family and you fell asleep behind the wheel on the way home from sheer exhaustion, then you accidentally ran over a child because you had drifted off, should you be placed into the same category as someone who walked into a convenient store and shot a clerk? of course not. BUT when you look at the reason behind both examples it may come down to an economic insecurity. you working double shifts to support your family / the other person committing the robbery in order to support theirs. should you both be killed for your parts in another persons death?
Both cases clearly depict that the government system is very flawed. Government should be able to provide a safe and secure environment for its people, even if it meant providing only the essentials (a place, food, hygiene, clothes), something that is not so in many cases. And yet they waste so much on the military and on elections and themselves. They don't care about the people, as long as they don't rebel against them in full force.
and yes there would always be some that would never get out of prison due to the heinous nature of their crimes, but even in that isnt it the more humane way to go to try to learn why they are the way they are so that we can help prevent future problems instead of throwing them on the fires of our revenge?
That was covered in, "although there could be some ways to use them".
but it does say something to the fact that if countries who are supposedly beneath the u.s. have said that it is no longer useful, there must be something to it.
US is not a smart country. It might have been once but is no longer.
No, not making more laws. Replacing the flawed one's with new and corrected ones, and perhaps add more detail to them.
this is the point that you seem not to be able to grasp either through your inability or my inability to convey my point. we all live on planet earth no matter what country, i unfortunately am only familiar with the way the law works in the u.s. and not other countries. the process of determining what is "correct" is up to the legislators who hopefully make laws in accordance with the will of the people. unfortunately the will of the people changes drastically over time, so the laws that are in place must be able to stand that test of time, and putting someone to death is punishment that should have stopped long ago.
The further it goes the more mistakes are made, the more we learn from them, and eventually we should get to a point where the coming mistakes are foreseen and predicted with precision and thus prevented.
again you have proven my point that mistakes are inevitable, having learned this we need to have a system that guarantees protection from those mistakes, such as not being put to death.
Taking someone's life in the name of a state is idiotic. A life may be taken if it is detrimental to others (assuming the others are toward "good"), and in some rare cases to humanity as a whole.
im not sure what your point is here. i agree taking of life in the name of the state is idiotic. but that is what the death penalty is. who convicts them to death? the state. who determines the method? the state. and who carries out the sentence? the state. there is no denying this fact.
again your argument floats back to "detrimental to others" and "for the good of humanity" since we have to rely on our justice system to determine this and i have already made the case for human error, there is no basis to this arugment. every persons view on what is detrimental or good for humanity is different, so you cannot base an argument for putting someone to death based on this.
It has both vengeance and punishment in its meaning. Seems more like a mix of both.
this is a semantic argument over the meaning of retribution, i am trying not to argue the religious view only the basic humanistic view, my opinion, and my understanding of law.
It is a waste of resources if they don't compensate for the resources used on them.
this is very untrue, by using this same logic you would let the needy starve, or freeze to death because they could not afford food or housing. these people, while having committed crimes, are still people. again the punishment is imprisonment, the punishment is not anything on top of that.
It is, if the person put to slavery has done nothing to deserve it. In case of murderers this is not the case. They may not be kept in freedom, and keeping them simply locked up when they don't compensate for it is a waste of resources. Resources that largely come from taxes, taxes from the people who suffered in the hands of the criminals. Thus death, or slavery. They chose to kill someone, thus choosing a path for themselves.
again you are basing your argument on what you personally feel regarding who "deserves" it. no one deserves to be in the chains of slavery. you seem to have the attitude that anyone who commits a crime has done so out of some inherent evil inside them. while this may be true in a few cases there are also accidents and crimes committed out of necessity (not that it makes it right, but just different from the "evil" view) your view of using tax dollars is also skewed, you assume that the criminal has never paid any sort of taxes....ever. i can safely assume that the criminal has paid taxes and that the funds being used to incarcerate that person largely could be paid from that. after all they may not have wanted any of their tax money used to fix roads that you or i may drive on, see how this argument fails fast?
In some cases. When that person had a rough childhood and has had a bad influence, for example, and can see it and correct oneself.
thank you
Both cases clearly depict that the government system is very flawed...........
I agree with you 100%, our government in the u.s. is completely flawed and i also agree that they should adopt the more humanistic/socialist attitude of ensuring that we all have the essentials for living. your point about military spending is also very very poignant, with the money we spend on war / global control we could easily support and educate citizens to the point that perhaps this argument would for the most part be invalid, because more education equals less crime.
US is not a smart country. It might have been once but is no longer.
since we have to rely on our justice system to determine this
Unfortunately the justice system is flawed. I guess there will always be some flaws, but presently there are too many and too big ones. And things are moving (if they are moving) so slowly that nothing seems to be done about it.
this is very untrue, by using this same logic you would let the needy starve, or freeze to death because they could not afford food or housing. these people, while having committed crimes, are still people.
It isn't untrue and at the same time it also is not that simple. Why are they needy? What led them there? The needy could have "potential" among them.
It is similar with criminals, although simpler.
again the punishment is imprisonment, the punishment is not anything on top of that.
According to current law.
you seem to have the attitude that anyone who commits a crime has done so out of some inherent evil inside them.
Not because they are inherently evil. Some might simply be stupid and ignorant, those are likely to correct themselves.
while this may be true in a few cases there are also accidents and crimes committed out of necessity (not that it makes it right, but just different from the "evil" view)
If it is done out of necessity then the government needs correcting.
your view of using tax dollars is also skewed, you assume that the criminal has never paid any sort of taxes....ever. i can safely assume that the criminal has paid taxes and that the funds being used to incarcerate that person largely could be paid from that.
Are you saying that all tax-paying people are paying for their own potential imprisonment? That sounds extremely idiotic and if it really is that way then things are far more messed up than I originally thought.
According to that why are they imprisoned in the first place? If they have already payed for their crimes?
"the needy have potential.....it is similar with criminals"
"according to the current law"
"some might be stupid and ignorant"
All of the points you are bringing up are supporting my position that the death penalty is wrong! You continue to dispute my argument but then say things to support it.
I am not saying that tax payers have "pre paid" for their own imprisonment, here is an example of my point: i do not support the wars in iraq/afghanistan, if it were my choice of where to allocate the massive amount of money spent there (or even my tiny portion) I would rather see it spent on education and social services here in the u.s.. Unfortunately we do not have the choice as to what our tax dollars are spent for, it is all put into the pool and distributed by the government. The fact is that while opponents to practically all social programs dote on about "their tax dollars" when my point is valid that the criminal who is now sitting in prison HAS already paid into the system. (I know this is simplistic due to ongoing cost vs already paid taxes etc. but it goes to show the invalidity of the "tax dollar" argument) They may have never driven on a road that they helped pay for, they may have never called the fire department that they paid for, etc. so maybe they would have opted to have their portions placed into the prison system. (if that were and option)
They are imprisoned because the law says that is the punishment for their crimes. They are "paying" for their crime with their imprisonment, they have "paid" into the system for their incarceration by paying taxes prior to incarceration.
All of the points you are bringing up are supporting my position that the death penalty is wrong! You continue to dispute my argument but then say things to support it.
If all (reasonable, I understand this is subjective but...) alternatives to death penalty fail, then what?
They are "paying" for their crime with their imprisonment, they have "paid" into the system for their incarceration by paying taxes prior to incarceration.
Just being locked up and doing nothing useful is pointless. They are separated from society by keeping them locked up where they just have a happy life, happy as in they don't really have to work for anything, everything is delivered to them. While, as you said, there are poor and needy who are in trouble with the most basic things. Are criminals more important then the poor and needy?
Using tax money to pay for their living there is the same as renting a place in prison in advance, including food, clothes, and everything else.
That money could be used on other things (the poor and needy, for one) if the prisoners were to themselves, while they are imprisoned, compensate for their being there. That's why it is wasting resources, because there is a more efficient way for it all to work. Everyone could benefit from it, even the criminals by gaining new skills and experience with the jobs they are doing, and they could use those later when they get out of prison, if they get out.
"just being locked up and doing nothing is pointless"
I agree with you fully. but while the penal system is another flawed example of how our government works, there are things that are implemented to not only warehouse inmates to sit around, but also to give them rehabilitation. they have access to education, some vocational training, counseling and other mental health services to help make sure that when they are reintroduced to society they are not as bad as when they went in. (this is the theory of course and i understand that recidivism is still higher than necessary, but this i believe is due to the lack of support once out of prison regarding economic inequality etc, but that is another discussion entirely). they are not for the most part "living happy lives" and no of course I do not believe that criminals are more important than the poor or needy, but in many ways they are on the same level. I say this because of many factors such as the rate of incarcerated people having a much higher level of mental health issues, an unjust law enforcement system that is levered against many people in society and a few other reasons that lead us down the road you talked about earlier as to the "why" they are in prison.
again, my point is not that they have "rented" their space in advance, only that their tax dollars have been collected and so portions of their incarceration are already paid for. look at it like this: if person X was 30 when they went to prison, they have theoretically paid taxes (income, sales, etc.) for at least 12 years (i am figuring on the age of 18). the prison they went to was built when they were 20 so for the last 10 years person X has paid into having the prison built through his tax dollars. It is not foreshadowing any intent on committing a crime, it is just a fact that part of his collected taxes were spent building a prison. Therefore he has already paid into the prison being used. (not trying to complicate the idea presented any further, but it goes back into not having our personal choices on how taxes are spent.)
I agree again totally with you that we do not spend enough money on the poor and needy, but you simply cannot force someone into labor simply because of being convicted of a crime. it is not only unlawful but unjust as well. I can predict that your argument will again be to change the laws, but this simply will not work as has been shown before by using "chain gangs". prison inmates, as i said before, have the opportunity like you mentioned to gain skills and experience in the current system. I would suggest to you that rather than focus on the idea of "they are all bad guys who deserve what they get" which i believe is at the root of your argument, try looking up some of the statistics on what is the root cause of why they are in prison in the first place. you have mentioned an interest in this before when discussing the "why" of the crime. while i agree that there are a some that are inherently bad by choice, the majority are in the the system due to influences beyond their control (mental illness, etc) which leads back to the original problem of the death penalty being ineffective, inhumane, and unjust.
If all other alternatives fail and the result is them simply spending their lives locked up and being worthless, while everything they need to keep them alive under good conditions are simply given to them without them compensating for it in any way (and using tax money that is necessary in other and far more important areas is not compensating for their being locked up; using money in areas where there will be no benefit for the society as a whole is negative and downright stupid) then death penalty should be the next step. This is what I see as "just" and right.
What one sees as "ineffective, inhumane, and unjust" is subjective and a matter of interpretation. I view it all through practicality and efficiency.
The death penalty is an absolute judiciary measure that succeeds in rectifying the grievances of the murder victim's family and peers, yet fails to undo an inevitable flaw of any judiciary system; human error. Without a truth-seeking function, which may or may not be administered in any given proceeding case, the system is error-bound. The odds of an error in judgment is a fixed possibility, meaning, there is always a chance that those sentenced to death may still be innocent and thus, wrongfully killed. True, the times that the State has wrongly killed a convict may not outweigh the times it hasn't, numerically, however, this rationalization can only yield a more authoritarian society. For every time the state wrongfully punishes someone with impunity, it leaves the rest of us equally susceptible to the scourge of error-bound agents of the state.
nobody is in a position to judge PERFECTLY if someone is to die.
Also, keeping people in prison for life IS NECESSARY precisely because it incurs a cost. If the state were to execute people, it would be cheaper and the validity of justice would NEVER BE QUESTIONED. Any law can be passed and ALL CITIZENS are DISPOSABLE.
On the other hand, if the politicians have to explain why they have to spend billions of dollars keeping a whole population or 'criminals', it leaves the possibility that the laws are unjust and scrutiny can begin, which is impossible with mass graves.
Even if there is no possibility of rehabilitation, having them alive is better than to execute them because he is a living example to the dangers of society; like remembering past mistakes.
The government should not be allowed to play god and decide who lives and who dies; it's not right because how is that ethical? Lethally inject a man or woman because they made a mistake? It's not right for men to murder, to rape, to cheat, and if the government kills them, they're no better than the very same people they're trying to get rid of.
Capital Punishment is a Constitutional Right. Politically when a person describes the state action as Death Penalty they are making a statement of political Liberty as promotion to the attempt to represent justice. It is understandable that a person may move away from any obligations to Constitutional guidance to general welfare as we are opening the topic to a conviction which changes the state of judicial separation.
The point is that a Death Penalty is something the criminal imposes on a victim of the crime murder. The witness account to a Capital Punishment though in general observation appears equal to the criminal’s death penalty. It in no uncertain terms equal by the liberty held by Constitutional Separation.
So in saying no I do not agree with a Death Penalty I am still agreeing with the action of state to apply Capital Punishment. What is being refused is my verbal incrimination of states which hold this type separation in their judicial order.
I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles.. I like turtles..
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Quisque nunc orci, ultricies eget nisi pharetra, condimentum congue ligula. Nam sagittis sodales ante sed malesuada. Nulla sodales dolor a velit ultricies, ut commodo elit semper. Praesent urna dui, vulputate et aliquam a, scelerisque sed quam. Morbi eu leo aliquam, bibendum sapien eu, elementum orci. Sed aliquet venenatis tellus, interdum molestie massa bibendum vel. Interdum et malesuada fames ac ante ipsum primis in faucibus. Fusce ante velit, ultrices ac urna non, rutrum suscipit nulla. Pellentesque vestibulum tortor nec consequat gravida. Sed pharetra tellus ac pellentesque rhoncus.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Quisque nunc orci, ultricies eget nisi pharetra, condimentum congue ligula. Nam sagittis sodales ante sed malesuada. Nulla sodales dolor a velit ultricies, ut commodo elit semper. Praesent urna dui, vulputate et aliquam a, scelerisque sed quam. Morbi eu leo aliquam, bibendum sapien eu, elementum orci. Sed aliquet venenatis tellus, interdum molestie massa bibendum vel. Interdum et malesuada fames ac ante ipsum primis in faucibus. Fusce ante velit, ultrices ac urna non, rutrum suscipit nulla. Pellentesque vestibulum tortor nec consequat gravida. Sed pharetra tellus ac pellentesque rhoncus.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Quisque nunc orci, ultricies eget nisi pharetra, condimentum congue ligula. Nam sagittis sodales ante sed malesuada. Nulla sodales dolor a velit ultricies, ut commodo elit semper. Praesent urna dui, vulputate et aliquam a, scelerisque sed quam. Morbi eu leo aliquam, bibendum sapien eu, elementum orci. Sed aliquet venenatis tellus, interdum molestie massa bibendum vel. Interdum et malesuada fames ac ante ipsum primis in faucibus. Fusce ante velit, ultrices ac urna non, rutrum suscipit nulla. Pellentesque vestibulum tortor nec consequat gravida. Sed pharetra tellus ac pellentesque rhoncus.