Why I support bringing back the death penalty...
-
Quote:
You haven't managed to justify killing someone as punishment for a crime yet. Keep trying.
No, I haven't managed to convince you, which I am not trying to do. I stated earlier that the death penalty should be put to a vote. Whatever the people want. But you still refuse to answer. Is this because you have none? Why leave someone alive and with the potential to kill again? What's the point?
Quote:
So you're claiming that there's no difference between a zygote and a baby?
Way to deflect.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
I stated earlier that the death penalty should be put to a vote. Whatever the people want.
Trial by popularity contest? People wouldn't hesitate a moment to vote "death" for someone they just don't like. There will be an enormous bias against ethnic minorities, and against men (well, there already is). People who are good at faking regret would have a big advantage (that's nothing new, though). The media would essentially be handed the vote, given that they get to determine what the people know (also not new, but it would actually make a difference). I'm not saying that's either a good or a bad thing, just that that's what would happen.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
I stated earlier that the death penalty should be put to a vote. Whatever the people want.
Trial by popularity contest? People wouldn't hesitate a moment to vote "death" for someone they just don't like. There will be an enormous bias against ethnic minorities, and against men (well, there already is). People who are good at faking regret would have a big advantage (that's nothing new, though). The media would essentially be handed the vote, given that they get to determine what the people know (also not new, but it would actually make a difference). I'm not saying that's either a good or a bad thing, just that that's what would happen.
I wasn't implying that. Vote as in for law. Not vote for each individual incident. :) That could be a pretty popular realty show though. It would make a lot of money.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
I wasn't implying that. Vote as in for law. Not vote for each individual incident. :) That could be a pretty popular realty show though. It would make a lot of money.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Quote:
Being kicked out of society is something different from being killed.
Not really. Society is everywhere. But why keep them alive?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
Not really. Society is everywhere.
Society everywhere? Sorry, you'll need more than a single human to call it a society.
ryanb31 wrote:
But why keep them alive?
Why keep anyone alive? ..would you support extra torture for every prisoner that's currently alive, killing them in a week time? No? Why not, speeding on the highway is dangerous. Walking drunk on the street is dangerous. Where do you draw the line?
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
My point is, it is not revenge. As someone else pointed out, perhaps we should torture them, bring them close to death, rehabilitate them, and continue repeating that process. THAT would be revenge.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
My point is, it is not revenge. As someone else pointed out, perhaps we should torture them, bring them close to death, rehabilitate them, and continue repeating that process. THAT would be revenge.
Ah, so it's not revenge simply because it's not cruel enough to your liking?
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
ryanb31 wrote:
Not really. Society is everywhere.
Society everywhere? Sorry, you'll need more than a single human to call it a society.
ryanb31 wrote:
But why keep them alive?
Why keep anyone alive? ..would you support extra torture for every prisoner that's currently alive, killing them in a week time? No? Why not, speeding on the highway is dangerous. Walking drunk on the street is dangerous. Where do you draw the line?
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Quote:
Sorry, you'll need more than a single human to call it a society.
Not sure what you mean. My point was we can't exile people because society is everywhere. So, to kick someone out of society you can only kill them.
Quote:
Why keep anyone alive?
That's totally irrelevant and just plain silly.
Quote:
Where do you draw the line?
Simple. As stated before, when the murder was premeditated and there is no doubt they are still a threat. But I have asked several people and so far no one has answered, including you. Why keep them alive? They could kill again, is that something you want to risk?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
My point is, it is not revenge. As someone else pointed out, perhaps we should torture them, bring them close to death, rehabilitate them, and continue repeating that process. THAT would be revenge.
Ah, so it's not revenge simply because it's not cruel enough to your liking?
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
No, it's not revenge because it is not revenge. That's why. Disagree, I don't care, but revenge is motive based and you are not qualified to determine the motives of people other than yourself.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Quote:
You haven't managed to justify killing someone as punishment for a crime yet. Keep trying.
No, I haven't managed to convince you, which I am not trying to do. I stated earlier that the death penalty should be put to a vote. Whatever the people want. But you still refuse to answer. Is this because you have none? Why leave someone alive and with the potential to kill again? What's the point?
Quote:
So you're claiming that there's no difference between a zygote and a baby?
Way to deflect.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
Why leave someone alive and with the potential to kill again? What's the point?
- You have to be absolutely 100% sure that the person is guilty; if you kill an innocent person, you can't take that back. There are very few cases where you can be that certain.
- If you believe in a reward/punish-style afterlife, executing someone robs them of the chance to repent for their crime.
- If you don't believe in an afterlife, executing someone simply cuts their punishment short.
ryanb31 wrote:
Way to deflect.
Who's deflecting? You clearly stated that "abortion == killing babies", and I'm trying to explain why it doesn't. We agree that an individual spermatazoon or ovum isn't a baby. We wouldn't accuse someone who ejaculated or ovulated without reproducing of "killing a baby". From your answer, I deduce that we agree that a zygote isn't a baby. Extending that, we probably agree that a morula isn't a baby, and probably even agree that a blastocyst isn't a baby. At some point between ejaculation and graduation from university, the collection of cells becomes a person. The only point of contention is precisely when that happens. Once a society has agreed on a definition of when that happens, any abortion which takes place before that point is not, by definition, "killing a baby"; it's removing a cluster of cells with the potential to become a baby.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
ryanb31 wrote:
Why leave someone alive and with the potential to kill again? What's the point?
- You have to be absolutely 100% sure that the person is guilty; if you kill an innocent person, you can't take that back. There are very few cases where you can be that certain.
- If you believe in a reward/punish-style afterlife, executing someone robs them of the chance to repent for their crime.
- If you don't believe in an afterlife, executing someone simply cuts their punishment short.
ryanb31 wrote:
Way to deflect.
Who's deflecting? You clearly stated that "abortion == killing babies", and I'm trying to explain why it doesn't. We agree that an individual spermatazoon or ovum isn't a baby. We wouldn't accuse someone who ejaculated or ovulated without reproducing of "killing a baby". From your answer, I deduce that we agree that a zygote isn't a baby. Extending that, we probably agree that a morula isn't a baby, and probably even agree that a blastocyst isn't a baby. At some point between ejaculation and graduation from university, the collection of cells becomes a person. The only point of contention is precisely when that happens. Once a society has agreed on a definition of when that happens, any abortion which takes place before that point is not, by definition, "killing a baby"; it's removing a cluster of cells with the potential to become a baby.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Quote:
You have to be absolutely 100% sure that the person is guilty;
Agreed.
Quote:
There are very few cases where you can be that certain.
I would say there are more than a few, but regardless.
Quote:
If you believe in a reward/punish-style afterlife, executing someone robs them of the chance to repent for their crime.
Not true for all beliefs. I believe in the afterlife and there will be repentance there too, to a certain extent. However, how can anyone repent of murder anyway?
Quote:
If you don't believe in an afterlife, executing someone simply cuts their punishment short.
So? What's wrong with that? They could kill themselves at any point if they wanted to. The point I keep trying to make is there is no possible way for someone who has murdered to make restitution. Therefore, any serious punishment has as much validity as any other because not a single one will cause restitution. Not killing them or killing them are both equally valid.
Quote:
and I'm trying to explain why it doesn't.
You, I believe, are explaining what we all already know. When do the cells become a living being? Regardless, there are places where aborting a baby (even one you would admit is a baby because sometimes it is moments before full-term birth) is legal and practiced.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Quote:
You have to be absolutely 100% sure that the person is guilty;
Agreed.
Quote:
There are very few cases where you can be that certain.
I would say there are more than a few, but regardless.
Quote:
If you believe in a reward/punish-style afterlife, executing someone robs them of the chance to repent for their crime.
Not true for all beliefs. I believe in the afterlife and there will be repentance there too, to a certain extent. However, how can anyone repent of murder anyway?
Quote:
If you don't believe in an afterlife, executing someone simply cuts their punishment short.
So? What's wrong with that? They could kill themselves at any point if they wanted to. The point I keep trying to make is there is no possible way for someone who has murdered to make restitution. Therefore, any serious punishment has as much validity as any other because not a single one will cause restitution. Not killing them or killing them are both equally valid.
Quote:
and I'm trying to explain why it doesn't.
You, I believe, are explaining what we all already know. When do the cells become a living being? Regardless, there are places where aborting a baby (even one you would admit is a baby because sometimes it is moments before full-term birth) is legal and practiced.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
However, how can anyone repent of murder anyway?
That depends on your belief system. They can't undo what they've done, but they might be able to show enough remorse for their crime that your chosen deity would forgive them.
ryanb31 wrote:
They could kill themselves at any point if they wanted to.
Most prison systems go to extreme lengths to ensure that doesn't happen.
ryanb31 wrote:
Not killing them or killing them are both equally valid.
So why chose the irreversible punishment of killing them, if not killing them is equally valid?
ryanb31 wrote:
Regardless, there are places where aborting a baby (even one you would admit is a baby because sometimes it is moments before full-term birth) is legal and practiced.
That's a different matter from abortion in general. I doubt there are any countries which would legally allow a late-term abortion just because the woman didn't want the baby, as per your previous comment[^]. It would likely only be carried out in extreme circumstances - for example, if the baby is unlikely to survive and giving birth will kill the mother.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
ryanb31 wrote:
However, how can anyone repent of murder anyway?
That depends on your belief system. They can't undo what they've done, but they might be able to show enough remorse for their crime that your chosen deity would forgive them.
ryanb31 wrote:
They could kill themselves at any point if they wanted to.
Most prison systems go to extreme lengths to ensure that doesn't happen.
ryanb31 wrote:
Not killing them or killing them are both equally valid.
So why chose the irreversible punishment of killing them, if not killing them is equally valid?
ryanb31 wrote:
Regardless, there are places where aborting a baby (even one you would admit is a baby because sometimes it is moments before full-term birth) is legal and practiced.
That's a different matter from abortion in general. I doubt there are any countries which would legally allow a late-term abortion just because the woman didn't want the baby, as per your previous comment[^]. It would likely only be carried out in extreme circumstances - for example, if the baby is unlikely to survive and giving birth will kill the mother.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Quote:
So why chose the irreversible punishment of killing them, if not killing them is equally valid?
Already answered. They take up space, resources, money, most importantly they could kill again. And I have yet to hear anyone say why we should let them live?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Quote:
So why chose the irreversible punishment of killing them, if not killing them is equally valid?
Already answered. They take up space, resources, money, most importantly they could kill again. And I have yet to hear anyone say why we should let them live?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
They take up space, resources, money, ...
Already addressed by ChrisElston[^], below: it costs more to execute someone than to keep them locked up for the rest of their life. And besides, purely economic arguments are a pretty cold way to decide someone's fate.
ryanb31 wrote:
... most importantly they could kill again.
If they're locked up for the rest of their life, the chances of them re-offending are pretty slim. After all, they don't hire prison guards for their abilities at flower-arranging!
ryanb31 wrote:
And I have yet to hear anyone say why we should let them live?
Well, I've tried to give you some reasons, but you're obviously not willing to hear them. Even if there were no compelling arguments either way, it's easier to change your mind at a later date if you start out by letting them live.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
ryanb31 wrote:
They take up space, resources, money, ...
Already addressed by ChrisElston[^], below: it costs more to execute someone than to keep them locked up for the rest of their life. And besides, purely economic arguments are a pretty cold way to decide someone's fate.
ryanb31 wrote:
... most importantly they could kill again.
If they're locked up for the rest of their life, the chances of them re-offending are pretty slim. After all, they don't hire prison guards for their abilities at flower-arranging!
ryanb31 wrote:
And I have yet to hear anyone say why we should let them live?
Well, I've tried to give you some reasons, but you're obviously not willing to hear them. Even if there were no compelling arguments either way, it's easier to change your mind at a later date if you start out by letting them live.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Quote:
it costs more to execute someone than to keep them locked up for the rest of their life.
I doubt that is entirely and actually true. However, that is a different problem. Fix that issue and then what? It should cost a few thousands dollars to kill them. We can fix that.
Quote:
And besides, purely economic arguments are a pretty cold way to decide someone's fate.
Agreed.
Quote:
they're locked up for the rest of their life, the chances of them re-offending are pretty slim.
True. But isn't your argument for keeping them alive that there may be a chance, even a slim chance, that they could be innocent? Same thing here. However, there is a huge chance. They are around people all day, even if it is in jail.
Quote:
Well, I've tried to give you some reasons, but you're obviously not willing to hear them
I must have missed it. There was an illusion to civility but beyond that I have seen nothing of a direct answer. And even civility is voted upon. If the civilized society votes that death penalty is OK then it is therefore civil to kill. So, are there any other reasons or just that?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
But for what purpose? Do you think having the death penalty would have been deterrent enough to have stopped this from happening? Personally, I doubt it would have made a lick of difference.
_Damian S_ wrote:
absolutely no doubt at all about the guilt of the person involved
So more than 'beyond reasonable doubt'? You've in murky waters here Damo
_Josh_ wrote:
But for what purpose? Do you think having the death penalty would have been deterrent enough to have stopped this from happening? Personally, I doubt it would have made a lick of difference.
And so even though people are put in prison other people continue to steal. So it follows that no one should go to prison for stealing?
-
ryanb31 wrote:
So, one someone is uncivilized enough to murder someone else, they should be killed.
And you don't see any contradiction in that statement? "Killing is wrong, so if you kill someone, we'll kill you." As someone possibly said once[^], "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind".
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Richard Deeming wrote:
And you don't see any contradiction in that statement?
And so it should be perfectly ok for me to imprison people in my house because the government gets to do it? I should also be able to impose an income tax on my neighbors since the government does it also.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
They are a waste of space?
In other words, "I don't like them, therefore ... REVENGE!"
ryanb31 wrote:
They have lost the right to be here?
That's a judgement which has to be made by society as a whole, and most civilised societies have decided that the death penalty is an overreaction.
ryanb31 wrote:
In a world where abortion is so widely accepted ...
Abortion is a completely separate argument which doesn't belong in this thread. Suffice it to say that it doesn't involve depriving a living person of life.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
_Damian S_ wrote:
Well, for one thing, saving $100K per year per scumbag to keep them in maximum security.
As I posted the other day when this reared its head in the lounge, the reality is that it costs more to execute someone than to keep them locked up for the rest of their lives. Aside from that I agree with everything Josh and Nagy have put. It is not a deterrent, loss of life is not a greater punishment than loss of liberty, it is about revenge, and it is a hollow revenge that very, very rarely brings any comfort to the families of the victims even if they thought it might do beforehand. And in a civilised society you cannot say it is wrong for you to kill but OK for us.
“I believe that there is an equality to all humanity. We all suck.” Bill Hicks
ChrisElston wrote:
As I posted the other day when this reared its head in the lounge, the reality is that it costs more to execute someone than to keep them locked up for the rest of their lives.
In the United States. I suspect that other countries have different outcomes.
ChrisElston wrote:
And in a civilised society you cannot say it is wrong for you to kill but OK for us.
Utter nonsense. There are a vast number of things that the state is allowed to do where the citizens are not. And that is in fact a universal truth for all countries.
-
I'm with Josh and, surprisingly, MM. Let the mofu rot in jail, but no matter how heinous the crime I cannot condone the taking of a life. The death penalty is pure revenge, it doesn't solve anything, it doesn't deter other chrimes, it doesn't bring back the victims. Send the perpetrators to jail and leave them there until they die. The message is there and it is clear - "You are not civilised, you are not part of society. We the society are civilised and so we will not treat you like you treated your victims, but we will choose your destiny. Your life is now owned by society and society chooses to let you live."
Reality is an illusion caused by a lack of alcohol "Nagy, you have won the internets." - Keith Barrow
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
The death penalty is pure revenge, ...The message is there and it is clear - "You are not civilised, you are not part of society. We the society are civilised and so we will not treat you like you treated your victims, but we will choose your destiny. Your life is now owned by society and society chooses to let you live."
That statement certainly suggests revenge to me.
-
ChrisElston wrote:
Does releasing someone who can fit back into society and get a job make them less likely to re-offend?
Most likely: Yes.
ChrisElston wrote:
Does making prisons more unpleasant make those released less keen to go back again?
"less keen": I suppose so. Less likely to re-offend? Not necessarily. But, if you don't fear something how can it work as a deterrent?
ChrisElston wrote:
Prisons should not, in any situation, be a luxury, but I am all in favour of providing education and doing all that can be done to release people who have the best chance possible to make a positive contribution than a negative one to society from that point on.
With that I agree.
Nicholas Marty wrote:
Most likely: Yes.
Unlikely. It isn't a matter of just having the ability to get a job. Nor even in getting a job. It is a matter of seeing that one has a real opportunity by being employed to better oneself in a reasonable amount of time. Thus the future of a minimum wage job in a society that rates that as below the poverty level and where one can expect only that job for next 20 years is not an incentive.
-
Quote:
it costs more to execute someone than to keep them locked up for the rest of their life.
I doubt that is entirely and actually true. However, that is a different problem. Fix that issue and then what? It should cost a few thousands dollars to kill them. We can fix that.
Quote:
And besides, purely economic arguments are a pretty cold way to decide someone's fate.
Agreed.
Quote:
they're locked up for the rest of their life, the chances of them re-offending are pretty slim.
True. But isn't your argument for keeping them alive that there may be a chance, even a slim chance, that they could be innocent? Same thing here. However, there is a huge chance. They are around people all day, even if it is in jail.
Quote:
Well, I've tried to give you some reasons, but you're obviously not willing to hear them
I must have missed it. There was an illusion to civility but beyond that I have seen nothing of a direct answer. And even civility is voted upon. If the civilized society votes that death penalty is OK then it is therefore civil to kill. So, are there any other reasons or just that?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
They are around people all day, even if it is in jail.
And the people they're around are either hardened criminals, who are unlikely to be easy prey, or prison guards, who are even less likely to be easy prey. If the prisoner is that dangerous, they can be kept in solitary confinement with no chance to kill anyone.
ryanb31 wrote:
I must have missed it.
Well, we kind of got side-tracked, but what about the list in this post[^]?
- Absolute certainty of guilt. It's easier to release an innocent man that it is to raise him from the dead.
- For people who believe in an afterlife, the chance to repent and possibly avoid additional punishment after death.
- For people who don't believe in an afterlife, the chance to experience the entirety of the punishment before being snuffed out.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
