Why I support bringing back the death penalty...
-
Quote:
Because members of a civilized society don't kill each other.
Exactly. So, one someone is uncivilized enough to murder someone else, they should be kicked out of society (killed.)
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
Exactly. So, one someone is uncivilized enough to murder someone else, they should be kicked out of society (killed.)
Is hell a society?
Quote:
Is hell a society?
:) It must be. I know some people that will be there so perhaps we can ask later. :laugh: But I can't assume you are serious about comparing the death penalty to living in hell?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Quote:
Is hell a society?
:) It must be. I know some people that will be there so perhaps we can ask later. :laugh: But I can't assume you are serious about comparing the death penalty to living in hell?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
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
OK, Here's a suggestion. Make them a slave to the victim's family for the rest of their natural lives.
MVVM # - I did it My Way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
So therefore execution does not remove people from society. Unless you don't believe that the people executed are going to hell?
Quote:
So therefore execution does not remove people from society.
How so? Society is a group of people living together. How does killing someone not remove them from that?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
- death is just an occupational hazard for murderers, kill all of them. - throw them in prison, stand back, and let them kill each other. In fact, give them some cars to make it more interesting[^]. - if you kill a killer, are you really any better? - it wouldn't really be killing anyway, we'd just euthanize them. - murderers might as well be useful and "donate" their organs. - murderers aren't people in the first place, so who cares what happens to them? - death isn't good enough, force them to kill their own children so they can share the experience. - prisoners are useful for all sorts of things, like slave labour[^] and drug testing, so throw those murderers in prison. - no sane person would commit murder, so murderers must have a dangerous psychological disease which should be eradicated. I'm sure that for each of these opinions, at least one person could be found who holds them.
harold aptroot wrote:
I'm sure that for each of these opinions, at least one person could be found who holds them.
I wonder if there is someone who holds all of those opinions. :rolleyes:
Author of Primary ROleplaying SysTem How do I take my coffee? Black as midnight on a moonless night. War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
I'm sure that for each of these opinions, at least one person could be found who holds them.
I wonder if there is someone who holds all of those opinions. :rolleyes:
Author of Primary ROleplaying SysTem How do I take my coffee? Black as midnight on a moonless night. War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
Justice. I support a society that votes on whether or not to use the death penalty. I support both sides. Since no restitution can be made by the offender both sides are valid. I do support the death penalty when there is no doubt of guilt. There's no reason to keep them alive.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
Justice.
Has nothing to do with justice. An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. It's not a deterrent, it doesn't add anything productive nor anything of value.
ryanb31 wrote:
I do support the death penalty when there is no doubt of guilt.
There is always doubt. DNA testing can go wrong, and even with 500 witnesses you'd have to rule out that you didn't accidentally apprehended his twin.
ryanb31 wrote:
There's no reason to keep them alive.
Same goes for any person. Why keep sick people alive? Any good reason to do so? Then again, people who want to bring the death-penalty back are a problem for society - not my problem :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
ryanb31 wrote:
Justice.
Has nothing to do with justice. An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. It's not a deterrent, it doesn't add anything productive nor anything of value.
ryanb31 wrote:
I do support the death penalty when there is no doubt of guilt.
There is always doubt. DNA testing can go wrong, and even with 500 witnesses you'd have to rule out that you didn't accidentally apprehended his twin.
ryanb31 wrote:
There's no reason to keep them alive.
Same goes for any person. Why keep sick people alive? Any good reason to do so? Then again, people who want to bring the death-penalty back are a problem for society - not my problem :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
ryanb31 wrote:
There's no reason to keep them alive.
Same goes for any person. Why keep sick people alive? Any good reason to do so?
A UK Councillor has just resigned for the second time because he keeps saying that disabled children should be killed.
“I believe that there is an equality to all humanity. We all suck.” Bill Hicks
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
ryanb31 wrote:
There's no reason to keep them alive.
Same goes for any person. Why keep sick people alive? Any good reason to do so?
A UK Councillor has just resigned for the second time because he keeps saying that disabled children should be killed.
“I believe that there is an equality to all humanity. We all suck.” Bill Hicks
-
Quote:
So therefore execution does not remove people from society.
How so? Society is a group of people living together. How does killing someone not remove them from that?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
Justice.
Has nothing to do with justice. An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. It's not a deterrent, it doesn't add anything productive nor anything of value.
ryanb31 wrote:
I do support the death penalty when there is no doubt of guilt.
There is always doubt. DNA testing can go wrong, and even with 500 witnesses you'd have to rule out that you didn't accidentally apprehended his twin.
ryanb31 wrote:
There's no reason to keep them alive.
Same goes for any person. Why keep sick people alive? Any good reason to do so? Then again, people who want to bring the death-penalty back are a problem for society - not my problem :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Quote:
Has nothing to do with justice
Wrong. You asked what my motives were. I told you. You are not qualified to tell me what my motives are. You may not agree, but for me, it is justice.
Quote:
It's not a deterrent,
First off, who ever said justice was about deterring people? Secondly, why isn't it a deterrent? Are you suggesting life in jail is more of a deterrent than the death penalty? The problem is, for cruel murderers, there IS NO DETERRENT.
Quote:
add anything productive nor anything of value.
But neither does letting them live. I thought you were arguing to keep them alive?
Quote:
There is always doubt.
No there isn't. There are witnesses, confessions, etc.
Quote:
even with 500 witnesses you'd have to rule out that you didn't accidentally apprehended his twin.
Well, if we can't do that then we have bigger problems.
Quote:
Same goes for any person. Why keep sick people alive? Any good reason to do so?
Either you truly believe this which is sick and insane or you are trying to make an analogy. You can't possibly compare a sick person to a murderer.
Quote:
people who want to bring the death-penalty back
In many places, it isn't gone.
Quote:
not my problem
Then why worry about it?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
You said above that execution was better than incarceration because it removed people from society. By your own definition of society both a prison and hell are societies. So both remove an offender from our society and place them in another society.
-
First off, you're stretching what I said, secondly who cares? What's your point?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
jschell wrote:
So it follows that no one should go to prison for stealing?
So if I'm not in favor of the most extreme punishment then I must be in favor of no punishment? Custodial sentences serve two purposes - as a deterrent to others and the removal from society of the offender. Execution also provides both but I argue that the deterrent is no greater and as execution has several other negative aspects custodial sentences are preferable.
_Josh_ wrote:
Custodial sentences serve two purposes - as a deterrent to others and the removal from society of the offender.
That is too simplistic. It completely ignores the law abiding population. They to are impacted by crime and they too are impacted by the legal system. The perceived effectiveness of the legal system impacts that law abiding populations perception of the government and also the well being of the population such as their willingness to pursue legal activities (like going out after dark) and how the spend their money (on new clothes versus home defense systems.) And because of those other factors - death is not the same as life imprisonment. The public's perception of a someone that carefully kills a spouse is not the same as a person who carefully kills ten children. But the only penalty for both is life in prison. And at least in the US where the death penalty exists it is also used as a bargaining chip in legal proceedings. There is no potential to get a serial killer to reveal the location of bodies if the only outcome is if they get life regardless of whether they do or not. The alternative without the death penalty is to allow for a sentence that isn't life in prison.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
When someone takes the life of someone else intentionally and not in defense then they deserve to die. That is a valid rule.
Only in a few backwards places like China, Iran, North Korea, and the USA, the rest of the world has moved on.
“I believe that there is an equality to all humanity. We all suck.” Bill Hicks
-
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
Richard Deeming wrote:
Most prison systems go to extreme lengths to ensure that doesn't happen.
I am rather certain that "most" prison systems do not in fact to that. Quite possible however that the prisons in your country does that. But there are many, many prisons in the world that are quite miserable places.
-
jschell wrote:
And so it should be perfectly ok for me to imprison people in my house because the government gets to do it?
The government doesn't imprison people in your house. (At least, I hope they don't!) But if you wanted to try it, you would first need to convict them of a crime in a court of law. Locking someone up without trial[^] is one of the things which most civilised societies agree is very wrong.
jschell wrote:
I should also be able to impose an income tax on my neighbors since the government does it also.
Is your tax going to finance protection from foreign military threats, pay for maintenance of public infrastructure, or pay for social benefits?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Richard Deeming wrote:
The government doesn't imprison people in your house.
That has nothing to do with my statement.
Richard Deeming wrote:
But if you wanted to try it, you would first need to convict them of a crime in a court of law.
No I wouldn't. There are countries where people are imprisoned without a legal proceedings. Certainly happens in the US for short periods of time. I doubt there is any country where it doesn't happen.
Richard Deeming wrote:
Is your tax going to finance protection from foreign military threats, pay for maintenance of public infrastructure, or pay for social benefits?
There is no guarantee as to what taxes are spent on - certainly not for the vast majority of countries. The only issue was the statement that the government shouldn't be allowed to do anything that I can't do - which is nonsense.
-
ChrisElston wrote:
Only in a few backwards places like China, Iran, North Korea, and the USA, the rest of the world has moved on.
Wrong. About 25% of the countries in the world have laws that allow executions and practice it.
How many still actively execute people? How many still execute children? How many are not under-developed or newly-developed economies? That would be a list of one, the good ol' US of A. Execution is the sign of a retarded country, once they start to catch up they stop doing it.
“I believe that there is an equality to all humanity. We all suck.” Bill Hicks
