Death penalty (1 Viewer)

[Brutus]

Trying to argue with 10050050500 people is far too confusing and worthless, so please, one anti-death penalty member take me up on the eye for an eye discussion. Basically, this is what I believe:
Eye for an Eye provides the maximum justice, because it ensures that the government values all lives the same. If one member of society kills another member of society, his life should be ended. Also, the punishment should fit the crime (and would under an eye for an eye). Rapists should not be put to death, but publicly humiliated and shamed for as long as the rape victim has been tormented by the act.
Anyway, sorry I made a new post, but I don't want to argue with more than one person at a time.

 

[kal-el]

Trying to argue with 10050050500 people is far too confusing and worthless, so please, one anti-death penalty member take me up on the eye for an eye discussion. Basically, this is what I believe:
Eye for an Eye provides the maximum justice, because it ensures that the government values all lives the same. If one member of society kills another member of society, his life should be ended. Also, the punishment should fit the crime (and would under an eye for an eye). Rapists should not be put to death, but publicly humiliated and shamed for as long as the rape victim has been tormented by the act.
Anyway, sorry I made a new post, but I don't want to argue with more than one person at a time.

What kind of asinine rhetoric is this? The death penalty is killing America:
http://www.alternet.org/story/10001/

Flaws of the death penalty:
http://www.studyworld.com/moral_issues/capital_punishment/flaws_of_the_death_penalty.htm

The death penalty is barbaric and immoral:
http://www.nyclu.org/leg_aa_dp1_060602.html
http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~tonya/spring/cap/frankie.htm

Most people express doubts about the death penalty when presented with some of the problems which have plagued this ultimate punishment for years. 48% responded that the issue of racism in the application of capital punishment raised some serious doubts about the death penalty.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=45&did=481

 

[Old and wise]

Trying to argue with 10050050500 people is far too confusing and worthless, so please, one anti-death penalty member take me up on the eye for an eye discussion. Basically, this is what I believe:
Eye for an Eye provides the maximum justice, because it ensures that the government values all lives the same. If one member of society kills another member of society, his life should be ended. Also, the punishment should fit the crime (and would under an eye for an eye). Rapists should not be put to death, but publicly humiliated and shamed for as long as the rape victim has been tormented by the act.
Anyway, sorry I made a new post, but I don't want to argue with more than one person at a time.

I won't argue with you, I agree with you. The only thing with rapists that you forgot is that they should also be castrated.

 

[kal-el]

I won't argue with you, I agree with you. The only thing with rapists that you forgot is that they should also be castrated.

O, I see. So rapists should be raped, and tortureres should be tortured, right? Eye for eye, right? Let the punishment fit the crime? Please, that is a fallacious statement at best:
http://www.dontkillinmynamect.org/pastoralstatement.htm

The death penalty is no form of justice whatsoever. Copying criminals crimes, and allowing them to set the standard for society; executions carried out by the state lower the morale for the whole nation.
http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/newab021/nosolution.html

 

[Brutus]

O, I see. So rapists should be raped, and tortureres should be tortured, right? Eye for eye, right? Let the punishment fit the crime? Please, that is a fallacious statement at best:
http://www.dontkillinmynamect.org/pastoralstatement.htm

The death penalty is no form of justice whatsoever. Copying criminals crimes, and allowing them to set the standard for society; executions carried out by the state lower the morale for the whole nation.
http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/newab021/nosolution.html

I never said that rapists should be raped, nor torturors tortured. I said that rapists should be publicly humiliated (you must've misread). Oh and thanks for the quote opening the article you found. “What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” Explain to me how it ISN'T justice, don't play God and ASSUME that the death penalty can't be justice because you said so. Why shouldn't a murderer be executed? Is his life MORE valuable than the person he murdered? Should he be able to end a life and then walk free, or if not continue to live out his life? Again I'd like to adress the fact that it is not the killing that is actually wrong. You can kill with valor and honor, you can kill in self defence (as we have established).
Solve this situation. There is a gunman with a loaded gun who has your family locked in a room. If you do not kill the gunman your family has no chance of survival. So, if you have the intent to kill is saving your family wrong?
And please, from now on don't quote websites, use original thought and logic. I could quote 6000000 sources supporting me too, but that doesn't mean that they are varifiable or that I put any thought into this discussion. [edit] As I was reading them I noticed you made many of the same closed minded mistakes that the articles didm like assuming that killing was ALWAYS wrong, which is how they attacked it from a moral standpoint. All the rest of their arguments were surrounded by arbitrary things like money and racism (a racist jury is different than a racist system).

 

[kal-el]

I never said that rapists should be raped, nor torturors tortured. I said that rapists should be publicly humiliated (you must've misread). Oh and thanks for the quote opening the article you found. “What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” Explain to me how it ISN'T justice, don't play God and ASSUME that the death penalty can't be justice because you said so. Why shouldn't a murderer be executed? Is his life MORE valuable than the person he murdered? Should he be able to end a life and then walk free, or if not continue to live out his life? Again I'd like to adress the fact that it is not the killing that is actually wrong. You can kill with valor and honor, you can kill in self defence (as we have established).
Solve this situation. There is a gunman with a loaded gun who has your family locked in a room. If you do not kill the gunman your family has no chance of survival. So, if you have the intent to kill is saving your family wrong?
And please, from now on don't quote websites, use original thought and logic. I could quote 6000000 sources supporting me too, but that doesn't mean that they are varifiable or that I put any thought into this discussion. [edit] As I was reading them I noticed you made many of the same closed minded mistakes that the articles didm like assuming that killing was ALWAYS wrong, which is how they attacked it from a moral standpoint. All the rest of their arguments were surrounded by arbitrary things like money and racism (a racist jury is different than a racist system).

WTF is this poetic babbling?:lol: And about that situation, saving your family is not wrong. I would say killing with the intent is wrong, however you want to spin it. If possible, in that "hypothetical situation", why does someone have to kill in order to save? Why can't they just render the attacker helpless?

Our troops are trained to kill also. Should they be executed for killing another person? You can say that they are defending their country, but so are the opposing soliders. Just because it might be your country that is fighting, dosen't mean its right.

 

[Brutus]

WTF is this poetic babbling?:lol: And about that situation, saving your family is not wrong. I would say killing with the intent is wrong, however you want to spin it. If possible, in that "hypothetical situation", why does someone have to kill in order to save? Why can't they just render the attacker helpless?

Our troops are trained to kill also. Should they be executed for killing another person? You can say that they are defending their country, but so are the opposing soliders. Just because it might be your country that is fighting, dosen't mean its right.

Or you could consider it self defense. Kill the enemy before they are killed.

Well, because you don't like responding to my arguments, make a positive argument for why jailing for life serves justice.

 

[kal-el]

Or you could consider it self defense. Kill the enemy before they are killed.

O yes, the common clishe. "Kill or be killed" That clishe or adage might sound normal to someone who is entangled in the hideous mentality of using violence to eradicte their problems. Violence just leads to even more, and it continues in a vicious cycle and is never-ending.

Well, because you don't like responding to my arguments, make a positive argument for why jailing for life serves justice.

I believe I did respond toyour little "scenario". Why do you feel the need to change your diatribe, as I refute this or that claim.:2razz:

Isn't it hypocritical for any government to say that killing is the most horrendous crime, but then it is they who carry out the state killings. Executioners are the ones who kill murderers, but they are themselves guilty of murder.

Miscarriages of justice do happen. Even if 1 person who was innocent was executed amongst a billion people, its a travesty. The government displaces its duty from protecting the innocent citizens to outrightly executing them. If the public can be protected from convicts simply by the government placing them in prison, then surely the convicts should be in prison.

http://www.punkerslut.com/articles/deathpenalty.html

You wanna talk about justice? Well, the Death penalty serves no justice. The victim is a corpse, no execution will give them a pulse. I'd say the only thing we can really do, is place them in prison, separate from society, as peaceful citizens need to be protected. The prisoners have a chance at life.

 

[Brutus]

O yes, the common clishe. "Kill or be killed" That clishe or adage might sound normal to someone who is entangled in the hideous mentality of using violence to eradicte their problems. Violence just leads to even more, and it continues in a vicious cycle and is never-ending.

cliche? What harm or violence is going to come out of an execution... that is beyond an execution? Is the murderer, once executed going to stab everyone on the jury?

I believe I did respond toyour little "scenario". Why do you feel the need to change your diatribe, as I refute this or that claim.:2razz:

I wasn't talking about my scenario. I was talking about my argument as to why the death penalty isn't wrong. You never actually refuted it, you just gave me a bunch of links. Then you simply go on to say "what is this poetic babbling," without an attempt to adress anything that I said.

Isn't it hypocritical for any government to say that killing is the most horrendous crime, but then it is they who carry out the state killings. Executioners are the ones who kill murderers, but they are themselves guilty of murder.

If you use this argument one more time I'm going to stop arguing with you. Seriously, you've said this about 12 times already, and I've argued why I think that reasoning is wrong. It is not the killing that is the most horrendous crime, it is killing with poor intent, which is what makes government executions different than a murder.

You wanna talk about justice? Well, the Death penalty serves no justice. The victim is a corpse, no execution will give them a pulse. I'd say the only thing we can really do, is place them in prison, separate from society, as peaceful citizens need to be protected. The prisoners have a chance at life.

Funny, does it serve no justice because you said so? Is the victim not a corpse if the prisoner is in prison? Is the prisoner not seperated from society if he or she is dead? Why do prisoners deserve a chance at life if they have ended another's life? Again, is their life MORE valuable than that of the victim?

 

[Old and wise]

O, I see. So rapists should be raped, and tortureres should be tortured, right? Eye for eye, right? Let the punishment fit the crime? Please, that is a fallacious statement at best:
http://www.dontkillinmynamect.org/pastoralstatement.htm

The death penalty is no form of justice whatsoever. Copying criminals crimes, and allowing them to set the standard for society; executions carried out by the state lower the morale for the whole nation.
http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/newab021/nosolution.html

If their crime justifies the death penalty, then they should be executed. I am a firm believer in an eye for an eye.

If someone raped or killed someone in my family I would want them executed and I would be more than willing to execute them myself.

In my State we have a deadly force law that allows citizens to kill on their own property after warning the offender. Would I kill someone if I felt threatened? You bet I would, without hesitation.

 

[kal-el]

cliche? What harm or violence is going to come out of an execution... that is beyond an execution? Is the murderer, once executed going to stab everyone on the jury?

State-sponsered executions only incite more violence. They bring soceity down to the level of the exact people it's tring to punish. The death penalty only prolongs the chain of violence.

I wasn't talking about my scenario. I was talking about my argument as to why the death penalty isn't wrong. You never actually refuted it, you just gave me a bunch of links. Then you simply go on to say "what is this poetic babbling," without an attempt to adress anything that I said.

Did you bother to even read at least some of the links I cited. I think the links defend themselves.:2razz:

If you use this argument one more time I'm going to stop arguing with you. Seriously, you've said this about 12 times already, and I've argued why I think that reasoning is wrong. It is not the killing that is the most horrendous crime, it is killing with poor intent, which is what makes government executions different than a murder.

I find it odd that a country like the US claims to be so religious and believes that a higher power exists, yet they have no problem taking one of "God's" creations.:2razz: I think its the action itself that's wrong. Look at the example I cited earler, about the drunk driver who had no intent. But he runs over an innocent citizen. Isn't he guilty of vehicular homicide?

Funny, does it serve no justice because you said so? Is the victim not a corpse if the prisoner is in prison? Is the prisoner not seperated from society if he or she is dead? Why do prisoners deserve a chance at life if they have ended another's life? Again, is their life MORE valuable than that of the victim?

You wanna talk about the victim, well what about the relatives/loved ones of the person being executed? Why don't you care about them? If he/she is dead, what if DNA evidence proves their innocense? Uh-oh, an innocent just got killed! That means they're all murderers.:2razz:

 

[Brutus]

State-sponsered executions only incite more violence. They bring soceity down to the level of the exact people it's tring to punish. The death penalty only prolongs the chain of violence.

Again, society's punishments are not the same as murder.

Did you bother to even read at least some of the links I cited. I think the links defend themselves.:2razz:

Yes I did, and they all simply assumed that the action of killing iswrong, which is what I disagree with.

I find it odd that a country like the US claims to be so religious and believes that a higher power exists, yet they have no problem taking one of "God's" creations.:2razz: I think its the action itself that's wrong. Look at the example I cited earler, about the drunk driver who had no intent. But he runs over an innocent citizen. Isn't he guilty of vehicular homicide?

Crap one of your articles had a PERFECT quote to adress this. Ah yes, “What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” see that. DO JUSTICE.
Yes, he is just as guilty because of his lack of thought behind his actions.

You wanna talk about the victim, well what about the relatives/loved ones of the person being executed? Why don't you care about them? If he/she is dead, what if DNA evidence proves their innocense? Uh-oh, an innocent just got killed! That means they're all murderers.:2razz:

No, you tried using that tactic before. If an innocent person was killed by a jury it isn't murder because their intention was to serve justice. Why should the relatives even be considered in the punishment of a criminal? The only thing that should be considered is justice.

 

[kal-el]

If their crime justifies the death penalty, then they should be executed. I am a firm believer in an eye for an eye.

That's fine, you can believe that. But it is a stone-aged, primitive, rather barbaric law. And if you are Christian, I don't know, but Jesus replaced that out-dated message on his sremon on the mount, with "Love your enemy".

If someone raped or killed someone in my family I would want them executed and I would be more than willing to execute them myself.

O man, I guess you aren't Christian then?

In my State we have a deadly force law that allows citizens to kill on their own property after warning the offender. Would I kill someone if I felt threatened? You bet I would, without hesitation.

Man, you should go public with that rhetoric. See how far you climb up the political ladder!:lol:

 

[Brutus]

That's fine, you can believe that. But it is a stone-aged, primitive, rather barbaric law. And if you are Christian, I don't know, but Jesus replaced that out-dated message on his sremon on the mount, with "Love your enemy".
O man, I guess you aren't Christian then?
Man, you should go public with that rhetoric. See how far you climb up the political ladder!:lol:

Do you think about what you're typing? How about backing up your statements with some logic instead of insult tossing. I know you're adressing his points (with religious responses), but this isn't a religious discusion. Besides, isn't it supposed to be the conservatives resorting to dogma to back their claims?

 

[kal-el]

Again, society's punishments are not the same as murder.

Yea, you're right. There either just as bad, or worse.

Yes I did, and they all simply assumed that the action of killing iswrong, which is what I disagree with.

Ok, so you actually read them. Kudos for that.:2razz:

Crap one of your articles had a PERFECT quote to adress this. Ah yes, “What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” see that. DO JUSTICE.
Yes, he is just as guilty because of his lack of thought behind his actions.

I agree, if such a "imnipotent" entity actually exists, he should be liable for prosecution and execution, cause he is simply a murderer. But the death penalty is not justice by any stretch of the imagination.
http://www.vttoth.com/opn003.htm

No, you tried using that tactic before. If an innocent person was killed by a jury it isn't murder because their intention was to serve justice. Why should the relatives even be considered in the punishment of a criminal? The only thing that should be considered is justice.

Then why should the victim be considered? The only thing that should be considered is justice, right?:2razz:

 

[kal-el]

Do you think about what you're typing? How about backing up your statements with some logic instead of insult tossing. I know you're adressing his points (with religious responses), but this isn't a religious discusion. Besides, isn't it supposed to be the conservatives resorting to dogma to back their claims?

What? Do you have any shred of consistency? If there was any kind of coherent framework in this diatribe, I'd be more than happy to answer. Anyway, I don't believe he asked me any questions, so there was no need to back anything up.:2razz:

 

[Brutus]

Then why should the victim be considered? The only thing that should be considered is justice, right?:2razz:

Because a crime is between a criminal and a victim. By your reasoning every single criminal should be punished in the EXACT same manner, because what was done to the victim doesn't matter.

 

[Brutus]

That's fine, you can believe that. But it is a stone-aged, primitive, rather barbaric law. And if you are Christian, I don't know, but Jesus replaced that out-dated message on his sremon on the mount, with "Love your enemy".

That is where you resorted to the Bible to try and back your points.

 

[kal-el]

Because a crime is between a criminal and a victim. By your reasoning every single criminal should be punished in the EXACT same manner, because what was done to the victim doesn't matter.

You said that no one should be considered in the punishment. The only thing that matters is justice.

That is where you resorted to the Bible to try and back your points.

Yup. But that's only account of he was using the "eye for eye" analogy. So I reverted with "Love your enemy."

 

[Brutus]

You said that no one should be considered in the punishment. The only thing that matters is justice.

Yes, I misunderstood what you said. The victim should not be considered in the punishment of the criminal, only the crime itself. Doesn't change my arguments at all.

 

[paulmarkj]

If their crime justifies the death penalty, then they should be executed. I am a firm believer in an eye for an eye.

If someone raped or killed someone in my family I would want them executed and I would be more than willing to execute them myself.

Would you also be willing to take the responsibility if it turned out you executed the wrong man?

 

[Saboteur]

Trying to argue with 10050050500 people is far too confusing and worthless, so please, one anti-death penalty member take me up on the eye for an eye discussion. Basically, this is what I believe:
Eye for an Eye provides the maximum justice, because it ensures that the government values all lives the same. If one member of society kills another member of society, his life should be ended. Also, the punishment should fit the crime (and would under an eye for an eye). Rapists should not be put to death, but publicly humiliated and shamed for as long as the rape victim has been tormented by the act.
Anyway, sorry I made a new post, but I don't want to argue with more than one person at a time.

Eye for an Eye is God's law.... not man's. If we are to follow an eye for an eye then those who enforce the law would be guilty of the same crime as the original offender. And it would make justice as bad as crime.... It's bad enough that the majority of laws we have made resulted in creating the crimes the laws are for!

Are you that American guy who the Army Rangers found fighting alongside the Taliban?

 

[Inuyasha]

No one seems to be able to reach an agree ment on this subject but here are some ideas to bat around.

For those in favor of the death penalty:
1. Are you willing to throw the switch and watch the results.
2. Let the next of kin execute the criminal. If there isn't one, have people who are in favor of the death penalty register as such on their voter registration card and call them by lottery to perform the execution just as we do with jury duty.
3. I often wonder how many people who support the death penalty have ever killed anyone in their life and how this affects them.

Those who are against the death penalty:
1. Tell us what you think is the appropriate punishment for.
Murder 1
Manslaughter
Accidental homicide
Rape
Assault with a weapon
Assault
Kidnapping.

 

[debate_junkie]

No one seems to be able to reach an agree ment on this subject but here are some ideas to bat around.

For those in favor of the death penalty:
1. Are you willing to throw the switch and watch the results.
2. Let the next of kin execute the criminal. If there isn't one, have people who are in favor of the death penalty register as such on their voter registration card and call them by lottery to perform the execution just as we do with jury duty.
3. I often wonder how many people who support the death penalty have ever killed anyone in their life and how this affects them.

Those who are against the death penalty:
1. Tell us what you think is the appropriate punishment for.
Murder 1
Manslaughter
Accidental homicide
Rape
Assault with a weapon
Assault
Kidnapping.

1. Yes, though my methods would be in violation of the constitution.. that pesky little "cruel and unusual punishment" clause.

2. My cousin and childhood best friend was murdered 4 years ago. To date, they still haven't caught the bastard that did it. When they find him, my family doesn't need a lottery. We'll be there in force.

3. No I've never killed anyone, though I am trained to do so if myself and/or my family are in danger. Do I personally want to kill? Hell no, but when push comes to shove, it's a necessary animal when it comes to defending life or property. NOW... having said that... why should my cousin have been killed, and moreover, why should my familly have to live with the notion that her killer, if caught, shouldn't be executed because him breathing behind barbed wire is good enough? My best friend isn't breathing.. what does her judge, jury, and executor breathing matter to me?

If it's bloodlust, so be it. She didn't deserve to die, and yet her murderer pissed on her Constitutional right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" when her throat was slit.

All I hear from the anti-death penalty crew is don't play God, don't kill them, leave them behind bars. Why do they murder? why do they.. who cares why they? The fact is they DID... and they need to pay for their crime. The LAW of the land dictates they die. The laws have stood the test of time. Hell, even California brought back the death penalty, though they should have never gotten rid of it. We wouldn't be seeing and/or hearing about Manson anymore.

 

[jfuh]

If there was such a thing as complete justice... maybe the death penalty would be adequate. Unfortunately, that is not what imprisionment is. We forget that prisons are reform institutes. People are not thinking about the consequences of thier actions in the heat of the act. Then there are those who are so mentally perverse that they should never have been allowed to go around the streets. Another failure of our society.

An eye for an eye makes any commiter of the act as guilty as the party that first instigated the act. Thus the executioner and all those whom allowed for the progression of the execution are now just as guilty as the murder h/erself for the act of murder. It dehumanizes us into thinking that the life of the murder is nothing, that some how the murder is 2nd class.
Why is it that today we have more in prision and more on death row than any industrialized country in the world? Why is it that prisons are ironically the fastest growing "business" in the US? Is it not a disgrace?
What I find the most ironic is how nearly all pro-life fundamentalists are pro-death penalty. You debate about the life of an unborn fetus as life, yet you progress the killing of life already established.
Here's the deal. More unwanted pregnancies from mothers whom can not support the child to grow up in a healthy family result in more children that are pshychologically hindered to some way, producing more f___éd up individuals that have no asperations for life at all and end up behind bars. Thus more "reasons" to be tough on crime. It's a continuous cycle.

Though we have progressed significantly in civil rights and liberties to all in the last century, I feel we have some how regressed in our concept of reform institutes, the entire concept of lock them up and throw away the key. Essentially turning our backs to the real problems in society and hoping it will simply go away by locking everyone behind bars even for the most petty of crimes.