The Death Penalty is a consequence. End of story.
Those that commit murder and rape and such forfeit their lives as a matter of fact, not as an emotional vengence or anything else, their life is not worth anything, so it is ended. Done.
The fact is, that by exacting the highest penalty for the taking of human life we are affirming the highest value of human life.
The fact is, that by exacting the highest penalty for the taking of human life we are affirming the highest value of human life.
Death in and of itself means nothing, many even embrace it, and when death is eminent with no chance of escape, death is calmly accepted by everyone with no emotion. So death as a deterrent or threat doesn't work in real life, only in novels and movies.
ricksfolly
Nice doublethink.
Nice doublethink.
The Death Penalty is not a deterrent, it is a consequence. Read it again...
The fact is, that by exacting the highest penalty for the taking of human life we are affirming the highest value of human life.
It is actually quite logical...
Saw right through me, huh. Give yourself a pat on the back. You're the only one who has?
ricksfolly
No, it isn't. Get rid of plea bargains and maybe you'd have a case.
Originally Posted by Orion
That doesn't follow. If life is so valuable then we should not be committing the same act of murder to balance out a previous act of murder. That, and it's an expensive, unproductive punishment because it is not curbing the crime rate in any meaningful way. It has failed as a deterrent.
Finally, I wouldn't want my tax dollars paying for such procedures. Maybe you are comfortable with that. If that's the case, then you can donate money to the judicial system that carries out the death penalty. My dollars should not pay for your vengeance.
The best way to treat criminals is to transform them into non-criminals. It takes the least amount of energy, money, and does not burden society with the negative karma of having killed them. Those that cannot be saved should be put away at our expense, since we as a society and system have failed them. That is the burden of a civilized community.
In fact it is not. If you're going to claim affirmation of human life having value above all else, then the death penalty is exactly counter to that. If you really believe in the high value of human life, then all human life is considered equal and highly valued. Thus the focus would be on rehabilitation, not death. The route you go is not an affirmation of human life, however. That is clear by the willingness to take life. Your route is the route of the "eye for an eye". Which is ironic given the reason why that ancient law was constructed. In short, it was made to LIMIT the amount of punishment which was handed out to criminals. In our current state of societal evolution, there is no longer a need for the death penalty. If you wish to affirm the high value of human life, then you will focus on preserving and proliferating it; not ending it. In that case, counseling and rehabilitation would be your goal for prison. Otherwise, it's just a misguided notion of "eye for an eye"; which does in fact line up exactly with your rhetoric.
What are your opinions on sharia law?
It is a completely valid, rational and logical ETHICAL ARGUMENT. Go read about it. It has nothing to do with an eye for an eye, nothing at all...
Just because you claim it has nothing to do with it doesn't change the fact that it is well more aligned with that ideology than it is with the affirmation of human life. The way you try to sell it is disingenuous. If we are affirming the high value of human life, than you cannot push for the ending of human life. It's that simple. You want to make it seem like you're coming from this high moral ground with such a statement, but in fact nothing in your argument supports it. Your argument as presented does follow a twisted "eye for an eye" argument though. That's just reality. If you don't like it, refine your argument. But sitting there pretending you're coming from a moral high ground you don't possess and making arguments which cannot support those hefty moral statements does nothing for your argument. You want to kill because you feel that those who have acted out against the lives of others have forfeited their own life and as consequence of their actions are put to death through State power. That is an "eye for an eye" argument. Sorry, that's just what it is. Raging against reality isn't going to change it.
"The idea that "violence doesn't solve anything" is a historically untrue and immoral doctrine. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. People that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."
So, bodhi, tell me what is the societal value of the death penalty as a consequence to murder? Since it does not deter crime.
So you take this as hienlin (sp, idc) condoning justifiable violence? To quote other men does no credit to you.
It certainly doesn't seem as if you are trying to understand what I am saying, have you read any of my other posts in this thread?
Rousseau, Heinlien... just a couple of guys "raging against reality" along with me in our deluded, "eye for an eye" ignorance, eh? :roll:
An eye for an eye as interpreted by you and those that think that it is twisted is the problem and why I saw that it is not comparable. My assertion is comparable to aspects of an eye for an eye, but is in no way twisted or illogical like you claim.
My position is quite logical and I never said that I am morally above those that are against the Death Penalty. I completely understand and respect that opinion, get real Ikari.
Present an argument that can stand on it's own merit instead of trying to twist my intentions, because that is the basis of misunderstanding what I am saying but it is also...
Throw source at me
The Case Against the Death Penalty
Throw source at you... yar hardy blar...
Realistically I don't know how people expect a numerical trend in a decrease in homicides to bear directly from a increase in executions. That numerical correlation doesnt necessarily speak to a deterrent effect direct from the result of executions themselves. That seems quasi-religious.
:shrug:
I am simply quoting others that have the same view rather than trying to take credit for views that have already been documented. It looks like you don't have ****, to be honest, so you are now engaging in ad homs as a pathetic attempt to discredit me and my view. Seriously, is there anybody here that wants to actually debate? *looks around*
Again though... I am not concerned if it is a deterrent or not.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?