An actual mental disorder is almost impossible to fake. Thee is a reason courts order psychological evaluations.
Of course, your main argumentative tactic here seems to be to call everyone who disagrees with you names, so I'm not sure what the virtue of addressing any of your few, actual points would be.
edit: but okay, let's give it a shot anyway.
The flat out truth is that people who murder, rape, kill, and enjoy it do not deserve to live.
How would you justify this statement, and likewise justify the policy you want to make out of it?
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I'm not talking about policy, I already said I'm just talking about basic morals. If your deep down inside moral code is that these guys should live, that's what I disagree with. That's it. I don't know why it's hard to grasp. Maybe because it's more fun to argue and bicker.
What moral code picks and chooses who gets to retain their humanity? Which code takes something uniquely human like murder and other malicious crimes and then defines anyone who commits them as no longer human?
I'm not talking about policy, I already said I'm just talking about basic morals. If your deep down inside moral code is that these guys should live, that's what I disagree with. That's it. I don't know why it's hard to grasp. Maybe because it's more fun to argue and bicker.
fine, then don't even mess around with policy. How do you justify your position morally?
protip: "I just feel it in my gut" is not a good argument
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited June 2010
Animals do plenty of rape and murder too, it's not really unique for us.
I'm not talking about policy, I already said I'm just talking about basic morals. If your deep down inside moral code is that these guys should live, that's what I disagree with. That's it. I don't know why it's hard to grasp. Maybe because it's more fun to argue and bicker.
fine, then don't even mess around with policy. How do you justify your position morally?
protip: "I just feel it in my gut" is not a good argument
I was never messing around with policy for this. In the page before I was, but that was really just a hypothetical idea to toss around.
As far as justifying myself morally, I think it's pretty simple. If someone murders people in cold blood, rapes and murders them (ala chelsea king), or commits mass murder (like hitler or stalin), or anything to that degree of horror: they deserve to be killed outright.
I'm not talking about policy, I already said I'm just talking about basic morals. If your deep down inside moral code is that these guys should live, that's what I disagree with. That's it. I don't know why it's hard to grasp. Maybe because it's more fun to argue and bicker.
fine, then don't even mess around with policy. How do you justify your position morally?
protip: "I just feel it in my gut" is not a good argument
I was never messing around with policy for this. In the page before I was, but that was really just a hypothetical idea to toss around.
As far as justifying myself morally, I think it's pretty simple. If someone murders people in cold blood, rapes and murders them (ala chelsea king), or commits mass murder (like hitler or stalin), or anything to that degree of horror: they deserve to be killed outright.
why
explain what reasoning you are using to reach this conclusion
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I'm not talking about policy, I already said I'm just talking about basic morals. If your deep down inside moral code is that these guys should live, that's what I disagree with. That's it. I don't know why it's hard to grasp. Maybe because it's more fun to argue and bicker.
And that's exactly what doesn't work when it comes to discussing the death penalty.
There are a substantial number of people who wouldn't wish the death penalty even on people who murdered their own children, because their ethics aren't bent towards primitive reactions.
Urian, if your morals tell you that certain people do not deserve to live and deserve the death penalty, then right now you (that is, everyone who feels as you do) needs to address certain issues that make the death penalty a less practical and efficient solution than life imprisonment.
Cost, value of contributions from prisoners, the fact that the justice system is perfect and innocent people might be convicted and put to death (that's the big one, ethically). Just saying "people deserve to be put to death" doesn't work any more than "people deserve the right to live."
Every school shooter after that wouldn't think there's any consequence to killing people.
Protip: There's already a whole slew of consequences for crimes like that. ONE OF THEM IS THE DEATH PENALTY.
People still commit crimes like that. You know why?
1.)Many times murder is committed in the heat of the moment. In a knock-down-drag-out fight or moment of panic, people don't stop and think "I could get the chair for this."
2.)Large scale murders such as the school shootings are committed by people who frequently have psychological problems with possible abuse/bullying/other social factors. They're also in no state to care about if they're gonna get the death penalty (and frequently kill themselves anyway.)
I'm not talking about policy, I already said I'm just talking about basic morals. If your deep down inside moral code is that these guys should live, that's what I disagree with. That's it. I don't know why it's hard to grasp. Maybe because it's more fun to argue and bicker.
fine, then don't even mess around with policy. How do you justify your position morally?
protip: "I just feel it in my gut" is not a good argument
I was never messing around with policy for this. In the page before I was, but that was really just a hypothetical idea to toss around.
As far as justifying myself morally, I think it's pretty simple. If someone murders people in cold blood, rapes and murders them (ala chelsea king), or commits mass murder (like hitler or stalin), or anything to that degree of horror: they deserve to be killed outright.
And after you kill them.. their victims are still dead. What did you gain, here? Besides petty revenge.
You, me, and every sane person knows what said person deserves,
Yeah, you don't speak for anyone but yourself. There are a substantial number of people who wouldn't wish the death penalty even on people who murdered their own children, because their ethics aren't bent towards primitive reactions. Some of us are civilized.
Now you're insulting me. You're probably the kind of guy who wears a beret and types this kind of shit on a macbook in a coffee shop, go fuck yourself.
I'm simply stating what thousands of years of history has shown. As for me, I'm actually fairly conservative, was a Republican until 2001, have been assaulted with weapons since grade school, and have been in situations where violent criminals could easily kill me.
I still have a strong enough grasp on societal function to know that revenge just makes things worse.
I'm not talking about policy, I already said I'm just talking about basic morals. If your deep down inside moral code is that these guys should live, that's what I disagree with. That's it. I don't know why it's hard to grasp. Maybe because it's more fun to argue and bicker.
fine, then don't even mess around with policy. How do you justify your position morally?
protip: "I just feel it in my gut" is not a good argument
I was never messing around with policy for this. In the page before I was, but that was really just a hypothetical idea to toss around.
As far as justifying myself morally, I think it's pretty simple. If someone murders people in cold blood, rapes and murders them (ala chelsea king), or commits mass murder (like hitler or stalin), or anything to that degree of horror: they deserve to be killed outright.
How did you come to the conclusion that those things are what deserve to be killed?
By the way: this rabbit hole leads to how people decide to murder someone in cold blood, by the by.
I'm simply stating what thousands of years of history has shown.
The death penalty has been around for thousands of years too. This isn't a simple issue, and this statement doesn't add anything useful to the discussion.
"people deserve to be put to death" doesn't work any more than "people deserve the right to live."
This is pretty much how I feel about this topic. These are discussion and debate boards, so we revere logic, but you can't reason away values. Reason is a useful tool when value systems are not set, or the consequences of those values are up for discussion. The value of human life and emotional appeal of retributive justice strike close to the bone; sometimes there isn't much further down that you can go to find common ground.
So, do you not believe that humans have a right to live, then?
One would think that, at least, would be a point of consensus.
The very fact that we're having a discussion about killing people, or that nations willingly go to war demonstrate that there is not a strong consensus that humans have an absolute right to life (and by absolute, I mean that this right cannot be revoked).
I'm against the death penalty in all cases unless its child killers and pedophiles. They need to die.
We wouldnt be having this death penalty debate if rehabilitation in the prison system worked and inmates left prison as capable and sensible members of society.
I'm against the death penalty in all cases unless its child killers and pedophiles. They need to die.
We wouldnt be having this death penalty debate if rehabilitation in the prison system worked and inmates left prison as capable and sensible members of society.
What makes child killers and pedophiles different from the others? Is it that that's your limit of self-control and civility, or do you have rational (meaningful) reasons behind it?
I still want itunesisevil or whatever his name is to answer for the "dead people don't care" line, implying who cares about the dead since they're already dead. And to the condescending prick talking about "petty" revenge; try saying that again if you ever lose a friend or loved one to another person. You're just coming off as some pretentious high school kid who thinks he knows best because he uses the fucking internet.
I still want itunesisevil or whatever his name is to answer for the "dead people don't care" line, implying who cares about the dead since they're already dead. And to the condescending prick talking about "petty" revenge; try saying that again if you ever lose a friend or loved one to another person. You're just coming off as some pretentious high school kid who thinks he knows best because he uses the fucking internet.
I have lost a friend (killed by his own dad) AND a loved one (shot to death) to other people. Executing them is still petty revenge. If you really want to play that angle.
Just to step in and say that a revenge killing is petty revenge. I'm pretty sure some awesome people in history have endorsed that idea or something close. Among them being Jesus and Ghandi.
I'm against the death penalty in all cases unless its child killers and pedophiles. They need to die.
We wouldnt be having this death penalty debate if rehabilitation in the prison system worked and inmates left prison as capable and sensible members of society.
Is just being a pedophile enough or do you have to have actually harmed a child?
If so, just rape or molestation?
What about someone who takes pictures of naked kids but otherwise doesn't harm them?
How about a guy who wanks to lolicon?
I mean where do you draw that line? Overly emotionally subjects like that have given us the worst laws, with the most abuse. It's the reason in the south a black teenager can go to prison for getting oral from a white girl - what makes a sex offender deserve to die but a drunk father who beats his kids just loses custody and gets a few months?
We need a robot to dispense justice on sex offenders, because humans don't seem capable of putting their upcoming election poll numbers aside long enough to use rationality rather than emotional pandering when writing those laws.
The death penalty has been around for thousands of years too. This isn't a simple issue, and this statement doesn't add anything useful to the discussion.
Go read about scapegoating, weregild, and the history of justice over the course of civilization's refinement, for starters.
Even the fucking Vikings knew that revenge made shit worse. The VIKINGS.
--
A friend of mine was beaten to death in an alley by some random whackjob back when I was in high school. Doesn't change that the death penalty is harmful to society.
I still want itunesisevil or whatever his name is to answer for the "dead people don't care" line, implying who cares about the dead since they're already dead. And to the condescending prick talking about "petty" revenge; try saying that again if you ever lose a friend or loved one to another person. You're just coming off as some pretentious high school kid who thinks he knows best because he uses the fucking internet.
I have lost a friend (killed by his own dad) AND a loved one (shot to death) to other people. Executing them is still petty revenge. If you really want to play that angle.
I still want itunesisevil or whatever his name is to answer for the "dead people don't care" line, implying who cares about the dead since they're already dead. And to the condescending prick talking about "petty" revenge; try saying that again if you ever lose a friend or loved one to another person. You're just coming off as some pretentious high school kid who thinks he knows best because he uses the fucking internet.
I have lost a friend (killed by his own dad) AND a loved one (shot to death) to other people. Executing them is still petty revenge. If you really want to play that angle.
Would they feel the same way?
probably not, but then, that's kind of the entire point of having a criminal justice system
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I still want itunesisevil or whatever his name is to answer for the "dead people don't care" line, implying who cares about the dead since they're already dead. And to the condescending prick talking about "petty" revenge; try saying that again if you ever lose a friend or loved one to another person. You're just coming off as some pretentious high school kid who thinks he knows best because he uses the fucking internet.
I have lost a friend (killed by his own dad) AND a loved one (shot to death) to other people. Executing them is still petty revenge. If you really want to play that angle.
Would they feel the same way?
It wouldn't matter because I'm not into "honor killings" like some gangbanger
FyreWulff on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I also like the implication that there is nothing that can ever be done to improve the rehabilitative function of the prison system.
I'm torn on this.
I don't at all believe that people are beyond redemption or rehabilitation, but the lion's share of criminals become so due to socio-economic environments, poor education, and/or mental illness, none of which the prison system is capable of fixing. Now, when people are released back into civilization, not only are they returning to those environments, they have the extra hurdle of being a ex-con.
At best, I think all we can hope for is a system that assesses the rehabilitative potential of inmates and provides for them an environment that prepares them for civilized life and provides them marketable skills that enable them to get jobs that pay better than violent crime does. Which, granted, would be a far cry from what we have now, but it's still not much.
To fully optimize the system, you would have to prevent released inmates from returning to their former lives and provide adequate placement in halfway houses to put them on the path for a better life. And the improbability and infeasibility of that scenario is high enough to be restated as functionally impossible.
I still want itunesisevil or whatever his name is to answer for the "dead people don't care" line, implying who cares about the dead since they're already dead.
I'm not sure what you're having trouble with, friend. Dead people don't care. Have you been speaking with the dead, and you know something that I don't? Is there a Zombie Apocalypse that I missed on the news? Maybe I need to watch better news. I'm not going to get revenge for the dead. It won't please them. It won't help them. It won't bring them back.
In fact, our criminal court system's purpose isn't vengeance. You know that, right? Like, when you steal from someone, our system isn't there to get revenge for you, the victim. It's to protect and improve society as a whole. We protect it by temporarily incarcerating the individual, and we improve it by rehabilitating the individual.
As a random aside, the "what if it happened to your family though? What if someone murdered your mom and brothers and dad and your dog" thing is kind of silly. I think most of us have had that conversation with our loved ones before. When I talked with my mom about it I told her killing her killer wouldn't bring her back, and it wouldn't make my life or the world a better place. It'd just make me a small, petty, dishonest man. She wasn't happy, but she understood. So, if I told my own mom I wouldn't kill the person who killed her, what chance does Intarwebz Dude have? :P
Posts
Of course, your main argumentative tactic here seems to be to call everyone who disagrees with you names, so I'm not sure what the virtue of addressing any of your few, actual points would be.
edit: but okay, let's give it a shot anyway.
How would you justify this statement, and likewise justify the policy you want to make out of it?
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
fine, then don't even mess around with policy. How do you justify your position morally?
protip: "I just feel it in my gut" is not a good argument
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I was never messing around with policy for this. In the page before I was, but that was really just a hypothetical idea to toss around.
As far as justifying myself morally, I think it's pretty simple. If someone murders people in cold blood, rapes and murders them (ala chelsea king), or commits mass murder (like hitler or stalin), or anything to that degree of horror: they deserve to be killed outright.
why
explain what reasoning you are using to reach this conclusion
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
And that's exactly what doesn't work when it comes to discussing the death penalty.
Does not jive with:
Urian, if your morals tell you that certain people do not deserve to live and deserve the death penalty, then right now you (that is, everyone who feels as you do) needs to address certain issues that make the death penalty a less practical and efficient solution than life imprisonment.
Cost, value of contributions from prisoners, the fact that the justice system is perfect and innocent people might be convicted and put to death (that's the big one, ethically). Just saying "people deserve to be put to death" doesn't work any more than "people deserve the right to live."
Protip: There's already a whole slew of consequences for crimes like that. ONE OF THEM IS THE DEATH PENALTY.
People still commit crimes like that. You know why?
1.)Many times murder is committed in the heat of the moment. In a knock-down-drag-out fight or moment of panic, people don't stop and think "I could get the chair for this."
2.)Large scale murders such as the school shootings are committed by people who frequently have psychological problems with possible abuse/bullying/other social factors. They're also in no state to care about if they're gonna get the death penalty (and frequently kill themselves anyway.)
And after you kill them.. their victims are still dead. What did you gain, here? Besides petty revenge.
I'm simply stating what thousands of years of history has shown. As for me, I'm actually fairly conservative, was a Republican until 2001, have been assaulted with weapons since grade school, and have been in situations where violent criminals could easily kill me.
I still have a strong enough grasp on societal function to know that revenge just makes things worse.
How did you come to the conclusion that those things are what deserve to be killed?
By the way: this rabbit hole leads to how people decide to murder someone in cold blood, by the by.
Less condescension, please. Shit like that pisses people off and doesn't get your point across.
The death penalty has been around for thousands of years too. This isn't a simple issue, and this statement doesn't add anything useful to the discussion.
How do you know that?
Nah, it only pisses people off that are into petty revenge.
This is pretty much how I feel about this topic. These are discussion and debate boards, so we revere logic, but you can't reason away values. Reason is a useful tool when value systems are not set, or the consequences of those values are up for discussion. The value of human life and emotional appeal of retributive justice strike close to the bone; sometimes there isn't much further down that you can go to find common ground.
One would think that, at least, would be a point of consensus.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
The very fact that we're having a discussion about killing people, or that nations willingly go to war demonstrate that there is not a strong consensus that humans have an absolute right to life (and by absolute, I mean that this right cannot be revoked).
We wouldnt be having this death penalty debate if rehabilitation in the prison system worked and inmates left prison as capable and sensible members of society.
What makes child killers and pedophiles different from the others? Is it that that's your limit of self-control and civility, or do you have rational (meaningful) reasons behind it?
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I have lost a friend (killed by his own dad) AND a loved one (shot to death) to other people. Executing them is still petty revenge. If you really want to play that angle.
I'm not interested in taking part in a mass suicide, so no thanks.
Is just being a pedophile enough or do you have to have actually harmed a child?
If so, just rape or molestation?
What about someone who takes pictures of naked kids but otherwise doesn't harm them?
How about a guy who wanks to lolicon?
I mean where do you draw that line? Overly emotionally subjects like that have given us the worst laws, with the most abuse. It's the reason in the south a black teenager can go to prison for getting oral from a white girl - what makes a sex offender deserve to die but a drunk father who beats his kids just loses custody and gets a few months?
We need a robot to dispense justice on sex offenders, because humans don't seem capable of putting their upcoming election poll numbers aside long enough to use rationality rather than emotional pandering when writing those laws.
Go read about scapegoating, weregild, and the history of justice over the course of civilization's refinement, for starters.
Even the fucking Vikings knew that revenge made shit worse. The VIKINGS.
--
A friend of mine was beaten to death in an alley by some random whackjob back when I was in high school. Doesn't change that the death penalty is harmful to society.
--
Also I'm pretty sure that Urian is a troll.
Would they feel the same way?
Whoo?
I could charm a scorpion.
probably not, but then, that's kind of the entire point of having a criminal justice system
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
It wouldn't matter because I'm not into "honor killings" like some gangbanger
I'm torn on this.
I don't at all believe that people are beyond redemption or rehabilitation, but the lion's share of criminals become so due to socio-economic environments, poor education, and/or mental illness, none of which the prison system is capable of fixing. Now, when people are released back into civilization, not only are they returning to those environments, they have the extra hurdle of being a ex-con.
At best, I think all we can hope for is a system that assesses the rehabilitative potential of inmates and provides for them an environment that prepares them for civilized life and provides them marketable skills that enable them to get jobs that pay better than violent crime does. Which, granted, would be a far cry from what we have now, but it's still not much.
To fully optimize the system, you would have to prevent released inmates from returning to their former lives and provide adequate placement in halfway houses to put them on the path for a better life. And the improbability and infeasibility of that scenario is high enough to be restated as functionally impossible.
In fact, our criminal court system's purpose isn't vengeance. You know that, right? Like, when you steal from someone, our system isn't there to get revenge for you, the victim. It's to protect and improve society as a whole. We protect it by temporarily incarcerating the individual, and we improve it by rehabilitating the individual.
As a random aside, the "what if it happened to your family though? What if someone murdered your mom and brothers and dad and your dog" thing is kind of silly. I think most of us have had that conversation with our loved ones before. When I talked with my mom about it I told her killing her killer wouldn't bring her back, and it wouldn't make my life or the world a better place. It'd just make me a small, petty, dishonest man. She wasn't happy, but she understood. So, if I told my own mom I wouldn't kill the person who killed her, what chance does Intarwebz Dude have? :P