The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Capital Punishment thread
brandotheninjamaster
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I see it as a punishment he deserves.
But feeling a sense of justice is difference from deriving joy from it.
I'm just pointing out that the behavior you're condemning is a natural one. I'm not saying being natural makes it good, justthat, because it is natural, and it is also harmless, it is maybe not as bad as you seemed to react to it for being.
Out of curiosity, how do you feel about the death penalty?
100% against it.
This conversation began in another thread, thats the reason for the above quote.
How do you feel about people being executed? Should we burn them at the stake? Make 'em live in prison? What do you think is the proper punishment?
brandotheninjamaster on
0
Posts
However I really don't believe in capital punishment. I think it's a far worse sentence to someone to lock them away for the rest of their life if they can't be rehabilitated. The very fact that they have to live their wasted life seems to me like the worst punishment of all.
Anyways, I'm opposed to capital punishment on the grounds that the costs are too high if we fuck up.
The possibility of wrongful convictions is all I need to be anti-death penalty. I have no idea how often people get sentenced to death wrongly, but even if it's just .1% I can't in good conscience support capital punishment. At least when people are wrongfully sentenced to life in prison there's a possibility of getting out 30 years later because of evidence that wasn't available at the time or whatever.
You're right on that.
What gives us the right to condemn someone to death? Are we really that much better than them after we kill them? I don't think so.
The EU asked Texas to stop executing people this week. Click.
Until that point, I am against capital punishment.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I don't believe that we have the right to take human life just because we get a group of people to agree on it, nor do I see how the government killing a man is any different from one civilian killing another.
I also feel that, as far as considering it an actual "punishment" goes, it really is something else entirely. The victim is not made to deal with the consequences of their actions, but instead, they are simply snuffed out. There is a huge difference, in my mind, between placing limitations on some one's life, versus taking their life away from them entirely. Personally I believe that all people have a right to their life, because, at the core, that is simply the basest piece of what they are. It is one thing to kill in direct self-preservation; it is an unfortunate necessity, but to kill as punishment, etc., is not actually to punish a person, but to remove that person entirely, and I don't think that one person, or a collective of persons, has the place to simply remove another person.
I thought so. Until I remembered that I'm Pro-Choice and anti-Capital Punishment.
at that point, what use would it serve?
In my opinion, the only thing currently seperating the death penalty from tourture is that the victims can't very well complain about it afterwards.
If we could bring them back, then it is just tourture, and would be outlawed by the eighth ammendment (which, really, I think the death penalty should fall under too, but obviously the government doesn't currently feel the same way.)
I don't think I can elaborate much past that. Like I say, I understand and respect the reasoning for not being for it, but I can't get on board with not having that option available.
But yes, American fundamentalists have a tendency to be pro-life with embryos but pro-death penalty with criminals.
I am pro-choice/anti-abortion
I absolutely hate abortions, but they are goingto happen regardless, so for the safety of everyone involved, I think thatthey should be made legal. I also think that they should be discouraged (although not to the point of obstruction) and that putting unwanted children up for adoption should be encouraged. Additionally, I think teaching safe-sex, and really emphasizing it, is one of the best things that we are NOT currently doing.
Not trying to derail, or nothing. Just showing that it's possible to be somewhat consistant.
Totally. I just thought it was an interesting question to ask, since it is essentially state sanctioned "murder".
Before I inadvertently cause some kind of flame war: I don't think military men are murderers. Personally I am against capital punishment, but I obviously recognize the need of the military to be able to take lives when they need to.
The possibility of wrongfully sentencing someone to death doesn't affect your opinion?
And if you are all about "ultimate retribution", wouldn't rotting in jail for 65+ years be worse than having a quick ending?
"To my mind, to kill in war is not a whit better than to commit ordainary murder." -Einstein
As I've said before, I view killing in self preservation from an immediate threat to be an unfortunate neccessity, and as such I do not hold individuals soldiers responsible for these deaths (unless they are obviously just brutalizing the enemy, in which case our country holds them responsible as well.) I DO, however, hold the governments involved, and the decision makers in those governments, responsible for ALL of the deaths, on both sides.
Ok, this may sound like it, but I am really not trying to be snide.
How do you feel about the government taking money from its citizens as opposed a group of random people?
How do you feel about the government paving over wild lands as opposed to Joe Builder deciding to build a road from his house straight down the beach?
The government has the mandate to do things that we would never let an individual (or a small group of people) to do. The government killing a man is different from one civilian killing another because it has the rule of law behind it.
I used this example in the last one.
What about criminals like the Beltway Sniper?
He was admittedly guilty of multiple murders. Why should he sit in jail (with us footing the bill) when a bullet or a needle would get rid of him (did he get the death sentence?). You talk about right to life, but what about all the lives he took? What about the people who are currently paying to keep mass murderers alive in jail? Why are people who live by societys rules forced to pay for people who don't? About removing the person entirely: it's done. The beltway sniper will never walk free. Why bother paying for him?
No, not really. People die because of accident, because of mistake. I don't want to say all the time because I don't know how often it happens. If you want to talk about raising the standard for when the death penalty could be applied, I'd be all for that. You can have too many precautions, but in something this serious, it'd be tough to get to that level.
But as I say, that is a club I want our government to have in their golf bag, to take out on the (hopefully) rare occassions when its needed.
You make it seem like the death penalty is cheaper (intuitively one would think so) but this is not the case.
what about the idea that allowing for circumstances where it is okay to end some one's life serves to cheapen the value of everyones' lives as a whole.
In my worldview, life is an unalienable right of all peoples that, no matter what, they are deserving of. There is no greater evil, in my mind, than to end the life of some one else, because you are stripping them of themselves, and simply ending their existance.
Self-preservation asside, by saying that there are circumstances where one's life is forfeit, you, in essence, change life from a right into a privellege. Suddenly our lives are not unalienable rights, but atthe very least, they are alienable rights. We live not because living is the same as existing itself, but rather, we live because we havenot yet crossed whatever the threshold may be that allows other people to strip our lives away from us.
I think it's fairly well established that the cost of courts,lawyers, appeals, time in prison waiting, and the execution itself exceeds the cost of keeping most prisoners in for life terms. Saving tax-payers money is all to the good, but it's not really a factor in this discussion, so I've heard.
I believe there is. Take for example the Beltway Sniper cited earlier in this thread. This guys killed a lot of people, trained and had a child kill people, and, in my opinion, has otherwise demonstrated that he has forgone his right to life, liberty, and happiness. Just as criminals of smaller crimes receive smaller sentences, forgoing only their right to liberty, this man has committed greater crimes, and I am in favor of giving him the most serious punishment available to us.
Like I said earlier, this fits my sense of justice.
Yeah, and think of this situation.
You come home early from work to surprise your wife with some roses and chocolate, only to find her sleeping with your best friend.
You flip out and kill them both, and then call the police on yourself.
Do you think that person deserves to be on death row?
When we all say it's okay to kill another human being; we all become murderers immediately when that person dies. Then we should all be on death row ourselves. (sort of paraphrased from the Penn and Teller show)
That being said, I am a firm believer in 3 strikes and you are out. If you are convicted of 3 seriously violent crimes (murder, rape, torture etc) you should die. You have proven again and again that you are a threat to the res tof society.