Options

Capital Punishment thread

11213151718

Posts

  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Your intent, i.e. your goal, your aim, the result you want to get, is their death.

    When someone asks, why did you intend their death, you can give your reasons. You can say, "I wanted to kill him because he killed my father," or "he stabbed me in the back in a business deal".

    so are you saying that intent is a more important consideration than reasoning? if i intend for someone to die, regardless of reasoning, then im no different from a serial murderer?

    bombing factories in a war? self defense? these make me equivalent to a serial murderer?

    is that what you are actually saying?

    For me, it goes consequence > intent > reasoning.

    I consider each one, but consequence is by far the most important factor.

    Killing someone without intending to do so is worse than intending to kill them but failing to do so.

    But killing someone with the intention of killing them is very nearly the same regardless of reason, with specific exceptions such as self-defense (because in self-defense you don't get a choice).

    thank you for the explanation.

    however, i cannot agree with you simply because i do not equate soldiers to mass murderers. reasoning is > than intent for me.

    Soldiers aren't mass-murderers unless they are doing the killing willingly.

    We have to recognize that they are acting under orders.

    But then, I see all wars, except those fought in defense of the nation, as immoral.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Like I said.

    Have their communication go through a third person, whose job is to listen to person A, rephrase it, and relate it to person B. Their code goes down the drain.

    so they get no lawyer?

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Like I said.

    Have their communication go through a third person, whose job is to listen to person A, rephrase it, and relate it to person B. Their code goes down the drain.

    so they get no lawyer?

    And, more to the point, no privileged communication with their lawyer.

    Basically, it really would be hard to stop criminals from getting any sort of messages out from behind bars.

    I still don't agree that this necessitates killing them. But it does appear that we have bred a special sort of super-criminal that can't be stopped. Go us!

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Again, I have no idea how you get to the conclusion that bad people "deserve to die". You keep repeating it, as if it's some axiom. That's not an argument, it's just an emphatic, repetitive statement. When you say you're using "bad" as a shorthand for "convicted serial murderer", but have already declared your justification for their deaths as "they are bad", you're simply changing the words of your argument, not offering any new information or insight. "Why do bad people deserve to die?" has, as of this posting, still not been answered by you.

    are you playing like this childish (tee hee) "why" game?

    why do "bad" people deserve to get punished? because they've done something bad.

    why does a bad action require a bad result? because i think a fair society is ideal.

    why do you want fairness? because it's better than the alternative (unfairness or randomness).

    we've covered this many, many times.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Linden wrote: »
    Again, I have no idea how you get to the conclusion that bad people "deserve to die". You keep repeating it, as if it's some axiom. That's not an argument, it's just an emphatic, repetitive statement.

    Thank you. This, Ketherial. This is why I seem to be asking "why" all the time. Because you've never answered.

    Exactly. That's why I say his stance doesn't have much of a substance behind it: it simply is based on the opinion that bad people "deserve to die".

    how much punishment should a rapist receive? why?

    By your logic, he deserves to be raped.

    im asking you for your supposedly "objective" answer.

    unless of course you want to just retract the entire quote tree above.

    How much punishment he should receive depends on two things:

    1- Enough to make sure, to a reasonable degree of "sureness", he doesn't do it again. I say to a reasonable degree of sureness, because the only way to 100% make sure he doesn't do it again is to kill him. And by this logic, i.e. the understanding that one of the purposes of punishment is to discourage repetition of the crime, even the smallest crime should be punishable by death.
    2- Enough of the correct kind to deter others from raping people. I say "the correct kind" because deterrence is not only a matter of the degree of punishment; if it was, death penalty, the highest degree, would be the perfect deterrent. We also have to figure out the kind of punishment.

    Now, explain your stance. By it, a rapist needs to be raped, no?

    ege02 on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Society isn't fair, as it frequently creates terrible and tragic individuals through tortuous circumstances and unfortunate genetic problems. To top it all off with an execution strikes me as even less fair.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    All things being equal, enough to deter other potential rapists.

    Because we don't want people raping other people.

    and that means how many years? any fines?

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Like I said.

    Have their communication go through a third person, whose job is to listen to person A, rephrase it, and relate it to person B. Their code goes down the drain.

    so they get no lawyer?

    What I am saying is they can communicate with both the lawyer and their witnesses as long as there is a system in place to make sure their secret code of communication is broken. Rephrasing is one way. Tying their hands behind their backs to make sure they can't use hand signals is another.

    Killing them is the easy way out.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Soldiers aren't mass-murderers unless they are doing the killing willingly.

    We have to recognize that they are acting under orders.

    But then, I see all wars, except those fought in defense of the nation, as immoral.

    the intent is identical. the reasoning is different.

    i thought you said intent > reasoning?

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Soldiers aren't mass-murderers unless they are doing the killing willingly.

    We have to recognize that they are acting under orders.

    But then, I see all wars, except those fought in defense of the nation, as immoral.

    the intent is identical. the reasoning is different.

    i thought you said intent > reasoning?

    I also said that certain cases are exceptions, such as cases where one doesn't get a choice, as in self-defense. It's a matter of "either you die or I die".

    ege02 on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    And, more to the point, no privileged communication with their lawyer.

    Basically, it really would be hard to stop criminals from getting any sort of messages out from behind bars.

    I still don't agree that this necessitates killing them. But it does appear that we have bred a special sort of super-criminal that can't be stopped. Go us!

    i actually dont think they get any privileged communication anyway. privileged just means that no one else gets to listen. but that doesnt matter because the message is coded.

    i guess what im wondering is, how far are we going to go to try and preserve the life of some scum bag who simply refuses to reform?

    i mean seriously, you guys really want to keep these people alive at the expense of the innocents that might die at their hands?

    why?

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    All things being equal, enough to deter other potential rapists.

    Because we don't want people raping other people.

    and that means how many years? any fines?

    I'm not sure. Not an area of my expertise, and it depends on the specifics of the crime. Rape is a relatively large problem in society though, so current penalties may be weak. It could be, of course, that it's a problem that won't be solved merely through harsher sentencing. There is a bit of a cultural malaise about rape, at least in the United States.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Now, explain your stance. By it, a rapist needs to be raped, no?

    i personally have no qualms against raping a rapist.

    that being said, i have bowed down to the majority on cruel and unusual punishment.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    I also said that certain cases are exceptions, such as cases where one doesn't get a choice, as in self-defense. It's a matter of "either you die or I die".

    soldiers get a choice.

    as long as they dont disobey orders on the field of battle, the worst they might get is a dishonorable discharge, fined and imprisoned. a small price to pay for not having to kill someone, no? life infinitely valuable and all that?

    besides they dont have to be soldiers.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    I also said that certain cases are exceptions, such as cases where one doesn't get a choice, as in self-defense. It's a matter of "either you die or I die".

    soldiers get a choice.

    as long as they dont disobey orders on the field of battle, the worst they might get is a dishonorable discharge, fined and imprisoned. a small price to pay for not having to kill someone, no? life infinitely valuable and all that?

    besides they dont have to be soldiers.

    That is precisely why I don't think very highly of soldiers.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Now, explain your stance. By it, a rapist needs to be raped, no?

    i personally have no qualms against raping a rapist.

    . . .

    This is the part where I stop taking you seriously and announce that I am, in fact, done with this thread.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    LindenLinden Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Again, I have no idea how you get to the conclusion that bad people "deserve to die". You keep repeating it, as if it's some axiom. That's not an argument, it's just an emphatic, repetitive statement. When you say you're using "bad" as a shorthand for "convicted serial murderer", but have already declared your justification for their deaths as "they are bad", you're simply changing the words of your argument, not offering any new information or insight. "Why do bad people deserve to die?" has, as of this posting, still not been answered by you.

    are you playing like this childish (tee hee) "why" game?

    why do "bad" people deserve to get punished? because they've done something bad.

    why does a bad action require a bad result? because i think a fair society is ideal.

    why do you want fairness? because it's better than the alternative (unfairness or randomness).

    we've covered this many, many times.

    And it wasn't any better as an argument in the past.

    Why? Because! is not a debate into which I wish to enter, or carry on with. As you appear to be being deliberately dense, I think I have to agree with ege here. And that quote is really enough to seal it.

    "Why" is a necessity in all moral arguments. If you don't want to enter into a moral argument, don't make moral statements. And that would be a very short thread.

    Allow me to reiterate that deterrent is our aim. (Look! I can do it too! It doesn't make it right, but I can pretend it does!)

    Linden on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Society isn't fair, as it frequently creates terrible and tragic individuals through tortuous circumstances and unfortunate genetic problems. To top it all off with an execution strikes me as even less fair.

    but you're fine with lwop?

    interesting.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Like I said.

    Have their communication go through a third person, whose job is to listen to person A, rephrase it, and relate it to person B. Their code goes down the drain.

    so they get no lawyer?

    What I am saying is they can communicate with both the lawyer and their witnesses as long as there is a system in place to make sure their secret code of communication is broken. Rephrasing is one way. Tying their hands behind their backs to make sure they can't use hand signals is another.

    Killing them is the easy way out.

    again, what is the practical purpose of all of this?

    you guys are all about practicalities and consequences right?

    what the hell is the point of keeping these aryan brotherhood guys alive if they still possibly pose a threat, cannot be rehabed or deterred?

    perhaps, killing them is the easy way out, but it's also the only guarantee. i mean why are you willing to take an even 1% risk that their message will get out and that they'll organize another series of murders?

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I'm not sure. Not an area of my expertise, and it depends on the specifics of the crime. Rape is a relatively large problem in society though, so current penalties may be weak. It could be, of course, that it's a problem that won't be solved merely through harsher sentencing. There is a bit of a cultural malaise about rape, at least in the United States.

    in other words you're trying to avoid answering the question so you dont seem subjective.

    that's fine. but you're not fooling anyone.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Linden wrote: »
    And it wasn't any better as an argument in the past.

    Why? Because! is not a debate into which I wish to enter, or carry on with. As you appear to be being deliberately dense, I think I have to agree with ege here. And that quote is really enough to seal it.

    "Why" is a necessity in all moral arguments. If you don't want to enter into a moral argument, don't make moral statements. And that would be a very short thread.

    Allow me to reiterate that deterrent is our aim. (Look! I can do it too! It doesn't make it right, but I can pretend it does!)

    i dont believe in morals. at least not absolute ones.

    deterrence is not my aim. just because my reasons dont satisfy your deterrence aims doesnt mean that they dont satisfy any aims.

    they satisfy my fairness goals pretty damn well.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Now, explain your stance. By it, a rapist needs to be raped, no?

    i personally have no qualms against raping a rapist.

    . . .

    This is the part where I stop taking you seriously and announce that I am, in fact, done with this thread.

    now at least i can stop repeating myself a thousand times.

    btw, why is raping a rapist bad? oh wait, let me guess, inalienable rights, whatever those are.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    FallingmanFallingman Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Now, explain your stance. By it, a rapist needs to be raped, no?

    i personally have no qualms against raping a rapist.

    . . .

    This is the part where I stop taking you seriously and announce that I am, in fact, done with this thread.

    now at least i can stop repeating myself a thousand times.

    btw, why is raping a rapist bad? oh wait, let me guess, inalienable rights, whatever those are.

    Because... it makes you as bad as them? Just because they did it first, doesn't make you any less of a monster.

    Fallingman on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Fallingman wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Now, explain your stance. By it, a rapist needs to be raped, no?

    i personally have no qualms against raping a rapist.

    . . .

    This is the part where I stop taking you seriously and announce that I am, in fact, done with this thread.

    now at least i can stop repeating myself a thousand times.

    btw, why is raping a rapist bad? oh wait, let me guess, inalienable rights, whatever those are.

    because... it makes you as bad as them? Just because they did it first, doesn't make you any less of a monster.

    no no no, you don't understand fallingman. it's the due process that is different! we're raping them as humanely as possible!

    ege02 on
  • Options
    DogDog Registered User, Administrator, Vanilla Staff admin
    edited August 2007
    I generally take the position that comprimising your own principles because someone else hasn't lived up to them is fundamentally wrong. In this case raping rapists, and killing killers. Unless your principles involve raping and killing, but thats a whole nother nugget. Eventually people will get to the notion that reforming or isolating such individuals from society is the only solution that doesn't actually make you a hypocrite. Or they won't get to it, die, and then their children will ideally have evolved enough in that one eye blink of a generation to get it. Or their pastor will get it, and teach them better.

    Unknown User on
  • Options
    FallingmanFallingman Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I have no idea why people blur this line.

    Why do I not murder someone? Because I think its wrong. I dont understand why I'd set my morals aside because someone has done something horrible.

    Sure - killing them would be the coldest, most economical solution. But then I've let them force me to compromise myself.

    Fallingman on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Society isn't fair, as it frequently creates terrible and tragic individuals through tortuous circumstances and unfortunate genetic problems. To top it all off with an execution strikes me as even less fair.

    but you're fine with lwop?

    interesting.

    ...

    I wasn't agreeing with your "fairness" concept of governance and punishment, I was pointing out that it's conceptually flawed, as you're forced to ignore a massive chunk of the criminal's history. I'm not the one suggesting that the government has to be meting out joy and suffering according to what is or isn't fair.
    Ketherial wrote: »
    I'm not sure. Not an area of my expertise, and it depends on the specifics of the crime. Rape is a relatively large problem in society though, so current penalties may be weak. It could be, of course, that it's a problem that won't be solved merely through harsher sentencing. There is a bit of a cultural malaise about rape, at least in the United States.

    In other words you're trying to avoid answering the question so you don't seem subjective.

    ...

    I didn't answer it because I'm not a criminal psychologist.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    ZsetrekZsetrek Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    btw, why is raping a rapist bad?

    Because the things that we do to other people make us who we are. If you rape a rapist, you are a rapist.

    Zsetrek on
  • Options
    FallingmanFallingman Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Zsetrek wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    btw, why is raping a rapist bad?

    Because the things that we do to other people make us who we are. If you rape a rapist, you are a rapist.

    You sir, are challenging my cognative dissonance. I demand that you cease immediately.

    Fallingman on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Zsetrek wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    btw, why is raping a rapist bad?

    Because the things that we do to other people make us who we are. If you rape a rapist, you are a rapist.

    Well, then we just need to rape that person.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    Vrtra TheoryVrtra Theory Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    Zsetrek wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    btw, why is raping a rapist bad?

    Because the things that we do to other people make us who we are. If you rape a rapist, you are a rapist.

    Well, then we just need to rape that person.

    Thus increasing the horrible rape radius.

    Vrtra Theory on
    Are you a Software Engineer living in Seattle? HBO is hiring, message me.
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Evander wrote: »
    let me put it to you this way:

    Would you rather be raped, or killed?

    How about having a leg amputed, or killed?


    There are a bunch of things that are disallowed from our justice system due to the eighth amendment that many would arguable say are preferable to death (as well as some with people would say are worse than death.) The fact that we do not allow these things, but still allow the killing of inmates just makes no sense.

    I'd love to see an explanation of why killing is okay but rape isn't.

    And saying thqat the killing is (supposedly) painless doesn't count. You can turn on some mood music, dim the lights, throw around rose petals, get a LOT of lube, etc., but you still can't then strap the inmate down and rape him.

    Modern capital punishment aims to utterly remove a convict from society as humanely as possible. All efforts are made to reduce its sensationalism. Rape is torture.

    I'm opposed to capital punishment, and I find your argument to be vile and pedantic.

    I don't see how killing is "humane" in any sense. Saying "oh, but we kill him nicely" is a mere rationalization. Honestly, it's like using a condom while raping some one, or like anesthetic while performing an amputation as punishment.

    Why is life-long solitairy confinement not good enough?

    Evander on
  • Options
    brandotheninjamasterbrandotheninjamaster Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    Zsetrek wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    btw, why is raping a rapist bad?

    Because the things that we do to other people make us who we are. If you rape a rapist, you are a rapist.

    Well, then we just need to rape that person.

    Thus increasing the horrible rape radius.

    If you keep on raping people it will be sore in the morning!

    brandotheninjamaster on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    BigJoeM wrote: »
    It is a state's right to decide whether or not it has the death penalty there isn't a single state where a population would be forced to accept a capital punishment statute.

    You need a legal reason to remove a legal right (and there really aren't that many that are likely to succeed)

    I support its existence because is still has legitimacy and popular support (if people didn't support it the state could repeal it or never use it like New York or Massachusetts)

    I'm fine with the idea of capital punishment (on a moral and legal level) i just think it needs to be fixed to prevent many of those deaths.

    Yes not having a death penalty reduces the number of innocent people executed to zero but that's not likely.

    I'm all for things that can actually be accomplished.

    You see, to me, the idea that the state's right to kill people supercedes people's right to live kind of disgusts me.

    Evander on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Medopine wrote: »
    Many countries do not have capital punishment at all.

    I'd say it can actually be accomplished.

    And, if you want, the fact that capital punishment is becoming something of a rarity in the civilized world could be construed to fulfill the "unusual" requirement of the eighth amendment.

    Mind you, the purpose of the amendment isn't that a punishment must be BOTH crual and unusual in order to be outlawed, but that both cruel punishment AND unusual punishment should not be allowed.

    At least, in any interpretation that I've ever been taught.

    Evander on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    and this is where we disagree. rewarding good behavior and punishing bad is not only about the incentive effect. it is also about the actual happiness of the person being rewarded or the actual suffering of the person being punished. im not only concerned with how well society functions. the happiness and suffering of people matters to me as well.

    The happiness or suffering of the person, though, has no real logical basis. It doesn't serve ANY purpose at all; you just keep saying that they "deserve" it.

    I mean, could you possibly be appealing MORE to emotion?

    i think you got caught up with the logic / emotion vs. reasonable / irrational mix up as well. when i was using logical, i was using it as reasonable as opposed to irrational.

    baking cookies for grandma to make her happy - emotion or logic / reason or unreason?

    whatever it is, people getting what they deserve is like baking cookies for grandma, except that cookies = lethal injection and grandma = hideous serial child molester murderer.

    The government never baked cookies for my grandmother.

    Do grandmothers deserve people to bake cookies for them? Your analogy really is knd of non-sensical.

    Evander on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    actually, im not killing anyone. through a lengthy and heavily appealed process, the state is acting as the final arbitrator of justice. because nothing is perfect, sometimes that process causes deaths of people who rightly should not be sentenced to die, even under that state's own rules. they are sacrifices, just as victims of car accidents are sacrifices.

    So, while we're discussing all of these sacrifices to this dark lord of yours, you still haven't answered what I've asked you before.

    Would YOU be willing to be one of these sacrifices? If you were wrongfully convicted and sentanced to death, your appeals were in vain, and the day finally came, would you be walking that long mile, saying to yourself "well, at least I'm dying for something I believe in."?

    actually, i would.

    the problem being, truly innocent people are almost never sacrificed. it's like this dark secret that no one wants to mention: the people who get on death row are there for a reason. even if they are "innocent" of some specific crime or even if they could have gotten off on a technicality, these arent "good" people in the traditional sense. not most of them, anyway.


    See, this is the kind of reasoning which REALLY bothers me.



    You are going DIRECTLY against due process here, saying that it's okay for bad people to be punished for the wrong things. That sort of rationalization is EXTREMELY dangerous.

    Evander on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    dont we care about the fact that this person did a "bad" act?

    you're missinga KEY thing here:

    WHY do we care?

    That is to say, there needs to be a reason for our actions; we can't just rationalize them with some sense of "justice" or "ballance" when there is no true basis behind them.

    "Karma" should not be the basis of our legal system.

    my theory about why we care is probably not important to you or to this discussion, but i'll give it to you anyway.

    we care because we like rational worlds where things go the way you would expect them to. when a man does a good deed, we hope he receives a good deed in return. when a man does a bad deed, even if it is secret from the world, we hope he is punished for his wickedness.

    i think it's false to pretend like the desire for justice and balance are things that have "no basis behind them". i would agree that they are not mathematically logical (unless they are axiomatic, which i doubt most would agree), but being repaid x for x makes sense to us in ways that being repaid 10x for x doesnt.

    I'm not saying that the desire isn't there.

    I'm saying that such emotional desires do not have a place in our judicial system. Judgements should be based on what is best for society, not on an abstract concept of what is "deserved".



    As I have sated before, I think that lowering ourselves to the level of murders is BAD for our society. Life loses value when it can be taken so easily.

    Evander on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    a speeding ticket is a deterrent because people speed all the time and it's an appropriate response to what the person did, as decided by society.

    the death penalty is a punishment used in some cases because that's an appropriate response to what the person did, as decided by society.

    you guys are comparing apples to oranges

    There's a context here that you are forgetting, and that is Keth's argument about people getting their just desserts.

    i know, but he's wrong. to some people that's the appeal of the death penalty, but if "just desserts" was the real motivation behind it, we'd apply it to all murder cases and be done with it. we don't.

    it's a punishment because of the nature of the crime.

    hmm? how is an "appropriate response to what the person did" any different from "getting what he deserves as determined by the state"?

    are you guys misunderstanding my position cause i see the two as identical.

    You're just being dense, now.

    Society has a mechanism for deciding what the appropriate response to crime is. The justice system, as set up by the constitution/legislature. That system has the final legal say about what happens when you do something wrong.

    You're saying we can throw out the conclusions of that, just because "they were probably on deathrow for a reason anyway."

    no, im saying that society has decided that a serial murderer deserves to be put to death and i agree. well at least most of society (assuming congressmen and state legislatures are elected based on the best approximation of a majority we can get).

    SO, wait.

    You're saying that if capital punishment is okay because "society wants it"



    Then you would also agree that, if society desided that it is reprehensible, that it is, indeed, reprehensible?

    Evander on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    people who didnt deserve to die (being innocent of the accused crime, although not necessarily perfectly innocent) are sacrifices. they are like the innocent civilians that die from car accidents. we dont want them to die, but we accept that there are losses that are taken when pursuing certain goals.

    Right, but as I have been saying, why must we make these sacrifices to your dark lord?

    What function does killing the guilty serve? What tangiblebenefit is our society gaining that is worth these sacrifices.

    Without automobile transit, our infrastructure would have dificulty functioning. Personal automobile transit allows people to be in a location at a specific time, which is very much necessary for our societal structure.

    Killing people serves NO function that life incarceration could serve equally well.





    Also, the way that you waffle between treating the innocent victims as martyrs, and then turning around nd saying that they probably deserved to die anyway, is actually rather disturbing.

    Evander on
Sign In or Register to comment.