Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Please explain why you are for or against it.

For. People forfeit their right to life when they take someone else's.

If there are people that are a complete detriment to society, offering nothing and having been proven to be a reliable danger, what is the point of spending money to keep them alive?

For. Some people just deserve it.

I think a modern society should not have the death penalty. Not necessarily because I personally think that some people don't deserve death, imo, but because of secondary reasons like the government should not have this power, and government sanctioned death penalties degrade the sanctity of human life generally. I also don't think that anyone is really beyond redemption, and I think even someone incarcerated for life can be an asset to society.

Additionally the death penalty, if you want to make absolutely sure that someone is guilty, which a modern society really should, costs more than incarcerating people, so besides the negative points, it also is more of a drain financially.

I believe in the death penalty.
What I don't understand is how some inmates who are sentenced to death spend years in Death Row for it to happen?
In my opinion, once you're sentenced to death, you're given a set period to sort out your will & say your farewells & be done with it.

I'm also of a firm believer that if someone gets a jail term of 10 years or more, the prisoner is then allowed to be given the choice to serve their jail term or be able to choose death.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
I believe in the death penalty.
What I don't understand is how some inmates who are sentenced to death spend years in Death Row for it to happen?
In my opinion, once you're sentenced to death, you're given a set period to sort out your will & say your farewells & be done with it.

I'm also of a firm believer that if someone gets a jail term of 10 years or more, the prisoner is then allowed to be given the choice to serve their jail term or be able to choose death.

Because of the severity of the death penalty in particular, the justice system, imo very wisely, is set up to give the accused chances to prove their innocence. This can take many years to deal with and is very expensive, but since there are cases where people were found innocent after many, many years, and since there are cases where defenders, juries and judges just bungled up a case, it is pretty important for the integrity of the judicial system that these extensive failsafes are in place.

Against the death penalty.

The govt shouldn't be given that power.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Because of the severity of the death penalty in particular, the justice system, imo very wisely, is set up to give the accused chances to prove their innocence. This can take many years to deal with and is very expensive, but since there are cases where people were found innocent after many, many years, and since there are cases where defenders, juries and judges just bungled up a case, it is pretty important for the integrity of the judicial system that these extensive failsafes are in place.

I totally understand that.
But if there is no doubt at all & all evidence points to the guilty, then the death penalty should be executed as soon as possible.
Why waste time, prison space & money keeping the death row prisoner alive for longer than necessary?

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
I totally understand that.
But if there is no doubt at all & all evidence points to the guilty, then the death penalty should be executed as soon as possible.
Why waste time, prison space & money keeping the death row prisoner alive for longer than necessary?

Yeah, and the way that we discern that there is no doubt at all is a long bureaucratic process with trials and appeals.

If there was just a way to shortcut the system, why not use it all the time? Who decides it's a open and shut case to bypass the usual process?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, and the way that we discern that there is no doubt at all is a long bureaucratic process with trials and appeals.

If there was just a way to shortcut the system, why not use it all the time? Who decides it's a open and shut case to bypass the usual process? Even in the case of our long drawn out process we can still get it wrong.

Personally I'm against the death penalty. I think the mark of an advanced and compassionate society is how we treat our prisoners regardless of whether they deserve it or not. I'm not saying they need to live in a five star resort but the way we treat prisoners and the types of punishments we hand out are a direct reflection of us as a culture.

I also think the fact that there is any chance at all that we could execute an innocent man is too high. I would rather hand out life sentences where wrong verdicts can be overturned at a later time.

You add in the fact that the death penalty can be costly and that it really has never been a proven deterrent to murder I think for me it becomes a no brainer to get rid of the death penalty.

Death is a part of population control. I know liberals don't want people to die, but that's part of lie.

All the things that kill us make room for all the un born babies.

We kill those too, but the ones that make it need air, water, and food.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, and the way that we discern that there is no doubt at all is a long bureaucratic process with trials and appeals.

If there was just a way to shortcut the system, why not use it all the time? Who decides it's a open and shut case to bypass the usual process?

I'm talking about the obvious.
Heinous crime committed.
Motives established.
Witnesses.
Irrefutable evidence.
Guilty admission.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Death is a part of population control. I know liberals don't want people to die, but that's part of lie.

All the things that kill us make room for all the un born babies.

We kill those too, but the ones that make it need air, water, and food. So you're saying we need the death penalty so we can thin the heard?

Honestly the number of people we would have to kill with the Death Penalty for that to be a viable argument and for it make any difference in population control would be silly.

So to me this is a none point or counter point to the death penalty.

It should be used for people you commit murders intentionally.

If you killed someone for self-defense, you are innocent. The murderer who tried to kill you is as good as dead.

Originally posted by Newjak
So you're saying we need the death penalty so we can thin the heard?

Honestly the number of people we would have to kill with the Death Penalty for that to be a viable argument and for it make any difference in population control would be silly.

So to me this is a none point or counter point to the death penalty.

You are way to dense. You take everything so serious.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Death is a part of population control. I know liberals don't want people to die, but that's part of lie.

All the things that kill us make room for all the un born babies.

We kill those too, but the ones that make it need air, water, and food.

Hitler !


I hear the death penalty can be more expensive on the tax payer than having the inmate do life imprisonment.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You are way to dense. You take everything so serious. So that wasn't a serious comment on your part?

It is hard to tell with you sometimes.

I'm against the death penalty by the way. Not because of the cost to tax payers ( think an inmate can get up to 17 appeals). I'm also not against it because of the power we give the Federal government. I'm against it because its not a perfect system. If one innocent person has died because of the death penalty then its not a perfect system. And I hold life , mines and others, too valuable for it to be put through a system that has condemned innocent people before.

Did you really think I thought we could kill enough people from the death penalty to affect the population? cmon..

Let's make it personal here. A serial killer clocks you from behind and ties you up in a chair. He rapes and murders tour wife and kids in front of you. He knocks you out again and unties you. You wake up to a video recording of the event. The police eventually arrest him and send him to prison. Would you want him to have the death penalty?

I'm for it, but only for instances where there is concrete evidence of guilt (like multiple video recordings of the event in question which clearly prove guilt). Physical evidence can be mishandled, misconstrued, or outright planted and witness testimony can be inaccurate. More times than not the camera (or multiple cameras from various angles recording the same event) doesn't lie, and that combined with corroborating physical evidence would make the conviction airtight. If there's videos of a suspect committing a homicide or other crime which warrants capital punishment and their dna is also at the scene of the crime I'd have no issue with the execution proceeding.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Let's make it personal here. A serial killer clocks you from behind and ties you up in a chair. He rapes and murders tour wife and kids in front of you. He knocks you out again and unties you. You wake up to a video recording of the event. The police eventually arrest him and send him to prison. Would you want him to have the death penalty? Considering I have yet to experience a situation like that I don't know what I would want.

But at the same point I would probably just be wanting revenge if I said I wanted them dead. Revenge and justice are not the same thing. And ultimately I would hope I would be okay of the person just got a life sentence and that would be justice enough because I don't want to be a blood thirsty person.

Originally posted by Newjak
Considering I have yet to experience a situation like that I don't know what I would want.

But at the same point I would probably just be wanting revenge if I said I wanted them dead. Revenge and justice are not the same thing. And ultimately I would hope I would be okay of the person just got a life sentence and that would be justice enough because I don't want to be a blood thirsty person.

I have a son. I watched him come out of the womb and cur the umbilical cord. If someone raped and murdered him or my wife in front of me, I'd make sure I found him before the police did. I'd kill him there and save the taxpayers money. If I get caught and go to prison over it, so be it. My life would be effectively over anyway.

In sum, I agree with Delph. Indisputable evidence should allow for death penalty.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I have a son. I watched him come out of the womb and cur the umbilical cord. If someone raped and murdered him or my wife in front of me, I'd make sure I found him before the police did. I'd kill him there and save the taxpayers money. If I get caught and go to prison over it, so be it. My life would be effectively over anyway.

In sum, I agree with Delph. Indisputable evidence should allow for death penalty. And what does killing the person personally give you?

It won't bring back your child or wife.

I find life valuable too. That is why I think if you take it without just cause you don't deserve to live. Even being in prison and in solitary for 24 hours a day eating only stale bread and water would be too good for such a person. The sad truth is some murderers live better then some of our veterans.

The problem with the death penalty to me is the chance of it being done to someone who is innocent. But to me every case is different, so if you have a murder with a bunch of DNA evidence and the person even admits they are guilty of the crime..I don't see any reason they should spend 10 years in the system before they get put down.

If someone has a legitimate case for an appeal I am not against that, but I would want some kind of evidence or valid reason to go forward with such a thing. There are such a thing as clean cut cases. These people don't need to be in the system for 10 years.

I know what I say next will be controversial, but to me prison should be something that you'd actually rather get executed then spend your life there. At least when it comes to murderers. So I am not saying treat low level criminals horribly, but personally I wouldn't want to spend life in prison if I was in solitary 99% of the time and only got bread and water..which is what I think should be done to killers. I believe in rehabilitation for criminals..the ones who deserve it. Murderers deserve nothing.

If you're going to keep them in prison forever then make it as shitty an experience as possible. They don't need to be watching movies or reading books or working out. Maybe give them a picture of the person they killed to stare at.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
I'm talking about the obvious.
Heinous crime committed.
Motives established.
Witnesses.
Irrefutable evidence.
Guilty admission.

Yeah, but that again hand waves the process. How is "obvious" decided. Say we have a trial, can the judge at the end then say "and I feel this one's pretty obvious, so I'm not gonna allow the standard process to check whether this trial and I made a mistake, the execution is next Tuesday."?

I say definitely check if a mistake is made. Just don't take a decade to do it.

Against.

We should use them for human experimentation. Look how far the Nazi's brought forward science.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Against.

We should use them for human experimentation. Look how far the Nazi's brought forward science.

I'd actually be totally fine with a nazi style concentration camp for murderers. Prison should be hell, not a place where you work out, watch tv, and do some light reading. Again I am talking specifically only about killers though.

Originally posted by Surtur
I find life valuable too. That is why I think if you take it without just cause you don't deserve to live. Even being in prison and in solitary for 24 hours a day eating only stale bread and water would be too good for such a person. The sad truth is some murderers live better then some of our veterans.

The problem with the death penalty to me is the chance of it being done to someone who is innocent. But to me every case is different, so if you have a murder with a bunch of DNA evidence and the person even admits they are guilty of the crime..I don't see any reason they should spend 10 years in the system before they get put down.

If someone has a legitimate case for an appeal I am not against that, but I would want some kind of evidence or valid reason to go forward with such a thing. There are such a thing as clean cut cases. These people don't need to be in the system for 10 years.

I know what I say next will be controversial, but to me prison should be something that you'd actually rather get executed then spend your life there. At least when it comes to murderers. So I am not saying treat low level criminals horribly, but personally I wouldn't want to spend life in prison if I was in solitary 99% of the time and only got bread and water..which is what I think should be done to killers. I believe in rehabilitation for criminals..the ones who deserve it. Murderers deserve nothing.

If you're going to keep them in prison forever then make it as shitty an experience as possible. They don't need to be watching movies or reading books or working out. Maybe give them a picture of the person they killed to stare at.

Yeah, I don't think having unrepentant murderers in a prison population is practical. If it's an irrefutable conviction their prison stay should be minimal. They should essentially only be in custody until a short period after the trial ends. Maybe 30-60 day window after the trial, max, for cases where there's no possibility of an appeal to overturn a conviction.

Originally posted by Surtur
I say definitely check if a mistake is made. Just don't take a decade to do it.

Well, that would make the processes more expensive though and of course clog up the rest of the system making other things slower.

Basically what the US is currently doing is make as sure as reasonably possible that the death penalty is justified.

You guys who say "just make it faster" basically have two main options to change this 1) keep the same system but speed it up, spending the same or more money and resources on the cases, putting other cases on hold instead, and additionally due to cutting the time making the outcome less certain to be just 2) do not keep the current system of checks in place and lower the threshold for who gets killed massively, thereby increasing the amount of innocent people that are killed by the system, but save some money in the process.

I'm wondering which one either of you propose and how exactly you want the system to work, cause all I hear is the generality of "make obvious cases faster" without any concrete implementation or discussion of the pros and cons.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
Yeah, I don't think having unrepentant murderers in a prison population is practical. If it's an irrefutable conviction their prison stay should be minimal. They should essentially only be in custody until a short period after the trial ends. Maybe 30-60 day window after the trial, max, for cases where there's no possibility of an appeal to overturn a conviction.

Do you want to significantly decrease the possibility for appeals, mistrials and pardons then?

Originally posted by Surtur
I find life valuable too. That is why I think if you take it without just cause you don't deserve to live. Even being in prison and in solitary for 24 hours a day eating only stale bread and water would be too good for such a person. The sad truth is some murderers live better then some of our veterans.

The problem with the death penalty to me is the chance of it being done to someone who is innocent. But to me every case is different, so if you have a murder with a bunch of DNA evidence and the person even admits they are guilty of the crime..I don't see any reason they should spend 10 years in the system before they get put down.

If someone has a legitimate case for an appeal I am not against that, but I would want some kind of evidence or valid reason to go forward with such a thing. There are such a thing as clean cut cases. These people don't need to be in the system for 10 years.

I know what I say next will be controversial, but to me prison should be something that you'd actually rather get executed then spend your life there. At least when it comes to murderers. So I am not saying treat low level criminals horribly, but personally I wouldn't want to spend life in prison if I was in solitary 99% of the time and only got bread and water..which is what I think should be done to killers. I believe in rehabilitation for criminals..the ones who deserve it. Murderers deserve nothing.

If you're going to keep them in prison forever then make it as shitty an experience as possible. They don't need to be watching movies or reading books or working out. Maybe give them a picture of the person they killed to stare at.


I'd put child molesters in the same category too. I agree with you. We waste valuable text money to keep people housed and fed for life. They live like kings compared to homeless people. I see no justice in that.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I'd put child molesters in the same category too. I agree with you. We waste valuable text money to keep people housed and fed for life. They live like kings compared to homeless people. I see no justice in that.

The conclusion that you should draw from that is that homeless people should be treated better.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The conclusion that you should draw from that is that homeless people should be treated better. This

Originally posted by Newjak
And what does killing the person personally give you?

It won't bring back your child or wife.

I think Doc Holliday put it best in Tombstone. It's not justice he seeks, but the Reckoning. No, it will not bring my family back, and i'd still feel like crap after, but I'd know for sure he'd never do this to anyone else again. You mess with a man's family, there are consequences.

Also, I wouldn't want him to rot in prison while my taxes help shelter and feed him.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The conclusion that you should draw from that is that homeless people should be treated better.

From Surtur's post?

I agree with what he said and added the homeless bit in. Why should inmates live better than homeless people or poor working families that can not eat 3 meals a day and worry about possibe eviction?

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I think Doc Holliday put it best in Tombstone. It's not justice he seeks, but the Reckoning. No, it will not bring my family back, and i'd still feel like crap after, but I'd know for sure he'd never do this to anyone else again. You mess with a man's family, there are consequences.

Also, I wouldn't want him to rot in prison while my taxes help shelter and feed him. And you would be okay being the one to pull the switch that killed the person?

Like I said I feel that a mark of society and a culture is how they treat their prisoners regardless of their emotions on the subject.

I think it is okay to lock someone away not because I don't believe people don't deserve to die but because I don't want to be the executioner to another human being. I feel nobody should want to be that.

Originally posted by Newjak
And you would be okay being the one to pull the switch that killed the person?

Like I said I feel that a mark of society and a culture is how they treat their prisoners regardless of their emotions on the subject.

I think it is okay to lock someone away not because I don't believe people don't deserve to die but because I don't want to be the executioner to another human being. I feel nobody should want to be that.

Off topic a little, but how do you feel about war. As a soldier, that is what you are instructed to do...take another man's life on the battlefield.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Let's make it personal here. A serial killer clocks you from behind and ties you up in a chair. He rapes and murders tour wife and kids in front of you. He knocks you out again and unties you. You wake up to a video recording of the event. The police eventually arrest him and send him to prison. Would you want him to have the death penalty?

This is loaded though. An individual that experienced that, he/she would be emotionally invested and would most certainly want some kind of retribution or revenge, it's human nature. I would, you would, can't imagine many people who wouldn't.

The state/government needs to not be emotionally invested when making the decision on taking a life. It has to be done from a purely ethical and logical standpoint.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Do you want to significantly decrease the possibility for appeals, mistrials and pardons then?

I suppose it would as a byproduct, but my position is that the burden of proof for capital punishment has to be extremely high for it to be an option in the first place (as in irrefutable evidence), so if that burden is met (100% concrete evidence of guilt) there shouldn't, and wouldn't, be a possibility of appeal. But that means every I's been dotted, every T's been crossed, and there was no mistakes made by investigators or in the lab. Mistrials can occur due to mistakes made on the part of members of the jury or the lawyers involved in the case which has nothing to do with the actual evidence which would prove the defendant's guilt, and an executive office pardon would override a judge anyway (though, if the evidence is irrefutable, the executive issuing the pardon would have some serious explaining to do). I'm just saying that if the judge sentences death the case has to be completely solid.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Let's make it personal here. A serial killer clocks you from behind and ties you up in a chair. He rapes and murders tour wife and kids in front of you. He knocks you out again and unties you. You wake up to a video recording of the event. The police eventually arrest him and send him to prison. Would you want him to have the death penalty?
If someone stole my wallet I'd want their entire family executed. Preferably through some painful method like flaying or burning. My point is that as a victim I'm not in the right state of mind to determine a fit punishment.

But you're missing the point. No one should have the right to kill, and the government shouldn't be an exception to that.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Off topic a little, but how do you feel about war. As a soldier, that is what you are instructed to do...take another man's life on the battlefield. First I would like to say there is a difference between being an executioner and defending your life.

Now as to war. I hate the concept of war. I wish we didn't have to have soldiers or militaries and maybe some day we will. Until that time we need to be able to defend ourselves with a properly trained military. Still I hope war can be the last answer instead of people's go to choice.

I also think asking people to take another life is horrible. And soldiers that have to get a toll taken on them.

Originally posted by Astner
If someone stole my wallet I'd want their entire family executed. Preferably through some painful method like flaying or burning. My point is that as a victim I'm not in the right state of mind to determine a fit punishment.

But you're missing the point. No one should have the right to kill, and the government shouldn't be an exception to that. So off topic but I just read the quote under your sig.

Nice reference to Soul Reaver

Originally posted by Robtard
This is loaded though. An individual that experienced that, he/she would be emotionally invested and would most certainly want some kind of retribution or revenge, it's human nature. I would, you would, can't imagine many people who wouldn't.

The state/government needs to not be emotionally invested when making the decision on taking a life. It has to be done from a purely ethical and logical standpoint.

Yeah, that pretty much sums up how I feel about the death penalty.

OT: Took you this long to see 'O Brother, Where Art Thou?'?

Originally posted by MF DELPH
I suppose it would as a byproduct, but my position is that the burden of proof for capital punishment has to be extremely high for it to be an option in the first place (as in irrefutable evidence), so if that burden is met (100% concrete evidence of guilt) there shouldn't, and wouldn't, be a possibility of appeal. But that means every I's been dotted, every T's been crossed, and there was no mistakes made by investigators or in the lab. Mistrials can occur due to mistakes made on the part of members of the jury or the lawyers involved in the case which has nothing to do with the actual evidence which would prove the defendant's guilt, and an executive office pardon would override a judge anyway (though, if the evidence is irrefutable, the executive issuing the pardon would have some serious explaining to do). I'm just saying that if the judge sentences death the case has to be completely solid.

See, the thing is with all your caveats I believe the system you'd end up with is the system we actually have. Making sure that all the t's are crossed and i's are dotted is what takes so long and costs so much.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Yeah, that pretty much sums up how I feel about the death penalty.

OT: Took you this long to see 'O Brother, Where Art Thou?'?



Saw it in the theaters opening week. Happens to be one of my favs.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, that would make the processes more expensive though and of course clog up the rest of the system making other things slower.

Basically what the US is currently doing is make as sure as reasonably possible that the death penalty is justified.

You guys who say "just make it faster" basically have two main options to change this 1) keep the same system but speed it up, spending the same or more money and resources on the cases, putting other cases on hold instead, and additionally due to cutting the time making the outcome less certain to be just 2) do not keep the current system of checks in place and lower the threshold for who gets killed massively, thereby increasing the amount of innocent people that are killed by the system, but save some money in the process.

I'm wondering which one either of you propose and how exactly you want the system to work, cause all I hear is the generality of "make obvious cases faster" without any concrete implementation or discussion of the pros and cons.

If we need to spend more money to do it then I would actually..be for that. Since these people don't have the right to live anymore. You forfeit that once you take a life without cause. I don't want them chilling in prison watching the lord of the rings. I'd rather spend more money then allow murderous pieces of shit roam comfortably in a prison with 3 meals a day, books, and other activities to do.

But then I also said if you can't kill them then make their stay in prison horrible. Solitary confinement, bread and water...and nothing else. They don't get comforts of any kind, not unless they resurrect who they killed. A murderer deserves nothing else. So if it's too much trouble to kill these shitheads quickly, then take away all their comforts, we could save money that way. Whatever little comforts they are afforded need to disappear.

Basically my motto is if killing them quickly is too expensive then lets just make sure we make their stay in prison an experience that makes them wish we had killed them. This might sound harsh, but I have zero tolerance for killers. Thinking about what you said about the cost of killing them quickly..perhaps for now the best option is to just make their stay in prison as horrible as possible.

Originally posted by Surtur
If we need to spend more money to do it then I would actually..be for that. Since these people don't have the right to live anymore. You forfeit that once you take a life without cause. I don't want them chilling in prison watching the lord of the rings. I'd rather spend more money then allow murderous pieces of shit roam comfortably in a prison with 3 meals a day, books, and other activities to do.

But then I also said if you can't kill them then make their stay in prison horrible. Solitary confinement, bread and water...and nothing else. They don't get comforts of any kind, not unless they resurrect who they killed. A murderer deserves nothing else. So if it's too much trouble to kill these shitheads quickly, then take away all their comforts, we could save money that way. Whatever little comforts they are afforded need to disappear.

Basically my motto is if killing them quickly is too expensive then lets just make sure we make their stay in prison an experience that makes them wish we had killed them. This might sound harsh, but I have zero tolerance for killers. Thinking about what you said about the cost of killing them quickly..perhaps for now the best option is to just make their stay in prison as horrible as possible. You see I don't get this. All you want to do make them suffer but how is that going to help anyone?

I'm not saying they need resorts but to go out of your way to make their life miserable seems like a horrendous thing to wish upon another human being whether they deserve it or not.

Originally posted by Bardock42
See, the thing is with all your caveats I believe the system you'd end up with is the system we actually have. Making sure that all the t's are crossed and i's are dotted is what takes so long and costs so much.

I'm talking about the initial investigation T's and I's leading up to the initial indictment, and as I said before, the irrefutable evidence would be along the lines of a recording of the criminal act which is corroborated by physical and other secondary evidence. If that burden of proof is met, airtight, in the initial trial, and a conviction is reached, then 30-60 days later the defendant is being executed, and due to the caliber of the case, there wouldn't be merit for appeal.

That is not what we have currently. Currently people sentenced to death will sit on Death Row 10+ years while various appeals are made and denied. I'm saying the case against someone that puts them on Death Row needs to be so tight they're executed 30 to 60 days later, or they wouldn't be on Death Row in the first place.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
I'm talking about the initial investigation T's and I's leading up to the initial indictment, and as I said before, the irrefutable evidence would be along the lines of a recording of the criminal act which is corroborated by physical and other secondary evidence. If that burden of proof is met, airtight, in the initial trial, and a conviction is reached, then 30-60 days later the defendant is being executed, and due to the caliber of the case, there wouldn't be merit for appeal.

That is not what we have currently. Currently people sentenced to death will sit on Death Row 10+ years while various appeals are made and denied. I'm saying the case against someone that puts them on Death Row needs to be so tight they're executed 30 to 60 days later, or they wouldn't be on Death Row in the first place.

Who would decide that there is no merit for appeal and how would we ensure that this is not abused?

Originally posted by Newjak
Now as to war. I hate the concept of war. I wish we didn't have to have soldiers or militaries and maybe some day we will. Until that time we need to be able to defend ourselves with a properly trained military. Still I hope war can be the last answer instead of people's go to choice.

I also think asking people to take another life is horrible. And soldiers that have to get a toll taken on them.





I, too, hope that, one day, humans look upon war as a primitive and disgusting behavior we used to have.

Originally posted by Bardock42
See, the thing is with all your caveats I believe the system you'd end up with is the system we actually have. Making sure that all the t's are crossed and i's are dotted is what takes so long and costs so much.

No it is not the system we currently have in the US. Circumstantial evidence and eye-witness testimonies have resulted in my wrongful executions under that system. The burden of proof being at 100% would have to be absurdly high and almost no executions could occur, that occur, currently. For example, their DNA is all over the crime scene and they were caught on camera committing the murder (and it was proven, with digital forensics, that the footage was not tampered with): 100% proof and evidence.


But my requirement is just a step further. The criminal ALSO has to be unrepentant and/or fails to actually do any rehabilitation efforts.

If they are of sound mind, execute them. Get rid of that scum. Why waste resources on a clearly wasted human?

Originally posted by dadudemon
No it is not the system we currently have in the US. Circumstantial evidence and eye-witness testimonies have resulted in my wrongful executions under that system. The burden of proof being at 100% would have to be absurdly high and almost no executions could occur, that occur, currently. For example, their DNA is all over the crime scene and they were caught on camera committing the murder (and it was proven, with digital forensics, that the footage was not tampered with): 100% proof and evidence.


But my requirement is just a step further. The criminal ALSO has to be unrepentant and/or fails to actually do any rehabilitation efforts.

If they are of sound mind, execute them. Get rid of that scum. Why waste resources on a clearly wasted human?

Well, you are right that it is flawed in reality, but in theory it is the system we have. Convictions have to be "beyond a reasonable doubt", and we have multiple failsafes to ensure that the trial didn't go wrong.

As for your last question, I think the reason to waste resources on a "wasted human" is because society should hold human life as precious. Condoning and using the death penalty sends a message that degrades the sanctity of all life, and I do not think it should be done. Additionally I don't think the government should have that power either.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Who would decide that there is no merit for appeal and how would we ensure that this is not abused?

The video of the suspect (who is clearly identifiable on the video) killing the victim, with the recovered clothing of the suspect covered in their victim's dna, further corroborated with the suspects and victims DNA at the scene of the homicide, and the suspects fingerprints on the recovered murder weapon, all as depicted in the video of the act, would make that decision. The concrete evidence of guilt removes the merit of appeal.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
The video of the suspect (who is clearly identifiable on the video) killing the victim, with the recovered clothing of the suspect covered in their victim's dna, further corroborated with the suspects and victims DNA at the scene of the homicide, and the suspects fingerprints on the recovered murder weapon, all as depicted in the video of the act, would make that decision. The concrete evidence of guilt removes the merit of appeal.

Well, again, someone has to decide that the evidence met the threshold to suspend appeal, who do you think should be the person (or committee) with that power?

Originally posted by dadudemon
No it is not the system we currently have in the US. Circumstantial evidence and eye-witness testimonies have resulted in my wrongful executions under that system. The burden of proof being at 100% would have to be absurdly high and almost no executions could occur, that occur, currently. For example, their DNA is all over the crime scene and they were caught on camera committing the murder (and it was proven, with digital forensics, that the footage was not tampered with): 100% proof and evidence.


But my requirement is just a step further. The criminal ALSO has to be unrepentant and/or fails to actually do any rehabilitation efforts.

If they are of sound mind, execute them. Get rid of that scum. Why waste resources on a clearly wasted human?



I personally wouldn't add the repentant/sound mind requirements. Only saving grace would be self defense. I'd execute murderers with psychological disorders as well. Insanity is tragic, but it wouldn't stay my hand.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, again, someone has to decide that the evidence met the threshold to suspend appeal, who do you think should be the person (or committee) with that power?

That would be the judge since the sentencing comes after the conviction and the only way capital punishment could occur was if the burden of proof was met.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
That would be the judge since the sentencing comes after the conviction and the only way capital punishment could occur was if the burden of proof was met.

Doesn't that seem ripe for abuse though? The person whose sentencing is meant to be tested by an appeals process gets to decide whether his sentence gets tested.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
That would be the judge since the sentencing comes after the conviction and the only way capital punishment could occur was if the burden of proof was met.

Not in Texas.

Originally posted by Bardock42
As for your last question, I think the reason to waste resources on a "wasted human" is because society should hold human life as precious. Condoning and using the death penalty sends a message that degrades the sanctity of all life, and I do not think it should be done. Additionally I don't think the government should have that power either.

So wouldn't you say you actually agree that a wasted human should be executed because you hold human life as precious? Lemme better explain.


You hold human life as precious.

Therefore, a person who kills humans and does not even care to change his or her ways, is an existence that lives directly opposed to your belief about the preciousness of human life. This person is a huge risk to kill more human lives, even in prison. So, because you view human lives as precious, it is better that this life is extinguished to support the greater good, right?

I mean...riiight?


Also, doesn't your logic mean that you oppose abortion? I am saying that we should downgrade a human to "not deserving of life" because they are unrepentant, 100% proven murderers. That's the same step pro-abortionists make to downgrade the developing human life: it's less than human so let's justify killing it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So wouldn't you say you actually agree that a wasted human should be executed because you hold human life as precious? Lemme better explain.


You hold human life as precious.

Therefore, a person who kills humans and does not even care to change his or her ways, is an existence that lives directly opposed to your belief about the preciousness of human life. This person is a huge risk to kill more human lives, even in prison. So, because you view human lives as precious, it is better that this life is extinguished to support the greater good, right?

I mean...riiight?


Also, doesn't your logic mean that you oppose abortion? I am saying that we should downgrade a human to "not deserving of life" because they are unrepentant, 100% proven murderers. That's the same step pro-abortionists make to downgrade the developing human life: it's less than human so let's justify killing it. The abortion argument is a completely different topic in this case. It's the debate of when does life start.

And I don't agree with your first point at all. If you choose to use that as a reason t justify killing a murder fine but don't push that logic on some else saying they believe in the preciousness of life.

I do believe that if you belief in the preciousness of life for humans than locking a human away shows more maturity than wanting them dead.

As to them killing in prison again that speaks more to the horrible state of our prison system than to someone's lack of compassion for human life.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Doesn't that seem ripe for abuse though? The person whose sentencing is meant to be tested by an appeals process gets to decide whether his sentence gets tested.

Considering that the requirement for the Judge to issue the Capital Punishment sentence would mean there's a videotape of the suspect committing the crime which is corroborated by dna and ballistics evidence, no.

It's not a pure judgment call on the part of the Judge. There'd be concrete benchmarks which would have to be met for the Judge to pass a sentence of Capital Punishment. If there's a lack of video evidence clearly identifying that the defendant was the perpetrator there wouldn't a be a possibility of an execution even if the defendant was found guilty.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
Considering that the requirement for the Judge to issue the Capital Punishment sentence would mean there's a videotape of the suspect committing the crime which is corroborated by dna and ballistics evidence, no.

It's not a pure judgment call on the part of the Judge. There'd be concrete benchmarks which would have to be met for the Judge to pass a sentence of Capital Punishment. If there's a lack of video evidence clearly identifying that the defendant was the perpetrator there wouldn't a be a possibility of an execution even if the defendant was found guilty. So you don't believe with your system there could ever be a grey area call from the Judge?

Originally posted by dadudemon
So wouldn't you say you actually agree that a wasted human should be executed because you hold human life as precious? Lemme better explain.


You hold human life as precious.

Therefore, a person who kills humans and does not even care to change his or her ways, is an existence that lives directly opposed to your belief about the preciousness of human life. This person is a huge risk to kill more human lives, even in prison. So, because you view human lives as precious, it is better that this life is extinguished to support the greater good, right?

I mean...riiight?


Also, doesn't your logic mean that you oppose abortion? I am saying that we should downgrade a human to "not deserving of life" because they are unrepentant, 100% proven murderers. That's the same step pro-abortionists make to downgrade the developing human life: it's less than human so let's justify killing it.

No, I value human life and while taking another humans life maliciously or accidentally is something that needs to be punished, and the person that did it controlled in a manner that they do not offend again and if possible rehabilitated, the act does not forfeit the preciousness of their life.

We probably shouldn't have the abortion debate here, but suffice to say that I have two main reasons why I fall on the pro-choice side of things and that's a) I do not consider the developing foetus a human being and b) I do not think that we have the right to force someone to forgo their bodily integrity to support another human being whether grown or not.

Originally posted by Newjak
So you don't believe with your system there could ever be a grey area call from the Judge?

No. If there's a clear video evidence of the crime in question which is corroborated by all of the secondary evidence it's airtight. The defendant's only reprieve would be a case for self defense (Which is very possible. There's still context of the video. Say, for example, a woman shoots and kills an abusive partner who is attacking her which is caught on surveillance tape), the Jury for some reason not finding them guilty despite the 100% corroborated and irrefutable evidence, or a pardon.

I value human life as well, which is why I understand that there are in fact times where sacrificing a life is necessary. Which is why I'm pro choice as well as pro Capital Punishment. The person who is possibly going to die isn't the only life to be considered in that equation.

Originally posted by Bardock42
taking another humans life maliciously or accidentally is something that needs to be punished,

1. If it was an accident, why punish for it?

2. Why do they need to be punished? I don't think they do. They need to be isolated from society and rehabilitated and then reintegrated back into society. I think punishing criminals is barbaric and archaic. I feels humans should progress beyond ideas such as "punish criminals." It feels infantile to desire such a thing.


Originally posted by Bardock42
and the person that did it controlled in a manner that they do not offend again and if possible rehabilitated, the act does not forfeit the preciousness of their life.

"I value the preciousness of this unrepentant human's life beyond any others that this human may take, in the future, regardless of how innocent those future victims might be." You could argue that I'm creating a false dichotomy because they may never have the opportunity to kill anyone else, again. I would tend to agree. But the statistics just don't agree with you. 71% of violent offenders offend again. Seems like a comfortable majority, right?

Originally posted by Bardock42
a) I do not consider the developing foetus a human being

Yes, I know you believe this. I was demonstrating that you choose to relegate that developing human life to be subhuman to justify its destruction. Similar to what I'm doing with an unrepentant murderer.

Originally posted by Bardock42
b) I do not think that we have the right to force someone to forgo their bodily integrity to support another human being whether grown or not.

"Bodily integrity"?

I have no idea what that means. This isn't 1203 C.E. Giving birth doesn't have a very high mortality rate, anymore...in most places. What do you mean, here?

I think what he means by "bodily integrity" is that a person (well, a woman) has a choice as to whether they wish to allow another entity to be supported by them biologically.

Kind of like if there was a way to keep someone alive via life support but it meant that person being connected to a healthy person's vital systems and carried around in a harness for 9 months or that person would die, they'd have the right to say yes or no to that proposition.

Originally posted by dadudemon
1. If it was an accident, why punish for it?

2. Why do they need to be punished? I don't think they do. They need to be isolated from society and rehabilitated and then reintegrated back into society. I think punishing criminals is barbaric and archaic. I feels humans should progress beyond ideas such as "punish criminals." It feels infantile to desire such a thing.




"I value the preciousness of this unrepentant human's life beyond any others that this human may take, in the future, regardless of how innocent those future victims might be." You could argue that I'm creating a false dichotomy because they may never have the opportunity to kill anyone else, again. I would tend to agree. But the statistics just don't agree with you. 71% of violent offenders offend again. Seems like a comfortable majority, right?



Yes, I know you believe this. I was demonstrating that you choose to relegate that developing human life to be subhuman to justify its destruction. Similar to what I'm doing with an unrepentant murderer.



"Bodily integrity"?

I have no idea what that means. This isn't 1203 C.E. Giving birth doesn't have a very high mortality rate, anymore...in most places. What do you mean, here?

Hmm, I am not sure we define punishment the same way, I would agree with you that vengeance as a motivating factor is barbaric, but punishment (i.e. the method of what to do to offenders) is necessary.

Sure, we could and should do better with rehabilitation (we can, btw, in Germany the reoffending rate of violent offenders lies below 50%).

I would argue that I'm not relegating the foetus to a lower tier, but that it is on one just by its nature, which is different to revoking a previously, undeniably human being's status as such.

Pregnancy is a strain on the human body that I do not think we have the right to impose on anyone and if a person wants to be free of this connection that should be their right.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
I value human life as well, which is why I understand that there are in fact times where sacrificing a life is necessary. Which is why I'm pro choice as well as pro Capital Punishment. The person who is possibly going to die isn't the only life to be considered in that equation.

Is your worry that a murderer may break out and kill again?

Not even break out. The other inmates in the prison, some of which could be incarcerated for non-violent crimes and rehabilitated to civilian life, could also be at risk from a murderous inmate, and their lives matter as well. I don't see the purpose of incarcerating a known murder in special isolation away from the general population of the prison for decades, neither do I see the purpose in keeping such a person incarcerated for an extended period. It's impractical from a logistics and risk to others standpoint.

I'd just remove the risk.

Permanently.

I mean I can see where you are coming from. I don't know how many cases there would actually be that fit the bill, I assume it's a very, very, very small number given your requirement for clear video evidence.

Could the death penalty be violating the Bill of Rights ?

You know, '' no cruel or unusual punishment".

Well, it could, but of course it currently isn't viewed to.

A sane person who does not value human life and kills people just for leisure/pleasure and refuses rehabilitation has no right to live.

I'd remove the 'sane' requirement as well. I don't think psychological issues remove culpability for murder. If a person is incapable of knowing right from wrong and kills someone I'm not necessarily sure that medicating that person in isolation for the rest of their natural life is a practical solution. They could kill a member of the staff that's responsible for their care at the asylum or prison just as easily as they killed their victim that put them there in the first place.

For example, I'd have executed Charles Manson if there was a recording of the crimes of the Manson Family.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
I'd remove the 'sane' requirement as well. I don't think psychological issues remove culpability for murder. If a person is incapable of knowing right from wrong and kills someone I'm not necessarily sure that medicating that person in isolation for the rest of their natural life is a practical solution. They could kill a member of the staff that's responsible for their care at the asylum or prison just as easily as they killed their victim that put them there in the first place.

For example, I'd have executed Charles Manson if there was a recording of the crimes of the Manson Family.

Even though Manson never killed anyone himself?

Originally posted by Newjak
You see I don't get this. All you want to do make them suffer but how is that going to help anyone?

I'm not saying they need resorts but to go out of your way to make their life miserable seems like a horrendous thing to wish upon another human being whether they deserve it or not.

It's not meant to help anyone because murderers do not deserve help. They do not deserve rehab. They deserve death. If we can't give them that then lets at least make them wish we had. Yep, it is horrendous. But then so is taking someone's life and taking them away from their family. It's an ache that never heals, so no these f*cks shouldn't be reading books or watching movies or working out or basically doing anything. They can sit and think about what they did until they die.

It's meant to be horrendous, and I guarantee you the family of the person they murdered is still suffering more then these pieces of shit in jail.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Death is a part of population control. I know liberals don't want people to die



Unless their innocent unborn babies or Christians. Then they're all for it.

This is why we need to work on advanced tech and medicine...we need a reliable truth serum. We give it to someone, if they confirm they killed someone..well the next day we can give them a different kind of serum if you catch my meaning.

I..I just want truth serum to be a thing.

Originally posted by Newjak
And what does killing the person personally give you?/B]




Uh, it's called justice. That's what it "gives him", dude. I know that's a foreign concept to you bleeding heart libs though who don't understand that some people are just pure evil who deserve to die.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Even though Manson never killed anyone himself?

I'd consider it in the same category as war crimes. Like putting Hitler or Mao and their subordinates on trial, for example. People murdered under Manson's direction. Manson and all of his followers would be culpable. He was the cult leader of a pack of serial killers and directed their actions. He had them convinced they were bringing about a holy race war Armageddon.

Originally posted by Star428
Unless their innocent unborn babies or Christians. Then they're all for it.




edit: "they're" not "their".

Originally posted by Star428
Uh, it's called justice.
You mean vengeance?

I'm pro-death penalty.

I was a correctional officer for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for 5+ years and I've seen enough scum and treachery to be convinced that some human beings just don't deserve the privilege of life.

Originally posted by Surtur
This is why we need to work on advanced tech and medicine...we need a reliable truth serum. We give it to someone, if they confirm they killed someone..well the next day we can give them a different kind of serum if you catch my meaning.

I..I just want truth serum to be a thing.

A different kind of serum? You mean a serum that rewires their neurology to make them kind, compassionate, and decent human beings once again? Sounds great.

Originally posted by Impediment
I'm pro-death penalty.

I was a correctional officer for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for 5+ years and I've seen enough scum and treachery to be convinced that some human beings just don't deserve the privilege of life.


No opinion matters more than someone who actually had first-hand experience dealing with these scum.

Originally posted by Facee
Could the death penalty be violating the Bill of Rights ?

You know, '' no cruel or unusual punishment".


No. I don't believe the death penalty was much of an issue when the Bill of Rights was penned. People in that time viewed it much more favorably. 18th and 19th century executions, even 20th century executions were much crueler than the more humane method used today. The idea that the death penalty is "cruel and unusual" would not have been part of the original intent of the framers of the Bill of Rights.


I will add that I believe the 'chair' was a method of execution that should not have been abandoned.

Originally posted by Astner
You mean vengeance?


Humans and their congratulatory euphemisms.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien



Humans and their congratulatory euphemisms.


Incarceration in itself is vengeance..to a lesser degree.

Alright, fine.... Call it "vengeance" if you like but it it's still justified either way.

Originally posted by Star428
Alright, fine.... Call it "vengeance" if you like but it it's still justified either way.


I agree

I'd rather be pragmatic than emotional in these cases.

If you let Rapists/Killers live there's still a chance they attack others inmates, guards, people that work there, etc. In rare cases they might even escape.

With the death penalty you prevent all of that from ever happening, the serial killers/rapists are beyond rehabilitation anyway imo.

Originally posted by Newjak
I do believe that if you belief in the preciousness of life for humans than locking a human away shows more maturity than wanting them dead.

Quite clearly, this is hotly debated. Some hold that it is extremely cruel and inhumane (and, consequently, against the constitution's 8th amendment) to isolate a dangerous murderer in solitary confinement. That a life sentence is much worse than the death penalty.

Basically, there is no moral high-ground, here, in this particular debate. One side cannot pretend that their approach is the most moral. That goes for me perspectives, as well: my supposed moral approach, which I think is the most well-rounded and well-formed perspective (obviously), it is still just an arbitrary moral line I've drawn in the sand.

Originally posted by Newjak
As to them killing in prison again that speaks more to the horrible state of our prison system than to someone's lack of compassion for human life.

Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't it be:

1. Some cases, the prison conditions are partially at fault.
2. Some cases, the prisoner being a cold-blooded murderer is at fault.

?

Originally posted by MF DELPH
Kind of like if there was a way to keep someone alive via life support but it meant that person being connected to a healthy person's vital systems and carried around in a harness for 9 months or that person would die, they'd have the right to say yes or no to that proposition.

I'd agree with that life-support comparison if the healthy person ended up having to connect to the unhealthy one because they had sex and there was about 7.4 billion pieces of evidence that the sex would directly result in them having to connect up to the life support person for 9 months.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, I am not sure we define punishment the same way, I would agree with you that vengeance as a motivating factor is barbaric, but punishment (i.e. the method of what to do to offenders) is necessary.

"Punishment" can also be a perspective. There are some instances of people committing crimes specifically so they can be put into prison. A bed, bathroom, food, occasional recreation, access to a library, access to the internet, the occasional TV program, and board games with others? That doesn't sound like a punishment at all for some people. That sounds like a miracle to help them out of their bad situation.

Still, others consider being cut off from the world to be a horrendous punishment.


But that's not really what we are talking about, right? Just simply creating laws and practices that specifically aim to punish a person for breaking laws is what I have a problem with. The system should aim to rehabilitate and reintegrated dangerous people back into society. The goal should never be punishment. Some may consider the "isolate from society" part to be a punishment. But it should not be intended or used in such a way (which is one of the criticisms of the US justice system: we use long prison sentences as form of punishment and our prison sentences are absurdly longer than our peers (such as the UK or France)).

Originally posted by Bardock42
Sure, we could and should do better with rehabilitation (we can, btw, in Germany the reoffending rate of violent offenders lies below 50%).

Norway is sitting around 20%, iirc. We can do better.


Originally posted by Bardock42
I would argue that I'm not relegating the foetus to a lower tier, but that it is on one just by its nature,

"I'm not relegating Jews to subhuman. They were born into their state as being below the human race. They were never humans to begin with."

Originally posted by Bardock42
...which is different to revoking a previously, undeniably human being's status as such.

"Forfeiture of the right to life via the malicious homicide of others is mutually exclusive to being a human being."

Here's another perspective: destroying a wasted human, because they maliciously kill and show clear signs that they will reoffend, is treating them like a human being. They did not lose any rights. Their status did not change. They never became subhuman.

See here, I'm treating this murderers like humans by saying they should be destroyed if they are beyond hope of reintegrating back into society. It is the humane and kind thing to do. It also prevents harm from coming to others. I'm trying my best to preserve all of the other humans' rights to person and life, as well. Look how amazing my benevolence is?

Here's another perspective: incarcerating an unrepentant murderer for life is treating the human as less than human. Their status has been changed to subhuman and they are now treated like cattle: forever chained up in an enclosure. This person previously had many many rights. We revoked them with our life imprisonment policy. Do you see what I'm doing here? There are more perspectives on what is humane, what is right, and what should be done. And these perspectives are not maliciously or unreasonable, as well. I think a normal, kind, person, could see the arguments I'm making and at least partially agree with them, even if they were strongly opposed to the death penalty.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Pregnancy is a strain on the human body that I do not think we have the right to impose on anyone and if a person wants to be free of this connection that should be their right.

Just to be clear, your argument, here, is factually incorrect. Therefore, it is malformed.

We are not imposing pregnancy on anyone. The man and the woman who chose to have sex imposed that pregnancy on the woman. I didn't have sex with her. Did you? I don't think you did. So we aren't imposing pregnancy on anyone. It is literally impossible.

Originally posted by Facee
Could the death penalty be violating the Bill of Rights ?

You know, '' no cruel or unusual punishment".

As I pointed out, before, life in prison could be violating the 8th amendment, too. It could be considered "cruel and unusual punishment." It's all about perspective.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
A sane person who does not value human life and kills people just for leisure/pleasure and refuses rehabilitation has no right to live.

This is a very normal and logical perspective. I don't comprehend why this is beyond some people to grasp.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
I'd remove the 'sane' requirement as well. I don't think psychological issues remove culpability for murder. If a person is incapable of knowing right from wrong and kills someone I'm not necessarily sure that medicating that person in isolation for the rest of their natural life is a practical solution. They could kill a member of the staff that's responsible for their care at the asylum or prison just as easily as they killed their victim that put them there in the first place.

For example, I'd have executed Charles Manson if there was a recording of the crimes of the Manson Family.

Woe! Hold on there, Hitler. Killing the mentally ill was already tried out. meow

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
A different kind of serum? You mean a serum that rewires their neurology to make them kind, compassionate, and decent human beings once again? Sounds great.

Well I don't know...perhaps cyanide and things like that do make people a bit more kind and compassionate before the end? I would not know as I am unfortunately not a scientist

Originally posted by dadudemon
Woe! Hold on there, Hitler. Killing the mentally ill was already tried out. meow

I think you missed the qualifier on them being murderers. I'm not saying to arbitrarily execute the mentally ill. My position is that being mentally ill isn't a blanket "get out of execution free" pass.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Quite clearly, this is hotly debated. Some hold that it is extremely cruel and inhumane (and, consequently, against the constitution's 8th amendment) to isolate a dangerous murderer in solitary confinement. That a life sentence is much worse than the death penalty.

Basically, there is no moral high-ground, here, in this particular debate. One side cannot pretend that their approach is the most moral. That goes for me perspectives, as well: my supposed moral approach, which I think is the most well-rounded and well-formed perspective (obviously), it is still just an arbitrary moral line I've drawn in the sand.



Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't it be:

1. Some cases, the prison conditions are partially at fault.
2. Some cases, the prisoner being a cold-blooded murderer is at fault.

?



I'd agree with that life-support comparison if the healthy person ended up having to connect to the unhealthy one because they had sex and there was about 7.4 billion pieces of evidence that the sex would directly result in them having to connect up to the life support person for 9 months.



"Punishment" can also be a perspective. There are some instances of people committing crimes specifically so they can be put into prison. A bed, bathroom, food, occasional recreation, access to a library, access to the internet, the occasional TV program, and board games with others? That doesn't sound like a punishment at all for some people. That sounds like a miracle to help them out of their bad situation.

Still, others consider being cut off from the world to be a horrendous punishment.


But that's not really what we are talking about, right? Just simply creating laws and practices that specifically aim to punish a person for breaking laws is what I have a problem with. The system should aim to rehabilitate and reintegrated dangerous people back into society. The goal should never be punishment. Some may consider the "isolate from society" part to be a punishment. But it should not be intended or used in such a way (which is one of the criticisms of the US justice system: we use long prison sentences as form of punishment and our prison sentences are absurdly longer than our peers (such as the UK or France)).



Norway is sitting around 20%, iirc. We can do better.




"I'm not relegating Jews to subhuman. They were born into their state as being below the human race. They were never humans to begin with."



"Forfeiture of the right to life via the malicious homicide of others is mutually exclusive to being a human being."

Here's another perspective: destroying a wasted human, because they maliciously kill and show clear signs that they will reoffend, is treating them like a human being. They did not lose any rights. Their status did not change. They never became subhuman.

See here, I'm treating this murderers like humans by saying they should be destroyed if they are beyond hope of reintegrating back into society. It is the humane and kind thing to do. It also prevents harm from coming to others. I'm trying my best to preserve all of the other humans' rights to person and life, as well. Look how amazing my benevolence is?

Here's another perspective: incarcerating an unrepentant murderer for life is treating the human as less than human. Their status has been changed to subhuman and they are now treated like cattle: forever chained up in an enclosure. This person previously had many many rights. We revoked them with our life imprisonment policy. Do you see what I'm doing here? There are more perspectives on what is humane, what is right, and what should be done. And these perspectives are not maliciously or unreasonable, as well. I think a normal, kind, person, could see the arguments I'm making and at least partially agree with them, even if they were strongly opposed to the death penalty.



Just to be clear, your argument, here, is factually incorrect. Therefore, it is malformed.

We are not imposing pregnancy on anyone. The man and the woman who chose to have sex imposed that pregnancy on the woman. I didn't have sex with her. Did you? I don't think you did. So we aren't imposing pregnancy on anyone. It is literally impossible.

I love seeing DDM own people

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I love seeing DDM own people TBH that was a damn good post of his


I'm also for death penalty, btw.

DDM has a way of destroying liberal arguments better then anyone in a humorous fashion.

If I was dadudemon I'd be worried about the kinds of people that cheerlead my posts.

If I was you, I would be embarrassed for getting owned like that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If I was dadudemon I'd be worried about the kinds of people that cheerlead my posts. You mean the sexy, damn smart and high energy people who cheer him on. I don't think he needs to worry tbh

He didn't even have a comeback he was owned so bad.

And yet, here I am, not feeling owned...

With no comeback or retort.

There's nothing to say that hasn't been said already, it would just go around in circles.

You don't present a logical argument.

If I sad let's lock our doors at night, you would say "why, the criminals can just break them down."

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You don't present a local argument.

If I sad let's lock our doors at night, you would say "why, the criminals can just break them down."

"logical"

And that's silly and has nothing to do with anything anyone has said.

It's an example of your logic fallacy.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
It's an example of your logic fallacy.

Again, you mean "logical", but you're getting closer.

And no, this isn't in any way similar to any argument I made. I assume you are trying to connect it to Trump's Wall issue, but even then a more correct comparison would be me saying (among other arguments) "don't waste money on a $10000 that criminals can break in just as fast as your current door".

I guess you never heard of a panic room.

And I meant logic, quit correcting something that doesn't need a correction.

Your post is not malformed English, however it is very apparent that what you meant to say is the common term "logical fallacy".

But, so you feel better, I will answer dadudemon:

Originally posted by dadudemon

"Punishment" can also be a perspective. There are some instances of people committing crimes specifically so they can be put into prison. A bed, bathroom, food, occasional recreation, access to a library, access to the internet, the occasional TV program, and board games with others? That doesn't sound like a punishment at all for some people. That sounds like a miracle to help them out of their bad situation.

Still, others consider being cut off from the world to be a horrendous punishment.


But that's not really what we are talking about, right? Just simply creating laws and practices that specifically aim to punish a person for breaking laws is what I have a problem with. The system should aim to rehabilitate and reintegrated dangerous people back into society. The goal should never be punishment. Some may consider the "isolate from society" part to be a punishment. But it should not be intended or used in such a way (which is one of the criticisms of the US justice system: we use long prison sentences as form of punishment and our prison sentences are absurdly longer than our peers (such as the UK or France)).


Like I said, I agree with you if we take the definition of punishment you used. When I used the word I just meant the legal consequences that a criminal faces.


Originally posted by dadudemon
Norway is sitting around 20%, iirc. We can do better.

So we agree.


Originally posted by dadudemon
"I'm not relegating Jews to subhuman. They were born into their state as being below the human race. They were never humans to begin with."

Yes, you can insert anything into this sentence, some things will be true, others will not be true.

For example:"I'm not relegating trees to subhuman. They were born into their state as being below the human race. They were never humans to begin with."

I think we both agree the example is correct. We disagree on it when it comes to human foetuses of a certain age.


Originally posted by dadudemon
"Forfeiture of the right to life via the malicious homicide of others is mutually exclusive to being a human being."

Here's another perspective: destroying a wasted human, because they maliciously kill and show clear signs that they will reoffend, is treating them like a human being. They did not lose any rights. Their status did not change. They never became subhuman.

See here, I'm treating this murderers like humans by saying they should be destroyed if they are beyond hope of reintegrating back into society. It is the humane and kind thing to do. It also prevents harm from coming to others. I'm trying my best to preserve all of the other humans' rights to person and life, as well. Look how amazing my benevolence is?

Here's another perspective: incarcerating an unrepentant murderer for life is treating the human as less than human. Their status has been changed to subhuman and they are now treated like cattle: forever chained up in an enclosure. This person previously had many many rights. We revoked them with our life imprisonment policy. Do you see what I'm doing here? There are more perspectives on what is humane, what is right, and what should be done. And these perspectives are not maliciously or unreasonable, as well. I think a normal, kind, person, could see the arguments I'm making and at least partially agree with them, even if they were strongly opposed to the death penalty.

In that case we disagree on what the humane thing to do is then. However, like I stated, I do believe in the right of people to assisted suicide, so if the human criminal agrees with your idea of what is humane he would have the option if it were up to me.

At any rate, you were the one claiming that you are relegating the criminal to subhuman status, not I.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Just to be clear, your argument, here, is factually incorrect. Therefore, it is malformed.

We are not imposing pregnancy on anyone. The man and the woman who chose to have sex imposed that pregnancy on the woman. I didn't have sex with her. Did you? I don't think you did. So we aren't imposing pregnancy on anyone. It is literally impossible.

We are imposing the continuation of a pregnancy if we make abortion illegal.

A life for a life.

A person that kills another deserves the same.

There is no counter argument.

There are multiple counter arguments, many made in this thread.

Not really. If you kill someone you deserve the same thing.

Who does it help by sitting in jail forever taking up space, money, and resources?

All of society.

How does it help society? Jail for some scumbags is vacation.

Sending the message that life is precious, even that of the most heinous of us, makes all of society value other people's lives more.

For example...

So someone gets to kill someone and get free food, lodging a job and gets to workout everyday for the rest of their lives on the tax payers dime?

Just for the record, pregnancy is not being forced on anyone unless it's the result of a rape case imo.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
Just for the record, pregnancy is not being forced on anyone unless it's the result of a rape case imo.

If you can no legally abort, the state is forcing you to carry out the pregnancy, or do you disagree with this?

So no response?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So someone gets to kill someone and get free food, lodging a job and gets to workout everyday for the rest of their lives on the tax payers dime?

Yes (what you don't mention is that they are deprived of their freedom, of course)

Originally posted by Bardock42
If you can no legally abort, the state is forcing you to carry out the pregnancy, or do you disagree with this? I agree that abortion should be legally supported under extenuating circumstances.

I thought you were proposing we allowed all women to abort whenever they wanted.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
I agree that abortion should be legally supported under extenuating circumstances.

I thought you were proposing we allowed all women to abort whenever they wanted.

I do propose that we allow all women to abort whenever they want, at least in the first trimester.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes (what you don't mention is that they are deprived of their freedom, of course)

Some people consider all of those better then real life.

Especially hard core criminals.

Lots of convicts extend their sentence to stay in by doing more bad stuff in jail.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Some people consider all of those better then real life.

Especially hard core criminals.

Lots of convicts extend their sentence to stay in by doing more bad stuff in jail.

While that may be true for some, it doesn't matter, it is not about them, it's about what's best for society

So it's best for society to clog up prisons with a bunch of murderers instead of killing them and making room for less violent offenders?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So it's best for society to clog up prisons with a bunch of murderers instead of killing them and making room for less violent offenders?

Yes

Um... why?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So it's best for society to clog up prisons with a bunch of murderers instead of killing them and making room for less violent offenders?
I'd argue it'd be better if we stopped handing out so many prison sentences for all sorts of non-violent crime so that there'd be more room for the more violent offenders.

I also think that we should have more distinction between prisons that are designed to keep seriously dangerous people away from the public and prisons that are supposed to rehabilitate the less dangerous ones. Maybe that already exists though with minimum and maximum security prisons.

Originally posted by Stigma
Um... why?

I literally gave one reason at the top of this page...

Originally posted by Bardock42
I do propose that we allow all women to abort whenever they want, at least in the first trimester. Why?

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
Why?

This is really not the thread for it, but if you are interested I have debated this issue over hundreds of posts in multiple threads (including the large Abortion thread in this forum). Though if you are at all familiar with the issue, I believe it for many of the reasons that most other pro-choice people believe it as well...

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'd argue it'd be better if we stopped handing out so many prison sentences for all sorts of non-violent crime so that there'd be more room for the more violent offenders.

I also think that we should have more distinction between prisons that are designed to keep seriously dangerous people away from the public and prisons that are supposed to rehabilitate the less dangerous ones. Maybe that already exists though with minimum and maximum security prisons.

One of the problems with gun violence is the sentences are not harsh enough and all murderers need to be killed.

And yes we need to soften sentences on some things like weed and cocain.

Originally posted by Stigma
Um... why?




Because leftists are illogical, you see. That's why I almost view liberalism as a disease. None of the stuff they support is logical by any means.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But, so you feel better, I will answer dadudemon:

Well, it at least made me feel better. kitty




Originally posted by Bardock42
Like I said, I agree with you if we take the definition of punishment you used. When I used the word I just meant the legal consequences that a criminal faces.

Then that's my bad.




Originally posted by Bardock42
So we agree.

Of course. I don't know why any normal person would want the violent re-offending rate to be any higher. But...some polices almost assure that re-offenders will re-offend which is what we are talking about. I'd like to get that number to drop to 10-15% in the US. That would be a miracle.




Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, you can insert anything into this sentence, some things will be true, others will not be true.

For example:"I'm not relegating trees to subhuman. They were born into their state as being below the human race. They were never humans to begin with."

Couple of things:

1. What you just did is a red-herring. It is very much irrelevant to the point I made. You ignored the point I made and then tried to paint my argument as silly with an illogical comparison.

2. That's in illogical comparison. A tree, according to some, may very well be better than a human. Additionally, I compared a human situation to another human situation, not a seemingly non-sapient organism from the Plantae Kingdom. I mean, at least keep your comparative arguments to the same Kingdom much less species.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think we both agree the example is correct. We disagree on it when it comes to human foetuses of a certain age.

This is a much better argument but it is wrong. I agree that abortion should be available for first trimester pregnancies. I still morally oppose abortions except in the following cases: medical necessity, rape, incest, or in the cases of the mother being harmfully (to either herself or the developing baby) mentally ill.




Originally posted by Bardock42
In that case we disagree on what the humane thing to do is then. However, like I stated, I do believe in the right of people to assisted suicide, so if the human criminal agrees with your idea of what is humane he would have the option if it were up to me.

Careful not to try to represent my perspective. I was only providing alternatives to your perspective (which should be clear that they are not my perspective since I made my perspective quite clear). Some do hold that incarceration is inhumane. They are a minority, obviously, but they make good arguments. "Death is better than life in prison." That's not an uncommon statement. Look:

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF- 8#q=death%20is%20better%20than%20life%20in%20priso
n

Originally posted by Bardock42
At any rate, you were the one claiming that you are relegating the criminal to subhuman status, not I.

A argumentation tactic is to make an argument that you don't agree with but you think your opponent will latch onto. The trick is, you already have a counter for your predicted opponents counter. After your opponent latches onto that argument, you then counter with the planned counter which is designed to end the point of debate as the other party sees the folly in their line of thinking.

It can be a risky debate tactic but the payoff is good for both parties. You see the error in your perspective, and I've made my point more clear.



The only thing unsatisfactory from your response is I did not get, "I see what you're saying..." It still allows for you to disagree but as long as you acknowledge that it can be considered more humane to execute an unrepentant murderer, then my point is complete.



Originally posted by Bardock42
We are imposing the continuation of a pregnancy if we make abortion illegal.

We are? How?

And we can do that? How?

Are we the anti-abortion police? Who goes around enforcing not-abortions?

"Hold it right there, doctor! Put the fetus vacuum down! You're under arrest by the anti-abortion police."



I don't have time for that. And if I did, I'd pretend to let the doctor off just so I could get his/her vacuum (I'd confiscate it under the "criminal asset forfeiture" precedence) to get those pesky pieces of trash in the absurdly tiny cracks and crevasses in my car.

Of course, I'm mostly joking. But enforcing anti-abortion policies is hard to do and it is harmful.

Women who want abortions but do not have a readily available and legal means will get abortions in back-alleys or try to use "home remedies." It is a story as old as modern humankind. I think tolerating first trimester abortions is the tolerable solution. I still oppose it on moral grounds.

Originally posted by dadudemon


Couple of things:

1. What you just did is a red-herring. It is very much irrelevant to the point I made. You ignored the point I made and then tried to paint my argument as silly with an illogical comparison.

2. That's in illogical comparison. A tree, according to some, may very well be better than a human. Additionally, I compared a human situation to another human situation, not a seemingly non-sapient organism from the Plantae Kingdom. I mean, at least keep your comparative arguments to the same Kingdom much less species.

1. You did not actually made a point, since you did not clarify what you meant with your comparison sentence, however it is pretty apparent that you meant to imply that my thinking could be likened to that of the nazis, I explained why that is not the case.

2. It is exactly my point though, we can insert anything into the sentence and then quibble about which is correct and which is not. You make your points why you think it doesn't apply to trees, but doesn't apply to foetuses, and I make my points why it applies to foetuses but not Jews.


Originally posted by dadudemon
This is a much better argument but it is wrong. I agree that abortion should be available for first trimester pregnancies. I still morally oppose abortions except in the following cases: medical necessity, rape, incest, or in the cases of the mother being harmfully (to either herself or the developing baby) mentally ill.

That's fair enough, our real world implementation would be very similar then, we just disagree on the moral circumstances.


Originally posted by dadudemon
Careful not to try to represent my perspective. I was only providing alternatives to your perspective (which should be clear that they are not my perspective since I made my perspective quite clear). Some do hold that incarceration is inhumane. They are a minority, obviously, but they make good arguments. "Death is better than life in prison." That's not an uncommon statement. Look:

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF- 8#q=death%20is%20better%20than%20life%20in%20priso
n

I should perhaps have made it more clear by saying "In that case we would disagree". I was aware that you gave multiple perspectives not necessarily your own.


Originally posted by dadudemon
A argumentation tactic is to make an argument that you don't agree with but you think your opponent will latch onto. The trick is, you already have a counter for your predicted opponents counter. After your opponent latches onto that argument, you then counter with the planned counter which is designed to end the point of debate as the other party sees the folly in their line of thinking.

It can be a risky debate tactic but the payoff is good for both parties. You see the error in your perspective, and I've made my point more clear.

The only thing unsatisfactory from your response is I did not get, "I see what you're saying..." It still allows for you to disagree but as long as you acknowledge that it can be considered more humane to execute an unrepentant murderer, then my point is complete.

Well, I am glad you are happy with this outcome, but I would not have hidden it had you just asked straight. My support for the right to assisted suicide is well documented on this site.



Originally posted by dadudemon

We are? How?

And we can do that? How?

Are we the anti-abortion police? Who goes around enforcing not-abortions?

"Hold it right there, doctor! Put the fetus vacuum down! You're under arrest by the anti-abortion police."



I don't have time for that. And if I did, I'd pretend to let the doctor off just so I could get his/her vacuum (I'd confiscate it under the "criminal asset forfeiture" precedence) to get those pesky pieces of trash in the absurdly tiny cracks and crevasses in my car.

Of course, I'm mostly joking. But enforcing anti-abortion policies is hard to do and it is harmful.

Women who want abortions but do not have a readily available and legal means will get abortions in back-alleys or try to use "home remedies." It is a story as old as modern humankind. I think tolerating first trimester abortions is the tolerable solution. I still oppose it on moral grounds.

Again, we agree in implementation then, although I would probably go further than even the first trimester.

My argument was not that we currently police women and doctors who provide abortions (since it is legally permitted in both your and my country), I'm saying that those people who want to police it are forcing women to continue their pregnancy (or go to illegal and unsafe means as they have done in the past, and potentially be punished for that).

Again, this thread has become dominated by a painfully semantic argument that now bears no resemblance to the topic. Take it to PM.

Originally posted by Bardock42
1. You did not actually made a point, since you did not clarify what you meant with your comparison sentence, however it is pretty apparent that you meant to imply that my thinking could be likened to that of the nazis, I explained why that is not the case.

The point was very simplistically implicit. Wasn't very hard to grasp. Relegating humans to a subhuman so that you can execute them (can apply to abortion and to capital punishment).

Any other comparisons you try to make will fail unless they directly tie to the relegation of humans to subhumans with the express purpose of justifying their killing.

Holy shit, I think you just got me. My point was very obvious and even the posters you think are dumb got it, too. So you win, again, with another "gotcha, dadudemon" moment.

Originally posted by Bardock42
2. It is exactly my point though, we can insert anything into the sentence and then quibble about which is correct and which is not. You make your points why you think it doesn't apply to trees, but doesn't apply to foetuses, and I make my points why it applies to foetuses but not Jews.

No you can't insert anything into the sentence (for the purposes of this discussion and context) as I explained above.

Perhaps you missed the point I made about relegating humans to subhumans so you can kill them, earlier? If so, fair enough. I don't expect you to read the walls of text I post.




Originally posted by Bardock42
That's fair enough, our real world implementation would be very similar then, we just disagree on the moral circumstances.

Yeah, you had better agree with me. uhuh




Originally posted by Bardock42
I should perhaps have made it more clear by saying "In that case we would disagree". I was aware that you gave multiple perspectives not necessarily your own.

Okay, fair again.




Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I am glad you are happy with this outcome, but I would not have hidden it had you just asked straight. My support for the right to assisted suicide is well documented on this site.

You miss the point if you think I could have "just asked straight." The point was to demonstrate human denigration for the justification of ending it. Damn...I really think I already made that point even before I clarified I was "leading the witness."




Originally posted by Bardock42
My argument was not that we currently police women and doctors who provide abortions (since it is legally permitted in both your and my country), I'm saying that those people who want to police it are forcing women to continue their pregnancy (or go to illegal and unsafe means as they have done in the past, and potentially be punished for that).

I can agree to an illegal operation needing criminal prosecution. That shit is unsafe and has a stupid high mortality rate for the mother (I think anything over 1%, in a medical procedure, is a "stupid high mortality rate" for any modern medicine practice).

Originally posted by Bardock42
Sending the message that life is precious, even that of the most heinous of us, makes all of society value other people's lives more.



You lefties love to bring that up when it suits your purpose don't you? Where's that bleeding heart stance of yours when an innocent unborn baby is on the chopping block? Oh, it's nowhere to be found then, is it? I guess innocent unborn babies lives aren't "precious", eh? Oh, but evil murdering bastards lives sure are aren't they? LOL. Gotta love the hypocrisy and so-called "logic" of the left.

Lol an unborn baby on the chopping block?
How dramatic!