Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Oh God, what hypocrisy?
I do think killing is wrong. But in a matter of self defense WHAT CHOICE do you have ?
In the matter of Death Penalty vs Life in prison, there is a choice that can be made.
He has no right. He shouldn't. But who has the right to execute him ?
(other than the victim in order to save his or her own life?)
If you have the criminal apprehended, you don't NEED to kill him....its just a matter of "oh i thnk he deserves to die, so lets kill him"
Nobody. He has no right to kill.But no one has the absolute RIGHT to kill him once hes apprehended and under control.I even said before that some criminals Do indeed DESERVE to die....but who does have the right to deliver their death? Once the criminal is contained, who has the right to kill him ?
Choice? Again, the choice was made by criminal in the first place. Who has the right to execute him? The state..the same state in which YOU and I form in a Social Contract in which we all agree to be law abiding citizens.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Did i ever say the the victim can't kill for self defense and it won't be justifiable? NO...so moderator, please stop shoving that $#@$ in my mouth ok ?
I clearly quoted you on what you said. And I'll quote you again:
Which ONE OF US is SO GOOD and so much better than we have the right to deliver this death onto them ?????
But now you're saying:
I DO think there are people who deserve the Death Penalty.
HUH????
But WHO has the RIGHT to ADMINISTER the death penalty is what i am asking.
Again....the state..the social contract which all of us agreed to live by.
So far this point in the thread. Arachnoid has provided the comment which I been looking for...read his post.
Choice? Again, the choice was made by criminal in the first place. Who has the right to execute him? The state..the same state in which YOU and I form in a Social Contract in which we all agree to be law abiding citizens.
So the worth of our lives is determined by the STATE?
ok buddy
To clarify once and for all:
Although i DO think many people DESERVE to die, WHO has the RIGHT to kill them?
To me this is a LOSE LOSE situation. No matter what, someone is going to be wrong.
Two wrongs do not equal a right.
To you this is a black and white situation, to me its more complicated than that Wrathful.
Revenge seems like the most justifiable type of murder that exists.
But again..its all subjective.
If someone killed a loved one of mine, you think i would kill the person who did that?
YOU BETTER BELEIVE IT....hellz yeah i would !
But why? Because i'd be clouded with unbearable pain and anger, and total emotional bias. My logic would be completey gone.
JUST because is FEELS right does not make it so.
Originally posted by BackFire
The state which governs the land in which the trial is taking place has the right to decide whether a murderer gets punished by death or a prison sentance. Quite simple really.
no, not simple i'm afraid. any sentence carried out by the state is based on law, but does that make it 'justice' automatically? if so, then just about every atrocity commited by every governing power against their people can be written off as "justice". after all, they made the poilicy, and the policy is the law of the land.
what makes this different?
and what of 'punishment'? do you really feel that a system based on punishment rather than rehabilitation is the answer to bringing down the crime rate? yeah, i know...'rehabilitation' is the ideal, but we have not even come close to concieving a system which promotes it. but then again, punishment is also complete horseshit. who on death row is really being 'punished'?
is tookie feeling horrible for his murdering spree? does he feel sorry for his actions thanks to his punishment? no...because he's dead. maybe if you believe in hell, there is justice, but thats a fate that would have come to pass regardless of our method of justice. i dont see that as justice. i just see that for what it is: a man put in a cage and later given a lethal injection to please and satisfy his victims and the state.
so thats why i dispise the death penalty. it really has nothing to do with any care for the criminal, but rather the bloodlust which it feeds. first there was a single killer, but now that killer is watched by a couple of dozen onlookers who are looking to feel fulfilled by the exact same action: killing.
but they hide behind a banner of 'justice' and 'punishment', not realising that they are there to enjoy the death of another human being and not to objectively witness 'justice'. or just to say "thank god he/she is 'off the streets'"
i guess what im trying to say is that the death penalty, along with any state mandated revenge, corrupts society and erodes the core of our morals while giving the illusion of doing the exact opposite.
Originally posted by Phoenix2001
A serial killer is a danger to society. Going around and killing people is just not going to work. If you catch him/her, give him/her what he/she deserves. Locking him/her for the rest of his/her life may seem a reasonable sentence, but his/her chances of getting out is likely.
oh please, dont pull the "kill em quick before they decide to let them go" card.
how is it likely that they will get out? i want to say 'all', but for lack of evidence i will say 'most' people who are sentenced to life after being spared the death penalty have no possibility of parole, and even if they did would never make it.
tagging on the hypothetical situation is pointless, since that idea is not only baseless, but also exhibits a lack of faith in the judgement of the very system which is carrying out death sentences.
The way I see it, if a serial killer is willing to take a life then he or she should suffer the same treatment. It's like a man holding out his hand to shake another man's hand. If he doesn't shake his hand, it would be rude and show disrespect. If he was a man of morals, he would shake his hand to give back that which he received.
I kind of see it that way. I know it's a pretty ****ing stupid situation to compare with, but letting a murderer escape a death sentence seems improper to me. I doubt I would let a murderer loose from a death sentence without being given a strong significant reason why.
If you kill someone out of pure delight/joy/no reason, damnit, you should be expected to receive the same treatment.
Originally posted by Phoenix2001
f you kill someone out of pure delight/joy/no reason, damnit, you should be expected to receive the same treatment.
i agree. keep in mind that i do not defend a criminals right to live, but rather deny the state's and 'innocent' people's right to kill.
i focus my argument on state mandated killing based on 'pure delight/joy/no reason'. there is no logical reason to kill them. its pure revenge and gratification. when an effective alternative can be used to keep a criminal away from society, and that alternative is avoided to satisfy the barbaric law of "eye for and eye"....well what makes us better? how do we claim the moral high ground? we cant.