Originally posted by BackFire
Yes, it is quite simple. The answer to the question that he asked, that I answered, is very simple. The governing state does have the right to decide whether a murderer lives or dies. Whether you like or dislike the choice is irrelevent.At the time these atrocities were done, it was justice. Of course now, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see many of which were mistakes not considered justice in this day and age, but at the time, yes.
no, it wasnt justice. it was thought to be but in fact was never justice. and thus there was no right to commit attrocities. it was an illusion of justice which was able to exist because people never questioned that right or whether it was justice. so those leaders had the power, but not the right.
but wait...i think i know whats happening...
i hate the word [right]. there should be about 50 variations for each specific definition. anyway, i speak of right in as per my own personal principle, not just written law of the time.
that principle is that no one and no government has the [right] to kill when there is a safe alternative. if you dont want to buy that then fine.
if you want to speak objectively that hitler had the technical [right] to commit atrocities because he wrote the law...well...you would be [right]....technically. however isnt it a waste of time to go down that road? and if you do, make the next [right]...
anyway, you make the point of hindsight. well hasnt execution, over the entire existance of mankind likely, done absolutely nothing to deter criminal activity? it doesnt work because someone who will shoot at 5 cops probably doesnt care if they live or die...just a though.
Originally posted by BackFire
Rehabilitation is a pipe dream.
no, its a failed system. you can go on to tag as many pointless adjectives, but they will never prove that its a failed theory. i know mankind has never gone about anything wrong, ever, but just try to imagine the purely hypothetical scenario that western society took an idea based on a sound theory completely ****ed it up. but how do we make the leap in logic that rehabilitation is a pipe dream?
Originally posted by BackFire
The only way to test if they're really rehabilitated is to release them and see if they go kill/rape/molest/burglarize someone again. Not at all worth the risk. If punishment is completely horseshit then rehabilitation is utter bullshit.
so...you think that anyone in prison for any crime should stay there for life or be killed? im not trying to play the word in mouth game, its just that it seems the logical conclusion, since prison, as it stands, just turns petty criminals into hardened criminals and just screws everyone up far worse than when they got in...so then comes the risk of releasing...anyone.
and yes, 'punishment', as it is presented today, is a crock and it is revenge.
Originally posted by Britannia
I am very much for the death penalty, it delivers justice effectively, it prevents future re-offending and it deters others to do the same.
If it did that - deterred others - why then is the death penalty still being used?
Originally posted by Britannia
I believe it does prevent future crime- death is enough of an incentive NOT to murder, don't you think?
Since the death-penalty is still being USED, obviously it does NOT deter people from committing murder, or the death-penalty would not be used.
Originally posted by Britannia
I agree, it doesn't bring the individual back- but it gives the family some sense of peace that justice has been delivered.
Peace?? How? Committing another murder can´t give ANYONE peace of mind. It's just hypocracy "Murder is wrong, ergo we murder murderers"... Do not victimice the families. Instead, give them the help and support they need to move on with their lives, and hand the psycho who killed their family-member to psyciatrists and psychologists for an indefinete amount of time, to figure out WHAT went wrong in the psycho's head and WHEN - so we can prevent further murders.
Originally posted by PVS
no, it wasnt justice. it was thought to be but in fact was never justice. and thus there was no right to commit attrocities. it was an illusion of justice which was able to exist because people never questioned that right or whether it was justice. so those leaders had the power, but not the right.
At the time, they did have the right. This isn't some subjective thing. They DID. You're just basically saying what I said. At the time they technically had the right, looking back, we can see that they were wrong by our current standards.
i hate the word [right]. there should be about 50 variations for each specific definition. anyway, i speak of right in as per my own personal principle, not just written law of the time.
that principle is that no one and no government has the [right] to kill when there is a safe alternative. if you dont want to buy that then fine.if you want to speak objectively that hitler had the technical [right] to commit atrocities because he wrote the law...well...you would be [right]....technically. however isnt it a waste of time to go down that road? and if you do, make the next [right]...
Yeah, I don't buy that. Governments do have the right to decide how to punish their criminals, the death penalty is one such option. In your subjective opinion they shouldn't; fine. I don't entirely disagree, that doesn't change the fact that they DO have such an option, which is the answer to the question that I was answering initially. Not whether or not they SHOULD have that choice.
Hitler is a completely different bundle of eggs. He violated basic human rights laws that were in place at the time and were supported and protected by almost all other civilized nations and as a result he was taken down. Hitler really has no place in this discussion.
anyway, you make the point of hindsight. well hasnt execution, over the entire existance of mankind likely, done absolutely nothing to deter criminal activity? it doesnt work because someone who will shoot at 5 cops probably doesnt care if they live or die...just a though.
Yeah? I never said anything about the death penalty detering criminals. That's not why it's in place. It's in place to give an appropriate punishment and to make sure that the person is never able to kill another innocent person again.
no, its a failed system. you can go on to tag as many pointless adjectives, but they will never prove that its a failed theory. i know mankind has never gone about anything wrong, ever, but just try to imagine the purely hypothetical scenario that western society took an idea based on a sound theory completely ****ed it up. but how do we make the leap in logic that rehabilitation is a pipe dream?
The fact that is doesn't work should be evidence enough that it's a failed theory. Never said I had proof that it was a failed theory, we're talking about subjective opinions here my friend. Do you have the proof to show that it's a SOUND theory, as you say? Rehabilitation is way to iffy to rely on. Especially when dealing with extremely dangerous criminals such as murderers and rapists. I say it's a pipe dream because when we try to rehabilitate people, we fail, and I don't see it ever working strongly enough to rely on as our basis of justice.
so...you think that anyone in prison for any crime should stay there for life or be killed? im not trying to play the word in mouth game, its just that it seems the logical conclusion, since prison, as it stands, just turns petty criminals into hardened criminals and just screws everyone up far worse than when they got in...so then comes the risk of releasing...anyone.
They should stay for whatever amount the court decides is necessary for apt punishment. We do take a risk whenever we release someone though, because there's a significant possibility that they will repeat the act, among others. We hope they don't do it again and hope prison maybe did help to rehabilitate them in some way along with punishing them for their crimes. We can't keep them in prison forever or kill them, which as you know I didn't say and is you being lazy and trying to put words in my mouth a'la Whobdamandog. But as I said above, you can't trust rehabilitation on someone as danger as a murderer or rapist. That's when it's not worth the risk of releasing them in hopes that they've learn that killing someone or forcably ****ing someone is wrong. Way to dangerous to rely on in that case.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
But you don't get it. It's NOT up to the criminal or those who oppose the death penalty to decide what the punishment will be. It's up to the judges and the jurors and the laws which we all agree to make those decisions. It's how our system works. Don't like it? You have the option to try to change things OR leave the state.
And the option of trying to change things in this case is what I intend to do when I am ready to do so in life.
Until then, I will just debate about it on KMC forums 😉
your right as to hitler. lets change that to the u.s. government attempting genocide on the 'godless heathans'. they had the right? there was no international law forbidding it so i guess it was....as they had the right to keep slaves. well....did they?
lets make clear what i mean by 'right' in an ideal sense, rather then "having the power to choose". its a symantics shithole, so lets find a better word...they have no moral justification...??? naaa, god forbid i use the word 'moral' and in swoops bardock 😛
and sorry, but:
Originally posted by BackFire
We can't keep them in prison forever or kill them, which as you know I didn't say and is you being lazy and trying to put words in my mouth a'la Whobdamandog.
thats just plain rude. not in a cool blunt way but in an obnoxious way. i already called myself on it and gave you the opportunity to refute it:
....im not trying to play the word in mouth game, its just that it seems the logical conclusion...
but ok whatever 😬
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Just to add, on the Hitler comment - PVS had something there. Hitler did commit crimes against Humanity, but remember, Death Penalty is also directly violating International Human Rights.
If Death Penalty is directly violating Internation Human Rights then why doesn't someone in politics bring this up?
Why is the United States still practicing such methods ?
I think Death Penalty lacks logic completely...its all about emotion and killing someone who the masses feel "deserves to die"
Even me....do i have that bias? Ofcourse, as does everyone. If you told me that a man butchered his wife and his child, my emotional bias would make me say "Send that ****er to his death !"
Does that make my opinion right ?
No
Do I have ANY right to pass a judgement on whether or not another human being lives ? (assuming that person is already in custody, and not an immediate danger to anyone)
The State does NOT have the TRUE right either. The State..the LAW..its what we as people make it. As human beings we are FLAWED....none of us are perfect, so neither are our laws or the state structure.
NO ONE...President, Jury, Judge has the TRUE right to sentence a fellow human being to death, once the criminal is already aprehended.
WE simply TAKE the initiative to do so, and use all of our moral biases to justify doing such a thing, therefore beleive that we were in the" right" to do so.
I'm sure PVS or someone touched on this, but I always thought that if the death penalty simply must exist in America, and you know you're going to kill them, then at least just do it.
Don't keep them on death row and then do it. Just do it, get it over with. I don't see the point in leaving them to rot, to think about it, letting their family see them and then killing them.
Just say "You're sentenced to death, it'll happen tomorrow." Anything else is ridiculous. Not as ridiculous as the actual death penalty, but ridiculous.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Don't keep them on death row and then do it. Just do it, get it over with. I don't see the point in leaving them to rot, to think about it, letting their family see them and then killing them.
the process is way too slow, but also you have to preserve the inmates right to appeal.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm sure PVS or someone touched on this, but I always thought that if the death penalty simply must exist in America, and you know you're going to kill them, then at least just do it.Don't keep them on death row and then do it. Just do it, get it over with. I don't see the point in leaving them to rot, to think about it, letting their family see them and then killing them.
Just say "You're sentenced to death, it'll happen tomorrow." Anything else is ridiculous. Not as ridiculous as the actual death penalty, but ridiculous.
-AC
I agree. Even in terms of Abortion, if you KNOW you are going to DO it....DO IT....
Don't pussyfoot around it...don't torture youself or anyone else. DO IT AS SOON AS YOU'RE SURE !
Just ATLLEAST make sure the guy is actually guilty.
Originally posted by PVS
the process is way too slow, but also you have to preserve the inmates right to appeal.
I think they denied far more than that when they passed the death penalty 😛
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm sure PVS or someone touched on this, but I always thought that if the death penalty simply must exist in America, and you know you're going to kill them, then at least just do it.Don't keep them on death row and then do it. Just do it, get it over with. I don't see the point in leaving them to rot, to think about it, letting their family see them and then killing them.
Just say "You're sentenced to death, it'll happen tomorrow." Anything else is ridiculous. Not as ridiculous as the actual death penalty, but ridiculous.
-AC
Which is EXACTLY one of the weird/mind numbing things about Death Penalty, and what makes it quite illogical.
If its revenge, then why is it taking years upon end, and why have a trial at all? If its deterrance, and to make an example, when why is it done in private?
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I think they denied far more than that when they passed the death penalty 😛
well, what sucks even worse is that innocent people end up in the wrong place at the wrong time and next thing they know its a speedy trial, they are found guilty, and sentenced to death. now take away their right to a proper and thorough appeal and you can bet there will be be alot more innocent people being put to death. i know it has nothing to do with any solution, but its just that things could be much much worse, so may as well address the current situation. although AC didnt intend for that to be his meaning, many people in the states want that. in, out, dead.
Originally posted by PVS
the process is way too slow, but also you have to preserve the inmates right to appeal.
Oh of course, but that's more or less a "Look how fair we are" technique.
If the state KNOW that this man is going to be put to death, do it. It will be better for the family also. Here, funerals are dragged out over weeks. If someone dies, there's normally weeks of preparation and all that. It just magnifies the pain. Execute them and get it over with if you KNOW they're gonna get it anyway, is my point.
The most disturbing issue is: If there's room for doubt in that they might not be guilty, enough to give them an appeal to get off death row, then why are they even on DEATH ROW in the first place? Lock them up in a jail or prison and let them appeal there. At least then if the appeal fails, they can still get family visits. I mean it's a completely disgusting situation if the guy is innocent, but better innocent and alive than innocent and dead in any case, I believe. I know you most likely agree, so don't take this as AT you.
-AC
Umm....no...that's where you guys are making the wrong assumptions. The people who usually support the death penalty believe that if a criminal has been found guilty of murder without a shadow of doubt then by all means he is subject to the mercy of the court and the law. If all facts prove the criminal is guilty then the judge must apply the penalty. Whether is death or life in prison...depending on the crime. No one accepts the "hang them first and judge later". That's not how it works. Any criminal must always be trial first. As BF mentions
"Governments do have the right to decide how to punish their criminals, the death penalty is one such option."
Edit Note: Oh, and as far Hitler might not have kill anyone....YEAH! He probably didn't kill anyone when served as a soldier in WWI and fought in the trenches. 🙄
That's the problem, there are no facts. You can only ever be 99% sure, and when you are dealing with a human life (because you will be dealing out, in the event there is no afterlife, eternal death) 1% margin of error is too much.
The fact that innocent men have been killed as a result of the death penalty says to me that it's the wrong option. At least if a man is wrongly imprisoned for a decade and let out, he can experience life on the outside and TRY to return to normality. What are the chances of that post-electric chair/injection?
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The most disturbing issue is: If there's room for doubt in that they might [b]not be guilty, enough to give them an appeal to get off death row, then why are they even on DEATH ROW in the first place? [/B]
We don't agree often, if ever, but this is a crutial point concerning death penalty, i feel.