Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Some females never get over abusive relationships, are you to kill the boyfriends?
i was tring to think up something along those lines as a retort. but yeah, personal philosophy on abstract meanings of death and the act of being physically dead are not one and the same, and such a comparrison does not belong in a court of law.
What rapists and child molesters do is basically torture someone. This torture is both physical and psychological. I haven't researched domestic abuse enough to say whether there's a chance for the abuser to change or not. Child molestation on the other hand is known to have such a high recidivism rate that more and more states are trying to control where sexual predators can even go once their prison terms are up. Better for all of us if we just don't have to worry about them any more. Their lives ceased to be worth anything when the stole the innocence of that first child.
Rape is a little different, some rapists do only do it once. After the second time however the recidivism rate is more like that of pedophiles.
These people have stolen something which many people consider more important than life - innocence.
Think about why you are against the death penalty. What makes life so important anyway? My answer is that life is only as important as what a person does with it, or has the potential to do. Sexual predators lives have little value by that standard.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm going to have to ask for a reasonable explanation as to why someone who hasn't killed anyone, deserves to be killed.I don't agree with the death penalty, but if an eye for an eye is your mentality, at least be consistent and make it for murder only. Death for anything other than murder is an eye for a head.
-AC
I agree somewhat. I support the death penalty, but only for murder, and only where there's hard physical evidence. Never for circumstantial evidence as in the case of the Scott Peterson trial.
Originally posted by docb77
What rapists and child molesters do is basically torture someone. This torture is both physical and psychological. I haven't researched domestic abuse enough to say whether there's a chance for the abuser to change or not. Child molestation on the other hand is known to have such a high recidivism rate that more and more states are trying to control where sexual predators can even go once their prison terms are up. Better for all of us if we just don't have to worry about them any more. Their lives ceased to be worth anything when the stole the innocence of that first child.Rape is a little different, some rapists do only do it once. After the second time however the recidivism rate is more like that of pedophiles.
These people have stolen something which many people consider more important than life - innocence.
Think about why you are against the death penalty. What makes life so important anyway? My answer is that life is only as important as what a person does with it, or has the potential to do. Sexual predators lives have little value by that standard.
This doesn't remove from the fact that you are killing someone who has never killed.
It's just an undefendable stance. Personal vendetta is no reason to kill anyone with the death penalty. Regardless of how horrific a paedophile case may be, if they haven't killed, then killing is more overkill than it would be anyway.
-AC
You said the only way someone should get the death penalty is murder, treason, child molestation and rape after having already been convicted.
Why does the same not apply to paedophiles? I detect that your stance here is based on hysteria and child worship, to add to the already ridiculous fact that you believe inappropriately touching a child is grounds for execution.
-AC
Nothing justifies the death-penalty.
And it does not work as a deterrent, since IF it did – well, then it would not be used, would it?
Crime can be seen as a cancer tumour on modern day societies. And we sooner or later HAVE to address the question, as to why our societies spawn the kind of crime that we see. Jailing or executing criminals does not stop crime from continuing to be a problem, it’s like cutting weed without removing the root. The weed will pop up again.
We humans are neither good nor evil. We are a lot of things. The pillar of society may be a wife-beater, the embezzler may be good to animals, the hit-and-run driver may work for free in charities.
I want to know WHY these crimes are committed. Some people are psychopaths and for our and their sake they need treatment. Someone who can rape or molest a child is OBVIOUSLY sick in their head.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You said the only way someone should get the death penalty is murder, treason, child molestation and rape after having already been convicted.Why does the same not apply to paedophiles? I detect that your stance here is based on hysteria and child worship, to add to the already ridiculous fact that you believe inappropriately touching a child is grounds for execution.
-AC
the same would apply to pedophiles. They are the ones doing the child molestation after all. Nothing hysterical about it. If the death penalty were applied to the appropriate cases, and it were more streamlined, then there would be less of those crimes.
I've said it before so one more time won't hurt, I think that the place we really disagree is what value a life really has.
Originally posted by The Omega
Nothing justifies the death-penalty.
And it does not work as a deterrent, since IF it did – well, then it would not be used, would it?
Crime can be seen as a cancer tumour on modern day societies. And we sooner or later HAVE to address the question, as to why our societies spawn the kind of crime that we see. Jailing or executing criminals does not stop crime from continuing to be a problem, it’s like cutting weed without removing the root. The weed will pop up again.We humans are neither good nor evil. We are a lot of things. The pillar of society may be a wife-beater, the embezzler may be good to animals, the hit-and-run driver may work for free in charities.
I want to know WHY these crimes are committed. Some people are psychopaths and for our and their sake they need treatment. Someone who can rape or molest a child is OBVIOUSLY sick in their head.
That first sentence didn't quite make sense. If it worked then we wouldn't do it?
As for the deterrence thing - 2 things:
1 - Deterence isn't the only reason for punishment. There are other reasons, but for me the main one is Justice. If you steal, you should have to pay the money back (plus a little for the trouble you caused). If you do something worse, a commensurate punishment should be attached. Let the punishment fit the crime and all that.
2 - There are reasons that the death penalty in the US might not be effective as a deterrent. One is that it is almost a joke. A person sentenced to death is almost as likely to die of old age as from an actual execution. If Executions were swift and public, I really think that criminals would think twice before acting.
Originally posted by docb77
That first sentence didn't quite make sense. If it worked then we wouldn't do it?As for the deterrence thing - 2 things:
1 - Deterence isn't the only reason for punishment. There are other reasons, but for me the main one is Justice. If you steal, you should have to pay the money back (plus a little for the trouble you caused). If you do something worse, a commensurate punishment should be attached. Let the punishment fit the crime and all that.
2 - There are reasons that the death penalty in the US might not be effective as a deterrent. One is that it is almost a joke. A person sentenced to death is almost as likely to die of old age as from an actual execution. If Executions were swift and public, I really think that criminals would think twice before acting.
The Omega's sentance was quite clear and true.
If the capital punishment was a deterrant, then noone would use it, because if the death was deterrant for doing something wrong, noone would do it.
Furthermore, if Death Penalty was a deterrant, America would have one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Ironically, it has one of the highest.
1 - There is a differance between revenge and justice. Death Penalty is a direct mockary of jusitce system. If we all behaved in a ''eye for an eye'' manner, then why do we even have justice system?
2 - You are very obviously missinformed. Executions were at one point being made public. The crimes at the times were extreamly high. Your argument has no grounds.
What is more, public executions would cause riots and disorders. This is certain, because its what happened first time around, and its what made public executions private.
Originally posted by docb77
That first sentence didn't quite make sense. If it worked then we wouldn't do it?As for the deterrence thing - 2 things:
1 - Deterence isn't the only reason for punishment. There are other reasons, but for me the main one is Justice. If you steal, you should have to pay the money back (plus a little for the trouble you caused). If you do something worse, a commensurate punishment should be attached. Let the punishment fit the crime and all that.
2 - There are reasons that the death penalty in the US might not be effective as a deterrent. One is that it is almost a joke. A person sentenced to death is almost as likely to die of old age as from an actual execution. If Executions were swift and public, I really think that criminals would think twice before acting.
1. Your logic is broken there. if you are saying a person who steals should give the money back, then the extension of that is that a person who kills should ressurect the dead person. Sadly that is not possible, but a cold-blodded killing of the perpetrator is hardly the next best thing.
2. No, it never slowed anyone down when it was swift. All speed would do is lead to miscarriages, and when it comes to the death penalty that is an area of extreme immorality.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
The Omega's sentance was quite clear and true.If the capital punishment was a deterrant, then noone would use it, because if the death was deterrant for doing something wrong, noone would do it.
Furthermore, if Death Penalty was a deterrant, America would have one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Ironically, it has one of the highest.
1 - There is a differance between revenge and justice. Death Penalty is a direct mockary of jusitce system. If we all behaved in a ''eye for an eye'' manner, then why do we even have justice system?
2 - You are very obviously missinformed. Executions were at one point being made public. The crimes at the times were extreamly high. Your argument has no grounds.
There are always people who think that they can get away with breaking the law. There are no deterrents currently in place. Punishment does act as a deterrent, but everyone thinks they can get out of the punishment through a loophole, or that they can indefinitely delay punishment through the appeals process.
1- You neglect to say what the difference is exactly. I'll tell you what the difference is. Revenge is an individual act of retribution. Justice is retribution or recompense supported by the society. We have the justice system to say what society accepts as justice.
2 - Executions haven't been public for a long time. And you're gonna have to show me some data to back up that crime rates (specifically murder) was higher then.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
1. Your logic is broken there. if you are saying a person who steals should give the money back, then the extension of that is that a person who kills should ressurect the dead person. Sadly that is not possible, but a cold-blodded killing of the perpetrator is hardly the next best thing.2. No, it never slowed anyone down when it was swift. All speed would do is lead to miscarriages, and when it comes to the death penalty that is an area of extreme immorality.
1 - right, if a person could give the life back, or innocence in the cases of child molestation or rape, that would be a good punishment. Fact is that's not possible. So instead of the crime agains the individual the crime has to be looked at as a crime against society. The cost of a life is a life. The cost of innocence should be innocence, but since the person obviously doesn't have any, the life would be a good substitute.
2 - When in US history has the appeals process been swift? And when was the murder rate higher under a swift appeals process than under a slow one with other factors being similar? It seems obvious to me that if I knew I couldn't get away with something, then I wouldn't do it. I agree that we want to avoid wrongful convictions and even moreso wrongful deaths, my point is just that the current process could be sped up greatly and still have the same degree of accuracy.
Originally posted by docb77
1 - right, if a person could give the life back, or innocence in the cases of child molestation or rape, that would be a good punishment. Fact is that's not possible. So instead of the crime agains the individual the crime has to be looked at as a crime against society. The cost of a life is a life. The cost of innocence should be innocence, but since the person obviously doesn't have any, the life would be a good substitute.2 - When in US history has the appeals process been swift? And when was the murder rate higher under a swift appeals process than under a slow one with other factors being similar? It seems obvious to me that if I knew I couldn't get away with something, then I wouldn't do it. I agree that we want to avoid wrongful convictions and even moreso wrongful deaths, my point is just that the current process could be sped up greatly and still have the same degree of accuracy.
1. " The cost of a life is a life. " No it isn't- that is merely compunding the crime. Two wrongs do not make a right. Again, you changed your logic. In your original point, you made the offender make uop for what he did. That is fine- but it bears absolutely no relation to simply repeating a wrong, which is what you are saying here.
2. Back in the early days! The very reason it was made NOT swift is because it was so crap.
"my point is just that the current process could be sped up greatly and still have the same degree of accuracy"
Not a view shared by anyone of any note wqith any serious legal training.
Originally posted by docb77
the same would apply to pedophiles. They are the ones doing the child molestation after all. Nothing hysterical about it. If the death penalty were applied to the appropriate cases, and it were more streamlined, then there would be less of those crimes.I've said it before so one more time won't hurt, I think that the place we really disagree is what value a life really has.
You speak in regards to the value of life when you will take the life of someone who's done no such thing? One could argue that the paedophile values life more than you.
-AC
Originally posted by Ushgarak
1. " The cost of a life is a life. " No it isn't- that is merely compunding the crime. Two wrongs do not make a right. Again, you changed your logic. In your original point, you made the offender make uop for what he did. That is fine- but it bears absolutely no relation to simply repeating a wrong, which is what you are saying here.2. Back in the early days! The very reason it was made NOT swift is because it was so crap.
"my point is just that the current process could be sped up greatly and still have the same degree of accuracy"
Not a view shared by anyone of any note wqith any serious legal training.
1- What is the cost of a life then? What is its value? My logic is still the same. Pay up for your crimes. "repeating a wrong"? Here's the place we disagree. You apparently think that any killing at all is wrong. I think that murder is wrong and that certain other forms of killing are justifiable, one of those being the execution of certain criminals.
2. No, the reason it was made not swift is because lawyers kept looking for loopholes, and judges kept making new "precedents".
perhaps that view isn't common because their paradigm is confined to their training.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You speak in regards to the value of life when you will take the life of someone who's done no such thing? One could argue that the paedophile values life more than you.-AC
You're not understanding me here. I don't place the inordinate value on life that you seem to. I'm sure that the pedophile does value his life more than I would, but I would sincerely doubt that he valued the life of the child he chose to molest more than I. I would give my own life rather than cause a child harm. Not so for your hypothetical pedophile.
What I value is not life alone, but rather quality of life.