Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Government shouldn't be able to kill its citizens.
You're correct: someone who commits a capital offense should lose their rights to be a citizen and then be destroyed by the government. Wait, that already happens (they can't vote and all sorts of "citizen" goodies.) 😄
Originally posted by Tex
You should come down to Texas, we fry the suckers like BBQ 😈I'm actually against the death peanlty, it's barbaric and so Wild Wild West 🙄
I'm on the fence about capital punishment, mostly because of the possibility of frying an innocent man.
But cases like the petit murder can make nearly anyone believe some people deserve capital punishment.
One thing I don't understand: How could some of the same people who are against abortions for religious reasons, also support the death penalty?
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Government shouldn't be able to kill its citizens.
But it should be able to lock people away for life?
Personally, I can't see being locked away in a cage until the day you die as being worse then just being killed... If fact, that sounds many times worse, considering how harsh prison life is.
Originally posted by cdtm
One thing I don't understand: How could some of the same people who are against abortions for religious reasons, also support the death penalty?
That question is SUPER easy to answer: the unborn child is innocent and is more deserving of life than any other grown being.
The other is a supposed horrible person, being the most vile of humans.
That's a fairly clear line with a giant distinction between the two. I disagree with the saying, "All human life is precious." Sorry, it's not. Some human lives are worth far less than the bacteria growing in a pile of warm crap.
Originally posted by cdtm
But it should be able to lock people away for life?Personally, I can't see being locked away in a cage until the day you die as being worse then just being killed... If fact, that sounds many times worse, considering how harsh prison life is.
It depends on the person, actually: some would prefer death to life imprisonment. Some would prefer life imprisonment.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I consider this a non-sequiter. The question is not "do you feel like some people deserve to die?", the question is "can we justify executions?".
I feel this is willful obsfucation: both of those questions can be equally applied to the portion you quoted.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I feel this is willful obsfucation: both of those questions can be equally applied to the portion you quoted.
I'm not sure what you mean.
My point is that whenever the issue of "Should we have capital punishment?" is raised someone brings up a person who is assumed to be so horrible that they deserve to die. To me this seems irrelevant to most arguments for not having capital punishment, except for the very rare idea that no one ever deserves to die.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm not sure what you mean.
I mean what I said in the most direct way possible.
Both questions you "asked" can be equally applied to the portion of text you quoted.
I think you know that and realized that before posting.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
My point is that whenever the issue of "Should we have capital punishment?" is raised someone brings up a person who is assumed to be so horrible that they deserve to die. To me this seems irrelevant to most arguments for not having capital punishment, except for the very rare idea that no one ever deserves to die.
Lemme reword exactly what you said in the way I would put it:
'My point is that whenever the issue of "Should we have capital punishment?" is raised someone brings up a person who is assumed to be so horrible that they deserve to die. To me this seems relevant to most arguments for not having capital punishment, especially for the common stated anti-capital punishment idea that no one ever deserves to the right to kill another.'
Originally posted by dadudemon
I mean what I said in the most direct way possible.Both questions you "asked" can be equally applied to the portion of text you quoted.
I think you know that and realized that before posting.
Honestly, no, I didn't.
And I'm still confused. 😮
Maybe I just jumped on the once sentence without context? I do that sometimes.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Lemme reword exactly what you said in the way I would put it:'My point is that whenever the issue of "Should we have capital punishment?" is raised someone brings up a person who is assumed to be so horrible that they deserve to die. To me this seems relevant to most arguments for not having capital punishment, especially for the common stated anti-capital punishment idea that no one ever deserves to the right to kill another.'
That still kind of seems like it has the same problem, a slight variation on Hume's "is/ought" dilemma. I also tend to see what you consider the common anti argument to be less frequent but maybe I'm letting my own biases slip in.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Honestly, no, I didn't.And I'm still confused. 😮
Maybe I just jumped on the once sentence without context? I do that sometimes.
No worries, I can requote the material for you:
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"do you feel like some people deserve to die?"
Yes, and here's why:
Originally posted by cdtm
...cases like the petit murder can make nearly anyone believe some people deserve capital punishment.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"can we justify executions?".
Yes, and here's why:
Originally posted by cdtm
...cases like the petit murder can make nearly anyone believe some people deserve capital punishment.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That still kind of seems like it has the same problem, a slight variation on Hume's "is/ought" dilemma. I also tend to see what you consider the common anti argument to be less frequent but maybe I'm letting my own biases slip in.
I did not like how you worded it to begin with so I just rephrased your statement in the opposing manner.
As for the common argument against it...yeah, that's what I hear ALLL the time from people against capital punishment.
Originally posted by psmith81992
How many times are you going to be guilty of this? Simply throwing out "killing people" misses the point of the debate and desperately attempts to elicit an emotional reaction. It hasn't worked and it won't worked. Cut it out.
Why do you want to avoid the entire point of the discussion which is actually homicide? Don't pretend that is not what we are talking about: homicide.
Doesn't matter if it is a state-sanctioned execution or a legal murder. It's still homicide. You want to justify homicide. Stop pretending I'm using argumentum ad passiones. That's literally the entire point of this damn discussion. Good God, man.
You: "How dare you point out the entire point of the discussion!"
😬
Also, I just read what you glossed over. You glossed over the fact that I demonstrated your shitty attempt at washing away your barbaric stance on government sanctioned homicide. It's barbaric. Don't dance around it.
Originally posted by psmith81992
Once again, you call it revenge because...You call it revenge. I don't call it revenge so lets agree to disagree because you're not bringing any proof or backing for your opinions.
You refuse to call it revenge because it doesn't fit your homicidal narrative. If you have to admit that you're using justice as a euphemism for revenge, then your argument falls apart. You actually said, "families deserve justice." ...that's revenge.
Revenge - to exact punishment or expiation for a wrong on behalf of, especially in a resentful or vindictive spirit.
Originally posted by psmith81992
A life for a life isn't revenge, it's justice, and fortunately the civilized world still uses capital punishment while the uncivilized world lives in a deluded "taking a life is always wrong" mindset.
Originally posted by psmith81992
See that's one of the few rights I would give the government. I call that justice as opposed to me doing the killing which would just be revenge.
Originally posted by psmith81992
And I think the seriousness of a crime is measured by the punishment we administer and I think we have progressed as a civilization precisely because we have maintained the death penalty but made it more logical and humane.
Originally posted by psmith81992
...it's not a deterrent and I'm pretty sure we can thank the lengthy and inefficient appeals process for that. All that matters is the death penalty serves as a punishment for the offender and more often than not, helps the grieving victims.
Originally posted by psmith81992
I think it's the opposite of advancement if we give everybody who's committed atrocious act a chance to reform. That spits in the face of victims, and victims family.
Originally posted by psmith81992
You didn't "show" me anything of the sort because nobody ever deterrence. That's strawman #2.
When you actually lie about things you've posted, there's no hope for a discussion. Don't lie about stuff you posted. 🙂
Originally posted by psmith81992
...incarceration IS a punishment for crimes people have committed (illegal activities)...
Originally posted by psmith81992
How exactly are we going to combat crime by rehabilitating criminals?
This question, restated, literally reads, "How are we going to reduce crime by rehabilitating criminals from committing more crimes?" And a far simpler way to word that question, "How are we going to reduce crime by reducing crime?"
To make the absurdity of that statement make more sense...
How are we going to eat apples by eating apples? The answer is in the question...by eating the apples. Reduce crime by reducing repeat offense.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rprts05p0510pr.cfm
Within five years of release, 82 percent of property offenders were arrested for a new crime, compared to 77 percent of drug offenders, 74 percent of public order offenders and 71 percent of violent offenders.
Originally posted by psmith81992
I always have a problem when someone who pretends to be enlightened equates change with progress and that's what you seem to be doing. You're looking to just change something and not addressing the proper issues.
Translation: you don't like that you're wrong so you pretend that I'm pretending to be an enlightened, self-righteous, criminologist. Instead, just admit that you have some barbaric ideas on how we should address crime. Catch up to the year 2015. Do a tad bit of research. Don't throw a tantrum by shitting all over your keyboard and a message board.
Also, look at this gem:
Originally posted by psmith81992
I didn't "address" crime, I addressed first degree murder.
lol, pack it up, boys: time to go home. First degree murder is not a crime. WEEE
Originally posted by psmith81992
Because the point of capital punishment hasn't been deterrence. Proponents of capital punishment WISH it was but with the current inefficient appeals system, it is not. So you're arguing with yourself on that count. Once again, nobody argued that it was a deterrent.
Okay...we'll see if anyone argued about the deterrent stuff in just a bit. I can't wait...
Originally posted by psmith81992
Thanks for pointing out a country with 5 million people and not exactly being a melting pot.
Your point here is a red herring and irrelevant. You can't just hand waive a criminal justice system that is using modern science, techniques, and results that clearly is far superior to the US' criminal justice system.
Me: "Try this socket wrench. It is the right size."
You: "So what! That socket wrench is shiny! Socket wrenches should be purple!"
Me: "lol, wut?"
Originally posted by psmith81992
That's like me saying "stop arguing for gun control, look at Israel and Switzerland they have guns it works for them."
Since you don't know what it is, this is an example of a strawman because that's not what my argument is like, at all. In this example, you'd have to say, "We should implement gun control and gun culture like Switzerland or Israel."
Originally posted by psmith81992
And I was the one who told you to mention stopping crime before it happens, which you made no mention of in your initial post.
Don't pretend my points are yours. I've always made the point that crime is a most certainly a poverty (and in one thread, also a population density issue) issue in multiple threads over many years. That's not your point: it's mine. You're parroting me if there's any parroting going on in this thread. 👆
Edit - here's a recent example of me mentioning the poverty and crime connection:
Originally posted by dadudemon
Obviously, there are reasons for crime such as poverty.
Originally posted by psmith81992
Once again, you're arguing a fictional premise and conclusion, and then mentioning hammurabi's law. You're all over the place and desperately trying to get some kind of point across.
Fictional premise and conclusion, huh?
Let's be clear that I stated the following:
"When we have actual research that shows there are better ways to prevent crime than killing each other like a 3735 year old law of conduct suggests, we should probably try that...I mean...riiiight?"
There's nothing fictional about any of it. Perhaps you were just posting words that you thought it sounded well? That makes sense. Couldn't think of a comeback so you thought of just posting what you thought was a good comeback (but had nothing of actual substance).
Originally posted by psmith81992
What does this have to do with criminals already behind bars? Did you forget that was our discussion? You're throwing out 50 different talking points and hoping one or two of them stick.
Well, that's obvious: stopping crime before it is committed is clearly my point. And then stopping crimes from being committed again is also my point. You know, combating crime in ways other than a death penalty or life imprisonment. That's what we're talking about. Did you forget? Here, I'll remind you again so you don't forget:
We are talking about how useless and expensive the death penalty is in a modern world. We are talking about recidivism and preventing crime.
Originally posted by psmith81992
For the 10th time, nobody was arguing deterrence.
There are 2 reasons for capital punishment:
1. Deterrence.
2. Punishment/revenge.
And before you try and backpeddle, you have had the implied position that the death penalty could be a deterrent.
As seen right here:
Originally posted by psmith81992
I think realistically if we streamline the process into a couple of years, it COULD be.
Well, look at that!
Originally posted by psmith81992
And the idea that you're an arbiter of what is revenge or justice also needs to change.
What's the matter? You hate that I put a stop with your word game? You like to pretend your moral absolutist brand of justice is true and righteous as though the shit erupting from your keyboard is deontological ejaculate. Really, it is just barbaric scumbaggery. "That wasn't revenge! That was justice, mang!"
Originally posted by psmith81992
So your entire argument is "I don't actually have any legitimate points that have been argued so I'm just going to voice my opinion, call it fact and if you don't agree with me then sorry"? You can save a lot of room just by typing that out.
Well, you had to pretend the following didn't exist:
1. That I showed you how there are superior criminal justice systems in the world that actually addresses both crime before it happens and recidivism. You know, death penalty not being a deterrent nor a way to combat crime.
2. That your use of "justice" is just revenge despite your tantrum.
3. That your view on how to address some crimes is just as barbaric as the crimes committed despite your tantrum.
4. That you don't know what a strawman is...or a tautology but I don't want to beat a dead horse.
Originally posted by psmith81992
Because cold blooded murder and a death penalty after a long trial, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and lengthy appeals process, are not the same thing, no matter how desperately you want them to be.
No, they are the same thing. It's still homicide. No matter how much you dress up what is happening, it is responding to homicide with homicide. It is still humans killing humans because those humans killed other humans.
homicide - The killing of one human being by another human being.
Since you don't understand what a tautology is, I'll explain it to you by explaining your position.
I'm arguing against the idea that it is okay to kill a human for killing another human. You're arguing that because it is legal to kill a human, it is legal to kill a human being. You need to take a step back from that because it is a tautological thought. It gets no where. Why should it be legal to kill another human for killing another human?
Keep in mind that I'm okay with Executing a criminal who has no remorse for their actions. They exist. If you'd stop with your childish posting for just a bit and do some research, you'll see what I'm talking about.
Here's an example:
Plenty of evidence for the crime. She's not remorseful. She admits to it, readily. Why waste time? Execute her. She may be able to be rehabilitated and reintegrated back into society...maybe. But there is a point to where it is silly to try and rehab people like this. And too risky.
Some extremely violent gangsters are like her: very unrepentant and belligerent about their killings (and "gangster" does not apply to just black men for those of you who are racist).
This is a long debate, but for me really is quite simple: if you take a life you don't deserve to have one of your own.
Obviously there are exceptions, such as self defense. But otherwise? No, I don't care if you are a no name one time killer or Ted Bundy, you have forfeited your right to live if you take a life without reason.
Originally posted by Surtur
This is a long debate, but for me really is quite simple: if you take a life you don't deserve to have one of your own.Obviously there are exceptions, such as self defense. But otherwise? No, I don't care if you are a no name one time killer or Ted Bundy, you have forfeited your right to live if you take a life without reason.
What if your reason was that you just really, really wanted the other person to be dead?