The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by Zampanó
The idea that an irreversible penalty should be abolished just on the off chance of burning a woman who isn't actually a witch, is ridiculous in my opinion. What is the historical % of this happening? Less than 1%?

In seriousness, I'd draw a line at being the agency to impose the permanent solution. Our prison systems are imperfect, and raging cesspools of violence are of course dangerous. However, we are not permanently ending the potentially innocent (just unduly endangering them).

I didn't say our prison system is perfect. In fact, it's one of the least efficient ones in the world, due to our melting pot society. But if one is to abolish the death penalty, he would have to give a better reason than "we might execute an innocent person!", otherwise the argument destroys the need for a prison system.

Originally posted by steveholt245
I didn't say our prison system is perfect. In fact, it's one of the least efficient ones in the world, due to our melting pot society. But if one is to abolish the death penalty, he would have to give a better reason than "we might execute an innocent person!", otherwise the argument destroys the need for a prison system.

Aren't trials decided by juries? As in, the citizens?

The verdict is decided by the jury. It's the Judge who decides the sentencing.

The jury still decide if the defendant is guilty of a crime knowing full well that the death penalty can be enforced.

And the lawmakers and the politicians who decide the policy. And the police who enforce it. And the judges and executioners who... execute it. I hate the idea of the state having the power of life and death over anyone, much less its own people.

Originally posted by Nephthys
The jury still decide if the defendant is guilty of a crime knowing full well that the death penalty can be enforced.

Also, do you not have sentencing hearings in America? To decide the sentence?

I believe we do.

Though the death sentence is actually very rare nowadays, typically reserved for first degree murder, high treason, etc. Only the major crimes. I mean, second degree isn't even a death sentence unless it was a massacre.

Frankly, I like the death penalty. Problem is, the waiting time is too short. They sit there for decades. Give them 7 years, until the Statute of Limitations runs out, then kill them. I mean, with our legal system, they were ****ed at that point anyways.

Possibly literally 😐

Another failing of the system. If we're going to allow these people a shot at rehabilitation then getting raped isn't helping anything.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
And the lawmakers and the politicians who decide the policy. And the police who enforce it. And the judges and executioners who... execute it. I hate the idea of the state having the power of life and death over anyone, much less its own people.

Not a reassuring fact, surprisingly. Quite the opposite, actually.

We live in a democracy. We elect the "state" or the "government". Therefore, we have a say in who is being executed. I don't understand your argument. If the "government" didn't execute citizens, who would? I believe your argument is pretty much a red herring.

Originally posted by steveholt245
We live in a democracy. We elect the "state" or the "government". Therefore, we have a say in who is being executed. I don't understand your argument. If the "government" didn't execute citizens, who would? I believe your argument is pretty much a red herring.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Who "would"? Preferably nobody. I don't like the idea of anyone having the that power. But I especially don't like the idea of the people we elect to govern and administrate, to be the able to decide if people may live or die. The way I feel, no one should get to decide that.

So you think that murderers are allowed to decide who lives and who dies, but elected officials seeking justice are not?

Originally posted by steveholt245
So you think that murderers are allowed to decide who lives and who dies, but elected officials seeking justice are not?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Under what definition of "allow" are you operating? When have murderers ever been allowed to kill? And when did I even begin insinuate they should be?

You can't stop someone from murder. Therefore, they are "allowed" to murder. If they are "allowed" to murder, we should be allowed to seek justice via taking their lives. A famous man once said, a country shows what they think about an action by the severity of the consequences.

This reminds me of the recent Lincoln-Douglas debate I was in.....

The issue was whether the US should give non-citizens accused of terrorism due process (I was negative)

In the cross examination of the affirmative (me asking) I got her to admit that she thinks people should have the freedom to blow stuff up (It was awesome XD)

I lost. Half the people said I should have won though 😄

Originally posted by steveholt245
You can't stop someone from murder. Therefore, they are "allowed" to murder. If they are "allowed" to murder, we should be allowed to seek justice via taking their lives. A famous man once said, a country shows what they think about an action by the severity of the consequences.

Also I'm of the opinion that "justice", even as an abstract concept, is a complete load of bullshit. Anytime--and I mean anytime--I have heard the word "justice" used, it's always been used synonymously with "revenge". I also couldn't care less about showing anyone what a nation thinks toward a crime, I care more about how we treat everyone involved, including the perp. Taking away his right to life solves nothing in my eyes, and only communicates that we as a nation are fine with killing some of the people, some of the time.

New episode:

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
You can't stop someone from murder? I get what you meant, but that sentence is 100% demonstrably incorrect. And you're confusing the word "allow" with "able". Murderers aren't allowed to kill anymore than I'm allowed to defraud an insurance company. But we're still able to kill/defraud.

Also I'm of the opinion that "justice", even as an abstract concept, is a complete load of bullshit. Anytime--and I mean anytime--I have heard the word "justice" used, it's always been used synonymously with "revenge". I also couldn't care less about showing anyone what a nation thinks toward a crime, I care more about how we treat everyone involved, including the perp. Taking away his right to life solves nothing in my eyes, and only communicates that we as a nation are fine with killing some of the people, some of the time. [/B]

So wait... is it "crime" in general, or murder? What's worthy of execution to you? Murder only, or are you looking to branch out? Most murders aren't 1st degree, so when it comes to thinking it out... there isn't any. And why are you so concerned with image--showing what we think. I'm more concerned with giving legal authority to the state to permit death, not a popularity contest. And why "should" we be allowed to exchange death for death? I mean, other than revenge of course.

Originally posted by Nephthys
The jury still decide if the defendant is guilty of a crime knowing full well that the death penalty can be enforced.