Originally posted by KnifeUhuh, you've never provided a single point on anything here so I don't think we're taking your posts seriously at any point. At least DDM is offering something. You seem to throw around words like "civilized" and "barbaric" without understanding them. It IS quite amusing 😂
It is clearly barbaric as others have pointed out and justified, with reasoned logical arguments.
Originally posted by psmith81992Aww bless...
Uhuh, you've never provided a single point on anything here so I don't think we're taking your posts seriously at any point. At least DDM is offering something. You seem to throw around words like "civilized" and "barbaric" without understanding them. It IS quite amusing 😂
You're probably just trollololing, but generally the people who are against the DP are for a woman's right over her own body (pro abortion rights).
This is so the pro-DP and anti-abortion people can make the "kill the babies but save the criminals!" rant towards liberals that is and has always been so effective at making a point.
PSmith, if you think it is tautological to think killing people is barbaric, then there is no basis for discussion.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/barbaric
1. without civilizing influences; uncivilized; primitive:
2. of, like, or befitting barbarians:
Following part of the homicidal Code of Hammurabi, which is a both a violent and primitive code of laws and punishments, would very nicely match "barbarism." Killing people just because you want to indirectly provide revenge (don't try and candy coat it: it is not justice, it is indirect revenge...revenge by proxy of the state) is also barbaric. Killing someone for killing someone is also barbaric. And since I've already showed where the death penalty is factually NOT a deterrent for crime in the US (much less in other nations), why is this debate even going? What is there to debate at this point? I mean...really? When presented with a a plethora if scientific evidence that the death penalty does pretty much shit for crime prevention, why continue to explore it as a "crime preventative measure"? Why not explore ways to stop the crimes from happening to begin with? Go take a look at how Norway handles their crime. They have one of the world's best criminal justice systems in the world. How? Well...do some research. See how they do better than the US. Contrast them with the US DoJ and DoC.
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?
https://www.ncjrs.gov/works/wholedoc.htm
Even in the US, we have research that points to legitimate crime prevention (you'd think there'd be a bias...but the things that prevent crime is combating poverty in urban areas...who would have thought that poverty and no core family units were central to crime???? (I'm being sarcastic because this is very widely known)).
Anyway, I don't think this is debatable since there is a preponderance of evidence against supporting the death penalty as a "deterrent." And the idea of revenge being justice needs to change. If you don't agree with that, sorry, you're being barbaric by the very definition. I really can't see this is debatable.
I asked a very serious question ... why is perpetuating homicide for homicides not seen as barbaric to you?
Originally posted by Digi
Some nice information being presented here, off-topic as it is at this point.
It is mostly my fault for it being off-topic because I presented it as one of the GOP's "majority agreement" platforms which is related to this thread. To my knowledge, they did not debate the Death Penalty in any of these debates quite yet. But it is one of those things that pops up, like abortion, when candidates are solidifying/defining their campaign platforms.
PSmith, if you think it is tautological to think killing people is barbaric, then there is no basis for discussion.
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.
Killing people just because you want to indirectly provide revenge (don't try and candy coat it: it is not justice, it is indirect revenge...revenge by proxy of the state) is also barbaric.
And since I've already showed where the death penalty is factually NOT a deterrent for crime in the US (much less in other nations), why is this debate even going?
When presented with a a plethora if scientific evidence that the death penalty does pretty much shit for crime prevention, why continue to explore it as a "crime preventative measure"?
Why not explore ways to stop the crimes from happening to begin with? Go take a look at how Norway handles their crime. They have one of the world's best criminal justice systems in the world. How? Well...do some research. See how they do better than the US. Contrast them with the US DoJ and DoC.
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?
Even in the US, we have research that points to legitimate crime prevention (you'd think there'd be a bias...but the things that prevent crime is combating poverty in urban areas...who would have thought that poverty and no core family units were central to crime???? (I'm being sarcastic because this is very widely known)).
Anyway, I don't think this is debatable since there is a preponderance of evidence against supporting the death penalty as a "deterrent."
And the idea of revenge being justice needs to change.
If you don't agree with that, sorry, you're being barbaric by the very definition. I really can't see this is debatable.
I asked a very serious question ... why is perpetuating homicide for homicides not seen as barbaric to you?
Originally posted by psmith81992So I've seen you mention something a few times in this thread.
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.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 didn't "show" me anything of the sort because nobody ever deterrence. That's strawman #2.
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.
Thanks for pointing out a country with 5 million people and not exactly being a melting pot. That's like me saying "stop arguing for gun control, look at Israel and Switzerland they have guns it works for them." This is not an effective argument. 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.
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.
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.
For the 10th time, nobody was arguing deterrence.
And the idea that you're an arbiter of what is revenge or justice also needs to change.
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.
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.
You keep saying that you're not saying the death penalty is not a deterrent but you keep following that statement up with the caveat of especially with the inefficient system. It's like you keep saying if only we made the death penalty easier to carry out it would be a deterrent.
Is this a correct assessment of how view the death penalty as a deterrent?