-Demosthenes- Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 I don't get how a person can decide if someone else will die. If the criminal is not supposed to kill then how can we kill? I know he's a bad person and that some people would want him dead, but isn't that what he decided, that he wanted some one else dead? It seems so hypocritical. I can understand if someone is in imeadiate danger, like self defence, but some one who is caught and caged up in jail? He's still a person, no matter what he has done. Murder is when you kill when not in self defense and deliberately, capital punishment is murder by that definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 Murder is when you kill when not in self defense and deliberately, capital punishment is murder by that definition. But it is self defense. If sombody is liable to kill again, thats why they should be put to death. What if you kill to save your brother? Is that self defence? What if one person kills 3.5 billion people and is ready to kill 3.5 more but not you. Killing that person wouldn't be self defense would it? Is It hypocritical? I think not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 Yes, but the murderer still should be killed. 3.5 billion for 1 is a pretty bad trade, and I think if you killed him the world (what was left if it) would cheer, not say "Murderer!" and put you in prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 Yes, but the murderer still should be killed. 3.5 billion for 1 is a pretty bad trade, and I think if you killed him the world (what was left if it) would cheer, not say "Murderer!" and put you in prison. That was the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgerlica Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Maybe it's just me, but the death penalty as it stands isn't that great a deterrent. The entire purpose of capital punishment is to instill fear into those who would commit a heinous crime.... Using "terror" to achieve your aims. hmmm. But I digress. If fear is your stated objective, perhaps an end to appeals? Or a soviet style single bullet to the back of the head? Or why not go for broke and make it public? But as has been previosly stated, if the aim is to reduce the burden placed on tax payers by reducing the prison population.....Hell keep on keepin' on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted June 12, 2004 Author Share Posted June 12, 2004 Maybe it's just me, but the death penalty as it stands isn't that great a deterrent. The entire purpose of capital punishment is to instill fear into those who would commit a heinous crime The purpose is to preserve justice and the sanctity of human life, not to be a deterrent to others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesseract Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 Two things: 1)Abortion should be chosen, but only if both people are in danger. 2)Capital punishment is the same as murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgerlica Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 The purpose is to preserve justice and the sanctity of human life, not to be a deterrent to others. Trafficking in large quantities of drugs (18 U.S.C. 3591(b)) How may I ask does imposing the death penalty in a nonviolent crime preserve justice and the sanctity of life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 By removing those who can distribute drugs, and thus ruin others' lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgerlica Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 Well Cap'n that seems a bit arbitrary. And I still don't see how taking someones life because their actions MAY ruin other peoples lives preserves the sanctity of life. And remember that drug use is a concious decision made by the user. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesseract Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 By removing those who can distribute drugs, and thus ruin others' lives. Its easy to "remove" someone...they dont have to be dead.Lets see how they distribute drugs inside solitary for the rest of their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 I don't think I need to see other examples. A man who rapes and kills a mother in front of her young children and then proceeds to murder them has no value left here on this earth' date=' and I have no desire to purchase him cable television and 3 meals a day in prison for the rest of his life with my tax money.[/quote'] If it's an economic argument, then you should go for life in prison. It's more expensive to execute. The defendant gets an automatic appeal, for one, because there's a really large risk premium for getting something wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgerlica Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 The purpose is to preserve justice and the sanctity of human life, not to be a deterrent to others. Perhaps if our capital statutes more resembled the code of Hammurabi. But as it stands we have nothing but state sanctioned murder. If we are going to go so far as to say that it is ethical to execute drug traffickers because their actions may destroy others lives, why not execute users who enable said traffickers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted June 17, 2004 Author Share Posted June 17, 2004 Trafficking in large quantities of drugs (18 U.S.C. 3591(b)) How may I ask does imposing the death penalty in a nonviolent crime preserve justice and the sanctity of life?eh. You're acting as if we routinely execute nonviolent criminals. The only example you provide is "Trafficking in large quantities of drugs (18 U.S.C. 3591(b))", because it ALONE IS the only example of a nonviolent crimes punishable by death(other than espionage and treason). How many people have been sentenced to death under that statute? But as it stands we have nothing but state sanctioned murder.Care to explain? Murder is unlawful, execution is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgerlica Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Remember, a single contrary experiment can disprove a theory. And the number actually sentenced is irrelevant, while the fact that the statute exists is. And if you really want to look closely, examine the UCMJ. Eddie Slovik was executed by firing squad for desertion in time of war. He was a drafted concientious objector. This fact was known, yet he was placed in an infantry unit. And his desertion? He stayed in the theatre of operations and was assisting Canadian medics. Desertion, yes, but worthy of being the only man executed for the crime since the civil war? As to it being state sanctioned murder, all you need do is look at the demographics of those on death row to see the iniquity in it's application. Just for the record, I am not a bleeding heart, nor am I a member of the ACLU. I just have my opinions on what justice is and is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgerlica Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 Perhaps I should change my name to "Thread Killer." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted June 23, 2004 Author Share Posted June 23, 2004 Remember, a single contrary experiment can disprove a theory. True, but this isn't science and we're not testing theories here. The fact that there are executions for nonviolent crimes does not negative the validity of the death penalty for violent crimes. The context in which the death penalty is commonly given in the United States is a violent crime. I do not know of any recent cases (post 1980) in which the death penalty was handed out for a nonviolent conviction. You're argument may be valid for the death penalty in 1946, or in cases where there is no violent crime, but that is not how the death penalty is used today, and thus statements like "...as it stands we have nothing but state sanctioned murder..." are completely baseless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgerlica Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 True, but this isn't science and we're not testing theories here. The fact that there are executions for nonviolent crimes does not negative the validity of the death penalty for violent crimes Oh, I beg to differ. While this may not be scientific theory here, the fact that the system is flawed remains. Let us take for example Sharia. Under Islamic law, rapists and murderers are put to death, however adultery is also punishable by death. Look at the outcry when several women were to be stoned to death in Sudan for such an offence. Would you say that such an occurence doesn't negate the validity of sharia? While there may be no recent examples in the US, can we not agree to the fact that since such statutes do exist, the system is at least in need of an overhaul? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aeroguy Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 I do realise I'm a bit late to post here, but hey! It seems that everone forgets the most important reason why the death penalty should never be allowed. People who are wrongly convicted of a crime and are subsequently executed have been done an irrevocable injustice! The same person stuck in a prison cell could've been released and at least have some of his/her life back. No justice system is perfect, and as long as they're not, you WILL end up killing innocent people if you have the death penalty. And if someone's guilty of the crime, they shouldn't get away with the time up until the execution - they should suffer for the rest of their lives. THAT'S a punishment! My country abolished the death penalty in 1921 (although in wartime, the death penalty was still a reality until 1973). - - - Abortion is another matter entirely. True, it's some form of life you're killing, but it's not really a fully conscious human being by the 24th week (which is probably the latest you'll ever see). Eliminate many of the reasons behind unwanted pregnancies to begin with, and you'll see far fewer abortions. It's a well-known fact that the more taboo sex is in a culture, the less young people learn about how to have safe sex. Instead, they tend to come up with their own methods to protect themselves. The use of candy wrappings is common in several western nations, and nowhere is it worse than where religion and traditions hold sex as something dirty, shameful or secret. Couple ignorance with alcohol, and I think you have the cause for 90% of all unwanted pregnancies leading to abortion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted July 11, 2004 Author Share Posted July 11, 2004 People who are wrongly convicted of a crime and are subsequently executed have been done an irrevocable injustice! The same person stuck in a prison cell could've been released and at least have some of his/her life back. Essentially the same crimes that warrant the death penalty also warrant life in prison. Thus, there really is not much opportunity for an innocent person to have their life back, unless they are excused later due to other evidence (which certainly is a reality, but not very common). You argued that life in prison is more punishment than the death penalty, but then you argue that the death penalty might execute innocent people. What happens if an innocent person gets life in prison? They are, according to the argument, being punished more than if they were put to death. Thus, you should not advocate life in prison either. Do you see what I'm saying? they should suffer for the rest of their lives. THAT'S a punishment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 A slightly less bad irrevocable punishment is worse than a worse revocable one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aeroguy Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 Essentially the same crimes that warrant the death penalty also warrant life in prison. Thus, there really is not much opportunity for an innocent person to have their life back, unless they are excused later due to other evidence (which certainly is a reality, but not very common). You argued that life in prison is more punishment than the death penalty, but then you argue that the death penalty might execute innocent people. What happens if an innocent person gets life in prison? They are, according to the argument, being punished more than if they were put to death. Thus, you should not advocate life in prison either. Do you see what I'm saying? In fact, it's not that uncommon for people to be freed after many years because of new evidence or re-examination of existing evidence with new or improved methods. DNA is one such method that's recently made this possible. Yes, the prison sentence is harsher, but it's not final! An innocent person has the chance to be freed later on, but that will never be true for someone who's been executed! I can't see why you have such a hard time grasping that? I suppose it's hard to accept another reality when you're living inside a system that practices it, but look at most of the rest of the world. The death penalty is definitely on its way out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 Aeroguy, how do you know that human consciousness develops in the 24th week? That seems a bit arbitary, non human life you can kill at week 23, human at week 24. In the UK the government is looking at the possiblity of lowering the legal limit for abortion below 24 weeks because of evidence that premature babies born before then can be saved and that embyros develop faster and earlier than previously realised. I disagree with pro lifers wishing to ban abortion but i do think we need to take the topic a lot more seriously than we do, unborn children are not disposable consumer goods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aeroguy Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 I have never claimed that! I said: "it's not really a fully conscious human being by the 24th week" There's obviously a sliding scale. Now, I mentioned the 24th week since that's the legal limit, at least where I live. If it's arbitrary, it's not my fault! And you have to consider that someone who's irresponsible enough to get pregnant when they didn't want to, maybe won't make a great parent. If the child is born into an abusive and unloving environment, is it really better off? And adoption isn't a good option, since there's an abundance of babies available for adoption from developing and poor countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Ok, are you sure it's not really conscious at 24 weeks? There are cases of babies born before 24 weeks and surviving. The idea that a baby is better off dead than with a bad parent is awful. There are good arguments for abortion but that argument is so bad it's almost enough to make me a pro lifer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now