Jump to content

Do you believe the death penalty is unethical?


Lyudmilascience
 Share

Recommended Posts

That is not the case. Most abortions occur by themselves.

 

Either explain yourself of give us a citation please.

 

What about us that doesn't approve of the ultimate punishment but does agree with a woman's right to make her own decisions and lead her own life?

That is a totally false assumption. If it is the right of a woman to "make her own decisions" explain why 80% of abortions are performed upon black women?

 

Let me give you a few facts - an abortion nurse quit the practice even though she was in dire need of the money. Why? Because asd she explained to me, a five month old fetus was aborted in a single piece so that they could use the body parts and it was alive and crying. She watched the abortionist doctor take a hammer and kill that crying baby by breaking it's skull. When they deliver these mid-term babies they are commonly breathing by themselves and crying. These days rather than resort to murdering with force, they leave them in the hall-ways without protection to freeze to death.

 

A LARGE percentage of these aborted babies come from women that have been talked into these abortions and afterwards suffer from PTSD for the remainder of their lives. A significant number commit suicide.

 

These days a large number of these aborted fetuses are sliced up in utero like carving a chicken so that the delivery is easier. They have to be careful of the way they do it in order to retain body parts that are used as replacements for other people or in scientific experimentation.

 

Your belief that a fetus is not human is false. The SECOND that a fertilized egg attaches to the wall of the uterus it is alive. Within ONE week it has a beating heart and within a month it is a fully formed baby.

 

So if you are against the death penalty but for abortions you are little more than a hypocrite.

Edited by RiceAWay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either explain yourself of give us a citation please.

That is a totally false assumption. If it is the right of a woman to "make her own decisions" explain why 80% of abortions are performed upon black women?

 

Let me give you a few facts - an abortion nurse quit the practice even though she was in dire need of the money. Why? Because asd she explained to me a five month old fetus was aborted in a single piece so that they could use the body parts and it was alive and crying. She watched the abortionist doctor take a hammer and kill that crying baby by breaking it's skull. When they deliver these mid-term babies they are commonly breathing by themselves a crying. These days rather than resort to murdering with force, they leave them in the hall-ways without protection to freeze to death.

 

A LARGE percentage of these aborted babies come from women was have been talked into these abortions and afterwards suffer from PTSD for the remainder of their lives. A significant number commit suicide.

 

These days a large number of these aborted fetuses are sliced up in utero like carving a chicken so that the delivery is easier. They have to be careful of the way they do it in order to retain body parts that are used as replacements for other people.

 

Your belief that a fetus is not human is false. The SECOND that a fertilized egg attaches to the wall of the uterus it is alive. Within ONE week it has a beating heart and within a month it is a fully formed baby.

 

So if you are against the death penalty but for abortions you are little more than a hypocrite.

 

 

Your turn to provide a citation.

 

I'd like to provide a step-by-step guide as to why you're wrong but, to be honest, I couldn't be arsed, because I know you can't provide any evidence to support your post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might be somewhat off-topic except regarding the problem of criminals escaping prison, but I have been pondering some of the limitations of the standard punishment system that expresses severity of sentence as length of sentence. I think this system assumes that punishment is the only solution. The sentence should be intended to prevent future offenses, especially with offenders whose crimes can be predicted. Furthermore, it should be as effective as possible while only being as restrictive as we can justify per their offense. For example, in the case of a pedophile who commits a very mild offense but in doing so reveals his potential, this could involve tracking, libido reduction, et cetera. This would still be a life-sentence like the death penalty, but it could be cheaper and it lets us reverse false convictions.

Come to think of it, this would make false convictions a near non-problem. Since the punishment is distributed over a longer period of time, less of the punishment will have occurred by the time innocence is discovered. It's actually the opposite of the death penalty in that way.

In my experience you are pretty close. There are crimes such as simple robberies and using dope that are punished far too hard and not fitting the crime because minimum sentencing rules. Whereas murder, rape and pedophelia - are punished so lightly that it is amazing. A FIRST TIME rapist can get six months in JAIL - not prison - and get 50% of their sentence off for good behavior. I was on a jury in which a multiple pedophile was given 60 days in jail to be served one day per week. And of course that too followed the 50% off for good behavior. You see that poor illegal alien (this being California) had a wife and child to support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why people think the death penalty is unjust. I don't get the logic.

If someone tortures and kills people, multiple people at that, how is it not right to kill them? If anything, it's a lower punishment then they deserve.

 

It's better from every single perspective. You don't have to take care for them and you don't have to worry about their demeanor anymore. I don't understand the people who say ''that would be stooping to their level''. It shouldn't be some kind of teaching principle to show you're ''better than them''. That's irrelevant. They took honest and potentially successful lives forever. The only just thing you can do is take theirs.

 

Also, you have to understand that some people like living in prison. They like playing the dominant games with other prisoners and enjoy the atmosphere there. I mean, they might not prefer it to a real life, but it's not a dim one for them.

 

All in all, I think not utilizing the death sentence is unethical.

 

And can someone explain to me how does it cost more money to kill someone then keep them in prison? This makes zero sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you mean from the perspective of the authorities, who don't want to execute them without having considered what will happen to them afterwards?
Because that's precisely what the murderers did in the first place.

 

EDIT: You probably mean from the perspective of the murderers, so you agree with me, I think.

Edited by Lord Antares
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you mean from the perspective of the authorities, who don't want to execute them without having considered what will happen to them afterwards?

Because that's precisely what the murderers did in the first place.

 

EDIT: You probably mean from the perspective of the murderers, so you agree with me, I think.

From the perspective of the victims families and the fact that that murdered person will never exist again. When someone you love dies the concept of infinity really strikes home, and deeply so, and I think it gives a good idea of the weight of a family's loss that has lost someone through wanton violence. Include the act of violence itself, the gravity of that combination is probably beyond anyones comprehension that has not experienced it.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

/cut

 

Yes, I agree with you completely. I have never experienced that close of a personal loss and I'm thankful for it. But I'm aware it's a morbid thing, and therefore the offenders must be punished accordingly.

Why anyone thinks prison time is an adequate punishment for these people is beyond me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Why anyone thinks prison time is an adequate punishment for these people is beyond me.

The fear of killing a person not guilty of the crime is the one usually cited. There are degrees of evidence, motives and injury that results from their actions and so, I think, prison is appropriate in some of those cases.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why people think the death penalty is unjust. I don't get the logic.

If someone tortures and kills people, multiple people at that, how is it not right to kill them? If anything, it's a lower punishment then they deserve.

 

It's better from every single perspective. You don't have to take care for them and you don't have to worry about their demeanor anymore. I don't understand the people who say ''that would be stooping to their level''. It shouldn't be some kind of teaching principle to show you're ''better than them''. That's irrelevant. They took honest and potentially successful lives forever. The only just thing you can do is take theirs.

 

Also, you have to understand that some people like living in prison. They like playing the dominant games with other prisoners and enjoy the atmosphere there. I mean, they might not prefer it to a real life, but it's not a dim one for them.

 

All in all, I think not utilizing the death sentence is unethical.

 

And can someone explain to me how does it cost more money to kill someone then keep them in prison? This makes zero sense to me.

Change the word "kill" to Rape and that same sentence would probably read more self explanatory. We don't punsh rapists by in turn raping them just as we don't punsh drug dealers by forcing them to purchase and use drugs. The idea of punishing a criminal with the same method of action they were arrested for is something we only seem to find logical for murderers. However if it were truly a logical way to deal with crime don't you think it should work for all or at least more types of crime than murder?. Arresting, putting on trial, imprisoning, and etc work for all crime.

 

As for the cost it does cost more money to execute someone. That is just a fact. A simply web search could provide you the numbers.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2014/05/01/considering-the-death-penalty-your-tax-dollars-at-work/#1de62e4617f0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of punishing a criminal with the same method of action they were arrested for is something we only seem to find logical for murderers.

It's a method of disposal. Some people deserve to be disposed of. It's not a case of punishing like with like.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a method of disposal. Some people deserve to be disposed of. It's not a case of punishing like with like.

Some people deserve to be disposed of you say. Who do you feel comfortable making the determination for whom should be disposed of? Do you think that determination is made appropriately in Saudi Arabia? Do you trust any randomly assembled jury? I don't think most people who oppose the death penalty do so on the grounds that no one is dangerous and a threat to society.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people deserve to be disposed of you say. Who do you feel comfortable making the determination for whom should be disposed of? Do you think that determination is made appropriately in Saudi Arabia? Do you trust any randomly assembled jury? I don't think most people who oppose the death penalty do so on the grounds that no one is dangerous and a threat to society.

The legal system, judges and jury is the one to determine that and I am comfortable with that. The question posed is.: Do I believe, in principle, the death penalty is unethical? I believe, no, it is not unethical. The question is a philosophical one -and dragging in the flaws of any particular country is not relevant and extraneous to the philosophical discussion of it, especially one that specifically asks for ones belief. Note that 'ethics' is a branch of philosophy.

 

The determination is dodgy in Saudi but not in the USA which has plenty of oversight but, again, it's not pertinent.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Change the word "kill" to Rape and that same sentence would probably read more self explanatory. We don't punsh rapists by in turn raping them just as we don't punsh drug dealers by forcing them to purchase and use drugs

I'm sorry, that's not a good comparison.

What I mean is, yes, this is only applicable for murderes. The rest can be dealt with by prison time. What's so unreasonable about that?

 

The only problem is, as StringJunky says, the possibility of executing an innocent person. I obviously meant to say that only proven and undeniable acts should be punished by death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The legal system, judges and jury is the one to determine that and I am comfortable with that. The question posed is.: Do I believe, in principle, the death penalty is unethical? I believe, no, it is not unethical. The question is a philosophical one -and dragging in the flaws of any particular country is not relevant and extraneous to the philosophical discussion of it, especially one that specifically asks for ones belief. Note that 'ethics' is a branch of philosophy.

 

Good point +1.

 

My answer to the same question is, everyone deserves a chance to make amends even if, in the end, they don't.

 

MY point is on the back of the fact that no-one is born a bully or to kill or commit atrocities, our personal history always leads to our actions and maybe even a psychopath could one day be cured; after all they can no more help who they are than can any of us.

Edited by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Good point +1.

 

My answer to the same question is, everyone deserves a chance to make amends even if, in the end, they don't.

 

MY point is on the back of the fact that no-one is born a bully or to kill or commit atrocities, our personal history always leads to our actions and maybe even a psychopath could one day be cured because they can no more help who they are than can any of us.

i respect your opinion, but at the end of the day that's all we can do: express opinions. As our knowledge increases about human nature, from a neuroscientific standpoint, and aspects of that nature can be practically addressed by some sort of medical intervention, the philosophical landscape will no doubt change on this subject but atm we are stuck with what we have. We are our people of our time and, as such, base our thoughts on present resources and knowledge. Future generations will, no doubt, have a different outlook with being better informed objectively, about the biological elements behind human behaviour and what can potentially be done about preventing/curing such behaviour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Future generations will, no doubt, have a different outlook with being better informed objectively, about the biological elements behind human behaviour and what can potentially be done about preventing/curing such behaviour.

 

 

I doubt we could ever prevent such complex, causal, behaviour even if we could cure the biological issues; my point is we ALL make mistakes, some of which we'd wish we could take back about a second after we made them; I assume, from our interactions, that you're no stranger to the darker side of life? In such a light (and in this thread) can you honestly say that you've, not only, wished a mistake away or that you're incapable of darker thoughts/mistakes?

Edited by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

My answer to the same question is, everyone deserves a chance to make amends even if, in the end, they don't.

 

 

 

Do you have a limit to the number of chances a person is given? For example, if they commit a murder and are given a second chance, then murder again, do they get another chance? Does that go on indefinitely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you giving them a chance to make amends for their own benefit, or for the benefit of the person who was wronged?

 

 

Both.

Consider that both are as deeply affected as each other, but for different reasons; the person who is wronged (wants revenge) is confronted by the person that committed the crime, and is able to vent the deepest type of anger/hatred; the wrong do-er just wants forgiveness for the mistake he/she just wishes didn't happen; both get closure; why wouldn't that be beneficial?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And why exactly would you give a murderer a second chance? His victim didn't get one and they were presumably a better person that the murderer himself. What exactly do you expect to be amends for killing an innocent and productive person?

 

You think that if they regret the murder and become a good person, they've somehow corrected their mistake? Their ''mistake'' is permanent and can never be corrected. Giving them a second chance is immoral towards the families of the victim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.