The Geek Forum
Main Forums => Political Opinions => Topic started by: Vespertine on December 30, 2006, 01:10:21 AM
-
...thoughts? comments?
-
I thought I'd have more of an emotional reaction, but I find myself oddly uninterested. I thought I'd be all happy and triumphant feeling and whatnot.
-
I still think he should have been forced to host a State-approved children's show wearing a bunny costume. This whole "death by hanging" thing strikes me as a bit more martyr-ey than I'd like.
-
I thought I'd have more of an emotional reaction, but I find myself oddly uninterested. I thought I'd be all happy and triumphant feeling and whatnot.
-
I still think he should have been forced to host a State-approved children's show wearing a bunny costume. This whole "death by hanging" thing strikes me as a bit more martyr-ey than I'd like.
I'd have watched that.
-
I still think he should have been forced to host a State-approved children's show wearing a bunny costume. This whole "death by hanging" thing strikes me as a bit more martyr-ey than I'd like.
LadyMongoloid you are a fricken genius!
I'm opposed to murder by the state, be it war, execution, preventing aid that is donated (like plenty of third world countries where they take our foreign humanitarian aid and put it to uses other than humanitarian--but corrupt government is a redundancy in my book). Executing Saddam is the same as what Saddam was convicted of. The state should not have the power to take any life.
-
I'm happy to see him die, and I'm especially glad that they made it a cruel form of execution, none of this lethal injection crap. Good job, I say.
-
LadyMongoloid you are a fricken genius!
I'm opposed to murder by the state, be it war, execution, preventing aid that is donated (like plenty of third world countries where they take our foreign humanitarian aid and put it to uses other than humanitarian--but corrupt government is a redundancy in my book). Executing Saddam is the same as what Saddam was convicted of. The state should not have the power to take any life.
I agree. Also, I think it was a bit rude how they cut him off in mid-sentence.
-
One less evil person in the world.
In before "it should have been bush lol" response.
-
I'm happy to see him die, and I'm especially glad that they made it a cruel form of execution, none of this lethal injection crap. Good job, I say.
Have you missed all of the news stories lately about lethal injection?
-
Too bad the American justice system isn't as efficient. Guilty, appeal, ok that's done and you're gonna die next week. Next.
-
Have you missed all of the news stories lately about lethal injection?
I have, got a link?
-
Thankfully the American justice system isn't as efficient.
Corrected.
:slap
I do wish that trials and such are able to come up more often though, instead of having to wait months or years...
-
I have, got a link?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/12/18/diaz.execution.ap/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/12/18/diaz.execution.ap/index.html)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/12/15/cal.death.penalty.ap/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/12/15/cal.death.penalty.ap/index.html)
Start with those and then continue to do your own research about how lethal injection works.
-
It's better than a fucking animal like him deserves. I'm glad it went wrong and he had to experience pain when he died. How about all the pain he caused the family members of the guy he murdered. I especially found his nephews comment at the end amusing, about how his uncle was in pain when he died. Well maybe if he didn't kill someone else he wouldn't have been going through it. Just a thought.
-
I don't see what that would help. The people he killed are still dead, and barring invocation of various deities, they're going to stay that way regardless of how sorry Saddam is.
-
it should have been cheney lol
-
It's better than a fucking animal like him deserves. I'm glad it went wrong and he had to experience pain when he died. How about all the pain he caused the family members of the guy he murdered. I especially found his nephews comment at the end amusing, about how his uncle was in pain when he died. Well maybe if he didn't kill someone else he wouldn't have been going through it. Just a thought.
You know, I was in the process of formulating a nice, big, point-by-point response to this. Then I said, "Fuck it!" You see, I came to the realization that it would be completely pointless. I would be wasting my time. No matter how small and monosyllabic my words are, you just wouldn't get it anyway. Or, maybe you're just trolling. Either way, thanks for playing.
-
it should have been cheney lol
lol bush is a monkey lmao
-
it should have been cheney lol
Lol
-
it should have been cheney lol
Speaking of
lol (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/43189)
-
You know, I was in the process of formulating a nice, big, point-by-point response to this. Then I said, "Fuck it!" You see, I came to the realization that it would be completely pointless. I would be wasting my time. No matter how small and monosyllabic my words are, you just wouldn't get it anyway. Or, maybe you're just trolling. Either way, thanks for playing.
Yes, because I'm not a hippy tree hugger I must obviously be trolling and/or stupid. I'd say the type of person that would make that kind of generalization is the one with the real intelligence problem, moron.
-
How appropriate. :slap
-
Yes, because I'm not a hippy tree hugger I must obviously be trolling and/or stupid. I'd say the type of person that would make that kind of generalization is the one with the real intelligence problem, moron.
My opposition to the death penalty and my arborphilia are completely unrelated!
-
Yeah, one's sexual and the other is....Um are you sure they're completely unrelated Lacerda
-
My opposition to the death penalty and my arborphilia are completely unrelated!
dictionary.com does not explain your word. What does it mean?
-
Wow. Don't they teach anything in English anymore?
arbor = of trees
philia = a root meaning "to love"
Therefore, "love of trees."
Tree-hugging hippies are smarter than you.
-
I'm a cat-hugging hippie
/me hugs cat
-
I'm a cat-hugging hippie
/me hugs cat
Me = too! :-)
-
Heya 12! Welcome back! Did you have a good New Year's?
-
Hey! Thanks!
Yeh, it was alright. I actually had to work, but i was off for two weeks just before that, so.. its all good. I still have 80 hours of vacation time carried over from last year, lol.
During my time off I've got my studio *almost* finished. All that's left to do is stain some wood trim, trim out a window, and hook up all the cabling. :-D Yeh; I'm happy about it!
So how's things been wid choo?
-
Being an atheist I believe there is nothing after this one. I am also against the death penalty for the same reason as PB and I am also a 50 % tree hugging hippy. I think Saddam should been sentenced to life in prison and with that I mean a life in prison, the whole old-fashioned no tv prison thing also no visitors. He is bad to the bone and should be punished accordingly. Being locked-up like that is a bigger punishment then death. Your life is totally worthles. Being hanged like him is a snap, neck is broken while he is choked at the same time. So it is gone in a flash, does Saddam notice ? According to my beliefs, no. He just isn't there anymore. So there is no punishment, it is even a relief.
If someone gives me the choice between being imprisoned for the rest of my life, on really crappy food, no visitors, no fresh air, just sit in a cell and that's it or a swift death, I would choose death.
-
Wow. Don't they teach anything in English anymore?
arbor = of trees
philia = a root meaning "to love"
Therefore, "love of trees."
Tree-hugging hippies are smarter than you.
Actually Arbor and philia are both from Latin. So the correct question would be, do they teach Latin anymore, and the answer is no.
Being an atheist I believe there is nothing after this one. I am also against the death penalty for the same reason as PB and I am also a 50 % tree hugging hippy. I think Saddam should been sentenced to life in prison and with that I mean a life in prison, the whole old-fashioned no tv prison thing also no visitors. He is bad to the bone and should be punished accordingly. Being locked-up like that is a bigger punishment then death. Your life is totally worthles. Being hanged like him is a snap, neck is broken while he is choked at the same time. So it is gone in a flash, does Saddam notice ? According to my beliefs, no. He just isn't there anymore. So there is no punishment, it is even a relief.
If someone gives me the choice between being imprisoned for the rest of my life, on really crappy food, no visitors, no fresh air, just sit in a cell and that's it or a swift death, I would choose death.
I'm also an atheist, but I believe ending someones existence is the ultimate punishment. No matter what you're living through it is a gift just to be alive. Anything is better than nothingness. Not to mention the fact I don't think people should pay money to keep alive the person that murdered their family members.
-
I'm in a debating mood so what the heck:
Being an atheist I believe there is nothing after this one.
As Evonus rightfully (*GASP*) pointed out, atheism as a label applies to people that believe there is no god. That says nothing about whether there is a form of life after death or not. (http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&defl=en&q=define:atheism&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title)
No matter what you're living through it is a gift just to be alive. Anything is better than nothingness.
That is something of a personal nature, because while you are sitting in a room with the biggest worry being people making fun of you on the internet, that is not the case for all. I don't know what your situation really is like, but let's assume it's less that say someone being tortured for information. Suffering is very relative, and the decision to end your life is something deeply personal. Who am I to say someone else isn't suffering?
Not to mention the fact I don't think people should pay money to keep alive the person that murdered their family members.
So you are trying to tell me that a dollar is worth more than a human life?
You know what, I'm going to list and then discuss the arguments for and against the death penalty. Feel free to join in, and if anyone has watched Bullshit! then they may see this is familiar.
Arguments For:
It is a deterrent for people committing murder.
The punishment fits the crime. (An eye for an eye.)
That it is painless and very efficient.
Arguments Against:
It is NEVER alright to kill a human being.
->or It is only alright to kill during times of war or in self-defense
->or It is alright but only in certain situations
Innocent people are put on death row.
Would YOU trust the government to present all evidence in a murder trial?
All the arguments FOR the death penalty are wrong.
Obviously I am taking the side against the death penalty, so if you feel I'm not representing an idea properly please respond, both sets of arguments too.
Deterrence:
Murders are committed for THREE reasons or motivations: profit, passion, or compulsion.
When committed rationally for profit, the person committing the crime does it rationally and doesn't think that they will be caught. A good example of this is the mafia, gangs, etc...
When committed because of passion, when a person snaps and kills someone, the very definition of is failing to way risk/rewards when determining an action.
When committed because of compulsion, the person does it because of some sick mental or physical illness. Manson, etc.. do what they do even though they know of the consequences.
The murder rate for states that have the death penalty is consistently higher than states that do not have the death penalty, and while it is hard to determine what the effects would be on the states if they removed their death penalty, it is equally hard to show that the death penalty is having a positive effect. Texas, for example, has a higher murder rate than the national average even though they have executed the most people and have the most on death row.
Eye for an Eye:
46% of the people on death row are white, and 42% are black. (Total: 3415) Of the entire prison population, however, blacks make up 12%. While it is argued that there is no racism, that blacks just seem to commit the crimes that end up with a death sentence, this fails to mention about what may have led up to the arrests, trials, and convictions. (Higher quality policing in rich neighborhoods, etc...)
Also, it is a well known fact that innocent people are put on death row. On Bullshit!, they interviewed a guy who had been convicted and was sentenced to death, when something like 7 years later he was retried and released because it was found that the prosecutor had hidden evidence, including that fact that he was already in jail at the time for another unrelated crime. The witnesses that testified against him were also found to be the actual perpetrators of the crime. Would you trust government officials to show all of the evidence, when a) we have evidence that they don't, b) there is evidence of racism, c) we don't even trust them to develop good policies like the drug policy, etc...
Besides, what is more of a punishment: a "swift" execution (I'll get to that), or a lifetime in jail.
Let's pretend for an instance that you support the death penalty. Assuming that man had been killed, you would have been responsible for his murder. Therefore, you were responsible for the death of an innocent man, and should also be put to death.
Painless:
There are horror stories about hangings, using the electric chair, the guillotine, and other more ancient methods of execution. With lethal injection, a study found that some people had less of the sedative than required for surgery, and would mean that even though they were paralyzed and not showing pain, it was likely that they were awake at the time and suffered a horrible pain of choking and their heart being stopped. Interestingly enough, the guy who developed lethal injection was the physician to Adolf Hitler. (Not an argument against, but it should show the mindset of where this idea came from...)
In terms of efficiency is the question of whether MONEY is more valuable than a HUMAN LIFE. If you think that a dollar bill is somehow more valuable than a human being, that's your choice, but who knows what you are liable to do when confronted with someone willing to pay you to kill another human being.
Throughout all of this is whether it is EVER right to kill a human being, or any of the sub questions.
-
I know my post is a bit broader than Saddam being killed, but this is something of a discussion on the death penalty...
-
Actually Arbor and philia are both from Latin. So the correct question would be, do they teach Latin anymore, and the answer is no.
Wrong. 'Do they teach Latin anymore?' is not the correct question. It's called etymology, and yes, they do still teach it in English class.
I'm also an atheist, but I believe ending someones existence is the ultimate punishment. No matter what you're living through it is a gift just to be alive. Anything is better than nothingness. Not to mention the fact I don't think people should pay money to keep alive the person that murdered their family members.
A gift from what/who? By definition, a gift is given. So, who or what is doing the giving?
-
I used to watch Wordsmith on PBS. I wonder if it's still on? I took two etymology classes during my undergraduate years because I enjoyed that show so much.
-
Thank you for actually taking this seriously.
That is something of a personal nature, because while you are sitting in a room with the biggest worry being people making fun of you on the internet, that is not the case for all. I don't know what your situation really is like, but let's assume it's less that say someone being tortured for information. Suffering is very relative, and the decision to end your life is something deeply personal. Who am I to say someone else isn't suffering?
Suffering subsides after a while. Trust me, I've had to endure something very terrible in my own life, and I know what it's like to suffer. Life is worth more than we would often think, and I can say that from experience.
So you are trying to tell me that a dollar is worth more than a human life?
Criminals like murders and rapists are too wicked to reform, and thus they can not be integrated into society. So in essence they are worthless, because all they can do is cause harm and consume resources. A dollar has value, it can save other people's lives as well as make life easier for those who are suffering. Therefore a dollar can be worth more than a "human" life.
Arguments For:
It is a deterrent for people committing murder.
The punishment fits the crime. (An eye for an eye.)
I agree with these two, although the second one is all I need to support the death penalty.
That it is painless and very efficient.
This honestly makes no difference to me. I'd actually rather it not be painless.
It is NEVER alright to kill a human being.
->or It is only alright to kill during times of war or in self-defense
->or It is alright but only in certain situations
I completely and uterly disagree with this mentality. I see no problem with killing another human being when need be.
Innocent people are put on death row.
This is an unfortunate consequence.
Would YOU trust the government to present all evidence in a murder trial?
I would hope that it would, but this arguments isn't necessarily sound. You could put someone away for life because all the evidence isn't correct, and have the truth never come to light. This is more of a problem with the justice system in general.
The murder rate for states that have the death penalty is consistently higher than states that do not have the death penalty, and while it is hard to determine what the effects would be on the states if they removed their death penalty, it is equally hard to show that the death penalty is having a positive effect. Texas, for example, has a higher murder rate than the national average even though they have executed the most people and have the most on death row.
There could easily be other factors that attribute to this though. Like race relations and such. Texas has a lot of immigrants from Mexico and a lot of gangs which account for the higher murder rates. Your comparing 2 things here that don't necessarily have any relation. Comparing Texas with the death penalty and without the death penalty would be a better comparison.
Eye for an Eye:
46% of the people on death row are white, and 42% are black. (Total: 3415) Of the entire prison population, however, blacks make up 12%. While it is argued that there is no racism, that blacks just seem to commit the crimes that end up with a death sentence, this fails to mention about what may have led up to the arrests, trials, and convictions. (Higher quality policing in rich neighborhoods, etc...)
This is because unfortunately the way the country was originally set up African Americans were on the bottom, class wise. They're still there because adequate reform has not been made in their favour. Poor people are more likely to kill each other. So putting 2 and 2 together, it makes sense.
Also, it is a well known fact that innocent people are put on death row. On Bullshit!, they interviewed a guy who had been convicted and was sentenced to death, when something like 7 years later he was retried and released because it was found that the prosecutor had hidden evidence, including that fact that he was already in jail at the time for another unrelated crime. The witnesses that testified against him were also found to be the actual perpetrators of the crime. Would you trust government officials to show all of the evidence, when a) we have evidence that they don't, b) there is evidence of racism, c) we don't even trust them to develop good policies like the drug policy, etc...
It's not a perfect system, but like I said, putting someone away for life can be just as easily manipulated and never uncovered.
Besides, what is more of a punishment: a "swift" execution (I'll get to that), or a lifetime in jail.
I'd say death.
Let's pretend for an instance that you support the death penalty. Assuming that man had been killed, you would have been responsible for his murder. Therefore, you were responsible for the death of an innocent man, and should also be put to death.
If I was the prosecutor that withheld evidence and had an innocent man killed I deserve the death penalty. You are correct.
Painless:
There are horror stories about hangings, using the electric chair, the guillotine, and other more ancient methods of execution. With lethal injection, a study found that some people had less of the sedative than required for surgery, and would mean that even though they were paralyzed and not showing pain, it was likely that they were awake at the time and suffered a horrible pain of choking and their heart being stopped. Interestingly enough, the guy who developed lethal injection was the physician to Adolf Hitler. (Not an argument against, but it should show the mindset of where this idea came from...)
None of this phases me even a bit. I don't care if they suffer, they've brought suffering on a lot of people, which is why they are where they are. Not to mention, just because Hitler had an association with something doesn't make it evil. Hitler is a political figure, who did something very bad; however, he was a man, and like any other man he did things that were good and bad. Not everything surrounding Hitler was bad.
In terms of efficiency is the question of whether MONEY is more valuable than a HUMAN LIFE. If you think that a dollar bill is somehow more valuable than a human being, that's your choice, but who knows what you are liable to do when confronted with someone willing to pay you to kill another human being.
Money is not more valuable than the average life, but like I have said, I consider criminals to worth less than the rest of society, and thus worth less than money. I'll give you a flow chart. Noncriminals > Money > Criminals.
Throughout all of this is whether it is EVER right to kill a human being, or any of the sub questions.
I don't see why it wouldn't be. Some people are just bad eggs and have to be put down.
-
Wrong. 'Do they teach Latin anymore?' is not the correct question. It's called etymology, and yes, they do still teach it in English class.
I never learned this, so whatever, not worth arguing over.
A gift from what/who? By definition, a gift is given. So, who or what is doing the giving?
A gift (unintended perhaps) from the world around us. No entity gave it to us, but we received it through random luck in the universe.
-
One of the main things that turns me against the idea of capital punishment is the fact that the courts can, have, and WILL continue to fuck things up ever so often. What do you say when it turns out that the courts killed a father of three for a crime that he didn't even commit? Is doing justice for people who are already dead (and by your own admission incapable of caring) worth the risk of killing an innocent, the very crime that is theoretically being punished?
-
I never learned this, so whatever, not worth arguing over.
A gift (unintended perhaps) from the world around us. No entity gave it to us, but we received it through random luck in the universe.
So is the dog crap that stuck to my boot on the way over also a gift from the universe? This sounds awfully theistic to me.
-
The current issue of the Economist speaks of some breakthroughs in neuroscience, which bring free will into question. A specific example is of a guy who was relatively normal became a pedophile. Drs. discovered a brain tumor, removed it, and the guy lost all of his pedophillic tendencies. The tumor grew back, the tendencies returned. The tumor was again removed. Tendencies gone. Did this man exercise free will to be a pedophile? Is he a criminal?
-
I made a choice not to believe in free will.
-
One of the main things that turns me against the idea of capital punishment is the fact that the courts can, have, and WILL continue to fuck things up ever so often. What do you say when it turns out that the courts killed a father of three for a crime that he didn't even commit? Is doing justice for people who are already dead (and by your own admission incapable of caring) worth the risk of killing an innocent, the very crime that is theoretically being punished?
I personally think it's worth the risk. Not to mention, it isn't the same crime. A person being legally executed my a court isn't the same as one man killing another. A court is not a man, it's a legal body.
So is the dog crap that stuck to my boot on the way over also a gift from the universe? This sounds awfully theistic to me.
I'm not a theist. I think life is a gift that we got lucky and ended up with, but I don't believe that we owe anyone anything, I don't believe that it was fated that humans existed, or that any entity exists, and certainly not that we were created by one.
The current issue of the Economist speaks of some breakthroughs in neuroscience, which bring free will into question. A specific example is of a guy who was relatively normal became a pedophile. Drs. discovered a brain tumor, removed it, and the guy lost all of his pedophillic tendencies. The tumor grew back, the tendencies returned. The tumor was again removed. Tendencies gone. Did this man exercise free will to be a pedophile? Is he a criminal?
The man obviously has a treatable mental illness and therefore he should be committed to a psychiatric ward.
-
So if this is a possible cause. Couldn't all crime theoretically be traced back to a biological process and thus be a treatable mental illness?
You seem to over-generalize and try to make a complicated, multi-variate world too simple.
-
So if this is a possible cause. Couldn't all crime theoretically be traced back to a biological process and thus be a treatable mental illness?
You seem to over-generalize and try to make a complicated, multi-variate world too simple.
No, if I kill someone out of greed it's not due to a mental illness, it's because I'm an asshole and I'll do anything for profit. Same with Racism, same with sudden impulses, ect.
In this case there was something that was interfering with that man's normal line of thought. His normal line of thought was not the problem.
-
Normalcy is relative.
-
No, if I kill someone out of greed it's not due to a mental illness
How do you know for sure it's not resulting from a mental illnesss?
Criminals like murders and rapists are too wicked to reform, and thus they can not be integrated into society. So in essence they are worthless, because all they can do is cause harm and consume resources. A dollar has value, it can save other people's lives as well as make life easier for those who are suffering. Therefore a dollar can be worth more than a "human" life.
Seriously, that statement scares me. Making the assuming that any rapist is beyond redemption is not good enough for me. No matter how disgusting their actions are, those people need help more than anything. As it ever occur to you that a sociopath may have abnormal brain activity and perhaps a mental disease is contributing to how they think, feel, and view the world? So if they are in fact sick and could perhaps be helped trough medication, psychiatric treatment, and perhaps even surgery, should we just ignore that and just kill them just because it's convenient? By doing so, aren't we guilty of a similar crime?
What if we decided that people with cancer didn't deserve to live and we started to execute those diagnosed with the disease instead of treating them? What if we didn't fund cancer research, didn't pay attention to the cause, didn't invest time and money in finding solutions to the problem, and simply spend 1$ on a bullet for each person diagnosed with cancer instead? What kind of society would we live in? Certainly not one I'd want to be a part of. Why can't the same principle apply to the criminals who are perhaps simply victims themselves.
Some people are just bad eggs and have to be put down.
YEAH! Just like the gays and the Chinese! :roll:
First, how do you define what a bad egg is, and second how do you become one? Are you born already a bad egg, or is it learned behaviors and principles that turn you into one? If that's the case, why you couldn't relearn and to become a good egg. You have the capacity to learn.
Capital punishment is a coward's convenience. It's just easier to close your eye on the underlying problem and simply make it go away, but it is not responsible or fair. Resorting to it is simply a confirmation of our own failures in dealing with the real issues.
-
Personally, I’m inclined to support the death penalty only in the case of treason. I believe that it is an effective deterrent for this particular sort of crime (of course I’m only referring to the civilian legal system; I’m sure I could think of a couple other cases where the death penalty would be appropriate for military personnel)
I have no moral objection to the death penalty. However, except for it being a good tool for prosecutors to get favourable plea bargains, I don’t think it is a particularly practical form of punishment.
In the case of Saddam, the Iraqi government chose the best option they had. With Saddam dead and the Ba’ath party in ruins, there is no chance that they could be returned to power when the coalition troops withdraw. This necessarily means that the pro-Ba’athist insurgents can only fight for a new government rather than a return to the old status quo for the “good old days”.
-
No, if I kill someone out of greed it's not due to a mental illness, it's because I'm an asshole and I'll do anything for profit. Same with Racism, same with sudden impulses, ect.
In this case there was something that was interfering with that man's normal line of thought. His normal line of thought was not the problem.
Actually I was watching an interesting show about how racism may have a biological component.
A person being legally executed my a court isn't the same as one man killing another. A court is not a man, it's a legal body.
Of course, the court and the supporting system have far more guns and are a lot better organized than most mobs.
-
How do you know for sure it's not resulting from a mental illnesss?
If we can't treat it, it's unfortunate, but we can't treat it. If someone is a danger to those around them, and we can't help them then I see no other option. These people are useless to society, and thus there is no reason to keep them alive. All they do is consume.
Seriously, that statement scares me. Making the assuming that any rapist is beyond redemption is not good enough for me. No matter how disgusting their actions are, those people need help more than anything. As it ever occur to you that a sociopath may have abnormal brain activity and perhaps a mental disease is contributing to how they think, feel, and view the world? So if they are in fact sick and could perhaps be helped trough medication, psychiatric treatment, and perhaps even surgery, should we just ignore that and just kill them just because it's convenient? By doing so, aren't we guilty of a similar crime?
If we can help them, I say we go for it. But a lot of rapists do it because they don't bother to control themselves. The United States already does not execute people with mental illnesses, so really your arguments are irrelevant, because I'm arguing for the death penalty, which already can't be applied to the people you're saying we shouldn't kill.
What if we decided that people with cancer didn't deserve to live and we started to execute those diagnosed with the disease instead of treating them? What if we didn't fund cancer research, didn't pay attention to the cause, didn't invest time and money in finding solutions to the problem, and simply spend 1$ on a bullet for each person diagnosed with cancer instead? What kind of society would we live in? Certainly not one I'd want to be a part of. Why can't the same principle apply to the criminals who are perhaps simply victims themselves.
People with cancer are not a danger to those around them. They haven't harmed those around them. That is the difference.
First, how do you define what a bad egg is, and second how do you become one? Are you born already a bad egg, or is it learned behaviors and principles that turn you into one? If that's the case, why you couldn't relearn and to become a good egg. You have the capacity to learn.
People are defined by their actions, not their birth, at least in my mind, obviously not in yours. It can be born, if someone is born with a split personality, or if someone is born that is prone to violence, but I for one happen to think it's acquired. Anyway, after someone is far gone enough, they can't be reformed. Some things can't be changed after a while, some things are permanent. If it's caught before they've harmed someone else, I'd say it's worth a try, but after they've harmed someone else I feel that they're beyond redemption.
Capital punishment is a coward's convenience. It's just easier to close your eye on the underlying problem and simply make it go away, but it is not responsible or fair. Resorting to it is simply a confirmation of our own failures in dealing with the real issues.
I say opposition to Capital punishment is ignorant. You don't know what its like to lose someone, and therefore you don't understand that the victims (if they're still alive) or the victim's family needs a sense of closure, and as much as this goes against hippyism 101, human beings want revenge when someone they love is taken from them, and in all honesty, I think it should be given to them. It's the least that can be done to ease their pain.
-
...The United States already does not execute people with mental illnesses, so really your arguments are irrelevant, because I'm arguing for the death penalty, which already can't be applied to the people you're saying we shouldn't kill...
:bs
The US has already killed plenty of the mentally ill. Plenty of schizophrenics have been put to death although their condition can be treated with medication. Andrea Yates I believe is on death row and she is obviously mentally ill and it was completely treatable (plus her husband is a bastard for ignoring her post-partum depression, but that's another debate altogether). It also has on death row several who are probably innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted and possibly has even killed someone in this category. Death is final, and juries and judges are fallible, and legal counsel is quite different for those with money and those without. Look at the difference between the defense of OJ versus one of say an indigent in Texas having to have the court appointed public defender who sleeps through the trial.
-
:bs
The US has already killed plenty of the mentally ill. Plenty of schizophrenics have been put to death although their condition can be treated with medication. Andrea Yates I believe is on death row and she is obviously mentally ill and it was completely treatable (plus her husband is a bastard for ignoring her post-partum depression, but that's another debate altogether). It also has on death row several who are probably innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted and possibly has even killed someone in this category. Death is final, and juries and judges are fallible, and legal counsel is quite different for those with money and those without. Look at the difference between the defense of OJ versus one of say an indigent in Texas having to have the court appointed public defender who sleeps through the trial.
That's the way of the world. People make mistakes and money talks. Death penalty or not, those two will still be true. I hear what you're saying, but you're basically applying broad problems to this specific argument, and therefore those claims are largely irrelevant to this argument.
-
So do you have a fortune to spend on defense? Let's say you are accused of raping and killing the daughter of a rich person. You can't afford a defense attorney nor afford to pay for DNA testing. You are subsequently convicted and sentenced to death. This is the system as it is now. It does happen. With your life in the balance do you still support your stance?
-
So do you have a fortune to spend on defense? Let's say you are accused of raping and killing the daughter of a rich person. You can't afford a defense attorney nor afford to pay for DNA testing. You are subsequently convicted and sentenced to death. This is the system as it is now. It does happen. With your life in the balance do you still support your stance?
See, I see what you're saying, but this is more of a problem with the courts and wealth distribution in general, and I agree, that all should really be equal before the courts, but this will go on whether we have capital punishment or not. That's what I'm getting at. This doesn't directly involve capital punishment. This is really a separate issue.
-
that must blow geting hanged in 2006 - 2007 then again it must blow geting hanged at all
-
People are defined by their actions, not their birth, at least in my mind, obviously not in yours. It can be born, if someone is born with a split personality, or if someone is born that is prone to violence, but I for one happen to think it's acquired. Anyway, after someone is far gone enough, they can't be reformed. Some things can't be changed after a while, some things are permanent. If it's caught before they've harmed someone else, I'd say it's worth a try, but after they've harmed someone else I feel that they're beyond redemption.
I say opposition to Capital punishment is ignorant. You don't know what its like to lose someone, and therefore you don't understand that the victims (if they're still alive) or the victim's family needs a sense of closure, and as much as this goes against hippyism 101, human beings want revenge when someone they love is taken from them, and in all honesty, I think it should be given to them. It's the least that can be done to ease their pain.
Wow, where to begin?
You say TheJudge "obviously" believes that birth defines a person. I can't figure out where he said that when he was asking you questions to better define your view of a "bad egg." And then you say:
People are defined by their actions, not their birth, at least in my mind, obviously not in yours. It can be born, if someone is born with a split personality, or if someone is born that is prone to violence, but I for one happen to think it's acquired.
So it can be inborn behavior, but it can't? You just contradicted yourself by acknowledging that such traits can be genetic, but then saying you think they're entirely a product of environment. How would you test an infant to see if they're born with a tendency for violence, or with schizophrenia? Are you advocating a move toward exhaustive genetic testing to "prove" these tendencies, in a subtle push for some kind of Utopia?
Interestingly enough, the guy who developed lethal injection was the physician to Adolf Hitler. (Not an argument against, but it should show the mindset of where this idea came from...)
Not to mention, just because Hitler had an association with something doesn't make it evil. Hitler is a political figure, who did something very bad; however, he was a man, and like any other man he did things that were good and bad. Not everything surrounding Hitler was bad.
If Hitler's personal physician invented lethal injections, I'd say there's a damn good chance that method was used to kill hundreds or thousands of innocent people in concentration camps. That makes it evil.
If it's caught before they've harmed someone else, I'd say it's worth a try, but after they've harmed someone else I feel that they're beyond redemption.
So, two strikes and they're out? Many people are put to death for being accused of harming just one person. Making other people feel better shouldn't be justification enough for ending someone's life.
I say opposition to Capital punishment is ignorant. You don't know what its like to lose someone, and therefore you don't understand that the victims (if they're still alive) or the victim's family needs a sense of closure, and as much as this goes against hippyism 101, human beings want revenge when someone they love is taken from them, and in all honesty, I think it should be given to them. It's the least that can be done to ease their pain.
No, I don't know what it's like to lose someone to violence, but that doesn't mean I don't understand how victims might feel. It's not enough to just kill them, not for me. Death is the easy way out for them.
Revenge != justice. Revenge is personal. Justice is communal. We live in a society with laws that shouldn't leave room for revenge. Justice isn't an eye for an eye. If that were the case, the guilty parties from Enron would've been stripped of their wealth and forced to work behind a grill flipping burgers for the rest of their lives. They screwed over thousands of people. Where's the justice? Would you advocate chopping someone's hands off for repeated felony theft convictions?
These people are useless to society, and thus there is no reason to keep them alive. All they do is consume.
You've just described the entire United States in general. Hell, humanity is the ultimate parasite.
People with cancer are not a danger to those around them. They haven't harmed those around them. That is the difference.
No, but we put millions of dollars into a health care system that supports people who become consumers of that system, too ill to do anything else "useful" in society. How is that any different from a mental disorder?
I see no problem with killing another human being when need be.
But...
Life is worth more than we would often think, and I can say that from experience.
Yes, it is. And not just yours.
Finally, because this bothers me:
It's called etymology, and yes, they do still teach it in English class.
I never learned this, so whatever, not worth arguing over.
Considering they teach elementary school kids how to read above their level by breaking apart words they don't recognize into familiar bits, yeah, I'd say you might've learned it. But since you can't grasp homonyms, I'd have to admit a failure of the education system, as they're graduating asshats with abandon.
-
that must blow geting hanged in 2006 - 2007 then again it must blow geting hanged at all
...
If you're going to contribute, make it worth my time to read.
-
Wow, where to begin?
You say TheJudge "obviously" believes that birth defines a person. I can't figure out where he said that when he was asking you questions to better define your view of a "bad egg."
The Judge thinks that just because someone is born a human being then they are therefore too sacred to harm or destroy.
And then you say:
So it can be inborn behavior, but it can't? You just contradicted yourself by acknowledging that such traits can be genetic, but then saying you think they're entirely a product of environment. How would you test an infant to see if they're born with a tendency for violence, or with schizophrenia? Are you advocating a move toward exhaustive genetic testing to "prove" these tendencies, in a subtle push for some kind of Utopia?
I just said that it could happen both ways. Sometimes people are born with a mental illness, and other times its just done out of greed or emotional stress.
Utopias are impossible, hence my belief that some people are beyond reform.
If Hitler's personal physician invented lethal injections, I'd say there's a damn good chance that method was used to kill hundreds or thousands of innocent people in concentration camps. That makes it evil.
No, that makes their original use evil, it doesn't make the thing itself evil. Hitler also made a ceasefire with Stalin that allowed him to invade Poland and cause World War II, which killed tons of people. That doesn't make cease fires evil. Just because an evil person used something does not make the thing itself evil.
So, two strikes and they're out? Many people are put to death for being accused of harming just one person. Making other people feel better shouldn't be justification enough for ending someone's life.
If the person committed some sort of an offense, it is perfectly fair to reprimand them. Ending the offenders life is a form of reprimand for severe crimes.
No, I don't know what it's like to lose someone to violence, but that doesn't mean I don't understand how victims might feel.
Yes it does. Until you've felt it first hand you don't know what it's like.
It's not enough to just kill them, not for me. Death is the easy way out for them.
I like seeing their bodies hanging from a noose, it makes me feel that justice has been served.
Revenge != justice. Revenge is personal. Justice is communal. We live in a society with laws that shouldn't leave room for revenge. Justice isn't an eye for an eye. If that were the case, the guilty parties from Enron would've been stripped of their wealth and forced to work behind a grill flipping burgers for the rest of their lives. They screwed over thousands of people. Where's the justice?
I think that eye for an eye is a wonderful system. I think that's just what they should've done to Kenneth Ley and his fellow assholes on the board. Instead they got away with it after ruining many people's futures out of greed. I think revenge and justice should be part of the same system, so that way people don't have to resort to their own means to get the revenge that human nature requires they obtain.
[quote}Would you advocate chopping someone's hands off for repeated felony theft convictions?[/quote]
No, because that's basically sentencing them to starve to death. Having them beaten/imprisoned is much more fitting.
You've just described the entire United States in general. Hell, humanity is the ultimate parasite.
Society as a whole has been able to grow and sustain a race. Because of society the human race has been able to grow and change the planet the way it saw fit. Humanity has been able to specialize each person to work for the betterment of all (at least in theory). In a way Humanity has become one big organism that we call society. Criminals are like cancers, they're mutinous cells that have to be removed in order for the body to continue to function at optimal performance.
No, but we put millions of dollars into a health care system that supports people who become consumers of that system, too ill to do anything else "useful" in society. How is that any different from a mental disorder?
Like I said before, cancer patients don't harm people. They consume money, but they haven't killed or injured anyone in the process. I don't have problems with people that have mental illnesses getting them treating, on government money, as long as they have not yet committed a crime.
But...Yes, it is. And not just yours.
My life is worth as much as anyone else's that is a beneficial part of the system. I am a number in the system, as is everyone else. I find it funny that you and demo always try to act like I'm putting my life above everyone else's when I'm not. If I killed someone I should face the death penalty as well, but then again, that is my motivation not to kill anyone.
Finally, because this bothers me:
Considering they teach elementary school kids how to read above their level by breaking apart words they don't recognize into familiar bits, yeah, I'd say you might've learned it. But since you can't grasp homonyms, I'd have to admit a failure of the education system, as they're graduating asshats with abandon.
Believe it or not, I've always been deemed very intelligent in school. I never received much linguistics teaching which is basically what you're describing, so my spelling and vocab are slightly more limited than I would like them to be.
-
The Judge thinks that just because someone is born a human being then they are therefore too sacred to harm or destroy.
Where did he say that?
I just said that it could happen both ways. Sometimes people are born with a mental illness, and other times its just done out of greed or emotional stress.
I'd accept that if you hadn't said...
but I for one happen to think it's acquired.
No, that makes their original use evil, it doesn't make the thing itself evil. Hitler also made a ceasefire with Stalin that allowed him to invade Poland and cause World War II, which killed tons of people. That doesn't make cease fires evil. Just because an evil person used something does not make the thing itself evil.
:roll: Yes, and Hitler also used public speaking to rally his supporters. Therefore all public speaking is to be considered evil. He probably used a hairbrush as well. Hurr. It's not the act or method itself, but rather the intended use and it's consequences that determine whether something is evil. Lethal injection has zero positive direct consequences. Yes, as a method of capital punishment, it indirectly may bring some level of closure to a victim's family, but in the process, you're killing someone else.
If I killed someone I should face the death penalty as well, but then again, that is my motivation not to kill anyone.
If your only motivation to not kill someone is the possibility of punishment, then you're a sociopath waiting to happen. Kohlberg says thanks for trying, but he already has enough Level 1 participants.
-
Where did he say that?
He doesn't believe in executions or killing, no matter what the person has done. He's said that in the numerous threads we've all debated in. He believes that humans shouldn't kill other humans, therefore he believes that because someone is born human they are already guaranteed some level of forgiveness for whatever they do.
I'd accept that if you hadn't said...
I do think it largely comes from the environment. If someone grows up in a gang ridden neighborhood, where gang killings occur, and this person has been surrounded by murder their entire lives, it's more likely that they'll become a killer, just because they're more desensitized to violence. There are cases where people are born with serious mental illnesses, that cause them to do things that harm others, but I think in the majority of cases the former is the problem. Sorry if that was unclear earlier.
:roll: Yes, and Hitler also used public speaking to rally his supporters. Therefore all public speaking is to be considered evil. He probably used a hairbrush as well. Hurr. It's not the act or method itself, but rather the intended use and it's consequences that determine whether something is evil. Lethal injection has zero positive direct consequences. Yes, as a method of capital punishment, it indirectly may bring some level of closure to a victim's family, but in the process, you're killing someone else.
It provides a more painless way of killing someone than the electric chair or hanging them. It honestly doesn't bother me, I'd say bring back the firing squad the noose and the guillotine if it were up to me, but that's not considered humane these days.
If your only motivation to not kill someone is the possibility of punishment, then you're a sociopath waiting to happen. Kohlberg says thanks for trying, but he already has enough Level 1 participants.
We all have our own motivations for doing or not doing things. I didn't say I'd go out and butcher people on Fridays if I couldn't get caught. But there is a person who, if I could get away with it, I would kill, and I do believe it would be for a damn good reason. You can't understand it because you aren't in my position, and you haven't been through what I have. You don't know what it's like to hate someone else, and that's why my point of view does not make sense to you, because you have never felt what I have felt.
-
I already told you that there is evidence where THEY WERE AWAKE BUT LOOKED PEACEFUL. IT ISN'T A MORE PEACEFUL WAY TO GO and you said that IT DOESN'T MATTER. Are you now changing your story?
And you briefly glossed over the fact that INNOCENT PEOPLE ARE KILLED. End of argument.
You want to go further? I don't think it's right to kill a TREE senselessly, because I don't see a tree as more or less important than a human being. "People feel pain, trees don't" Bullshit, they respond to stimuli in different ways, and while we are so far doubtful of them having consciousness, they are still a life form.
I don't think it's right to kill someone because any reason you give could be rationalized as being stupid, and then their is no way to take it back. There is almost NO way to justify the extinction of a human being, because there will always be a rational, logical, and often "true" argument against it.
-
I already told you that there is evidence where THEY WERE AWAKE BUT LOOKED PEACEFUL. IT ISN'T A MORE PEACEFUL WAY TO GO and you said that IT DOESN'T MATTER. Are you now changing your story?
I'd rather them suffer.
And you briefly glossed over the fact that INNOCENT PEOPLE ARE KILLED. End of argument.
Mistakes happen. Can't make an omlett without breaking a few eggs. Innocent people die, it's unfortunate but it happens. More innocent people are killed by criminals than are put to death by the government.
You want to go further? I don't think it's right to kill a TREE senselessly, because I don't see a tree as more or less important than a human being. "People feel pain, trees don't" Bullshit, they respond to stimuli in different ways, and while we are so far doubtful of them having consciousness, they are still a life form.
Okay? So what if it's alive? In all honesty, what does that mean to me. It's just another system in operation. If it doesn't have a consciousness I honestly see no point in keeping it alive but to serve us. Trees as a whole, make oxygen so that we can live. One tree will not be missed. I don't feel bad about sending my old laptop to be taken apart, and it's probably more complex a system than most trees.
I don't think it's right to kill someone because any reason you give could be rationalized as being stupid, and then their is no way to take it back. There is almost NO way to justify the extinction of a human being, because there will always be a rational, logical, and often "true" argument against it.
I don't think it's right to make people pay to keep their loved one's killers alive. So it's clear we are split on this issue. I could rationalize any reason you say for keeping them alive to be stupid as well. Not to mention there can also be a rational, logical, and often "true" reason to kill them. Don't get into the philosophy of debate with me here, it works both ways for both points always, or else one point would be established as a FACT, and there are clearly no FACTS that will push this one way of the other. The only fact here, is that human beings naturally seek revenge when sometimes is done to them or someone they care about. I believe that we should not give up our humanity just because we are more organized in this day and age, and I also think most of you are speaking from a very ignorant point of view, because most of you have probably never lost anyone dear to you, so you wouldn't know the feeling.
-
He believes that humans shouldn't kill other humans, therefore he believes that because someone is born human they are already guaranteed some level of forgiveness for whatever they do.
I don't believe humans should kill other humans, for whatever reason. I don't believe that forgiveness is absolute, but I also don't believe we have the right to Play God, so to speak -- and I'm an atheist. We have a legal system for a reason. It may be broken or corrupt more times than I care to think about, but there's something in place.
If someone grows up in a gang ridden neighborhood, where gang killings occur, and this person has been surrounded by murder their entire lives, it's more likely that they'll become a killer, just because they're more desensitized to violence.
My father grew up in a gang-ridden neighborhood in Chicago, and was in fact part of a gang. I don't think it's entirely true that exposure to something makes you more likely to do it, though I'll admit that can be part of it. Desensitization to violence, or anything else, makes you less likely to have a strong reaction to it. I think in neighborhoods riddled with crime, violence is unfortunately a survival technique. That same level of violence is simulated in most popular video games, by the way. (You want to talk about desensitization, there's your focus. By all means, argue against white privilege. I'm sure pb would be happy to resurrect his argument that the justice system is inherently racist.)
There are cases where people are born with serious mental illnesses, that cause them to do things that harm others, but I think in the majority of cases the former is the problem.
And in some of those mental illness cases, the defendents have no concept of right and wrong because they lack mental capacity, reasoning, and a mature morality. Even those deemed criminally insane receive punishment.
It provides a more painless way of killing someone than the electric chair or hanging them. It honestly doesn't bother me, I'd say bring back the firing squad the noose and the guillotine if it were up to me, but that's not considered humane these days.
I don't understand how, if you want someone to suffer for what pain they've caused you, you can advocate death. Even for less humane methods of capital punishment, it's still extremely short in comparison.
But there is a person who, if I could get away with it, I would kill, and I do believe it would be for a damn good reason. You can't understand it because you aren't in my position, and you haven't been through what I have. You don't know what it's like to hate someone else, and that's why my point of view does not make sense to you, because you have never felt what I have felt.
I also think most of you are speaking from a very ignorant point of view, because most of you have probably never lost anyone dear to you, so you wouldn't know the feeling.
You have no idea what I or anyone else have or have not been through. I think my implied suggestion that you seem to treasure your life and place your reasons on a higher level than you do others' is because you make statements like, "You have never felt what I have felt." Calling us ignorant only serves to strengthen that belief. Don't you dare assume that I don't know what it's like to justifiably hate someone. I'm sure your hate is justified, and I'm not discounting your desire for revenge, as it's a very human response, but using vengeance as your basis for a justice system is immature. Telling us that we have no right to argue against extreme forms of capital punishment, or against it at all, because we've (assumedly) never lost anyone is egocentric - and that's a horrible position from which to dictate far-reaching policy.
-
Mistakes happen. Can't make an omlett without breaking a few eggs. Innocent people die, it's unfortunate but it happens. More innocent people are killed by criminals than are put to death by the government.
A) I assume you are talking about OUR government, in which case I point you to look at many of the wars we have fought, including the current one, and especially WWII with the dropping of atomic weaponry on Japan.
B) Wow, what lack of concern over the death of someone. Besides the fact that we're not talking about EGGS here, we're talking about INNOCENT FUCKING PEOPLE, how is it somehow alright for the GOVERNMENT to kill an innocent person, but if I were to kill an innocent person there would be a problem? According to the death penalty, if killing an innocent person is considered murder and punishable by death, and if the GOVERNMENT and those that support it kill an innocent person, then THOSE people should also be put to death. That's just logic.
-
I don't believe humans should kill other humans, for whatever reason. I don't believe that forgiveness is absolute, but I also don't believe we have the right to Play God, so to speak -- and I'm an atheist. We have a legal system for a reason. It may be broken or corrupt more times than I care to think about, but there's something in place.
Yes, and I believe that legal system has the right to take life. Individuals humans are not playing god, a human is not making a decision to kill another human, a system is dealing out the punishment of death.
My father grew up in a gang-ridden neighborhood in Chicago, and was in fact part of a gang. I don't think it's entirely true that exposure to something makes you more likely to do it, though I'll admit that can be part of it. Desensitization to violence, or anything else, makes you less likely to have a strong reaction to it. I think in neighborhoods riddled with crime, violence is unfortunately a survival technique.
My father grew up in a mafia ridden neighborhood in Massachusetts. He was forced to resort to violence to defend himself. As a result my father was much more violent than someone like me, because I wasn't forced to grow up in that kind of situation, where I was afraid of people knifing me in the school bathroom.
That same level of violence is simulated in most popular video games, by the way. (You want to talk about desensitization, there's your focus. By all means, argue against white privilege. I'm sure pb would be happy to resurrect his argument that the justice system is inherently racist.)
And in some of those mental illness cases, the defendents have no concept of right and wrong because they lack mental capacity, reasoning, and a mature morality. Even those deemed criminally insane receive punishment.
This is off topic, and I'm beginning to notice a trend of that in this topic. I'm not sitting here defending every aspect of the legal system. I'm saying overall I support capital punishment. What degree of mental stability someone should have to have to stand trial is something I haven't given an opinion on, therefore how can you argue for or against it. Raccism, and mental instability are separate issues within the legal system. We are discussing the death penalty.
I don't understand how, if you want someone to suffer for what pain they've caused you, you can advocate death. Even for less humane methods of capital punishment, it's still extremely short in comparison.
Well personally, if I had my way I'd like to stand over the person and completely maim them beyond recognition, but I know that isn't civilized, and definitely does not belong in a civilized legal system. Basically, we differ here because of what we consider suffering. Knowing that the killer of someone I loved was going to spend their last moments huddled inside their cells, knowing they'll die, and regretting everything they've done is fine for me. It's the mental dread and fear that comes from an execution is what I consider the real punishment, and I do find it adequate. If they're simply setenced to life, those people will still have happy moments, and times of enjoyment, and that's too good for them.
You have no idea what I or anyone else have or have not been through. I think my implied suggestion that you seem to treasure your life and place your reasons on a higher level than you do others' is because you make statements like, "You have never felt what I have felt." Calling us ignorant only serves to strengthen that belief. Don't you dare assume that I don't know what it's like to justifiably hate someone. I'm sure your hate is justified, and I'm not discounting your desire for revenge, as it's a very human response, but using vengeance as your basis for a justice system is immature. Telling us that we have no right to argue against extreme forms of capital punishment, or against it at all, because we've (assumedly) never lost anyone is egocentric - and that's a horrible position from which to dictate far-reaching policy.
I think that easing the victims pain or their family and friend's pain is just what a justice system should go for. If it takes revenge to do that, I think that's what we should base it around. I don't care if you consider it immature, I consider it justified.
Lastly, do I value my life, really at all, no I don't. I really dislike my life, and would end it asap if I knew it wouldn't harm the minds and feelings of those around me, but I know it will hurt them, and so I make the decision to live, day after day. We all have different reasons for living, mine is for my family. I do value my point of reason higher than many people I agree with, because I feel it is more diverse and experienced. Obviously I'm biased, but my opinions just seems more unique, they aren't cookie cutter propaganda from some political organization, and I think that's because I see the world for what it is more than most of those around me. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it's the way things look from my perspective, probably not from yours.
-
A) I assume you are talking about OUR government, in which case I point you to look at many of the wars we have fought, including the current one, and especially WWII with the dropping of atomic weaponry on Japan.
I'm sorry, but I'm missing your point here? I'm not a heavy war supporter, but I do believe we have to defend ourselves, like Afghanistan. I don't think most wars the United States has fought in were justified, because most were for business interests, including, to my belief, the current one.
B) Wow, what lack of concern over the death of someone. Besides the fact that we're not talking about EGGS here, we're talking about INNOCENT FUCKING PEOPLE,
There are over 6 billion innocent people in this world. A few won't make much of a difference. Do I want them to die? No, of course not. But will I sacrifice closure for so many others because of a few lives? Hell no.
how is it somehow alright for the GOVERNMENT to kill an innocent person, but if I were to kill an innocent person there would be a problem?
You are one man, you are not a governing body. You as a person have a bias, a strong bias. The legal system has a duller bias. I'm sure it's there, in some places more than others, but it isn't as strong. Thus the governing body can think more clearly than you can, so it can make decisions you can't. In this case the governing body is the legal system.
According to the death penalty, if killing an innocent person is considered murder and punishable by death, and if the GOVERNMENT and those that support it kill an innocent person, then THOSE people should also be put to death. That's just logic.
Actually, homocide is the crime, and since the government is not a human it can not be convicted of homocide.
However, if there was someone withholding evidence or tampering with the jury or whatnot. Basically if there was an unethical practice by someone that sent someone who was innocent to their death I believe it should be considered murder.
-
First a couple of minor points:
1. There hasn’t been a rapist executed in the US in over 40 years. In fact, there hasn’t been anyone executed for anything other than murder in over 40 years.
2. Yates wasn’t sentenced to death. The prosecution did pursue the death penalty, but the jury rejected it. Her conviction was later overturned on grounds of insanity. She is currently in a mental hospital receiving treatment.
As I understand it, between 5-10% of death row inmates have some sort of mental illness. And, considering the rather minimalist mental competency requirements for execution, I think it is clear that there is a problem with the death penalty in those cases. I think there should be a major revamping of how the death penalty is applied and carried out to deal with the problem of mental illness, but I don’t think it necessitates to total elimination of the death penalty.
The question of whether it is acceptable for a government to kill, or even whether it is acceptable for one man to kill another is inherently a moral question. My moral standard allows for the government/man to kill in certain situations. Obviously, other people have different moral standards. Which moral standard do we follow? Well, in the US, that is where we run into the democratic aspect of our democratic republic. At present, it leans more towards Evonus’s moral standard (although, not some of the more ugly aspects of it. Furthermore, there does seem to be some shifting away from that standard in recent years).
The debate over the moral correctness of the death penalty appears to be a dead end. Aside from the morality of the death penalty, there is its legality and practicality. In the US, at present, it is legal. I doubt our founding fathers would think the death penalty cruel or unusual (however, I am not a strict constitutionalist, so I don’t really care what our floundering fathers would think). As for the practicality of the death penalty, I question it…
-
If we can't treat it, it's unfortunate, but we can't treat it.
This is exactly why I brought up the cancer example. There are things we can't cure. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try. I understand cancer victims do not pose a risk to others. It was just an example to illustrate a principle. And if I follow your logic, then someone who has a deadly decease that can spread from person to person airborn, then they should be killed because A - We can't treat it, and B - They pose a risk to others. That's just ridiculous, yet that is your logic.
People are defined by their actions, not their birth, at least in my mind, obviously not in yours.
Actually, I never voiced an opinion regarding being born a certain way. I just asked a question about it so I guess it's not obvious after all...
Some things can't be changed after a while, some things are permanent.
You don't know that for sure.
You don't know what its like to lose someone
You presume a lot of things. You don't know anything about me or my life experiences.
It's the least that can be done to ease their pain.
First, I'm not convince that vengence is the best way to ease someone's pain. (Just ask Batman! OMFGLOL!!!)
Let's say you had a brother that was murdered. And let's say you had the power to decide if his killer should be put to death or should be locked up for life. If you decide death, it's a decision that you'll have to live for with the rest of your life. In 10 years, maybe you'll regret that decision and it will cause you serious problems in life.
I'm not saying it capital punishement cannot ease someone's pain, but I will say it's not a universal effect. It can even cause further damage to the surviving victims in some cases. And when you say it's the least that could be done, that's not true. There are plenty of other things that can be done, including therapy to deal with the anger. Some turn to religion for answers. Some even forgive. Your view of things is too black and white.
-
Mistakes happen. Can't make an omlett without breaking a few eggs. Innocent people die, it's unfortunate but it happens.
Maybe the criminals should use this argument. I mean, if it can work against them, why couldn't it work for them. Unless... Oh I don't know... you had double standards? :-o
-
I think that easing the victims pain or their family and friend's pain is just what a justice system should go for.
Justice should be unbiased to personal emotion.
I mean, if it can work against them, why couldn't it work for them. Unless... Oh I don't know... you had double standards?
Bingo.
-
This is exactly why I brought up the cancer example. There are things we can't cure. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try. I understand cancer victims do not pose a risk to others. It was just an example to illustrate a principle. And if I follow your logic, then someone who has a deadly decease that can spread from person to person airborn, then they should be killed because A - We can't treat it, and B - They pose a risk to others. That's just ridiculous, yet that is your logic.
Actually, I agree with that. Killing the person would prevent a spreading of the infection. It's a sacrifice for the greater good.
First, I'm not convince that vengence is the best way to ease someone's pain. (Just ask Batman! OMFGLOL!!!)
It gives people a sense of closure knowing that their loved one's killer has been found caught and is suffering. Like I said, I consider the death penalty the highest form of suffering so it makes sense for me to support the death penalty for this.
Let's say you had a brother that was murdered. And let's say you had the power to decide if his killer should be put to death or should be locked up for life. If you decide death, it's a decision that you'll have to live for with the rest of your life. In 10 years, maybe you'll regret that decision and it will cause you serious problems in life.
But I don't get to make the decision in this system. I am blame free. The most I could possibly do would be to have me testify against the person if I knew anything.
I'm not saying it capital punishement cannot ease someone's pain, but I will say it's not a universal effect. It can even cause further damage to the surviving victims in some cases. And when you say it's the least that could be done, that's not true. There are plenty of other things that can be done, including therapy to deal with the anger. Some turn to religion for answers. Some even forgive. Your view of things is too black and white.
I look at things in favour of what the majority would want, and what's good for the greatest amount of people. All the things you used can still be adhered to and tried, but there is nothing that can replace a sense of closure.
-
It's a sacrifice for the greater good.
Wouldn't the greater good "thing to do" be to isolate the sick people as a prevention to non sick people while spending efforts on finding a cure to get rid of the decease completely? In this scenario, if 200,000 person were infected per year, you would choose to kill them. This would go on indefinately, and probably lead up to an epidemic where more and more people get infected. And you would simply kill them in the name of the greater good. Under your system, let's say we kill one million individuals in a 10 year period. After then years, we still have the same problem. No progress was made, yet a million lives were lost. What if we have invested in research for the last 10 years instead and had finally found a cure. Then, we'd be at the same point in time, yet under my system, the actual problem would have been dealt with. You don't deal with the problem. You attack a symptom of the problem and it doesn't solve anything.
I look at things in favour of what the majority would want, and what's good for the greatest amount of people. All the things you used can still be adhered to and tried, but there is nothing that can replace a sense of closure.
Obviously, the majority doesn't want capital punishement since we're moving away from it as time progresses and as we evolve. I agree with you that closure is very important. I'm just saying closure can be reached without the destruction of another life. There are other ways.
-
Justifying something by saying the majority wants it is a logical fallacy:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html
Also, another logical fallacy mentioned:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/two-wrongs-make-a-right.html
Interestingly enough, one of the examples taken for the two-wrongs-make-a-right fallacy involves capital punishment.
-
Evonus hasn’t claimed that the will/approval/belief of the majority supercede the laws of physics.
Evonus hasn’t claimed that killing is wrong. Only that killing under certain circumstances is wrong. The State does not kill under the same circumstances. It does not have the same motive. It does not have the same intent.
Also, if you consider the State as a macrocosm of the individual, then the stated exception to the “two-wrongs-make-a-right” fallacy would apply.
-
Wouldn't the greater good "thing to do" be to isolate the sick people as a prevention to non sick people while spending efforts on finding a cure to get rid of the decease completely? In this scenario, if 200,000 person were infected per year, you would choose to kill them. This would go on indefinately, and probably lead up to an epidemic where more and more people get infected. And you would simply kill them in the name of the greater good. Under your system, let's say we kill one million individuals in a 10 year period. After then years, we still have the same problem. No progress was made, yet a million lives were lost. What if we have invested in research for the last 10 years instead and had finally found a cure. Then, we'd be at the same point in time, yet under my system, the actual problem would have been dealt with. You don't deal with the problem. You attack a symptom of the problem and it doesn't solve anything.
If you kill the first ten people that appear with the disease and dispose of their remains, you will prevent the possibility of a contamination leak from ever happening. If you kill it at its source it may never even emerge again. That's the point of a quarantine and extermination.
Not to mention, you need to realize, overpopulation is a problem. We don't need or have room for as many people as are alive. Also, there are perfectly healthy people in third world countries that are starving to death because we are wasting all of our resources on worthless lives that will never amount to anything.
Obviously, the majority doesn't want capital punishment since we're moving away from it as time progresses and as we evolve. I agree with you that closure is very important. I'm just saying closure can be reached without the destruction of another life. There are other ways.
If the majority didn't want it, it would have been outlawed already. There is no need to resort to other ways. Why take the long way, when you can keep it simple and quick. We don't need to waste massive resources on criminals. They're social garbage. I mean, if someone is in for theft or something, they can be reformed and helped and put back into society, so they're worth the resources. But giving someone life means that they can not be saved. We're just wasting time food and money taking care of them till the day their miserable lives end. It's pointless.
-
We need to exile criminals to obscure places in the world so they can never make it back to society again. It worked well for the British when they exiled Napoleon to Saint Helena back in 1815.
Maybe even Mars.
-
If you kill the first ten people that appear with the disease and dispose of their remains, you will prevent the possibility of a contamination leak from ever happening. If you kill it at its source it may never even emerge again. That's the point of a quarantine and extermination.
Not to mention, you need to realize, overpopulation is a problem. We don't need or have room for as many people as are alive. Also, there are perfectly healthy people in third world countries that are starving to death because we are wasting all of our resources on worthless lives that will never amount to anything.
If the majority didn't want it, it would have been outlawed already. There is no need to resort to other ways. Why take the long way, when you can keep it simple and quick. We don't need to waste massive resources on criminals. They're social garbage. I mean, if someone is in for theft or something, they can be reformed and helped and put back into society, so they're worth the resources. But giving someone life means that they can not be saved. We're just wasting time food and money taking care of them till the day their miserable lives end. It's pointless.
I don't believe in traditional prisons, so I'm not going to argue that the prison system IS work the resources (I don't think that it is). However I think that there are quite a few people who have killed others and still reformed, and went on to do good. Who is to say what constitutes a worthwhile existance anyway?
-
We need to exile criminals to obscure places in the world so they can never make it back to society again. It worked well for the British when they exiled Napoleon to Saint Helena back in 1815.
Maybe even Mars.
That's actually a lot like the system I spent some time working on this weekend.
-
As if you could somehow find the single source of the disease and destroy it before animals and such pick it up and spread it around. One of the biggest risks now adays is that people travel all over, so it can be very hard to stop an outbreak.
But beyond that, the reason the rest of the world is hungry is NOT because we are using all our food to feed people "not worth living", but because we AREN'T GIVING THEM FOOD. We waste tons and tons of food, or instead it goes to create wines and such, and it's not being eaten by ANYONE. Why do we do this? Because with the rush of this food onto the market, the value would go down, among other things. Yay for capitalism!
It would probably be better if we could get the countries to make their own food, of course, but the problem is that a lot of the land tends to be unfarmable. (Why don't they move? Perhaps for the same reason you don't have to move or farm... they assume someone else will supply the food some other way.)
-
You could fix all this by actually making the prisoners in "for life" support their OWN asses; in addition to performing some service required by society. Something a bit more meaningful than picking up trash or stamping out tags. How about we make the prisoners farm a boatload of food to ship out to needy people. Have Habitat for Humanity come by and pick up a few to do some digging and mixing concrete on these Houses for the Homeless project- which could also be funded in part ( in addition to other charities/projects) by the money the OTHER prisoners make when we put their asses to work actually DOING something instead of fucking and stabbing each other and lifting weights.
Prison these days in the US is a fucking JOKE. No- Im not saying it's a nice, easy place to be - Im saying we have a fricken TON of resources RIGHT THERE that we dont use; yet we expect the families of the victims of these same people (in addition to every other law-abiding, tax-paying citizen) to fund their currently useless existence. Hell- it oughta be the other way around; the prisoner in for life should work 7 / 12's at a real job and the money he would have made goes straight to the family. Let him support THEM for a damn change. But HELL NOES!!! That shit makes waaaay too much sense.
Reform's AZZ. They dont need to be 'reformed' (the Life sentences / death sentences)- they need to be put to work. We should squeeze every little bit of resource out of these people before they do die. THEN you can say "Life Imprisonment" makes sense and the death penalty doesn't. Currently; neither is put to use efficiently. Actually; neither is put to "use" at all - they are "implemented", with no REAL gain for anyone.
-
I like your idea of making the offenders having to support the victim's family, 12. That idea makes a lot more sense than having them pick up garbage, or some other menial job that we commonly see them doing. Though, the sad part is, I don't think anyone in Congress will go for that idea. :?
-
Yeh, MAKING them work under duress for the benefit of others is too close to slavery to fly here. Pity.
-
You could fix all this by actually making the prisoners in "for life" support their OWN asses; in addition to performing some service required by society. Something a bit more meaningful than picking up trash or stamping out tags. How about we make the prisoners farm a boatload of food to ship out to needy people. Have Habitat for Humanity come by and pick up a few to do some digging and mixing concrete on these Houses for the Homeless project- which could also be funded in part ( in addition to other charities/projects) by the money the OTHER prisoners make when we put their asses to work actually DOING something instead of fucking and stabbing each other and lifting weights.
Prison these days in the US is a fucking JOKE. No- Im not saying it's a nice, easy place to be - Im saying we have a fricken TON of resources RIGHT THERE that we dont use; yet we expect the families of the victims of these same people (in addition to every other law-abiding, tax-paying citizen) to fund their currently useless existence. Hell- it oughta be the other way around; the prisoner in for life should work 7 / 12's at a real job and the money he would have made goes straight to the family. Let him support THEM for a damn change. But HELL NOES!!! That shit makes waaaay too much sense.
Reform's AZZ. They dont need to be 'reformed' (the Life sentences / death sentences)- they need to be put to work. We should squeeze every little bit of resource out of these people before they do die. THEN you can say "Life Imprisonment" makes sense and the death penalty doesn't. Currently; neither is put to use efficiently. Actually; neither is put to "use" at all - they are "implemented", with no REAL gain for anyone.
If a system like this were put in place I could care less whether there was a capital punishment or not. So yes, in my opinion, this is a great idea. 12 for prez 2008!
-
As if you could somehow find the single source of the disease and destroy it before animals and such pick it up and spread it around. One of the biggest risks now adays is that people travel all over, so it can be very hard to stop an outbreak.
So you quarantine the area where it comes from and cleanse it. It isn't that hard with the kind of communications in this century.
But beyond that, the reason the rest of the world is hungry is NOT because we are using all our food to feed people "not worth living", but because we AREN'T GIVING THEM FOOD. We waste tons and tons of food, or instead it goes to create wines and such, and it's not being eaten by ANYONE. Why do we do this? Because with the rush of this food onto the market, the value would go down, among other things. Yay for capitalism!
Actually, the government paying farmers to not sell their crops is actually a socialist program. It was first enacted under FDR as a method to curb farmer poverty in the great depression so that they wouldn't lose their farms and the country wouldn't starve to death. If it were capitalist, they'd be still selling their crops and driving down each others prices.
-
So you quarantine the area where it comes from and cleanse it. It isn't that hard with the kind of communications in this century.
But somebody has to report it first. Suppose a brand new and extremely contagious disease were to break out, but starting out the symptoms aren't that different from a cold or something like that. It turns out that said disease is fatal after a few weeks or so. With modern transport technology you could certainly have a carrier of the disease pass it all across the world before you even recognized the problem. Communications are worth nothing without accurate information.
-
But somebody has to report it first. Suppose a brand new and extremely contagious disease were to break out, but starting out the symptoms aren't that different from a cold or something like that. It turns out that said disease is fatal after a few weeks or so. With modern transport technology you could certainly have a carrier of the disease pass it all across the world before you even recognized the problem. Communications are worth nothing without accurate information.
Okay, how does this have anything to do with the analogy that was being used? This is irrelevant in relation to what was being said.
-
It was in response to the statement that anybody suffering from a disease should be euthanized to prevent the transmission of said disease, and I was pointing out the logistical fallacy of such an approach nowadays.
-
12 for prez 2008!
Y'all SERIOUSLY do NOT want me as President. I'd actually fix some shit up in here; and not give a flying DAMN about "image" or re-election. Yeh; I got a few ideas.
Here's one: Cut costs in training new recruits by shutting down all the Rifle Qualifying Ranges on all military posts. The same training can be achieved for free at the border; in addition to stemming the flow of illegals coming in. But how will our troops learn to hit a target travelling away from their firing position? you ask. That's where our trusty child-predators-who-think-they-are-being-released-to-Mexico come in. Or ..."go out"; however you wanna look at it. Those can be left lying where they fall to support wildlife as well as function as a deterrent to illegal border crossings in that area. In the meantime, training can proceed for our intelligence personnel by infiltration into the businesses hiring said illegals; our MPs can get training arresting and booking the owners of aforementioned businesses... So it's military Police instead of civillian. Wah.
Enough of the pussy-footing around in Iraq. We took it; it's ours now. Why do we keep attempting to "install" "friendly" governments, "allies" in the war on a method. . . . Just annex the goddamn wasteland for crying out loud. Troops on foreign soil - problem solved.
US dependance on foreign oil - problem solved.
A stabilizing presence in the area - (and yes; it WOULD be a stabilizing presence if I did it) - problem solved.
A .45 chunk of STFU for the bridge between Jong-Il's eyes - problem solved.
Oh...China!!! you say. Hmm. I think that can be solved by giving them North Korea. The "Chinese Peninsula". "Here ya go, ferras; you can have it."
-
Y'all SERIOUSLY do NOT want me as President. I'd actually fix some shit up in here; and not give a flying DAMN about "image" or re-election. Yeh; I got a few ideas.
Here's one: Cut costs in training new recruits by shutting down all the Rifle Qualifying Ranges on all military posts. The same training can be achieved for free at the border; in addition to stemming the flow of illegals coming in. But how will our troops learn to hit a target travelling away from their firing position? you ask. That's where our trusty child-predators-who-think-they-are-being-released-to-Mexico come in. Or ..."go out"; however you wanna look at it. Those can be left lying where they fall to support wildlife as well as function as a deterrent to illegal border crossings in that area. In the meantime, training can proceed for our intelligence personnel by infiltration into the businesses hiring said illegals; our MPs can get training arresting and booking the owners of aforementioned businesses... So it's military Police instead of civillian. Wah.
Enough of the pussy-footing around in Iraq. We took it; it's ours now. Why do we keep attempting to "install" "friendly" governments, "allies" in the war on a method. . . . Just annex the goddamn wasteland for crying out loud. Troops on foreign soil - problem solved.
US dependance on foreign oil - problem solved.
A stabilizing presence in the area - (and yes; it WOULD be a stabilizing presence if I did it) - problem solved.
A .45 chunk of STFU for the bridge between Jong-Il's eyes - problem solved.
Oh...China!!! you say. Hmm. I think that can be solved by giving them North Korea. The "Chinese Peninsula". "Here ya go, ferras; you can have it."
You're a little to violent for my tastes on everything but the prison issue.
-
Yeh, well. . . they say I tend to exagerate a bit. Occasionally.
-
Yeh, well. . . they say I tend to exagerate a bit. Occasionally.
An honest politician is a national calamity.
-
Good idea on the prison thing, though.
-
Hehe.. my virulent post is, of course, a bit extreme. Obviously most of these I wouldn't even be ABLE to accomplish; even if it was tried. My point is, though, there is waaaaay too much dumbassery, incompetence, small-mindedness, partisanship, pettiness, and personal agendas - among about a book of other distasteful characteristics - that are the normal run of the day in our Capitol. I dont mean just the Executive Branch, either.
So many things could be done ( like my prison idea ) if . . . eh. Fuck it. Lemme go wash this shit out of my other hand. It's full.
I could, of course, go on and on (and on); but . . . why. Just gets me all irritated and negatived out; I dont need that shit, lol. Things wont change. Not until society changes; and IF that happens, it will, of course, be over such a long time I'm sure to miss it. But I dont really have that much confidence/faith in Mankind anyway.