Death Penalty
Started by: Cook | Replies: 51 | Views: 4,415 | Closed
Mar 12, 2012 8:54 PM #615148
Let me bring up the "When does one have the rightful authority over the life and death of other people" thing again.
Mar 12, 2012 9:15 PM #615159
Quote from FusionI'm against it in all situations, for several reasons.
-There have been murderers given life sentences who have honestly regretted their actions and donate to charity and write books and shit. Just because someone has done a single really bad thing doesn't mean it's impossible for them to ever do anything good.
-Most murders are impulsive. People who kill a single person or a couple almost 100% of the time are doing so because they're under adverse mental or emotional stress. Everyone makes mistakes, but they have a variety of different outcomes, some of which are 'people dying'. I don't think this issue is solved by killing the person who did it.
-Money. Like Zed mentioned earlier, it's cheaper in the long run to just keep someone in prison for several years~the rest of their life.
-If killing people is bad, then how can you solve it by killing even more people? How is it that any one person is so fucking great that they have authority over life and death?
-Contrary to the beliefs of Down Home Southern Boys and distraught families, people can change; murderers can be *reformed*. It's happened before.
If you're talking about these points, the kind of person who plans out how he'll kill some 60 people, and who openly laughs off the idea that it's immoral doesn't strike me as a person who we could reasonably expect to be reformable.
When this person is such a threat to society, has basically no way of reforming, and would be more expensive to keep alive in a prison cell (and of course, we know he did it etc.), I think it's reasonable to have the death penalty as an option. Mainly my idea is that I dislike that there's no difference in punishment for selling a lot of drugs and going on a killing spree.
As for the "rightful authority", there's basically no difference between killing someone and putting them in prison for life, you're still controlling their lives completely. Or, alternatively, the answer would be: "When they have first exerted their unrightful authority over the life and death of other people."
Mar 13, 2012 12:33 AM #615262
Quote from godmouthIf you're talking about these points, the kind of person who plans out how he'll kill some 60 people, and who openly laughs off the idea that it's immoral doesn't strike me as a person who we could reasonably expect to be reformable.
When this person is such a threat to society, has basically no way of reforming, and would be more expensive to keep alive in a prison cell (and of course, we know he did it etc.), I think it's reasonable to have the death penalty as an option. Mainly my idea is that I dislike that there's no difference in punishment for selling a lot of drugs and going on a killing spree.
You never know. Anyone can change. The Son of Sam is a good example.
As for the "rightful authority", there's basically no difference between killing someone and putting them in prison for life, you're still controlling their lives completely.
It makes a big difference. You can still see family members and of course you still have your life.
Or, alternatively, the answer would be: "When they have first exerted their unrightful authority over the life and death of other people."
"an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
Mar 13, 2012 6:48 AM #615388
Quote from PreserveYou never know. Anyone can change. The Son of Sam is a good example.
Even if this guy did change, there's no way anyone could be reasonably expected to accept that he's free and is on the streets. The guy you're referring to was clearly insane, he believed his neighbor's dog was possessed by a demon and that it told him to kill people. Breivik knew very well what he was doing, and planned it for a long time.
It makes a big difference. You can still see family members and of course you still have your life.
Except this guy is going in isolation, which means he can't see them. The only thing he has left is to think, and while that is pretty big, what I meant is that we are still exerting authority over every part of his life.
"an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
Quotes don't make for good arguments. Also, I'm not saying an eye for an eye, but I am saying that we should punish people proportional to what their crimes are, and if two people have committed different crimes, but one is much worse than the other, he deserves a much worse punishment.
Typing so that editing will allow me to edit.
Mar 13, 2012 7:17 AM #615396
everyone is way too obsessed with being alive
Mar 13, 2012 7:47 AM #615399
Oh, so you want to die?
Mar 13, 2012 8:45 AM #615415
that is not even close to what i said. reread my post.
Mar 13, 2012 12:44 PM #615469
Quote from godmouthTyping so that editing will allow me to edit.
Even if this guy did change, there's no way anyone could be reasonably expected to accept that he's free and is on the streets.
No, but at least he still has his life.
The guy you're referring to was clearly insane, he believed his neighbor's dog was possessed by a demon and that it told him to kill people. Breivik knew very well what he was doing, and planned it for a long time.
He WAS. Now he's not. Hence, people change.
Except this guy is going in isolation, which means he can't see them. The only thing he has left is to think, and while that is pretty big, what I meant is that we are still exerting authority over every part of his life.
You do know that family members are allowed to visit them in jail from time to time? And it's not like they are chained in some torture basement. They are allowed to move and have some freedom like, read and use the bathroom.
Quotes don't make for good arguments.
I wasn't really trying to make an argument there. I was just stating that I don't believe in revenge or retribution.
Also, I'm not saying an eye for an eye, but I am saying that we should punish people proportional to what their crimes are, and if two people have committed different crimes, but one is much worse than the other, he deserves a much worse punishment.
I agree. I just believe that we shouldn't go as far as the death penalty.
Mar 13, 2012 3:11 PM #615526
So why do you consider a quick death "revenge" in a way that somehow makes it worse than life in prison? You're spending decades in a small cell, deprived of all pleasures, luxuries, freedom and privacy, with nothing to look forward to except the day you inevitably die from some other causes.
I don't understand how accepting that, but abhorring the death penalty, doesn't cause some serious cognitive dissonance.
I don't understand how accepting that, but abhorring the death penalty, doesn't cause some serious cognitive dissonance.
Mar 13, 2012 5:36 PM #615587
Quote from PreserveExcept this guy is going in isolation, which means he can't see them.
You do know that family members are allowed to visit them in jail from time to time?
Except this guy is going in isolation, which means he can't see them.
The "except" being there to highlight the unusual circumstances, I would assume.
Mar 13, 2012 6:56 PM #615632
Quote from ExilementSo why do you consider a quick death "revenge" in a way that somehow makes it worse than life in prison? You're spending decades in a small cell, deprived of all pleasures, luxuries, freedom and privacy, with nothing to look forward to except the day you inevitably die from some other causes.
I don't understand how accepting that, but abhorring the death penalty, doesn't cause some serious cognitive dissonance.
It's revenge not because it's worse for the individual, even though whether or not it's worse for them is debatable. It's revenge because they're doing it out of hate. Where sending them to prison is just detaining them from society.
Mar 13, 2012 7:04 PM #615638
What makes you think anyone involved with the death penalty has a personal vendetta or grudge against the prisoners they execute?
Mar 13, 2012 8:20 PM #615685
What makes you think anyone involved with the death penalty has a personal vendetta or grudge against the prisoners they execute?
It's implied by the definition capital punishment. What other reason would they want to kill someone for a crime they did?
Mar 13, 2012 8:24 PM #615690
Well, I imagine the executioners get paid.
Mar 13, 2012 8:56 PM #615712
Quote from ZedWell, I imagine the executioners get paid.
Do you justify that? "I'm getting paid, therefore said person should be executed."