2 pages ago. I was joking. Okay serious time.

I personally think that the death penalty is something that society has the freedom to bring down on someone IF the situation is dire enough. Some things like murder, theft, ECT. should result in death but only to a certain extent. And police and people exersize this thought perfectly, so I don't have much to complain about. I don't think its wrong for a psycopath to die. He's mentally ill and cannot be helped. Period. And thats why there sent off, there mentally unhealthy causing them to preform the actions that they would (Murder, Rape, so on and so forth)

Now. Jumping into a whole diffrent ocean. And through the cause of making myself look like an insufferable idiot. On the bus ride home today the thought struck me after going to through this thread. (Note: The following statement is a matter of opinion and bears very little relevance to the topic discussed)

My idea is this: If you were to ask anyone if murder was wrong. They would of course say yes. Although the reason they would say that is due to the influence of society. We invented the english language as well as the meanings

bad [ bad ]
1.of poor quality: below an acceptable standard in quality or performance
2.unskillful: lacking the skill or competence to perform a task adequately
3.not functioning properly: not functioning properly because of a fault

good [ good ]
1.of high quality: of a high quality or standard, either on an absolute scale or in relation to another or others
2.suitable: having the appropriate qualities to be something or to fit a purpose
3.skilled: possessing the necessary skill or talent to do something

The concept of "Good" and "bad" were decided by society and humanity. So in reality. There is no true defining term for what IS good or bad. Who knows? In reality Rape is "good" or giving a tip to a waitress is "bad" We only consider these things the opposite to be bad/good because those were the morals that WE made as a society. Who knows, perhaps a psycopath actually has understandable morals that are actually GOOD. We just interpret it as a bad thing just because over time socitey made that moral engraved in the human mind for their later generations.

This is JUST a thought. I don't actually believe this due to it being so outlandish. The thought just crossed my mind.

Quote from Exilement

I'm confused by your "no" response, what I said wasn't incorrect.

Sorry, I was agreeing with you in saying that No, it's not the same.

No, it's not. I made it very clear in my post that the term "murder" is not something you can throw around according to your own personal interpretation of it. This is a debate about law, and when it comes to legal matters the definitions of words are extremely important.

I'm not sure if this is a debate about law, but rather if the death penalty is okay. But okay the death penalty is not considered murder only because the definition is the "unlawful" killing," which is the only difference. But I don't think we should have moral views based solely on the law as laws can be corrupt as well.

Creating hypothetical scenarios around what you think murder is/should be immediately invalidates your argument on the simple basis of the word's definition.
If you think that's a logical conclusion, then explain your logic. There are many ways I could explain why your conclusion is wrong, but it'd help to understand why you think it's right.

Okay so let's forget about the semantics of murder and argue whether it's okay to have the death penalty. To explain further I was trying to show how the death penalty can be hypocritical. Basically if they would allow the death penalty then they should allow people to kill murderers if they are proven to know that the person they killed was a murderer. This of course will never happen. No one's going to say "Oh you killed that murderer. Good job, you can get off scott free". They are going to put him in jail too. Maybe not the best analogy but yeah.

Edit: Just read the last few pages of this thread and feel kind of stupid as it sounds like I'm repeating other people.

uhm for me they can decide for the death penalty during the prosecution thingy i mean the time when they all meet up in the court right?

Quote from Preserve

I'm not sure if this is a debate about law, but rather if the death penalty is okay. But okay the death penalty is not considered murder only because the definition is the "unlawful" killing," which is the only difference. But I don't think we should have moral views based solely on the law as laws can be corrupt as well.

Right, but when people are saying the death penalty is bad because they think the punishment is exactly the same as the crime being punished, they're wrong. My views aren't based solely on the law, but it does help to understand it.

Quote from Preserve

Okay so let's forget about the semantics of murder and argue whether it's okay to have the death penalty. To explain further I was trying to show how the death penalty can be hypocritical. Basically if they would allow the death penalty then they should allow people to kill murderers if they are proven to know that the person they killed was a murderer.

So what's the alternative? Life in prison? Why can't that be turned into some absurd, hypothetical situation like this one? If we allow life imprisonment, we should allow ordinary people to lock murderers up in a cage. But we don't, and never will. Does that make it hypocrisy? I don't think so. Society leaves it up to the courts to determine a person's fate according to the word of law, that doesn't mean we should logically give that power to individual citizens as well.

Quote from Exilement

Right, but when people are saying the death penalty is bad because they think the punishment is exactly the same as the crime being punished, they're wrong. My views aren't based solely on the law, but it does help to understand it.

Why would they be wrong? What's the difference between a citizen killing someone that the law killing someone?

So what's the alternative? Life in prison? Why can't that be turned into some absurd, hypothetical situation like this one? If we allow life imprisonment, we should allow ordinary people to lock murderers up in a cage. But we don't, and never will. Does that make it hypocrisy? I don't think so. Society leaves it up to the courts to determine a person's fate according to the word of law, that doesn't mean we should logically give that power to individual citizens as well.

They kind of do. You know the jury?

Well, APPARENTLY.. The law is good and the law is right

Quote from Preserve

Why would they be wrong? What's the difference between a citizen killing someone that the law killing someone?

Uh, when a person kills someone for malicious reasons, and they're put to death as a punishment, there's a pretty big difference. Intentions matter.

Quote from Preserve

They kind of do. You know the jury?

I'm confused, juries are used in murder cases as well, so are you agreeing that the scenarios are equatable and your point isn't a specific criticism of the death penalty?

I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make.

Quote from Preserve

Why would they be wrong? What's the difference between a citizen killing someone that the law killing someone?

Uh, when a person kills someone for malicious reasons, and they're put to death as a punishment, there's a pretty big difference. Intentions matter.

Quote from Preserve

They kind of do. You know the jury?

I'm confused, juries are used in murder cases as well, so are you agreeing that the scenarios are equatable and your point isn't a specific criticism of the death penalty?

I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make.

Quote from Exilement

Uh, when a person kills someone for malicious reasons, and they're put to death as a punishment, there's a pretty big difference. Intentions matter.

I'd argue that the death penalty isn't used as punishment, but more of revenge which makes the death penalty just as bad as the murderers they condemn. Why use the death penalty as punishment when prison suffices?

I'm confused, juries are used in murder cases as well, so are you agreeing that the scenarios are equatable and your point isn't a specific criticism of the death penalty

I don't think that the scenarios are equatable at all. One takes life, the other one doesn't.

I think the death penalty is fair and just.I believe that you are not supposed to learn from your mistakes. Your supposed to endure the penalty. I believe its called a death penalty and not the death punishment for a reason. Though the line between punishment and a penalty isn't that thick, I think there is a difference. For a punishment, your supposed to learn from your mistakes, but from a penalty, not really. You have been penalized for doing bad things in life.And its the utlimate penalty, death.(but again, I could be wrong, but its just what I think personally.)

And Exilement, I believed ingorant was a synonym for illiterate because thats wat google said, no i know its not.)

Quote from Preserve

I'd argue that the death penalty isn't used as punishment, but more of revenge which makes the death penalty just as bad as the murderers they condemn.

I already responded to this. By definition, any sort of punishment for a crime can be considered "revenge", so again you are criticizing the death penalty for something that's non-specific to it.

Quote from Preserve

Why use the death penalty as punishment when prison suffices?

I'm fine with either. You're the one against the death penalty. So, why not?

Quote from Alien Anims

@Camila No its not, what if they are taking loans?Do you know the whole point of school Camila?Its so you can learn shit and be HELPFUL to SOCIETY. If your murdering people and wasting money, especialy in our horrible economy situation(america). You need to kick the bucket.Becuase all your doing is killing others who COULD help society. And to every body else,execution isnt a punishment.Its a penalty,(which makes no sense, since they are interelated) so that means you suffer, your not supposed learn.Hence the name, death PENALTY. Its like in soccer, if you foul somebody in the box, with no ball contact first(yes, i watch soccer) its a penalty. The refferee doesnt give you another chance. Thats the whole point, your not supposed to be given another chance with the death penalty.

You just die.

Ahem, I believe THIS is where you say that? Your childish attempt to insult me has kind of backfired now, hasn't it?

@Exilement: okay, perhaps I WAS a bit hyperbolic there. HOWEVER, look at it this way; why to people form societies? Because it is useful to do so. Why is it useful to do so? Because it is mutually beneficial to the individuals involved. Societies are formed because they are beneficial to individuals. So I would argue that the main purpose of society is to benefit individuals. And yes, places like North Korea might disagree, however the reason for this can be found mainly in the self interest of the rulers, and is therefore a largely on-sided opinion.

Furthermore, I would argue that punishment (I use his word loosely) isn't intended primarily as revenge; that would be relatively pointless, revenge in and of itself is a rather pointless exercise.
Instead, I believe punishment exists for a few main reasons:
1) To protect society: by locking away or killing harmful individuals, we prevent them from harming society further.
2) To reform criminals: by rehabilitating criminals, we can prevent them from doing harm again when they are reintroduced to society.
3) To act as a deterrent (links in with punishment as revenge): if people know they will be heavily punished for doing a particular action, they will be less likely to perform that action.

I think the only reason that punishment (loose term) should be thought of as retribution for a crime is that doing so deters criminals. Retribution as retribution alone has very little benefit to society or its members; individuals aren't made more safe, protected from crimes any more, if vengeance is fulfilled. There is no benefit from retribution. However we do benefit from the fact that people are deterred by punishment, that bad people are prevented from getting out and harming us ect.

Am I making sense?

Walker. Saying that punishing criminals will likely reduce repetition of the crime is silly. For example, TI has been busted like,12 times for selling crack in his neighboorhood and sometimes criminals in fact start to hate people more for imprisoning them in fact, I will go find the percentage of criminals who do change from pun ishment.

It's not necessary to apply a death penalty if we can let the criminals rot to death in a jail, and make them work inside the jail to don't let it be a total "waste" of money

Government can't decide if take someone's life or not D:

Quote from _camila_

It's not necessary to apply a death penalty if we can let the criminals rot to death in a jail, and make them work inside the jail to don't let it be a total "waste" of money

Government can't decide if take someone's life or not D:

but what can u say about jailbreak? xD hahahaha

anyways i love ur pic on ur clan ^_^ so epic!!!