Quote from Exilement

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.

Sure any punishment could be "considered" revenge at first sight. But once you get into you can pretty much tell the motivation behind the punishment.

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

Like I said before, One takes life, the other one doesn't.

i realized i was really wrong when i said that the killer should suffer as well...but he still "condemned" to death !

Quote from Preserve

Sure any punishment could be "considered" revenge at first sight. But once you get into you can pretty much tell the motivation behind the punishment.

If you don't want to take the time to explain your reasoning, just say so, because I'm getting a little tired of asking for more detail. This isn't something I can respond to.

You said you're against the death penalty because you think it's revenge, but you agree that the alternatives are as well, so why support one over the other?

Quote from Preserve

Like I said before, One takes life, the other one doesn't.

Both punishments lock someone in a cell for the rest of their lives. Life imprisonment "takes life" just as much as the death penalty, it just takes a few decades longer, so why is that preferable?

Quote from Exilement

If you don't want to take the time to explain your reasoning, just say so, because I'm getting a little tired of asking for more detail. This isn't something I can respond to.

Okay, basically any punishment can seem like revenge, but that doesn't mean it actually is. I think it's fallacious to say that two different kinds of punishment can have the same motivation just because punishments in general can seem to have a single motivation at first glance.

You said you're against the death penalty because you think it's revenge, but you agree that the alternatives are as well, so why support one over the other?

I never said the alternatives were revenge, just the death penalty is. As I said twice before, my whole concern is about taking these people's life. You can prevent criminals from committing crimes by sending them to prison so they won't be a menace to society, without killing them. The death penalty isn't needed.

Both punishments lock someone in a cell for the rest of their lives. Life imprisonment "takes life" just as much as the death penalty, it just takes a few decades longer, so why is that preferable?

This is like saying "I'm going to die eventually so I might as well kill myself now." This is silly because you know that you have the rest of your life and wan't to make the best of it. The same can be applied to people in prison. Sure, it may not be the best place in prison, but at least they still have their life and they still have some freedoms. Heck, even some can change and try to benefit society behind prison with the little freedom they have left.

A great example is a serial killer by the name of David Berkowitz AKA The Son of Sam. If you haven't heard of him, then look him up. Here's hour long video of an interview with him. Whenever you have the time check it out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwL4LyGg3TI

I'm quite fond of the concept of exile. If someone has committed a heinous crime, and has been deemed unfit to live in society, they should be 'kicked out'. The prisons should be left and used as correctional facilities, not a place to store people 'left to rot', and the exiled can then do what they want, if they want to change, they can, if they want to repeat offense, then they are only hurting other criminals.

Although I'm fond of this idea, it has way to many holes and problems in itself (where do we put them, who stops the rich from escaping ect.) to make it a viable option. But i think i would prefer this over the death penalty.

Quote from Exilement

Both punishments lock someone in a cell for the rest of their lives. Life imprisonment "takes life" just as much as the death penalty, it just takes a few decades longer, so why is that preferable?

With your reasoning. You've just become my hero.

One of the people i knew did marijuana and he was in indonesia, if people do drugs there are only two options for them in indonesia; Either death penalty, or they stay and rot for the rest of their lifes. He got the second option, i dont really think its mercy.

Quote from Sadko

One of the people i knew did marijuana and he was in indonesia, if people do drugs there are only two options for them in indonesia; Either death penalty, or they stay and rot for the rest of their lifes. He got the second option, i dont really think its mercy.

That can't be helped, he was in another country with different laws, be thankful that there was another option than the death penalty. He should've known what would happen if he do drugs there

Quote from _camila_

That can't be helped, he was in another country with different laws, be thankful that there was another option than the death penalty. He should've known what would happen if he do drugs there

Be thankful for rotting in the prison till his last days?

Quote from Sadko

Be thankful for rotting in the prison till his last days?

INSTEAD OF DIE

In other countries they would've kill him immediately

Quote from Preserve

Okay, basically any punishment can seem like revenge, but that doesn't mean it actually is.

Why not? Their motivations are the same, they both permanently remove the criminal from society. They accomplish that goal in different manners -- so why is one revenge, while the other isn't?

Quote from Preserve

You can prevent criminals from committing crimes by sending them to prison so they won't be a menace to society, without killing them. The death penalty isn't needed.

I keep seeing this argument rephrased in different ways, but it doesn't say anything about either method of punishment. It's circular logic. "Imprisoning people for life is better than the death penalty, because the death penalty is unnecessary. The death penalty is unnecessary because we can imprison them for life instead".

Quote from Preserve

This is like saying "I'm going to die eventually so I might as well kill myself now." This is silly because you know that you have the rest of your life and wan't to make the best of it.

What about the murder victims? They probably wanted to make the best of their lives as well, until that decision was taken away from them. At least a murderer knows what they're facing when they kill someone, I don't know why you care so much about their lives when they clearly don't.

Prisons cost too much to sustain and are quickly getting filled up anyways. Death penalty all the way imo.

Quote from Exilement

What hypothetical law are you talking about? Someone who stops a serial murderer by killing them wouldn't be given the death penalty, so I don't understand how this post relates to it at all.

It seems like you're trying to reduce murder, manslaughter, executions, military casualties and all other forms of homicide to simply "killing". That's the only way you could get away with making the legal system seem hypocritical for punishing killers by killing them.

But as I said early in this debate, killing isn't the same as murder, and the legal system doesn't murder murderers, so I don't understand the point you're trying to make.

You're right, murder and killing aren't the same. But murder is a form of killing, and if you believe that nobody should have the right to take life from others (and kill), then by definition that means that the death penalty is the same as murder on the most fundamental level. Now the obvious question from here is "when is it ever right to take a life, do you not think wars are necessary?". The difference is that killing in a war scenario is a last resort and one in which no other option is possible (or at least, that's the way it should be, considering life is a human right in my eyes). There are other options with the death penalty: life imprisonment, which not only eliminates the need to remove a human right, but enables the possibility for reprise should the person be deemed fit to contribute to society again, or should he be proven innocent. I guess I just feel that life is on a whole scale of its own, and shouldn't be spoken of as a practicality in the same way as life imprisonment. We're talking about taking away someone's ability to experience. Experience, full stop. No more thoughts, no more time upon this planet, in this wonderful cosmos. I like to think of the bigger picture, and the bigger picture for me is that life is the only thing that guarantees us our experience, regardless of what we do with that experience and whether it's perceived from within the confines of a cell. Morally, I think killing is wrong, but a certain degree of utilitarianism is necessary where death its the ONLY resort.

Quote from Exilement

Why not? Their motivations are the same, they both permanently remove the criminal from society.

I don't think their motivations can be the same just because the outcome can be the same. Any punishment in general can have different motivations. People can punish to get answers, because they dislike people, or whatever. I don't see why you seem to think they have the same motivation because they both remove them from society.

They accomplish that goal in different manners -- so why is one revenge, while the other isn't?

Because one goes to the further extend to kill them.

What about the murder victims? They probably wanted to make the best of their lives as well, until that decision was taken away from them.

I don't condone their actions. They were wrong for doing it. Does that mean we should do the same thing they did? I don't think also. If you do, then your motivation is clearly revenge.

At least a murderer knows what they're facing when they kill someone, I don't know why you care so much about their lives when they clearly don't.

Just because someone doesn't care about my life or anyone's life in general, that doesn't mean I should't care about theirs. Why? Because I'm better than them and I'm not stooping down to their level.

Prisons cost too much to sustain and are quickly getting filled up anyways. Death penalty all the way imo.

Not that money should be a factor in deciding someone's life but

http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42

Quote from _camila_

INSTEAD OF DIE

In other countries they would've kill him immediately

I'd rather be dead. Who the hell would want to sit in prison until the day they die, stuck in a cramped shit hole full of people that society has deemed unfit to walk the streets.

Quote from Scooty

I'd rather be dead. Who the hell would want to sit in prison until the day they die, stuck in a cramped shit hole full of people that society has deemed unfit to walk the streets.

Another good reason to chose the "rot in jail" option instead of just killing them