>cereal

Why do you think that revenge is a good system? How do you think it improves society? Do you derive pleasure from knowing that other people suffer?

Sometimes it's not always whats best for the "society". Sometimes its more of what the person really deserves and brought upon himself.
Sure a killer can just die a painless if not "peaceful" death. That's the easy way out tho.

Or you can let the killer spend the rest of his days in a cell were he is alone and can only think about what he has done. Wishing for death to come....

idk about you but I choose the latter.
It gives a much bigger effect on the "society" to know that a killer is dreading in prison, then to know that they just gave him a shot....

Why are you so obsessed with making him get "what he deserves"? No one deserves anything. If you think there's some magical objective morality, then please explain why.

It's the easy way out? Great, that way we don't have to waste money on some guy just because "oh I feel so happy now that I know he's not happy".

I'm simply saying in some cases it's just a matter of morale than just the logical thing that comes to mind.

I mean what if the man of question is innocent? But then he's already dead.. Oh well I guess. (This has happened multiple times)

Which is equivalent to not explaining anything at all. It has nothing to do with morals, because morals are subjective. And it's never not about the logical thing. It's always about the logical thing, because that's sort of the definition of a logical thing.

Obviously if the man is innocent then he shouldn't be convicted. Which is why death penalty should only be applied in circumstances where you know that the man isn't innocent. Take for example the massacre that happened last year in Norway. That guy shouldn't be alive. Not because "oh boo hoo he deserves it" but because he will never change - and because we know he's guilty. He even freely admitted it, not to mention he was caught in the act. The alternative is life in prison. Why would we waste about 176 000 USD a year on that guy?

Also I don't like being cruel to children but please learn to write properly before you go on a debate forum will you?

Quote from godmouth

Which is equivalent to not explaining anything at all. It has nothing to do with morals, because morals are subjective. And it's never not about the logical thing. It's always about the logical thing, because that's sort of the definition of a logical thing.

Obviously if the man is innocent then he shouldn't be convicted. Which is why death penalty should only be applied in circumstances where you know that the man isn't innocent. Take for example the massacre that happened last year in Norway. That guy shouldn't be alive. Not because "oh boo hoo he deserves it" but because he will never change - and because we know he's guilty. He even freely admitted it, not to mention he was caught in the act. The alternative is life in prison. Why would we waste about 176 000 USD a year on that guy?

Also I don't like being cruel to children but please learn to write properly before you go on a debate forum will you?

Ok First off, man, I got respect for you, I don't wanna start any beef.
Second
Not a child.
Third
Innocent people have been killed by the death penalty before. Look it up.
Fourth
There's a reason they call it a debate forum bro. People are supposed to have different opinions on these certain things.

Actually, they call it a debate forum because people are supposed to debate in it. That often means disagreeing. Having a "beef" means we're disagreeing.

The problem is you haven't responded to any of the stuff I've said. I asked questions, and you didn't respond but simply applied a generalized "sometimes you just have to look at morals" blanket statement that doesn't mean anything. I want you to actually explain why you have your position. Stating your opinion isn't very interesting if you refuse to back it up or just have a rigid belief without subject to change.

Of course innocent people have been killed by the death penalty before, and that's terrible. Which is why, in my previous post, I explained that it should only be used in circumstances where we know that the person in question is guilty. Knowledge does in this case not mean just very likely, actual hard evidence should be expected.

Also this is why posting anonymously would be convenient.

Quote from godmouth

Also this is why posting anonymously would be convenient.

Nah, that's for lames.

And also I could explain to you my believes and why I have them but sadly that would make one of them long "Jeff" essays. And i'm actually trying to animate something, lol. Not even to speak of the fact that i'm lazy. That's why usually in debates like this I try and keep my points short and simple. So you can digest the claims given and do whatever the mess you want with them.

I'm still not agreed with death penalty. I think a Good "punishment" would be letting him to rot in jail, make him/her work on something, creating some furniture idk, that way it wouldn't be a total waste of money.

At least think in the man's family, if his mother still worried about her son, leave the poor woman be able to visit her son in jail.. I mean... By killing someone for a murder or something we're also making damage to another family, innocent people that will suffer.

We're not in position to decide other's fate

Quote from Mikematic

Nah, that's for lames.

And also I could explain to you my believes and why I have them but sadly that would make one of them long "Jeff" essays. And i'm actually trying to animate something, lol. Not even to speak of the fact that i'm lazy. That's why usually in debates like this I try and keep my points short and simple. So you can digest the claims given and do whatever the mess you want with them.

A "Jeff essay" would be considered a good thing. Jeff is a good poster. But if you don't want to back up your points, you're not really debating. You're stating your opinion, nothing else.

Camila, why do you think that people should be punished? Does this lead to some favorable result?

Quote from godmouth

A "Jeff essay" would be considered a good thing. Jeff is a good poster. But if you don't want to back up your points, you're not really debating. You're stating your opinion, nothing else.

Camila, why do you think that people should be punished? Does this lead to some favorable result?

That's why i said it with " " . If people doesn't follow the basics rules for a peaceful society they should be put in jail for certain amount of time, but never have a death penalty or something

Quote from godmouth

Why do you think that revenge is a good system? How do you think it improves society? Do you derive pleasure from knowing that other people suffer?

You could ask anyone that question regardless of their stance on the death penalty. Any punishment is by definition a form of revenge, so whether you think a murderer deserves a life sentence or an execution, you support some type of revenge and suffering.

So, what's your answer?

Quote from Exilement

You could ask anyone that question regardless of their stance on the death penalty. Any punishment is by definition a form of revenge, so whether you think a murderer deserves a life sentence or an execution, you support some type of revenge and suffering.

So, what's your answer?

Actually revenge is a means of obtaining personal satisfaction, while punishment is meant to teach a lesson. The lines between the two can become blurred but there is a difference. Also by definition revenge is performed by the person that was hurt by the wrongdoing, not a third party seeking justice.

revenge- Inflict hurt or harm on someone for an injury or wrong done to oneself.

So if the justice system keeps everything logical, and doesn't inflict punishment as an act of self satisfaction, it shouldn't be considered revenge.

@Fusion, murder=personal pleasure, excecution=punishment, does your small brain understand know?Dont think, becuase your not good at it.