Poll: Death Penalty

[werepossum]

On a less related note, isn't it odd how most death penalty supporters are anti-abortion whilst most death penalty opponents are pro-abortion?

While you make a good point and I don't like to speak for other 'pro-choicers' I will be a little pedantic and say that I wouldn't say I was pro-abortion, just literally pro choice. I don't go out on the street and wave placards about trying to get people to abort their children.

Sorry, it's the same thing. Pro-choice means you think it is acceptable for a woman to kill a fetus (a genetically unique individual) for her own convenience - literally, that the woman's right to her own body supersedes the fetus' right to life. Pro-death penalty means you think it is acceptable for a government to kill a convicted criminal for the sake of society - literally, that the rights of other people supersede the convicted criminal's right to life. Neither position indicates that you are an advocate for increasing the number of occurrences or that you would personally have an abortion or execute a criminal. (For the record, I am in favor of allowing both under certain circumstances.)

 

[bad rider]

Pro-choice means you think it is acceptable for a woman to kill a fetus (a genetically unique individual) for her own convenience - literally, that the woman's right to her own body supersedes the fetus' right to life.

Seriously this reeks of bias but would you disagree to a abortion, if the mother would die during child birth. I think health is a bit more than "her own convenience"

 

[Slycne]

Pro-choice = Pro-abortion
Pro-life = Anti-choice

Both sides like to spin their stance in a better sounding title, but this is derailing the topic and has been argued to death in other threads.

 

[yourkie1921]

Bumbersticker: "Why do we kill people to show people that killing people is wrong?"

Worst quote ever. We kill people to show murder is wrong. Not killing. If there was a death penalty for manslaughter you'd have a point.

literally, that the woman's right to her own body supersedes the fetus' right to life

I think your right to your body is so important that no one can put it under any rights, same with the right for someone live(of course there are exceptions. But they're eye for an eye exceptions). but I still don't think the government should decide this. And how old is the fetus? Because until a fetus turns 3 months old I consider it alive the same way bacteria or a tape-worm is.

Furthermore, in the first month or 2 (months can be added if an abortion was tried and the woman had to jump through hoops.) It should count as self defense.

And how did we go from the death penalty to abortion?

 

[werepossum]

Pro-choice means you think it is acceptable for a woman to kill a fetus (a genetically unique individual) for her own convenience - literally, that the woman's right to her own body supersedes the fetus' right to life.

Seriously this reeks of bias but would you disagree to a abortion, if the mother would die during child birth. I think health is a bit more than "her own convenience"

I don't disagree with early term abortion at all, even for convenience; as long as the fetus is not viable I think the woman's right to her own body supersedes the fetus's right to live. (And of course I don't disagree with any abortion to save the life of the mother.) Similarly, I think the government's right to execute a convicted murderer supersedes the murderer's right to live. The point that I was making was that many times our positions don't stem from absolute positions (i.e. life is sacred) so much as from other principles (e.g. the right to revenge or a concept that criminals are forced into crime by mental illness or societal forces.) I didn't want to debate it, just to make people say "huh" and think a bit.

 

[jad4400]

I support Hard Labor, but in America we got rid of that because it was "inhumane". Really these guys are being punished not scolded.

 

[werepossum]

Bumbersticker: "Why do we kill people to show people that killing people is wrong?"

Worst quote ever. We kill people to show murder is wrong. Not killing. If there was a death penalty for manslaughter you'd have a point.

literally, that the woman's right to her own body supersedes the fetus' right to life

I think your right to your body is so important that no one can put it under any rights, same with the right for someone live(of course there are exceptions. But they're eye for an eye exceptions). but I still don't think the government should decide this. And how old is the fetus? Because until a fetus turns 3 months old I consider it alive the same way bacteria or a tape-worm is.

Furthermore, in the first month or 2 (months can be added if an abortion was tried and the woman had to jump through hoops.) It should count as self defense.

And how did we go from the death penalty to abortion?

Again, I didn't mean to debate abortion, but to point out the odd dichotomy between abortion and death penalty stances on both sides. Either all human life should be absolutely sacred - meaning no abortion and no death penalty - or all human life should not be absolutely sacred, meaning there are limits and competing interests to be considered in each case. Limits on one but not the other can be easily countered. For instance, the argument that a fetus is not a human until born is just as easily countered with the argument that a man like Jeffrey Dahmer is no longer human. Only by abandoning logic can one argue that every fertilized egg has the absolute and inalienable right to life whilst society should be free to execute convicted murderers - if human life is absolutely sacred then only G-d has the right to choose. And the reverse - that society has the right to decide whether a fetus can be aborted but not the right to decide if a convicted murderer should be executed - is even more ridiculous, since convicted murderers are considered guilty of a heinous crime.

 

[Gitsnik]

Not that I would agree to a death penalty in either case.

And thus will I stop participating in this discussion - because I could kill 10, 100 or even 1,000,000 innocents to save the majority and neither of us is going to sway the other. I will, however, continue to watch this little discussion with great enthusiasm.

Cheers

Gits

 

[Falconus]

I think you ignored my point. I'm not saying we should just kill whenever we feel like it and I damned well didn't say it was macho. you say outside of rare cases people locked away for fifteen years don't re-offend. right well that's why I said there should still be life sentences.(oops, forgot to say in my other post there should still be life sentences as well) but what do you do with the one's that DO re-offend?. what your saying is that it's ok if people who don't deserve to die, people who there is hope for, get killed by someone who there is no hope for. just so you can keep your hands clean. don't you dare go on about worthiness.

and I want to say this again just so the message is clear, the death penalty should NOT BE TAKEN LIGHTLY. if it's put in place again it has to be reserved for people who have PROVEN THAT THEY HAVE NO WISH OR CAPACITY TO CHANGE FOR THE BETTER.

CAPS LOCK MEANS MY ARGUMENT IS MORE VALID THAN YOURS SO SHUT UP!!! AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH

Don't flamebait he's just trying to draw attention to the main points of his arguement.

Yeah sorry about that. But maybe in future [b­]this[/b] will do the job.

sorry, didn't know how to do that. [b­]now I do[/b], cheers.

 

[Ultrajoe]

Not that I would agree to a death penalty in either case.

And thus will I stop participating in this discussion - because I could kill 10, 100 or even 1,000,000 innocents to save the majority and neither of us is going to sway the other.

And that is the reason this debate is just like religion, differing fundamentals make any attempt to bandy detail futile.

We have ethics that prevent us from killing innocents, you do not. Neither of us will be budged.

 

[Lazzi]

while we "shouldnt" ever kill people there are times were it is best to simply take some one out of the populations perminatly.

While im nto for it i do belive that there will be times when we really do need it.

 

[werepossum]

Not that I would agree to a death penalty in either case.

And thus will I stop participating in this discussion - because I could kill 10, 100 or even 1,000,000 innocents to save the majority and neither of us is going to sway the other.

And that is the reason this debate is just like religion, differing fundamentals make any attempt to bandy detail futile.

We have ethics that prevent us from killing innocents, you do not. Neither of us will be budged.

Ah, but even doing nothing may cause innocents to die. Denying an abortion may cause a woman to commit suicide or die in pregnancy; allowing abortion kills a child. Not executing a murderer may allow him to kill a guard; executing murderers means eventually executing an innocent man, as humans must judge and humans are inherently flawed.

Neither side can claim absolute right. Sometimes there is no absolute right choice, only lesser degrees of wrong. If you kill a man who is about to kill your child, will that man's family not grieve? Have you not ended any chance he has of turning his life around? Yet if that same man is instead captured and convicted of another murder, should you then execute him, knowing his family will grieve, perhaps his children will go without and be irrevocably scarred? Or will you accept the chance he will escape or kill again in prison, deny the deterrence factor to other would-be murderers, deny his victim's family the right to vengeance?

In these cases, anything you do is likely to lead to harm, including doing nothing.

EDIT: I should add that I am not trying to sway people to one side or the other. I'm simply trying to make people think rather than react from instinct or vague notions of right and wrong.

 

[Ultrajoe]

Ah, but even doing nothing may cause innocents to die. Denying an abortion may cause a woman to commit suicide or die in pregnancy; allowing abortion kills a child. Not executing a murderer may allow him to kill a guard; executing murderers means eventually executing an innocent man, as humans must judge and humans are inherently flawed.

Neither side can claim absolute right. Sometimes there is no absolute right choice, only lesser degrees of wrong. If you kill a man who is about to kill your child, will that man's family not grieve? Have you not ended any chance he has of turning his life around? Yet if that same man is instead captured and convicted of another murder, should you then execute him, knowing his family will grieve, perhaps his children will go without and be irrevocably scarred? Or will you accept the chance he will escape or kill again in prison, deny the deterrence factor to other would-be murderers, deny his victim's family the right to vengeance?

In these cases, anything you do is likely to lead to harm, including doing nothing.

EDIT: I should add that I am not trying to sway people to one side or the other. I'm simply trying to make people think rather than react from instinct or vague notions of right and wrong.

Where did abortion come from? i think i missed some critical points of this thread after my last visit.

As stated, this argument is pointless, but i will point out one thing.

I'm simply trying to make people think rather than react from instinct or vague notions of right and wrong.

This is where we differ, i think there is nothing vague about right and wrong, thinking is a tool that helps you choose the right one.

In the end, our morality is all we truly posses, i would not filthy it for the sake of a convict.

 

[SmugFrog]

So many people are against the death penalty until some sicko gets ahold of someone they love...

 

[Lost In The Void]

Why is it so hard to end a "sicko's" life though. Honestly, i'll use an example. In BC a man Mr. Robert Pickton or something like that had killed like 30 women or something does that not forfeit his right to life i believe that the best rule is eye for eye because that is what all justice originated from. If we don't kill them at least make them suffer. Prisons used to give you 30 lashes a day and a cold slab to bed on. That sounds like real prison to me. I believe the Middle Eastern technique is the best physical punishment where you can still lose a hand or your head in penance. Call me a cold son of a ***** but if a man sees another man suffer for his crimes at least some will stop before they act saving lives is that not worth one life. As for "life sentence" Let me know when they develop one.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

Not that I would agree to a death penalty in either case.

And thus will I stop participating in this discussion - because I could kill 10, 100 or even 1,000,000 innocents to save the majority and neither of us is going to sway the other. I will, however, continue to watch this little discussion with great enthusiasm.

Cheers

Gits

I wasn't trying to sway your opinion, I was just trying to get you to explain how Fix-the-spades argument was invalid. Which you failed to do.

Like I said, if you are simply of the opinion that killing innocent people in order to get as many of the guilty as possible is ok because those are the values you hold, then fine, but the way you were trying to put your point across was not providing any clear explaination of what you meant.

 

[rossatdi]

Wow, you just perfectly summed up the liberal position. People don't commit murder unless they are mentally ill; therefore anyone committing murder is mentally ill and should not be punished. More succinctly, society is to blame, so punish society and not the criminal. If the murderer used a gun, abolish guns. If a knife, abolish knives.

On a related note, there is no such thing as life imprisonment without parole. Eventually liberals will come into power, persuade a judge to reduce a sentence, or just give the murderer weekends off; therefore all sentences of life imprisonment without parole are more properly life imprisonment until liberals successfully intervene.

On a less related note, isn't it odd how most death penalty supporters are anti-abortion whilst most death penalty opponents are pro-abortion?

You're just repeating the generic conservative rubbish without actually making any points. At no point did I say that people who commit crimes are devoid of responsibility but it would be truly, truly foolish to assume that environmental factors are not an issue. Punish the criminal and fix the system. Take both approaches and actually solve the problem rather than making a blame free society (the comedy liberal) or a fascist state (the scary conservative).

My main point is that a civilisation is judged on how well it treats those it can get away with treating poorly. This is often cited in reference to the poor as a welfare case but I believe it carries further. By fully legitimising murder of someone fully under the State's control we send a worrying message and set a dangerous precedent. If someone is a repeat threat, lock them up, there is no need to douse the State's hand in the blood of it's own citizenry when they pose to immediate threat.

Mercy is a virtue, Christian or otherwise, and it is doubly so when it comes with a price and a risk.

And as to your last point, I don't think it's particularly strange that the political side that would force a raped woman to keep her baby (even if it might kill her) is that different from those who would execute a mentally retard man who had been ignored by a underfunded public health system.

 

[Ultrajoe]

So many people are against the death penalty until some sicko gets ahold of someone they love...

Thats why we shouldn't leave it as an option, vengeance makes for quick fingers.

 

[Gitsnik]

I wasn't trying to sway your opinion, I was just trying to get you to explain how Fix-the-spades argument was invalid. Which you failed to do.

Like I said, if you are simply of the opinion that killing innocent people in order to get as many of the guilty as possible is ok because those are the values you hold, then fine, but the way you were trying to put your point across was not providing any clear explaination of what you meant.

Ok I'll come back to try (again) to get you to see my point.

Very simple, no.

You can't take back an execution, which is all fine and dandy until you get the wrong person. How do you release someone who's dead?

I view this as an invalid argument, not because I'm comfortable killing innocents, but for the following. To use that pedo I was talking about earlier, he is guilty, he knows he's guilty (having confessed as much), he does not regret it, the public knows he is guilty - and thus regardless of what evidence comes up he will be convicted and so he is not getting a trial, because the trial will be biased. Finally, and most importantly to my eyes, he is a serial offender.

Note that I'm not talking about someone who murdered their assailant in self defence, nor killed someone once off in a fit of rage, I'm talking about a serial offender with no remorse or regrets. A person who continuously destroys other lives. Yes his family will be distressed, yes he may leave a widow, but would you prefer to leave him alive and released to destroy someone else's family? Which is more cruel?

I agree with FTS, you can't bring back an innocent. What you can do is try (your darndest) to ensure that you don't get an innocent. As I said, this all falls down because the "justice" system is flawd - the Rules As Written mean more than the spirit of the law in so many places that we can't, with good conscious, re-introduce the death penalty (read the green mile for a good example of humanity fucking up).

Now I understand what you're saying about the police officers, but it wasn't meant to be literal, what I was getting at was that tasers are meant to be treated as last resort weapons, like a firearm, but because we know they are non lethal, the cops tend to use them more often than they should. When you start throwing lethal force around people stop and think about it more often.

No opinions changed, but hopefully you can now see what I'm thinking.

Cheers

Gits

(For the last time)

 

[Beowulf DW]

So many people are against the death penalty until some sicko gets ahold of someone they love...

Thats why we shouldn't leave it as an option, vengeance makes for quick fingers.

I know several people (mothers of victims mostly) who actually forgave and/or didn't want the death penalty for the murderers of their loved ones.