Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Death Penalty new consideration?


  • Please log in to reply
151 replies to this topic

#101 buttcheeks

buttcheeks
  • 72 posts

Posted 06 June 2011 - 10:43 AM

the prison system is just slavery version 2.0.

#102 Cyo

Cyo
  • Pauly D

  • 2561 posts


Users Awards

Posted 06 June 2011 - 11:35 AM

the prison system is just slavery version 2.0.


And that's good/bad?

#103 batryn

batryn
  • 220 posts

Posted 06 June 2011 - 12:23 PM

Good, because that way we can legally get manual labor, and the prisoners/slaves can pay for themselves

#104 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 06 June 2011 - 02:13 PM

Good, because that way we can legally get manual labor, and the prisoners/slaves can pay for themselves

Stop posting in debate threads. Please.

#105 iChelsea

iChelsea
  • 88 posts

Posted 10 June 2011 - 10:22 AM

The death penalty is based off of the primitive philosophy of "An eye for an eye" which goes back to the idea that "two wrongs make a right" which is a logical fallacy.

Justice should be based on restoring the bad aspects of the situation. The death penalty does not help the person learn from their mistake because it does not teach them that killing other people is wrong. It does not give them a chance to try again. If you believe in heaven, it may ruin their chances of ever going to heaven.


In my opinion, the only way the death penalty is acceptable is if a person has repeatedly escaped from the highest security prison available after being too dangerous to live in society ever.

Here's a link with more about the two wrongs make a right philosophy
http://www.fallacyfi...g/twowrong.html

#106 Volition

Volition
  • 701 posts

Posted 10 June 2011 - 04:02 PM

The death penalty is based off of the primitive philosophy of "An eye for an eye" which goes back to the idea that "two wrongs make a right" which is a logical fallacy.

Justice should be based on restoring the bad aspects of the situation. The death penalty does not help the person learn from their mistake because it does not teach them that killing other people is wrong. It does not give them a chance to try again. If you believe in heaven, it may ruin their chances of ever going to heaven.


In my opinion, the only way the death penalty is acceptable is if a person has repeatedly escaped from the highest security prison available after being too dangerous to live in society ever.

Here's a link with more about the two wrongs make a right philosophy
http://www.fallacyfi...g/twowrong.html


It's not two wrongs make a right, its the kill-someone-before-they-do-bad-shit-again philosophy, dead men commit no crimes.

#107 frostz

frostz
  • 594 posts

Posted 12 June 2011 - 05:50 AM

The death penalty is based off of the primitive philosophy of "An eye for an eye" which goes back to the idea that "two wrongs make a right" which is a logical fallacy.

Justice should be based on restoring the bad aspects of the situation. The death penalty does not help the person learn from their mistake because it does not teach them that killing other people is wrong. It does not give them a chance to try again. If you believe in heaven, it may ruin their chances of ever going to heaven.


In my opinion, the only way the death penalty is acceptable is if a person has repeatedly escaped from the highest security prison available after being too dangerous to live in society ever.

Here's a link with more about the two wrongs make a right philosophy
http://www.fallacyfi...g/twowrong.html


So, you would rather have some murderer released from prison after they are "reeducated" in the hopes that they don't kill anyone? If they make another "mistake" its probably gona result in more dead people. You can't restore a dead person to life obviously, so therefore the bad aspects of the situation could only be resolved through an eye for an eye. Justice isn't synonymous to fairness.

Besides they don't automatically give the death penalty to everyone convicted of murder, i'm pretty sure they take the intent and circumstance into situation as well, so if someone received the death penalty they probably deserve it (mistakes and framing not taken into consideration).

#108 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 12 June 2011 - 12:31 PM

(mistakes and framing not taken into consideration)

You can't just exclude that massive issue on a whim.

#109 buttcheeks

buttcheeks
  • 72 posts

Posted 13 June 2011 - 08:45 AM

So, you would rather have some murderer released from prison after they are "reeducated" in the hopes that they don't kill anyone? If they make another "mistake" its probably gona result in more dead people. You can't restore a dead person to life obviously, so therefore the bad aspects of the situation could only be resolved through an eye for an eye. Justice isn't synonymous to fairness.

Besides they don't automatically give the death penalty to everyone convicted of murder, i'm pretty sure they take the intent and circumstance into situation as well, so if someone received the death penalty they probably deserve it (mistakes and framing not taken into consideration).


do you think anyone has the right to place judgement on another and take their lives away, regardless of how many individuals agree with that decision? taking a life is still taking a life no matter what the circumstances

#110 Cyo

Cyo
  • Pauly D

  • 2561 posts


Users Awards

Posted 13 June 2011 - 10:29 AM

do you think anyone has the right to place judgement on another and take their lives away, regardless of how many individuals agree with that decision? taking a life is still taking a life no matter what the circumstances


Big fucking deal, it's not like we have a shortage of people.

#111 Marukozu

Marukozu
  • 40 posts

Posted 13 June 2011 - 10:43 AM

Pedos/rapists should be castrated

I think castration isn't the solution, since it could still rape and do all their awful actions, without the other effect of having the otehr person (in case of a woman) of getting pregnant. Is showed that rapists, are mentally illed for life, I don't know why they keep persisting, when is cientifically proven, no law system are perfect.

#112 Volition

Volition
  • 701 posts

Posted 13 June 2011 - 11:37 AM

do you think anyone has the right to place judgement on another and take their lives away, regardless of how many individuals agree with that decision? taking a life is still taking a life no matter what the circumstances


It's always morality like this that slows down the legal system, I agree that taking a life is taking a life but never forget that the criminal in question has taken a life and he/she should be killed without hesitation for the good of society/humanity. Although one could argue using the Trolley Experiment that its unethical to put the good of the collective above the good of the individual.

I think castration isn't the solution, since it could still rape and do all their awful actions, without the other effect of having the otehr person (in case of a woman) of getting pregnant. Is showed that rapists, are mentally illed for life, I don't know why they keep persisting, when is cientifically proven, no law system are perfect.


Castration takes away sex drive, scientifically that should stop sexually motivated crimes, although it does not bring an end to crimes brought on by pathological problems. Also creating the perfect legal system is infinitely easier to do than to decipher your post (please use grammar).

#113 frostz

frostz
  • 594 posts

Posted 13 June 2011 - 09:48 PM

Castration takes away sex drive, scientifically that should stop sexually motivated crimes, although it does not bring an end to crimes brought on by pathological problems. Also creating the perfect legal system is infinitely easier to do than to decipher your post (please use grammar).


Like he said rapists aren't only sexually motivated, in many cases its a domination issue.

do you think anyone has the right to place judgement on another and take their lives away, regardless of how many individuals agree with that decision? taking a life is still taking a life no matter what the circumstances



But yea, taking the life of a murderer is in most cases beneficial to the rest of society..

Yes i think someone has the right to place judgment on another, given the way our society works. I think that being a citizen or a resident of a country automatically means that you are in a way agreeing to their legal system, thus you put your life at the whims of that particular government.

Edited by frostz, 13 June 2011 - 09:58 PM.


#114 Plunk

Plunk
  • Official Neocodex Dollface

  • 545 posts


Users Awards

Posted 13 June 2011 - 09:56 PM

There are many things wrong with the law system, such as bail.


Yeah, in a town near mine, a guy posted his own bail after holding his family hostage a year ago. Today, a year later, he went to their new house, and killed his two kids, his ex-wife, and himself. Why? Because she left him, A FUCKING YEAR AGO. There are certain things that bail shouldn't be allowed to be set for, and kidnapping/taking hostages is one of them.

(Yeah, I know, Bogg posted this months ago, but it's still relevant.)

Edited by Plunk, 13 June 2011 - 09:58 PM.


#115 Volition

Volition
  • 701 posts

Posted 13 June 2011 - 10:02 PM

Like he said rapists aren't only sexually motivated, in many cases its a domination issue.

But yea, taking the life of a murderer is in most cases beneficial to the rest of society...


Yeah I consider dominance to be a pathological issue, and I fail to see any good solution to pathological problems.

#116 batryn

batryn
  • 220 posts

Posted 14 June 2011 - 11:16 AM

I think we should like massively brainwash all kindergarten students to be nice, share, and not commit any crimes.

#117 iChelsea

iChelsea
  • 88 posts

Posted 15 June 2011 - 09:34 PM

So, you would rather have some murderer released from prison after they are "reeducated" in the hopes that they don't kill anyone? If they make another "mistake" its probably gona result in more dead people. You can't restore a dead person to life obviously, so therefore the bad aspects of the situation could only be resolved through an eye for an eye. Justice isn't synonymous to fairness.

Besides they don't automatically give the death penalty to everyone convicted of murder, i'm pretty sure they take the intent and circumstance into situation as well, so if someone received the death penalty they probably deserve it (mistakes and framing not taken into consideration).


No. I think if you are deemed to be too dangerous to live in society, you're probably going to be that way forever. Life sentence in prison.

#118 frostz

frostz
  • 594 posts

Posted 16 June 2011 - 03:56 AM

No. I think if you are deemed to be too dangerous to live in society, you're probably going to be that way forever. Life sentence in prison.


so, the tax payers should have to have their money going into providing free food and shelter for dangerous criminals ;\?

#119 chess211

chess211
  • 62 posts

Posted 16 June 2011 - 04:25 AM

so, the tax payers should have to have their money going into providing free food and shelter for dangerous criminals ;\?


The financial cost of the death penalty tends to be significantly higher than life in prison. The court fees increase greatly in dealing with the appeal process, and in the interest in providing as humane of a death as possible, the cost of the actual execution can be significant. The cost of keeping a death row inmate in prison is also high than keeping a life sentence prisoner in line. So the financial burden argument would go for the abolition of the death penalty, not for it. As it is much cheaper to go for life in prison with chance of parole than it is to go for the death penalty.

#120 Volition

Volition
  • 701 posts

Posted 16 June 2011 - 08:47 AM

The financial cost of the death penalty tends to be significantly higher than life in prison. The court fees increase greatly in dealing with the appeal process, and in the interest in providing as humane of a death as possible, the cost of the actual execution can be significant. The cost of keeping a death row inmate in prison is also high than keeping a life sentence prisoner in line. So the financial burden argument would go for the abolition of the death penalty, not for it. As it is much cheaper to go for life in prison with chance of parole than it is to go for the death penalty.


I've seen argument used before, and it is not pretty damn cheap to provide a humane death, the cocktail they use is like $43 or something and keeping someone alive inside a prison can get upwards of $30000 a year. I have no idea what the costs are of the appeal process, so I'm gonna have to ask you to cite a reputable source.

#121 chess211

chess211
  • 62 posts

Posted 16 June 2011 - 10:23 AM

I've seen argument used before, and it is not pretty damn cheap to provide a humane death, the cocktail they use is like $43 or something and keeping someone alive inside a prison can get upwards of $30000 a year. I have no idea what the costs are of the appeal process, so I'm gonna have to ask you to cite a reputable source.


Here is a link from Amnesty International, granted it is an organization opposed to the death penalty for other reasons, but it is still a reputable source.

http://www.amnestyus...th-penalty-cost

The primary cost Amnesty International cites is in arguing for the initial case.

For a different argument, arguing for the death penalty being cheaper is http://www.prodeathp.../dp.html#D.Cost, but that argument is based on the assumption that the death penalty is carried out every it is authorized, and depends on the average amount of time that the inmates spend in prison. The argument relies on the death row inmates being in prison for a far shorter time, but the average time given for life without parole seems a bit of the long side for me (50 years seems excessive, but I am not familiar with the numbers to comment.)

On the side of issues related to imprisonment times, according to http://www.deathpena...arEnd-Final.pdf California has 697 people on death row, but has not committed an execution for 5 years, and California does not seem to be inclined to start executions anytime soon.


Well I guess the execution can be done cheaply, even with the issue of getting the drugs over from Europe. Last one the execution in Utah was done by firing squad, and that should not be too expensive. So the primary difference between the two is based on the length of time in prison as the monetary factor. It could go either way for cost, but it looks like the initial cost factor of the trial is what is guiding the financial issue.

#122 Volition

Volition
  • 701 posts

Posted 16 June 2011 - 01:57 PM

Here is a link from Amnesty International, granted it is an organization opposed to the death penalty for other reasons, but it is still a reputable source.

http://www.amnestyus...th-penalty-cost

The primary cost Amnesty International cites is in arguing for the initial case.

For a different argument, arguing for the death penalty being cheaper is http://www.prodeathp.../dp.html#D.Cost, but that argument is based on the assumption that the death penalty is carried out every it is authorized, and depends on the average amount of time that the inmates spend in prison. The argument relies on the death row inmates being in prison for a far shorter time, but the average time given for life without parole seems a bit of the long side for me (50 years seems excessive, but I am not familiar with the numbers to comment.)

On the side of issues related to imprisonment times, according to http://www.deathpena...arEnd-Final.pdf California has 697 people on death row, but has not committed an execution for 5 years, and California does not seem to be inclined to start executions anytime soon.


Well I guess the execution can be done cheaply, even with the issue of getting the drugs over from Europe. Last one the execution in Utah was done by firing squad, and that should not be too expensive. So the primary difference between the two is based on the length of time in prison as the monetary factor. It could go either way for cost, but it looks like the initial cost factor of the trial is what is guiding the financial issue.


Yeah I agree, it heavily depends on how long the prisoner spends in prison. The Amnesty International link is reputable but with slight possibilities of bias (however I don't think AI adds bias to their articles), I was hoping that it would include exactly how the money was being spent, like last meals, specific legal proceedings like jury fees and whatnot. The article also says that the cost is mainly from pre-trial and during trial, and so it would be nice to have a comparison to non-death penalty trial costs to death penalty trial costs, and also I'm thinking that the costs should be close to the same if its all pre-trial and during trial as you don't really know what to do to a criminal until after the trial.

#123 ElPinapple

ElPinapple
  • 204 posts

Posted 16 June 2011 - 08:33 PM

Killing people is unethical. The death penalty is unethical.

The tangible effect it has on society is irrelevant.

Edited by ElPinapple, 16 June 2011 - 08:34 PM.


#124 Volition

Volition
  • 701 posts

Posted 16 June 2011 - 10:02 PM

Killing people is unethical. The death penalty is unethical.

The tangible effect it has on society is irrelevant.


And using the taxes of a criminal's victims to feed said criminal is ethical? How 'bout releasing killers into society, would you say that is ethical? Deontological ethics can even be used to argue for the death penalty, same goes for Kantian ethics, both these moral philosophies argue that intent and duties. Executions are done with the intent that they will curb crime in society, I'd say that's good intent. William David Ross talks about duties to justice and beneficence, does it not benefit society to end the life of a criminal? Is justice not served when a killer is killed? So yeah, ethics works both ways :)

#125 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 17 June 2011 - 04:19 AM

does it not benefit society to end the life of a criminal? Is justice not served when a killer is killed? So yeah, ethics works both ways :)


Yes, giving into killers wants and demands totally justifies you're incredible Americentric argument.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users