PDA

View Full Version : Death Penalty: Support It Or Against It



Bartmanhomer
05 Apr 2016, 17:47
I support the death penalty because criminals deserve the ultimate punishment for their serious crimes. I believe that the death penalty should be legal in all fifty states in the US. What's your opinion on the death penalty?

Raphaeline
05 Apr 2016, 17:50
I know it's not something people usually have a neutral stance on, but that's where I've found myself in the past. I've only very recently started finding myself slightly opposing it, but I'm still a long way off from deciding one way or the other. So I'm eager to see where this thread goes!

EndlessCravings
05 Apr 2016, 18:30
I'm sure some people have had the death penalty when falsely accused. The death penalty is too easy, anyway. If they did something they should suffer the time for it.

ThePaganMafia
05 Apr 2016, 19:10
Here is my problem with the death penalty and why I feel it is indefensible. And my objection has nothing to do with the killing of people who have done horrible things. I have a hard time sympathizing. However, it would seem to me that the death penalty would only be fair, and not morally wrong, in a perfect justice system. But, we have a far from a perfect justice system.

1 in 25 Death Row prisoners are innocent according to studies: http://www.newsweek.com/one-25-executed-us-innocent-study-claims-248889

The Death Penalty, like the Drug War, and our entire Justice System itself disproportionately affects minorities: https://www.aclu.org/race-and-death-penalty

The taxpayer cost of the Death Penalty is incredible, costing far, far more than life imprisonment: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

The death penalty is not an actual deterrent to crime: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/study-88-criminologists-do-not-believe-death-penalty-effective-deterrent

Just given the fact that you know innocent people will die, I wonder how can anyone morally justify the death penalty in our current system. The death penalty only works in a perfect system, where everyone is guilty and the punishment is provided fairly. That is not the case and never will be. It is indefensible and it boggles my mind, that given the numbers, people defend and advocate it's use.

MaskedOne
05 Apr 2016, 19:32
1 in 25 Death Row prisoners are innocent according to studies: http://www.newsweek.com/one-25-executed-us-innocent-study-claims-248889


This tends to be my largest issue with it. There are any number of people on the planet that I won't shed a tear over the death (even in some cases, the horrific death) of. Unfortunately for my vengeful streak, our system demonstrably gets it wrong from time to time and its really difficult to make amends with the innocent who has just been executed.

Medusa
05 Apr 2016, 21:17
I'm for it. Especially for things like perpetual right/left blinker. Popping gum loudly. And walking too slow in front of me.

DanieMarie
06 Apr 2016, 00:00
Against. We don't have it in either of my countries and haven't for a long time. I'm against reinstating it.

The murder rate isn't higher in places that don't have it, so it can't be a great deterrent. As ThePaganMafia mentioned, the justice system is far from perfect, so innocent people end up on death row. And even if it were perfect, I don't think "eye-for-eye" justice is appropriate in most cases. Barring extreme cases, I don't believe that most people are beyond redemption.

Briton
06 Apr 2016, 00:16
The points against the death penalty have all already been made.

My only concern is in those vast minority of cases of sane but entirely malicious individuals who have no regret over what they do, there is no doubt they did it, and they are just a drain on tax payer money whilst being a threat if they don't serve a life imprisonment.

Prison should be a place where dangerous people are kept until they can be rehabilitated. If they can't be rehabilitated, what's the point of storing them? And if they don't care that they are in prison, then that's not a punishment. Drowning rats can be a fitting response, sometimes.

ThePaganMafia
06 Apr 2016, 00:34
The points against the death penalty have all already been made.

My only concern is in those vast minority of cases of sane but entirely malicious individuals who have no regret over what they do, there is no doubt they did it, and they are just a drain on tax payer money whilst being a threat if they don't serve a life imprisonment.

Prison should be a place where dangerous people are kept until they can be rehabilitated. If they can't be rehabilitated, what's the point of storing them? And if they don't care that they are in prison, then that's not a punishment. Drowning rats can be a fitting response, sometimes.

It costs far more to execute than to house for life so it would seem execution is a larger drain on the taxpayer dollar.

Medusa
06 Apr 2016, 00:49
It costs far more to execute than to house for life so it would seem execution is a larger drain on the taxpayer dollar.

Well gang members seem to know how to execute on the cheap. Maybe we should 'rehabilitate them' and give them a job executing death row inmates. I mean it's a win win.

Briton
06 Apr 2016, 00:50
It costs far more to execute than to house for life so it would seem execution is a larger drain on the taxpayer dollar.

Only because that's how the law is set up.

thalassa
06 Apr 2016, 01:33
Here is my problem with the death penalty and why I feel it is indefensible. And my objection has nothing to do with the killing of people who have done horrible things. I have a hard time sympathizing. However, it would seem to me that the death penalty would only be fair, and not morally wrong, in a perfect justice system. But, we have a far from a perfect justice system.

1 in 25 Death Row prisoners are innocent according to studies: http://www.newsweek.com/one-25-executed-us-innocent-study-claims-248889

The Death Penalty, like the Drug War, and our entire Justice System itself disproportionately affects minorities: https://www.aclu.org/race-and-death-penalty

The taxpayer cost of the Death Penalty is incredible, costing far, far more than life imprisonment: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

The death penalty is not an actual deterrent to crime: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/study-88-criminologists-do-not-believe-death-penalty-effective-deterrent

Just given the fact that you know innocent people will die, I wonder how can anyone morally justify the death penalty in our current system. The death penalty only works in a perfect system, where everyone is guilty and the punishment is provided fairly. That is not the case and never will be. It is indefensible and it boggles my mind, that given the numbers, people defend and advocate it's use.

Pretty much this, almost verbatim.

B. de Corbin
06 Apr 2016, 01:37
There are people who deserve execution.

I don't wanna be the one to pull the switch. I don't wanna ask someone else to do it for me, either.

(The likely response - "I will." My response - "Good for you." Saving time here...)

DanieMarie
06 Apr 2016, 02:24
To be honest, for those who are really awful and beyond rehabilitation, I still think death isn't a fitting punishment. It's an easy out. Even in a fairly just prison system, jail is a tedious dull place, and if you're there forever, your life is clearly going nowhere. I'd rather have awful people spend a lifetime locked away waiting for it to be over than give them quick out.

monsno_leedra
06 Apr 2016, 02:40
Have to admit I am split on this question.

On one hand if we have a rabid dog or one that attacks a person then we put them down, period. Yet a human who does the same we allow to linger in the system, or worse claim to be rehabilitated and release them. Yet the last rehabilitation results I saw indicated hard core child molesters and abusers don't have a great rehabilitation rate. Serial type murder's frequently slip through the system before finally being caught, many times on some minor offense that had nothing to do with the actual murders.

Yet the other side is the fact we can't say positively that every person who is charged and given the death sentence actually is guilty. Even if guilty circumstances may differ so greatly that death for one seems over kill while for another seems almost anticlimatic compared to their charges. So does the woman who kills an abusive spouse get the same treatment as say a Ted Bundy? Some would say murder is murder regardless of the reason why one committed the murder. Yet is it really? Consider the child killers such as Mary Bell. She was rehabilitated and now lives under a new name I understand. Yet is she less guilty for her murders than the adult who does the same? Given what she did it was as hard and unforgiving as any adult's actions.

Of course there is the automatic appeal then for the death sentence and who knows how many counter appeals that can be generated. All tying into the added costs of housing said prisoners.

So at this point in time i'd have to say it is a case by case situation.

Tylluan Penry
06 Apr 2016, 02:56
I'm against. Always have been.

Briton
06 Apr 2016, 03:19
I'd rather have awful people spend a lifetime locked away waiting for it to be over than give them quick out.

What end does this serve? All you end up with is highly irritable prisoners, who were already very violent, with nothing to do and, more worryingly, nothing to lose. Then you end up with murdered prisoners, prisoners who may well have been on the road to rehabilitation. Empty the cell and fill it with someone for whom a rehabilitative system is beneficial.

- - - Updated - - -


Have to admit I am split on this question.

On one hand if we have a rabid dog or one that attacks a person then we put them down, period. Yet a human who does the same we allow to linger in the system, or worse claim to be rehabilitated and release them. Yet the last rehabilitation results I saw indicated hard core child molesters and abusers don't have a great rehabilitation rate. Serial type murder's frequently slip through the system before finally being caught, many times on some minor offense that had nothing to do with the actual murders.

When I read this, I thought "The USA must be very different from the UK then, because in the UK violent sex criminals actually have the lowest recidivism rate of all criminals, with property criminals being the worst. So I did a little research. As it turns out, officially sex offenders have a recidivism rate of around 5% for the first three years (http://www.smart.gov/SOMAPI/sec1/ch5_recidivism.html (http://source)). However the article rightly points out that as few as one in four women might actually be reporting a rape. Let's assume that this is the same amongst other instances such as incest and paedophilia, it is unlikely to be that high for incest but paedophilia victims may be. So that makes 20% of sex offenders reoffend after the first three years, with 3/4 of them getting away with it. That does seem high, and it is unacceptable, but compare it to other rates.

On average (http://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/pages/welcome.aspx (http://source)) the rate of total recidivism is 67.8%! So sex offenders are, even by liberal statistics assuming it is four times higher than actually reported, more than three times less likely to commit the same crime again than any other criminal chosen at random. For a bit of scale, 82.1% of property offenders, 76.9% of drug offenders, 73.6% of public order offenders and 71.3% of violent offenders (ie murder, GBH, ABH, assault and battery).

I think this has to do with the sort of socialization amongst drug dealers and burglars. They rarely work alone, least of all drug dealers. Sex offenders, on the other hand, are similar to terrorists in that they have often entered a world of self-indulgence through isolation. Once they are out of that "comfort zone" that they've created, they generally become aware of the atrocity they committed or were going to commit, because there is very little "gang culture" for paedophilia, rape or incest.


So at this point in time I'd have to say it is a case by case situation.

I would agree, and if there were ever a death penalty here, it should most definitely be case by case, rather than "murder is murder". A child who is playing with the gun that belongs to their careless parent and accidently shoots dead their brother or sister is not a murderer. Rather, the parent should be charged with neglect, manslaughter and every other accusation that can stick.

Denarius
06 Apr 2016, 03:27
I'm of two minds about this. Immediately I don't like the idea of the government having any sort of authority in terms of morality or when any citizen's life will end. On the other hand, as long as they get a truly fair trial and their fate is ultimately decided by a jury of their peers I can't fault it too much.

Hesitantly support, for now.

Still, I don't like that the government has a near monopoly on gathering evidence but that's more a problem with the legal system as a whole.

anubisa
06 Apr 2016, 06:16
I think it really depends on the crime. I am sort of divided on it. I really think that there are some people who deserve the death penalty, but I think that people who have committed horrible crimes should stew in it. They should really have to think about what they did. It's a difficult decision I think.

anunitu
06 Apr 2016, 06:37
There is the eye for an eye school..The idea that a murderer should die exactly as the victem did.

ThePaganMafia
06 Apr 2016, 07:45
Only because that's how the law is set up.

Only because we have to have a lengthy appeals process because the State gets it wrong so many times it requires 20 years of review.

Shahaku
06 Apr 2016, 08:07
I definitely think there are people that deserve to die for their crimes. But the fact that, even with all our tech, we still get it wrong sometimes, I can't condone it. Honestly, I'm of the opinion that certain crimes should constitute being sent to an island in the middle of nowhere, survival of the fittest. But we tried that with Australia and that didn't work all that well either. Shrug.

DragonsFriend
07 Apr 2016, 07:32
I don't trust the government, any branch, enough to give them the power of life and death. I am not against corporal punishment, including death, but it needs to be quick and final.
The time to administer the death penalty is during the commission of the crime. That way it is directly connected to a barbaric act and not to getting caught years later.

anunitu
07 Apr 2016, 08:34
Remind me not to look any kind of guilty around you...

Taulmaril
07 Apr 2016, 08:44
It costs far more to execute than to house for life so it would seem execution is a larger drain on the taxpayer dollar.

I am not quite sure how a .22 shell costs more than a lifetime behind bars. I am for the death penalty for those who truly deserve it. I don't see it as an eye for an eye but as true justice done.

anunitu
07 Apr 2016, 08:49
That's a Chinese thing,shoot you,and charge your family for the bullet cost.

Taulmaril
07 Apr 2016, 08:55
I think it really depends on the crime. I am sort of divided on it. I really think that there are some people who deserve the death penalty, but I think that people who have committed horrible crimes should stew in it. They should really have to think about what they did. It's a difficult decision I think.

One problem is that there are people who commit horrible crimes that "stewing in it" will do nothing but prime them to commit more crimes. Psychopaths rarely ever feel guilt about there crimes and are rarely able to be rehabilitated. Same with sociopaths, although they are not usually the violent types. A serial killer stewing in what they did only lets them remember and celebrate their crime.

- - - Updated - - -


That's a Chinese thing,shoot you,and charge your family for the bullet cost.

I am not saying that the cost should pass on to the family. But while it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to house a violent criminal for life it only costs cents on the dollar for a .22 shell. That would be a huge cost saving measure.

MaskedOne
07 Apr 2016, 09:01
I am not quite sure how a .22 shell costs more than a lifetime behind bars. I am for the death penalty for those who truly deserve it. I don't see it as an eye for an eye but as true justice done.

The actual killing isn't the expensive part. The long appeal process built to make sure you aren't killing the wrong person is the expensive part and removing that appeal process increases the odds of executing the innocent. An old article but

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/061200death-penalty.html

There are lots of errors in death penalty cases unless dramatic improvements have been made since 2000.

DanieMarie
07 Apr 2016, 10:09
I am not quite sure how a .22 shell costs more than a lifetime behind bars. I am for the death penalty for those who truly deserve it. I don't see it as an eye for an eye but as true justice done.

Because you can't just shoot someone and have it be done with. You have to keep them in jail for a while as they go through a lengthy appeals process. Considering that even THAT doesn't keep some innocent people from facing the death penalty, it's hard to morally argue for just shooting them upon conviction and being done with it. We used to do that (though it was hanging back then). There's a good reason we don't anymore.

ThePaganMafia
07 Apr 2016, 11:15
It seems to me that people who are advocating express use of the death penalty fail to address the obvious issue of innocent people getting executed which means that you are either so naive that you believe the justice system gets it right 100% of the time or that you just don't care that innocent people will get executed.

So, which is it?

Medusa
07 Apr 2016, 11:38
It seems to me that people who are advocating express use of the death penalty fail to address the obvious issue of innocent people getting executed which means that you are either so naive that you believe the justice system gets it right 100% of the time or that you just don't care that innocent people will get executed.

So, which is it?

I'm up for killing guilty people.

anunitu
07 Apr 2016, 11:41
We,meaning the US is one of fewer countries that still have a death penalty(China is in the group).

THIS speaks volumes (http://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2016.html?gclid=CMOTssaj_csCFQEmhgodLkYAZA)

70% of people in local jails are NOT convicted of ANY crime(from the site)

ThePaganMafia
07 Apr 2016, 11:42
I'm up for killing guilty people.

And that's fine. If the system worked.

Medusa
07 Apr 2016, 11:43
Well usually when you are in a local jail, you did something illegal or thought to be illegal. At that point you are technically innocent until you get in front of the judge etc.

anunitu
07 Apr 2016, 11:48
And this about our prisons. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/americas/23iht-23prison.12253738.html?_r=0)

From Site:
The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population. But it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners.

- - - Updated - - -

Also here. (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/death-penalty-us-vs-the-world/)

We are among a small group of countries that have the Death Penalty.

Countries include:China,Iran,North Korea,Yemen,USA,Saudi Arabia,Libya,Syria, and others.
Not a good group to be included in.

DanieMarie
07 Apr 2016, 12:13
And you know, in countries without the death penalty, we're not exactly swimming in murder, which leads me to believe it can't be all that effective as a deterrent.

ThePaganMafia
07 Apr 2016, 12:21
Well usually when you are in a local jail, you did something illegal or thought to be illegal. At that point you are technically innocent until you get in front of the judge etc.

I'm not quite sure what your point is. Are you implying everyone who is in prison is guilty?

Taulmaril
07 Apr 2016, 12:26
It seems to me that people who are advocating express use of the death penalty fail to address the obvious issue of innocent people getting executed which means that you are either so naive that you believe the justice system gets it right 100% of the time or that you just don't care that innocent people will get executed.

So, which is it?

It's neither. I am far from na´ve about our judicial system. I know that there are innocent people who get caught up in the web. I just happen to believe that guilty people convicted of a heinous crime should suffer the ultimate fate. It's my belief. You certainly don't have to agree and that would be your belief, but don't mistake it for naivety.

ThePaganMafia
07 Apr 2016, 12:29
It's neither. I am far from na´ve about our judicial system. I know that there are innocent people who get caught up in the web. I just happen to believe that guilty people convicted of a heinous crime should suffer the ultimate fate. It's my belief. You certainly don't have to agree and that would be your belief, but don't mistake it for naivety.

So, you don't think that their innocence matters? Just their conviction? That the collateral damage is ultimately worth it?

Taulmaril
07 Apr 2016, 12:30
I'm not quite sure what your point is. Are you implying everyone who is in prison is guilty?

There is more of a chance that they are guilty than that they are not. Yes some people end up in the wrong place at the wrong time and get scooped up but that it is not the vast majority of people.

- - - Updated - - -


So, you don't think that their innocence matters? Just their conviction? That the collateral damage is ultimately worth it?

How about justice for the victims of a crime and their families. Don't you think that is important?

Medusa
07 Apr 2016, 12:30
I'm not quite sure what your point is. Are you implying everyone who is in prison is guilty?

No. I'm replying to this:

70% of people in local jails are NOT convicted of ANY crime(from the site)
Prisons and local jails are different. When you go to prison you are convicted of a crime. Local jails (like LA county, have criminals serving under one year OR have people waiting to go to court to get their case tried to see if they are in fact a criminal)

I mean look at my local jail. It's a sheriff's station. Most people in there are just waiting to get bused to county to await a trial to then maybe go to prison.

I wasn't actually implying anything. I was just clearing up what was quoted. I'm not going to actually argue this topic. Because eventually someone is going to get their panties in a twist and say something so snarky they will get this thread closed per the usual.

And I'm guessing that just might be you if you keep up with your huffytown ways mi amigo. :p

Taulmaril
07 Apr 2016, 12:31
And you know, in countries without the death penalty, we're not exactly swimming in murder, which leads me to believe it can't be all that effective as a deterrent.

We find that no amount of laws is a deterrent for crime. So then it comes down to punishment and if possible rehabilitation. Like I posted earlier though, sociopaths and psychopaths are rarely able to be rehabilitated.

ThePaganMafia
07 Apr 2016, 12:33
No. I'm replying to this:

Prisons and local jails are different. When you go to prison you are convicted of a crime. Local jails (like LA county, have criminals serving under one year OR have people waiting to go to court to get their case tried to see if they are in fact a criminal)

I mean look at my local jail. It's a sheriff's station. Most people in there are just waiting to get bused to county to await a trial to then maybe go to prison.

I wasn't actually implying anything. I was just clearing up what was quoted. I'm not going to actually argue this topic. Because eventually someone is going to get their panties in a twist and say something so snarky they will get this thread closed per the usual.

And I'm guessing that just might be you if you keep up with your huffytown ways mi amigo. :p

Well, I was mistaken in what you were replying to.

But, if debating this point get's thread locked so be it, I guess.

Taulmaril
07 Apr 2016, 12:37
No. I'm replying to this:

Prisons and local jails are different. When you go to prison you are convicted of a crime. Local jails (like LA county, have criminals serving under one year OR have people waiting to go to court to get their case tried to see if they are in fact a criminal)

I mean look at my local jail. It's a sheriff's station. Most people in there are just waiting to get bused to county to await a trial to then maybe go to prison.

I wasn't actually implying anything. I was just clearing up what was quoted. I'm not going to actually argue this topic. Because eventually someone is going to get their panties in a twist and say something so snarky they will get this thread closed per the usual.

And I'm guessing that just might be you if you keep up with your huffytown ways mi amigo. :p

I am not sure where the 70% of people in local jails are not convicted of any crime came from. I guess that could be while they are awaiting their trial date. There is a time limit to charge someone upon their arrest or they must be released. If you are charged and unable to bond out then yes it could be some time before a trial and conviction or acquittal. But the statement that 70% of people doing time have not been convicted may be a bit misleading. Perhaps an oversight on the part of the poster?

anunitu
07 Apr 2016, 12:37
Point is,people end up being locked up waiting,even though we have a system of Bail..and for minor crimes there is OT(Own recognizance) as in we trust you will show for court.
Innocent until proven guilty...

ThePaganMafia
07 Apr 2016, 12:37
We find that no amount of laws is a deterrent for crime. So then it comes down to punishment and if possible rehabilitation. Like I posted earlier though, sociopaths and psychopaths are rarely able to be rehabilitated.

Yes, but in the institution that is the death penalty innocent people get executed, minorities are disproportionately sentenced, and that it is a large cost upon the taxpayer. How do you reconcile that with the fact with your opinion that some people should be killed?

And I agree, I wouldn't mind seeing some people kick the bucket but if we we are unable to do it without applying it fairly and not kill innocent people how can we do it at all?

Taulmaril
07 Apr 2016, 12:43
Point is,people end up being locked up waiting,even though we have a system of Bail..and for minor crimes there is OT(Own recognizance) as in we trust you will show for court.
Innocent until proven guilty...

Yes that is true.

- - - Updated - - -


Yes, but in the institution that is the death penalty innocent people get executed, minorities are disproportionately sentenced, and that it is a large cost upon the taxpayer. How do you reconcile that with the fact with your opinion that some people should be killed?

And I agree, I wouldn't mind seeing some people kick the bucket but if we we are unable to do it without applying it fairly and not kill innocent people how can we do it at all?

I will admit that you make a good point. Let me just throw this out there; if say 1 in 25 people are innocent then how do you reconcile that the victims of the other 24 are receiving due justice if the death penalty is done away with. The other thing is this, there are many studies that show that minorities are not so much more targeted but that they tend to commit more crimes therefore a higher percentage of their population being represented. We can attribute this to a higher poverty rate amongst minorities which will indeed skew toward a higher percentage of minority population being represented in the criminal justice system. At least in areas where there is a higher percentage of minority population. The common factor regardless is poverty.

anunitu
07 Apr 2016, 12:49
Define Justice,is that eye for an eye,or another type of justice? And does eye foe an eye really ease the pain of the person graving for their lost loved one?
Some feel that using the death sentence(people that have been victims because they lost someone) is almost as bad as what the person did to their loved one.
I do not know what the proper solution is,BUT I will admit thinking to myself at times "Fry the Mother,the crime was that bad",so I waffle on it at times myself.

MaskedOne
07 Apr 2016, 12:54
I will admit that you make a good point. Let me just throw this out there; if say 1 in 25 people are innocent then how do you reconcile that the victims of the other 24 are receiving due justice if the death penalty is done away with.

Easily. Justice bought with innocent blood isn't just and the justice system does not exist to provide vengeance.

ThePaganMafia
07 Apr 2016, 12:55
I will admit that you make a good point. Let me just throw this out there; if say 1 in 25 people are innocent then how do you reconcile that the victims of the other 24 are receiving due justice if the death penalty is done away with. The other thing is this, there are many studies that show that minorities are not so much more targeted but that they tend to commit more crimes therefore a higher percentage of their population being represented. We can attribute this to a higher poverty rate amongst minorities which will indeed skew toward a higher percentage of minority population being represented in the criminal justice system. At least in areas where there is a higher percentage of minority population. The common factor regardless is poverty.

If justice means that we knowingly kill people who are innocent then that isn't really justice at all. If the death penalty is just a feel-good satisfaction mechanism for the victims then it isn't justice either.



Also an answer to your second question: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-penalty-black-and-white-who-lives-who-dies-who-decides

Taulmaril
07 Apr 2016, 12:56
Define Justice,is that eye for an eye,or another type of justice? And does eye foe an eye really ease the pain of the person graving for their lost loved one?
Some feel that using the death sentence(people that have been victims because they lost someone) is almost as bad as what the person did to their loved one.
I do not know what the proper solution is,BUT I will admit thinking to myself at times "Fry the Mother,the crime was that bad",so I waffle on it at times myself.

Some may feel that way but for many others putting to death the killer closes a very painful chapter for them. There is no easy answer to be sure. I think all people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness until they step over their rights and infringe on another's rights. It's that simple. You can believe, think, say or do anything you want as long as it does not infringe on my rights.

B. de Corbin
07 Apr 2016, 13:19
Iffin' you find out that you've killed an innocent person, can't ya just tell his/her family "Oops. Twenty-four other families got justice, though, so it evens out," and be done with it?

Is it, maybe, a gross infringment on somebody's rights to kill them for something he/she did not do?

Are rights really what is being argued here?

- - - Updated - - -

Likewise, if PaganMafia says the the justice system is biased against black folk, and Taulmaril counters with "No, it's not black folk, it's poor folk getting screwed," I can't see where or how Taulmaril has added any beef to his aguement because, if any group at all is getting screwed (and both agree that some group is), than PaganMafia has made his point - the justice system is unfair.

Medusa
07 Apr 2016, 13:26
The justice system is catered toward the rich. So is the rest of the world.
Ergo the world is unfair.
Ergo sky is blue.

B. de Corbin
07 Apr 2016, 13:28
The justice system is catered toward the rich. So is the rest of the world.
Ergo the world is unfair.
Ergo sky is blue.

QED.

Obviously.

pillar
21 Sep 2016, 06:13
I noticed that no one made the-argument that murder is wrong, even if the government is doing it. Just my two cents.

MaskedOne
21 Sep 2016, 06:40
I noticed that no one made the-argument that murder is wrong, even if the government is doing it. Just my two cents.

Because it would be irrelevant. Murder is not a synonym for killing. Murder is specifically "the unlawful killing of a human being". The government can be guilty of murder but capital punishment generally won't qualify. Now you can try for "killing is wrong, even if the government is doing it" but expect a lot of counters that have nothing to do with capital punishment.

Hawkfeathers
21 Sep 2016, 07:17
I support the death penalty where there is incontrovertible evidence. There's a case going on now in Springfield, MO where a 10 year old girl was taken and killed. Someone saw a man pull her into his car. They found her body in his basement. This is dragging on in the courts for some reason but everyone and their cat's ghost knows he did it.

DragonsFriend
21 Sep 2016, 08:45
Murder is wrong but killing is not always murder. If two or three guys are coming at you with baseball bats and you defend yourself by killing one of them so the other two run away that is not murder. It is killing in self defense.
Yes, I believe in the death penalty. I do not trust the legal system to determine guilt. I have seen too many abuses of those generating "evidence" and too many jurors who decide guilt on how they "feel" about the accused. Is the death penalty a deterrent for crime? NO! It is one way to rid society of the worst dangers to themselves.

ThePaganMafia
21 Sep 2016, 10:42
Self defense fantasies about killing dudes with baseball bats aside, it seems impossible to reconcile all my earlier points with having a death penalty. It is something that "feels" right but so often is not. I think we have this warped sense that justice should be what "feels good" for us and the victims. I have always thought that to be a fundamentally flawed way to view the penal system. I would think that if our intentions were to reduce crime we would focus less on justice and more on what actually reduces crime. Whether it be programs that offer prisoners a future-thus a lower recidivism rate-or addressing the class issues and societal issues that lead to high crime rates in working class communities. That however could be a topic in itself.

Medusa
21 Sep 2016, 10:56
I noticed that no one made the-argument that murder is wrong, even if the government is doing it. Just my two cents.

You might want to ask a murder victim about this.
oh wait.


hey, I know! How about ask a murderer if murder is wrong.