Quantcast
Do you support the death penalty?

Forums - Politics Discussion - Do you support the death penalty?

What about you?

Yes 119 36.73%
 
No 128 39.51%
 
I have to explain (please make a post) 11 3.40%
 
No, and I also oppose corporal punishment 38 11.73%
 
See results 28 8.64%
 
Total:324
sundin13 said:
Ka-pi96 said:

Would you still say that if it were the other way around though? For example doctors trying to save somebody's life. They are still deciding between life and death for another person, and there have even been cases where said person has been begging the doctors to let them die but they've been ignored.

The doctors aren't really deciding though. They are applying a blanket "life for all" statement to everyone they treat (unless legally prevented from doing so). To say that they are deciding would be to imply that the doctor is looking at a patients chart and saying "Well, he seems like a good person so I'll treat him. The guy in the next bunk seems like a jerk, so I'll not treat him." If that were the case, I would be very much against it and I would believe that it is immoral and unethical.

Because of that, I'd say your comparison is flawed.

I don't think that makes the comparison flawed. "life for all" is still a decision, and when applied to those that don't want to live is very comparable to deciding to kill those that don't want to die.

I mean, I get why they do it (probably legal obligations and stuff like that) but the "life must be saved at all costs" ideology really irks me. I'd personally much rather be left to die instead of forced to live longer and suffer in agony for ages, especially if it was something terminal so instead of preventing your death they're just delaying it and prolonging your suffering instead. Actually, better than that even would just be a bullet to the head, that would be the humane thing to do.



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

Around the Network
Ka-pi96 said:

Not all people in the west regard life the same either. And it's not as if westerners don't kill themselves for reasons that other people would consider ludicrous as well.

And what about India then? Also has the death penalty, and well they have Gandhi as their history. Pretty hard to find someone less violent than him

True but the difference is that life is precious in the west from an "official" point of view. No government would declare that life is not precious or precious in some cases only etc.

So from there the death penalty is a contradiction that makes no sense. And to make things worse it never stopped crimes from existing so the only excuse those countries have is not even valid to beging with.

As for India, even more than Japan life is regarded as a transient thing far less important that life in the west. They believe that people live, die and reincarnate almost endlessly. Killing someone in india is barey more serious than firing someone from a job in the west so that person needs to change their plans and find a different path.

While this explains why the death penalty in India is not as big a deal as it is in the west, I want to make clear that It is nonetheless as barbaric as anywhere else it is implemented. It is just as wrong and misguided as anywhere else even if to Indians, death is just moving from one state to another and does not really change the nature of the person that dies.

Last edited by CrazyGamer2017 - on 05 November 2017

.

I'm in the zone, don't bother me!

Ka-pi96 said:

I don't think that makes the comparison flawed. "life for all" is still a decision, and when applied to those that don't want to live is very comparable to deciding to kill those that don't want to die.

I mean, I get why they do it (probably legal obligations and stuff like that) but the "life must be saved at all costs" ideology really irks me. I'd personally much rather be left to die instead of forced to live longer and suffer in agony for ages, especially if it was something terminal so instead of preventing your death they're just delaying it and prolonging your suffering instead. Actually, better than that even would just be a bullet to the head, that would be the humane thing to do.

I think that this is a largely different discussion.

If there is one option (help this person), there is no decision. Doctors are not by any means judging the worth of individuals and deciding who to save which makes it fundamentally different than the government judging the worth of individuals and deciding who to kill. 



Ka-pi96 said:

Yes, there are differences. But fundamentally they both result in someone's life being taken away. That's the thing, from my point of view you're essentially arguing that it should be ok to kill someone. That's not a viewpoint I'll ever understand.

 

Ka-pi96 said:
Firstly, VGP you're a traitor that looks at other forums? :O

As for the topic itself, yes I do. 

Lmao



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
Ka-pi96 said:

Yes, there are differences. But fundamentally they both result in someone's life being taken away. That's the thing, from my point of view you're essentially arguing that it should be ok to kill someone. That's not a viewpoint I'll ever understand.

 

Ka-pi96 said:
Firstly, VGP you're a traitor that looks at other forums? :O

As for the topic itself, yes I do. 

Lmao

Nice quote find :O

I just don't see killing someone and executing someone as the same though. Basically I don't think those that take the rights of others deserve any themselves. That would include the right to life. I dunno, maybe that makes me a hypocrite? But I just don't see the lives of a innocent people as equal to those of murderers.



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

Around the Network

I may support an extra-jurisdictional killing of a great menace or terror to society of someone then having the death penalty formalized in our system.

People may find that abhorrent but that sort of exists in our system anyways.


As I said if a guy committed a terror attack and he is killed in a raid even unarmed, would people really care?

Ka-pi96 said:

Nice quote find :O

I just don't see killing someone and executing someone as the same though. Basically I don't think those that take the rights of others deserve any themselves. That would include the right to life. I dunno, maybe that makes me a hypocrite? But I just don't see the lives of a innocent people as equal to those of murderers.

I don't really think what you said was hypocritical, I just wanted to be an ass because I found the contradiction funny : ^ ) 



In principal, I'm against it, and don't think it's logical to commit the same action on someone for which they're being punished for, alongside the other obvious problems with it.

I'll say I'm a bit flexible though...and acknowledge there are some cases where rehabiliation is impossible and/or keeping them alive is a severe detriment. I just find those cases to be exceptions for the most part.



NNID: Zephyr25 / PSN: Zephyr--25 / Switch: SW-4450-3680-7334

No. The state should not have power over life and death, even if the person deserves it. The state can't get it 100% right anyways.



Death is an escape, it's not a punishment for the guilty 

The Innocent can and are put to death