By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Death sentence. Yes or no?

Tagged games:

McDonaldsGuy on 24 June 2015
kitler53 said:
The_Yoda said:
Are any of you that oppose the death penalty ok with war?

A) a bear is charging at you agressively and you are left with no choice but kill or be killed.  

B) a bear is locked in a cage.  you can either kill the bear or not, your life is not in danger in either result. 

 

 

please tell me you can see the difference in those situations.  the is a massive moral difference in my opinion. 

 


In B, did the bear kill 3 people and maul an additional 200 people before that?

And by the way, what if the bear escapes? It's not like criminals can never escape. Oh wait, 2 murderers just escaped prison a few weeks ago. Nevermind! Lol



Around the Network
The_Yoda on 24 June 2015
sundin13 said:
The_Yoda said:

I see several parallels. Many people find the death penalty hypocritical i.e. killing someone for killing someone else.  Essentially this is how wars start and function.  Could the death penalty not also be seen as a necessary evil.  You don't have to wage war, you can choose to just let yourself be killed / conquered. You don't have to put someone to death, you can just let them live in prison.

I'm just curious what others think. I'm not saying war is a good thing, I'm not saying the death penalty is a good thing. If there was anything in this thread I agreed with the most it would be :


But there is a huge difference which (imo) invalidates any comparison. Death penalty is a penalty that replaces Life Without Parole. In both cases the person is removed from society and prevented from further commiting these crimes. War on the otherhand has little in the way of alternatives. Diplomatic action and economic sanctions are the first steps, but they do not really protect anyone and they certainly do not prevent anyone from taking action that will harm others. Because there is no equivalent to Life Without Parole for countries, you can't really compare war to the death penalty.

This is seen quite clearly when you compare "letting yourself be killed/conquered" to "life in prison", when the actual comparison would be to letting the criminal go free and turning a blind eye when they kill people or commit other crimes.

Not sure how you are getting to the change in comparison or that your revision is even a comparison



The_Yoda on 24 June 2015
ReimTime said:
The_Yoda said:
Are any of you that oppose the death penalty ok with war?


The only possible connection I see between the death penalty and war is the group of citizens that vehemently support both causes. No offense but it kinda sounds like the title of a Fox News article meant to shame Americans by implying they aren't patriotic, or that they are unconstitutional


Hmmm you don't see that each involves killing ...?



sundin13 on 24 June 2015
McDonaldsGuy said:

First of all, it's not "revenge." THE DEATH PENALTY IS HANDED OUT BY A NEUTRAL JURY.

Second of all, even if it was revenge, so what? Revenge is a dish best served cold, and Boston gets VERY, VERY cold!

Third of all, the death penalty gives VALUE to human life. Basically if you don't give the murderer (especially a mass murderer) the death penalty you are saying that person's life is MORE worthy of life than the victims. Basically you are saying the victims lives were worthless.

Fourth of all, people CHOOSE to commit murder. It's a CHOICE, so they know the consequences. If I put my hand on a hot stove, I will get burnt. Simple as that.

Fifth of all, there are children STARVING. Veterans HOMELESS. Our tax money should go to them before a guy who thought it was funny to kill a dozen people including a baby and 6 year old girl.


There are no legitimate arguments against the death penalty.


Well the first two are nothing statements, the third doesn't make any sense (you are going to have to explain yourself a lot better to make that assertion), the fourth is irrelevant and the fifth is ignorant to the cost of death penalty cases.

Arguments against the death penalty (in general) include: High cost, uncertainty of guilty determinations, questionable message it sends, questionable morality, questionable constitutionality, lack of deterrent effect, inconsistencies based on attorney quality, death is an easy way out, death penalty cases draw out family's involvement etc

What we are lacking are reasons to choose the death penalty over life without parole...

The_Yoda said:

Not sure how you are getting to the change in comparison or that your revision is even a comparison


What do you mean? Its obvious that "just let a country kill us" isn't equivalent to "life in jail"...as I said, a better comparison would be to "letting the criminal free". I think I explained myself quite clearly, so you will have to clarify what exactly you don't understand.



SocialistSlayer on 24 June 2015

im assuming most people here who are against the death penalty are very much in favor of the death penalty for innocent unborn babies



 

Around the Network
ReimTime on 24 June 2015
SocialistSlayer said:
im assuming most people here who are against the death penalty are very much in favor of the death penalty for innocent unborn babies


I am also against abortions



#1 Amb-ass-ador

The_Yoda on 24 June 2015
McDonaldsGuy said:
kitler53 said:

A) a bear is charging at you agressively and you are left with no choice but kill or be killed.  

B) a bear is locked in a cage.  you can either kill the bear or not, your life is not in danger in either result. 

 

 

please tell me you can see the difference in those situations.  the is a massive moral difference in my opinion. 

 


In B, did the bear kill 3 people and maul an additional 200 people before that?

And by the way, what if the bear escapes? It's not like criminals can never escape. Oh wait, 2 murderers just escaped prison a few weeks ago. Nevermind! Lol

In scenario B I think "euphanization" is the standard procedure ...  hell all an animal has to do is bite someone and they are put down



McDonaldsGuy on 24 June 2015
sundin13 said:
McDonaldsGuy said:

First of all, it's not "revenge." THE DEATH PENALTY IS HANDED OUT BY A NEUTRAL JURY.

Second of all, even if it was revenge, so what? Revenge is a dish best served cold, and Boston gets VERY, VERY cold!

Third of all, the death penalty gives VALUE to human life. Basically if you don't give the murderer (especially a mass murderer) the death penalty you are saying that person's life is MORE worthy of life than the victims. Basically you are saying the victims lives were worthless.

Fourth of all, people CHOOSE to commit murder. It's a CHOICE, so they know the consequences. If I put my hand on a hot stove, I will get burnt. Simple as that.

Fifth of all, there are children STARVING. Veterans HOMELESS. Our tax money should go to them before a guy who thought it was funny to kill a dozen people including a baby and 6 year old girl.


There are no legitimate arguments against the death penalty.


Well the first two are nothing statements, the third doesn't make any sense (you are going to have to explain yourself a lot better to make that assertion), the fourth is irrelevant and the fifth is ignorant to the cost of death penalty cases.

Arguments against the death penalty (in general) include: High cost, uncertainty of guilty determinations, questionable message it sends, questionable morality, questionable constitutionality, lack of deterrent effect, inconsistencies based on attorney quality, death is an easy way out, death penalty cases draw out family's involvement etc

What we are lacking are reasons to choose the death penalty over life without parole...


The first 2 sentences are perfect. The death penalty isn't revenge because it's given by a neutral jury.

The third sentence makes sense too - basically, if you don't give the murderer the death penalty, you are saying his life is worth more than the victims. It's basically saying when you take away someone's life, the COST (value) is your own. Thinking of my brother or mother possibly getting murdered makes me nearly faint, and to think the murderer is having kids or doing cocaine behind bars makes me angry.

a) The death penalty is 100% constitutional

b) The death penalty only has a high cost because of stupid appeals

c) DNA testing has made the death penalty very accurate, and there should just be a different level of guilt determined for death penalty cases (beyond a shadow of a doubt for eample)

d) Life without parole isn't truly life without parole - many prisoners have gotten out of prison despite having LWOP and prison life isn't bad. In fact, many prisoners prefer it.



McDonaldsGuy on 24 June 2015
The_Yoda said:
McDonaldsGuy said:
kitler53 said:

A) a bear is charging at you agressively and you are left with no choice but kill or be killed.  

B) a bear is locked in a cage.  you can either kill the bear or not, your life is not in danger in either result. 

 

 

please tell me you can see the difference in those situations.  the is a massive moral difference in my opinion. 

 


In B, did the bear kill 3 people and maul an additional 200 people before that?

And by the way, what if the bear escapes? It's not like criminals can never escape. Oh wait, 2 murderers just escaped prison a few weeks ago. Nevermind! Lol

In scenario B I think "euphanization" is the standard procedure ...  hell all an animal has to do is bite someone and they are put down


Exactly. We kill an animal for even biting a human being, yet when a person kills 12 people people actually defend that person? It disgusts me.



The_Yoda on 24 June 2015
sundin13 said:
McDonaldsGuy said:

First of all, it's not "revenge." THE DEATH PENALTY IS HANDED OUT BY A NEUTRAL JURY.

Second of all, even if it was revenge, so what? Revenge is a dish best served cold, and Boston gets VERY, VERY cold!

Third of all, the death penalty gives VALUE to human life. Basically if you don't give the murderer (especially a mass murderer) the death penalty you are saying that person's life is MORE worthy of life than the victims. Basically you are saying the victims lives were worthless.

Fourth of all, people CHOOSE to commit murder. It's a CHOICE, so they know the consequences. If I put my hand on a hot stove, I will get burnt. Simple as that.

Fifth of all, there are children STARVING. Veterans HOMELESS. Our tax money should go to them before a guy who thought it was funny to kill a dozen people including a baby and 6 year old girl.


There are no legitimate arguments against the death penalty.


Well the first two are nothing statements, the third doesn't make any sense (you are going to have to explain yourself a lot better to make that assertion), the fourth is irrelevant and the fifth is ignorant to the cost of death penalty cases.

Arguments against the death penalty (in general) include: High cost, uncertainty of guilty determinations, questionable message it sends, questionable morality, questionable constitutionality, lack of deterrent effect, inconsistencies based on attorney quality, death is an easy way out, death penalty cases draw out family's involvement etc

What we are lacking are reasons to choose the death penalty over life without parole...

The_Yoda said:

Not sure how you are getting to the change in comparison or that your revision is even a comparison


What do you mean? Its obvious that "just let a country kill us" isn't equivalent to "life in jail"...as I said, a better comparison would be to "letting the criminal free". I think I explained myself quite clearly, so you will have to clarify what exactly you don't understand.

It is equivalent if you look at it as not taking a life.