[QUOTE="T_P_O"] You can still advocate for a punishment when the law is breached and believe that revenge is a silly motive for justice. If I want society to be protected from a murderous fellow, he must be put away from society (his punishment). And there's more than one way of accomplishing that.CptJSparrow
Survival is the motive for justice. Society wants to have its survival protected; when someone tries to take them away, they forfeit their rights and are thus put to death.
Also, depends on your philosophy whether or not justice is relative. Regardless, the good chaps of OT will keep you in debate, for I am not really going to be stating new points from this moment onwards.
Nonsense. Facts do not depend on philosophies; philosophies depend on interpretation. Either justice is relative or it isn't. Your belief does not change the fact.
The problem with this is it costs far more money then housing them in prison for life.. And its not a deterrent.. Hence there is no reason to support the death penalty, inless you like wasting tons of money for the same thing to happen.. These people go away, and we never hear from them again.
Unless of course what you mean by 'justice' is not what someone else means by 'justice'; it's an ill-defined word, abused by people who want others killed just to sate their retributive bloodlust.HAHAITHINKNOT
(1) Survival is the motive for justice. Society wants to have its survival protected; when someone tries to take them away, they forfeit their rights and are thus put to death.
(2) Nonsense. Facts do not depend on philosophies; philosophies depend on interpretation. Either justice is relative or it isn't. Your belief does not change the fact.CptJSparrow
Christ, this is ridiculous:
(1) Society wants its survival protected, they forfeit their rights. Yes, I get it. Why does that mean they are put to death then? Imprisoning someone (formally) forfeits several rights, including liberty and property.
(2) Whether you find this discussion to be factual or normative is dependent on your ethical philosophy.
[QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"]Unless of course what you mean by 'justice' is not what someone else means by 'justice'; it's an ill-defined word, abused by people who want others killed just to sate their retributive bloodlust.CptJSparrow
Ad hominem? It's about survival, not bloodlust.Odd, plenty of more enlightened countries haven't executed anyone for decades and are surviving just fine.
The problem with this is it costs far more money then housing them in prison for life.. And its not a deterrent.. Hence there is no reason to support the death penalty, inless you like wasting tons of money for the same thing to happen.. These people go away, and we never hear from them again.
sSubZerOo
20 rounds of Hornady 9088 .44 magnum only costs $15.
[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"]Unless of course what you mean by 'justice' is not what someone else means by 'justice'; it's an ill-defined word, abused by people who want others killed just to sate their retributive bloodlust.HAHAITHINKNOT
Ad hominem? It's about survival, not bloodlust.Odd, plenty of more enlightened countries haven't executed anyone for decades and are surviving just fine. The 'enlightened' countries of Europe are bankrupt.
The problem with this is it costs far more money then housing them in prison for life.. And its not a deterrent.. Hence there is no reason to support the death penalty, inless you like wasting tons of money for the same thing to happen.. These people go away, and we never hear from them again.
CptJSparrow
20 rounds of Hornady 9088 .44 magnum only costs $15.
:| Clearly you have no idea how our justice system works... The US uses a court of a appeals that every person can use as a right to make sure no one is faced with the penalty when they are infact innocent.. To do away with those, puts at risk every American citizen taking away their right to appeal.. Thats what costs money, not the actual execution.. So yet again there is no point in supporting the death penalty inless you want to pay immesne amounts of money for the same conclusion, or you want to fundamentally change our justice system that relates closer to a tyrannical government.
[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"] Ad hominem? It's about survival, not bloodlust.Odd, plenty of more enlightened countries haven't executed anyone for decades and are surviving just fine. The 'enlightened' countries of Europe are bankrupt.itt irrelevances
(1) Society wants its survival protected, they forfeit their rights. Yes, I get it. Why does that mean they are put to death then? Imprisoning someone (formally) forfeits several rights, including liberty and property.
(2) Whether you find this discussion to be factual or normative is dependent on your ethical philosophy.
T_P_O
Because they do not deserve to live on the charity of society when they have murdered. What you believe is dependent on your philosophy; what is actually true does not.
[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"]Odd, plenty of more enlightened countries haven't executed anyone for decades and are surviving just fine.HAHAITHINKNOT
The 'enlightened' countries of Europe are bankrupt.itt irrelevances That and I'm only aware that Iceland went bankrupt during the economic decline.
(1) Society wants its survival protected, they forfeit their rights. Yes, I get it. Why does that mean they are put to death then? Imprisoning someone (formally) forfeits several rights, including liberty and property.
(2) Whether you find this discussion to be factual or normative is dependent on your ethical philosophy.
CptJSparrow
Because they do not deserve to live on the charity of society when they have murdered. What you believe is dependent on your philosophy; what is actually true does not.
Yet again what you believe is irrelevent.. It costs more money for the appeals court, and you get the same conclusion.. These people go away, and you never hear of them again..
You called them more enlightened.Yes, I consider countries that don't unnecessarily kill their own people to be more enlightened. What relevance has that to the recession?
(1) Society wants its survival protected, they forfeit their rights. Yes, I get it. Why does that mean they are put to death then? Imprisoning someone (formally) forfeits several rights, including liberty and property.
(2) Whether you find this discussion to be factual or normative is dependent on your ethical philosophy.
CptJSparrow
Because they do not deserve to live on the charity of society when they have murdered. What you believe is dependent on your philosophy; what is actually true does not. Whether they deserve to live at all is a belief. And alright, stalemate on the philosophy/belief thing, we're not going to agree on it no matter how many times I make the point or other points, evidently.
(1) Society wants its survival protected, they forfeit their rights. Yes, I get it. Why does that mean they are put to death then? Imprisoning someone (formally) forfeits several rights, including liberty and property.
(2) Whether you find this discussion to be factual or normative is dependent on your ethical philosophy.
T_P_O
Because they do not deserve to live on the charity of society when they have murdered. What you believe is dependent on your philosophy; what is actually true does not. Whether they deserve to live at all is a belief. And alright, stalemate on the philosophy/belief thing, we're not going to agree on it no matter how many times I make the point or other points, evidently.
Morally speaking the people who argue against the death penalty has nothing to do with the criminal's sake.. But the society's sake.. In that they will not stoop the low no matter the cost.. It seems people forget that..
[QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"]Why shouldn't murderers have that luxury?HAHAITHINKNOT
Because they took that luxury from the deceased obviously.
Why does that mean that murderers shouldn't have that luxury?
WHY DOES IT MATTER EITHER WAY? Is my question.. As it stands, statistically death penalty is considered the worse, and it has shown no correlation with being a effective deterrence.. Meaning it really doesn't matter what luxuries and what not they will lose.. They will still do it.. The main goal is to keep them safely away from society and its successful in that regard.. Who cares if they are suffering or not.. Because that is not the goal of these punishments, its meant to keep a stable society thats secure and safe.. They will never be able to committ another crime again in public.. And yet again its cheaper housing for life then a death penalty trial which results in multi million dollar appeals.
I am personally for it, however, we spend way too much time and money keeping people on death row for years upon years and all they are doing is waiting. I think that is a bit unnecessary. IMO it would be cheaper to just buy a rope and get it over with...
Against, because i feel sympathy for people about to die. And then i dont want them to die.
Scr00I
Sympathy? I don't have any for these people.
There was this one weird story where a girl killed her mother and brother with the help of her boyfriend, and her dad forgave her since she's all he had left.
Why does that mean that murderers shouldn't have that luxury?Espada12
Because they are scum and should be treated as such.
I agree to extent, but that should not have us sacrifice being humane.. We do such things for the sakes of our selves in lines we don't cross, not for them..
Log in to comment