I used to but then I read stories about new DNA evidence exonerating people on death row. For someone like the Aurora shooter at the theater, hell yes, death penalty for him, but in other cases I'm pretty iffy.
The Death Penalty Debate, do you support the Death Penalty
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Yes. It's cheaper than keeping them for 50 years in prisons feeding and clothing them, and it's justice. People who oppose the death penalty are fruitcakes who don't have grasp on reality.
>claims justice >claims it's cheaper > calls us fruitcakes >is wrong on everythingYes. It's cheaper than keeping them for 50 years in prisons feeding and clothing them, and it's justice. People who oppose the death penalty are fruitcakes who don't have grasp on reality.
GOGOGOGURT
It's not justice if someone innocent of the crime is put to death. Granted that may be a small minority but it does happen.Yes. It's cheaper than keeping them for 50 years in prisons feeding and clothing them, and it's justice. People who oppose the death penalty are fruitcakes who don't have grasp on reality.
GOGOGOGURT
[QUOTE="Ncsoftlover"]
[QUOTE="Rich3232"] no, by its very definition, it is not murder /thegerg thegerg
I don't care about your legal definition, which is (let's face it) subjected to change throughout human history. There is no murder more premeditated and more planned than Capital punishment.
Don't give me that Law of the land thing again, or you'll have to defend executing gays and executing rape victims. You'll have to defend all the atrocities that our "government" has done throughout histories, you'll have to defend executing people for believing in the wrong religion, witchcraft and adultery. If you can't defend those, you can't defend "law of the land". Any government can write in the law that a certain crime is "punishable by death and justified", however that doesn't not make it any less of a murder.
I will bet you my life that hundred of years later, collectively as a society, we will see Capital punishment as nothing other than state sanctioned murder. Human life is inviolable, and premeditated killing without consent is unjustifiable.
Capital punishment = state sanctioned first degree premedidated murder of its citizens against their will.
"Don't give me that Law of the land thing again, or you'll have to defend executing gays and executing rape victims."No, he won't. You seem to be very confused.
One is able to recognize that an immoral execution is not murder. Saying that capital punishment isn't murder is not saying that it's a good thing, it's simply recognizing that thy are not the same thing.
It might help your argument (and our understanding of it) if you were to provide the definition of murder as you see it. Because, what you are describing is not in line with the correc legal definition of murder.
*correct[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]>claims justice >claims it's cheaper > calls us fruitcakes >is wrong on everythingYes. It's cheaper than keeping them for 50 years in prisons feeding and clothing them, and it's justice. People who oppose the death penalty are fruitcakes who don't have grasp on reality.
Rich3232
I assume you speak for everyone then? If a violent killer is alive, I would rather have him dead to put him out of his misery and to protect everyone else.
It's not justice if someone innocent of the crime is put to death. Granted that may be a small minority but it does happen.[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]
Yes. It's cheaper than keeping them for 50 years in prisons feeding and clothing them, and it's justice. People who oppose the death penalty are fruitcakes who don't have grasp on reality.
meatgrinderz
True, but the way we take our death penalty so seriously I would be surprised if it happened at all.
>claims justice >claims it's cheaper > calls us fruitcakes >is wrong on everything[QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]
Yes. It's cheaper than keeping them for 50 years in prisons feeding and clothing them, and it's justice. People who oppose the death penalty are fruitcakes who don't have grasp on reality.
GOGOGOGURT
I assume you speak for everyone then? If a violent killer is alive, I would rather have him dead to put him out of his misery and to protect everyone else.
Did I say I spoke for everyone? Everyone is being protected just fine with the killer behind bars for the rest of his life. I'm not much for needless misery beyond a point, but if you want that, then a lifetime in jail where he's constantly at risks for beatings, shankings, and rape is a miserable existence, I assure you. Oh, I misread that. Well, I don't really care about increasing or decreasing his misery beyond a certain point so that doesn't factor into why I oppose the death penalty.
"If you support the death penalty, and only one single innocent person is killed, and killing an innocent person is murder, then you become a murderer. Therefore, you become a murderer, and you deserve to be killed. This is the death penalty paradox, and it cannot be avoided."
So long as human beings are in charge of who lives and who dies. Mistakes, are going to be made. Executing an innocent person is the worst thing that could possibly happen on this Earth. Capital punishment perpetuates this act.
"If you support the death penalty, and only one single innocent person is killed, and killing an innocent person is murder, then you become a murderer. Therefore, you become a murderer, and you deserve to be killed. This is the death penalty paradox, and it cannot be avoided."
So long as human beings are in charge of who lives and who dies. Mistakes, are going to be made. Executing an innocent person is the worst thing that could possibly happen on this Earth. Capital punishment perpetuates this act.
DJ419
Happened alot during the french revolution. And A MILLION other instances. The world is still turning.
No. It costs more than imprisonment, it can lead to the deaths of innocents, it does not deter crime, and it is morally questionable for a state to murder its own citizens. There really is no benefit to it other than satisfying peoples blood lust and need for vengance.
[QUOTE="Ncsoftlover"]
[QUOTE="Rich3232"] no, by its very definition, it is not murder /thegerg thegerg
I don't care about your legal definition, which is (let's face it) subjected to change throughout human history. There is no murder more premeditated and more planned than Capital punishment.
Don't give me that Law of the land thing again, or you'll have to defend executing gays and executing rape victims. You'll have to defend all the atrocities that our "government" has done throughout histories, you'll have to defend executing people for believing in the wrong religion, witchcraft and adultery. If you can't defend those, you can't defend "law of the land". Any government can write in the law that a certain crime is "punishable by death and justified", however that doesn't not make it any less of a murder.
I will bet you my life that hundred of years later, collectively as a society, we will see Capital punishment as nothing other than state sanctioned murder. Human life is inviolable, and premeditated killing without consent is unjustifiable.
Capital punishment = state sanctioned first degree premedidated murder of its citizens against their will.
"Don't give me that Law of the land thing again, or you'll have to defend executing gays and executing rape victims."No, he won't. You seem to be very confused.
One is able to recognize that an immoral execution is not murder. Saying that capital punishment isn't murder is not saying that it's a good thing, it's simply recognizing that thy are not the same thing.
It might help your argument (and our understanding of it) if you were to provide the definition of murder as you see it. Because, what you are describing is not in line with the correc legal definition of murder.
I have went through this discussion with you already. I don't care about your legal definition, or anyone's, laws are written with the many limitations of man, and the limitation of the era that we live in. Believe it or not, I am not making an immoral execution argument, to me executing gays is equally immoral as executing hitler makes absolutely no difference to me. However, if we do not judge these executions by our own standards, then executing rape victims may be perfectly moral to people of Yemen, as a random example. Morality is highly subjective as "legal definition" is, what's "lawful" or not is certainly not consistent from one place to another. Capital Punishment would be unlawful killing in Canada, however it wouldn't be in the US, executing people for witchcraft may be lawful once upon a time in UK, and still lawful in Saudi Arabia, but certainly "unlawful" in any modern society in our era. So how do you define what's "lawful" and "unlawful", there's no universal values, therefore, defining murder as "unlawful killing" is making execuse for government sanctioned killing. I've asked this question before, and you can choose to answer me truthfully: if the communists in China wrote in the law that "anyone who speak against government is punishable by death!" Does that make the massive killings of citizens in the cultural revolution era any less than a "murder", and does a change in a sentence in the "law book" suddenly justify a government sanctioned murder? Morality is highly subjective, as with what's "lawful" or not, murder to me should be defined as : premeditated killing against one's will, simple and easy and without cultural bias. Anything against the universal law "Life in inviolable" should be unlawful.
I'm refering capital punishment as "murder" for the negative connotation associated with the word "murder", capital punishment is a first degree premeditated killing against the will of the offenders, I think even you would agree with that. I am going to upgrade "killing" to "murder" because the term "unlawful" is simply too vague and too fluid of a term that's subjected to constant changes as we progress in time through history, and the "law of the land" differs very much from one society to the next. I simply find the term "unlawful" to be an excuse of an justification. I choose to believe in a universal law "life in inviolable", "lawful" or not is not a part of my consideration because it is too limited by the time era we live in.
I hope I have made myself clear this time because this amount of typing is really tiresome, Capital Punishment is murder is my view upholding the universal law, because of the inconsistencies with what's lawful or not, I couldn't care any less about some random countries legal definition.
PS: stop calling people confused,you've done it constantly. I have spent massive amount of my time learning about Capital punishment. I have read just about every argument in existence for and against this disgusting act.
thegerg: if murder = unlawful killing and capital punishment = unlawful killing in Canada.
Then Capital punishment = murder in Canada. How do you explain this in your logic?
Do you see that there's no universal value of what's "lawful" and what's "unlawful", as a Canadian resident, I'm not in the wrong position to call Capital punishment "murder" But even if I'm not, majority of the world's countries abolished capital punishment already, so in all of those countries, capital punishment would be "unlawful killing".
Yeah, your thing about "it's cheaper" is very flatly false. I think you should do some basic fact-checking before accusing people who disagree with you of not having a grasp on reality.Yes. It's cheaper than keeping them for 50 years in prisons feeding and clothing them, and it's justice. People who oppose the death penalty are fruitcakes who don't have grasp on reality.
GOGOGOGURT
[QUOTE="Ncsoftlover"][QUOTE="Crunchy_Nuts"]I support the death penalty. Generally I am in favour of giving non-violent criminals a second chance. Violent criminals or other criminals who are a danger to society should be imprisoned. Repeat offenders of non-violent and non-dangerous should be imprisoned. Repeat offenders of violent crime or those who commit incredibly heinous crimes should be executed. And no, execution is not murder. It is justice.Rich3232
Capital punishment = state sanctioned first degree premedidated murder of its citizens against their will.
no, by its very definition, it is not murder /thegerg Murder implies that the killing is unjust. Not only is the death penalty legally defensible but morally too.Exactly, with modern DNA evidence it makes even more sense to have the death penalty since the chances of a false conviction are pretty much zero.I used to but then I read stories about new DNA evidence exonerating people on death row. For someone like the Aurora shooter at the theater, hell yes, death penalty for him, but in other cases I'm pretty iffy.
meatgrinderz
Using that same logic prison = slavery. Should we stop imprisoning people? I'm not really pro capital punishment but saying killing anyone for any reason is murder seems a bit hypocritical when our main form of punishment (keeping people locked up at the government's will) is also illegal for citizens to do.thegerg: if murder = unlawful killing and capital punishment = unlawful killing in Canada.
Then Capital punishment = murder in Canada. How do you explain this in your logic?
Do you see that there's no universal value of what's "lawful" and what's "unlawful", as a Canadian resident, I'm not in the wrong position to call Capital punishment "murder" But even if I'm not, majority of the world's countries abolished capital punishment already, so in all of those countries, capital punishment would be "unlawful killing".
Ncsoftlover
Using that same logic prison = slavery. Should we stop imprisoning people? I'm not really pro capital punishment but saying killing anyone for any reason is murder seems a bit hypocritical when our main form of punishment (keeping people locked up at the government's will) is also illegal for citizens to do.[QUOTE="Ncsoftlover"]
thegerg: if murder = unlawful killing and capital punishment = unlawful killing in Canada.
Then Capital punishment = murder in Canada. How do you explain this in your logic?
Do you see that there's no universal value of what's "lawful" and what's "unlawful", as a Canadian resident, I'm not in the wrong position to call Capital punishment "murder" But even if I'm not, majority of the world's countries abolished capital punishment already, so in all of those countries, capital punishment would be "unlawful killing".
Toxic-Seahorse
they have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Capital punishment is not justifiable whether it is defined as murder or not. I am against defining murder as unlawful killing because the notion of "unlawful" is highly subjective, fluid, and differ from era to era, from country to country. Therefore, personally, a universal morality that life is inviolable should apply, and murder's definition, to me, should be simply: premeditated killing against one's will.
First, I never said killing anyone for any reason is murder: manslaughter is not really murder if it does not involve premeditation, certainly self defense killing is not murder because there is no intention. You understanding that any killing is murder is misdirected.
Second, prison does not equal slavery camp, in the US, the system more or less resemble one, with the cheap, and more or less forced labor, but in countries such Norway/Denmark, where foundamental human rights like voting or even conjugal visit are not prohibited, inmates get to enjoy most of the foundamental human rights (with the exception of total freedom), and they're certain not owned or subjected to cruel punishments. If their rights are violated unnesesarily, then I'd be against such a prison system as well, but that's an entirely irrelevant topic.
Should they be imprisoned? Of course, but not as a punishment, but as a period of segregation for rehabilitation, if the focus is punishment (like US), the system is flawed and nearly worthless. But the government does and should have certain ability beyond ordinary citizen, that include incarcerate people for reasonable periods of time, a society can only function this way.
Third: Imprisoning people does not create a moral hypocrisy, the government does not punish people who stole, rob, rape or kill by stealing, robbing, rape and kill them, therefore, imprisoning them is a more humane way, and in that case, the justice system is at a relative moral high ground to prosecute. However, if the government start to murder to teach murder is wrong, it loses that moral highground, and that would be morally contradictory. Your analogy that anti-death penalty meaning anti-imprisonment does not make any sense. What I was talking about was not even related to argument against death penalty, but more about defining death penalty as government sanctioned first degree premedidated murder of its citizens against their will, and I stand by my statement.
[QUOTE="meatgrinderz"]Exactly, with modern DNA evidence it makes even more sense to have the death penalty since the chances of a false conviction are pretty much zero. Hahahahahahahaaaa... No. Actually recently there's been some heat toward the FBI because they had claimed that DNA testing is more accurate than we're finding it to be. When you're killing people and you're wrong you're no better than any thug vigilante. That isn't what justice is about. DNA isn't even used in all murder cases.I used to but then I read stories about new DNA evidence exonerating people on death row. For someone like the Aurora shooter at the theater, hell yes, death penalty for him, but in other cases I'm pretty iffy.
Crunchy_Nuts
Using that same logic prison = slavery. Should we stop imprisoning people? I'm not really pro capital punishment but saying killing anyone for any reason is murder seems a bit hypocritical when our main form of punishment (keeping people locked up at the government's will) is also illegal for citizens to do.[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"]
[QUOTE="Ncsoftlover"]
thegerg: if murder = unlawful killing and capital punishment = unlawful killing in Canada.
Then Capital punishment = murder in Canada. How do you explain this in your logic?
Do you see that there's no universal value of what's "lawful" and what's "unlawful", as a Canadian resident, I'm not in the wrong position to call Capital punishment "murder" But even if I'm not, majority of the world's countries abolished capital punishment already, so in all of those countries, capital punishment would be "unlawful killing".
Ncsoftlover
they have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Capital punishment is not justifiable whether it is defined as murder or not. I am against defining murder as unlawful killing because the notion of "unlawful" is highly subjective, fluid, and differ from era to era, from country to country. Therefore, personally, a universal morality that life is inviolable should apply, and murder's definition, to me, should be simply: premeditated killing against one's will.
First, I never said killing anyone for any reason is murder: manslaughter is not really murder if it does not involve premeditation, certainly self defense killing is not murder because there is no intention. You understanding that any killing is murder is misdirected.
Second, prison does not equal slavery camp, in the US, the system more or less resemble one, with the cheap, and more or less forced labor, but in countries such Norway/Denmark, where foundamental human rights like voting or even conjugal visit are not prohibited, inmates get to enjoy most of the foundamental human rights (with the exception of total freedom), and they're certain not owned or subjected to cruel punishments. If their rights are violated unnesesarily, then I'd be against such a prison system as well, but that's an entirely irrelevant topic.
Should they be imprisoned? Of course, but not as a punishment, but as a period of segregation for rehabilitation, if the focus is punishment (like US), the system is flawed and nearly worthless. But the government does and should have certain ability beyond ordinary citizen, that include incarcerate people for reasonable periods of time, a society can only function this way.
Third: Imprisoning people does not create a moral hypocrisy, the government does not punish people who stole, rob, rape or kill by stealing, robbing, rape and kill them, therefore, imprisoning them is a more humane way, and in that case, the justice system is at a relative moral high ground to prosecute. However, if the government start to murder to teach murder is wrong, it loses that moral highground, and that would be morally contradictory. Your analogy that anti-death penalty meaning anti-imprisonment does not make any sense. What I was talking about was not even related to argument against death penalty, but more about defining death penalty as government sanctioned first degree premedidated murder of its citizens against their will, and I stand by my statement.
So if I capture another human being, hold them against their will, but give them all the amenities they would have at their home it's OK? That makes no sense. Keeping people against their will is slavery with or without forced labor. It may be more humane than killing the person, but they're doing to their citizens what they tell their citizens not to do. That is how it is similar to the capital punishment debate.[QUOTE="Ncsoftlover"][QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"] Using that same logic prison = slavery. Should we stop imprisoning people? I'm not really pro capital punishment but saying killing anyone for any reason is murder seems a bit hypocritical when our main form of punishment (keeping people locked up at the government's will) is also illegal for citizens to do.
Toxic-Seahorse
they have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Capital punishment is not justifiable whether it is defined as murder or not. I am against defining murder as unlawful killing because the notion of "unlawful" is highly subjective, fluid, and differ from era to era, from country to country. Therefore, personally, a universal morality that life is inviolable should apply, and murder's definition, to me, should be simply: premeditated killing against one's will.
First, I never said killing anyone for any reason is murder: manslaughter is not really murder if it does not involve premeditation, certainly self defense killing is not murder because there is no intention. You understanding that any killing is murder is misdirected.
Second, prison does not equal slavery camp, in the US, the system more or less resemble one, with the cheap, and more or less forced labor, but in countries such Norway/Denmark, where foundamental human rights like voting or even conjugal visit are not prohibited, inmates get to enjoy most of the foundamental human rights (with the exception of total freedom), and they're certain not owned or subjected to cruel punishments. If their rights are violated unnesesarily, then I'd be against such a prison system as well, but that's an entirely irrelevant topic.
Should they be imprisoned? Of course, but not as a punishment, but as a period of segregation for rehabilitation, if the focus is punishment (like US), the system is flawed and nearly worthless. But the government does and should have certain ability beyond ordinary citizen, that include incarcerate people for reasonable periods of time, a society can only function this way.
Third: Imprisoning people does not create a moral hypocrisy, the government does not punish people who stole, rob, rape or kill by stealing, robbing, rape and kill them, therefore, imprisoning them is a more humane way, and in that case, the justice system is at a relative moral high ground to prosecute. However, if the government start to murder to teach murder is wrong, it loses that moral highground, and that would be morally contradictory. Your analogy that anti-death penalty meaning anti-imprisonment does not make any sense. What I was talking about was not even related to argument against death penalty, but more about defining death penalty as government sanctioned first degree premedidated murder of its citizens against their will, and I stand by my statement.
So if I capture another human being, hold them against their will, but give them all the amenities they would have at their home it's OK? That makes no sense. Keeping people against their will is slavery with or without forced labor. It may be more humane than killing the person, but they're doing to their citizens what they tell their citizens not to do. That is how it is similar to the capital punishment debate. You are aware the people we lock up get trials, right? Yeah, sometimes we're wrong. The nice thing about them not being dead is that we can at least try to set things right, let them go and give them some cash for the time they've lost. It doesn't give them back the time they've lost but it's better than f*cking killing them for trivial sh*t. It's better than having a society in total anarchy. Basically your argument is batsh*t insane and isn't at all like how the justice system works.[QUOTE="Ncsoftlover"][QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"] Using that same logic prison = slavery. Should we stop imprisoning people? I'm not really pro capital punishment but saying killing anyone for any reason is murder seems a bit hypocritical when our main form of punishment (keeping people locked up at the government's will) is also illegal for citizens to do.
Toxic-Seahorse
they have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Capital punishment is not justifiable whether it is defined as murder or not. I am against defining murder as unlawful killing because the notion of "unlawful" is highly subjective, fluid, and differ from era to era, from country to country. Therefore, personally, a universal morality that life is inviolable should apply, and murder's definition, to me, should be simply: premeditated killing against one's will.
First, I never said killing anyone for any reason is murder: manslaughter is not really murder if it does not involve premeditation, certainly self defense killing is not murder because there is no intention. You understanding that any killing is murder is misdirected.
Second, prison does not equal slavery camp, in the US, the system more or less resemble one, with the cheap, and more or less forced labor, but in countries such Norway/Denmark, where foundamental human rights like voting or even conjugal visit are not prohibited, inmates get to enjoy most of the foundamental human rights (with the exception of total freedom), and they're certain not owned or subjected to cruel punishments. If their rights are violated unnesesarily, then I'd be against such a prison system as well, but that's an entirely irrelevant topic.
Should they be imprisoned? Of course, but not as a punishment, but as a period of segregation for rehabilitation, if the focus is punishment (like US), the system is flawed and nearly worthless. But the government does and should have certain ability beyond ordinary citizen, that include incarcerate people for reasonable periods of time, a society can only function this way.
Third: Imprisoning people does not create a moral hypocrisy, the government does not punish people who stole, rob, rape or kill by stealing, robbing, rape and kill them, therefore, imprisoning them is a more humane way, and in that case, the justice system is at a relative moral high ground to prosecute. However, if the government start to murder to teach murder is wrong, it loses that moral highground, and that would be morally contradictory. Your analogy that anti-death penalty meaning anti-imprisonment does not make any sense. What I was talking about was not even related to argument against death penalty, but more about defining death penalty as government sanctioned first degree premedidated murder of its citizens against their will, and I stand by my statement.
So if I capture another human being, hold them against their will, but give them all the amenities they would have at their home it's OK? That makes no sense. Keeping people against their will is slavery with or without forced labor. It may be more humane than killing the person, but they're doing to their citizens what they tell their citizens not to do. That is how it is similar to the capital punishment debate.You seriously need to read what I was saying, I was not making an argument for or against death penalty. I was defending my definition that Capital punishment is premeditated murder, by refusing to define murder as "unlawful killing", I've written plenty about why I thought this way, you can read it in this thread if you want.I also said that even if theGerg defined Capital Punishment as unlawful killing, that's also problematic, because in countries like Canada, capital punishment is unlawful killing in the first place, so it would be murder anyway:)
I've already said the government can hold people for a reasonable period of time, and in order to keep society safe, it makes sense for the government to have authority beyond ordinary citizen, as long as the offenders' foundamental human rights are not violated. I never claimed that the government should hold as much authority as the ordinary citizen, you as an ordinary citizen did not hold a fair trial and investigation over the crime, how can you have any authority imprisoning the person? As long as the government is not acting out a moral hypocrisy, ie. killing for showing killing is wrong. Incarceration out of nesessity is fine as long as it's not abused, that has nothing to do with Capital Punishment argument, and that has nothing to do with what I was claiming, and I think you should probably read a little bit more carefully, because I've answered your question already in what you quoted.
[QUOTE="Crunchy_Nuts"][QUOTE="meatgrinderz"]Exactly, with modern DNA evidence it makes even more sense to have the death penalty since the chances of a false conviction are pretty much zero. Hahahahahahahaaaa... No. Actually recently there's been some heat toward the FBI because they had claimed that DNA testing is more accurate than we're finding it to be. When you're killing people and you're wrong you're no better than any thug vigilante. That isn't what justice is about. DNA isn't even used in all murder cases. Yes, it's true that even with DNA evidence it's still not impossible to make a mistake. But this is not an inherent fault of the death penalty. Some criminals can be proved to be guilty beyond ALL doubt, and even then very few would probably still be executed. The death penalty is not the problem, but rather how it is implemented.I used to but then I read stories about new DNA evidence exonerating people on death row. For someone like the Aurora shooter at the theater, hell yes, death penalty for him, but in other cases I'm pretty iffy.
Ace6301
[QUOTE="Ncsoftlover"][QUOTE="thegerg"] "Don't give me that Law of the land thing again, or you'll have to defend executing gays and executing rape victims."
No, he won't. You seem to be very confused.
One is able to recognize that an immoral execution is not murder. Saying that capital punishment isn't murder is not saying that it's a good thing, it's simply recognizing that thy are not the same thing.
It might help your argument (and our understanding of it) if you were to provide the definition of murder as you see it. Because, what you are describing is not in line with the correc legal definition of murder.
thegerg
I have went through this discussion with you already. I don't care about your legal definition, or anyone's, laws are written with the many limitations of man, and the limitation of the era that we live in. Believe it or not, I am not making an immoral execution argument, to me executing gays is equally immoral as executing hitler makes absolutely no difference to me. However, if we do not judge these executions by our own standards, then executing rape victims may be perfectly moral to people of Yemen, as a random example. Morality is highly subjective as "legal definition" is, what's "lawful" or not is certainly not consistent from one place to another. Capital Punishment would be unlawful killing in Canada, however it wouldn't be in the US, executing people for witchcraft may be lawful once upon a time in UK, and still lawful in Saudi Arabia, but certainly "unlawful" in any modern society in our era. So how do you define what's "lawful" and "unlawful", there's no universal values, therefore, defining murder as "unlawful killing" is making execuse for government sanctioned killing. I've asked this question before, and you can choose to answer me truthfully: if the communists in China wrote in the law that "anyone who speak against government is punishable by death!" Does that make the massive killings of citizens in the cultural revolution era any less than a "murder", and does a change in a sentence in the "law book" suddenly justify a government sanctioned murder? Morality is highly subjective, as with what's "lawful" or not, murder to me should be defined as : premeditated killing against one's will, simple and easy and without cultural bias. Anything against the universal law "Life in inviolable" should be unlawful.
I'm refering capital punishment as "murder" for the negative connotation associated with the word "murder", capital punishment is a first degree premeditated killing against the will of the offenders, I think even you would agree with that. I am going to upgrade "killing" to "murder" because the term "unlawful" is simply too vague and too fluid of a term that's subjected to constant changes as we progress in time through history, and the "law of the land" differs very much from one society to the next. I simply find the term "unlawful" to be an excuse of an justification. I choose to believe in a universal law "life in inviolable", "lawful" or not is not a part of my consideration because it is too limited by the time era we live in.
I hope I have made myself clear this time because this amount of typing is really tiresome, Capital Punishment is murder is my view upholding the universal law, because of the inconsistencies with what's lawful or not, I couldn't care any less about some random countries legal definition.
PS: stop calling people confused,you've done it constantly. I have spent massive amount of my time learning about Capital punishment. I have read just about every argument in existence for and against this disgusting act.
Keep in mind that this "universal law" you're getting into is just as subjective as any real, encoded law. " if the communists in China wrote in the law that "anyone who speak against government is punishable by death!" Does that make the massive killings of citizens in the cultural revolution era any less than a "murder"" Yes. By law that was not murder. Tat doesn't mean that that killing was OK, just that it's not murder. "and does a change in a sentence in the "law book" suddenly justify a government sanctioned murder?" If a killing is lawfully sanctioned by the state it is not murder.okay, this is just semantics, and this is frustrating. you know I was offering a personal view on capital punishment, and I don't care about any of your random countries's legal definitions, because I want a view that transcends differences between cultures, societies and eras of time, and not subjected to bias of any "laws of the land". This argument is so pointless, it's kind of like if I say: "this cake you made is a piece of **** and you just have to constantly tell me :" no, but by legal definition, it's still a cake, even though it taste like **** Seriously, how can you not know what I mean?
When I call out capital punishment as state sanctioned murder, I was basically admitting by that specific country's laws at that specific time this institution is self justified as "not murder", however, this justification is a piece of crap, and what it really is, is an attempt to justify a blatant murder. It's called calling it out the way I see it, say it the way I feel it. If I care about any country's legal definition, it would be pointless to offer this opinion. I don't care about any country legal definition, whether they say the "the killing is justified", does not change the fact that the killing is basically murder. Of course to the eyes of the people in that specific country at that specific time, it is not murder! I've repeatly said that to the eyes of people in yemen, killing rape victims is not murder, but calling it out the way I see it, it is equavalent to murder, is this that hard to understand? or do you feel like arguing about semantics constantly.
It's kind like if I say, "what falun gong really is, is an organized religion." and you say: "but by communist's legal definition in China, it's a evil illegal scam organization." I say:" I know from the eyes of the communists, it's an evil organization. I don't care about their definition, I'm calling it crap, they don't have the final say on it, falun gong is basically an organized religion."
Do you see what I'm getting at here? you're arguing in circles and not even a very good one at that. And plus, I'm offering an opinion not restricted by any country's legal definition. So when I claim capital punishment murder, even if I use your definition as "unlawful killing", the claim stands because in Canada, capital punishment is unlawful killing, therefore it is murder. Unless you think USA is the centre of universe, well in that case, I've got over 100 countries which abolished capital punishment on my back. My statement is not wrong, and I don't care about certain country's specific definition at some specific time, my statement is universal.
I support it for extreme cases with absolute proof. Some people simply don't deserve life after what they have done.
That's about it though.
but who are we as humans to judge something like that?I support it for extreme cases with absolute proof. Some people simply don't deserve life after what they have done.
That's about it though.
but who are we as humans to judge something like that? It isn't about judging it on the human level but the civilization level. We all give up some personal freedoms so we all can have personal freedoms. If, as a society, we deem someone unfit to be part of said civilization by majority then we have every right to remove them from said society. But even if we are to judge on the human level, it is our right to. We take care of our own. That means human beings. We have every single right to judge the one next to us. Just because something can ask WHY you are judging them does not mean you should all of a sudden stop doing it.I support the death penalty wholeheartedly for people who commit murder, rape and crimes against children but only in situations of absolute certainty that take the human error element out of the equation.
theGerg: my statement is a more universal sentiment because by upholding it at all times I can always support my statement that capital punishment is government sanctioned murder. The idea that life is inviolable is not agreed by 7 billion, however, it is a much more universal idea because its consistencies, I'm making a "universal" claim meaning that my claim is not bounded by any "legal definitions" of any specific country in some specific era, this is in clear contrast to the inconsistencies of your idea "law of the land" in many different countries through different eras of time. And the fact that unlawful killing is murder and capital punishment is unlawful in over 100 countries is a loop you can never get out of.
I will continue claiming capital punishment as government sanctioned murder until I see a compelling argument against that statement.
Only in rare and exceptional circumstances. So basically, no.
[QUOTE="Ncsoftlover"]"And the fact that unlawful killing is murder and capital punishment is unlawful in over 100 countries is a loop you can never get out of." Capital punishment is the lawful killing of an individual by the state as a sentence for a crime. In countries in which the death penalty is not lawfully practiced any execution of a prisoner carried out by the state would not be capital punishment because it is not lawful. It is not a loop at all. In that case you would be talking about murder, not capital punishment. There is nothing inconsistent about the claim that capital punishment is not murder.theGerg: my statement is a more universal sentiment because by upholding it at all times I can always support my statement that capital punishment is government sanctioned murder. The idea that life is inviolable is not agreed by 7 billion, however, it is a much more universal idea because its consistencies, I'm making a "universal" claim meaning that my claim is not bounded by any "legal definitions" of any specific country in some specific era, this is in clear contrast to the inconsistencies of your idea "law of the land" in many different countries through different eras of time. And the fact that unlawful killing is murder and capital punishment is unlawful in over 100 countries is a loop you can never get out of.
I will continue claiming capital punishment as government sanctioned murder until I see a compelling argument against that statement.
thegerg
I am speaking of it as a Universal term unbounded by some arbitary written law by some specific country at some specific time.
Capital punishment is state sanctioned murder, an unlawful killing as define by the law of over 100 countries, argue with them all you wnat. Though when I speak of it, I don't care about any countries's legal definitions, just like I don't care about communist's official claim that "falun gong" is an evil scam organization. I'm speak of Capital punishment as a term, I'm not talking about death penalty specifically in USA in the era of 2000's, nor am I speaking about the death penalty in the UK in the era of 1920's. I am speaking of death penalty as what it is, not what it is defined as which is used as pathetic justifications. If I agree with what it is defined as in some specific country at some specific era, then there would be no need to call it out on what it really is!
I'm focusing on what death penalty really is, and you are focusing on some specific countries pathetic justification of murder kind of legal definition.
Oh my non existing god! I feel like I am turning into a repeating machine in the last few days. Just how many times did I say: I don't care about the legal definition of death penalty from some specific country in some specific era of time, I'm calling it out on what it really is!
Is that that hard to understand....:cry:
[QUOTE="MrPraline"]The state should not have the power to kill its own citizens, so no.thegergWhat about those that aren't its citizens? Are they not afforded the same protection?
a state should have even less authority over other countries' citizens. However, if they commit crimes in a foreign country, then they'd be treated the same as citizens of that specific country, so in that case, they have the same protection, they'd be treated as equivalents.
the 'justus' system here in the states is disgusting.surrealnumber5Yes and no. The court system actually works very well most of the times. There are exceptions but for the average person it is pretty fair. It's not possible to have a perfect system run by humans. What's wrong is the punishments and how we treat the criminals.
[QUOTE="Ncsoftlover"]"And the fact that unlawful killing is murder and capital punishment is unlawful in over 100 countries is a loop you can never get out of." Capital punishment is the lawful killing of an individual by the state as a sentence for a crime. In countries in which the death penalty is not lawfully practiced any execution of a prisoner carried out by the state would not be capital punishment because it is not lawful. It is not a loop at all. In that case you would be talking about murder, not capital punishment. There is nothing inconsistent about the claim that capital punishment is not murder.theGerg: my statement is a more universal sentiment because by upholding it at all times I can always support my statement that capital punishment is government sanctioned murder. The idea that life is inviolable is not agreed by 7 billion, however, it is a much more universal idea because its consistencies, I'm making a "universal" claim meaning that my claim is not bounded by any "legal definitions" of any specific country in some specific era, this is in clear contrast to the inconsistencies of your idea "law of the land" in many different countries through different eras of time. And the fact that unlawful killing is murder and capital punishment is unlawful in over 100 countries is a loop you can never get out of.
I will continue claiming capital punishment as government sanctioned murder until I see a compelling argument against that statement.
thegerg
it is kind of a loop though.
you will say: if capital punishment is no longer legal in these countries, then capital punishment is not really capital punishment, it is murder.
I will say: if murder is indeed unlawful killing (your definition, not mine), and capital punishment was once lawful but now unlawful, then the term capital punishment in these country by legal definition, simply become synonymous to state sanctioned murder.
and we can repeat this until the world ends or one of us dies, but I don't think you're any more "correct" than I am.
but of course, unlawful killing is your definition, I never agreed to it, I made compelling argument otherwise. So i have a way out of this, you don't.
[QUOTE="Ncsoftlover"][QUOTE="thegerg"] What about those that aren't its citizens? Are they not afforded the same protection?thegerg
a state should have even less authority over other countries' citizens. However, if they commit crimes in a foreign country, then they'd be treated the same as citizens of that specific country, so in that case, they have the same protection, they'd be treated as equivalents.
Why, then, do you define capital punishment as "state sanctioned first degree premedidated murder of its citizens against their will"? If they are to be treated as equivalents why do you make such a distinction based on citizenship?because I'll calling out on death penalty as what it really is, not by the legal definition of some specific country in some specific era.
Yes and no. The court system actually works very well most of the times. There are exceptions but for the average person it is pretty fair. It's not possible to have a perfect system run by humans. What's wrong is the punishments and how we treat the criminals.[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]the 'justus' system here in the states is disgusting.Toxic-Seahorse
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/weekinreview/07glater.html?_r=0 wrong we have had studies in the last few years that illustrate divides in which things like blacks still get harsher and longer prison sentences compared to whites on the same offenses.. There is no such things as "pretty fair" there is either fair or it isn't fair.
Yes and no. The court system actually works very well most of the times. There are exceptions but for the average person it is pretty fair. It's not possible to have a perfect system run by humans. What's wrong is the punishments and how we treat the criminals.[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"]
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]the 'justus' system here in the states is disgusting.sSubZerOo
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/weekinreview/07glater.html?_r=0 wrong we have had studies in the last few years that illustrate divides in which things like blacks still get harsher and longer prison sentences compared to whites on the same offenses.. There is no such things as "pretty fair" there is either fair or it isn't fair.
No, it isn't as simple as fair and not fair. Humans make mistakes and it will always happen. If it were just fair or not fair, nothing would EVER be considered fair. Nobody is perfect enough to be fair 100% of the time, especially not a large group of humans. As for your argument about blacks getting longer sentences and what not, that falls into the punishment category, which I already said doesn't work well...
"And the fact that unlawful killing is murder and capital punishment is unlawful in over 100 countries is a loop you can never get out of." Capital punishment is the lawful killing of an individual by the state as a sentence for a crime. In countries in which the death penalty is not lawfully practiced any execution of a prisoner carried out by the state would not be capital punishment because it is not lawful. It is not a loop at all. In that case you would be talking about murder, not capital punishment. There is nothing inconsistent about the claim that capital punishment is not murder.[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="Ncsoftlover"]
theGerg: my statement is a more universal sentiment because by upholding it at all times I can always support my statement that capital punishment is government sanctioned murder. The idea that life is inviolable is not agreed by 7 billion, however, it is a much more universal idea because its consistencies, I'm making a "universal" claim meaning that my claim is not bounded by any "legal definitions" of any specific country in some specific era, this is in clear contrast to the inconsistencies of your idea "law of the land" in many different countries through different eras of time. And the fact that unlawful killing is murder and capital punishment is unlawful in over 100 countries is a loop you can never get out of.
I will continue claiming capital punishment as government sanctioned murder until I see a compelling argument against that statement.
Ncsoftlover
I am speaking of it as a Universal term unbounded by some arbitary written law by some specific country at some specific time.
Capital punishment is state sanctioned murder, an unlawful killing as define by the law of over 100 countries, argue with them all you wnat. Though when I speak of it, I don't care about any countries's legal definitions, just like I don't care about communist's official claim that "falun gong" is an evil scam organization. I'm speak of Capital punishment as a term, I'm not talking about death penalty specifically in USA in the era of 2000's, nor am I speaking about the death penalty in the UK in the era of 1920's. I am speaking of death penalty as what it is, not what it is defined as which is used as pathetic justifications. If I agree with what it is defined as in some specific country at some specific era, then there would be no need to call it out on what it really is!
I'm focusing on what death penalty really is, and you are focusing on some specific countries pathetic justification of murder kind of legal definition.
Oh my non existing god! I feel like I am turning into a repeating machine in the last few days. Just how many times did I say: I don't care about the legal definition of death penalty from some specific country in some specific era of time, I'm calling it out on what it really is!
Is that that hard to understand....:cry:
Trying to impose a definition of what a country decries via written laws on another country is idiotic. You wouldn't want the US to presume to impose it's laws on say Germany or France, nor would you want France or Germany to presume that they could impose it's laws on the US. So what if 100 countries have decried that they will not use capital punishment in their country. That does not mean that what they enact has any force in law in the US or has any meaning in the US. In the US, capital punishment is used and is not murder even if some other country may think it is.Yes and no. The court system actually works very well most of the times. There are exceptions but for the average person it is pretty fair. It's not possible to have a perfect system run by humans. What's wrong is the punishments and how we treat the criminals.[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"]
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]the 'justus' system here in the states is disgusting.sSubZerOo
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/weekinreview/07glater.html?_r=0 wrong we have had studies in the last few years that illustrate divides in which things like blacks still get harsher and longer prison sentences compared to whites on the same offenses.. There is no such things as "pretty fair" there is either fair or it isn't fair.
while no justice system is perfect, relatively speaking, a justice system like Norway's is more fair then US's. The US sentencing is fulfilled with inconsistencies.
There are people who are sentenced to prison for 200 years for downloading 20 photos of child pornography. and then there are second degree murders who are out after 11 years. So if we were to contrast cases like that, I don't think there is one single developed nation that has such sentencing inconsistencies. the US sentencing system is almost like a vent your frustration game, yeah, 639 years for rape, got cha!
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment