Jump to content


Photo

Death Penalty


  • Please log in to reply
128 replies to this topic

Poll: Is death penalty right?

Is death penalty right?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#41 Sip

Sip

    Buffet Connoisseur

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,366 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Online

Posted 03 September 2003 - 11:52 AM

You have to be fairly screwed up in the head to commit the kinds of murders that would lead to death penalty ... so at that point, I don't think you can analyze the criminal mind using rational basis for analysis!

So ... that throws out the entire "deter crime" etc argument.

Right now, it's too expensive to carry out capital punishment ... no doubt about it and I won't argue that. However, that is not an argument for or against capital punishment in general. It just says how stupid the system is right now.

Now, in general, I am totally FOR capital punishment because after a certain point, a life is more trouble that it is worth. Thus, you eliminate the loses and move on. It's simple economics ... and DON'T tell me life is infinitely valuable. Of course it is NOT.

#42 Sip

Sip

    Buffet Connoisseur

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,366 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Online

Posted 03 September 2003 - 11:53 AM

On a side note, I think moderators should get to vote as many times as they want on polls.

#43 DominO

DominO

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 September 2003 - 01:24 PM

Sip, whom has the right to tell that one will lose his right to live?

I reinsert my comment on lions. Lions are dangerious to humans, if they were to live with us, they will kill us. Is it a reason to kill them? No! You just separate them from us. The same goes with those criminals... they are like another specy, you just separate them from us.



Ah and! As for moderators should have the right to vote more than once. Nope! Tha Domino is your Universe, your Universe should have at the very least as much right to vote as the total of the voters here + 1 :) Another comment like that, and I'll call McCarthyologist to vote. :P

#44 Sasun

Sasun

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,533 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ, USA
  • Interests:Art, Yoga, Spirituality

Posted 03 September 2003 - 01:31 PM

Now, in general, I am totally FOR capital punishment because after a certain point, a life is more trouble that it is worth. Thus, you eliminate the loses and move on. It's simple economics ... and DON'T tell me life is infinitely valuable. Of course it is NOT.

Obviously there are as many opinions on the value of life as there are separate individuals. A suicidal will certainly not value his/her life as much as someone who has a satisfied life. But one can never know another persons valuation of life. Only because we think somebody's life is not worth much doesn't mean it is true. We shouldn't even think of somebody elses life as having a certain fixed value. It is neither moral nor rational, we have no right to do that.

#45 Azat

Azat

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,969 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles, CA
  • Interests:wine, beer, food, art, jokes

Posted 03 September 2003 - 04:57 PM

You have to be fairly screwed up in the head to commit the kinds of murders that would lead to death penalty ... so at that point, I don't think you can analyze the criminal mind using rational basis for analysis!

So ... that throws out the entire "deter crime" etc argument.


the deter crime argument was specifically for Harut. For the example that he had put about a public hanging or something like so. BTW in general harsher sentences do not work. Look at what a failure "3 strikes law" and longer sentences have become. The jail population in the US is growing and there is no end to it it seems.



Right now, it's too expensive to carry out capital punishment ... no doubt about it and I won't argue that. However, that is not an argument for or against capital punishment in general. It just says how stupid the system is right now.


Sip, I think the system is correct. I strongly am for the multiple automatic appeals and such. Just in the last 5-6 years because of DNA testing some 100 people were released from jail who on death row. If we did not have "the system" they would have been killed. BTW2: I put that argument because someone had said that they are a burden on society and cost too much to keep them alive.

---

I think the US needs to look around and see why our crime rates are so high. Why is human life so worthless to these few who commit these crimes. I am no expert on this but I feel it is due to lack of education and a strong upbringing at home.

#46 gamavor

gamavor

    -= Nobility =-

  • Nobility
  • 4,998 posts
  • Location:Houston, TX

Posted 03 September 2003 - 10:02 PM

who has the right to take away somebody else's freedom?

Harut du archetype u anarchist yes!!! :) :) :)

#47 Harut

Harut

    Վերնագիր

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,734 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:հորիզոն...
  • Interests:uninterested...

Posted 07 September 2003 - 02:12 AM

Harut, I am sure that may work for students who fail a class. do you think we should make an example of one or two students to make sure that no one else fails?

he he. actually we should try that. that would be one heck of a show, especially after the party.

ok, getting serious here...
i voted 'NO' on the poll. i'm too much of a humanist and forgiving. but i thought that few things weren't right, even though they were to support my view on the issue.
unfortunately i don't have any reason to justify my vote. i just don't feel comfortable with taking someone's life.

#48 Harut

Harut

    Վերնագիր

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,734 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:հորիզոն...
  • Interests:uninterested...

Posted 07 September 2003 - 02:15 AM

Harut du archetype u anarchist yes!!! :) :) :)

bayts, bayts, bayts yes inch em arel...? yes miayn hartsnum em.

#49 Sip

Sip

    Buffet Connoisseur

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,366 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Online

Posted 07 September 2003 - 06:35 PM

Domino, here's a Kantian style of argument against your lion analogy ...

If we killed all lions, they would be extinct. Obviously that's bad.

If we killed all murderers, humans would not be extinct and we would probably have a better world... well, at least the world won't be any worse.

Aha!!!!! :P

#50 DominO

DominO

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 September 2003 - 07:19 PM

Domino, here's a Kantian style of argument against your lion analogy ...

If we killed all lions, they would be extinct. Obviously that's bad.

If we killed all murderers, humans would not be extinct and we would probably have a better world... well, at least the world won't be any worse.

Aha!!!!!  :P

Sip, don't sell the bears... before having killed him. :)


Your analogy does not work... Kantian rational 3 "Laws" does not permit you select a "type" of people(by giving special rights) and a type of killing(murder).
So your question should rather be.

"If we were to kill everyone, what would happen? "

You know why?

Lets show you why this question should be asked, and why your logic does not make sense.

Lets repost your quotation.

If we killed all murderers, humans would not be extinct and we would probably have a better world... well, at least the world won't be any worse.

Suppose that you kill someone, you would be a murderer, but more importantly a killer. Death penality is not considered as a murder, that would mean, that killing is only considered murder when it is not permited by the state in question, when it is, than it is a killing but not a murder.

Now, we come to a Kantian rationality problem, because the first question you should ask would be.

"If everyone was to define a kind of killing that is justified and exclude if from the definition of what is a murder, what would happen?"

So, therefore, the word "murder" should not be used in this cases, because it would fail the first stage of the trial. Because this question would not be good for humanity, and would lead to its destruction.

We would now be forced to use only the words "killing" and "kill." Since the word "murderer" has failed the test of rationality.

Now, lets correct your question, by replacing the word "murderer" by the word "killier."

"If we killed all killers, humans would not be extinct and we would probably have a better world... well, at least the world won't be any worse."

Aha!!!!

Now, lets see what would be the problem of such a sentences.

Suppose that one killed, and he is killed because he has killed. The one that has commited the "killing" is in his turn a killer, therefore, from your question, he should be killed, and the killed should in his turn be killed...

That would lead to the total extermination of humanity...

So, what all this brings us to? Kant rationality test is not selective, it can't exclude by giving special rights to some, because this special right would fail the test right away(like the usage of the word "murder"or "murderer").

Edited by Fadix, 07 September 2003 - 07:19 PM.


#51 so_mest_13

so_mest_13

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 01 November 2003 - 08:18 PM

Okay, first of all that article on Frederick Earl Fisk...I know his son, and instead gettin pissed about what the news feeds us, you should remember how much they exagerate, cuz my friend told me what happened..and it wasn't ANYWHERE close to the drug-debt thing, so ya before you say it burns you up, think about the people you're hurting by saying that. :angry:
Krysta

#52 angel4hope

angel4hope

    look at me...i can fly!...sploosh!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,595 posts
  • Location:a flicker in yur neuronal connectivities
  • Interests:too many to list... btw i love eye candy! therefore my addiction, and hence my diabetes :(

Posted 02 November 2003 - 04:45 PM

i think that the death penalty is a crucial way of punishment- although im not too much of a religious erson- i think that its wrong to take someones life- it just seems immoral-no matter the crime-because if the persone is being given the death penalty for murder or manslaughter-anything involving death/harm of another human being- what kind of example are we setting by givig them the death penalty-yeah i know "eye for an eye,and tooth for a tooth" as some pple say- but its totally hypocritical- because you-or the person carrying out the act of death penalty- is trying to make a certain point by saying that-the criminal is wrong for killing/harming another person-or whatevere the case- and yet again you are doing them same thing to the criminal by proceeding with the death penalty- therefore saying that murder---etc is wrong but going off and killing the criminal--in other words doing onto another what you were trying to point out was wrong in a sense- like trying to teach a 5 year old that hitting their little sibling is wrong and violence is bad by punishing the 5yr old by spanking/hitting him/her- !! i hope what im trying to say is clear...!! <_<

#53 SirumemKez20

SirumemKez20

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 190 posts
  • Location:818
  • Interests:My e-mail adress is sirumemkez4ever@yahoo.com

Posted 02 December 2003 - 06:37 PM

I'm just going to say what I feel is right. I do agree with the death penalty, I think it's wrong for a criminal to kill someone, and I don't think it's right that they take some innocent persons life away, so yes they should deserve what they do...please guys dont be mad at me if you disagree thank you very much :D

#54 Armo77

Armo77

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 397 posts

Posted 02 December 2003 - 07:29 PM

I feel us Humans by nature are violent since the beginning of time.. Revenge by death is always a temptation (and quick fix for our anger).. But I feel logically, letting the person rot in jail for the rest of his life is the best way.. Let him live many many many years with what he has done. Killing him will only help put him out of his misery. Only time I believe in killing someone is to protect your family.

Edited by Armo77, 02 December 2003 - 07:31 PM.


#55 Armat

Armat

    A R M A T

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,914 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 December 2003 - 07:59 PM

Let him live many many many years with what he has done. Killing him will only help put him out of his misery.

If what we are just a memory bank (Sasun,Domino excluding “God” part) then the horrible act one commits soften and become blurry over the years hence the intended punishment becomes pointless if the criminal would not even remember the act. He could theoretically read Plato rest of his existence in jail without remorse or guilt

#56 Armo77

Armo77

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 397 posts

Posted 02 December 2003 - 08:06 PM

then the horrible act one commits soften and become blurry over the years hence the intended punishment becomes pointless if the criminal would not even remember the act.

He would if he is in jail the rest of his life caged up like an animal and never sees the light of day. ;)

#57 Armo77

Armo77

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 397 posts

Posted 02 December 2003 - 08:13 PM

I do respect your view though Armat...

One thing I love about us Armenians compaired to other people is that we are level headed and not many of us are Flaming liberals.

#58 Armat

Armat

    A R M A T

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,914 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 December 2003 - 08:32 PM

He would if he is in jail the rest of his life caged up like an animal and never sees the light of day. ;)

Actually it is not that bad as you describe. They have a library, excise room, which is often outside, and they get a decent meal and even a free health care, which many of us cannot even afford. I am neither for nor against on this issue however my thinking here is that most criminals hardy remorse or repent their acts and are short on memory. The intended punishment becomes a lifestyle…

#59 Anileve

Anileve

    Epicure Maximus

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,201 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:NYC
  • Interests:Running around at dawn and poking innocent bystanders with pipe cleaners.

Posted 02 December 2003 - 08:35 PM

Completely against! We didn’t create life, we have no right to take it away, besides people feel like they have an authority to enforce their judgment upon others, I say its heresy.

Whether we pay to keep those people alive or not, we have no say in how our taxes are distributed. Besides if you think about it, there are always flaws in the system and mistakes in the justice system are bound to happen. How many people have been convicted falsely and then released after serving a 10 year sentence, with the words “Oops sorry we made a mistake”? Who is to say that it won’t happen with death penalty. I oppose any sort of extreme measures. By the way now the poll is no longer even, the percentage of “against” is higher. There! :P

#60 DominO

DominO

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 December 2003 - 08:46 PM

Armat, I'm surprised that as an artist interested with fundamental questions you are not against death penality.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users