ExtraHye Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 w.r.t initial question about death penalty... i'm not decided on the issue, so i say give the prisoner the choice of death or life imprisonment... or something along those lines.. just my 2 cents. I don't agree with you because the prisoner never gave the victim the chance to live. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 I don't agree with you because the prisoner never gave the victim the chance to live. yes, but if you're going to go by the eye for an eye philosophy, then would revenge murders be justified too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExtraHye Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 yes, but if you're going to go by the eye for an eye philosophy, then would revenge murders be justified too? Before I say anything, I love your new smile. It is soooo cute. Yes, to a certain degree I do. What would you do if you walked into your house, and saw your loved one was just shot. Would you not harm the villain who committed the crime? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 Before I say anything, I love your new smile. It is soooo cute. hehe Yes, to a certain degree I do. What would you do if you walked into your house, and saw your loved one was just shot. Would you not harm the villain who committed the crime?What I would do is irrelevant. Let me rephrase that... I guess I didn't make my question clear enough - should revenge killing not be punished under the law then? Because if it should not be punished (i.e. if it is justified), then how can you make an exception for one murderer and imprison another for the rest of his life, considering that both are murders (i.e. taking of human life). No murder whatsoever can be totally justified under the law; morally maybe it may be, but law is not always about morality. In fact, it almost never is. Suppose someone killed someone else's relative, who in turn had killed that person's relative... now, do you think the relative of the guy (the one who was killed because he killed someone else) would want to see the the guy who killed his/her relative get away with it cos his murderous act would be justified by what his relative did to his killer's relative? And what would the result of "an eye for an eye" cycle be? Suppose that person who couldn't get justice for his/her relative goes and kills the killer, and so on... There has to be an end to it, don't you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExtraHye Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 There has to be an end to it, don't you think? That's precisely why I agree with the death penalty. This way the people won't have to be obliged to take the law in there own hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 (edited) That's precisely why I agree with the death penalty. This way the people won't have to be obliged to take the law in there own hands.So you're saying that all murders should basically end in capital punishment????? That doesn't put an end to it... U.S.A has capital punishment, and it still has one of the highest rates of crime in the world... it doesn't put an end to it.. Moreover, there are a lot of depressed/suicidal/"lifeless" people who don't care if they are put to death - on the contrary, they want it, and also want the satisfaction of killing someone (random or specific)... Remember, I am not advocating releasing murderers... So taking the law into one's own hands is irrelevant here.. Not everyone goes around shooting their relatives' killers... In fact, a very very small minority of people would do that. I personally wouldn't. I don't think I'd be able to shoot anyone based only on that, unless I'm a police officer confronted by a situation of a madman shooting at everyone in a mall or something.. But still, that's just my opinion, and I see where you're coming from, even though I don't agree. Edited December 11, 2003 by Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 See? Most people whould choose death instead of 40 years in prison.Some thing are worse than death, e.g. spending 40 years in fear with the worst scum on earth. And you my dear have fallen in my trap, MUAHAHAH! That is precisely it, “serving 40 years or more is far worse than death”, that is why so many of you agreed to die rather then rot in the hellhole. That is exactly what I was advocating in the first place. I hope that you guys know that unconsciously you've agreed with me on my point of view regarding death penalty. A severe crime can be punished with a life sentence, which has much more of a psychologically destructive effect than an execution. So then why do we need Death penalty, if confinement to Life in prison is much more effective in provoking suffering and results in repenting of ones crimes, than death, which you say is better. You all have contradicted yourselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 A severe crime can be punished with a life sentence, which has much more of a psychologically destructive effect than an execution.I agree. But would you want to be that cruel to people? I mean... I don't know. I'm personally not sure if I could force someone to rot in hell no matter how bad his/her crimes were. I'd rather he/she were executed. I don't know.... I'm not sure about my views on this.. It's a really tough moral dilemma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 By the way, I don't mind the "rotting in hellhole" part ... there is just something about the daily raping by over grown neadertals for more than twenty or so years that is not very appealing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 By the way, I don't mind the "rotting in hellhole" part ... there is just something about the daily raping by over grown neadertals for more than twenty or so years that is not very appealing. yeah :( and for me - life without computers is just pointless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 I have to say, you guys are so confused you don’t even realize it! First you rant with fury of how a sick criminal is rejoicing in the luxury of life that prison provides for him and how your tax dollar is supporting that, and that the criminal is a worthless cold blooded murderer who should suffer. Thus you argue to impose Capital Punishment. Now all of a sudden you are merciful towards the lives of these criminals and their suffering? WHAT? I think you need to think this through and decide what exactly you stand for. He he, I bet you vote republican too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 Now all of a sudden you are merciful towards the lives of these criminals and their suffering? WHAT? I think you need to think this through and decide what exactly you stand for. No, anileve jan.. I am simply debating and trying to look at both sides of the coin. So far, I have not advocated either solution (read as "problem"). He he, I bet you vote republican too! Never. I'm not in the States, but if I were, NEVER. http://www.cs.yorku.ca/~cs213198/ranting.gifThey're as evil/bad as the Tories.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 No, anileve jan.. I am simply debating and trying to look at both sides of the coin. So far, I have not advocated either solution (read as "problem"). Never. I'm not in the States, but if I were, NEVER. http://www.cs.yorku.ca/~cs213198/ranting.gifThey're as evil/bad as the Tories.. Well I am glad you are being objective. That is always admirable and safe. By the way if this is how you feel about that political party you should look into converting to Anilivism, it's guaranteed to be ideal! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gurgen Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 (edited) So then why do we need Death penalty, if confinement to Life in prison is much more effective in provoking suffering and results in repenting of ones crimes, than death, which you say is better.Life sentences cost us money, that's why.I don't exactly see how I contradict myself here. Maybe you should read my first post again. Besides, life sentencers do kill themselves, and a lot of them get institutionalised and kill themselves after being released. Edited December 12, 2003 by gurgen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sev-mard Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 Life sentences cost us money, that's why.I don't exactly see how I contradict myself here. Maybe you should read my first post again. Besides, life sentencers do kill themselfs, and a lot of them get institutionalised and kill themselves after being released. Very true, even the toughest of minds, delusional or not, prison I would say is second only to war in traumatic effects on a person. Wonder what the suicide rate for lifers is in prison? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 sev-mard, I did a quick google search about suicide & life sentences, and here's what I came up with: "In PA those serving life sentences made up 17% of the state prison population, but accounted for 37% and 44% of the suicides in 1998 and 1999 respectively." Not sure how accurate that is.. of course, that's only in one location, but still... http://www.mces.org/Suicide_Prisons_Jails.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sev-mard Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 Thanks man, I was going to do that as well. =D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 I have to say, you guys are so confused you don’t even realize it! Who guys? All guys in this thread? To clarify my position, I do agree that the death penalty is the easy way out for the criminal compared to life imprisonment. Also, in the US, it is also currently unclear which is the cheaper way out ... however, my argument FOR death penalty in general is from the perspective that at certain points, there is no benefit of keeping an individual alive as their cost of existance by far outweighs the benefits gained from their existance. In many cases, the benefits of their existance is not only none, but also "negative" (very negative too ) Note that you can extend my way of thinking and extrapolate it as a vote in favor of euthanasia and pulling the plug on veggies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 (edited) there is no benefit of keeping an individual aliveSip, since when did we keep people alive for benefits? Do you believe in utilitiarianism? no matter what, I believe human life is precious. Remember, that's why those people are in jail in the first place, right? For having put an end to a life that is precious (in and of itself, not necessarily for others).. so how can one do the same to others, and give the same argument for incarcerating those people? Edit note: That said, I'm also unsure about euthanasia.. I don't think people should decide others' fate, but at the same time, if there's physical pain involved, I believe people should do what is in the best interests of the patient (i.e. painless life, or death).. W.r.t the argument about life, I'm pro-abortion.. but i'm not gonna go into that, since the thread is not about that. Edited December 11, 2003 by Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 I don't think human life is precious in and of itself. And certainly some lives are more precious than others. Obviously the relative values can vary greatly from the utilitarian and egoist perspectives. By the way, assuming that human life has a value, that value is certainly not infininte. Thus, there will be cases where we will have to make tradeoff decisions based on the relative "values" of a human's life. In case this is confusing, a simple scenario is the battlefield example. One guy is left in the middle in severe danger. You are a comander. How many other soldiers will you risk to recover him? If that guy was infinitely valueable, you would risk ALL your soldiers ... but I am certain you won't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 lol Sip, so what you're saying if someone brutally killed a homeless person, he might get away with it? Or not get a life sentence? ... I don't know... You are a comander. How many other soldiers will you risk to recover him? If that guy was infinitely valueable, you would risk ALL your soldiers ... but I am certain you won't.of course I wouldn't.... that's why Saving Private Ryan was such a stupid movie... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 lol Sip, so what you're saying if someone brutally killed a homeless person, he might get away with it? Or not get a life sentence? ... I don't know... What? When did I say that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 I have always had great skeptisism regarding the death penalty. So much so that in a college writing class when i was randomly assinged to write a paper to convince people to support the death pentalty I could not do it without presenting both sides - thus i got a "D" on the paper and it ended up bringing my overall final grade down to a "B". I fully understand those who say that death should be the penalty for henious crimes - and that those who are properly convicted of such are deserving of death. Where I have a problem is with the State making this decision. If the State is wrong - there is no accountability. And there are certainly mistakes made...and everyone should be aware that there is a history of racial bias (in the US) for such...making this penalty dubious from that aspect. What i propose is that if one is convicted and senstenced to death - that a second trial is commenced where it is also determined those who have the responsibility to enact the death be chosen - this would be friends, loved ones or whomever might be able to be shown to be affected by the crimes - AND - who agrees to the responsibility of the death. This second trial would allow the parties to again be presented with evidence of guilt - and if reconvicted - by the affected parties - then they could choose death - and they would also be the ones to enact such - to push the button or what have you. And those who did such must agree also to be held responsible in case of any mistake (so they must be sure...etc)..and if later evidence or what have you surfaces to show innocence - then those who murdered the innocnet person wold be held responsible themselves and would be tried and punished. In this way there is accountability - and it is not just some faceless state entity making the decison and carrying it out. Anyway - this is how I feel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 What? When did I say that? here's what you said: I don't think human life is precious in and of itself. And certainly some lives are more precious than others. Obviously the relative values can vary greatly from the utilitarian and egoist perspectives. so correct me if I'm wrong, but what I understood from it is that you are saying that the killer of a certain Person A ("A" occupies a higher position in society compared to Person B, who is homeless), would be punished more harshly than the killer of Person B... I may have messed up your whole point, and I apologize if I did.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 when i was randomly assinged to write a paper to convince people to support the death pentalty I could not do it without presenting both sides - thus i got a "D" on the paper and it ended up bringing my overall final grade down to a "B".THOTH, but you are right, you have to look at both points if you want to make an argument... those who gave you a D are illiterate. But really, you have to see the advantages of both arguments and their disadvantages and compare them and then present your point based on that... You have to know the arguments of your opponent in a debate in order to argue against that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.