Capital Punishment

[logic-is-overrated]

 

 

My(Someone mentioned cost, but is there really that big of a difference between a formal execution's cost and feeding/housing/babysitting a prisoner for 20 to 50 years?)

It's 3-5 times more expensive for a formal execution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only reasonable alternative to killing them is to eat them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lol. Do you honestly think they would taste good?

No I suppose not. I guess we can always use them as slaves.

[knives669]

To some extent, I agree with the people who say, "Well, no one has the right to kill another human being." But, I look at it this way:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you were to sentence someone to life in prison, would it be punishment?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The point of sending someone to prison is to sentence them to enough time deemed suitable for them to think over their actions and suffer from guilt. However, there are people in this world that will never feel remorse after killing someone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Our judicial system is in place to punish those who break laws. If that punishment has to go as far as death, then, I believe it is a suitable punishment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, some people say, "What if they really didn't commit the crime?" I can agree with everyone here. It would suck to go to prison for a crime you didn't commit. It would suck more to be sentenced to death for a crime you didn't commit. I believe that cases in which the death penalty is being contemplated should be carefully reviewed. There should be ironclad evidence that the person is guilty before sending them to their death. But if you have a person who:

 

 

 

1. Confessed to murder and

 

 

 

2. Shows absolutely no remorse, and no signs of feeling remorse in the future for what they've done,

 

 

 

They should be highly considered for the death penalty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do believe that killing is wrong, I do believe that two wrongs don't make a right, and I have absolutely nothing against people opposing capital punishment, but, if you have to go that far for punishment, to feel as though justice has been served, then so be it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No I suppose not. I guess we can always use them as slaves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lol. Gotta tear them away from daytime soap operas somehow...

[Guest GhostRanger]

Alright, the death penalty is something I care deeply about, and am currently working to change. (Hopefully we can get the death penalty to be abolished in Connecticut within a few years :D) I am certain

 

 

 

ly AGAINST the death penalty and FOR abolition of the death penalty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moral Issues

 

 

 

Murder is wrong. Murder (and treason) are the highest offenses possible in our state meaning most civilized countries) and recieve the most severe punishments within our judicial system. If killing people is so wrong, then why does the state find it necessary to continue the cycle of murder by LEGALLY murdering its own citizens? The counterargument is, of course, that the state assumes powers that cannot be trusted to the individual (ie. vigilante justice). However, in my system of morals, murder of another human being should never be tolerated (unless there are lives of other human beings at stake, but that's a separate issue, because if you look at records, prisoners do not tend to escape from prison.) HOWEVER, moral systems of people differ; thus, this is not the best way to attack the system of the death penalty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The point is that people do escape from prison no matter if you minimilize by a statistic. Just this summer there was a murderer running around near my city who had escaped. No matter how small the number, it happens. And bad things happen because of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your moral argument is that killing is only necessary if it is helping to prevent the death of innocent lives. That is the point of capital punishment - to prevent the death of other innocent lives. Did you think capital punishment was just for fun?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Economic Issues

 

 

 

A great deal of studies conducted in MANY different states (Tennessee, Kansas, Indiana, North Carolia, Florida, California, Texas) (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article ... rom%20DPIC which has links to individual state reports) find that the costs of having the death penalty are extremely high. "Florida would save $51 million each year by punishing all first-degree murderers with life in prison without parole, according to estimates by the Palm Beach Post. Based on the 44 executions Florida has carried out since 1976, that amounts to an approximate cost of $24 million for each execution." This translates to over a billion dollars the US government could have saved since 1976 by NOT having the death penalty as an option. These sobering statistics are even scarier if you consider states like Connecticut, which has only had one execution in the past forty years, but still maintains that high cost of keeping the death penalty open.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fact is that I would rather have my tax dollars spent getting rid of murderers who could murder again than keeping them alive in prison. I can't believe that you want your tax dollars supporting a murderer's well being.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overall, this means that taxpayers are paying a LOT of money for executions that never occur - money that could be going to education, etc! Popular misconception holds that it's cheaper to execute someone than to put them in jail for life; this simply isn't true, because you can't only look at the cost of using an electric chair and the cost of food for life. The great bulk of costs are accumulated at trial level... and you can't just knock out the trial level, because we have a little something called the judicial system that does its best to make sure someone is guilty before punishing them for a crime they may not have committed. Which brings me to my next point...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The trial system does not absorb more money the government could spend elsewhere. I know a couple of judges and they are paid on salary - not on commission for however many cases they try.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Any money that circulates through a lawyers hands for a trial will go through a lawyers hands no matter the verdict - if its life in prison, they will still appeal. Plus, this circulation of money is NOT tax dollars that would do better providing for education.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What about the innocent ones?

 

 

 

There have been 21 people sentenced to death row and later exonerated before they were executed. I met one of these men a couple of weeks ago, and his story was sobering - the government offered him no compensation for the 21 years of his life spent locked up for a crime he did not commit. With new technologies, new evidence is always coming in and should always be up for review in old cases. If someone is executed, there's no turning back. In most cases, it's impossible to be entirely sure of guilt - most evidence is witness testimony (very faulty due to false memories; take intro psych) and other irreliable data. Prosecutional and police misconduct is more rampant than we'd like to think. While this isn't reason to overthrow our judicial system, it IS reason to not throw away a case with no chance of ever reviewing evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wait a second! I thought your argument to eliminate it was to cut down on costs. If you leave a case open where it can have evidence reviewed that will surely cost money for all those appeals. Where is your sense of econimic balance now?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Unfair" by class and race?

 

 

 

80% of the victims of crimes that land people on death row are white. 42% of the people currently on death row are black, and another 10% Hispanic. This is clearly disproportionate fr om the overall population. Yes, this also suggests that there may be class differences - from a sociological perspective, many blacks and hispanics are not as well-off monetarily as whites. When people can't afford good lawyers, the court appoints lawyers to them - often incompetent and not invested in the case for their own profit. This results in overwhelming unfairness in the proportion of blacks to whites being executed, especially compared to overall proportions in prison overall. Juries and judges are often subconsciously motivated by prejudice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You cannot compare those numbers to general population numbers and be fair.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In 1999, there were 788 murders committed by white people and 531 muders committed by black people. Compare that to the general population of 36,725,000 whites and 5,348,000 blacks. That is .002% murder rate for whites, and .009% for blacks. Only 6 years ago, black people had a murder rate of more than 4 times white people, so of course they will have a higher death row rate. To compare that to just the general population is a SCANDAL.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overall Consensus

 

 

 

Whether or not the death penalty is objectively morally wrong, it is clearly impractical in modern society. All developed countries in the western world have abolished the death penalty except for the United States - we stand among undeveloped countries often with dictatorships. It's time to let modernity help us improve and finally abolish the death penalty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Western countries have also permitted smoking pot and turned to socialism - it is not America's job to "keep up with the rest of the world." We've been doing fine by ourselves for quite awhile. That is a terrible argument.

[Lionheart_0]

:o And oh, by the way, canada dosent have the death penelty anymore, so im deffinitly glad i live here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmmm danm afterwork-lossing-mind-state, i had a really good point to say... but i forget...

[tnuac]

What about the eastern countries and australia. They have abolished it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This has sense morally:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My tax money shouldn't be going anywhere near to housing and feeding a serial raper and murderer who commited crimes against 8 year old girls.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and some of the tax paying population would much rather pay for a criminal to be exectuted, not catered for. But, the question is is it worth that massive amount of money to kill 1 person?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am strongly for the idea of slaving..some people, like someone said, feel no remorse or guilt while they are locked up. The other alternative to capital punishment is making them do something productive. The only problem arises from there is that the more outside they get, the more chance there is of escaping.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its not just a matter of them escaping..some murders could be sent back out after just 7 years of feeling revnege and anger instead of guilt and remorse.

[Hannibal]

The point is that people do escape from prison no matter if you minimilize by a statistic. Just this summer there was a murderer running around near my city who had escaped. No matter how small the number, it happens. And bad things happen because of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your moral argument is that killing is only necessary if it is helping to prevent the death of innocent lives. That is the point of capital punishment - to prevent the death of other innocent lives. Did you think capital punishment was just for fun?

 

 

 

I thought capital punishment was for punishment. If we supposedly need capital punishment to keep those people permanently away, why do we put criminals in jail at all? Doesn't that do the same thing? Well, if not, I suppose we'll kill all of them!

 

 

 

In other words, that argument is nonsensical imho...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, there will be people escaping from jails. I'm betting, however, that if you'd spend half of those 50 million bucks spent on death sentence on better prison security instead, that problem would be helped. (A few weeks ago someone bypassed security personnel by waving his attorney's id and walking past the gate check. Room for improvement, I say.) However, if you're being statistical... we could have 25 executions a year (source: Texas death row statistics, average 27 over the 2000-2004 period), or have one prison escape resulting in a violent crime every 5 years (most people who escape jail are sensible enough not to commit a crime again immediately, because that gets them caught earlier, I haven't been able to find statistics on this). That's 125 people or 1 person killed. Before you go and say those 125 people were criminals, statistics prove that at least 12 of them are not. So that argument is not really sensible either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fact is that I would rather have my tax dollars spent getting rid of murderers who could murder again than keeping them alive in prison. I can't believe that you want your tax dollars supporting a murderer's well being.

 

 

 

The fact is that many prisons are corporate, and you don't pay a lot for that at all. Anyhow, yes, I do want my tax dollars supporting a murderer's wellbeing. The fact that I pay tax euro's is beside the question; I can't believe that you fail to see that no matter what people do, they have a right to life. That's in the Human Rights declaration, which the US signed as well. Just like I want my tax dollars paying welfare moms, I want them paying prison maintenance. I want to pay the state to keep prisoners away from me, I don't want to pay them to commit murder.

 

 

 

The trial system does not absorb more money the government could spend elsewhere. I know a couple of judges and they are paid on salary - not on commission for however many cases they try.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Any money that circulates through a lawyers hands for a trial will go through a lawyers hands no matter the verdict - if its life in prison, they will still appeal. Plus, this circulation of money is NOT tax dollars that would do better providing for education.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm afraid I'm not very familiar with the judicial system in the US. However, a bit of google and wikipedia tells me there are extra checks necessary before a death verdict can be made, in general jury sessions last longer, there are more appeals (anyone appeals when sentenced to death, not all will do so when sentenced to life in prison - at least they get to keep their life).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, if there is an appeal, a judge will have to work more hours, hence will be paid more salary, hence the trial cost is more expensive. Anyhow, Mad` posted statistics. I doubt these reports lie. (although of course, there's lies, worse lies and statistics ;) )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wait a second! I thought your argument to eliminate it was to cut down on costs. If you leave a case open where it can have evidence reviewed that will surely cost money for all those appeals. Where is your sense of econimic balance now?

 

 

 

Saying we should kill people so we save money on appeal costs is stupid at best. Those appeals will be there if there is additional evidence, no matter the sentence. Abolishing the death penalty wouldn't increase that amount, only in the case where the convict has already been killed. In which case I'd gladly spend extra money instead of killing him before knowing what he did, for sure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You cannot compare those numbers to general population numbers and be fair.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In 1999, there were 788 murders committed by white people and 531 muders committed by black people. Compare that to the general population of 36,725,000 whites and 5,348,000 blacks. That is .002% murder rate for whites, and .009% for blacks. Only 6 years ago, black people had a murder rate of more than 4 times white people, so of course they will have a higher death row rate. To compare that to just the general population is a SCANDAL.

 

 

 

You're missing half of her point, by doing nearly the same thing she did. How do you know if a black or white man/woman commited a murder? You'll have to have a trial, and by the time that is over you know for sure what race the offender was. Comparing these statistics to death row statistics is hence rather futile, as part of the reason these people are convicted as the murderers is (according to the point raised in Mad`'s post) their bad lawyers and to prejudiced prosecutors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Western countries have also permitted smoking pot and turned to socialism - it is not America's job to "keep up with the rest of the world." We've been doing fine by ourselves for quite awhile. That is a terrible argument.

 

 

 

First of all, it may not be your job to 'keep up with the rest of the world'. However, it is your job to abide by the conventions you signed, and as the most powerful country on this planet (militarily, and to some extent, economically), it is your job to set an example on how to handle such power. The fact that in your country, a 19-year old can go into a walmart, buy a shotgun, and proceed to shoot his girlfriend, her father and then himself, whenever he feels like it, is pathetic. Fortunately the killing bit is not allowed by law (arguably killing yourself isn't entirely legal either (Terri Schiavo, anyone?)) The fact that your government is allowed to kill people regardless is even more pathetic, imho. I could give more arguments about your war in Iraq, and the far-fetched resolutions your government has taken to exempt its soldiers from following the Geneva conventions standards, but seeing as that's off topic, I won't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, apart from that, I kinda don't like your examples.

 

 

 

First, define: 'socialism' the way it's meant in your post, and name an example of a western country that practices it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for smoking pot, I'm assuming you mean my country, Holland. I have never smoked pot, nor normal cigarettes. I have CARA (a form of Asthma), so I don't like being around people who smoke either. But I do agree with the law and the government's position on this. This is wildly off-topic, but please listen to reason before wildly drawing conclusions about something you hardly know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think making smoking pot a criminal offense is stupid, because it means that the drugs will be used illegally, so under less control. Here, you can smoke pot in legal 'coffeeshops', which are controlled by government, and have to comply to regulations. Meaning that the people there know what to do if something goes wrong ('bad trip'), and that what you're smoking isn't as likely to make you sick as it if you buy from some dodgy dealer on the streets of Harlem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's also lots of information about the consequences of smoking cigarettes and smoking pot in highschool classes, which helps people make their own educated decision. In general, I think this hurts way less people than the "let's ban it all" approach of the US. Incidentally, did you know pot is much less likely to cause cancer than cigarettes? And that it can be (and is) used for medicinal purposes? So before you bash us for legalizing pot, think about what you're saying, please.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apologies for the long post. Anyone apart from GhostRanger (who's plenty intelligent enough to do so), please don't bash part of my post without reading the entire thing. Thanks. Also, let's try and not turn this thread into a personal flamewar? It's an interesting topic :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and in case anyone missed it, I agree with mad entirely :)

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

 

I thought capital punishment was for punishment. If we supposedly need capital punishment to keep those people permanently away, why do we put criminals in jail at all? Doesn't that do the same thing? Well, if not, I suppose we'll kill all of them!

 

 

 

In other words, that argument is nonsensical imho...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is completly illogical. Capital punishment is only used for criminals who would be sentenced for a life sentence, not just anyone who goes to jail. The Constitution protects us from cruel and unusual punishment and never did I say anything about punishments that are no life in prison instead - aka, punishments for capital offences.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, there will be people escaping from jails. I'm betting, however, that if you'd spend half of those 50 million bucks spent on death sentence on better prison security instead, that problem would be helped. (A few weeks ago someone bypassed security personnel by waving his attorney's id and walking past the gate check. Room for improvement, I say.) However, if you're being statistical... we could have 25 executions a year (source: Texas death row statistics, average 27 over the 2000-2004 period), or have one prison escape resulting in a violent crime every 5 years (most people who escape jail are sensible enough not to commit a crime again immediately, because that gets them caught earlier, I haven't been able to find statistics on this). That's 125 people or 1 person killed. Before you go and say those 125 people were criminals, statistics prove that at least 12 of them are not. So that argument is not really sensible either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you comparing the deaths of inncocent people to the deaths of murderers? I can't even follow you on that train of thinking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fact is that many prisons are corporate, and you don't pay a lot for that at all. Anyhow, yes, I do want my tax dollars supporting a murderer's wellbeing. The fact that I pay tax euro's is beside the question; I can't believe that you fail to see that no matter what people do, they have a right to life. That's in the Human Rights declaration, which the US signed as well. Just like I want my tax dollars paying welfare moms, I want them paying prison maintenance. I want to pay the state to keep prisoners away from me, I don't want to pay them to commit murder. The trial system does not absorb more money the government could spend elsewhere. I know a couple of judges and they are paid on salary - not on commission for however many cases they try.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you are a consciousness objector and you would never ever support war under any circumstances, and you would never ever defend your own life or your family's life if it meant killing someone else. That's what you just said if you are going to use the "everyone always has a right to life" argument. At least Maddy qualified it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm afraid I'm not very familiar with the judicial system in the US. However, a bit of google and wikipedia tells me there are extra checks necessary before a death verdict can be made, in general jury sessions last longer, there are more appeals (anyone appeals when sentenced to death, not all will do so when sentenced to life in prison - at least they get to keep their life).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you are not familiar with the American judicial system - please do not try and make any points. I will not even comment if you think that people do not appeal life in prison sentences in America.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, if there is an appeal, a judge will have to work more hours, hence will be paid more salary, hence the trial cost is more expensive. Anyhow, Mad` posted statistics. I doubt these reports lie. (although of course, there's lies, worse lies and statistics ;) )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once again, appeals will happen anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Saying we should kill people so we save money on appeal costs is stupid at best. Those appeals will be there if there is additional evidence, no matter the sentence. Abolishing the death penalty wouldn't increase that amount, only in the case where the convict has already been killed. In which case I'd gladly spend extra money instead of killing him before knowing what he did, for sure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You misread my point. My point was that you can't argue all the points she did at once because they contradict each other. Mad made several arguments that contradicted each other - my point was not static.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First of all, it may not be your job to 'keep up with the rest of the world'. However, it is your job to abide by the conventions you signed, and as the most powerful country on this planet (militarily, and to some extent, economically), it is your job to set an example on how to handle such power. The fact that in your country, a 19-year old can go into a walmart, buy a shotgun, and proceed to shoot his girlfriend, her father and then himself, whenever he feels like it, is pathetic. Fortunately the killing bit is not allowed by law (arguably killing yourself isn't entirely legal either (Terri Schiavo, anyone?)) The fact that your government is allowed to kill people regardless is even more pathetic, imho. I could give more arguments about your war in Iraq, and the far-fetched resolutions your government has taken to exempt its soldiers from following the Geneva conventions standards, but seeing as that's off topic, I won't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I could also bring up the Oil for Food scandel, the fact that you apparently don't know what the Geneva Convention really says, and other European countries but I want. It is America's job to promote American values - not European values. I'm sorry if you disagree.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, apart from that, I kinda don't like your examples.

 

 

 

First, define: 'socialism' the way it's meant in your post, and name an example of a western country that practices it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attempting to decrease the econonmic extremes. Germany.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for smoking pot, I'm assuming you mean my country, Holland. I have never smoked pot, nor normal cigarettes. I have CARA (a form of Asthma), so I don't like being around people who smoke either. But I do agree with the law and the government's position on this. This is wildly off-topic, but please listen to reason before wildly drawing conclusions about something you hardly know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think making smoking pot a criminal offense is stupid, because it means that the drugs will be used illegally, so under less control. Here, you can smoke pot in legal 'coffeeshops', which are controlled by government, and have to comply to regulations. Meaning that the people there know what to do if something goes wrong ('bad trip'), and that what you're smoking isn't as likely to make you sick as it if you buy from some dodgy dealer on the streets of Harlem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's also lots of information about the consequences of smoking cigarettes and smoking pot in highschool classes, which helps people make their own educated decision. In general, I think this hurts way less people than the "let's ban it all" approach of the US. Incidentally, did you know pot is much less likely to cause cancer than cigarettes? And that it can be (and is) used for medicinal purposes? So before you bash us for legalizing pot, think about what you're saying, please.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I grew up in a house where my dad was a substance abuse therapist. He saw the consquences of smoking pot on a daily basis and that is where I draw my information from. I have read all of his books about drugs, consequences, and etc. and yes I know all the statistics about pot. I live in Kentucky, the state that would draw the most economically from legalizing pot and I have enough information to make me think it shouldn't be legal. I'm not bashing your country's anymore than you are bashing mine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apologies for the long post. Anyone apart from GhostRanger (who's plenty intelligent enough to do so), please don't bash part of my post without reading the entire thing. Thanks. Also, let's try and not turn this thread into a personal flamewar? It's an interesting topic :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and in case anyone missed it, I agree with mad entirely :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm glad I'm dealing with someone intelligent. So uncommon on the forums these days... :P

[insane]

Murder is wrong. Murder (and treason) are the highest offenses possible in our state meaning most civilized countries) and recieve the most severe punishments within our judicial system. If killing people is so wrong, then why does the state find it necessary to continue the cycle of murder by LEGALLY murdering its own citizens? The counterargument is, of course, that the state assumes powers that cannot be trusted to the individual (ie. vigilante justice). However, in my system of morals, murder of another human being should never be tolerated (unless there are lives of other human beings at stake, but that's a separate issue, because if you look at records, prisoners do not tend to escape from prison.) HOWEVER, moral systems of people differ; thus, this is not the best way to attack the system of the death penalty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One might argue that there is a difference between murder and killing. For instance, in war, I hardly see the countries at war seeing the deaths as murders, but as killings? Not too sure, but the definition of such things, could make a difference about whether or not " 'murder' is wrong" (which is ironic coming from you :P).

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

Murder is wrong. Murder (and treason) are the highest offenses possible in our state meaning most civilized countries) and recieve the most severe punishments within our judicial system. If killing people is so wrong, then why does the state find it necessary to continue the cycle of murder by LEGALLY murdering its own citizens? The counterargument is, of course, that the state assumes powers that cannot be trusted to the individual (ie. vigilante justice). However, in my system of morals, murder of another human being should never be tolerated (unless there are lives of other human beings at stake, but that's a separate issue, because if you look at records, prisoners do not tend to escape from prison.) HOWEVER, moral systems of people differ; thus, this is not the best way to attack the system of the death penalty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One might argue that there is a difference between murder and killing. For instance, in war, I hardly see the countries at war seeing the deaths as murders, but as killings? Not too sure, but the definition of such things, could make a difference about whether or not " 'murder' is wrong" (which is ironic coming from you :P).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Murder is considered "unlawful" killing. So yes, there is a difference between killing and murdering.

[neo_bahumat]

ok i have a very strong view on this -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

torture, make them want to be dead, and i mean torture to the true extent of the word not taking their tv out of there room for a fortnight, i mean whipping, poisoning, putting them in really small dark underground almost coffins, and leaving them there until there near death from starvation, i would make prison hell for the sick scum, and if anyone says "omg human rights" im sorry but when you take an innocent life, you lose every right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

prison at the moment is a joke, you get rewarded for good behavior, you get a one on one education, good food, a bed, you get to go outside and exercise, you even get sky television.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

you may think my views are a bit extreme, but its just my opinion, when you kill an innocent, death is almost an easy way out, i know personally i'd rather have lethal injection than constant 24/7 punishment. make them pay

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-=[ Gaz ]=-

[mad4u689]

 

Murder is wrong. Murder (and treason) are the highest offenses possible in our state meaning most civilized countries) and recieve the most severe punishments within our judicial system. If killing people is so wrong, then why does the state find it necessary to continue the cycle of murder by LEGALLY murdering its own citizens? The counterargument is, of course, that the state assumes powers that cannot be trusted to the individual (ie. vigilante justice). However, in my system of morals, murder of another human being should never be tolerated (unless there are lives of other human beings at stake, but that's a separate issue, because if you look at records, prisoners do not tend to escape from prison.) HOWEVER, moral systems of people differ; thus, this is not the best way to attack the system of the death penalty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One might argue that there is a difference between murder and killing. For instance, in war, I hardly see the countries at war seeing the deaths as murders, but as killings? Not too sure, but the definition of such things, could make a difference about whether or not " 'murder' is wrong" (which is ironic coming from you :P).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that killing in war is also murder, but I have rather extreme views, which is why I choose to approach the problems with the death penalty from more practical perspectives, especially since being something of a relativist, other people's moral systems are perfectly valid for themselves as well :P

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

Murder is wrong. Murder (and treason) are the highest offenses possible in our state meaning most civilized countries) and recieve the most severe punishments within our judicial system. If killing people is so wrong, then why does the state find it necessary to continue the cycle of murder by LEGALLY murdering its own citizens? The counterargument is, of course, that the state assumes powers that cannot be trusted to the individual (ie. vigilante justice). However, in my system of morals, murder of another human being should never be tolerated (unless there are lives of other human beings at stake, but that's a separate issue, because if you look at records, prisoners do not tend to escape from prison.) HOWEVER, moral systems of people differ; thus, this is not the best way to attack the system of the death penalty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One might argue that there is a difference between murder and killing. For instance, in war, I hardly see the countries at war seeing the deaths as murders, but as killings? Not too sure, but the definition of such things, could make a difference about whether or not " 'murder' is wrong" (which is ironic coming from you :P).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that killing in war is also murder, but I have rather extreme views, which is why I choose to approach the problems with the death penalty from more practical perspectives, especially since being something of a relativist, other people's moral systems are perfectly valid for themselves as well :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If someone came after you with a gun and was going to kill your whole family, and you could only stop them by killing them would you do it or would you let your family die?

[Hannibal]

 

 

 

 

I thought capital punishment was for punishment. If we supposedly need capital punishment to keep those people permanently away, why do we put criminals in jail at all? Doesn't that do the same thing? Well, if not, I suppose we'll kill all of them!

 

 

 

In other words, that argument is nonsensical imho...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is completly illogical. Capital punishment is only used for criminals who would be sentenced for a life sentence, not just anyone who goes to jail. The Constitution protects us from cruel and unusual punishment and never did I say anything about punishments that are no life in prison instead - aka, punishments for capital offences.

 

 

 

I'm not following you. If capital punishment is only used for criminals who would be sentenced for a life sentence, then why does that invalidate my point? My point was that a life in jail keeps people away just as well as killing them, and keeping them in jail keeps them alive, hence I prefer that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, there will be people escaping from jails. I'm betting, however, that if you'd spend half of those 50 million bucks spent on death sentence on better prison security instead, that problem would be helped. (A few weeks ago someone bypassed security personnel by waving his attorney's id and walking past the gate check. Room for improvement, I say.) However, if you're being statistical... we could have 25 executions a year (source: Texas death row statistics, average 27 over the 2000-2004 period), or have one prison escape resulting in a violent crime every 5 years (most people who escape jail are sensible enough not to commit a crime again immediately, because that gets them caught earlier, I haven't been able to find statistics on this). That's 125 people or 1 person killed. Before you go and say those 125 people were criminals, statistics prove that at least 12 of them are not. So that argument is not really sensible either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you comparing the deaths of inncocent people to the deaths of murderers? I can't even follow you on that train of thinking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's a nice argument coming from someone who said that he'd rather have murderers killed than innocent civilians in a breakout. Which is the exact same thing as comparing the deaths of innocent people to those of murderers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fact is that many prisons are corporate, and you don't pay a lot for that at all. Anyhow, yes, I do want my tax dollars supporting a murderer's wellbeing. The fact that I pay tax euro's is beside the question; I can't believe that you fail to see that no matter what people do, they have a right to life. That's in the Human Rights declaration, which the US signed as well. Just like I want my tax dollars paying welfare moms, I want them paying prison maintenance. I want to pay the state to keep prisoners away from me, I don't want to pay them to commit murder.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you are a consciousness objector and you would never ever support war under any circumstances, and you would never ever defend your own life or your family's life if it meant killing someone else. That's what you just said if you are going to use the "everyone always has a right to life" argument. At least Maddy qualified it.

 

 

 

That's not what I said at all. I said everyone has a right to life. That includes me and my family. Choosing between the death of two people is a decision nobody should have to face, but in this case, I'm quite sure that my emotional attachment to my family is greater than to someone who is about to murder them (meaning, I will kill them). Just because I value life doesn't mean I have to sit around and watch people get killed. It means the exact opposite; Stop as many people from getting killed as possible. I'm also confused why you drag war into the matter, I never mentioned war in the paragraph you're quoting either. You're overstating what I said. (I think you also missed a quote tag in the above, I've edited it slightly)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm afraid I'm not very familiar with the judicial system in the US. However, a bit of google and wikipedia tells me there are extra checks necessary before a death verdict can be made, in general jury sessions last longer, there are more appeals (anyone appeals when sentenced to death, not all will do so when sentenced to life in prison - at least they get to keep their life).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you are not familiar with the American judicial system - please do not try and make any points. I will not even comment if you think that people do not appeal life in prison sentences in America.

 

 

 

Again, you are overstating what I said. I said there are *some* people who do not appeal when convicted to life in prison. And in general appeals last shorter than appeals against the death penalty, also because of all the opportunities for high notables (state governor, etc.) granting clemence. That's fact, if looking at statistics published by states themselves.

 

 

 

As for your 'please do not try and make any points' argument, that's ad hominem. What or who I am should not matter; my arguments do. I'm basing my arguments on statistics and what I'm learning about the American judicial system. Sorry for not being taught about it since highschool, like you have been. I'm not telling you off for not knowing the details of the regulations we have in place to control drug use, because I can't expect you to know the Dutch constitution and other laws. Same applies to me: I never learned about your judicial system, but there are plenty of sources with factual information, as I'm sure you know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, if there is an appeal, a judge will have to work more hours, hence will be paid more salary, hence the trial cost is more expensive. Anyhow, Mad` posted statistics. I doubt these reports lie. (although of course, there's lies, worse lies and statistics ;) )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once again, appeals will happen anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fair enough, but appeals for prison sentences last longer than ones for death sentences. Hence the judge makes less hours. Hence, he/she will be paid less, according to you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You misread my point. My point was that you can't argue all the points she did at once because they contradict each other. Mad made several arguments that contradicted each other - my point was not static.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, but I'm still holding on to my point: your statistics are not useful, since what you are comparing to is determined after the trial, and Mad already argued that the people and cases that get tried are biased, and that black/hispanics tend to get poor lawyers, meaning they're more likely to be convicted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First of all, it may not be your job to 'keep up with the rest of the world'. However, it is your job to abide by the conventions you signed, and as the most powerful country on this planet (militarily, and to some extent, economically), it is your job to set an example on how to handle such power. The fact that in your country, a 19-year old can go into a walmart, buy a shotgun, and proceed to shoot his girlfriend, her father and then himself, whenever he feels like it, is pathetic. Fortunately the killing bit is not allowed by law (arguably killing yourself isn't entirely legal either (Terri Schiavo, anyone?)) The fact that your government is allowed to kill people regardless is even more pathetic, imho. I could give more arguments about your war in Iraq, and the far-fetched resolutions your government has taken to exempt its soldiers from following the Geneva conventions standards, but seeing as that's off topic, I won't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I could also bring up the Oil for Food scandel

 

 

 

What, we equal the red cross now? Dear me...

 

 

 

the fact that you apparently don't know what the Geneva Convention really says

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

SEC. 2008. AUTHORITY TO FREE MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES AND CERTAIN OTHER PERSONS DETAINED OR IMPRISONED BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(a) AUTHORITY- The President is authorized to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person described in subsection (B) who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court.

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

Article 5

 

 

 

Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court

 

 

 

1. The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the

 

 

 

international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute

 

 

 

with respect to the following crimes:

 

 

 

(a) The crime of genocide;

 

 

 

(B) Crimes against humanity;

 

 

 

© War crimes;

 

 

 

(d) The crime of aggression.

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So. Should any American citizen be trialed here because of any of said things (most if not all are violations of the Geneva convention), then your president reserves the right to drop his military forces on the beach of Scheveningen and free that person from the Scheveningen prison. In spite of all the conventions and treaties he signed (he actually signed the Rome Statute), your president and your Congress insist on immunity on rules that apply to the most part of the rest of the world. That's not just agreeing to European standards, it's agreeing to world standards and then abolishing them as soon as possible. Which is a disgrace to your country, because I do hope that you agree that people who commit genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes or crimes of agression should be tried (and maybe sentenced to death, hrm?).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is America's job to promote American values - not European values. I'm sorry if you disagree.

 

 

 

I don't think America 'should' be promoting our values, I think they can promote whatever they want, but I also think America should stick to its word, and not abuse its power. Which it is currently doing, in my eyes, for example by what I explained above. Your president, incidentally, also struggled very hard (I don't quite know if he succeeded) to get an exception on the law against torture for the CIA and related security services. When used in wartime, that is a violation of the Geneva convention as outlined above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, apart from that, I kinda don't like your examples.

 

 

 

First, define: 'socialism' the way it's meant in your post, and name an example of a western country that practices it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attempting to decrease the econonmic extremes. Germany.

 

 

 

Right. So I suppose this is too off-topic for this thread, but I'm assuming you are human enough to agree that a country should not let its people die because they are too poor to take care of themselves? Most of the socialist states in the EU (including Holland) have been taking down their social security system piece by piece anyway, so right now it means barely more than that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for smoking pot, I'm assuming you mean my country, Holland. I have never smoked pot, nor normal cigarettes. I have CARA (a form of Asthma), so I don't like being around people who smoke either. But I do agree with the law and the government's position on this. This is wildly off-topic, but please listen to reason before wildly drawing conclusions about something you hardly know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think making smoking pot a criminal offense is stupid, because it means that the drugs will be used illegally, so under less control. Here, you can smoke pot in legal 'coffeeshops', which are controlled by government, and have to comply to regulations. Meaning that the people there know what to do if something goes wrong ('bad trip'), and that what you're smoking isn't as likely to make you sick as it if you buy from some dodgy dealer on the streets of Harlem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's also lots of information about the consequences of smoking cigarettes and smoking pot in highschool classes, which helps people make their own educated decision. In general, I think this hurts way less people than the "let's ban it all" approach of the US. Incidentally, did you know pot is much less likely to cause cancer than cigarettes? And that it can be (and is) used for medicinal purposes? So before you bash us for legalizing pot, think about what you're saying, please.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I grew up in a house where my dad was a substance abuse therapist. He saw the consquences of smoking pot on a daily basis and that is where I draw my information from. I have read all of his books about drugs, consequences, and etc. and yes I know all the statistics about pot. I live in Kentucky, the state that would draw the most economically from legalizing pot and I have enough information to make me think it shouldn't be legal. I'm not bashing your country's anymore than you are bashing mine.

 

 

 

Okay. That's a fair argument, but don't you think that the people who came to see your father were the ones actually having problems with the drugs? Meaning, do you think all people who took the drugs came to see your father or some other therapist? I'm quite sure there are plenty of people who 'use' without problems.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm glad I'm dealing with someone intelligent. So uncommon on the forums these days... :P

 

 

 

Thanks, agreed, and the same to you. :)

[mad4u689]

 

 

 

Murder is wrong. Murder (and treason) are the highest offenses possible in our state meaning most civilized countries) and recieve the most severe punishments within our judicial system. If killing people is so wrong, then why does the state find it necessary to continue the cycle of murder by LEGALLY murdering its own citizens? The counterargument is, of course, that the state assumes powers that cannot be trusted to the individual (ie. vigilante justice). However, in my system of morals, murder of another human being should never be tolerated (unless there are lives of other human beings at stake, but that's a separate issue, because if you look at records, prisoners do not tend to escape from prison.) HOWEVER, moral systems of people differ; thus, this is not the best way to attack the system of the death penalty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One might argue that there is a difference between murder and killing. For instance, in war, I hardly see the countries at war seeing the deaths as murders, but as killings? Not too sure, but the definition of such things, could make a difference about whether or not " 'murder' is wrong" (which is ironic coming from you :P).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that killing in war is also murder, but I have rather extreme views, which is why I choose to approach the problems with the death penalty from more practical perspectives, especially since being something of a relativist, other people's moral systems are perfectly valid for themselves as well :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If someone came after you with a gun and was going to kill your whole family, and you could only stop them by killing them would you do it or would you let your family die?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like I said earlier, when the lives of other individuals are at stake, the situation changes (that gets into passive and active killing)

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

 

 

Murder is wrong. Murder (and treason) are the highest offenses possible in our state meaning most civilized countries) and recieve the most severe punishments within our judicial system. If killing people is so wrong, then why does the state find it necessary to continue the cycle of murder by LEGALLY murdering its own citizens? The counterargument is, of course, that the state assumes powers that cannot be trusted to the individual (ie. vigilante justice). However, in my system of morals, murder of another human being should never be tolerated (unless there are lives of other human beings at stake, but that's a separate issue, because if you look at records, prisoners do not tend to escape from prison.) HOWEVER, moral systems of people differ; thus, this is not the best way to attack the system of the death penalty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One might argue that there is a difference between murder and killing. For instance, in war, I hardly see the countries at war seeing the deaths as murders, but as killings? Not too sure, but the definition of such things, could make a difference about whether or not " 'murder' is wrong" (which is ironic coming from you :P).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that killing in war is also murder, but I have rather extreme views, which is why I choose to approach the problems with the death penalty from more practical perspectives, especially since being something of a relativist, other people's moral systems are perfectly valid for themselves as well :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If someone came after you with a gun and was going to kill your whole family, and you could only stop them by killing them would you do it or would you let your family die?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like I said earlier, when the lives of other individuals are at stake, the situation changes (that gets into passive and active killing)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that killing in war is also murder

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So if someone attacks your country to kill everyone, would you fight back? That would be killing in war.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, if you are a moral relatavist, then why did you use "morality" as one of your arguments against the death penalty. Kind of hypocrtical to impose your morals upon everyone else. Which is...essentially what you are doing by not wanting the death penalty. You don't think we should have it so you will fight for not having it. But what about those of us that do? Aren't you imposing your beliefs on us?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You claim that you are "practical" in your stance against the death penalty, but all I see is you trying to impose your belief on me and then telling me that no one is correct in what they believe. Well if no one is correct, there is no absolute, why do you want to make me quit being able to give out the death penalty? Who are you to tell me I shouldn't?

[kirbybeam]

I'm reading this topic, and it got too confusing too fast...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TS, next time say what aspect of the death penalty you would like to talk about...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. Is the Death Penalty allowed according to the United States Constitution?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

b. Is the Death Penalty allowed according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

c. Is the Death Penalty moral?

 

 

 

1. According to what set of morals?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And second, let me give you the definitions of killing people according to the United States:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Murder [First Degree] - Intentional premediated killing of someone with malice (Example: Get a copy of the blueprints of someone's house, camp outside it for a while, and then go in for the kill)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Manslaughter:

 

 

 

Voluntary Manslaughter [second Degree] - Intentional non-premediated killing (Example: After seeing your wife being run over by a truck, you immediately kill the driver)

 

 

 

Involuntary Manslaughter [Third Degree] - Unintentional non-premediated killing as a direct result of your actions (Example: You jokingly push a person into a lake and they drown)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Negligence - Unintentional non-premediated killing as an indirect result of your actions (Example: Leave stove with a pot handle hanging out, baby hits it and dies)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And then, there are the defenses (not necessarily for the crime of murder):

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Alibi - Another place during the time of the crime

 

 

 

2. Intoxication/unawareness - Not aware of your actions during the time *NOTE: This usually only lessens the sentence.

 

 

 

3. Entrapment - Police officer convinces you in the position to commit the crime

 

 

 

4. Necessity - Crime was committed to save life

 

 

 

5. Excusable - Crime was excused due to special priveleges

 

 

 

6. Not a crime - Act committed was not actually a crime

[Guest GhostRanger]

I'm reading this topic, and it got too confusing too fast...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TS, next time say what aspect of the death penalty you would like to talk about...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. Is the Death Penalty allowed according to the United States Constitution?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

b. Is the Death Penalty allowed according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

c. Is the Death Penalty moral?

 

 

 

1. According to what set of morals?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And second, let me give you the definitions of killing people according to the United States:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Murder [First Degree] - Intentional premediated killing of someone with malice (Example: Get a copy of the blueprints of someone's house, camp outside it for a while, and then go in for the kill)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Manslaughter:

 

 

 

Voluntary Manslaughter [second Degree] - Intentional non-premediated killing (Example: After seeing your wife being run over by a truck, you immediately kill the driver)

 

 

 

Involuntary Manslaughter [Third Degree] - Unintentional non-premediated killing as a direct result of your actions (Example: You jokingly push a person into a lake and they drown)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Negligence - Unintentional non-premediated killing as an indirect result of your actions (Example: Leave stove with a pot handle hanging out, baby hits it and dies)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And then, there are the defenses (not necessarily for the crime of murder):

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Alibi - Another place during the time of the crime

 

 

 

2. Intoxication/unawareness - Not aware of your actions during the time *NOTE: This usually only lessens the sentence.

 

 

 

3. Entrapment - Police officer convinces you in the position to commit the crime

 

 

 

4. Necessity - Crime was committed to save life

 

 

 

5. Excusable - Crime was excused due to special priveleges

 

 

 

6. Not a crime - Act committed was not actually a crime

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The colors are blinding me! This is the only time in my life that I will ever have a reason for using this smiley: 8)

[yummy_kids]

It all depends, but if it is first degree murder I think you deserve it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But if you killed someone who wastrying to steal or damage your property I do not think it deserves any punishment but 2years.

[beny_2b]

In my Humble opinion I would have to say capital Punishment should only ever be used in the most extreme cases eg. mass murder that is proven 100% this would be acceptable because it would be saving more innocent people should they be released, although in america they do give out ridiculously long sentences like 200 years...

[Lionheart_0]

 

Murder is wrong. Murder (and treason) are the highest offenses possible in our state meaning most civilized countries) and recieve the most severe punishments within our judicial system. If killing people is so wrong, then why does the state find it necessary to continue the cycle of murder by LEGALLY murdering its own citizens? The counterargument is, of course, that the state assumes powers that cannot be trusted to the individual (ie. vigilante justice). However, in my system of morals, murder of another human being should never be tolerated (unless there are lives of other human beings at stake, but that's a separate issue, because if you look at records, prisoners do not tend to escape from prison.) HOWEVER, moral systems of people differ; thus, this is not the best way to attack the system of the death penalty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One might argue that there is a difference between murder and killing. For instance, in war, I hardly see the countries at war seeing the deaths as murders, but as killings? Not too sure, but the definition of such things, could make a difference about whether or not " 'murder' is wrong" (which is ironic coming from you :P).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actualy during war time, its not considerd murdur just cause the people fighting arnt considerd civilions and there for really dont count as people. Thats what i was told, may be wrong.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

Murder is wrong. Murder (and treason) are the highest offenses possible in our state meaning most civilized countries) and recieve the most severe punishments within our judicial system. If killing people is so wrong, then why does the state find it necessary to continue the cycle of murder by LEGALLY murdering its own citizens? The counterargument is, of course, that the state assumes powers that cannot be trusted to the individual (ie. vigilante justice). However, in my system of morals, murder of another human being should never be tolerated (unless there are lives of other human beings at stake, but that's a separate issue, because if you look at records, prisoners do not tend to escape from prison.) HOWEVER, moral systems of people differ; thus, this is not the best way to attack the system of the death penalty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One might argue that there is a difference between murder and killing. For instance, in war, I hardly see the countries at war seeing the deaths as murders, but as killings? Not too sure, but the definition of such things, could make a difference about whether or not " 'murder' is wrong" (which is ironic coming from you :P).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actualy during war time, its not considerd murdur just cause the people fighting arnt considerd civilions and there for really dont count as people. Thats what i was told, may be wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, its because of two things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) Murder is ILLEGAL killing. War is obviously legal if it is sanctioned by the government.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) Its not that the enemy is considered not a person because they aren't a citizen, but it is different because you are fighting to protect your country. For instance, if a US citizen were to run into a building with a bomb strapped to his chest, he would be killed and it wouldn't be considered murder because they are protecting America and American civilians by killing him.

[MyPurpleCrayon]

 

 

 

Murder is wrong. Murder (and treason) are the highest offenses possible in our state meaning most civilized countries) and recieve the most severe punishments within our judicial system. If killing people is so wrong, then why does the state find it necessary to continue the cycle of murder by LEGALLY murdering its own citizens? The counterargument is, of course, that the state assumes powers that cannot be trusted to the individual (ie. vigilante justice). However, in my system of morals, murder of another human being should never be tolerated (unless there are lives of other human beings at stake, but that's a separate issue, because if you look at records, prisoners do not tend to escape from prison.) HOWEVER, moral systems of people differ; thus, this is not the best way to attack the system of the death penalty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One might argue that there is a difference between murder and killing. For instance, in war, I hardly see the countries at war seeing the deaths as murders, but as killings? Not too sure, but the definition of such things, could make a difference about whether or not " 'murder' is wrong" (which is ironic coming from you :P).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actualy during war time, its not considerd murdur just cause the people fighting arnt considerd civilions and there for really dont count as people. Thats what i was told, may be wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, its because of two things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) Murder is ILLEGAL killing. War is obviously legal if it is sanctioned by the government.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) Its not that the enemy is considered not a person because they aren't a citizen, but it is different because you are fighting to protect your country. For instance, if a US citizen were to run into a building with a bomb strapped to his chest, he would be killed and it wouldn't be considered murder because they are protecting America and American civilians by killing him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If someone were to pull a knife on you could you kill them legally?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since you are protecting an American citizen and all...

[Triplets_KGB]

 

There are things far more worse than death

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I really do believe that some people don't deserve the 'get-out' clause of death for what they've done. They should be made to live with it and suffer. I may be a hypocrite for this point of view, but make what you will.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That 'get-out' clause is just total BS. People shouldn't get sentenced to death, since thats actually the easy way out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Murder/Rape and the really sick crimes should get sentences extended, as 7 years is pretty much weak.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And all privileges in Prison should be revoked, such as comfortable beds, digital TV. nowadays prison is just free accomodation, free food and fun.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

 

 

Murder is wrong. Murder (and treason) are the highest offenses possible in our state meaning most civilized countries) and recieve the most severe punishments within our judicial system. If killing people is so wrong, then why does the state find it necessary to continue the cycle of murder by LEGALLY murdering its own citizens? The counterargument is, of course, that the state assumes powers that cannot be trusted to the individual (ie. vigilante justice). However, in my system of morals, murder of another human being should never be tolerated (unless there are lives of other human beings at stake, but that's a separate issue, because if you look at records, prisoners do not tend to escape from prison.) HOWEVER, moral systems of people differ; thus, this is not the best way to attack the system of the death penalty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One might argue that there is a difference between murder and killing. For instance, in war, I hardly see the countries at war seeing the deaths as murders, but as killings? Not too sure, but the definition of such things, could make a difference about whether or not " 'murder' is wrong" (which is ironic coming from you :P).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actualy during war time, its not considerd murdur just cause the people fighting arnt considerd civilions and there for really dont count as people. Thats what i was told, may be wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, its because of two things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) Murder is ILLEGAL killing. War is obviously legal if it is sanctioned by the government.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) Its not that the enemy is considered not a person because they aren't a citizen, but it is different because you are fighting to protect your country. For instance, if a US citizen were to run into a building with a bomb strapped to his chest, he would be killed and it wouldn't be considered murder because they are protecting America and American civilians by killing him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If someone were to pull a knife on you could you kill them legally?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since you are protecting an American citizen and all...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You would be tried for it of course and if it was determined that killing was the only way to protect yourself...then yes, you could get off.

[kirbybeam]

If someone were to pull a knife on you could you kill them legally?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since you are protecting an American citizen and all...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's a matter of how much force is needed to subdue them. If a little kid comes at your with a knife, that's different than if a criminal comes at you. And you have to make sure it doesn't end up as YOU being the aggressor, ever. If you knock the guy with the knife down and then get on top of him and beat him, that's illegal. If you knock him down and run, then that's allowed. If knocking him down kills him, oh well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Basicly, if they put you in REAL danger of your life, you can use deadly force.