Capital Punishment

[cF=)]

especially since the SCOTUS has not outlawed the death penalty on these grounds... i dont see how you can claim cruel and unusual when test cases are aplenty.

what we should do to people sentenced to death is tell them theyre free to go, and when they start to happily leave, BAM, shot to the head. theyll die happy. whats the downside?

Wait, these criminals have been in court before and they knew their sentences. The way I see it, there should be a bullet proof wall painted red with flashing lights behind which lies something the criminal always wanted. As soon as he touch the handle, bullet's send. It's even easier to believe.

 

[Amide]

How is a bullet cruel and unusual, may I ask? If properly executed, it is swift, cheap, and painless.

Actually, thinking about it, dieing is less cruel than a boring lifestyle everyday for your entire life. I think the unusual part kills the law for me. The government doesn't have the right to kill people for breaking the law. It's also hypocritical to kill someone for doing something bad. Because isn't killing what we have been trying to stop?

what we should do to people sentenced to death is tell them theyre free to go, and when they start to happily leave, BAM, shot to the head. theyll die happy. whats the downside?

In a creepy way, that's genuis. What an amazing idea.

 

[MojoMan]

How is a bullet cruel and unusual, may I ask? If properly executed, it is swift, cheap, and painless.

I agree. A bullet through the head is the cheapest, most full proof, and most merciful way to kill someone. But I still think capital punishment is hippocritic.

 

[Sudsy86_]

Nope. It is NEVER justified, however reasonable it might seem.

What right does the government have to kill someone who has done nothing to them, even if they killed another, presumably innocent person? The only person who might have the right to kill someone is someone who has been treated that way. Unfortunately, they obviously do not exist anymore, so no one has the right. There is no justifiable means of an "inheritance" to a right to kill from a murdered person; therefore this is no justification at all for capital punishment( actually all murder).

 

[snex]

Nope. It is NEVER justified, however reasonable it might seem.

What right does the government have to kill someone who has done nothing to them, even if they killed another, presumably innocent person? The only person who might have the right to kill someone is someone who has been treated that way. Unfortunately, they obviously do not exist anymore, so no one has the right. There is no justifiable means of an "inheritance" to a right to kill from a murdered person; therefore this is no justification at all for capital punishment( actually all murder).

this is just one big assertion with no reasoning behind it.

if capital punishment in fact reduces crime and makes society overall happier, then we are absolutely justified in using it.

 

[Sudsy86_]

Are you not aware of what your argument means?

Who cares if it helps society? How is that an ethical/ moral justification for taking one's life?

At what point is it necessarily perfectly fair to kill someone, as opposed to, say, someone who contributes to unstabilizing society because he...drank too much one night, drove impaired while watching a DVD, hit a car, causing a moronic government body to react so strongly as to take away the privilege of being able to have a DVD player in your car. Let's say this law encompassed an entire country, causing nation-wide discontent and resentment of government bodies entirely, causing instability, fights and a handful of lives to be taken.

All of this' initial cause is a man deciding to drink and drive.

By your reasoning this man should probably deserve to be killed under the supervision of the government.

So, I must ask you, snex, what justifies law, where the lines are drawn for what action can be taken, and why.

I will state again for rhetoric: there is no valid moral/ ethical justification for killing someone.

Until you can provide evidence for otherwise, there IS no argument here. At best you will come up with nonsense that seems intuitively reasonable that the majority would agree on.

Essentially, still no real justification.

Edit: I noticed you specifically asserted society's happiness as a valid justification. While that is probably a valid justification for law EXCLUSIVELY functioning to make general society more stable, while not encompassing ethical/ moral territory, it is not a valid basis ethically or morally.

The ways it is justified is if the basis and standards for society's happiness are inherently perfect--in which case you would be hard pressed to justify universal qualifications.

Unless you could do that, there is no justification for society's happiness/ contentment as a valid basis for morality/ ethics; thus there is no justification for killing someone in any circumstances.

 

[snex]

there is no such thing as "ethical/moral" justification of anything. anything you offer is based on your own personal subjective tastes.

 

[Stroupes]

The whole point about the government not having a right to kill the criminals, I think, is wrong.
Once a person is arrested, they're basically under the jurisdiction of the government. They can do whatever they feel is necessary for all parties involved, and if that's means execution, they'll have it done.

 

[Sudsy86_]

Exactly. So how does the government's opinion that it IS acceptable for them to kill make this ethical/ moral issue positively resolved?

Who gives a crap that it in most cases helps general society and is a generally sufficient and efficient human behavior law?

THEY, those who weren't harmed, are BASELESSLY asserting they have the right to control one's existence in this life.

Please, snex--PLEASE tell me how this is in any way really justified?

 

[Sudsy86_]

The whole point about the government not having a right to kill the criminals, I think, is wrong.
Once a person is arrested, they're basically under the jurisdiction of the government. They can do whatever they feel is necessary for all parties involved, and if that's means execution, they'll have it done.

Therefore all parents should be able to shoot their children in the head until deceased if they feel it is necessary according to the laws THEY create...

 

[snex]

Exactly. So how does the government's opinion that it IS acceptable for them to kill make this ethical/ moral issue positively resolved?

Who gives a crap that it in most cases helps general society and is a generally sufficient and efficient human behavior law?

THEY, those who weren't harmed, are BASELESSLY asserting they have the right to control one's existence in this life.

Please, snex--PLEASE tell me how this is in any way really justified?

the only real justification that exists in life is the guy with the biggest stick gets to do what he wants. and currently, thats our government which represents the majority view.

 

[Sudsy86_]

What justifies the head honcho's dictation? Hmm? The fact that it is incidental he has a position in which he has followers who can ruin your life for simply not adhering to his dictation?

Huh, well I'll be darned...

 

[snex]

What justifies the head honcho's dictation? Hmm? The fact that it is incidental he has a position in which he has followers who can ruin your life for simply not adhering to his dictation?

Huh, well I'll be darned...

what more justification does he need? until somebody bigger and tougher comes along, or until you get a group of people to stop him, nothing. thats how reality works, welcome to it.

 

[Stroupes]

Therefore all parents should be able to shoot their children in the head until deceased if they feel it is necessary according to the laws THEY create...

Nope.
Because executing a mass murderer, rapist, etc., is not the same as parents shooting their children in the face for acting up.

 

[Sudsy86_]

Nope.
Because executing a mass murderer, rapist, etc., is not the same as parents shooting their children in the face for acting up.

How so? They both have the same amount of justification for their actions?

 

[snex]

How so? They both have the same amount of justification for their actions?

the rest of us have decided to punish people who engage in such behavior. they have a bigger stick than their children, but we have a bigger stick than they do.

 

[Stroupes]

How so? They both have the same amount of justification for their actions?

Maybe, but it's illegal for a parent to shoot their child.
Which means...hah, our Criminal Justice system has jurisdiction over criminals.
What you're saying is, if anyone has justification, they can just kill whoever they want.
That's wrong.
But see, the criminal justice system has that right, because they have jurisdiction over anyone who (majorly)violates our laws.

I admire your arguement, but ordinary parents, or anyone, really, just can't break the law like it's nothing.

 

[Sudsy86_]

what more justification does he need? until somebody bigger and tougher comes along, or until you get a group of people to stop him, nothing. thats how reality works, welcome to it.

What's your point? Stating a reality doesn't logically satisfy an action in this case.

Personally, I think " Because I somehow managed to attain power" as justification for anything makes whomever applying it quite stupid.

If I were to be in power and say it's ok to kill someone for killing others, what in reality--since you seem to be so infatuated with it, justifies my actions? Nothing.

"Because I assert it is", even when applied into reality, is still not justification for anything--and that's what you're arguing, snex.

If this is where you're satisfied with your reasoning, you're intellectually far behind, my friend.

 

[Sudsy86_]

Maybe, but it's illegal for a parent to shoot their child.
Which means...hah, our Criminal Justice system has jurisdiction over criminals.
What you're saying is, if anyone has justification, they can just kill whoever they want.
That's wrong.
But see, the criminal justice system has that right, because they have jurisdiction over anyone who (majorly)violates our laws.

I admire your arguement, but ordinary parents, or anyone, really, just can't break the law like it's nothing.

You're missing the point. You are asserting that formal, organized law is justified in all actions because they justify all actions.

This is Petitio Principii. .

 

[snex]

you seem to think somebody REQUIRES justification to do what they want if it is within their power. the only justification they need is their desire to perform the action. what part about this is hard for you to understand?

 

[Stroupes]

You're missing the point. You are asserting that formal, organized law is justified in all actions because they justify all actions.

This is Petitio Principii. .

Well, my point is, if the criminal justice system wants to execute a serial killer for the protection of society, they'll do it.
What is their justification?

Okay. Say you have Jim the serial killer.
He murders Sara, Billy, their children, and their whole family.
He escapes the law, with the blatent intent on continuing to kill.
The government is obviously going to get this guy off of the streets, but due to his violent nature, where do you suggest we put him?

To death?
Yes...that seems like a good idea.

What good are you doing by keeping a violent, unforgiving man alive?

And you say, "Well, it's immoral/unethical," etc.
What does he care if he lives or not?
He's mentally insane. For all you know, if he doesn't kill, he has no point for living.

 

[Sudsy86_]

Desire only justifies the the proposition that one thought of that relating to that which one desired to do.

I'm not saying they can't physically take action, I am questioning their reasoning in doing so and how fair it is.

If someone can not fully justify an action in relation to others, how is it fair for him to take action?

We are discussing whether or not we think it is right or wrong, an ethical/ moral question.

You are not giving justification on a moral/ ethical level, snex.

 

[snex]

again, there is NO SUCH THING as a "moral/ethical" level. there is only "do we as a society want to keep these people alive or dont we? our desire for X Y and Z says we should want them alive, and our desire for A B and C says we should want them dead."

and so far, different states assign different SUBJECTIVE values to A B C X Y and Z. its really that simple, i dont know why you cant seem to grasp it.

 

[Sudsy86_]

Well, my point is, if the criminal justice system wants to execute a serial killer for the protection of society, they'll do it.
What is their justification?

Okay. Say you have Jim the serial killer.
He murders Sara, Billy, their children, and their whole family.
He escapes the law, with the blatent intent on continuing to kill.
The government is obviously going to get this guy off of the streets, but due to his violent nature, where do you suggest we put him?

To death?
Yes...that seems like a good idea.

What good are you doing by keeping a violent, unforgiving man alive?

And you say, "Well, it's immoral/unethical," etc.
What does he care if he lives or not?
He's mentally insane. For all you know, if he doesn't kill, he has no point for living.

So, tell me, Stroupes, why this person shouldn't live if he still wants to?

He has every right and reason to live among those he has done nothing to, until he has done something to them. If what he does is take away their life, he is then left among people he has done nothing to.

They have every right to imprison him; that's just an action on a social level. One's life goes beyond sociality--which is the basis for your argument.

You're still not providing a reason why the government itself should have the right to do anything, whether or not we can stop wrong or not.

 

[Sudsy86_]

again, there is NO SUCH THING as a "moral/ethical" level. there is only "do we as a society want to keep these people alive or dont we? our desire for X Y and Z says we should want them alive, and our desire for A B and C says we should want them dead."

and so far, different states assign different SUBJECTIVE values to A B C X Y and Z. its really that simple, i dont know why you cant seem to grasp it.

What the hell are you talking about? When the question" is capital punishment right or wrong?" what do you think it is asking? There's no reason to ask it with the intention of hearing responses of understanding governmental law.

We are being asked our opinions on whether or not it is realistically logically justified.

This is what a moral/ ethical question is, snex.

Your statement is quotation marks is not the same question asked by the OP, I'm sorry. Piss off with that bs.

I'm sorry you don't know the difference between logic and pragmatism.

 

[Stroupes]

So, tell me, Stroupes, why this person shouldn't live if he still wants to?

He has given up his freedom to decide what HE wants for himself when he takes the lives of innocent people.

He has every right and reason to live among those he has done nothing to, until he has done something to them. If what he does is take away their life, he is then left among people he has done nothing to.

I see your point there, but when concerning the safety of everybody, who has the higher priority for concern: the murderer, or the community?

They have every right to imprison him; that's just an action on a social level. One's life goes beyond sociality--which is the basis for your argument.

Again, once the criminal violates the laws which our country is based on, you've given your life to the judicial system to decide what to do with.
Granted, I think that judicial system should have a VERY good justification to ever consider killing someone, but that's the power of the law. They can do that, if it benefits for the safety of everyone involved.

You're still not providing a reason why the government itself should have the right to do anything, whether or not we can stop wrong or not.

Again, once the criminal violates the laws which our country is based on, you've given your life to the judicial system to decide what to do with.
Granted, I think that judicial system should have a VERY good justification to ever consider killing someone, but that's the power of the law. They can do that, if it benefits for the safety of everyone involved.

 

[snex]

What the hell are you talking about? When the question" is capital punishment right or wrong?" what do you think it is asking? There's no reason to ask it with the intention of hearing responses of understanding governmental law.

We are being asked our opinions on whether or not it is realistically logically justified.

This is what a moral/ ethical question is, snex.

Your statement is quotation marks is not the same question asked by the OP, I'm sorry. Piss off with that bs.

I'm sorry you don't know the difference between logic and pragmatism.

regardless of how the OP phrased it, this debate is about whether or not we SHOULD enact capital punishment. you are demanding a level of justification that not even mathematicians seek.

 

[SkylerOcon]

Okay, the pro-capital punishment side has won me over. They made there point and it makes a lot more sense that what I originally thought. So I lost. Woohoo.

@Susdy

Your basing your entire argument around ethics and morals. You seem to forget, however, that ethics and morals are opinions and not facts. It may go against your morals, but for the people who are convicting these killers, it's not against theirs'. You aren't able to provide a good argument because that's what your falling back on -- an opinion. Snex has pointed out several times that criminals on a life sentence cost to much money which could be used to profit law-abiding citizens.

 

[marthanoob]

There are a number of arguments against the death penalty and that is where my opinion lies.

1. Slippery Slope - We give the government the right to kill people. What else may they do? I'm scared already. What other steps may they take? Could lead to red flags.

2. Innocent death - This is the strongest argument against the death penalty. The possibility of an innocent death. The convicted may, in reality, have done nothing at all. He/she could even have been framed [see 1, possibly by the FBI?]. There are quite a few problems and concerns about our criminal justice system, as you all have pointed out.

3. Criminals do not fear it - "Isaac Ehrlich's study on the deterrent effect of capital punishment in America reveals this. It spans twenty-five years, 1957-1982, and shows that in the first year the study was conducted there were 8,060 murders in 1957 and 65 executions. However, in the last year of the study, there were 22,520 murders committed and 1 execution performed. The absence of deterrence is clearly shown."

4. Violates Constitutional amendment 8 "cruel and unusual punishment" - The death punishment directly violates this act in any form it takes, no matter the procedure. The Founding Fathers established this amendment specifically to protect America from itself.

 

[Amide]

Okay, the pro-capital punishment side has won me over. They made there point and it makes a lot more sense that what I originally thought. So I lost. Woohoo.

@Susdy

Your basing your entire argument around ethics and morals. You seem to forget, however, that ethics and morals are opinions and not facts. It may go against your morals, but for the people who are convicting these killers, it's not against theirs'. You aren't able to provide a good argument because that's what your falling back on -- an opinion. Snex has pointed out several times that criminals on a life sentence cost to much money which could be used to profit law-abiding citizens.

Wait, so you think that killing isn't wrong? It may be considered ethics, but can you really disagree with it? It also breaks the constitution for unusual punishment. Regardless of how much the money would help society, there's no excuse to treat people inhumanely.

 

[Stroupes]

Violates Constitutional amendment 8 "cruel and unusual punishment" - The death punishment directly violates this act in any form it takes, no matter the procedure. The Founding Fathers established this amendment specifically to protect America from itself.

The 8th amendment only protects from cruel and unusual punishment.

In Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) Justice Brennan wrote, "There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is 'cruel and unusual'."

The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture.
"A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion."
"A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."
"A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."

As you can see, some, if not all, forms of capital punishment can be accepted.
Most methods of capital punishment are designed so that the victim will essentially feel no or very little pain, or at least become unconsious before experiencing anything.

"Cruel and Unusual" would be more like a brazen bull, or cutting someone's extremities off and eating them before burning them alive.

 

[Sudsy86_]

He has given up his freedom to decide what HE wants for himself when he takes the lives of innocent people.

Only if we choose to make it so. Still no justification, though. It's not inherent to the situation to lose your freedom if you kill someone. The only thing is...you've killed someone and deserve to be killed by that same person. That's it.

I see your point there, but when concerning the safety of everybody, who has the higher priority for concern: the murderer, or the community?

Who cares?(!) The point the question isn't to resolve an issue based in exclusively societal/ social circumstances: we were asked to justify executing criminals.

You can provide all the evidence you want about it being beneficial to the community; you're still not covering the area that matters, the question "What makes it right?" .

Also, what if the murderer in question murdered someone because HE was a detriment to society? Why isn't he justified? Because he's not in position to? Great! Now, just reason for me how those who ARE supposedly qualified are justified in their position.

Again, once the criminal violates the laws which our country is based on, you've given your life to the judicial system to decide what to do with.
Granted, I think that judicial system should have a VERY good justification to ever consider killing someone, but that's the power of the law. They can do that, if it benefits for the safety of everyone involved.

No. They can do it BECAUSE THEY SAY THEY CAN. NOTHING MORE, Stroupes. That is not enough justification to take action because government is not the end of human reasoning, last time I checked.

Allowing someone to be killed because you say you can is a justification from incident. Sorry. Not valid.

I understand pretty much every other law being justified, but the government is NOT justified in asserting they should have the rights over the only thing we truly have, our existence in this world.

You really think the government SHOULD ( which is the same question asked by the OP) be able to have the rights over your ability to exist? And you really think killing others gives the government that right over it? That's piss poor reasoning, through and through.

 

[Sudsy86_]

regardless of how the OP phrased it, this debate is about whether or not we SHOULD enact capital punishment. you are demanding a level of justification that not even mathematicians seek.

And? Mathematicians sole purpose for existence is to qualify concepts/ properties in quantities.

No **** they won't seek for, much less find, it.

You are not giving me a reason why the government should be able to have control over one's ability to exist. You keep saying "because they have the power". THAT IS INCIDENTAL!

THAT DOES NOT JUSTIFY THEIR POSITION. AND THEIR POSITION IS YOUR BASIS FOR JUSTIFIED ACTION.

WHAT DO YOU NOT SEE?

 

[Sudsy86_]

Okay, the pro-capital punishment side has won me over. They made there point and it makes a lot more sense that what I originally thought. So I lost. Woohoo.

That's unfortunate.

@Susdy

Your basing your entire argument around ethics and morals. You seem to forget, however, that ethics and morals are opinions and not facts. It may go against your morals, but for the people who are convicting these killers, it's not against theirs'. You aren't able to provide a good argument because that's what your falling back on -- an opinion. Snex has pointed out several times that criminals on a life sentence cost to much money which could be used to profit law-abiding citizens.

I am. Why? BECAUSE I WAS ASKED A QUESTION OF MORAL/ETHICAL QUALITIES. So no ****ing **** I based my argument around it. I wouldn't have been answering the right question if I wasn't.

It doesn't go against my morals, it goes against the logical principle of justifying actions.
This argument against me is entirely irrelevant; I never once mentioned MY personal whim in here.

I'm providing more than a nutshell argument against it, and you're just infering my meaning wrong. That's your fault, dummy.

snex's point is irrelevant to the question at hand. As I said to him before, he can piss off with his bs.

The fact that we can't have a real moral/ ethical justification does not mean we should change the meaning of the question at hand in order TO be able to have one. The question is merely rhetoric to anyone who understands logic decently.

"Is it right or wrong for the government to be able to execute criminals" or " Is capital punishment justified" are MORAL/ ETHICAL questions, skyler; there is only one solution to it, here, too: don't take action when there is no valid basis for action.

It is as simple as that. You're ignoring the relevance of the question at hand in order to have AN explanation, not THEE solution.

 

[Sudsy86_]

(I know, fourth post in a row. Bite me; I'm still contributing.)

There are a number of arguments against the death penalty and that is where my opinion lies .

Sounds good to me.

1. Slippery Slope - We give the government the right to kill people. What else may they do? I'm scared already. What other steps may they take? Could lead to red flags.

Probably true. But who cares? That doesn't satisfy the question.

2. Innocent death - This is the strongest argument against the death penalty. The possibility of an innocent death. The convicted may, in reality, have done nothing at all. He/she could even have been framed [see 1, possibly by the FBI?]. There are quite a few problems and concerns about our criminal justice system, as you all have pointed out.

This seems like a strong answer, but I think it was implied the accused is in fact a murderer.

3. Criminals do not fear it - "Isaac Ehrlich's study on the deterrent effect of capital punishment in America reveals this. It spans twenty-five years, 1957-1982, and shows that in the first year the study was conducted there were 8,060 murders in 1957 and 65 executions. However, in the last year of the study, there were 22,520 murders committed and 1 execution performed. The absence of deterrence is clearly shown."

Umm, who cares?

4. Violates Constitutional amendment 8 "cruel and unusual punishment" - The death punishment directly violates this act in any form it takes, no matter the procedure. The Founding Fathers established this amendment specifically to protect America from itself.

No. The current government body are the grandchildren of the founding fathers. The founding fathers gave today's government the right to do mostly whatever they'd like, certainly including capital punishment.

Also, I think the idea of "cruel and unusual punishment" is actually a "finite torment", ( the finitity is the extent to which it effects one's being). I don't think it encompasses here, actually.

 

[Stroupes]

Only if we choose to make it so. Still no justification, though. It's not inherent to the situation to lose your freedom if you kill someone. The only thing is...you've killed someone and deserve to be killed by that same person. That's it.

You're missing my point. Whether you or a group of people disagree with it, the fact is, our criminal justice has a way with dealing with criminals, and this is it.
The justification is that he/she is a potential risk to themselves and others.
Where can you take a person to where they will never hurt anyone, or hurt themselves?

Who cares?(!)

Not your best arguement.

The point the question isn't to resolve an issue based in exclusively societal/ social circumstances: we were asked to justify executing criminals.

The justification IS protection of everyone at risk.

You can provide all the evidence you want about it being beneficial to the community; you're still not covering the area that matters, the question "What makes it right?" .

What makes it "right," is the fact that innocent people are becoming safe by eliminating this criminal.
You can't wager the morality of the life of a scum human with the well-being of the community you or I live in. That's idiotic.
If you say "that's still not right," well, I'm sorry. But what's "right" is the well-being of those of higher concern. That's certain not someone that just commited murder.

Also, what if the murderer in question murdered someone because HE was a detriment to society?

Then, at some point, the law should have intervened. A citizen should never take it upon themselves to kill anyone for the protection of anyone else, unless that person has broken into the said "killer's" house. If that were the case, the "killer" would not even be in trouble. He was killing in self-defense.

Why isn't he justified?

He is.

No. They can do it BECAUSE THEY SAY THEY CAN. NOTHING MORE, Stroupes. That is not enough justification to take action because government is not the end of human reasoning, last time I checked.

No. They can do it BECAUSE THEY SAY THEY CAN. NOTHING MORE, Stroupes. That is not enough justification to take action because government is not the end of human reasoning, last time I checked.

Wrong. If you are an American citizen, you are living by a standard that involves every citizen of America, and a murderer shouldn't be any different.
Every American should at least know the basis of these rules.
And the basis of the one we are discussing, is don't kill.
Why, then, would you WANT to save the life of someone who doesn't care about the value of human life?

Allowing someone to be killed because you say you can is a justification from incident. Sorry. Not valid.

You're right. But it's not that simple.
The government just doesn't go "oh, I think I'll find someone to execute today."
You're foolish if you think that way.
There are standards in which our government acts by to decide how to handle things. These standards were formed when and shortly after our country first began.

You really think the government SHOULD ( which is the same question asked by the OP) be able to have the rights over your ability to exist? And you really think killing others gives the government that right over it? That's piss poor reasoning, through and through.

Yes, because that's the way it works. The justification, again, is safety for everyone.

You seem to be missing a key point I'm making.
When a criminal commits a very serious crime, such as causing harm or death to someone completely innocent, they are subjecting themseleves to the punishment of the criminal law.
That means, the system will do whatever it takes to eliminate that criminal from a peaceful enviroment.

Now, you are half right, however.
If the system were to execute someone for littering, it wouldn't be justifiable.
If the system were to execute someone for the **** and murder of a harmless, innocent elderly woman, that would be justifiable.

The criminal has taken a life, here. His life should be taken.

The only thing is...you've killed someone and deserve to be killed by that same person. That's it.

Okay, if the person who was affected should decide, the criminal would obviously be executed. I'm pretty sure someone who was victimized would WANT their criminal dead.
Why not let the system do its job?

 

[snex]

sudsy you are a complete fanatic. you keep asking for "justification" for something. do you even know what this means? what is your justification for posting on smashboards? no answer you give will ever satisfy people who believe it is morally wrong for you to post on smashboards.

you seem to think that morality is this objective code of laws that exists somewhere "out there" like the laws of physics and we only have justification if we can point to one of the laws and say "see my behavior is on the list." IT DOES NOT WORK THIS WAY! the moment you stop looking at morals as subjective aspects that are emergent from the society, your morals are simply no longer relevant. moral absolutism leads to absurdities like stoning homosexuals to death.

3. Criminals do not fear it - "Isaac Ehrlich's study on the deterrent effect of capital punishment in America reveals this. It spans twenty-five years, 1957-1982, and shows that in the first year the study was conducted there were 8,060 murders in 1957 and 65 executions. However, in the last year of the study, there were 22,520 murders committed and 1 execution performed. The absence of deterrence is clearly shown."

those numbers dont look like whats being claimed at all... more executions pairs with fewer murders. of course, you gave raw numbers instead of percentage rates, so your numbers are entirely irrelevant anyway. maybe the rates are in the study, but i dont really have time to read it at work - you should post the relevant numbers in the thread next time.

 

[Sudsy86_]

You're missing my point. Whether you or a group of people disagree with it, the fact is, our criminal justice has a way with dealing with criminals, and this is it.

I'm not missing it, i'm invalidating it. You're not explaining how that system is justified in their position and actions--which is a practical version of the initial question asked. Thus, you're not answering the question with that as your answer.
"Because it's just the way it goes" does not make it right/ justified.

The justification is that he/she is a potential risk to themselves and others.
Where can you take a person to where they will never hurt anyone, or hurt themselves?

I'm a potential risk, you are, snex is, Ken Ham is, Dawkins is, as far as we know Jesus Christ was--who isn't a POTENTIAL RISK, Stroupes? What a stupid answer.

Not your best arguement.

That wasn't even an or part of an argument. It was my response meaning "How is that relevant", if you didn't understand.

The justification IS protection of everyone at risk.

That doesn't satisfy the question, Stroupes! Wrong question to answer!

What makes it "right," is the fact that innocent people are becoming safe by eliminating this criminal.
You can't wager the morality of the life of a scum human with the well-being of the community you or I live in. That's idiotic.
If you say "that's still not right," well, I'm sorry. But what's "right" is the well-being of those of higher concern. That's certain not someone that just commited murder. [/QUOTE]

And it's still wrong in that the government is not logically ( not physically, you *******) in position to have the right over one's existence. Only those who were killed would be in that position.

Your second sentence is still ignorant of the question.

No, I would say it's not warranted or justified action, logically. How is it "right" to care for the well-being of one but not another? That's YOUR OPINION, Stroupes. That's not a fact.

Then, at some point, the law should have intervened. A citizen should never take it upon themselves to kill anyone for the protection of anyone else, unless that person has broken into the said "killer's" house. If that were the case, the "killer" would not even be in trouble. He was killing in self-defense.

Why does the fact that a robber happens to be on the property that x owns give x the right to kill the robber? It's your opinion, Stroupes. Your reasoning is totally based off the assumption that man's law is the end of human reasoning. You're not going further as to actually explain WHY man's law should be accepted in the first place.

Wrong. If you are an American citizen, you are living by a standard that involves every citizen of America, and a murderer shouldn't be any different.
Every American should at least know the basis of these rules.
And the basis of the one we are discussing, is don't kill.

You're right. I'm not even questioning that, dip****. I want you to explain to me how these standards are logically flawless.

Why, then, would you WANT to save the life of someone who doesn't care about the value of human life?

Who says I would have any preference any way? The point is, I'm not seeing any reasoning that explains why the government is justified in asserting their own authority over life. I might very well hate a murderer; the government still has no basis for taking THOSE matters in their hands, other than THEIR personal whim.

You're right. But it's not that simple.
The government just doesn't go "oh, I think I'll find someone to execute today."
You're foolish if you think that way.
There are standards in which our government acts by to decide how to handle things. These standards were formed when and shortly after our country first began.

At what point will you realize I'm not asking you to recite information from high school textbooks but provide unbiased, ( which is what you are not with your preference to adhere to man's dictation) logical explanation that makes capital punishment justified.

You've done nothing of the sort.

Yes, because that's the way it works. The justification, again, is safety for everyone.

YOU MORON. I AM ASKING YOU HOW IT IS RIGHT, NOT WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE. "Because this is incidental" does not justify the question! You're so ****ing dumb.

You seem to be missing a key point I'm making.
When a criminal commits a very serious crime, such as causing harm or death to someone completely innocent, they are subjecting themseleves to the punishment of the criminal law.
That means, the system will do whatever it takes to eliminate that criminal from a peaceful enviroment.

I'm not. THEY ARE ONLY SUBJECT BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT SAYS THEY ARE. THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN THAT DICTATION IN THE FIRST PLACE, Stroupes!

The criminal has taken a life, here. His life should be taken.

By whom SHOULD this action take place? How does the government inherent the right to do so from the victim? THEY DON'T. PERIOD.

Okay, if the person who was affected should decide, the criminal would obviously be executed. I'm pretty sure someone who was victimized would WANT their criminal dead.
Why not let the system do its job?

Because the murderer has done nothing to the "system", making their actions, REGARDLESS of motives. unjustified.

 

[Stroupes]

I'm a potential risk, you are, snex is, Ken Ham is, Dawkins is, as far as we know Jesus Christ was--who isn't a POTENTIAL RISK, Stroupes? What a stupid answer.

You missed what I was saying. Yes, everyone on the planet is a risk to some degree/at some point, but I was talking a bout a criminal vs. society.

No, I would say it's not warranted or justified action, logically. How is it "right" to care for the well-being of one but not another? That's YOUR OPINION, Stroupes. That's not a fact.

No, that's not my opinion. The system works that way to protect those of higher concern.
Completely avoiding the point of worrying about the criminal's life, the criminal MUST be removed from the community.

Why does the fact that a robber happens to be on the property that x owns give x the right to kill the robber? It's your opinion, Stroupes. Your reasoning is totally based off the assumption that man's law is the end of human reasoning. You're not going further as to actually explain WHY man's law should be accepted in the first place.

First of all, the only right that "x" has to kill the robber, is if the robber makes an attempt to cause harm on "x."
So I wasn't implying that "x" could just kill whoever was on his property.
Secondly, man's law should be accepted, because this is America, and it obviously needs laws.
If you want to live in a country where you let serial killers run free, I suggest getting out of America as quickly as possible.

Who says I would have any preference any way? The point is, I'm not seeing any reasoning that explains why the government is justified in asserting their own authority over life. I might very well hate a murderer; the government still has no basis for taking THOSE matters in their hands, other than THEIR personal whim.

You really seem to be failing to understand the fact that the government doesn't act upon free will of what they choose to do. There are STANDARDS that societies live by, and the government inforces law by those standards.

YOU MORON. I AM ASKING YOU HOW IT IS RIGHT, NOT WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE. "Because this is incidental" does not justify the question! You're so ****ing dumb.

I'm not. THEY ARE ONLY SUBJECT BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT SAYS THEY ARE. THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN THAT DICTATION IN THE FIRST PLACE, Stroupes!

By whom SHOULD this action take place? How does the government inherent the right to do so from the victim? THEY DON'T. PERIOD.

First off, don't be a ****.
This is an intellecual conversation, you're not helping your arguement by calling me a *******.
If you want to be a troll, take it else where. I won't tolerate that.
Now, if you want to make your point, please continue to post, but do not insult anyone like it helps you. It doesn't.
I could have easily called you a *****, ********, *******, whatever, but I didn't because we're both mature enough to dispute this intellectually.
Second, it doesn't help your claim(s) at all.

Back to your quote.

Okay. If the criminal shouldn't be subject to the government, what should they do? Should they get to decide for themselves?
"Um. I'll take 10 months in prison, please."
That is certainly the kind of enviroment I could feel safe in.

 

[SkylerOcon]

Another thing is that the Death Penalty is not a very common punishment. They only give it out in extreme cases, and even a murder is not usually rewarded with this. Only 42 executions were carried out last year.

Susdy, please don't flame if I'm wrong and actually explain how I am this time, but you seem to think that Capital Punishment is a common punishment for murders.