Death Penalty

[mrgreenbreeze04]

Is DEATH PENALTY morally right? Yes or No? Why or why not? Should this be legalized in all of the countries in the world in your own opinion?

[Vlerchan]

In his defence it involves opening page 2 of the subforum.

[22/9/2014 - two weeks ago]

On the death penalty:

[13/1/2014]

This again ..?

There's no rational argument for the continuance of Capital Punishment - or the Death Penalty. I've pressed this point numerous times here. The opposition will argue either a) murderers and rapists & other violent criminals deserve to have their lives terminated on the basis of the crimes that the jury finds them guilty[1] of - as if someone should have such a right as to extinguish somebodies very life in the first place; judge who may live and who may die - which is simply an appeal to emotion of the worst sorts or b) they'll get back out and murder again - read: scaremongering - which can easily be avoided through keeping them locked up. What they'll avoid is the simple reality that capital punishment is neither economical, fair, moral, necessary, logical, a reasonable deterrent to future crime, or pose any actual benefit to society as a whole; that won't be mentioned.

I also believe it's fundamentally wrong to base our legal system(s) around the ideas of revenge and spite and retribution as opposed to values such as fairness; it's wrong that we should grant the state the right to murder it's own citizens in order to fulfil some sense of revenge on the behalf of the families; it more-so wrong that we believe that this sense of revenge needs to be satisfied for the families in the first place - "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind", and all. This passionate 'justice' gets everybody nowhere

On proof beyond doubt:

[3/12/2014]

An individual being declared guilty simply means that there is convincing evidence without a reasonable degree of doubt - and doubt has always been an incredibly ambiguous term legal-wise. The opposite is not-guilty - i.e., there is not convincing evidence without a reasonable degree of doubt. You'll find that the term innocent is never used in place of it. Why? Because you can never be entirely certain whether someone is truly innocent or not.

Guilty has never been a measure of certainty, it's simply a term used to describe a person that the law believes to have committed a crime and has not been presented with enough evidence to rule contrary. Between 1973 - 1999 there was on average 3.1 exonerations from Death Row per year and between 2000 - 2007 there was an average 5 exonerations per year - that's an awful lot of people almost murdered right there.

Thank you past me you made that so much easier.

Thank you past-past me you made that so much easier.

[CosmicNoodle]

No, it's not right. You can't kill someone just because they killed someone else, thats like saying,

"Ok, this person just killed someone, well, I'd better do exactly the same, reprehensible, horrible, vile thing they did, but the differance is, I have the backing of the judge, and that makes it perfectly OK for me to do it, not murder, justice!"

You can't puncihs someone for murder, by killing them, it makes you just as bad, even if you have the backing of a government, just because a lot of people think you should kill soemone, doen't make it ANY different.

[Vlerchan]

You can't puncihs someone for murder, by killing them, it makes you just as bad, even if you have the backing of a government, just because a lot of people think you should kill soemone, doen't make it ANY different.
Do someone's motives not come into consideration when you ponder the morality of an action?

[CosmicNoodle]

Do someone's motives not come into consideration when you ponder the morality of an action?

For me, not at all, but what I said, it's not as if I have a truth of some sort, or am claiming what I said as truth (basically I'm saying don't start a debate this time, I really can't be bothered today, feeling lazy). Thats just what I think.

[thatcountrykid]

If a person wrongfully takes a life full well knowing what they are doing they do not deserve to live. James Holmes? Kill him. Guy who killed the PA trooper? Find him and kill him. Boston bomber? Kill him

[SethfromMI]

I do support the dealth penalty. I understand why those don't. it is easy to say that, but if someone killed your family, would you want to pay to feed, clothe, and house him for the rest of his life in prison through taxes? have him get out in 20-40 years while your family is still dead? I wouldn't

[Gigablue]

I do support the dealth penalty. I understand why those don't. it is easy to say that, but if someone killed your family, would you want to pay to feed, clothe, and house him for the rest of his life in prison through taxes? have him get out in 20-40 years while your family is still dead? I wouldn't

Paying for all that for however long he is in jail is far cheaper than paying for all the trials and appeals before the death penalty can be used, then paying for a few decades in jail anyway because there's such a huge backlog of people to be executed.

By the far more important point is that killing him won't bring back your family. They're dead, and regardless of what you do to him, they'll stay dead. Killing him for revenge may make you feel better, but we should base our justice system on facts and reason, not emotion. Also, if you get the wrong person, which happens scarily often, you can't reverse the death penalty.

[Typhlosion]

would you want to pay to feed, clothe, and house him for the rest of his life in prison through taxes?

Keeping him alive uses less taxes than putting someone on the death row: http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2936409&postcount=60

(Credit to Vlerchan)

[SethfromMI]

even if it is less money, it would make me feel justice is done. so if (and I would never, ever do this) but if I killed someone in your family, you would ratherpay to feed me, clothe me, let me watch tv, for 20 (or more) years?

[Vlerchan]

even if it is less money, it would make me feel justice is done.
You never responded to Gigablue's point: Is there a reason why you'd rather base our justice system around emotion than logic? - shape it around base instincts like vengeance rather than what's rational and a social-benefit? It would be great if this question could also be answered without appealing to someone's emotions.

You also never mentioned the people who end up being wrongly killed at the end of all this. I wouldn't mind hearing about your feelings in relation to this.

[Pacaveli]

I believe the death penalty is okay, in certain cases.

[Bleid]

I do support the dealth penalty. I understand why those don't. it is easy to say that, but if someone killed your family, would you want to pay to feed, clothe, and house him for the rest of his life in prison through taxes? have him get out in 20-40 years while your family is still dead? I wouldn't

There's a very old German man who once wrote,

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster."

Out of curiosity, what do you think about that statement?

[Miserabilia]

God I really don't see why people still beleive in the death penalty.

It's not cheaper, it's not morally right, it's absolutely pointless. Any argument I've heard for it, infact turns out to be the opposite way;
if they want criminals to suffer, the death penalty is not the best option; they would actualy suffer less than someone in lifelong isolation cells.
If they want to save money, the death penalty is not the best option; the process surrounding it is far more expensive than using our already exising system of emprisiment.

Besides, what's the moral advantage of killng someone as revenge, besides said revenge? I don't see revenge as a positive thing to actively chase in our society. murder is murder, systematic state funded murder is even worse.

[Dying Ember]

I don't believe it is morally right, but some things just need to be done. Yes it isn't moral killing someone, but what would happen if we didn't? In my opinion, things would be even worse.

[Miserabilia]

even if it is less money, it would make me feel justice is done. so if (and I would never, ever do this) but if I killed someone in your family, you would ratherpay to feed me, clothe me, let me watch tv, for 20 (or more) years?

If justice is what you're looking for, I"m assuming you'd want them to suffer for what they did right? And wouldn't killing them actualy end any suffering thye'd feel?
The only way for the criminal to feel remorse is for them to be locked up with their crime for their whole lives. That would be 'justce", and I don't even aggree with the moral concept of revenge taking part in our justice system.

[Vlerchan]

In my opinion, things would be even worse.
Are you able to produce any evidence to support this opinion?

[Dying Ember]

No, its just my opinion. If people who do these horrible things were still here, they would keep doing them and more people would get hurt. I agree that the death penalty is not morally right though.

[Miserabilia]

No, its just my opinion. If people who do these horrible things were still here, they would keep doing them and more people would get hurt. I agree that the death penalty is not morally right though.

Wouldn't a life long sentence work equaly well in preventing them for doing their crimes ever again?
:confused:

[James Dean]

I think it depends on what the situation and case was. I feel if someone was a killer and shows no remorse for doing what they did, they deserve to be put to death. If someone acted in defense or there wasn't enough evidence to say it was a ruthless killing, they should just be in prison for life. That is just my opinion on the whole thing.

[TheN3rdyOutcast]

Coming from the depths of my sick twisted mind: I'd like to see use of vigilante justice.

Also, I have no solid opinion on the death penalty.

[Miserabilia]

I think it depends on what the situation and case was. I feel if someone was a killer and shows no remorse for doing what they did, they deserve to be put to death. If someone acted in defense or there wasn't enough evidence to say it was a ruthless killing, they should just be in prison for life. That is just my opinion on the whole thing.

If you put someone to death for revenge, wouldn't you also be a killer, showing no remorse for what you did? THat's essentialy what a death penalty is.
Besides, if revenge is what you're after, you're better off keeping them isolated for life than to end their lives all together;
for they would not be able to suffer for what they did once they are dead, and the only chance for them to psosibly feel remorse is to have them isolated for life.

[James Dean]

If you put someone to death for revenge, wouldn't you also be a killer, showing no remorse for what you did? THat's essentialy what a death penalty is.
Besides, if revenge is what you're after, you're better off keeping them isolated for life than to end their lives all together;
for they would not be able to suffer for what they did once they are dead, and the only chance for them to possibly feel remorse is to have them isolated for life.

Agree to disagree on this one. I don't call it revenge, I just call it "eye for an eye". There are consequences for actions, and I feel if you take a life, yours should be taken as well. That persons life is gone and it's all because the killer was at fault. We aren't killing them, the justice system is, so I feel no remorse because I feel that's the way a situation like that should pan out.

And no, them eating three square meals a day, that my parents pay for because they pay taxes. Allowed to possibly interact with other people in prison etc. I don't feel is right.

[phuckphace]

execution permanently removes dangerous undesirables from society forever, that's it. I don't really care if somebody out there wants a murderer executed out of revenge, or whatever. some people support the death penalty based on emotional appeals - I don't. if anything I'm taking the rational approach by wanting to negate risk to myself, and murderers and rapists being alive are a risk that I am unwilling to tolerate. recidivism is a serious concern and is alarmingly common among serial killers and rapists after they are released. in my opinion, most therapeutic killer-reform programs are a waste of time - these people have broken, crippled minds period. you can update drivers all day but it's not going to fix a fried motherboard. send it to the crusher and get a new one.

[Miserabilia]

We aren't killing them, the justice system is,

So systematic state controlled murder is somehow better than personal murder? What kind of society is that?


And no, them eating three square meals a day, that my parents pay for because they pay taxes. Allowed to possibly interact with other people in prison etc. I don't feel is right.

The taxes argument... I'd honestly prefer my parent's taxes to go to that, than to pay more taxes, in investigating and preparing to murder someone if there's not even a reason for it, besides some kind of moral vengence.
And prison life isn't exactly a fun time, even when they get to interact with people in prison. The point is that they are taken away from society and life in general, for our and their own safety.

[DeadEyes]

And here's another thread about this, it's an endless debate that's for sure.
And that's the whole problem, we keep on rambling about that, while prisons are more than overpopulated.

[Miserabilia]

And here's another thread about this, it's an endless debate that's for sure.
And that's the whole problem, we keep on rambling about that, while prisons are more than overpopulated.

What an inhumane argument. Kill prisoners because we don't have space for them?
How about trying to reduce the number of prisoners by reducing the need for criminality.

[Gwen]

Never right to kill anyone for any reason, end of discussion really. If you want someone to suffer give them solitude for a lifetime and they'll rot and it'll be much worse than any kind of execution you can think of.

[DeadEyes]

Coming from the depths of my sick twisted mind: I'd like to see use of vigilante justice.

Ah yeah, Batman and The Bay Harbor Butcher are great, would be awesome if they were real.

Evidence doesn't lie.
Once there is no doubt the person is an horrendous, scumbag, serial rapist and murderer,
what's the point to keep such pieces of human trash alive?
Life shouldn't be a right but a privilege, and such persons most certainly does not deserve such a privilege.

[CanadianJake]

Personally I don't think the Death Penalty does much because it's pretty much an easy way out. With locking them up and throwing away the key, they'd be in fact doing the time for the crime. Locking them up would be making them suffer. However in some circumstances I do believe the Death Penalty is needed only in certain circumstances though.

[Miserabilia]

Evidence doesn't lie.
Once there is no doubt the person is an horrendous, scumbag, serial rapist and murderer,
what's the point to keep such pieces of human trash alive?


What evidence exactly?
That they are a serial rapist or mureder? We know that.
That's not the point.

And


Life shouldn't be a right but a privilege, and such persons most certainly does not deserve such a privilege.

That stray of thought seems a little unethitcal. So when one person find another lacks their privilege of life, they can kill them?

"Johny stole my pencil. He does not fit my criteria of deserving to live. Kill him!"
would be how that would go on a daily basis, would it not?

[DeadEyes]

What evidence exactly?
That they are a serial rapist or mureder? We know that.
That's not the point.

And



That stray of thought seems a little unethitcal. So when one person find another lacks their privilege of life, they can kill them?

"Johny stole my pencil. He does not fit my criteria of deserving to live. Kill him!"
would be how that would go on a daily basis, would it not?

Good, we know that then, no it's not the point. The point is they don't deserve to live and yeah, that's exactly how the law works: a judge condemn a criminal to the capital punishment, where it's still legal.

[Vlerchan]

Evidence doesn't lie.
I'm sorry but it's undeniable that courts sometimes make mistakes when issuing their judgements.

Once there is no doubt the person is an horrendous, scumbag, serial rapist and murderer, what's the point to keep such pieces of human trash alive?
Feel free to read and address my first post in this thread. Thank you.

Life shouldn't be a right but a privilege, and such persons most certainly does not deserve such a privilege.
Are you going to justify this? Or do you expect just stating your beliefs to win people over.

[DeadEyes]

Personally I don't think the Death Penalty does much because it's pretty much an easy way out. With locking them up and throwing away the key, they'd be in fact doing the time for the crime. Locking them up would be making them suffer.

People state against death penalty because it's so called revenge, this is even more vengeful.

Never right to kill anyone for any reason, end of discussion really.

No, it's not the end of the discussion just because it's your opinion.

I'm sorry but it's undeniable that courts sometimes make mistakes when issuing their judgements.
Are you going to justify this? Or do you expect just stating your beliefs to win people over.

To err is human.
I don't need to justify anything, people are free to agree or not.

[Vlerchan]

To err is human.
What's your point?

I don't need to justify anything, people are free to agree or not.
I was just pointing out that statements abstract of reasoning are utterly unpersuasive.

[DeadEyes]

What's your point?
I was just pointing out that statements abstract of reasoning are utterly unpersuasive.

The fact you don't get my point and my reasoning doesn't mean there is none.

[Vlerchan]

The fact you don't get my point and my reasoning doesn't mean there is none.
Okay.

Would you mind explaining to me what the point of the previously quoted statement is?

Would you then mind explaining to me the reasoning behind your earlier-quoted position?

Thank you in advance.

[DeadEyes]

Would you mind explaining to me what the point of the previously quoted statement is?

To err is human, nothing is perfect and certainly not the law system but it's not a reason to not execute criminals.

[Vlerchan]

To err is human, nothing is perfect and certainly not the law system but it's not a reason to not execute criminals.
I think that we should be trying to minimise the amount of unreasonable suffering that humans inflict on each other. I see saving one innocent life as infinitely preferable to not getting to take a number of lives which might not be so innocent.

How do you view the wrongly executed?

---

I guess I'll retract that thank you for the reasoning. Unless it's coming in another post or something.

[DeadEyes]

How do you view the wrongly executed?

---

I guess I'll retract that thank you for the reasoning. Unless it's coming in another post or something.

You claim to be reasoning, yet you delves into circular reasoning. This is spinning in circles,
I already stated that despite the errors of the system, it's not a reason to not apply capital punishment.
You may or may not retract yourself, I will provide reasoning if I see fit, don't even try to insult my intelligence, it's not going to work.

[Vlerchan]

You claim to be reasoning, yet you delves into circular reasoning. This is spinning in circles.
Feel free to point out my circular reasoning.

I already stated that despite the errors of the system, it's not a reason to not apply capital punishment.
I provided a reason why it might be.

Feel free to post a refutation. You could probably even do it at the same time as pointing out my circular reasoning.

You may or may not retract yourself, I will provide reasoning if I see fit, don't even try to insult my intelligence, it's not going to work.
I'm not insulting your intelligence.

I'm pointing out that you don't back up your arguments with anything worth addressing.

[DeadEyes]

I'm pointing out that you don't back up your arguments with anything worth addressing.

I could say the same about your so called arguments.

[Vlerchan]

Right. Unless you're about to either provide reasoning for your arguments or point out the flaws in mind then I'm going to stop responding.

Have a nice day.

[Miserabilia]

I could say the same about your so called arguments.

If you could post exactly what part of his arguments were circular of fallicious, this would get along easier and everyone would appreciate it.
What exactly is it that you use to defend the death penalty, and why was his counter argument wrong?

[DeadEyes]

If you could post exactly what part of his arguments were circular of fallicious, this would get along easier and everyone would appreciate it.
What exactly is it that you use to defend the death penalty, and why was his counter argument wrong?

The point of an argument is to trigger a reflection, not explain your own reflections about it.

[Miserabilia]

The point of an argument is to trigger a reflection, not explain your own reflections about it.

Fair enough, could you point out what he said was his own reflection (Opinion) on the subject, and not a logical argument, thank you.

[DeadEyes]

Fair enough, could you point out what he said was his own reflection (Opinion) on the subject, and not a logical argument, thank you.

An argument may sound logical to one, and nonsense to one another.

[Miserabilia]

An argument may sound logical to one, and nonsense to one another.

Logic is in itself nothing more than valid reasoning, so following certain laws of logic and what logicaly follows. The word is used to describe one's opinion but in a discussion or something scientific we use it to describe valid reasoning.

[DeadEyes]

Logic is in itself nothing more than valid reasoning, so following certain laws of logic and what logicaly follows. The word is used to describe one's opinion but in a discussion or something scientific we use it to describe valid reasoning.

The major issue with your statement is that not everyone has the same logic.
And that everything is subject to interpretation, so my point was, what may sound logic to you might actually be completely off.

[Miserabilia]

The major issue with your statement is that not everyone has the same logic.
And that everything is subject to interpretation, so my point was, what may sound logic to you might actually be completely off.

Common misconception.
Logic is not something that one "has". In science, debate, and reasoning we generaly use logic to describe valid reasoning, something that logicaly follows. This means that we follow certain rules or axioms to form an argument based on logic to determine whether something is true or false.
Though I'm still more ignorant on the subject than I'd dare to admit, Bleid has a lot of info on this aswell on certain rules that'd apply to form a logicaly valid argument.

[DeadEyes]

Common misconception.
Logic is not something that one "has". In science, debate, and reasoning we generaly use logic to describe valid reasoning, something that logicaly follows. This means that we follow certain rules or axioms to form an argument based on logic to determine whether something is true or false.
Though I'm still more ignorant on the subject than I'd dare to admit, Bleid has a lot of info on this aswell on certain rules that'd apply to form a logicaly valid argument.

You think you are wise, yet for all your subtleties, you have not wisdom (I could say the same for Mr. Bleid).
You believe your logic is flawless based on whatever you think you know. Let me enlighten you here and say it's far from flawless.
No matter how many times you may use the word logic, it doesn't change the fact not everybody has the same logic.

[Miserabilia]

You think you are wise,

Far from. I make bad life decisions and I have poor life experience. I wouldn't call myself any wiser than any other lost and confused teens that go to this website as last resort.


You believe your logic is flawless based on whatever you think you know.

I do not beleive my logic is flawless, and if you see a flaw in my logic, feel free to adress it so by the end of the day we all learn something.

Let me enlighten you here and say it's far from flawless.

Thank you for enlightening me. Could you also point out the exact flaw so that I can learn from it? That way this won't happen in any other debate.

[DeadEyes]

honestly I'm for it

Capitol punishment ftw!

Far from. I make bad life decisions and I have poor life experience. I wouldn't call myself any wiser than any other lost and confused teens that go to this website as last resort.



I do not beleive my logic is flawless, and if you see a flaw in my logic, feel free to adress it so by the end of the day we all learn something.



Thank you for enlightening me. Could you also point out the exact flaw so that I can learn from it? That way this won't happen in any other debate.

Here we are, spinning in circles again. So much for logic, circular reasoning. The answer to your question is the same as to why you asked your question.
On another note, I'm not a lost teen posting on a message board as a last reasort, you see, another exemple of your logic: you do so and then you believe everybody else has to be here for the same reasons, while it's not the case.

Please do not double post. Use the 'multiquote' buttons instead. ~Typhlosion

[Miserabilia]

Here we are, spinning in circles again. So much for logic, circular reasoning. The answer to your question is the same as to why you asked your question.

Where is the part where I answered my own question?


On another note, I'm not a lost teen posting on a message board as a last reasort, you see, another exemple of your logic: you do so and then you believe everybody else has to be here for the same reasons, while it's not the case.

Sorry for the confusion.
My exact frasing was

not any wiser than any other lost confused teens

"Any other" refers any other teen on this website that is "lost and confused". I did not intend to imply all teens on this website were.

[Vlerchan]

DeadEyes, you're objectively wrong that logic in the sense Cheese is approaching this exists in multiple instances.

That isn't even a subject for debate.

honestly I'm for it
Why?