What do you think, should there be a death penalty?
Perssonalni I am against it,because of these things:
1.Death penalty vs liftime jail (well death penalty is kind of reward in this case)
2. How are we bether then him/her? Where is ours moral?
3. We must think about moral of executor.
killing is wrongful anyway. morally wrong at the very least... killing somebody is just wrong no matter how you try to justify it..
I could ask you what about self defence, but there'd be no link to death penalty. The point was that saying "it is wrong because it is wrong" is not that great of an argument. But I agree with you that in the case of justice, it is not right to kill someone.
.
. @FishPreferred
Your point is that death penalty is ok in cases where the person is unreformable, right? But I fail to see how the logical conlusion of "unreformable through prison" should be death penalty. If prison does not reform them, at the very least it keeps them locked up, and justice does not need to compromise itself by killing people. There is no reason why they should be killed instead of definitely imprisoned.
There is no reason why they should be killed instead of definitely imprisoned.
Well, because the fear of death is commonly more severe than fear of confinement, and most first-world countries have to abide by various human rights laws in the treatment of their prisoners, the threat of death makes for a more effective deterrent.
The procedure is also far more space-saving and cost-effective, and provides total assurance that the perpetrator cannot possibly cause further harm to anyone or anything.
Well, because the fear of death is commonly more severe than fear of confinement, and most first-world countries have to abide by various human rights laws in the treatment of their prisoners, the threat of death makes for a more effective deterrent.
That may be a point. Though the actual benefit of the increased effect is debatable; in the heat of the action, a perpetrator of a passionate murder will not pause to think of the exact consequences of his acts. And serial killers are mental cases that probably won't be deterred by death penalty either.
.
Also, wouldn't those very same human rights laws be a block to execution? A prisoner has no right to freedom, but you just said that they still had other rights left. What difference is there exactly between killing a free man or a prisoner?
The procedure is also far more space-saving and cost-effective,
I could repeat the point that since we have to take appeals processes into account, even if the killing procedure is more cost-effective the sum is still higher. But I don't even care anymore; arguing in favour of killing because it is more economic is abject.
and provides total assurance that the perpetrator cannot possibly cause further harm to anyone or anything.
As already said, the risk of escape is an issue of prison security, not of the sentence. Yes, death penalty is the easier way of getting rid of a problem, but I don't see a weak security as an argument to kill.
Also, wouldn't those very same human rights laws be a block to execution? A prisoner has no right to freedom, but you just said that they still had other rights left.
A prisoner has the rights to be fed, receive medical treatment, and have a living space deemed fit for human habitation. Humane execution is within the limitations of these rights.
What difference is there exactly between killing a free man or a prisoner?
A free man is free for a reason, if I'm not mistaken.
I could repeat the point that since we have to take appeals processes into account, even if the killing procedure is more cost-effective the sum is still higher.
And I could restate that the extra appeals are not required by or integral to it.
As already said, the risk of escape is an issue of prison security, not of the sentence. Yes, death penalty is the easier way of getting rid of a problem, but I don't see a weak security as an argument to kill.
It is the assurance that is relevant here; not the risk. Except in the unlikely event that the deceased is expected to rise from the grave and take vengeance against those who spoke out against it, the death penalty offers greater peace of mind.
A prisoner has the rights to be fed, receive medical treatment, and have a living space deemed fit for human habitation. Humane execution is within the limitations of these rights.
Does a regular prisoner not have any right to live?
A free man is free for a reason, if I'm not mistaken.
I could ask you what about self defence, but there'd be no link to death penalty.
indeed the only thing i thought of as why my statement could be not true. but i couldn't find the right words to say exactly what i mend. but even in self defence is killing the person in most cases unnecessary and/or avoidable. so i posted the statement anyway, with the knowles there are exceptions in the generalization i made.
No it isn't. Where did you get that idea?
i've got a higher moral and ethical standard then you have... thats all.
where did you get the idea that its oke to judge for a persons life to be taken?
most first-world countries have to abide by various human rights laws in the treatment of their prisoners,
to be and stay alive is not a human right? why?
cause it is not written on this paper...
oh, i c, your right. how stupid of me to think for myself...
anyway. prison life aint all that nice and easy as you make it sound like now...
the threat of death makes for a more effective deterrent.
also a form of torture. is torture allowed by your human rights?
The procedure is also far more space-saving and cost-effective,
so now you are going to kill people not only because for a crime they did, but also because it is cheaper... thats just awful.
there is enough room for more prisons anyway. (except if you live in monaco or san-marino... xD )
and provides total assurance that the perpetrator cannot possibly cause further harm to anyone or anything.
as far i know do they have the same human rights...
And assisted suicide?
depends what happened. did you kill him or did he kill himself? either way there is a kill made. if you did the kill: yes murder. if he killed himself: its not murder but that other thing i cant find the word for now.. (where you should have acted responsible with the authorities instead of playing dumb.)
Are you sure about that?
yes i am.
the motto i use for many years already, when i watch the world and interpret the things i c is: "there is always a exception in the general"
by keeping that in mind i force myself to watch beyond the 1st layer of my own thoughts. it makes me aware of the faults we all automatically make when we make a generalization. and making generalization is something that we all do the whole day long.. (and yes, there are exceptions too that generalization aswel. =P )
The matter of deliberation is entirely irrelevant.
lol xD
you sentence someone to death. that is a direct judgment made over somebody's life. who are you to judge?
...? What paper?
your human rights, dummy.
No, it isn't.
i'm starting to think your just a troll i'm wasting time on now...
This may surprise you, but ... I am not a Justice of the Peace. Therefore, I am not the one who is judging.
i'm starting to think your just a troll i'm wasting time on now...
Apparently, explaining other people's points for them is my job now.
Okay then; since I have no idea how you arrived at your conclusion, I guess I'll just have to wing it:
You classify negative reinforcement by example as torture because you attribute malicious criminal acts to the will of the three Fates, who inevitably lead the offenders to their doom. Well, this actually isn't the case, as is evidenced by the release of several such criminals on technicalities.
so here we are. we done years of making international human rights.
rights that will count for every human being. no matter the color, size or gender.
but wait... if these government people tell you those rights do not count for you anymore. then we have to accept that? that actually go's against the human rights. you cant just strip somebody off their human rights.. if that would be a normal thing to do. then why the hell do we have these human rights for to begin with?
also if human rights do not count for death row inmates. then why does it have to take years and years before they can be put to death? you want to free space and save money? why dont you kill them the moment they leave the courtroom? from that moment on they do not have human rights anymore, right?
(this is just hypocritical -.-' )
Um. No. Do you need that link again? Here:
and why the hell would i go there? that topic has nothing to do with this topic...
assisted suicide has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with sentencing someone to die...
if you think the 2 cases are even close enough to compare. your wrong...
so plz. if you dont have a real argument against the statement, acknowledge it. and dont move off-topic to make the other look bad. (try to do that on-topic ) thank you..
This may surprise you, but ... I am not a Justice of the Peace. Therefore, I am not the one who is judging.
-.-' are you unable to read in 1st person?
i think everybody knows my point here. but for you i will change it anyway..
"who is the government (who you (the people) voted into place) to judge?"
or
"what makes it oke for the government to kill anybody that they deem
deservedable to die?"
Okay then; since I have no idea how you arrived at your conclusion
my bad, i misinterpreted your english...
however the Knowles that you can hear the news you will be dead in a few days at any time. while sometimes the news doesnt come for over 20 years. is mental torture...
that actually go's against the human rights. you cant just strip somebody off their human rights..
Um, no, it doesn't, and yes, you can. Does a prisoner - any prisoner - have freedom of movement? That's a basic human right. How about the right to liberty? The right to adequate housing? The right to work?
also if human rights do not count for death row inmates. then why does it have to take years and years before they can be put to death?
Because the legal system is convoluted and extremely slow.
and why the hell would i go there?
Because it discusses the meaning of the term "murder", which you keep misusing.
assisted suicide has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with sentencing someone to die...
It has plenty to do with your insistence that "killing somebody is just wrong no matter how you try to justify it".
who is the government (who you (the people) voted into place) to judge?
The government doesn't decide that either. Only the court can do that. Making these decisions is what the court system is for.
what makes it oke for the government to kill anybody that they deem
deservedable to die?
Nothing, which is why they don't.
however the Knowles that you can hear the news you will be dead in a few days at any time. while sometimes the news doesnt come for over 20 years. is mental torture...
Not really. Psychological distress: usually. Torture: Not unless you count the self-inflicted.
freedom of movement, yes they get their daily amount of movement.
right to liberty, a vague right to begin with...
right to adequate housing, a cell seems oke. as long they dont have to share it with too many people.
The right to work, they can work. it even gets promoted too them...
Because it discusses the meaning of the term "murder", which you keep misusing.
does it look like i care? with a little bit more sensibility and a little bit less nit picking, you know what i mean.. it's the i-net.. get used to people not using the exact right english words.. your language is not the only 1 in the world...
It has plenty to do with your insistence that "killing somebody is just wrong no matter how you try to justify it".
are you unable too read that in context? or do you believe that the world is stupid except for you?
The government doesn't decide that either. Only the court can do that. Making these decisions is what the court system is for.
Nothing, which is why they don't.
again you nit picker... just take the point being made. it's not like everybody in this world has the ****ty usa system...(thank god) i can keep changing that question over and over for you. but my guess is that you simply cant answer too the point of the question. you can only point out what words are said wrong...
