ForumsWEPRShould we be more stricter on people who murder people on purpose?

110 17915
xplayfang4
offline
xplayfang4
22 posts
Nomad

ok this is a big thing hears the deal whut do you want to hapin to a person that kills one of your family member would you want them to stay in prison for life like what it is now where prisons is overflowing becase of this or would you like to have them exicutid becase they took a life so should theres be taken too???

  • 110 Replies
Graham
offline
Graham
8,051 posts
Nomad

Just go to Costco and eat a bunch of free samples. There's your free lunch.


*facepalm*
VoteSocialist
offline
VoteSocialist
950 posts
Nomad

Well, executing people is a lot cheaper than keeping them alive in jail....

Ernie15
offline
Ernie15
13,344 posts
Bard

Well, executing people is a lot cheaper than keeping them alive in jail....


But using the electric chair takes a lot of electricity, and an injection is rather expensive as it is. It doesn't take very much to keep people alive in jail, rather than supplying cheap bean slop and dim lights every day...
cleofer5
offline
cleofer5
354 posts
Scribe

Yes, I think people who murder on purpose should automatically face the death penalty before they take another life

goumas13
offline
goumas13
4,752 posts
Grand Duke

Capital punishment is probably effective in discouraging crime, but is it justified and moral "murdering" the murderer?

keeton52
offline
keeton52
928 posts
Nomad

If they get a kick out of killing and to say murdered on purpose is wrong, murder is the offense not murder on purpose, in self defense its not murder.

kamrad
offline
kamrad
564 posts
Nomad

I would want that person executed even if the prison wasn't overflowed, but they must have a reason to live if they want to be released...

wistress
offline
wistress
262 posts
Peasant

1.the cherishing or pursuit of high or noble principles, purposes, goals, etc.
2.the practice of idealizing.
3.something idealized; an ideal representation.
4.Fine Arts. treatment of subject matter in a work of art in which a mental conception of beauty or form is stressed, characterized usually by the selection of particular features of various models and their combination into a whole according to a standard of perfection.


Philosophy.
a.any system or theory that maintains that the real is of the nature of thought or that the object of external perception consists of ideas.
b.the tendency to represent things in an ideal form, or as they might or should be rather than as they are, with emphasis on values.



Really? You are going to copy and paste from wiki as part of your argument? Considering that none of the above definitions fit the criteria of my belief, I believe you wasted your time. BTW -PLEASE, I beg of you, do NOT give me another popsickle analogy, as that analogy also had NOTHING to do with this argument.

people also WILL get AIDS. seems to you that a probability means it WILL happen. throw some quantum physics in there and i think you'll second guess.


Huh? Once again, the above scenario is NOT, I repeat, NOT a probability ... it IS a reality ... in addition what does quantum physics have to do with this argument? Be careful what you answer, I most probably (an almost certainty) know more about quantum physics then you do. I don't doubt now, that I know more about a lot of things then you... Not only because of your posts and "analogies" but because I take the time to read someones bio, unlike yourself. Graham, you really need to take the time to understand the true definition of idealism because you are completely off the mark.
thisisnotanalt
offline
thisisnotanalt
9,821 posts
Farmer

Correct. Nothing is free, nothing.


Air.

Sunlight.

Clouds.

Wind.

Planets.

the natural Universe as a whole.

All of that's totally, utterly free of monetary cost.
goumas13
offline
goumas13
4,752 posts
Grand Duke

Types of goods:

A public good is a good that is non-rivaled and non-excludable. This means, respectively, that consumption of the good by one individual does not reduce availability of the good for consumption by others; and that no one can be effectively excluded from using the good.

An other sub-category are the free goods, the goods that are not in scarce. A free good is available in as great a quantity as desired with zero opportunity cost to society.

But for example water it's not always a free good, it's a common good because competition for water is rivalrous.
We usually don't pay for public/free gods, but everything can become a product. This does not of course mean that there is nothing free, we may have just to pay in some cases for it.

Graham
offline
Graham
8,051 posts
Nomad

You are going to copy and paste from wiki as part of your argument? 

dictionary.com

Considering that none of the above definitions fit the criteria of my belief, I believe you wasted your time.

it fits what prejudice i've gained from your posts

BTW -PLEASE, I beg of you, do NOT give me another popsickle analogy, as that analogy also had NOTHING to do with this argument.

jus cause you don't understand doesn't mean they have nothing to do with an argument. couldya give me an example where that lil equation works? (other than death penalty)

NOT a probability ... it IS a reality ...

so what is real? ideas and events can always be circumvented by probability.
Graham
offline
Graham
8,051 posts
Nomad

reeeading through the whole thing, my apologys for not reading that article.

phrase that stuck out to me: Willingham had grown close to some of his prison mates, even though he knew that they were guilty of brutal crimes.

arson and junk science are being dealt with are they not? science develops through time and isn't always accurate on both ends of a court case.

until the processing and recording system within our judicial system is 100% accurate,


the point of bringing quantum physics in the argument was to prove nothing is 100% ie. nothing is perfect.

as punishment for making me read suuch a long thing. (jking jeez lighten up.) i provide you this link :P
wistress
offline
wistress
262 posts
Peasant

the point of bringing quantum physics in the argument was to prove nothing is 100% ie. nothing is perfect.


This is true, and exactly the reason we shouldn't be practicing capital punishment.

as punishment for making me read suuch a long thing. (jking jeez lighten up.) i provide you this link :P


LOL ... OK ... I started reading it and already have quite a few statistics to counteract what Wesley Lowe has to say, however, I don't have time today, working a double, so I'll get back to you on that tomorrow. I promise.
kakashi890
offline
kakashi890
205 posts
Nomad

ok heres what i think.you kill some one it becomes a eye for a eye,meaning you get killed in the same way.

Graham
offline
Graham
8,051 posts
Nomad

ok heres what i think.you kill some one it becomes a eye for a eye,meaning you get killed in the same way.


this works for and against death penalty. aaah a paradox!

should judicial system be bypassed by morality? a fun story for that is Cold Equations. is life a privilege or a right?

it's hard for me to express things about death penalty because i'm pro-life when it comes to abortion.
Showing 61-75 of 110