The Death Penalty

[ArkKnight]

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY Ark Knight 11-09-2004, 05:10 PM at AngelRoms Forum

The Death Penalty.

I'm pissed off because so many times have people that kill other people are let in prisons to live their life the easy way or not even to prison, let out anywhere.

Oj Simpson for example....
I believe that if someone kills somebody else purposefully they should be killed within one week after capture of the perpetrator. None of this 'prison' bullshit where taxpayers pay taxes so killers, robbers, rapists, molestors can house themselves for free:

Most Prisons let criminals have-
FREE Food
Hobbies
Healthy Exercising
TELEVISIONS
FRIENDS
FIGHTING
SINGING
In Prison GANGS
TOILETS, SHOWERS

Not only that they get to make other people their bitch.

You know I think they have it easier than some of the people OUT of prison sometimes. It's crazy.

I mean, I hate it when people DONT support the death penalty beause of immoral religious beliefs. If someone kills somebody else, they don't need to be housed in a freebie hall the rest of their lives payed for by the TAXPAYERS MONEY. It's as simple as that.

Reviving a great old thread!

[Vanity]

Fuck the death penalty.

For reasons I might expound on later.

[El Wiseguy]

Touchy topic. I'll chime in after some more responses.

[Anastashia Sage]

I believe that the death penalty should remain but not take 20 years before killing them. If you take someone's life your life should be taken from you.

I also believe that people who do harm to childern in any way should be lined up against a wall and shot many times making the person suffer like they did to their victims.

[Mr_Devious]

The paradox of the death penalty, is that if a person kills another person, and is put to death. Then the people who put them to death are now murderers, and therefore deserve to be put to death.

[Kosugi]

Pfft, it lost it's appeal when they changed the name from execution. Death penalty sounds to mechanical. Keep it.

[ArkKnight]

hahaha EXECUTION!!!!

[El Wiseguy]

The paradox of the death penalty, is that if a person kills another person, and is put to death. Then the people who put them to death are now murderers, and therefore deserve to be put to death.

Not true. Define what a murderer is. So, a murderer is someone that commits murder. Murder is:


Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).



So, no. Punishing an un-lawful killing of another human isn't murder. It's punishment for a crime... at least as defined here.

[Pensuke]

I'm against the death penalty. I don't feel anyone should be exalted enough to deprive others of their existence. <.<

In the count of effective punishment; solitary confinement is worse than the death penalty, in my opinion.

[Shape]

I'm against the death penalty. I don't feel anyone should be exalted enough to deprive others of their existence. <.<
Not even, say... someone who rapes and kills a 5 year old child?

[SyntaxSnack]

The idea is to reform people, to help them become a better person rather than deeming their act justifiable by repeating it.

Beside that - we don't honestly KNOW what happens when a person dies, so who can really say they have the RIGHT to take life from someone else.

Death is not an appropriate punishment. Death is the easy way out.

[El Wiseguy]

The idea is to reform people, to help them become a better person rather than deeming their act justifiable by repeating it.

Unfortunately I'll have to disagree with you. Although, I'd love to agree. I'm heck of an idealist at times but this time thinking through this I see that this is really societal. Which society you live in really dictates this thought process.

Besides, if we were only to 'reform' that which commits crime then is there true 'punishment'? If there's no true punishment then what is there to keep people from committing the initial crime?

So, in all actuality you have people running around with not much of an incentive not to commit that aforementioned obscenity against life...

As you said: Beside that - we don't honestly KNOW what happens when a person dies, so who can really say they have the RIGHT to take life from someone else.

So, then you pretty much 'enable' people to run around deciding on whether or not some people deserve to live or not. Make the punishment great enough and people will think more before committing the crime.

What greater atrocity in this world is there than to unjustly take the life of another? Then, shouldn't the preventative measure be equally strong to help keep it from happening?

[crazeekillsall]

The idea is to reform people, to help them become a better person rather than deeming their act justifiable by repeating it.

Beside that - we don't honestly KNOW what happens when a person dies, so who can really say they have the RIGHT to take life from someone else.

Death is not an appropriate punishment. Death is the easy way out.

They feel they have the right to take the life of an innocent. *shrug* There are endless problems with the death penalty, which is why it was outlawed here (it was a case where a gang of youths ended up killing a policeman, the youngest took the fall and was executed...suddenly people were going 'well, hang on a second...')

I have no objection to locking a killer up for life...letting him rot in a cell. But, over here at least, THAT NEVER HAPPENS. Life does not mean life anymore.
'Well...yeah...you did murder those two small babies in their sleep...but you've been such a well behaved boy in here, why don't we consider a 15-20 year sentence?'

Not only that, their quality of life is actually alright in prison; meals, entertainment, social (and I don't want to hear 'but prison is a pretty mean place'...It's still better than they deserve)

I think my final stand on this is...in the most extreme cases (absolutely incurable sociopaths or peadophiles) I wouldn't want to take the risk of them ever, ever getting out. So I'd say yes to death penalty. It's flawed beyond reasonable measure but *shrug* it's not like what we're doing now is working so great.

[El Wiseguy]

The problem is that the punishment is becoming "bearable" to the person committing the crime. When someone thinks they can 'handle' the penalty for the crime they're going to commit, they'll do it if they think it's worth it.

If it's worth it to this guy to stay 20 years in prison for killing someone then he'll do it. Especially since he'll be getting free meals, t.v., weight training, better library than some of our schools, and better other things than some of our schools. It's ridiculous.

Now, the issue with life is that we have to feed the person and keep them up for the remainder of their life. So, basically they get taken care of for the rest of their life free of charge and all they had to do was kill someone.

At least make it hard time. Make them earn their prison sentence. Make them earn their food and bed. Make them build, demolish, or whatever else needs to be done.

[ArkKnight]

The problem is that the punishment is becoming "bearable" to the person committing the crime. When someone thinks they can 'handle' the penalty for the crime they're going to commit, they'll do it if they think it's worth it.

If it's worth it to this guy to stay 20 years in prison for killing someone then he'll do it. Especially since he'll be getting free meals, t.v., weight training, better library than some of our schools, and better other things than some of our schools. It's ridiculous.

Now, the issue with life is that we have to feed the person and keep them up for the remainder of their life. So, basically they get taken care of for the rest of their life free of charge and all they had to do was kill someone.

At least make it hard time. Make them earn their prison sentence. Make them earn their food and bed. Make them build, demolish, or whatever else needs to be done.

YES!!!!!

You forget that to keep these numbskulls alive, muscular, fed, and well, the taxes of our people go to them, and not other things..... like me. :thumbs:

No, but seriously. Well said.

I could NEVER have said it better myself.

Oh.... and Syntax...

Death is an easy way out? Are you kidding? Then I guess then Death is an easy way out of victims to live their lives. Little Sandra was raped afterschool after she got off her bus. She had homework. She was killed shortly after. Oh, well, guess she has an easy way out of doing homework, going to school, working for a living, getting pregnant, getting sick etc. etc. etc. LIVING LIFE. So, you're saying we should thank the murderer for giving her, an EASY WAY OUT OF LIFE??

Catch my drift?

If you kill, you should be killed. It's EQUAL punishment.

Why are we giving them life stability if they KILL/RAPE someone?

[Pensuke]

Not even, say... someone who rapes and kills a 5 year old child?

Not even then, Shape. I'm completely opposed to the death penalty; no if, and, or but about it.

Make them build, demolish, or whatever else needs to be done.

You mean kinda like how there used to be 'chaingangs' for roadwork?

[El Wiseguy]

You mean kinda like how there used to be 'chaingangs' for roadwork?

Sorta. Not just menial tasks though. Stuff that needs to be done.

[Shape]

Not even then, Shape. I'm completely opposed to the death penalty; no if, and, or but about it.
Wow.

[Pensuke]

Sorta. Not just menial tasks though. Stuff that needs to be done.

That I could understand, prison labor makes a fair deal of sense to me.

I know a few people who talked about getting criminals who have a life sentence, and automatically enlisting them in the army. :/

[Vanity]

Oh wow. You're going to give convicted criminals a weapon?


Anyways, I don't believe in the death sentence. It's crude and doesn't amount to a real solution.

[El Wiseguy]

I'm always open to hearing what a 'real' solution is.

[ArkKnight]

Oh wow. You're going to give convicted criminals a weapon?


Anyways, I don't believe in the death sentence. It's crude and doesn't amount to a real solution.

I'm a realist. Tell me.

What's the 'real' solution?

[Vanity]

Depends on the situation, obviously. It's not right to lump all murders/rapes in the same category.

[SyntaxSnack]

Why is everyone so eager to kill someone when they do something wrong. Killing people does not equal a solution. Why would you kill someone for killing an "innocent" (which, by the way; show me an actual innocent person, and I'll be rather surprised - even children aren't as innocent as you'd like to claim).

That makes you a killer. No matter how you justify it - YOU ARE A KILLER. You can say "Well, I'm just paying them back for what they did." But I'm pretty sure that's what (s)he was thinking too.

And where the fuck did I say that they should be treated special? Motherfuckers, don't put your poorly constructed sentences in my mouth - your vocabulary tastes like shit. The idea is to help people understand that what they did was not right - you don't do this by rewarding them. They should be expected to work just as hard (or harder) as a typical person in society, and perhaps takes some courses in ethics. A lot of violent crimes are a result of stupidity/ignorance. I think teaching and understanding is a little more reasonable than condemning a living creature to a fate we have no solid understanding of.

And if that is not possible for some individuals, then prison exists to at least keep dangerous people out of our society.

[El Wiseguy]

Why is everyone so eager to kill someone when they do something wrong.

We're not?

Killing people does not equal a solution.

Again, I'm here to find out what you people think is the correct 'solution' that will actually work.

Why would you kill someone for killing an "innocent" (which, by the way; show me an actual innocent person, and I'll be rather surprised - even children aren't as innocent as you'd like to claim).

Oh really. What is innocence? You've so brashly judged what it is and stated a very broad statement about a touchy subject. I'm only meaning it in context here.

That makes you a killer.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the original wordage used here, "murderer"? I merely corrected the murderer charge.

And where the fuck did I say that they should be treated special? Motherfuckers, don't put your poorly constructed sentences in my mouth - your vocabulary tastes like shit.

Potty mouth, flush flush.


Now the last part of your statement I'll agree with up until the last sentence. I don't think every crime is judged correctly or even punished correctly.

But, at the end I think you're wrong. People should be punished for what they did. This is what will show them what they did was wrong. I've never once said in this thread how much I'm in support of or against the Death Penalty. I think really I'm just mis-reading what you're writing though...

But, let's see here. What is justice? What is it? Is it necessary? What do victims cry out for?

[Vanity]

This is very 1984-like of me, but I don't think punishment for the mere sake of punishment is a real solution.

Criminals should be, as Syntax says, "educated", though in my personal views, it's closer to indoctrination. You have to hammer it home that they did something unforgivably wrong and make them carry the burden of their sins through personal guilt, rather than physical internment or capital punishment or whatnot.

Of course, some people simply can't be educated in this manner.


Some people are in favour of reinstating the death penalty as a form of deterrent, but it's already been proven that it isn't of much use. Most criminals don't really care that much about their own lives, hence why Syntax believes it's "an easy way out" for them.

I agree with this view, but I can also see how some people, who most likely believe that their lives are the most precious thing in the world, would think of the death penalty as the ultimate punishment.

[windsongs]

this is a very broad subject your expanding on here.

there are several types of murderers out there in society and each should be treated differently as for their punishments. For example you have the murderer who knows what hes doing, why hes doing it, and has no regards or sympathies for what hes doing. Death sentence i say to him, hes an enemy of society and will do it again the minute he leaves prison. Then theres the guy who drinks too much, loses control and accidently goes too far in a bar fight. He needs punishment and something to make him realize what he did wrong and maybe give him the chance to fix himself if he so chooses. Thats just two of MANYYYYYY types of murderers out there. I do not condone the killing of em all but i do demand punishment for them. Jail sentence these days are a joke, homeless people will commit crimes just for food and bed in a jail cell. The only real jail ive ever seen is a military jail where ENLISTED men and women go for minor offenses and sometimes worse, compared to the civilian criminals. theres a time to give a slap on the hand and say "bad boy" and theres a time to blindfold him and line him up against a brick wall. May sound cold hearted, but thats my view.

sry for lack of paragraphs.

[El Wiseguy]

This is why 'judgment' is the biggest key here. But, punishment... think about it. What's its purpose?

[windsongs]

punishment is a joke in certain states. ex: New Mexico, you have people with over 21 DUI's still driving around. 21!!! what the flying #$@#Q%^$@#$ is that?!

then theres TX, which has the death penalty. You'll be damned lucky to get your license back after 2 DUI's.

I've felt safer in Texas than New Mexico by a hugeeeeeee margin. Some places you can even get away with murder and not get punished. Of course, US citizens are treated like spoiled children compared to other countries when it comes to punishment for the crime.

I've always been a fan of the death penalty. Then again, i grew up a military brat and am in the military now. So maybe im used to seeing and understanding harsh punishments.

[Pensuke]

Oh wow. You're going to give convicted criminals a weapon?


Anyways, I don't believe in the death sentence. It's crude and doesn't amount to a real solution.

I don't think it's a bright idea in any regard, but it's been a topic. :/

[SyntaxSnack]

This is why 'judgment' is the biggest key here.

Since when, in your book, is it our place to judge?


But, punishment... think about it. What's its purpose?


You're stuck in this idea. Not punishment - reform, education, and keeping them away from society, as they are a threat.




And as for that rebuking statement, all your phrases could have been replaced with "orly?". You didn't actually make any of your own points... If you'd like me to clarify...

We're not?

You're not? Seems like I've heard a lot of talk of "you kill someone = you get killed". That sounds a little eager to me. But please, please, grace us with the POINT you had in that statement.

Again, I'm here to find out what you people think is the correct 'solution' that will actually work.

Maybe you just should have read further before starting to reply or something... because I did answer this. Or maybe you should elaborate on your POINT by posting this.

Oh really. What is innocence? You've so brashly judged what it is and stated a very broad statement about a touchy subject. I'm only meaning it in context here.

From dictionary.com: 1. The quality or state of being innocent; freedom from sin or moral wrong.
I didn't judge, I read the dictionary; try it some time. It's good for you. And I had asked what YOU think is innocence. Clearly, in the context I was implying that no person is truly innocent. All I'm getting from your remark is that you didn't understand my previous statement of "actual innocence". Though, I thought it was quite implied. For further confusion of word definitions please visit: here (http://dictionary.reference.com/).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the original wordage used here, "murderer"? I merely corrected the murderer charge.

*sigh* Again, dictionary:
Killer: a person or thing that kills.
Murder: the killing of another human being (etc).
To be blunt: A murderer kills someone. They are a killer. You kill the murderer. You are a killer. In both cases, the individual in question is a killer.
Now, can you see why I selected the words I chose? Does it make sense to you now? I'd prefer not to view the law as a murderer, but a killer. But it seems you'd like to disagree. Or maybe not? So what is you POINT? Or is it simply a misunderstanding of the English language again?

Potty mouth, flush flush.

Excuse my slang: I was under the impression we were generally adults here.


And if I dare question... point?

[ArkKnight]

You're stuck in this idea. Not punishment - reform, education, and keeping them away from society, as they are a threat.

I suppose you don't mind the millions of tax dollars going to these fuckers, either. Care about education? Educate them? Why? How about our already fucked up, obsolete education system? What are we going to do about that? I guess you would rather invest in "educating & reforming" criminals?

You're not? Seems like I've heard a lot of talk of "you kill someone = you get killed".

That's right. If someone killed your little girl after assraping her, you would want them to live? Crazy....

Excuse my slang: I was under the impression we were generally adults here.

Lol.....

[staticgrave666]

People are always bringing up the "if you kill someone, you deserve to be killed" nonsense when you mention the death penalty, but there is one huge difference in the fact that while they killed someone else for personal gain, or out of anger, or hate, or whatever the situation he is not being killed by a single person, he is being judged by a jury of his peers for a crime he committed, so he is being judged and killed by society, not by another single person and that, in my mind at least is a very big difference. I agree that it doesn't make much sense to keep a person in prison for the rest of there life on our dollar, for that why not just kill them? There is also something to be said about how punishment for certain crimes has to be harsh in order to deter future criminals from doing the same thing. How you view humans killing other humans for any reason comes down to morality more then anything else but anyway you look at it, death has always been a very big part of crime and punishment, and realistically, that will probably never change.

[rejincx]

For reforms, it would be interesting to have criminals go to boot camp, that and brainwash em.

ehhy, but I haven't really thought this out. I wish I could say I agree with the death penalty, but then I want to say, as long as I dont have to kill that person its ok, but by agreeing with it I am in a sense killing them.

I do agree that there are people who should die, then again who am I to determine their innocence, ehy, I say let karma duke it out.

Although I do agree, criminals got too much going for em, I say we ship em off to another land just like England did to Australia and have them duke it out, it'll be like a prison suvivior, Australia didnt turn out too bad...amirite?

[El Wiseguy]

Since when, in your book, is it our place to judge?

I'm not following you. I would assume by this statement that no one should judge any criminal activity?

Otherwise, are you just telling me that my beliefs are that we shouldn't judge anyone?

Either way, judging someone's personal salvation or 'sin' isn't something any 'man' can do. But, judging whether or not someone broke the law? That's completely and totally up to the society and very much should happen. Without law there would be chaos and anarchy.

And no, I'm not trying to patronize you with stuff I know that you already know. I'm just trying to figure out which way you meant your question.

You're stuck in this idea. Not punishment - reform, education, and keeping them away from society, as they are a threat.

This is where I think we mis-read each other. Proper punishment does reform. When you punish a child, it reforms them. But, there's a difference between punishing a child who blatantly breaks the rules and one that makes a mistake. THIS is where 'judgement' comes in. When and where to use certain penalties.

Life comes with penalties for actions... that's just the way it is. Every major sport has penalties for certain rules being broken. It's an example that can be shared from every possible aspect of life because no matter what you do or where you go there are always going to positive and negative reactions to each one of our actions.

And as for that rebuking statement, all your phrases could have been replaced with "orly?". You didn't actually make any of your own points... If you'd like me to clarify...

Yes, let's.

You're not? Seems like I've heard a lot of talk of "you kill someone = you get killed". That sounds a little eager to me. But please, please, grace us with the POINT you had in that statement.

That particular statement was a sarcastic one saying that I've never cried blood in this thread yet.

My point is that there must be judgment for each crime and the proper punishment. I'm not saying that every murder deserves death. I'm saying that where it's deserved is where it's deserved. But, this must be the 'judgment' call. The punishment MUST fit the crime or else justice hasn't taken place.

Let's not forget about justice. It's sort of important. It's not all about punishment.

Maybe you just should have read further before starting to reply or something... because I did answer this. Or maybe you should elaborate on your POINT by posting this.

Actually, I think my point was in my reiteration of what I said. I don't think that reformation is the 'absolute' answer. It's only part of what will work in my opinion.

Besides, another point of me saying "actually work" is that I think it's quite funny we're all in here squabbling about such amazingly intricate matter instead of being out there creating the solution. It's like, if any of us really do have the answers then we'd end up arguing about them and we should probably do something about it.

I didn't judge

orly?

even children aren't as innocent as you'd like to claim)

I'd say that's a judgment, or maybe that's just me.

I read the dictionary; try it some time. It's good for you

Okay! :D

From the dictionary:

"4. the forming of an opinion, estimate, notion, or conclusion, as from circumstances presented to the mind"

And I had asked what YOU think is innocence. Clearly, in the context I was implying that no person is truly innocent. All I'm getting from your remark is that you didn't understand my previous statement of "actual innocence".

No one is truly innocent. Ok, I'll agree with that. BUT, again... IN WHAT CONTEXT? Of the crime? They can be. If I'm on trial for murder and I haven't committed murder then I'm innocent of being a murderer. That's the context of innocent here.

And it's true though. The innocence of our children is going away and an earlier age than before. But, that's because of the way our society throws itself around now. I don't think it's ok... but unfortunately it's how it is.

*sigh* Again, dictionary:
Killer: a person or thing that kills.
Murder: the killing of another human being (etc).
To be blunt: A murderer kills someone. They are a killer. You kill the murderer. You are a killer. In both cases, the individual in question is a killer. Now, can you see why I selected the words I chose? Does it make sense to you now? I'd prefer not to view the law as a murderer, but a killer. But it seems you'd like to disagree. Or maybe not? So what is you POINT? Or is it simply a misunderstanding of the English language again?


In truth, there's a difference to me than a Killer and a Murderer. You have to be a killer to be a murderer but you don't have to be a murderer to be a killer. One can hold you as guilty of a crime while another doesn't.

How? Defending yourself and killing your attacker completely by accident is completely different than outright murdering them. So, yes... there is and must be a difference.

Excuse my slang: I was under the impression we were generally adults here.

And if I dare question... point?

I was more using a bit of humor but hey. I figured, why do would you need to use the language to get your point across if we were adults here? My point was implied in my childish response. :P

[Vanity]

tl;dr

Start condensing your posts if you want more people to read them.

[El Wiseguy]

It wasn't meant for you to read.

To elaborate, it's a response.

[Shape]

Yea, Charlie. Your suppose to fuck it. Did I not send you the memo?

[Gorilla Whale Manu]

the death penalty is too light a punishment for the hardened criminals. a simplification of my solution would be to use the death penalty on the perpetrators of less serious crimes. theft, larceny, embezzlement, assault (depending on the severety), possibly manslaughter. the big guys, the rapists, the killers, the serious criminals need to be locked away for life. this might seem perplexing and backwards, but I have to concur with Lee Kuan Yew and other prominent HR abusers of east Asia, that permanent incarceration is far worse and far more inhumane a punishment. Ergo, I find it apropos for such cases.

[El Wiseguy]

lol You are far too kind, Gun.

[ArkKnight]

tl;dr

Start condensing your posts if you want more people to read them.

Shutup, faggot.

[rejincx]

ark.. I dont think he was talking to you. :/

[Vanity]

Whatever, let him be. He's an anal retentive douchebag who's unable to handle the fact that he can't win the argument on the other thread.


Here, have a tissue and go cry about it, emo kid.

[rejincx]

hey! thats my name! :( ima hafta fight him for the title now.. common! to the death, for the title "emo kid"!

[hungrykirby]

rej urs is emo_kid not emo kid

[rejincx]

:p same diff.

sry death penalty...

I say, let karma duke it out.

[ArkKnight]

Whatever, let him be. He's an anal retentive douchebag who's unable to handle the fact that he can't win the argument on the other thread.


Here, have a tissue and go cry about it, emo kid.

Again, coming from a guy with 2 emo fags on his avatar.

[hungrykirby]

:p same diff.

sry death penalty...

I say, let karma duke it out.

lmao second

[El Wiseguy]

K, stop with the bickering. Back to the topic at hand.

[Gorilla Whale Manu]

lol You are far too kind, Gun.

why does Singapore have fewer police officers than most college towns in America? Because 500 grams of weed gets you the death penalty.

[Vanity]

Again, coming from a guy with 2 emo fags on his avatar.

Coming from the guy who lacks the creativity to come up with a decent comeback, let alone one that makes sense.

Lol. Musician my ass.

[ArkKnight]

Coming from the guy who lacks the creativity to come up with a decent comeback, let alone one that makes sense.

Lol. Musician my ass.

I think, the death penalty should be extended to emo fags like Charlie/Vanity.

:lmao:

[KatandMouse]

I think, the death penalty should be extended to emo fags like Charlie/Vanity.

I sense Corey/Charlie type feud all over again. o.O

[z311y]

I sense another crushing defeat... Oh and AK, Charlie is one of the least emo people I've ever spoken to. Try calling him something a little closer to the truth, maybe then you'll strike a nerve...

But I doubt it.

[CoreyBato]

I sense Corey/Charlie type feud all over again. o.O

No, that fued was the stuff of forum legend. It can never be imitated. Besides, AK doesn't have the mental skill needed to be considered anything more than a minor annoyance in Charlie's eyes. He simply fails on a constant basis. It's actually quite pathetic.

[z311y]

HA! So did you. Remember that awful RPG? Where you guys were "Rockstars"? *snort*

[CoreyBato]

:err: I actually forgot about that one. Thanks for reminding me Zelly, I really appreciate it.

[z311y]

I knew you would. *hug*

[CoreyBato]

Yay, a hug from my tormentor! What else could a guy ask for?

[RPG_Masterz]

Can you guys get off Charlie's pen0r and get back on topic please? Much thanks.

[CoreyBato]

Death penalty = Death.

[SyntaxSnack]

a. If it were me, and my child - I would kill everything in sight if something like that happened; but that is a good example of my point. If I killed that person, wouldn't I then be convicted of a crime? Even if people thought my reasoning was justified? So, you know. You can't just go around killing people. No one would be left.

b. Again. Please. I don't remember saying that we need to pay to give them a Stanford education or anything. Haha. They can work off their own debts. Make license plates or whatever. But as a society, we have to pay some amount to fund the officers and prisons for keeping dangerous people away from us. For protection. That is only logical and acceptable.

c. My reasoning for bringing up theological beliefs of the Christian sort: to be blunt, #6 You must not kill. Not, simply, you must not murder. But you must not kill. At all. Whether in vengeance or not. Whether you think it is justified or not. And if the person in question never admits to the crime, but is convicted guilty... and you killed them even if they were innocent! Then you are a murderer. Not only a killer, but a murderer.

d. Or say they admit to their crimes. "Yes, I killed that little girl. I committed a sexual crime as well" etc, etc. In this case (as Vanity already suggested), the person is clearly aware and willing to die for what they have done. In which case, death is absolutely not deterring criminals from murder. In which case, the death penalty is absolutely ineffective. In which case, a long life of making license plates and being brainwashed into some sort of moral zombie would seem a little more threatening to the deviant criminal mind. Take away from them that even death could not prevent them from doing.

e. Think about it. If there was something you knew you would be killed for doing, but you felt the absolute need to do, would you still do it? Say, for a radical example, that aliens took over the Earth and that practicing religion was now outlawed - that not worshiping their alien god was punishable by death. I think many Earthings would happily face death to pursue their beliefs. Would you? Granted, this is a radical point (as I said), but the concept I'm hoping you grasped is that there are some things that even death can not deter.

[ArkKnight]

....pacifist

[SyntaxSnack]

*bows*

Like The Dude, man.

[warangel]

a. If it were me, and my child - I would kill everything in sight if something like that happened; but that is a good example of my point. If I killed that person, wouldn't I then be convicted of a crime? Even if people thought my reasoning was justified? So, you know. You can't just go around killing people. No one would be left.

b. Again. Please. I don't remember saying that we need to pay to give them a Stanford education or anything. Haha. They can work off their own debts. Make license plates or whatever. But as a society, we have to pay some amount to fund the officers and prisons for keeping dangerous people away from us. For protection. That is only logical and acceptable.

c. My reasoning for bringing up theological beliefs of the Christian sort: to be blunt, #6 You must not kill. Not, simply, you must not murder. But you must not kill. At all. Whether in vengeance or not. Whether you think it is justified or not. And if the person in question never admits to the crime, but is convicted guilty... and you killed them even if they were innocent! Then you are a murderer. Not only a killer, but a murderer.

d. Or say they admit to their crimes. "Yes, I killed that little girl. I committed a sexual crime as well" etc, etc. In this case (as Vanity already suggested), the person is clearly aware and willing to die for what they have done. In which case, death is absolutely not deterring criminals from murder. In which case, the death penalty is absolutely ineffective. In which case, a long life of making license plates and being brainwashed into some sort of moral zombie would seem a little more threatening to the deviant criminal mind. Take away from them that even death could not prevent them from doing.

e. Think about it. If there was something you knew you would be killed for doing, but you felt the absolute need to do, would you still do it? Say, for a radical example, that aliens took over the Earth and that practicing religion was now outlawed - that not worshiping their alien god was punishable by death. I think many Earthings would happily face death to pursue their beliefs. Would you? Granted, this is a radical point (as I said), but the concept I'm hoping you grasped is that there are some things that even death can not deter.

I agree with everything you said.

[ArkKnight]

....Pacifists

[SyntaxSnack]

C'mon Arky, baby. You know my writing skills are sexy and convincing. ;o

[El Wiseguy]

I have some rebuttals! :D I'll post them when I'm not tired. :(

[warangel]

The main reson for opposing the death penlty is the killing of innocence. Those that think tht the death penalty is just are fundamentalist. Here goes my point:

To the believers of God(Mostly Christians) or universal forces(Karma)

Islamic terrorist believe in the death penalty. To them outsiders of their faith are guilty of not following their religion.
Terrorit see the outsiders of being injust. The outsiders are indeedc guilty. so they are killed. If a christian believes in the death penalty, aren't they like terrorist? Remember there aren't second chances for death.

Sins are sins, so we should all be dead.

Still, I understand the reason for the death penalty. Since I believe in karma. Though, karma should not be taken into human hands. Those that take karma into their own hands recieve the same karma. If someone kill someone eventually God will send his judgement. If you interfere with God's punishment, then God will punish you.

I supported the death penalty once. My friend was killed. Then my grades droped and I became depressed. Once I let go of my hatred for this murderer(wanting him to die), my grades improved, but it was to late. Yet, God pushed me to go to a psycologist, and I got a medical withdraw. I changed majors and ended up improving my GPA. Now death doesn't depress me. Revenge through the death penalty goes against God in my testimony. I was punished for wanting to see someone die and rewarded for praying that the man would realize his evil and enter heaven.


To people that do not believe in univeral forces or God:

I'm not going to use the tax payer logic due to Death Note. What if murderes were killed right after they were convicted?

No mercy = not giving the person time to think about their life. You are just like that criminal, who showed no mercy.

Then what if you had to wait on the death penalty, the way it is now. Everyday, death is llowed to hang around the criminal, driving them crazy. Isn't that what a kidnapper does before he kills. He just lets his victim go insane first, then kills them.

The point is when facing death it's all the same. The just become unjust with the death penalty. They are now as sick as the murderer. Plus, those involved in the criminals execution comitted pre-meditated murder.

[Vacant Hope]

heh heh, murder... heh heh

[Shape]

*bows*

Like The Dude, man.
Big Lebowski ftw.

[SyntaxSnack]

As for the eye for an eye argument in the case of punishment:


You going to rape a rapist? Is that justice?





You sick fucker.

[rejincx]

I think.. the rapist would enjoy it too much???

[ArkKnight]

C'mon Arky, baby. You know my writing skills are sexy and convincing. ;o

:naughty:

Maybe they are....

[SyntaxSnack]

:naughty:

Maybe they are....

:eek: :eek: :eek:

[ArkKnight]

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Come on now... Don't be scared! :lmao:

[El Wiseguy]

Well, I've found that we're never going to agree on this. And obviously raping a rapist wouldn't work because the way that consequence works is that it's supposed to deter you from the crime in the first place and serve justice for the law of the land.

A penalty for a crime is just what it is. There have been more cultures in this world that have had a death penalty than we can count. And knowing you (well, at least most of your arguments), you're a "truth is relative" type of gal. If I'm wrong, correct me and I'll apologize. So, therefore you should have to agree that it's perfectly fine for those cultures to have the death penalty because that's their 'truth'. At least according to my assumption that you believe that truth is relative.

Now now, I know you're going to come back to asking what the relevancy of other cultures is to ours since this 'barbaric' act of capital punishment isn't ok no matter where it is, especially in our advanced society where we're 'beyond' that.

So, I'm saying that for every action there should be a consequence. The greater the action, the greater the consequence. Whether it be good or bad. All things being equal. Yes, mercy is good. I'm for it. I also believe that mercy has nothing to do with justice and fulfillment of law.

But again, this is where judgment comes in. And yes, I'm aware of your whole "who has the right to judge" policy. But, the fact remains that there must be a system of judgment to decide and weigh factors. There always must be.

Have you ever seen heard that "justice is blind"? Do you believe it should be?

[ArkKnight]

*waits for sexy & smart reply*

[El Wiseguy]

Oh and to add to my previous argument:


I also believe that our justice system is severely flawed so this is the one big thing I have against capital punishment... the fact that there may be innocent people on death row.



*edit* I'd also like to say... there will never be a perfect justice system ever. Humans aren't perfect therefore there will always be mistakes in any system.

[warangel]

Oh and to add to my previous argument:


I also believe that our justice system is severely flawed so this is the one big thing I have against capital punishment... the fact that there may be innocent people on death row.

No one got my argument. *sigh*.

[CorruptedPlague]

Oh and to add to my previous argument:

*edit* I'd also like to say... there will never be a perfect justice system ever. Humans aren't perfect therefore there will always be mistakes in any system.

nough said

[SyntaxSnack]

I dunno. I don't feel like you're actually addressing my points, WiseGuy.

You asked for suggestions on what I thought would work instead of death. I offered some suggestions. And I get nothing back. Well, I get the "agree to disagree" thing.


No one wants to argue with me. ;_; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdZMsbQCcEM)

[El Wiseguy]

lol Why argue when it'll be like this:

Point.

Counter-point.

No. Counter-counter-point.

No. Counter-counter-counter-point.


etc.


I've found that you and I can present our ideals and ideas but neither of us will ever give in. So, I'm merely recognizing this a bit earlier and not indulging in it.

And I see what you did there with my name. That's tired and used. -_-

[SyntaxSnack]

And I see what you did there with my name. That's tired and used. -_-

I didn't do anything malicious. Just abbreviated. Geeeeeeez. Way to take things out of context, Wisey! Now if I had said "Wise Guy" or "wise guy" or something like that, then maybe...

But man. You don't see me licking my bruises when you call me Syntax D:


:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

[Vanity]

No one wants to argue with me. ;_; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdZMsbQCcEM)

Heh, haven't heard that song in ages. How nostalgic.

In any case, I oppose the death penalty, if you care to argue against that.

[ArkKnight]

You don't see me licking my bruises

:naughty:

It would be my pleasure, baby

[Vacant Hope]

ewwwwwwwwwwww...

[El Wiseguy]

I didn't do anything malicious. Just abbreviated. Geeeeeeez. Way to take things out of context, Wisey! Now if I had said "Wise Guy" or "wise guy" or something like that, then maybe...

No no no darling. I was talking about using my name as a sarcastic point. Say, "Ok WISEGUY, you're so smart cuz you're a WISEGUY."

But eh, that was really an assumption on my part. I didn't know if you were being sarcastic like that or not. I just chose to take it that way. lol

[rejincx]

ah ache. eye ess ee ee ai tee!

[SyntaxSnack]

No no no darling. I was talking about using my name as a sarcastic point. Say, "Ok WISEGUY, you're so smart cuz you're a WISEGUY."

I know... which is why I was pointing out that you took it out of context. Which is why I clarified that using the word as "WISEGUY" like you stated would have implied sarcasm, whereas my use of the title, "WiseGuy" was merely a shortened version of your name.


However, the last part about the shortening of my SN and the licking and bruises and such... that was sarcasm. Heh.


Oh, and Ark. I'm old enough to be your grandma.




And Vanity: Yes. Good song, good song. I was wondering if anyone would catch that link. And no, I don't feel like playing devil's advocate at the moment. Only really on things I'm indifferent about~

[El Wiseguy]

I know... which is why I was pointing out that you took it out of context. Which is why I clarified that using the word as "WISEGUY" like you stated would have implied sarcasm, whereas my use of the title, "WiseGuy" was merely a shortened version of your name.

I gathered that much. Which is why I said what I said after I said it. <--- make sense of that!

[ArkKnight]

Oh, and Ark. I'm old enough to be your grandma.

Please.

You're not 40, and you're not 35 and below.

Even so, you would have to be 80+ to be my grandmother.

So let's cut to the chase, eh, babe? :naughty:

[SyntaxSnack]

You're new. Everyone knows that my legion of cats gives me an age modifier. 1d20 per cat. Of course.

[ArkKnight]

You're new. Everyone knows that my legion of cats gives me an age modifier. 1d20 per cat. Of course.

New to what? AT?

In case you didn't know, I was at AngelRoms for a while before AT even existed. Same guy (Neil) Same Moderator (wiseguy)

I was at aroms for 2 years +

So if you want to put it like that, I am ancient compared to you.

I have cats too. I have 3, and one is 17 years old.

Stop hindering the inevitable.