Death Penalty

It is pretty good, thank you.
I haven't seen you make a logical argument for anything but vengeance, which is an untenable motivation to me.
Christ asks us to reach higher in our motivations toward our enemies.
But who asked him, right?

 

Yeah imma "chime in"

I absolutley agree that we as society must consistently strive for better and more morally equatible understandings of our justice system. For instance, the story I posted in the OP was, in essence, the most egregious miss use of the justice system [Due process became a lynch mob against a 14 year old black child] Obviously the justice system no longer allows this, yet the mechanisms for it occuring once again, i.e. the Death Penalty, still exists.

Often the nature of the crime, hanous as it may be, inflict a sense of pervasive hate and anger for any material suspect that law enforment can muster. The lines of Truth are blurred with court proceedings become specticles of emotional distress and anger towards a man/women that is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

Given the prevalence of these settings, i.e. any case involving the harming of children, I can see no reason for continuing use of the death pentaly, as public opinion and thus jury decisions can be so easly swayed by superflous emotions.

The Ramifications of a Guilty Vedict and Execution are too great given these instrinsic human qualities.

 

You have yet to show WHY it is justified BECAUSE it fits the crime. Why does it become justified by fitting the crime? To make it even simpler - HOW DO YOU DETERMINE THE BECAUSE in your answer?

Age has nothing to do with this.

It has never changed because it has never been answered. I've just had to articulate it differently AGAIN and AGAIN in order to make you actually answer it instead of just repeat yourself. I understand why you think it is valid, I want to know what the reason behind the reason is. I want to know on what basis vengeance that your prescribe - ie eye for an eye =- punishment fits the crime - WHY IS THIS VALID? WHAT MAKES THIS ETHICAL PRINCIPLE VALID?

 

It is not "evidence" at all. There is no reason to believe that there is any correlation (and you haven't shown one) between homicide rates and use of the death penalty. The reasons for what you state could be various. For one thing, perhaps in the states where homicides are very high, they feel a need to have the death penalty. Lot of things could be factoring in.

PS - you second sentence is merely a repetition of your first one.

 

This is irrelevant in cases of absolute definite guilt. Why should those killers be appealed for 30 years ? Senseless.

 

No you CANNOT put it to rest because we have been inundated with INVALID studies like these for years. You think we're not aware of their bullcrap ?

Your post (# 267) was already refuted before you wrote it (in Post # 253).

 

What the hell are you talking about ? Yes, I want them to die - in prison, by execution. Get it ?

Why do you want to be shown the rate of deaths in highest security prisons ? Are you trying to say it doesn't happen ? LOL. As for showing it can't be made better, that's an understood foregone conclusion. If it could be better, it would be, and it's not.

The victims have the right to execute, because it is fair to take a life from one who has taken a life. You take a life,, you lose the right to have your life. Why would they not have that right ?

 

1. It is YOUR statement that doesn't have a shred of validity.

2. FALSE ! I did not say any thing about vengeance. That is merely YOUR interpretation, which I don't accept. As for your question about the acid throwing, yes, that certainly would be a just punishment. Why not ?

3. You said something that has been a goal for a long time and never been attained, can be attained in the future. Past and present performance "decimates" and refutes your theory. Upon what do you base it ? - when all the evidence shows otherwise (P & PP). You have yet to show any reason to believe prison can do any better than they already do.

4. Want to tell our legislators right now that they need to SPEND more money on prisons, when they're all (Republicans & Democrats both) scrambling to find ways to reduce the deficit ? LOL.

5. Regardless of any mishaps with lethal injections, it is still a relatively painfree easy way to go, compared to beheading, stake burning, electric chair, hanging, et al. For people who are suicidal, as well as homicidal, it is practically an invitation to commit murder, if not mass murder.

 

This is an opinion of many people (in fact of the majority of the American people). You're free to disagree with it.

 

You wern't paying attention. I explained the 'justice' of the death penalty. I don't mind calling it vengeance. But, it is justice.

'US'? Whose 'us'?

Quantrill

 

1. What a silly question. The proof is that murders DO occur in prisons (against inmates, prison employees, & people outside).

2. No killing will NOT just "make you as bad as he". It would have done something else. It would have PREVENTED the killing of those peoples' relative, who I asked you about, and that relative of theirs would thereby be still alive, instead of dead. Get it ? Also, I think if you told the survivors of the deceased person who was killed (only because the killer had not been executed), the answer that you just told me, they might be inclined to kill YOU, right then and there, LOL, so I would highly suggest you don't tell any prison-killing survivors a lame thing like that.

3. I've been telling you the justifications for 3 days now. Are you retarded or what ?

 

How about when the accused has been video and audio recorded committing the crime ? - and no doubt of guilt exists.

 

What if it were nothing more than the opinion of the American people ? That's what our democratic republic is based on, isn't it ?

 

Why does 2 plus 2 equal 4? Because it does.

Why does the death penalty fit the crime? Because it does.

Yes, its been answered. You just won't recieve the answer. So you keep trying to reword, or ask why at the end of the answer. Sort of like a....

Why does the death penalty not fit the crime?

Quantrill

 

Because when you add them they equate to 4 not "because they do". This is why you cant win this debate. You have no basis for your "justice". All you have is a myopic 'because it is', which is not valid.

I never denied it 'fit' the crime. What I deny is that it is justified because of that. You have not explained WHY IT IS JUSTIFIED. "because it is" IS NOT AN ANSWER.

Again you have yet to explain the justification.

This "fitting" stuff is bs. The reason why the death penalty is bs is because it sets the principle of vengeance. An eye for an eye. In Iran a few months back, a girl had acid thrown in her face by a deranged ex-boyfriend. The Iranian court believed she had the right, because of the Torah - eye for an eye - that she could throw acid in his face in the same way. According to you because it "fits" the crime, its valid. I do not believe it is so because not only is it inhumane and unjustified in an of itself, but it sets the precedent of exacting mishaps and wrong doings. Do you believe vengeance is valid? Because by saying 'if it fits, its justified' that is what you are saying. By the same logic also, a civilian who was killed in Iraq who was innocent has the right (inherited by those who represent that person) to drop a bomb on those soldiers who killed them. Could you imagine the chaos of such a system? Still the question of 'justification' behind the 'fitting' has yet to be explained by you.

 

We're not talking about Mob rule. We're talking about ethics. Democracy does not beget was right only what most people think is right - big difference. Would I support the democratic position even if it were wrong though? Yes, but that isnt relevant here.

 

Again I have already stated this can be fixed by better internal security. There is no reason why this cant be done.

We are talking about preemptive execution for crimes we dont know will occur? LOL! EPIC FAIL.

Sure sure, then they would be just as bad as the person they are enraged about and should go to jail ALONG WITH THE ORIGINAL MURDERER. Its interesting how you couldnt actually refute that point. If murder is wrong, why does it become justified when done to a murderer?

Tell you what, if I ever do, I will.

Where? Does this also mean you advocate vengeance and would condone the 'acid girl' incident in Iran I described?

 

LOL I didnt ask what the opinion of others was. You didnt answer ANYTHING i wrote. HERE IT IS AGAIN:

So you are saying that someone is entitled to punish someone who does injustice to them (why?) and that it needs to "fit" the crime? Why? Why is it justified if it fits the crime? THIS is my question, which you have not answered.
Why and how does execution become valid if it fits the crime?

 

Yes you again and again keep saying this can be fixed. NO IT CAN'T. Because if it could, it already would have, and it hasn't. You are being answered over and over. There is no reason for that except that you appear to be an immature jerk who won't take no for an answer. Dude, you're wrong, that's all ther eis to it. If you want to keep insisting you're right and making a fool out of yourself, ... not my problem.

There's not a thing you've said that I, et al here, couldn't refute, and haven't refuted numerous times here in this thread. Now go home and tell yourself, your the richest man in the world, the greatest ball player, the greatest musician, the most handsome, or whatever else pleases you. I have not intention in participating with you in your pyschological abberation.

 

I see no reason to repeat myself to you just because you stupidly keep coming back with stuff that has already been discussed. I don't call it vengeance, you do. Not my problem. I also already answered you about the acid throwing. I think the punishment is OK. How many times do you have to be told the same thing ? Go see a shrink - you're off your rocker.

 

It's justified if the American people say so. That's called democracy, not mob rule. Now do us all a favor OK ? > Shut the f-ck up !

 

Mob rule is no way to run a country supposedly born of the enlightenment. When a society routinely chooses to kill it's own members, then descent into depravity is not far off.

 

Just like 2 plus 2 equals 4, so the death penalty is fitting and just. A life for a life.

So you admit it does fit the crime. Then you're arguing against your own logic.

The death pnenalty is justified because it fits the crime.

'You' explain 'justification'.

You want to identify death penalty with vengeance. Call it whatever you like. Its still a just punishment for the crime. You can call all punishment against lawbreakers a type of vengeance if you want. If you do this, we are going to get you.

We are talking about the 'judicial system'. Not an individual acting on his own. Don't mix the two.

Quantrill

 

On what evidence do you make this assertion?

LOL Are you saying the state of internal prisons is THE SAME as it was, say, 30 years ago? Prisons dont become perfect overnight, it takes time. If you want it to be improved quicker, join in, otherwise it will continue at its own pace of development.

You have yet to refute the fact prisons provide a completely valid alternative for separating criminals from society at large.

What have I said was wrong? Again I never said prisons were perfect, and I suspect they may never be, but the fact is they still offer a totally valid alternative to death in terms of securitization for the public.

Then why haven;t you? You haven't even given sources for you wild claims. Any outsider can see this for themselves so you;re only fooling yourself.

Why should I do that? No, all I can do is go home and say I beat protectionist with the greatest ease. I have debated and beat many people on many topics ojn this thread. You rank as one of the weakest opponents I have faced simply because you repeat yourself, fail to provide any intellectual or scholarly material to prove your points and can never actually answer my questions about ethical standards.

This is no 'psychological aberration.' My questions are clear, my points valid, and neither have been seriously challenged let alone refuted by your comments.

 

Vengeance:
venge·ance/ˈvenjəns/
Noun: Punishment inflicted or retribution exacted for an injury or wrong.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vengeance
BY DEFINITION YOU ARE ADVOCATING VENGEANCE.

I'd like to know where you did. But again this leaves my following question - why is this code of vengeance justified?