Page 12 of 14 [ 211 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next


Are you in favor of the death penalty
Yes 30%  30%  [ 26 ]
No 70%  70%  [ 60 ]
Total votes : 86

b9
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

18 Oct 2012, 6:30 am

ValentineWiggin wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Then you are o.k. with doing away with innocent folk wrongly convicted?
ruveyn


If it means far fewer innocent folk die at the hands of violent criminals who know all-too-well that they'll not be made to answer, absolutely.


innocent people who are executed for other peoples crimes prevent the actual perpetrators of those crimes from being inhibited. to count an innocent life as a worthy trade to close a case that is arduous, is also to allow the real perpetrator to go free to continue on their rampage.

capital punishment is fatal, and it is a gruesome act to carry out,
and those that deign to have the spiritual ability to "judge" whether it is correct to carry out this act are incapable of creating a mosquito, so they are also unauthorized to terminate a whole living existence of any kind because of their decisions.

whatever. the matter will never be resolved.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

19 Oct 2012, 12:45 am

AspieRogue wrote:
LKL wrote:
Market and Church: "Life without possibility of parole'" means just that: the convicted man is /never/ getting out to harm an innocent person again, unless he himself is found innocent. He'll be eating overcooked cafeteria food so repulsive that prisoners occasionally go on hunger strikes about it, and if he's in the general population he'll be under constant threat of violence. If he's not in the general population, he may gradually go insane due to social deprivation. He will have no privacy and no space to himself. He will be subject to strip searches and bby guards at their whim.



You DO realize that liberals are trying to change that situation(that I outlined in bold)by eliminating violence in prison(particularly forced sodomy)and making doin' time a life of leisure.
.

I don't know what a "liberal" is, but I'm a liberal and I don't think that rape is good, ever; I don't think of being locked up as 'leisure,' I think of it as endless, grinding boredom so profound that you memorize the pockmarks in the cement of your cell just to give your brain something to do, punctuated by occasional extreme violence from other inmates. As long as the perpetrators are removed permanently from society, and we have the opportunity to reverse our decisions if they are later found innocent, I don't care that much about them.

Seriously, AspieRogue, what the hell is it with you and the buttsex fetishization? You constantly bring it up and fantasize about it in a very TMI kind of way.



MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

19 Oct 2012, 2:07 am

LKL wrote:
Market and Church: "Life without possibility of parole'" means just that: the convicted man is /never/ getting out to harm an innocent person again, unless he himself is found innocent. He'll be eating overcooked cafeteria food so repulsive that prisoners occasionally go on hunger strikes about it, and if he's in the general population he'll be under constant threat of violence. If he's not in the general population, he may gradually go insane due to social deprivation. He will have no privacy and no space to himself. He will be subject to strip searches and beatings by guards at their whim.


This isn't about making him suffer, and if that is the case, this is just as vengeful and as horrible a way to live as one can imagine.


I don't doubt that they will suffer.

This isn't about vengeance, this is about justice. The act of putting someone to death for murderer is vengeful, yes, but that is not the animating factor behind my position if you are going to assume intentions. You took a life, you don't deserve to keep your own. And I am speaking specifically about premeditated murder. I think the current system is fine to deal with crimes of passion, and even then, context is key. What is the value of a life if we equate it to 10 years of horrible food and unimaginable boredom? 10 years of suffering won't ever make up for what that innocent could have done in life. They'll never enjoy another sunrise, football game, the company of those they love and enjoy being with.

Either way, if protection of possibly killing an innocent is your main motivation for being anti-capital punishment, it is a respectable position, and I can respect that. Many tend to just use it as an emotional smokescreen to make others feel badly about taking a pro-capital punishment position, and when you push them on the issue, they then flee to some pacifist argument in that its never right to take a life or rehabilitation. But taking a stance on the possibility of killing an innocent is moral and I have no qualms with that.


_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

19 Oct 2012, 3:39 am

What is justice to you, then? Does it always only ever consist of the guilty party being made to experience the same pain as the wronged party? If a man kills someone else's dog, should his dog then be killed? If he cuts someone's arm off, should his be cut off (and if so, by whom?) If he carelessly injures someone in a car crash, should be be strapped into a car and driven into a tree?
Or do fines and jail time work for some of those crimes? Because, frankly, an 'eye for an eye' world is a little barbaric for me.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

19 Oct 2012, 4:20 am

i never got the idea that one horrible action begets another, all it does is drag everyone involved down to the level of the criminal they seek to punish.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

19 Oct 2012, 4:25 am

LKL wrote:
What is justice to you, then? Does it always only ever consist of the guilty party being made to experience the same pain as the wronged party? If a man kills someone else's dog, should his dog then be killed? If he cuts someone's arm off, should his be cut off (and if so, by whom?) If he carelessly injures someone in a car crash, should be be strapped into a car and driven into a tree?
Or do fines and jail time work for some of those crimes? Because, frankly, an 'eye for an eye' world is a little barbaric for me.

Two quick things:
    An eye for an eye was a socio-economic equalizer when it was introduced to the world, a revolutionary concept that a poor mans eye was equal in worth to that of a wealthy man which was unheard of 3000 years ago, even 50 years ago in the majority of the world, far from barbaric. It doesn't make the world go blind unless it is misused to justify things it wasn't intended to justify like vengeance or war.

    In the ancient world, you were your name, specifically your clans or your fathers or your own if you've earned enough prestige, and if you raped my sister, I would rape your sister, or if you stole my horse, I took yours, if you burned my dwellings, I burned yours, and if you killed my son, I killed yours. Horse, sister, house, son, all property of the head of the household and easily swappable for "justice" sake. That is not what I am advocating. The torah destroyed that sort of thinking, or at least that was its intention.


That said, murder is one of the most vile things you could do. If we value life, we attach to it the value of what we think its worth. Since you cannot give someone back their life and all they will lose if they are murdered, it must be known to all that we value life so much, you will lose yours if you take another's with premeditated murder.

If we said, "oh man... rape, worst thing you can do, we as a society take it as one of the most serious offense you can commit against another person, it robs people of their dignity and self worth, destroy's them in ways you'll never understand, but if you happen to error and rape someone, you will be charged the same fee as a parking violation. But know, we take it seriously and are deeply against it." It doesn't matter how much you are against murder, your punishment communicates something different.

Punishment suggests the severity of the crime. Now if you think murder is not that bad, I mean its bad, but why should anyone have to suffer for a very long time for it, they should just work it off somehow in prison and eventually be able to rejoin society as a reformed individual, then none of the above was for you. But if murder is the worst possible act you can commit against another human being, and I mean absolute worst... nothing compares, and there is no way you can pay that person back, or get their forgivness for what you've done to them, what punishment equals the severity of taking someones life? And this is taking into context everything a person could possibly be missing out on if they are murdered, and every other lesser punishment that the murderer could have executed instead of murder. Since everything pales in comparison to what a person robbed of a life loses out on, there is no justice short of the death penalty.

Is that the value of life to us? 10 years in prison? 25 years? Even if they could increase how long people could live, and the person lived 400 years, no amount of years could ever make up for the loss of another's life, from premeditated murder. The issue isn't years of punishment, and you can introduce more inhuman punishments into the mix like flogging and torture, that won't change the fact that your still walking this earth, breathing in air, have the chance to love, the function of awareness, of life, the people around you, to read a book, to see nature, reflect, and a whole host of things. It's not about imbuing both punishment and the feeling of punishment to the criminal. It is about justice for the only act you cannot make right by the person you harmed or gain the forgiveness of the victim for.


_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.


19 Oct 2012, 9:20 am

LKL: My sexual fetishes are irrelevant to this discussion. But I see prison raep as a form of torture/extrajudicial punishment that makes prisoners lives a living hell. I honestly think that rapists and killers should be tortured rather than killed. But the constitution prohibits any form of state sanctioned torture by virtue of the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause.

As far as deterrence goes, I honestly think that extrajudicial killings by the Police are a far more effective deterrent than capital punishment will ever be. But that carries with it a much greater risk of innocent people being killed than the death penalty does.



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

19 Oct 2012, 2:13 pm

AspieRogue wrote:
LKL: My sexual fetishes are irrelevant to this discussion. But I see prison raep as a form of torture/extrajudicial punishment that makes prisoners lives a living hell. I honestly think that rapists and killers should be tortured rather than killed. But the constitution prohibits any form of state sanctioned torture by virtue of the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause.

As far as deterrence goes, I honestly think that extrajudicial killings by the Police are a far more effective deterrent than capital punishment will ever be. But that carries with it a much greater risk of innocent people being killed than the death penalty does.

If that is your view, then why don't you move to a country which doesn't care about all of this "civilized" silliness? Like, Sudan, Saudi Arabia or North Korea?



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,789
Location: London

19 Oct 2012, 4:20 pm

MarketAndChurch wrote:
LKL wrote:
What is justice to you, then? Does it always only ever consist of the guilty party being made to experience the same pain as the wronged party? If a man kills someone else's dog, should his dog then be killed? If he cuts someone's arm off, should his be cut off (and if so, by whom?) If he carelessly injures someone in a car crash, should be be strapped into a car and driven into a tree?
Or do fines and jail time work for some of those crimes? Because, frankly, an 'eye for an eye' world is a little barbaric for me.

Two quick things:
    An eye for an eye was a socio-economic equalizer when it was introduced to the world, a revolutionary concept that a poor mans eye was equal in worth to that of a wealthy man which was unheard of 3000 years ago, even 50 years ago in the majority of the world, far from barbaric. It doesn't make the world go blind unless it is misused to justify things it wasn't intended to justify like vengeance or war.


I agree with you that it was not barbaric at the time. The "eye for an eye" teaching advocated greatly reducing the severity of the punishment for most crimes, and people often forget this context when criticising the teaching. However, today it is often used to advocate increasing the punishment to fit the crime, which is barbaric. We have better alternatives, like prison, so "an eye for an eye" is an archaic teaching.



19 Oct 2012, 4:53 pm

GGPViper wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
LKL: My sexual fetishes are irrelevant to this discussion. But I see prison raep as a form of torture/extrajudicial punishment that makes prisoners lives a living hell. I honestly think that rapists and killers should be tortured rather than killed. But the constitution prohibits any form of state sanctioned torture by virtue of the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause.

As far as deterrence goes, I honestly think that extrajudicial killings by the Police are a far more effective deterrent than capital punishment will ever be. But that carries with it a much greater risk of innocent people being killed than the death penalty does.

If that is your view, then why don't you move to a country which doesn't care about all of this "civilized" silliness? Like, Sudan, Saudi Arabia or North Korea?



Because there is not freakin WAY that I will get into Saudi Arabia or North Korea!(NK is far too poor anyway as is Sudan).

However, I will tell you that showing mercy to the merciless is not what I call civilized.



MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

19 Oct 2012, 5:51 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
I agree with you that it was not barbaric at the time. The "eye for an eye" teaching advocated greatly reducing the severity of the punishment for most crimes, and people often forget this context when criticising the teaching. However, today it is often used to advocate increasing the punishment to fit the crime, which is barbaric. We have better alternatives, like prison, so "an eye for an eye" is an archaic teaching.



    A quick note: It is not archaic or barbaric if it is not misused. By that definition, everything can be misused in a way you disagree with, and termed "barbaric"… Barbarism and Archaic are determined purely by our Values and the issues Relevance to our lives.



And it is still Relevant to most religious people of the Christian-Judeo background, unless our Valuing of life has "progressed"… ? Changed?

Which it has in most European nations, and for many on the Left, because this life is all there is to live, why take the life of another and cut them short of enjoying all there is to enjoy. It is a secular world view.The torah says that this life is the important one, but there is one after this. The Christians believe the next life is what ultimately matters, and you live this life in accordance to the requirements to get into that next life. The secular, however, only has this life. So it makes sense why they would hold this position.

What is the value of life to the European? Embarrassingly low considering what you attach as punishment for murder. To make ones self feel good about being against capital punishment, one throws out years in prison and all the possible suffering that could take place. But that is not the reality, especially in places like Sweden where there is limit in general on how long one can be imprisoned. My previous argument about rape may clarify this:

    Quote:
    If we said, "oh man... rape, worst thing you can do, we as a society take it as one of the most serious offense you can commit against another person, it robs people of their dignity and self worth, destroy's them in ways you'll never understand, but if you happen to error and rape someone, you will be charged the same fee as a parking violation. But know, we take it seriously and are deeply against it." It doesn't matter how much you are against murder, your punishment communicates something different.


_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.


GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

19 Oct 2012, 5:53 pm

AspieRogue wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
LKL: My sexual fetishes are irrelevant to this discussion. But I see prison raep as a form of torture/extrajudicial punishment that makes prisoners lives a living hell. I honestly think that rapists and killers should be tortured rather than killed. But the constitution prohibits any form of state sanctioned torture by virtue of the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause.

As far as deterrence goes, I honestly think that extrajudicial killings by the Police are a far more effective deterrent than capital punishment will ever be. But that carries with it a much greater risk of innocent people being killed than the death penalty does.

If that is your view, then why don't you move to a country which doesn't care about all of this "civilized" silliness? Like, Sudan, Saudi Arabia or North Korea?



Because there is not freakin WAY that I will get into Saudi Arabia or North Korea!(NK is far too poor anyway as is Sudan).

However, I will tell you that showing mercy to the merciless is not what I call civilized.


Ok, you *seriously* got me there. I expected some sort of reply like: "How DARE you compare me to those monstrous countries.." ... etc.

Oh, by the way, you are aware that you just claimed that it would be uncivilized to show mercy to you, right?



19 Oct 2012, 6:11 pm

GGPViper wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
LKL: My sexual fetishes are irrelevant to this discussion. But I see prison raep as a form of torture/extrajudicial punishment that makes prisoners lives a living hell. I honestly think that rapists and killers should be tortured rather than killed. But the constitution prohibits any form of state sanctioned torture by virtue of the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause.

As far as deterrence goes, I honestly think that extrajudicial killings by the Police are a far more effective deterrent than capital punishment will ever be. But that carries with it a much greater risk of innocent people being killed than the death penalty does.

If that is your view, then why don't you move to a country which doesn't care about all of this "civilized" silliness? Like, Sudan, Saudi Arabia or North Korea?



Because there is not freakin WAY that I will get into Saudi Arabia or North Korea!(NK is far too poor anyway as is Sudan).

However, I will tell you that showing mercy to the merciless is not what I call civilized.


Ok, you *seriously* got me there. I expected some sort of reply like: "How DARE you compare me to those monstrous countries.." ... etc.

Oh, by the way, you are aware that you just claimed that it would be uncivilized to show mercy to you, right?


Not so fast! Showing mercy to a merciless person who is guilty of violent crime committed in a merciless fashion is not what I consider to be civilized. I hope you see my point.



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

19 Oct 2012, 6:28 pm

AspieRogue wrote:
Not so fast! Showing mercy to a merciless person who is guilty of violent crime committed in a merciless fashion is not what I consider to be civilized. I hope you see my point.

I stopped seeing your point when you actually *advocated* rape as a punishment.

Face it. You are not a good person.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

19 Oct 2012, 6:36 pm

AspieRogue wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
LKL: My sexual fetishes are irrelevant to this discussion. But I see prison raep as a form of torture/extrajudicial punishment that makes prisoners lives a living hell. I honestly think that rapists and killers should be tortured rather than killed. But the constitution prohibits any form of state sanctioned torture by virtue of the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause.

As far as deterrence goes, I honestly think that extrajudicial killings by the Police are a far more effective deterrent than capital punishment will ever be. But that carries with it a much greater risk of innocent people being killed than the death penalty does.

If that is your view, then why don't you move to a country which doesn't care about all of this "civilized" silliness? Like, Sudan, Saudi Arabia or North Korea?



Because there is not freakin WAY that I will get into Saudi Arabia or North Korea!(NK is far too poor anyway as is Sudan).

However, I will tell you that showing mercy to the merciless is not what I call civilized.


Ok, you *seriously* got me there. I expected some sort of reply like: "How DARE you compare me to those monstrous countries.." ... etc.

Oh, by the way, you are aware that you just claimed that it would be uncivilized to show mercy to you, right?


Not so fast! Showing mercy to a merciless person who is guilty of violent crime committed in a merciless fashion is not what I consider to be civilized. I hope you see my point.


thing is legality is one of the least consistent and least common subjects in the world, every country has differences, tp use it in any kind of ethical argument is beyond ridicoulous without further clarification.
so in some countries that would mean people of another country who are following the law while executing would not deserve mercy.

when looking at dictatorships and regimes then that is excactly what you see as justification for wars, feuds conflict in general.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

20 Oct 2012, 3:41 am

AspieRogue wrote:
LKL: My sexual fetishes are irrelevant to this discussion.
I agree, and because of that I'd appreciate or if you'd quit talking about it (on other PPR threads, too).