PDA

View Full Version : Capital Punishment



ModernSkies
02-23-2016, 06:15 PM
I need help with this. Are y'all against it, or in favor of it?

Shadin Siddique
02-23-2016, 06:21 PM
I'm in neutral position. If I recall, Capital Punishment means Death Penalty, right? The fact where I disagree is they kill people who broke the major rules. They could have just put him in a very high secured jail instead of killing him. If they did put the victim in the jail, he could have learnt some lessons. If he didn't, let him spend his entire life in prison.

But there's a fact I agree as well, Death Penalty cause criminals to be aware of the punishment, when a person does something wrong they are afraid the elders (police) may find out. So they can refrain from doing rule breaking jobs. But that's a very small chance of that happening.

KillaPrime
02-23-2016, 06:23 PM
I'm in neutral position. If I recall, Capital Punishment means Death Penalty, right? The fact where I disagree is they kill people who broke the major rules. They could have just put him in a very high secured jail instead of killing him. If they did put the victim in the jail, he could have learnt some lessons. If he didn't, let him spend his entire life in prison.

But there's a fact I agree as well, Death Penalty cause criminals to be aware of the punishment, when a person does something wrong they are afraid the elders (police) may find out. So they can refrain from doing rule breaking jobs. But that's a very small chance of that happening.

Yes it's the death penalty but I am against it. I see the point of they should be put in a maximum prison but it's fair in the fact that if you would have been given the death penalty it is substituted for life in prison which is enough.

ModernSkies
02-23-2016, 06:29 PM
Yes it's the death penalty but I am against it. I see the point of they should be put in a maximum prison but it's fair in the fact that if you would have been given the death penalty it is substituted for life in prison which is enough.

I've got a persuasive essay to write. I am neutral also, I want to believe against it, but you have to look at it like this. Where would Osama Bin Laden be? All of these huge names that have been executed, it wasn't for something minor like littering. Of course it was something serious. My main problem with going in favor of it, is that you're commuting the same crime as they did to get the penalty. This is all too debatable. I need the best logical answers.

abt79
02-23-2016, 07:30 PM
I think that if we have the ability to contain a criminal and therein protect the public beyond doubt there is no reason for them to receive the death penalty.

ModernSkies
02-23-2016, 07:35 PM
I think that if we have the ability to contain a criminal and therein protect the public beyond doubt there is no reason for them to receive the death penalty.

Agreed. Thank you.

I just took your IQ test, thing.
112802

112803

abt79
02-23-2016, 07:39 PM
Agreed. Thank you.

That said, I'm not completely sure our prisons are so perfect, and that's why a gray area exists

Hercule
02-23-2016, 07:43 PM
I'm in neutral position. If I recall, Capital Punishment means Death Penalty, right? The fact where I disagree is they kill people who broke the major rules. They could have just put him in a very high secured jail instead of killing him. If they did put the victim in the jail, he could have learnt some lessons. If he didn't, let him spend his entire life in prison.

But there's a fact I agree as well, Death Penalty cause criminals to be aware of the punishment, when a person does something wrong they are afraid the elders (police) may find out. So they can refrain from doing rule breaking jobs. But that's a very small chance of that happening.

Death penalty doesn't really stop criminals from committing crimes, if you were a criminal you wouldn't really think about being arrested while doing a crime, until it's too late, a life time jail is a better punishment.

PS : Is this for your homework ? Are you working on "the last day of a condemned man" by victor Hugo?

ModernSkies
02-23-2016, 07:45 PM
Death penalty doesn't really stop criminals from committing crimes, if you were a criminal you wouldn't really think about being arrested while doing a crime, until it's too late, a life time jail is a better punishment.

Couldn't have said better myself. I need a good header for this essay. Does anyone have any ideas for an opener? An introduction that is, keep in mind it's a persuasive essay.

Yes indeed it is "homework" But no, I am not. This is just a filler assignment between units. The last filler we did, was an essay on the legalization of marijuana.

JOSHIE63
02-23-2016, 07:51 PM
I wrote an expository on it — want it for facts?

I am against it though.

ModernSkies
02-23-2016, 07:52 PM
I wrote an expository on it — want it for facts?

As a matter of fact, I was about to message you via PM. That would be very helpful. Thank you.

I believe against it also.

Can you sign into the game?

ModernSkies
02-23-2016, 08:22 PM
Any ideas how to being the essay?

GummiBear64
02-23-2016, 08:59 PM
The death penalty should not exist.
What makes them feel as if they have the right to execute someone just because they committed a felony. Sure, they probably deserve it but in the end, does the result really justify the why they did it?
Surely they could've just put the person in jail for life, which I feel is worse than death.

Yet again, this is all coming from someone who lives in a country where the death penalty hasn't been a thing in like, forever.

ModernSkies
02-23-2016, 09:01 PM
The death penalty should not exist.
What makes them feel as if they have the right to execute someone just because they committed a felony. Sure, they probably deserve it but in the end, does the result really justify the why they did it?
Surely they could've just put the person in jail for life, which I feel is worse than death.

Yet again, this is all coming from someone who lives in a country where the death penalty hasn't been a thing in like, forever.

Thank you for your opinion, and I agree 100%.
~Confirm

matchamoo
02-23-2016, 09:03 PM
If someone does something like a school shooting or mass murder they deserve to be executed and then burn in hell forever. Do you think that they cared at all about being cruel as they committed the crime to get them the death sentence in the first place?

ModernSkies
02-23-2016, 09:05 PM
If someone does something like a school shooting or mass murder they deserve to be executed and then burn in hell forever. Do you think that they cared at all about being cruel as they committed the crime to get them the death sentence in the first place?

Honestly, if you have ever looked into it, most of the people that have done the mass murders have a mental illness, and got sent to mental institutions for rehabilitation.

JOSHIE63
02-23-2016, 09:25 PM
As you wish:

For millenniums, severe crimes have been punished in a manner that is equivalent to the crime. Since ancient times, capital punishment existed in the form of lex talonis — the punishment must fit the crime. Created by Hammurabi, the ruler of ancient Babylon, this principle created the concept and phrase “an eye for an eye.” A modicum of crimes are currently punishable by death, but not everybody complies to the conformed practice of sentenced death. Protests frequently occur regarding the ethics of killing and whether or not the death sentence is acceptable in certain cases. Topics such as racial bias and inconsistency are frequently discussed in debates regarding capital punishment; the supporters claim that there benefits in maintaining the policy of the death penalty, such as the deterrence of crime it invokes. The effects of capital punishment are irreversible; death cannot be undone, so people must discern veracious statements from fallacies to be the most careful about their verdict in court and not rush into death, blinded by vindictiveness. Even nowadays, this controversial topic divides most people into the two main groups publicly seen: supporters and opponents.
Capital punishment dates back to ancient times on the foundation of civilized living; it was widely accepted without resistance in those times. Hammurabi set the standard punishment of lex talonis, which neighboring civilizations began to adopt (Capital Punishment is Unjust). Punishments were usually based upon whim, and they were not fair. Only a few crimes were consistent and met with capital punishments which correlate to a few of the same punishable by death today: treason and murder were two that were warranted (Capital Punishment Harms Society). As civilization progressed and developed, times changed and soon there were less than fifty crimes punishable by death after the end of the Revolutionary War (Fridell 13). Before lethal injection, crimes were punished horrifically by various means of what would be considered to be today fitting “cruel and unusual.” Public hangings were a popular method of killing convicted criminals; this not only set an example of the perpetrator, but it also shamed the criminal’s family (Fridell 17). Aside from exclusively hanging criminals for their crimes, many were killed execution style in the presence of others with a firing squad (Capital Punishment Harms Society). However, contrary to popular belief, the death penalty is seldom used to punish anything other than killing; justifiably, the last incident of a criminal receiving capital punishment was in 1964 (Capital Punishment Harms Society).
There are a modicum of strict criteria a crime must meet the requirements for capital punishment to be distributed to the perpetrator, which is only one of the many precautions implemented to protect from judicial injustice. To start, the case must meet four criteria to even qualify for the sentence of capital punishment. Proof in the defendant's role in the crime, or actus reus, must be present to justly convict a criminal (Fridell 27). Another requirement known as mens rea must be present to prove that the defendant was conscious and willing to either partake in or plot the crime (Fridell 27). Aggravation must also be identified in the crime; aggravation is simply the motive behind any crime (Fridell 27). The last criterion is controversial: mitigation. The concept itself was created to curtail the severity of a punishment — mostly capital punishment — for those with mental disabilities that may have impaired judgement and a false sense of self-righteousness (Fridell 27). Mitigation is not necessarily required to justly convict the perpetrator of the crime, but usually plays a role in discerning the boundaries of mens rea — whether the crime was committed under a clear conscience (Fridell 27). Being the only criterion that is lenient, there are few boundaries to where a mental disability takes precedent (Fridell 27). There are currently forty-one capital offenses that include treason and murder as the leading offenses warranting the death penalty (The Death Penalty Deters Crime). To sentence death to a human, the United States judicial system requires “proof beyond reasonable doubt” to thoroughly and fairly convict someone. With this principle, justices in any level of the court system are intended to remain unbiased and base their decision off of substantiation by the evidence presented, but some cases are suspected of being given an unfair trial because of judicial bias (Capital Punishment Harms Society). Paragons of this scrutiny are cases that involve terrorism, which can sometimes be based upon fear or hatred creating blind, misled speculations (Capital Punishment Harms Society).
The public often question the candor of the judicial system and their policies that they may not even consider when deciding because of the bias (Capital Punishment Harms Society). With critics scrutinizing the judicial system, justices feel pressured to make the acceptable decision; however, sometimes this tension between public opinion and the ruling creates an even more nebulous definition of justice (Capital Punishment is Unjust).
Constitutional rulings have oscillated between what the definition of “cruel and unusual” is as the death penalty has been labeled with the nomenclature of both terms in court (Fridell 55). In, 1910, the court case of Weems v. The United States ruled that capital punishment was constitutional, for the definitions of both cruel and unusual were subjective to each individual (Fridell 55). The decision also warned people that the ruling was likely to change with new additions to the Supreme Court’s panel of justices, which was the case in the 1972 court case of Furman v. Georgia (Fridell 55). The result was that capital punishment was not necessarily cruel, but unusual due to the inconsistency of its administration; therefore, the death penalty was abolished (Fridell 56). The abolition had not lasted long before the ruling of the 1976 court case, Gregg v. Georgia ruled that the definition of cruel and unusual was vague, nondescript, and obscure as it was; consequently, capital punishment was reinstated after that ruling (Fridell 56).
Presenting valid evidence has become a facile task due to the identification of DNA in forensic investigation, and it usually “provides the proof beyond reasonable doubt” required to convict a criminal. (Fridell 115). Cases nowadays are being handled cautiously, for ethics of opponents have began persuade justices to use finesse in determining the outcome of the trials. The United States is the only western nation that continues to practice capital punishment; it is abolished everywhere else (Fridell 123). Activists are working to abolish capital punishment in the United States as well, but statistically there is not enough support for such a bold change (Capital Punishment Harms Society).
Most affiliation with judicial bias is alluding to race, as there is a greater percentage of minorities imprisoned than white Americans; however, there has been no identifiable link between race and the administration of capital punishment to date (Capital Punishment is Unjust). That being said, there is also no known link between judicial bias and the death penalty (The Death Penalty Deters Crime). The crime rate is significantly higher in communities composed of mainly minorities, which explains the greater number of death sentences administered (Capital Punishment Harms Society). Race is not known to play a role in capital punishment statistically, but it is a viable counterpoint when discussing speculation of prejudice. Racist organizations exist even today, even though they are incognito in society and not nearly as pertinent (Fridell 98). Many African Americans were given unfair judgement between the time period of 1800 to 1970, which implies that few roots can still be discovered between racist families today (Fridell 99).
Ethics are presumed to be the strongest argument for opponents of capital punishment, regarding the sacredness of life, the meaning of justice, and such justice in killing.
Many religions consider life to be sacred, but as religion combined with basic morals, the preservation of life became extremely important to people, now portrayed as irreplaceable (Capital Punishment Harms Society). Opposition of the death penalty claim that as the ruling stands, life is literally as frangible as ethics (Capital Punishment is Unjust). Such an example is portrayed in this quote: “If personal life is expendable, ethics are expendable,” implying that ethics are only have a base if they reside in the human; the expenditure of life would create a situation wherein ethics are worthless (Capital Punishment is Unjust). Life is also something created over time, but taken away in an instant; therefore, the meaning of every human life is believed to matter equally, even if the human is considered to be nothing but a “degenerate criminal” (Capital Punishment is Unjust). The opponents also claim that depersonalizing the enemy is inhumane, and is another devious system of nomenclature to justify taking another human life selfishly (Capital Punishment is Unjust). Using names to ease a guilty conscience is believed to be a common practice, just as the word “criminal” has a connotation of being a worthless life (Capital Punishment is Unjust). Most opponents believe each individual human life is equally important and should be treated with the utmost importance (Capital Punishment Harms Society). Opponents also have a mentality wherein killing is unrighteous regardless of the intent.
Killing is irreversible in most of their views and therefore takes precedence over a small endangerment. As summarized by an opponent, motives hardly matter in a death: “While not all killings of humans are in every way equivalent, they do share an important thing: a reason to kill” (Capital Punishment is Unjust). Lastly, the idea of curtailing violence with violence to invoke fear of disorder is considered solely negative to most opponents (Capital Punishment Harms Society). Martin Luther King even believed in this principle, stating, “The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy” (Capital Punishment Harms Society). Also, invoking fear in the public through violence as a deterrent appears as an excessive abuse of power, and they believe that an example can be set with lifelong imprisonment. To contrast those ethics, many supporters of capital punishment believe that deteriorating in prison by force is exponentially more cruel than briskly killing the perpetrator and that killing the criminal is a justice rather than risking the chance of suicidal tendencies in prison, which is common (Capital Punishment is Unjust). Supporters also strongly believe that killing is murder universally, and it is inexcusable to take another’s life simply because it has such a great value; sometimes the justification is that the victim’s life is greater than the one who carried out the injustice (Capital Punishment Harms Society).
The effects of capital punishment are not all completely negative, for it is a natural crime deterrent. This fact is backed by statistical substantiation where there is a link between the crime rate and amount of major cases involving the death penalty (Capital Punishment Harms Society). Opponents say that capital punishment does the polar opposite though by promotes violence (Capital Punishment Harms Society). People believe it should not be used as a crime-preventing tool, as it involves valuable life. Despite the ideology of less lives being lost, many opponents would rather see “justifiable” means to enforce obedience of the law.
While statistically there is little opposition for capital punishment, there is not a definite chance that change cannot be made. With each year, a modicum of America’s population grows of age to form an opinion and express it in the way they feel is necessary, leading to aforementioned change being made. As the controversy continues throughout the years, people will remain divided by the simple viewpoints on the death penalty; however, whatever conflict there is between supporters and opponents, each side has valid, justification and will eventually force the judicial system to determine the meaning of their own constitution, which could favor either side.



Works Cited

Bessler, John D. "Capital Punishment Harms Society." Capital Punishment. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Current Controversies. Rpt. from "America's Death Penalty: Just Another Form of Violence." Phi Kappa Phi Forum 82 (Winter 2002): 13. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 2 Dec. 2015.
Buchanan, Pat. "Executions Deliver Reasonable Retribution." The Death Penalty. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2002. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 10 Dec. 2015
Costanzo, Mark, and Friends Committee on National Legislation. "The Death Penalty Is Discriminatory." The Death Penalty. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2002. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 10 Dec. 2015.
Fridell, Ron. Capital Punishment. New York: Benchmark, 2004. Print.
Kavanaugh, John. "Capital Punishment Is Unjust." Problems of Death. Ed. James D. Torr and Laura K. Egendorf. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Killing Persons, Killing Ethics." America (July 1997). Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 24 Nov. 2015.
Muhlhausen, David. "The Death Penalty Deters Crime." The Death Penalty. Ed. Jenny Cromie and Lynn M. Zott. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "The Death Penalty Deters Crime and Saves Lives." 2007. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 1 Dec. 2015.
Scaljon, Michael. "The Death Penalty Is Not Cruel and Unusual Punishment." The Death Penalty. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2002. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 25 Nov. 2015.

ModernSkies
02-23-2016, 09:30 PM
Put him in a jail that costs millions to run? You're paying tax money to keep criminals alive. Hell, i dont think a murderer would mind being killed if he could kill someone else so easy. I'm all for the death penalty.

That, also is a good point. Even thought I am against it.

JOSHIE63
02-23-2016, 09:33 PM
Put him in a jail that costs millions to run? You're paying tax money to keep criminals alive. Hell, i dont think a murderer would mind being killed if he could kill someone else so easy. I'm all for the death penalty.

I would redirect you to my essay, but no one wants to read that so I will summarize.

The depersonalization of a human is used to justify harsher treatment. Because the perpetrator is labeled "criminal," people use the connotation of the word to put that person lower than them. This crosses over into ideals and philosophy, but rethink that. You would not pay a pittance to keep someone alive that is "lower" than you.

ModernSkies
02-23-2016, 09:37 PM
I would redirect you to my essay, but no one wants to read that so I will summarize.

The depersonalization of a human is used to justify harsher treatment. Because the perpetrator is labeled "criminal," people use the connotation of the word to put that person lower than them. This crosses over into ideals and philosophy, but rethink that. You would not pay a pittance to keep someone alive that is "lower" than you.

I read it. :*

matchamoo
02-23-2016, 09:58 PM
Honestly, if you have ever looked into it, most of the people that have done the mass murders have a mental illness, and got sent to mental institutions for rehabilitation.
True, most of the mentally stable people kill themselves after slaughtering children in cold blood. But still there's serial killers too who can murder dozens of victims and still feel 0 remorse for the families they destroy and for the innocent people they murder and sometimes do even worse things to before they murder them.

abt79
02-23-2016, 11:50 PM
Put him in a jail that costs millions to run? You're paying tax money to keep criminals alive. .

Oh yeah that's right, almost forgot people's lives weren't worth that much money. So much supply, so little demand. I just bought a few last week anyways at the Tesco near my house for like 20p
:whistling:

Spotlight
02-24-2016, 12:14 AM
My dad and I just had a big discussion on the death penalty, and we both came to the conclusion that we disagree with it.
I recently watched a documentary on someone who was on death row, and less than a week until his date of death, they found him completely innocent. If they found that out like 7 days later there would be no going back. The thing about the death penalty is that once it's done, it's done forever. If you sentence someone to life in prison, you can eventually go back. Though years of their lives are wasted, at least they aren't gone.

TL;DR, I do not agree with the death penalty.

|ThyLuigi|
02-24-2016, 12:16 AM
Against it, it's a real shame if someone is wrongly convicted then executed.

Josh289
02-24-2016, 12:22 AM
Definitely depends on the severity of the crime committed. Mass murderer is definitely worthy of execution or death. Also if someone continually disobeys laws that are very serious then I feel that they have already been warned and should receive an even greater punishment. Committing a felonious crime will most likely result in some time in jail depending on how serious the crime was.

ModernSkies
02-24-2016, 01:20 AM
My dad and I just had a big discussion on the death penalty, and we both came to the conclusion that we disagree with it.
I recently watched a documentary on someone who was on death row, and less than a week until his date of death, they found him completely innocent. If they found that out like 7 days later there would be no going back. The thing about the death penalty is that once it's done, it's done forever. If you sentence someone to life in prison, you can eventually go back. Though years of their lives are wasted, at least they aren't gone.

TL;DR, I do not agree with the death penalty.

get online.

|ThyLuigi|
02-24-2016, 01:23 AM
I'm in favor if the convict is under 18 and the parents approve of it or if the convict is over 18 and approves of it himself.

Heh...that'd be awkward.

"I'm fine with you killing my kid"

"Yes, do please kill me"

Spotlight
02-24-2016, 01:24 AM
I'm in favor if the convict is under 18 and the parents approve of it or if the convict is over 18 and approves of it himself.

This makes no legal sense at all.

|ThyLuigi|
02-24-2016, 02:12 AM
I'm in favor if the convict is under 18 and the parents approve of it or if the convict is over 18 and approves of it himself.

I just realized, you're thinking of corporal punishment.

Malevolent
02-24-2016, 04:23 AM
As I won't share my opinion, I will say it is more expensive for someone to be on the death penalty than it isn't. In fact on average it's about a few hundred thousand dollars more than a prisoner who has life in prison.

abt79
02-24-2016, 11:55 AM
Lmao, While you're paying money to keep the murderer of your grandmother alive, I'll be spending that money on strawberry Dackeries in Cancun. I've already stated that a murderer, Rapist, Etc. Isnt really considered human in my books

So would you support using them for slave labor, buying and selling them?

genpasaporte922
02-24-2016, 01:14 PM
Death Penalty or simply called Capital Punishment is a heavy violation on our rights, especially the right to life. Just a case, such as drugs, can lead you to a slot in that hotel (I need to put some jokes lol). But, if you killed a person, I agree that you should be killed too. Life for life, and eye for eye and a tooth for tooth.

Well, UN has studied that. But I'm unsure how the results work. If Saudi Arabia would see this, they can't even change it because it adheres to the law of Allah (religion matters). Justice is JUSTICE.

For the victim's family, they would want Justice for their relative. But for the suspect's family, they want pardon or forgiveness. Opposite occurs in this situation.

I plainly state that I neither support nor I'm against at it. I'm in a neutral decision. But, death penalty must be decided wisely. We don't see anyone wanting death.

(journalism skillz tho)

Hercule
02-24-2016, 01:53 PM
Oh and to add to your arguments list, I'm against capital punishment because judges have no right to give a -to be killed- order, no human on earth has the right to kill someone else, only god because he gave us life.

abt79
02-24-2016, 02:23 PM
The point is to save money, and stop giving it to the people who Dont deserve it. Don't put words into my mouth, Ending someone's life isn't as cruel as slave trade.

And if you were to ask me, I'd rather be killed than rot away in jail, may just be me though.

You specifically said you didn't see murderers as human beings, and I don't see asking a question based on that claim as "putting words in your mouth".

If murderers are considered to be less than human

I've already stated that a murderer, Rapist, Etc. Isnt really considered human in my books
I don't see why slavery would be that bad (bulls, horses, etc are forced into unpaid labor all the time, at that's perfectly morally acceptable) or why you even care about being cruel to them, not to mention that, yeah, death is the cruelest punishment.

abt79
02-24-2016, 09:16 PM
Yeah, and? Less than human... When did i say anything about a slave trade. Just because i Don't consider them Humane, doesn't mean I would support a slave trade?

I never said you supported it, I asked if you would support it because you don't consider them human.

The fundamental problem of slavery is that it denies a person their basic human rights, but if you believe that a person stops being a person when they take a life, slavery shouldn't be an issue.

|ThyLuigi|
02-24-2016, 11:08 PM
You make a fair point, But yeah slave trade is pretty harsh. The reason i support The death penalty is to save money, not to exact revenge or make anyone suffer

Some prisons actually make a steady profit.

|ThyLuigi|
02-25-2016, 12:03 AM
All federal prisons run off tax money

The ones I'm talking about are privately owned that have made deals with the state, in those cases less prisoners actually requires more tax money.

abt79
02-25-2016, 12:27 AM
You make a fair point, But yeah slave trade is pretty harsh. The reason i support The death penalty is to save money, not to exact revenge or make anyone suffer

So you don't consider human life worth the money?

Sorry but I'll have to disagree with you, and I bet that you wouldn't want your family or friends to be killed to save money even if they did something horrible

abt79
02-25-2016, 12:30 AM
Life is just a preparation for death. Life itself isn't worth anything, but death might be worth more.

That's a sad way to see life. It also has no grounds in objectivity, as no one alive has any experience being dead.

Also, if human life isn't valuable, what is? Rocks can't even move

ModernSkies
02-25-2016, 01:02 AM
So you don't consider human life worth the money?

Sorry but I'll have to disagree with you, and I bet that you wouldn't want your family or friends to be killed to save money even if they did something horrible

I have to agree with him a bit. I am against capital punishment, but the point he makes is valid. over $30,000 a year to keep ONE inmate alive. Taxes, pay them forever.

Although I am against it. The bible states that whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death, and I agree. To an extent. As I am going into the military, the time will come. Another war, blood will shed, and lives will end. I believe that defending my country shouldn't fall into those lines, unless you think we'll all die eventually, then to hell with my theory.

JOSHIE63
02-25-2016, 01:45 AM
Let me just say, fines for drug possession add up to much more than what is one is paying for a singular murderer.

However, the ethics involved in taking a viewpoint are subjective. I suppose my essay was inordinate in detailing the proponents' view, but here is is.

Many religions consider life to be sacred, but as religion combined with basic morals, the preservation of life became extremely important to people, now portrayed as irreplaceable (Capital Punishment Harms Society). Opposition of the death penalty claim that as the ruling stands, life is literally as frangible as ethics (Capital Punishment is Unjust). Such an example is portrayed in this quote: “If personal life is expendable, ethics are expendable,” implying that ethics are only have a base if they reside in the human; the expenditure of life would create a situation wherein ethics are worthless (Capital Punishment is Unjust). Life is also something created over time, but taken away in an instant; therefore, the meaning of every human life is believed to matter equally, even if the human is considered to be nothing but a “degenerate criminal” (Capital Punishment is Unjust). The opponents also claim that depersonalizing the enemy is inhumane, and is another devious system of nomenclature to justify taking another human life selfishly (Capital Punishment is Unjust). Using names to ease a guilty conscience is believed to be a common practice, just as the word “criminal” has a connotation of being a worthless life (Capital Punishment is Unjust). Most opponents believe each individual human life is equally important and should be treated with the utmost importance (Capital Punishment Harms Society). Opponents also have a mentality wherein killing is unrighteous regardless of the intent.

Killing is irreversible in most of their views and therefore takes precedence over a small endangerment. As summarized by an opponent, motives hardly matter in a death: “While not all killings of humans are in every way equivalent, they do share an important thing: a reason to kill” (Capital Punishment is Unjust). Lastly, the idea of curtailing violence with violence to invoke fear of disorder is considered solely negative to most opponents (Capital Punishment Harms Society). Martin Luther King even believed in this principle, stating, “The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy” (Capital Punishment Harms Society). Also, invoking fear in the public through violence as a deterrent appears as an excessive abuse of power, and they believe that an example can be set with lifelong imprisonment. To contrast those ethics, many supporters of capital punishment believe that deteriorating in prison by force is exponentially more cruel than briskly killing the perpetrator and that killing the criminal is a justice rather than risking the chance of suicidal tendencies in prison, which is common (Capital Punishment is Unjust). Supporters also strongly believe that killing is murder universally, and it is inexcusable to take another’s life simply because it has such a great value; sometimes the justification is that the victim’s life is greater than the one who carried out the injustice (Capital Punishment Harms Society).

The frangibility of these ethics is what one may call the downfall of either side.

abt79
02-25-2016, 02:00 AM
I have to agree with him a bit. I am against capital punishment, but the point he makes is valid. over $30,000 a year to keep ONE inmate alive. Taxes, pay them forever.

Although I am against it. The bible states that whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death, and I agree. To an extent. As I am going into the military, the time will come. Another war, blood will shed, and lives will end. I believe that defending my country shouldn't fall into those lines, unless you think we'll all die eventually, then to hell with my theory.

I think that the army is different, as you usually must kill or be killed; the only way to stop further death is to kill one person, and your intention is not to kill but to save lives.

The same is not true of most domestic criminals, incarceration is the option that respects their right to live as a human being while still not letting the criminal harm others.

- - - Updated - - -


I see what you're saying, but for one I can GUARANTEE nobody in my family would do anything. And for seconds if my father for example Were to murder or rape, I would think he deserved to die. I respect and understand what you're saying though

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"

Why show people that killing is wrong by killing a man?

abt79
02-25-2016, 02:03 AM
Let me just say, fines for drug possession add up to much more than what is one is paying for a singular murderer.

However, the ethics involved in taking a viewpoint are subjective. I suppose my essay was inordinate in detailing the proponents' view, but here is is.

Many religions consider life to be sacred, but as religion combined with basic morals, the preservation of life became extremely important to people, now portrayed as irreplaceable (Capital Punishment Harms Society). Opposition of the death penalty claim that as the ruling stands, life is literally as frangible as ethics (Capital Punishment is Unjust). Such an example is portrayed in this quote: “If personal life is expendable, ethics are expendable,” implying that ethics are only have a base if they reside in the human; the expenditure of life would create a situation wherein ethics are worthless (Capital Punishment is Unjust). Life is also something created over time, but taken away in an instant; therefore, the meaning of every human life is believed to matter equally, even if the human is considered to be nothing but a “degenerate criminal” (Capital Punishment is Unjust). The opponents also claim that depersonalizing the enemy is inhumane, and is another devious system of nomenclature to justify taking another human life selfishly (Capital Punishment is Unjust). Using names to ease a guilty conscience is believed to be a common practice, just as the word “criminal” has a connotation of being a worthless life (Capital Punishment is Unjust). Most opponents believe each individual human life is equally important and should be treated with the utmost importance (Capital Punishment Harms Society). Opponents also have a mentality wherein killing is unrighteous regardless of the intent.

Killing is irreversible in most of their views and therefore takes precedence over a small endangerment. As summarized by an opponent, motives hardly matter in a death: “While not all killings of humans are in every way equivalent, they do share an important thing: a reason to kill” (Capital Punishment is Unjust). Lastly, the idea of curtailing violence with violence to invoke fear of disorder is considered solely negative to most opponents (Capital Punishment Harms Society). Martin Luther King even believed in this principle, stating, “The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy” (Capital Punishment Harms Society). Also, invoking fear in the public through violence as a deterrent appears as an excessive abuse of power, and they believe that an example can be set with lifelong imprisonment. To contrast those ethics, many supporters of capital punishment believe that deteriorating in prison by force is exponentially more cruel than briskly killing the perpetrator and that killing the criminal is a justice rather than risking the chance of suicidal tendencies in prison, which is common (Capital Punishment is Unjust). Supporters also strongly believe that killing is murder universally, and it is inexcusable to take another’s life simply because it has such a great value; sometimes the justification is that the victim’s life is greater than the one who carried out the injustice (Capital Punishment Harms Society).

The frangibility of these ethics is what one may call the downfall of either side.


Ethics aren't subjective. Just because people have varying opinions of what is right and wrong doesn't mean they're all correct; surely if someone thought that murder was OK they would not be seen as a dissenting opinion but still one that deserves your respect.


Also, basic human rights such as the right to life is not an exclusively religious belief, and one does not need religion to arrive at the conclusion that everyone deserves certain things. Look up Immanuel Kant

JOSHIE63
02-25-2016, 02:59 AM
Ethics aren't subjective. Just because people have varying opinions of what is right and wrong doesn't mean they're all correct; surely if someone thought that murder was OK they would not be seen as a dissenting opinion but still one that deserves your respect.


Also, basic human rights such as the right to life is not an exclusively religious belief, and one does not need religion to arrive at the conclusion that everyone deserves certain things. Look up Immanuel Kant

subjective: influenced by one's personal feelings, preferences, or opinions

abt79
02-25-2016, 01:18 PM
subjective: influenced by one's personal feelings, preferences, or opinions

Yes, but there are objective standards of ethics

Such as: thou shalt not kill.

It's not really regarded as an opinion that deserves our respect if someone believes that unprovoked murder is OK

Of course if you read and understood the post you quoted you'd know that, and wouldn't feel the need to define "subjective" as if I don't know what it means

BoredSozes
02-25-2016, 01:51 PM
Depends on the crime... I don't think doing drugs warrant a death penalty..

I think serial killers deserve them though... and rapists... arsonists (that kill many people), cruel dictators like hitler, North Korean pals.

1001Conor
02-25-2016, 06:56 PM
I don't agree with it. If you commit a crime you shouldn't have an easy way out, you should have to live with what you've done in my opinion.

abt79
02-25-2016, 07:31 PM
Eh, i think both of our opinions make sense, its just the moral standpoint on murder

Your idea that a murderer is less than human is one I cannot agree with or respect, we're all human and no decision or action can change that.

The only reason murder is OK is if it prevents further murder, if we can stop pain without causing further pain we have an obligation to do so.

To do otherwise is for revenge, not justice

JOSHIE63
02-25-2016, 08:08 PM
Yes, but there are objective standards of ethics

Such as: thou shalt not kill.

It's not really regarded as an opinion that deserves our respect if someone believes that unprovoked murder is OK

Of course if you read and understood the post you quoted you'd know that, and wouldn't feel the need to define "subjective" as if I don't know what it means

Need I define ethics? Ethics are not simply what is socially accepted. Likewise, ethics cannot be compared and contrasted without bias because what is just in one's mind differs from another. If ethics were objective — almost law — there would be no murderers, rapists, etcetera. People would be identical — no debate, no variety — with scruples that are a paragon of a society.

I am not saying unprecedented killing is equivalent to self-defense, but they result in death nonetheless. In which case, in juxtaposition the societal norm my opinion is nonconformity. Wherein ethics are found objective is a society with no freedoms; it is one of which I would care not to live. The "devil's" ideals are certainly different and not socially accepted, but one must live with them, spiteful and indifferent — they are ethics the same.

Dinobones62
02-25-2016, 08:13 PM
I agree and disagree, people like Hitler or chairman Mao, who start mass genocide should be kill as one life for thousands of lives is fair.

abt79
02-25-2016, 08:24 PM
Need I define ethics? Ethics are not simply what is socially accepted. Likewise, ethics cannot be compared and contrasted without bias because what is just in one's mind differs from another. If ethics were objective — almost law — there would be no murderers, rapists, etcetera. People would be identical — no debate, no variety — with scruples that are a paragon of a society.

I am not saying unprecedented killing is equivalent to self-defense, but they result in death nonetheless. In which case, in juxtaposition the societal norm my opinion is nonconformity. Wherein ethics are found objective is a society with no freedoms; it is one of which I would care not to live. The "devil's" ideals are certainly different and not socially accepted, but one must live with them, spiteful and indifferent — they are ethics the same.
"Ethics are not simply what is socially accepted."
No you're right, ethics are a person's thoughts on morality, what is right and what is wrong.

"Likewise, ethics cannot be compared and contrasted without bias because what is just in one's mind differs from another."
I'd like to assume some part of the population can put aside bias for reason, although yes obviously bias is very hard to eliminate especially in a situation you are involved in or what related to your experience. That said, differences between what people think does not necessarily imply bias,differing views could result from objective observation or sound logical conclusions

"If ethics were objective there would be no murderers, rapists, etc"

This is the equivalent of stating that if science was objective there would be no one that believes the earth is flat. There are objective standards of ethics even if some people don't agree with them, and they are dependent not wholly on social norms but also on instinct, human reason, and in some cases religion, anger, and other factors



Also you used the word "juxtaposition", congrats, using such massive words is an obvious quantiliaficatior of your high intelligence

abt79
02-25-2016, 08:38 PM
I agree and disagree, people like Hitler or chairman Mao, who start mass genocide should be kill as one life for thousands of lives is fair.

So what is the line then? How many people do you have to kill to deserve the death penalty?

abt79
02-25-2016, 11:39 PM
Eh, I honestly don't really care if you don't agree, just giving my opinion

so you wouldn't really care if a serial killer didn't get the death penalty because people with opinions besides you own allowed him to live?

Defend yourself mate, doesn't everyone want to strive to learn what is right or at the very least learn what is right?

abt79
02-26-2016, 01:14 AM
I'm a realist. I don't really share my opinions because it wont change Squat. Just like Feminists and Environmentalists, they arnt going to change anything

Geez, imagine if Martin Luther King, our founding fathers, or the legitimate feminists of 40+ years ago thought that way. I guess you're younger and probably have less opportunities to do things, but one person can make a difference.

abt79
02-26-2016, 02:12 AM
This is what I think. Lets take environmentalists for example. OBVIOUSLY our situation with the environment is getting much worse, but why Don't people care other than a chosen few? Its because people now and people back then (MLK's time) are completely different. I'm surrounded by idiots, nobody cares about anything or anybody. This generation and beyond will truly be the end of the world. You may not agree with what I'm saying but everywhere I go, every time i see a problem it's just so easy to agnolodge the stupidity of some people.

This generation isn't any more stupid than past ones, the Internet just provides lasting evidence that some people do stupid stuff.

If there was some record of everything everyone did at any other time in history we'd see a similar pattern

abt79
02-26-2016, 02:27 AM
Would we really? I really don't think that's true. What's even worse is that the generation under me looks to be almost a thousand times worse than mine. But hell man what do I know, what I say won't make a difference anyways

What, you think children, teenagers, and people in general were all understanding, kind geniuses before twenty years ago?

|ThyLuigi|
02-26-2016, 02:30 AM
No. I think back then Children, teenagers, and people in general wearnt all profound idiots.
You'd be surprised.

Magicalfishy
02-26-2016, 02:54 AM
This generation isn't any more stupid than past ones, the Internet just provides lasting evidence that some people do stupid stuff.

If there was some record of everything everyone did at any other time in history we'd see a similar pattern

I'd have to disagree with this one. Society is getting worse as a whole. :sweatdrop:

abt79
02-26-2016, 11:46 AM
I'd have to disagree with this one. Society is getting worse as a whole. :sweatdrop:

On what basis do you claim this?
The internet isn't the problem, it just allows us to see the problem better.

Why are all these fish arguing with me? This can't be a coincidence, fish must be making everyone dumber!

abt79
02-26-2016, 11:59 AM
No. I think back then Children, teenagers, and people in general wearnt all profound idiots.

They're certainly not all profound idiots today.
Children are immature not because the Internet encourages it but because they've always been immature, their brains are less developed. I was immature as a kid, my parents were immature as kids, and pretty much everyone was because they had less like life experience and didn't have the brain power to fully comprehend right, wrong, and discretion.
Teenagers are and have always been insecure and cringeworthy because they've always been awkward with newly growing bodies, hormones raging, and more significantly grappling with the idea that adults aren't perfect.
Some adults are stupid, ill-informed, or foolish because of, well, a number of factors, but ultimately there have always been adults who can't see the error in their ways or who aren't just that smart.


See, that's how you base your claims on a premise without just pointing fingers and spouting baseless nonsense and expecting people to agree with you. So tell me, on what do you base your claim? Don't just say you respect my opinion and won't answer, you believe something that's just wrong.

Magicalfishy
02-26-2016, 03:36 PM
On what basis do you claim this?


Well take a step outside. The decisions and choices people are making these days are outrageous. It wouldn't take me more than 5 minutes in a city to spot something sadly.

Spotlight
02-26-2016, 03:40 PM
Well take a step outside. The decisions and choices people are making these days are outrageous. It wouldn't take me more than 5 minutes in a city to spot something sadly.

Very true, with the internet people feel as if they have to impress everybody, so they do stupid things. I guess Charles Darwin was correct.

On an off note, glad to see you back my man.

abt79
02-26-2016, 05:11 PM
Well take a step outside. The decisions and choices people are making these days are outrageous. It wouldn't take me more than 5 minutes in a city to spot something sadly.

And what, you think this didn't happen before our generation?
Pfft, no, we just now have a means of recording the stupid :poop: we do

peck
02-26-2016, 06:19 PM
The point of prison is to keep criminals away from society and "learn from what they did" and eventually be released. Life in prison provides no return to society. Ultamitely it should be a choice by the prisoner and not any judge.

Dont punish based of what is deserved, but what will make a change.

- - - Updated - - -


And what, you think this didn't happen before our generation?
Pfft, no, we just now have a means of recording the stupid :poop: we do

Agreed. I find the trend of millennials declaring the world doomed because of millennials funny.

peck
02-26-2016, 06:30 PM
I'd have to disagree with this one. Society is getting worse as a whole. :sweatdrop:
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/world-less-violent-stats_n_1026723.html

abt79
02-27-2016, 06:49 PM
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/world-less-violent-stats_n_1026723.html

Your point would be valid but that's the huffington post

Darn mate I'm on your side, why you gotta post things like that