Are you for or against capital punishment?

[nationalist]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
A friend of mine was nearly murdered by a community when his ex-girlfriend accused him of being a pedophile. That is what your "morality" leads to, vigilanteism against the innocent.

Fingerprints on a dead, raped body say something about a man's guilt, chief. I feel for your friend or any other falsely accused, but if it is proven that he did the crime, then his life is forfiet. If your friend did rape and murder a child, then he should die. Anyway, what position are you into talk to me about morality? I don't think that an athiest can truly grasp morality. Where there are no absolutes, there are no morals, and there is no real difference between right and wrong.

[Kramerman]

Says a wussy teen who doesn't know jack squat. You wouldn't last a week in prison. You'd be raped, constantly. The guards wouldn't protect you. You'd probably kill yourself to escape fairly quickly

erm...right. In prison they get a roof over their head, a bed to sleep on, clean laundry, 3 meals a day. They have an excersie yard, a library, television, family visits, congical visits, and even friggin internet access. That is damncushy by prison standards. Go to China if you dont know what I mean. Being a teen as i am, I would go to juevenile detention, not a federal or state prison. Furthermore, I would never kill myself. I would simpliy ask my lawyer to bring rape charges against those who rape me. If the prison wouldnt transfer me for endangerment of my life thereafter, then I could sue. No why I can do all that? Cause our prison system is so damn cushy!

[Kramerman]

Prison changes people, and not for the better. Hence the 60% recidivism rate

The high rate is because prison doesnt reform people, it only serves as a forum for crooks to learn new ideas and such, so when they are released, they want to try new stuff, thinking they might be able to get away with it this time. That is how prison changes people, not because it is harsh and violent.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by paiktis22
oerdin, the threat of torture has been canceled from the consciousness of humanity as a "leagl" or "justified" retribution. (even retribution per se has been disqualified since it is revenge). I think the DP will follow that road. the US is sharing the DP with countries like Iraq and Saudi Arabia after all.

Edit: After rereading paiktis's quote I realize I missunderstood what she said. Torture has been outlawed in most cases you're right. /edit

Torture? I didn't mention a word about torture nor do I advicate torture as part of a sound legal system. As for DP being canceled from the consciousness of humanity... well, here you are confusing modern liberal European views as being the consciousness of humanity. The US is not connected to the EU and has every right to carry on it's own discusion and to reach its own conclusion about whither capital punishment is effective and justified.

The results of this discusion is that capital punishment can only be administered under very strictly defined guidelines and the means of exicution must be such that it minimizes pain and suffering for the condemned in every way possible. The defendent also gets numerous appeals and judicial reviews including automatic hearings by the United States Supreme Court. There is also a lengthy waiting period which often lasts up to two decades just encase new evidience should happen to come to light.

Can the system be made better? Yes, and it is constinently under review, however, this doesn't change the fact that the punishment must fit the crime and the death penalty is a legal and effective tool of both punishment and deterence.

That said I think Paiktis is right that a life sentence should mean the guilty spend the rest of their life in prision and not be parolled in 10 or 20 years. Use of this law would help to minimize the number of executions.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
A friend of mine was nearly murdered by a community when his ex-girlfriend accused him of being a pedophile. That is what your "morality" leads to, vigilanteism against the innocent.

How was he "nearly murdered"? I agree that, if he was innocent, these people had no right to do as they did.

But, pedphiles are disgusting, period. He was marked by being called a pedophile. It is a black mark that may not ever go away.

However, the "morality" behind what they felt, was reasonable. The fact that they felt it about an innocent man is not.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


Well I won't call you a sicko personally, but believe me, I consider M/P/R to be a sickness. They need to be incarcerated for theirs and everyone else's protection. If they can be reformed, yes, but the chances are that no one could be ever confident enough to ever release them. To some degree there would seem very little worthwhile point in their existence, as the cost of incarceration would be extortionate over the years...besides my whole objection to capital punishment is regarding mistakes in the judicial system...my evaluation of the life of someone who could never be a functional part of society is very low, and hence my ambivalence to the whole issue...

Now thats a rational arguement.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by nationalist
That doesn't seem to be his point at all. Let me quote him.

"You are the kind of peole this world needs to be protected from"

Doesn't seem like a rational argument here.

"Why, was your little girl raped and murdered? How I might feel about a person who injured me directly, and about a person who has not affected my in any way are two different things.

The sad fact is, you are almost as disgusting a person, because you enjoy the thought of committing torture. You rationalize it away by claiming that these are unworthy people, but the fact is, if you can torture them, you can torture anyone. You're ****ing sick. The world needs to be protected from sick ****s like you."

This statement has two parts. 1st: Why should anyone care that strongly about something that doesn't directly affect him. It didn't happen to me, so I don't think that the man should be tortured.

2nd: Since it doesn't want me to torture him, then it shouldn't make you want to torture him either. Since it does, then you must have something wrong with you. He hasn't done anything worth torture in my eyes, so he isn't deserving of torture. If you could torture him, then you could torture anyone. Therefore, you are sick.

This post also doesn't reflect your claim that he means:"why should the state exact revenge on behalf of the bereaved, when their function should be reform and the safety of the public."

However, your posts all are centered around this hypothesis. I think that you are sympathetic towards Che and his ideas, and therefore want to imbue his posts with your ideas. You disagree with me, so you want to make me out to be an aggressive idiot. I can have a discussion with you, but I am going to treat your arguments as yours and not as Che's.

This is also a rational arguement. It can be argued to be true or false, but none the less, it is rational.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
Really? He seems to be more upset about victims(family members) venting their angers than murderers carrying out their heineous deeds.

Was he advocating that victims(family members) receive a greater punishment for murdering a murderer than the murderer would otherwise receive? Doubtful, especially since the revenge murders would probably only get the victims(family members) locked up for second-degree murder as opposed to first-degree murder.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Oerdin
If one innocent life is lost but 10,000 innocent lives are saved because the killer was detered then I'd say we were still 9,999 innocent lives ahead.

If the numbers weren't so severe, i.e. if 2000 innocent lives were lost but 10,000 innocent lives were saved as a result, then would you still say that the system was 8,000 innocent lives ahead? What if the numbers were 9,999 innocents put to death for 10,000 innocents saved: are you still one innocent ahead?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by nationalist
BTW, I do think that the man should be tortured to death. Isn't that what he did to the 5 year old girl? He deserves no better.

Eye for an eye, eh?

Does this clear things up for you, loinburger?

I understand now. Che didn't say "I think that murderers are bad," therefore he must think that murderers are good.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If it is proven with DNA and really no doubt, then fry the bastards.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by nationalist
I don't think that an athiest can truly grasp morality.

Says the guy who wants to torture people.

Where there are no absolutes, there are no morals, and there is no real difference between right and wrong.

What do you base your morality off of, nationalist? Carrots and sticks? "If I don't kill people then God will give me a carrot, but if I kill people then God will hit me with a stick" type of deal? That a pretty pathetic way to decide right from wrong.

Name a moral absolute for me, since you're so keen on them. Obviously "Don't torture people" isn't one of them, just as "Don't kill without just cause" isn't one either (unless you're of the mind that "Because he makes me mad!" is a just cause for killing somebody, of course).

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Kramerman
I would simpliy ask my lawyer to bring rape charges against those who rape me. If the prison wouldnt transfer me for endangerment of my life thereafter, then I could sue.

Assuming you can afford a lawyer, of course. If not, well, then I guess you'd be SOL.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by loinburger
If the numbers weren't so severe, i.e. if 2000 innocent lives were lost but 10,000 innocent lives were saved as a result, then would you still say that the system was 8,000 innocent lives ahead? What if the numbers were 9,999 innocents put to death for 10,000 innocents saved: are you still one innocent ahead?

Seeings how less then 100 people are executed per year in the US (I believe but I'm guessing there) I would say it is completely non-sensical to discuss "what ifs" that involve 9,999 or even 8,000. The fact remains the number executed is exceedingly modest where as the number detered is, presumably, quite large.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Oerdin
...I would say it is completely non-sensical to discuss "what ifs" that involve 9,999 or even 8,000.

Granted, I wasn't asking as part of an argument for why CP ought not to be allowed. I was only wondering whether the scale made a significant difference, and how the cut-off point would be determined.