71 replies to this topic

[thabto81]

Former gang member and founder of Los Angeles's gang The Crips Tookie Williams was put to execution today. Govenor Schwarzenegger refused clemency despite rabid protests by anti-death penalty advocates.

I myself am against the death penalty for both moral and practical reasons. I'll state my reasons why and then I'd like to hear what other people have to say.

Moral Reasons:
1) Killing a human being is wrong. End of story. Whether it be one man shooting another in the face or the government funding "humane" execution as punishment. Two wrongs don't make a right. It doesn't get any more clearer for me than that.

2) We are the only developed westernized country to still implement the death penalty (not even Mexico enforces it anymore). My question is why? Why would we as the self-proclaimed leader of the free world want to be on a list that includes Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and North Korea? I thought we were supposed to be better than them?

3) As a tax paying citizen I do not feel comfortable knowing that my money is supporting a cause I do not believe in. I'm sure if some of you really thought about it too you'd agree.

Pratical Reasons:
1) It's not a deterrant. There is no evidence that supports this idea on a grand scale so making such an argument is pointless. However, here's an interesting thought: if those who do believe it to be a deterrant truly feel that way than how is keeping the act private and airing it only on closed circuit television going to convince those who've led a life of crime to stop? If we're going to go all out and execute people than by all means let's really go all out. Air it on television. It could be it's own reality TV show, "Stay of Execution." Makes for some good water-cooler talk and office pools.

2) It costs more money to try, convict and incarcerate someone on the death penalty than it does to give them life in prison without parole.

- "In California, capital trials are six times more costly than other murder trials."
- "[D]efendants are much more likely to insist on a trial when they are facing a possible death sentence. After conviction, there are constitutionally mandated appeals which involve both prosecution and defense costs. Most of these costs occur in every case for which capital punishment is sought, regardless of the outcome. Thus, the true cost of the death penalty includes all the added expenses of the "unsuccessful" trials in which the death penalty is sought but not achieved."
- "In financially strapped California, one report estimated that the state could save $90 million each year by abolishing capital punishment."
[source]

3) Let's not beat around the bush here. It's racially biased. If you're a black male living in Philadelphia, for instance, the chances of you being charged with the death penalty are four times higher. And why shouldn't it be? Nearly 98% of all chief District Attorney's in counties using the death penalty are white males while only 1% are black. [source]

I could go on but I feel I've stated enough to sufficiently start the topic.

Edited by thabto81, 13 December 2005 - 06:22 PM.

[Korhend]

Moral Reasons:
1) Killing a human being is wrong. End of story. Whether it be one man shooting another in the face or the government funding "humane" execution as punishment. Two wrongs don't make a right. It doesn't get any more clearer for me than that.

Does that mean you believe being a soldier is "wrong"

2) We are the only developed westernized country to still implement the death penalty (not even Mexico enforces it anymore). My question is why? Why would we as the self-proclaimed leader of the free world want to be on a list that includes Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and North Korea? I thought we were supposed to be better than them?

You could just easily say that about just about any government policy. I can use it with equal ease to say the United States shouldn't have laws against armed robbery, being as all those countries have laws against it. Also Japan, South Korea, India, Kuwait Singapore and Taiwan all have the death penalty. While not "western" they are "westernized" besides which, what does being "westernized" have to do with the debate

3) As a tax paying citizen I do not feel comfortable knowing that my money is supporting a cause I do not believe in. I'm sure if some of you really thought about it too you'd agree.

This is a side effect of any form of government, ever. No government policy has 100% approval rating, so we all have to pay for things we don't like.

2) It costs more money to try, convict and incarcerate someone on the death penalty than it does to give them life in prison without parole.

It also can cost an exponential ammount larger for a life sentence then a swift execution.

3) Let's not beat around the bush here. It's racially biased. If you're a black male living in Philadelphia, for instance, the chances of you being charged with the death penalty are four times higher. And why shouldn't it be? Nearly 98% of all chief District Attorney's in counties using the death penalty are white males while only 1% are black. [source]

Still, that sounds like throwing the baby out with the bath water. The solution is in more balanced judges, by increasing the economic fairness (which incidently, would probably be the best way to deal with crime in the first place)

Edited by Korhend, 14 December 2005 - 04:31 PM.

[spunky-monkey]

1) Killing a human being is wrong. End of story.

2) We are the only developed westernized country to still implement the death penalty (not even Mexico enforces it anymore). My question is why?

3) Let's not beat around the bush here. It's racially biased. If you're a black male living in Philadelphia, for instance, the chances of you being charged with the death penalty are four times higher. And why shouldn't it be? Nearly 98% of all chief District Attorney's in counties using the death penalty are white males while only 1% are black.

1) Absolutely right. No so-called supporter of 'democracy and freedom' should enforce a Death Penalty.

2) I wonder why too, the UK stopped it ages ago (High treason I believe is still supposed to carry such punishment) America should have followed suit as well.

3) Justice as far as that is concerned is corrupt. People with 'authority' often are.

There were about 1,000 supporters to get rid of the Death Penalty last time I saw this story unfold, how these people can execute anyone, no matter what the crime, is beyond me...

[Hero of Winds]

Moral Reasons:
1) Death is not a black-and-white issue. Would you agree to letting bin Laden live?

2) Considering capital punishment isn't used very often, and is only reserved for the worst of the worst, I can't see how this could be a mark against our "leader of the free world" position. If anything, it'd be contradictory to that nature by letting said criminals live out the rest of their lives in prison. Incarcerated. Not free.

3) That's always going to happen. Like Korhend said, that's just the nature of a government and it's taxes.

Practical Reasons:
1) Are you serious? When has execution ever been private? In fact, I just read a Yahoo article a couple hours about it. Word will always get out to the people who need to be "deterred."

2) It's because capital punishment is so expensive that it's used sparingly.

3) Have you been to Philadelphia? Besides, it's not like these are instances of police brutality. Anybody put on death row did something to deserve it. While I'm sure there's a racial bias in the process, I don't think it's to the magnitude you seem to be implying. I'd be willing to bet (unless you can provide a source proving me otherwise) that most of those "racially biased" charges have more to do with the population of the surveyed area than anything else.

[Dryth]

Moral:

1. Agreed. And yes, I would let Bin Laden live: What specific benefits would his death result in? And, more important, what are the possible negative ramifications?

2. Because in all of our moral and intellectual superiority, we have discovered what all those other clods have failed at: Rehabilitation is impossible. People changing? Liberal hogwash. No coincidence it's PC. Everyone knows that vengeance equals justice.



3. 50% in favor fo the death penalty over life inprisonment. The margin of support is waning, so it at least makes sense to seriously consider the relevance of the death penalty. Funny that it's displaced in political campaigns by issues such as military history and how much money one's wife makes, though. Now I just wish that, as a tax payer, I could also be a voter.

Practical:

1. Agreed. Death is an abstract concept as it is. Life imprisonment and its many happy consequences less-so.

2. Money as it relates to human life shouldn't even need to be a point of discussion. It violates one of the two fundamentals of human morality, to paraphrase, "don't treat humans as objects."

3. Less an argument against the death penalty than for greater diversity in government.

[thabto81]

Does that mean you believe being a soldier is "wrong"

Yes. I'm not going to hurt anyone unless they are about to hurt someone I love. And I don't mean that in the abstract sense as in "we have to hurt them over there to protect our loved ones over here." That's just a bunch of hooey.

You could just easily say that about just about any government policy. I can use it with equal ease to say the United States shouldn't have laws against armed robbery, being as all those countries have laws against it. Also Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan all have the death penalty. While not "western" they are "westernized" besides which, what does being "westernized" have to do with the debate

Apples to oranges my friend. Unless that is you'd like to explain exactly how you can compare laws against robbery with laws against murder.

As far as the westernized issue goes it has everything to do with this topic. Afterall, we do proclaim ourselves as leaders of the free world. If we're such leaders then why don't we try leading once in a while?

This is a side effect of any form of government, ever. No government policy has 100% approval rating, so we all have to pay for things we don't like.

Dryth took care of this. All I have to say is to try reading the source material I provided. I didn't put it up there for my health you know.

It also can cost an exponential ammount larger for a life sentence then a swift execution.

Again, if you had read the source material (or even any of the quotes I provided) you'd realize just how baseless your statement is.

Still, that sounds like throwing the baby out with the bath water. The solution is in more balanced judges, by increasing the economic fairness (which incidently, would probably be the best way to deal with crime in the first place)

And exactly what are all the people who are on death row going to do until this idealic world of yours decides to surface?

Moral Reasons:
1) Death is not a black-and-white issue. Would you agree to letting bin Laden live?

Uh, yes, yes and yes. And just for the record I also don't support killing Saddam Hussein.

2) Considering capital punishment isn't used very often, and is only reserved for the worst of the worst, I can't see how this could be a mark against our "leader of the free world" position. If anything, it'd be contradictory to that nature by letting said criminals live out the rest of their lives in prison. Incarcerated. Not free.

The worst of the worst? Dude, we execute retarded people if they look at the Govenor funny. And if you can't see how it isn't a mark on our "leader of the free world" status then why don't you try asking people about it who are from another country. You know, like research?

3) That's always going to happen. Like Korhend said, that's just the nature of a government and it's taxes.

Once again, handled by Dryth. And once again, I'd like to ask you to read the source material I provided. I mean you, more than anyone else HoW, asks for it. So why don't you try reading it for a change?

Practical Reasons:
1) Are you serious? When has execution ever been private? In fact, I just read a Yahoo article a couple hours about it. Word will always get out to the people who need to be "deterred."

So are you in favor of public execution? I mean it certainly sounds like you believe it to be a deterrant. And if that's so then why not publicly air it on TV? I mean think of how many people you'd scare into never committing a single ever again!

Incidentally, reading about something in a Yahoo! article and watching it live, even if on television, are two completely different experiences. One is detached. The other puts it smack dab in your face. So perhaps I should be asking you, are you serious that you think you're getting your information first hand?

2) It's because capital punishment is so expensive that it's used sparingly.

I fail to see how you're countering my arguement. Are you saying that just because we're not doing it all the time that it's ok if a state hemorrhages money better used for other social programs like education and health care for children?

3) Have you been to Philadelphia? Besides, it's not like these are instances of police brutality. Anybody put on death row did something to deserve it. While I'm sure there's a racial bias in the process, I don't think it's to the magnitude you seem to be implying. I'd be willing to bet (unless you can provide a source proving me otherwise) that most of those "racially biased" charges have more to do with the population of the surveyed area than anything else.

Incidentally, I have been to Philadelphia for a vacation. But that doesn't really matter. What does matter is how you happen to know of every single death penalty case tried in the Philadelphia area and that you're so certain everyone on death row deserves to be on death row.

Also, I did provide a source. See?

3) Let's not beat around the bush here. It's racially biased. If you're a black male living in Philadelphia, for instance, the chances of you being charged with the death penalty are four times higher. And why shouldn't it be? Nearly 98% of all chief District Attorney's in counties using the death penalty are white males while only 1% are black. [source]

It's right there. I even made it in bold this time so you wouldn't miss it.

Edited by thabto81, 14 December 2005 - 01:07 AM.

[Selena]

Personally, I think we should bring gladiators back.




....What? If there's gonna be reality tv, at least make it something that's actually entertaining.








Yes, that's sarcasm. *riot shield*

[Veteran]

I see death as a quick, easy and relatively cheaper way of removing a 'criminal' from society when compared with prison. Screw rehabilitation and reintegration!

By 'criminal' I'm meaning the one's at the high end of the spectrum, eg 1st degree murderers.

I'd much rather they be gone completely from the world instead of being left in a prison that costs money. The system isn't flawless, no system is flawless. The last person to be hanged in Britain turned out to be innocent!

I'm not going to defend the death penalty properly seeing as I have no real argument! The reverse is morally right, and as a society you shouldn't really punish in the manner of the criminal.
But that doesn't stop me from finding the death penalty cool! Maybe because I don't value humanity enough, I don't know.



Aside, did you expect The Terminator to grant clemency? Bah!

[Wolf O'Donnell]

No, I expected the Terminator to wage a War on Crime and go off to fight the war himself, armed to the teeth with weapons. In other words, I expected him to miss the plot entirely.

Come to think of it, I think he already did the miss point. Maybe he was thinking no way should this Tookie Williams be allowed to live any longer in prison, profitting off the books he created ever since he started denouncing gangs.

I'm more worried about that pensioner who was kidnapped by "Swords of Truth". I still haven't heard anything about him. Of course, I've assumed he was dead ever since the deadline passed, but still...

[Steel Samurai]

Personally, I think we should bring gladiators back.




....What? If there's gonna be reality tv, at least make it something that's actually entertaining.








Yes, that's sarcasm. *riot shield*

YES!!! Wait. You were being sarcastic? Dang. At least then they would have a chance to survive a little longer . . if they were good enough.

Seriously, money aside, and politics aside, I think we should kill first degree murderers because they deserve it. They've killed someone with full knowledge and intention of what they were doing, and no reason which would justify it. They need to die. What if they ever escaped from prison? What would happen then? They would go back to their murdering lifestyle.

[Showsni]

You shouldn't ever take a life. Except possibly in self defence. Of course, sometimes you can't help it - say, if you get a cold, for example.

And if you're going to kill someone anyway, why not turn it into a gladiatorial contest? Surely the prisoners would prefer living for a little longer, perhaps even becoming famous, then being executed?

And if you want it to be a deterrant, you should have public executions. Hang the body up on a gibbet in the town centre afterwards. Otherwise, it's like you're ashamed of the act - as if you already know it's wrong.

[Oberon Storm]

I have no problem with the death sentence. Charles Manson should have been strapped to there chair a long time ago. Is it a deterrent? No. So I say stop using it as a deterrent.

In this case, I don't know if he really did it or not. He maintained his innocence though. I don't see how tat matters. So what if he didn't atone for something he says he didn't do. He could have been allowed to live to continue steering young black kids away from gangs. A resource was wasted.

[Hero of Winds]

Uh, yes, yes and yes. And just for the record I also don't support killing Saddam Hussein.

Care to explain why?

The worst of the worst? Dude, we execute retarded people if they look at the Govenor funny.

I can't believe you'd try to *secretly* take jabs at me, and then go around and write something like this.

And if you can't see how it isn't a mark on our "leader of the free world" status then why don't you try asking people about it who are from another country. You know, like research?

Oh, I'll get right on that. I think I have just enough time to poll the entire free world to get their opinions on capital punishment.

Once again, handled by Dryth. And once again, I'd like to ask you to read the source material I provided. I mean you, more than anyone else HoW, asks for it. So why don't you try reading it for a change?

I didn't realize there was a sign on my back that indicated I've been asking for it. Especially since I haven't been in Contro for quite some time.

So are you in favor of public execution? I mean it certainly sounds like you believe it to be a deterrant. And if that's so then why not publicly air it on TV? I mean think of how many people you'd scare into never committing a single ever again!

I couldn't care less if executions became more publicized. Some people (actually, probably a good deal of people) may not want to watch a man die, unless it was a figure of universal hatred (Stalin, Hussein, etc). But I see no problem with it, especially since I can choose to not watch such an execution.

Incidentally, reading about something in a Yahoo! article and watching it live, even if on television, are two completely different experiences. One is detached. The other puts it smack dab in your face. So perhaps I should be asking you, are you serious that you think you're getting your information first hand?

What exactly are you implying by saying "are you serious that you think you're getting your information first hand?" That the article I read contains false information about the execution? Clarify for me, if you will.

And while reading about an execution, and watching it live, are two different experiences, they have something in common (which I just addressed): I can choose to not watch it.

I fail to see how you're countering my arguement. Are you saying that just because we're not doing it all the time that it's ok if a state hemorrhages money better used for other social programs like education and health care for children?

But that's why capital punishment is used sparingly. Because it does take money from other social programs.

But to be honest, if the death penalty can leave said programs in such financial disarray, then I think there's a much larger problem at hand.

Incidentally, I have been to Philadelphia for a vacation. But that doesn't really matter. What does matter is how you happen to know of every single death penalty case tried in the Philadelphia area and that you're so certain everyone on death row deserves to be on death row.

And you do? Better yet, not only are you aware of every death penalty case in Philadelphia, but you also know what went through the heads of the people who gave out those sentences?

Also, I did provide a source. See?

It's right there. I even made it in bold this time so you wouldn't miss it.

If you're going to circumvent the rules to insult me, then I think you could add a bit more subtlety to it next time. I just look up to you that much.

[Korhend]

Yes. I'm not going to hurt anyone unless they are about to hurt someone I love. And I don't mean that in the abstract sense as in "we have to hurt them over there to protect our loved ones over here." That's just a bunch of hooey.

So for example, D-day was immoral?

Apples to oranges my friend. Unless that is you'd like to explain exactly how you can compare laws against robbery with laws against murder.

The point is its not executing murderers that make North Korea a bad nation.

As far as the westernized issue goes it has everything to do with this topic. Afterall, we do proclaim ourselves as leaders of the free world. If we're such leaders then why don't we try leading once in a while?

So your essentailly relying on ethnocentrism as your argument.

Dryth took care of this. All I have to say is to try reading the source material I provided. I didn't put it up there for my health you know.

How exactly? By providing an article that says 64% of people are in favor of the death penalty? Are you arguing that unless something has above 64% approval rating, the government isn't allowed to do it?

Again, if you had read the source material (or even any of the quotes I provided) you'd realize just how baseless your statement is.

A bullet costs 30 cents, the most cost effective prison in the united states costs 50 cents to feed a prisoner a day.

And exactly what are all the people who are on death row going to do until this idealic world of yours decides to surface?

Perhaps we shouldn't pay for people to work either, as the salaries of people are discriminatory based on race. Your the one with the idealic world. Nothing should be done thats not perfect.

And if you can't see how it isn't a mark on our "leader of the free world" status then why don't you try asking people about it who are from another country. You know, like research?

Again, showing contempt for the eastern world.

Incidentally, I have been to Philadelphia for a vacation. But that doesn't really matter. What does matter is how you happen to know of every single death penalty case tried in the Philadelphia area and that you're so certain everyone on death row deserves to be on death row.

A little concept called "Due process of law". You have a better way to try criminals I'd like to hear it

Edited by Korhend, 14 December 2005 - 04:27 PM.

[thabto81]

Care to explain why?

I did, in my first post.

Oh, I'll get right on that. I think I have just enough time to poll the entire free world to get their opinions on capital punishment.

You and your melodrama. I said people from other countries. Not other countries in their entirety. Also, perhaps you're unfamiliar with the idea of 'polls' but they're meant to give an overview about an issue from a particular group of people. Obviously, no one can take a poll of every single person living.

I couldn't care less if executions became more publicized. Some people (actually, probably a good deal of people) may not want to watch a man die, unless it was a figure of universal hatred (Stalin, Hussein, etc). But I see no problem with it, especially since I can choose to not watch such an execution.

This is exactly the point I'm trying to make. Do you think execution would still the have support it does if it were aired publicly? On a side note, I think it's disgusting that you'd have no problem watching a human being murdered in front of your eyes. You must be either incredibly jaded or just plain disturbed.

What exactly are you implying by saying "are you serious that you think you're getting your information first hand?" That the article I read contains false information about the execution? Clarify for me, if you will.

No. It means exactly what I said it means. You're getting your information in a detached form. You're not seeing the person dying you're having it transcribed to you.

But that's why capital punishment is used sparingly. Because it does take money from other social programs.

But to be honest, if the death penalty can leave said programs in such financial disarray, then I think there's a much larger problem at hand.

So we're in agreement then?

And you do? Better yet, not only are you aware of every death penalty case in Philadelphia, but you also know what went through the heads of the people who gave out those sentences?

I never made the outlandish comment "Anybody put on death row did something to deserve it." You did. All I did was simply state a quote from a source you were too lazy to read.

So for example, D-day was immoral?

We're celebrating people who killed other people. You can glamorize the war hero all you want but unless you've read any soldier testimonial from any war not just the last "good' war (if ever there was an oxymoron) a great majority of them were distraught by the killing.

So your essentailly relying on ethnocentrism as your argument.

No, you are. You seem to think my comments about this country as "leader of the free world" has something to do with race. It doesn't.

How exactly? By providing an article that says 64% of people are in favor of the death penalty? Are you arguing that unless something has above 64% approval rating, the government isn't allowed to do it?

Before I respond I'd like you to point out which source and where it says 64% of people in favor of the death penalty. I ask because I'm not finding it.

A bullet costs 30 cents, the most cost effective prison in the united states costs 50 cents to feed a prisoner a day.

I really don't know where you're getting this from. And I'm not sure why it matters how much a bullet costs?

Perhaps we shouldn't pay for people to work either, as the salaries of people are discriminatory based on race. Your the one with the idealic world. Nothing should be done thats not perfect.

I continue to be amazed at how you can compare apples to oranges.

Again, showing contempt for the eastern world.

Are you serious? Fine, I hate asian people. I also hate middle easterners, africans, and hispanics (a self-hating hispanic apparently). Look, if you have nothing better to say then spout nonsense then don't say anything. And perhaps you forgot, I hate americans most of all. Makes me wonder why I desire change so fervantly if it is so obviously past the point of no return.

A little concept called "Due process of law". You have a better way to try criminals I'd like to hear it.

And innocent people can't be tried wrongfully? Pay attention to what Hero of Winds stated so uncategorically in his first post here: "Anybody put on death row did something to deserve it."

Edited by thabto81, 14 December 2005 - 06:10 PM.

[Toan]

Mmkay, riddle me this:

Killing a human being is wrong. End of story.

...Why?

Why is only killing a human wrong? Why not other living things - dogs, cats, horses, deer, cow, hell - even trees, carrots, lettuce etc.? I could go outside and shoot a duck (if any are still around) and most of this thread could care less.

[Alakhriveion]

First things first: I am not opposed to the death penalty, no matter how many hippie points that costs me. There's people who deserve to die- Charlie Manson was mentioned. I'd bring up Eichmann. I don't, however, support the death penalty for murder, even multiple murders, and especially murders for monetary gain, and I really, really, dislike prisons. The idea that every crime is equal to a period of detention is just stupid, and it creates crime rather than discouraging it.

As for Tookie, he's reformed. He helped negotiate peace in one of the longest standing and bloodiest gang feuds. He may not have even committed the crimes he was executed for. He wrote children's books, for God's sake! Did he deserve to die? Well, that's the call of an ex-body builder elected in a surreal special election, not me.

[thabto81]

Mmkay, riddle me this:

...Why?

Why is only killing a human wrong? Why not other living things - dogs, cats, horses, deer, cow, hell - even trees, carrots, lettuce etc.? I could go outside and shoot a duck (if any are still around) and most of this thread could care less.

Because this topic is about the death penalty on human beings. I'm not one for killing anything (I hate even killing spiders) but bugs and animals are not the issue. Humans are. So let's stick to it.

First things first: I am not opposed to the death penalty, no matter how many hippie points that costs me. There's people who deserve to die- Charlie Manson was mentioned. I'd bring up Eichmann. I don't, however, support the death penalty for murder, even multiple murders, and especially murders for monetary gain, and I really, really, dislike prisons. The idea that every crime is equal to a period of detention is just stupid, and it creates crime rather than discouraging it.

It amazes me how you can deal out death and judgement so easily. Who are you to decide such things? Who is anybody? If you support the killing of Charles Manson than how is that any different than him supporting his followers to kill those poor people on Cieolo Drive? What? Just because he did it first makes it ok for you to do it as well?

Edited by thabto81, 15 December 2005 - 03:17 AM.

[Veteran]

Because this topic is about the death penalty on human beings. I'm not one for killing anything (I hate even killing spiders) but bugs and animals are not the issue. Humans are. So let's stick to it.

Sorry, since you said this:

"On a side note, I think it's disgusting that you'd have no problem watching a human being murdered in front of your eyes. You must be either incredibly jaded or just plain disturbed."

...you've brought up the topic of the value of human life.

It amazes me how you can deal out death and judgement so easily. Who are you to decide such things? Who is anybody?

Heh, I'm sure you can bring better merit to your argument than Lord of the Rings quotes

[Showsni]

(High treason I believe is still supposed to carry such punishment)

Actually, I think that was repealed in 1999 or something.

[thabto81]

Heh, I'm sure you can bring better merit to your argument than Lord of the Rings quotes

And I'm sure you can to your argument by actually submitting something worth contributing.

Edited by thabto81, 15 December 2005 - 12:44 PM.

[Veteran]

I'm not arguing one side or the other.

[Toan]

And I'm sure you can to your argument by actually submitting something worth contributing.

Well, for starters here, it would be helpful if there were a verb in the above fragment, preferably between the words 'can' and 'to'.

And contributing? You first:

Sorry, since you said this:

"On a side note, I think it's disgusting that you'd have no problem watching a human being murdered in front of your eyes. You must be either incredibly jaded or just plain disturbed."

...you've brought up the topic of the value of human life.

[Alakhriveion]

It amazes me how you can deal out death and judgement so easily. Who are you to decide such things? Who is anybody? If you support the killing of Charles Manson than how is that any different than him supporting his followers to kill those poor people on Cieolo Drive? What? Just because he did it first makes it ok for you to do it as well?

No. Because he did it first means that he, being fucked up in the head, is likely to do something else, and is clearly not above killing and brainwashing and such. Also, the extreme nature of his crimes makes death the only fair punishment.

[Selena]

It amazes me how you can deal out death and judgement so easily.

Judgement is sort of up to humans. Well, and it's an online debate with people we've never met. We can throw out opinions.

Actually, I'm wondering how you would handle the cases of criminals who've committed heinous crimes. Lifetime imprisonment? Well... what if they posed a threat to the guards and other inmates? Solitary confinement? Can't hide society's problems away forever. I'm one for people finding their redemption, which is why I'm against killing someone off for just one murder. That ol' softy side of me. But if they refuse to change and are violent even within the prison... well, for the good of the whole. But that's really the only time I'd advocate the death penalty.

It'd be a nice world if something like the death penalty wasn't needed, or if no one murdered at all, but life sucks. And no, people are not always going to make the right decisions when it comes to punishment. We're imperfect creatures who are often influenced by our emotions. The downside of being animals. But since none of these so-called divine beings are gonna try our cases for us or keep order, it's up to us, unfortunately.



And on a side note, I think Toan's questions are fully relevant. And to answer them I say.... just a taboo we have in society! Somebody kills one person, then soon everybody will wanna kill that annoying guy on the subway. You give an inch, they take a mile, and soon humanity would end. XP

Edited by Selena, 15 December 2005 - 03:25 PM.

[Dryth]

I don't see where attempting to draw in other living entities is relevant? We hold humans to different standards than animals. This permeates every single aspect of our society, and the question seems to be a strawman with no constructive basis against the topic at hand; pursuing it would only highlight the fact that it's slippery slope fallacy, waste a lot of time, and further derail the topic. It might make for an interesting topic of discussion... in a different thread.

With respect to keeping people alive, there's no particular justice in killing them, and they make for excellent case studies. The likes of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are absolutely fantastic examples: If the war on terror has made anything clear, it's that the US administration has no flipping clue how the minds of these men work. One line of reasoning justify the veracity of Bush's claims regarding a connection between the two, and the latter having WMDs, is the fact that both him and his experts were projecting their own biases, acting on what would seem to be obvious actions on the part of Saddam and Osama. Obvious because it's what they would do if situations were reversed. But why, knowing this is inherently flawed? Because they have an extremely limited library of counter-considerations. Each man's life story would make for volumes of case study material. With us now being warned by the likes of Rumsfeld of the ideological war on terror, the last thing we should be thinking about is cutting short the lives of our reference points.

The same applies to the likes of Charles Manson: In less heated battlefields they become central figures of psychology courses. These psychology students are then unleashed upon society better equipped to deal with such nutcases in the future. Holy cow, did we just come up with a proactive instead of a reactionary approach to treating the criminal mind? Or - get this - pursue the the notion that the criminal mind might actually be treatable through further study?

Nah, that's just hippie garbage, I'd rather scare the weirdos straight with the threat of death! The threat of death works for me, and since I'm also obviously mentally unsound just like they are, surely it's the ideal solution to deter them as well! Besides, we all know that dangerous criminals are magical escape-artist voodoo doctors whose very continued existence slowly corrupts the prison system...

[dcLx]

Yes I saw this....He truly became a good man after his years in jail and he still was in jail...I think Arnold made a real bad decision on this, yes he did start Crip a very infamous gang and which led to many others but still they had gangs before him

All I can say is R.I.P

Edited by DaHustla6953, 15 December 2005 - 04:58 PM.

[thabto81]

Well, for starters here, it would be helpful if there were a verb in the above fragment, preferably between the words 'can' and 'to'.

Is this the best you can do, Toan? Seriously. Attacking my grammar errors and typos?

Perhaps you'd like to actually contribute something instead of trying to knock the topic off the ledge?

[Selena]

*sigh*

That post wasn't exactly contributing either, so maybe the subtle little attacks from either side of the argument could stop.

[Korhend]

We're celebrating people who killed other people. You can glamorize the war hero all you want but unless you've read any soldier testimonial from any war not just the last "good' war (if ever there was an oxymoron) a great majority of them were distraught by the killing.

So you would have just let them be?

No, you are. You seem to think my comments about this country as "leader of the free world" has something to do with race. It doesn't.

Thats why I said ethnocentrism, your arguments state that
"As far as the westernized issue goes it has everything to do with this topic. Afterall, we do proclaim ourselves as leaders of the free world."
See, direct connection of free world and "westernized"/

Before I respond I'd like you to point out which source and where it says 64% of people in favor of the death penalty. I ask because I'm not finding it.

Ah, so now whos not reading the source material?
http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/4491106.stm

I really don't know where you're getting this from. And I'm not sure why it matters how much a bullet costs?

If you can't see the direct connection between cost of a bullet and cost of an execution...

I continue to be amazed at how you can compare apples to oranges.

I continue to be amazed that you have difficulty grasping basic logical errors.

Are you serious? Fine, I hate asian people. I also hate middle easterners, africans, and hispanics (a self-hating hispanic apparently).

Hispanics are "western" but if you haven't noticed, when you say "people in other countries" you mean "People in the European Union". The four most populous nations on earth all favor the use of the death penalty.

And innocent people can't be tried wrongfully? Pay attention to what Hero of Winds stated so uncategorically in his first post here: "Anybody put on death row did something to deserve it."

And you have a better way of determining their innocence? I'd like to see you turn 200 years of legal experts on their ear with your solution. My position is more correct "There is no better way to determined if anyone put on death row didn't do something to deserve it." Besides, don't your arguments of supposed "racial bias"
apply to prison sentences too? And arrests? Doesn't that mean we should get rid of all of them because a tiny minority might be wrong?