Death Penalty, do you EVER support it (With Poll)

[Ayn Rand]

I think it's a bit horrendous to kill somebody for something they might do in the future.

It depends on the extreme to which it is taken, and who it is applied against. It can be legitimately applied to people who have already murdered. However, it would be a violation of individual rights to start a minority report style inquisition or some similar scheme to pre-emptively kill suspects etc.

As it stands the death penalty is much more expensive than life in prison. I'm no expert, but added rehabilitation efforts shouldn't cost that much, and the benefits will come back to us(less crime to deal with). I know I can only speculate about that sort of thing, but if justice systems like Norway are any indication, I think I'm on the right track.

Fair enough, but we are just arguing over figures here. The figures will influence policy, but they don't change the fundamental moral principles which I think are the real issue here.

The real question is whether DP is morally acceptable or unacceptable - I think we simply established that sometimes the numbers will support the pro-DP and sometimes they will support the anti-DP.

Look, just because some innocent people are regrettably killed for reasons that deal with security(like I said, necessary evil), doesn't everyone worse than them automatically has to die. In the poll you checked that you think murderers should die. I take it to mean you don't think fraudsters, thieves, rapists, or whatever should get the death penalty either, yet they are clearly less innocent than those women and children that die in war.

There are two principles at issue here, so to clarify they are;

1) Whether murderers should be executed
2) Whether it is acceptable to execute a small number of innocent prisoners as well

1) Whether murderers should die or not, has nothing to do with innocent people being killed in war [as you pointed out]. I wasn't mixing the two points.

2) The second issue is the important one - an important anti-DP argument is that some innocents will be executed. You clearly state that it is acceptable to kill innocent people in war. Indeed, some of them are children, and they don't get a fair trial or an appeal.

I therefore win this point - you cannot claim that you are opposed to the death of innocent people to maintain order, because you aren't. I believe you can only argue about relative costs and benefits, not about the principle.

It's not ok, just better than the alternative. Lesser of two evils type of thing.

Yes I do, unnecessary killing is always wrong.

Again, we have common ground. Our positions are not as far apart as you might think.

Throwing money at something doesn't necessarily make it more efficient.

I asked you to justify money spent on prison systems and rehabilitation. This is rather a blase shrug-off - the money spent on the prison system, like all economic goods, can be spent on alternatives such as curing diseases or saving dying children. Please justify your priorities or cede this point [I assume you wouldn't want the DP implemented simply because it was cheaper, so you need to be able to defend this principle even if you consider anti-DP to be the best current economic option, because it may not be the best economic option in all places at all times]

 

[nonconformist]

With all due respect, ayn, I think it's best to leave the thread to be cleared up by some heavy duty moderation, man

 

[GhostWriter16]

With all due respect, ayn, I think it's best to leave the thread to be cleared up by some heavy duty moderation, man

But his post was legitimate. The nonsense stuff about the Pope should be removed but the thread is fine.

 

[Ayn Rand]

But his post was legitimate.

Thank you. Next time we'll win the DP debate - it just takes nerves of steel

 

[civver_764]

It depends on the extreme to which it is taken, and who it is applied against. It can be legitimately applied to people who have already murdered. However, it would be a violation of individual rights to start a minority report style inquisition or some similar scheme to pre-emptively kill suspects etc.

This is circular logic. ie murderers should be killed, since murderers may kill in the future it is best to kill them(and justified because they already murdered someone), therefore murderers should be killed.

Probably didn't word that very well but you get the point.

Fair enough, but we are just arguing over figures here. The figures will influence policy, but they don't change the fundamental moral principles which I think are the real issue here.

The real question is whether DP is morally acceptable or unacceptable - I think we simply established that sometimes the numbers will support the pro-DP and sometimes they will support the anti-DP.

1) Give me an example of when they support the pro-DP position.
2) If we're talking about morals what do numbers have to do with this?

There are two principles at issue here, so to clarify they are;

1) Whether murderers should be executed
2) Whether it is acceptable to execute a small number of innocent prisoners as well

1) Whether murderers should die or not, has nothing to do with innocent people being killed in war [as you pointed out]. I wasn't mixing the two points.

2) The second issue is the important one - an important anti-DP argument is that some innocents will be executed. You clearly state that it is acceptable to kill innocent people in war. Indeed, some of them are children, and they don't get a fair trial or an appeal.

I therefore win this point - you cannot claim that you are opposed to the death of innocent people to maintain order, because you aren't. I believe you can only argue about relative costs and benefits, not about the principle.

You're completely missing my point. Like I said, I only support people dying in war if it serves some greater cause. Therefore, their death can be cited as necessary.

Innocent people who die due to wrongful conviction aren't dying for any good reason, which is the main distinction. No one is being saved by killing murderers, you're just...killing a defenseless person. You have yet to explain how it maintains order either.

I asked you to justify money spent on prison systems and rehabilitation. This is rather a blase shrug-off - the money spent on the prison system, like all economic goods, can be spent on alternatives such as curing diseases or saving dying children. Please justify your priorities or cede this point [I assume you wouldn't want the DP implemented simply because it was cheaper, so you need to be able to defend this principle even if you consider anti-DP to be the best current economic option, because it may not be the best economic option in all places at all times]

Fine, you win. We have to prioritize. Or rather, specialize. Some segments will deal with crime to make society a better place, others deal with medical issues. It is regrettable that people suffer with diseases but I consider rehabilitation of convicts just as beneficial because it just betters society in general. I don't know how to describe it more than that. How do you justify using money on anything but saving dying children? Like I said before, there's better ways to address those problems.

I do support solutions to all the problems you mentioned though. If we had world wide communism there would be no need for money and these silly budget problems would be no more.

 

[kosiosko 1]

EDIT: @Civver- I'm not trying to troll people, but if they're going to dislike me, I say, Oh well, I stand by my opinions. I wouldn't expect socialists (And I'm talking to most people here) to like me. But I'd appreciate it if you'd be respectful and actually debate.

its not you we dislike
its got stuff all to do with socialism , if you think it has, debate that point....debate any point, instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and going nah nah nan nah

But I'd appreciate it if you'd be respectful and actually debate.

you asked for our opinions we didn't start the thread and poll.... be carefull what you wish for

 

[GhostWriter16]

Thank you. Next time we'll win the DP debate - it just takes nerves of steel

Its definitely winnable. I'm actually debating the issue in September, difference is its against another Christian in a church, so scripture is valid there. Its tougher when you can't use it.

Innocent people who die due to wrongful conviction aren't dying for any good reason, which is the main distinction. No one is being saved by killing murderers, you're just...killing a defenseless person. You have yet to explain how it maintains order either.

Fine, you win. We have to prioritize. Or rather, specialize. Some segments will deal with crime to make society a better place, others deal with medical issues. It is regrettable that people suffer with diseases but I consider rehabilitation of convicts just as beneficial because it just betters society in general. I don't know how to describe it more than that. How do you justify using money on anything but saving dying children? Like I said before, there's better ways to address those problems.

I do support solutions to all the problems you mentioned though. If we had world wide communism there would be no need for money and these silly budget problems would be no more.

Its true the innocents die for no reason, but the guilty die to serve justice. Also, what about the person that gets life, escapes and kills someone else. What is his punishment then? Nothing more.

 

[Arakhor]

Its definitely winnable. I'm actually debating the issue in September, difference is its against another Christian in a church, so scripture is valid there. Its tougher when you can't use it.

Fancy that! If "God says so" isn't eligible, you might actually need to debate

 

[GhostWriter16]

Fancy that! If "God says so" isn't eligible, you might actually need to debate

Not "If God says so" but "The Bible says..."

I also BELIEVE if we speedily and publically executed murderers less innocents would die of murder.

 

[PiMan]

I think the debate is simple. If you think the purpose of the judiciary is revenge and retribution, then the death penalty makes sense. If you think the purpose is rehabilitation, then the death penalty, and even life without parole, should be completely out of the question.

I believe the purpose should be rehabilitation.

 

[Ayn Rand]

This is circular logic. ie murderers should be killed, since murderers may kill in the future it is best to kill them(and justified because they already murdered someone), therefore murderers should be killed.

Probably didn't word that very well but you get the point.

Yes - we are just based at different positions along the axis of when it is acceptable to kill a person, based on their future actions/intent. I'm not sure this is the strongest argument that can be raised in favour of the DP - upon reflection it could be interpreted as totalitarian. However, it does add some weight to the pro-DP position IMO, but is not decisive.

1) Give me an example of when they support the pro-DP position.
2) If we're talking about morals what do numbers have to do with this?

1) I have to rush off now so I don't have time for researching the interwebs - maybe later if the debate is still raging
2) Yes, I brought up the numbers so that was my fault - however, the principles became clearer to me during the course of the debate. As you say, the numbers might conceivably be in your favour, so I was adjusting to recognise and accept your point as valid.

You're completely missing my point. Like I said, I only support people dying in war if it serves some greater cause. Therefore, their death can be cited as necessary.

Innocent people who die due to wrongful conviction aren't dying for any good reason, which is the main distinction. No one is being saved by killing murderers, you're just...killing a defenseless person. You have yet to explain how it maintains order either.

We are really making the same point. A few innocents being executed is the "price" of the DP. A few innocents dead in war is the "price" of defence.

Only the policy and its results differ, not the principle.

Also, some people are killed by murderers who leave prison after completing their sentence. Can you explain how those innocents, killed by your policy, are better off than the innocents killed by my policy? [awful rhetorical question I know, but I'd just like to see some acknowledgement more than anything, that you policy has costs as serious as mine - ie innocent human lives can be lost through your policy. You conceded one of the costs below, but I hope you will concede this one as well - both our policies share the common ground that innocents will die whichever one is implemented].

Fine, you win. We have to prioritize. How do you justify using money on anything but saving dying children? Like I said before, there's better ways to address those problems.

Thanks for conceding the point - it was really just an awareness of the fact that your policy has costs, and potentially serious ones, that I was looking for The issue of whether prison works, do the costs justify it etc is so complicated that we can't possibly tackle it in fullness in this thread.

I do support solutions to all the problems you mentioned though. If we had world wide communism there would be no need for money and these silly budget problems would be no more.

You have to transition through socialism first, and that costs a fortune

 

[GhostWriter16]

I think the debate is simple. If you think the purpose of the judiciary is revenge and retribution, then the death penalty makes sense. If you think the purpose is rehabilitation, then the death penalty, and even life without parole, should be completely out of the question.

I believe the purpose should be rehabilitation.

So, Hitler or even someone who rapes and murders children as a common pastime should be allowed on parole?

While I can understand someone you do indeed expect to change...

Also, Ayn Rand said it far better than I ever could.

 

[civ_king]

1. I do, but I believe the Federal Government can do whatever it says it can. I'm saying murder should be made a federal crime, by amendment.

2. Well, they are actually catholic, and while some catholics are Christians its not even really a Christian denomination, but that's another issue.

3. Well, assuming it did. Its irrelevant as I support it even with reasonable doubt.

You brought the topic up so you start the thread

 

[GhostWriter16]

You brought the topic up so you start the thread

Let it go, I did. Next post about Catholics that doesn't have to do with the DP I report.

Take it to PM or VM or start a new thread.

 

[sophie]

2. Well, they are actually catholic, and while some catholics are Christians its not even really a Christian denomination, but that's another issue.

My dear Dommy, I do believe you have just won the thread.


To keep it on topic. Regardless of what the scriptures say, the scriptures should have no bearing on government actions, at all. And if the person really is guilty, why is it our job to judge them? Let God do the judging and punishing (if he really does exist), isn't that what heaven and hell are for?

 

[GhostWriter16]

My dear Dommy, I do believe you have just won the thread.

As this was funny, I'll let it go and laugh

Take it to PM though.

PS: I did say the Conservapidia was fair and balanced, I'm surprised nobody's taken offense. Take it to PM though.

 

[Takhisis]

That is because such a ludicrous statement wasn't even taken seriously by people. Will you ever tell us which account you use when you make your 'serious' posts?

Moderator Action: Warned - trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[GhostWriter16]

That is because such a ludicrous statement wasn't even taken seriously by people. Will you ever tell us which account you use when you make your 'serious' posts?

Sure.

He's called Domination3000. Have a nice day.

 

[Takhisis]

Thank you, but it is night. And we know it's a double alt. It's too obvious.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Thank you, but it is night. And we know it's a double alt. It's too obvious.

Actually, it isn't. I have no idea if the mods can prove it.

That said, if I have this many posts on a fake account, I wonder what my REAL account looks like.

PS: Reasonable Doubt

http://epicduels.3.forumer.com/index.php?showtopic=777

Best joke ever, but seriously, there's no way you can prove I'm an alternate, and I deny being an alternate since I'm not.