What is your view on capital punishment?

What should be done with convicted murderers?

  • Kill them!

    Votes: 20 25.3%
  • Life without parole!

    Votes: 48 60.8%
  • Lock them up with a Radioactive Panda!

    Votes: 11 13.9%

  • Total voters
    79
No man has no right to kill another man.

My quick argument against it:

It prevents murders: Bull****. Studies prove it has no effect.
It is cheaper: Bull****. Capital trials last twice as long. Studies prove a capital trial plus death row makes it more than life in prison.

Another other arguments for it?
 
Originally posted by IglooDude
Here's an alternative - instead of the death penalty, put the convict into an artificial coma until their (say) 70th birthday, or their natural death, whichever comes first. That way, it isn't "permanent" but has the same effect of preventing the person from ever getting their life back, and it would probably be cheaper than "normal" prison OR execution and would not endanger prison guards or other prisoners by close contact with a person who literally has nothing to live for. Also, it would function the same as life imprisonment as far as convicting innocents go - if the person is later determined to be innocent they can simply be woken up.

That is possibly the most humane answer to the problem. Some people might even say it is too easy on the criminal because they wouldn't have had to experience a lifetime of confinement. One minus though would be the loss of research data for psychological profiling.
 
Originally posted by cgannon64
No man has no right to kill another man.

Unless that man's house sits on precious natural resources. ;)

Originally posted by cgannon64
Another other arguments for it?

Here's one for ya':

"The recidivism rate for executed murderers is 0."

Dead people commit no crimes. :p
 
stonesfan: Two wrongs don't make a right, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, etc.

Double Barrel: In a proper prison system, a prisoner wouldn't either.
 
Philosophically, I see no issue with it. You're life is a worthless pile of dung if you have taken the life of another.

However, I feel that the risk of killing an innocent man is too great. At least for now.
 
There are two ways of regarding capital punishment:

1. The murderer deserves it
2. It might prevent people from committing such a crime.

The 2nd reason is highly arguable.
 
Yea, but you simply stated two well-known expressions without adding anything of your own.

In order words, why are such expressions valid?
 
Why not?

Just because someone does something to you does not give you the right to return it. You would both be guilty of murder. The circumstances are irrelevant.
 
It depends whether you think a criminal act should be punished, or if you think that the purpose of prison is to reform.

I say a criminal act should be punished. You should always act in a way that you would wish to be treated yourself. If you commit premeditated murder, you are implicitily agreeing that such an act is valid. You can therefore have zero complaints if the same is done to you in retribution. Otherwise what can you say? "Oh, I murdered someone but it's wrong to murder me."? That's clearly absurd, in my book. (The book of Lex Talionis, that is.)

Of course, there must also be zero doubt as to who the murderer is. That goes without saying.
 
I am in favour of it. While some criminals are not deterred; others are. 40 million people died because the Weimar
republic did not hang Hitler after his Munich beer hall putcsch.

Shrinking away from getting one's hands dirty with capital
punishment has meant surrendering parts of our cities to
organised thugs and our financial institutions to fraudsters.

If you don't hang murderers, they will continue to kill people
until they die or are themselves killed. Putting them in prison does not stop them because (a) they are often let out (b) they may kill people in prison or (c) order the murders of people through corrupt lawyers.
 
Originally posted by cgannon64

Just because someone does something to you does not give you the right to return it. You would both be guilty of murder. The circumstances are irrelevant.

I have trouble believing you'd still carry that opinion if someone you love was murdered.

All men are not on equal ground nor equal. Some life is more valuable than others, and I'd consider murderers and rapists damn near worthless.
 
Is your first sentence even an argument? Are you saying that people in a fit of blind rage and vengence have more moral clarity than the rest of us?

And you consider them worthless, but does that give you the right to kill them?
 
Originally posted by cgannon64
Is your first sentence even an argument? Are you saying that people in a fit of blind rage and vengence have more moral clarity than the rest of us?

Apologies if it was unclear. The justice system exists to prevent what you just described.

Originally posted by cgannon64


And you consider them worthless, but does that give you the right to kill them?

They gave up any rights they may have had when the opted to remove the rights of another individual.
 
Originally posted by newfangle
They gave up any rights they may have had when the opted to remove the rights of another individual.

That is true.

But I think a right to exist is beyond governments, it is universal.

I've always liked the wishful-thinking idea Confucius had (this sounds pretentious but its just from my 9th grade textbook): If a government is just, its people will be just.
 
Originally posted by cgannon64
That is true.

But I think a right to exist is beyond governments, it is universal.


Its not the government that is removing his rights. Its his choice to commit a vile act that does this.
 
Back
Top Bottom