Do you agree with capital punishment?

[Syzygys]

They are the last ones able to administer justice fairly.

So criminals can be unjust, but sufferers of those acts can not be??? Where the fuck is equality? Not to mention justice is an subjective term/notion....

Oh yes, and in the story it weren't just the relatives who got outraged but pretty much the WHOLE country....

 

[Syzygys]

Murder (in cold blood), and anything goes. The victim should have the right to do as they please to the filthy criminal.

Why not?

Exactly. I as an atheist believe in eye for an eye. What the fuck happened to manly "what you give me I will give it to you back"?

so locking them up in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives is a much more gruesome punishment than just killing them. Remember, solitary confinement is 23.5 hours a day in a 8 X 5 ft room for as long as you live.

But I already dealt with this argument:

If an anti-CP person says letting them live is more punishment, that indicates that more punishment is the goal, so let's torture the fuckers before we kill them.
If you say killing them is too cruel, I could easily argue (and agree with your post) that letting them live is more punishment.

Either way the anti-CP person loses the argument....

P.S.: And for those 2 posters who are the exceptions, you guys are fucking morons, but that is just an opinion, not an argument, (and deserve a visit from Dahmer....)
I would also nominate you for the Mother Theresa award.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Life is a game, if you break the rules, you are out of the game, we don't want to play with you...

Opinion and false generalization. Not argument.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

So criminals can be unjust, but sufferers of those acts can not be??? Where the fuck is equality? Not to mention justice is an subjective term/notion....

Oh yes, and in the story it weren't just the relatives who got outraged but pretty much the WHOLE country....

The whole country had an opinion. Or perhaps better put, a desire. Also, more opinions, no arguments. Going on your definitions.

 

[spidergoat]

Exactly. I as an atheist believe in eye for an eye. What the fuck happened to manly "what you give me I will give it to you back"?



But I already dealt with this argument:

If an anti-CP person says letting them live is more punishment, that indicates that more punishment is the goal, so let's torture the fuckers before we kill them.
If you say killing them is too cruel, I could easily argue (and agree with your post) that letting them live is more punishment.

Either way the anti-CP person loses the argument....

P.S.: And for those 2 posters who are the exceptions, you guys are fucking morons, but that is just an opinion, not an argument, (and deserve a visit from Dahmer....)
I would also nominate you for the Mother Theresa award.

Letting them live is the least cruel method of keeping them away from the society they harmed. It is also reversable, unlike CP or torture.

How many innocent people is it OK to kill along with the guilty? Because it's all or nothing. Either the justice system makes mistakes, or it's perfect. Either CP is legal or it isn't.

In your fantasy world of perfect knowledge of guilt, there is no possibility of error, you are theoretically killing someone who deserves killing. But in the real world, those cases are rare.

 

[USS Exeter]

P.S.: And for those 2 posters who are the exceptions, you guys are fucking morons, but that is just an opinion, not an argument, (and deserve a visit from Dahmer....)
I would also nominate you for the Mother Theresa award.

What the hell is wrong with you? Like I said before, if execution didn't involve so many procedures, and we did it like the Soviets, then I would have no problem at all with it.

P.S. When you go that kind of extreme with telling them you hope Dahmer visits them, it is a sure sign that you are losing the argument and are getting desperate. If not, then I am simply mistaking you for an immature baby.

 

[Norsefire]

Perhaps such a system could be implemented in a place where justice is already arbitrary. Syria, perhaps? Or maybe Israel? There are plenty of third-world backwaters, too, where arbitrary justice would be a step up.

In the United States, at least, people are guaranteed equal protection under the law. Similar notions exist in other first-world Western countries. I'm not about to throw that out in order to make "justice" a matter of personal satisfaction, a standard which we might consider is part of the cycles of violence wracking the Middle East, parts of Africa and Asia, and even complicating at least one labor dispute in South America.

That equal protection goes for good citizens. If a citizen is a criminal of the degree of murder in cold blood, why is it that they are still protected? In fact, you could even administer the logic that criminals enjoy what they do, and therefore a criminal who tortures people should be tortured since they apparantly love it so much.

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert title here)

That equal protection goes for good citizens.

Where? In Syria?

If a citizen is a criminal of the degree of murder in cold blood, why is it that they are still protected?

Because they are still human beings.

In fact, you could even administer the logic that criminals enjoy what they do, and therefore a criminal who tortures people should be tortured since they apparantly love it so much.

What logic is that, exactly?

 

[mountainhare]

Why are human beings entitled to 'protections'?

 

[Syzygys]

Opinion and false generalization. Not argument.

It was actually an analogy, false or correct. Still an argument though....

The whole country had an opinion. Or perhaps better put, a desire. Also, more opinions, no arguments. Going on your definitions.

You are bad:

1. Since you didn't poll the people, you simply don't KNOW if they had an argument or not.
2. What's wrong with opinions, when making laws? Remember, here we are not making laws, we are debating, so we prefer arguments. That doesn't mean laws can not be made on opinions or desires.
3. You have to try much harder if you want to use my arguments against me.

 

[Syzygys]

Letting them live is the least cruel method of keeping them away from the society they harmed.

This is debatable. Do you have a dog? Buy a puppy, and keep it for the rest of its life in a cage. Report back what you found out about cruelty...

The point is that I can argue both ways which is more cruel, death or life in prison. If we think of humans as feeling and sensitive persons, being incarcerated for life is an awfully cruel way to punish someone, even death is preferable.

It is also reversable, unlike CP or torture.

OK, so we had the wrong guy for 60 years in prison. YOU tell me if any amount of money can pay for his TIME when he is already 80 years old when find out his innocence!
Which is more cruel, execute the innocent or keeping him alive in prison for decades????

How many innocent people is it OK to kill along with the guilty?

Zero. Argument has been dealt with, look up analogy of surgery or building big structures.

Because it's all or nothing. Either the justice system makes mistakes, or it's perfect. Either CP is legal or it isn't.

Bullshit and you just lost the argument. There is a middle way, making CP harder to use, raising the standard for evidence, etc.

End of story. Honestly I expected better than this from you.

 

[Syzygys]

That equal protection goes for good citizens.

Very good argument and I still haven't heard a good counter argument. Similar to the gunlobby's "if only criminal can have guns" argument, but still valid....

By the way, dear moderators, I wasn't using abusive language earlier, I simply used the term "fucking moron" as it is in the Wikipedia, look it up:

Fucking moron: [noun] A person who after watching his family massacred in a bankrobbery doesn't want the criminals to be put to death.

See? Correct usage!

Mod Note: After reconsidering the public warning issued according to current policy, I have decided to issue a one-day suspension of your posting privileges. Have a nice day.

 

[Syzygys]

In your fantasy world of perfect knowledge of guilt,

In your fantasy world everything is either black or white. Thus CP or not CP.
There is no room for CORRECTLY used CP....
In real life things are often grey...

 

[Norsefire]

Where? In Syria?

No, in a reasonable society. You tell me a single reason why a sick, evil murderer should be given the same exact rights as those good citizens, after causing them so much pain.

Because they are still human beings.

Human beings that have caused others' much pain.

What logic is that, exactly?

A very simple one. We could assume that criminals enjoy what they do, and therefore would enjoy it to be done to them. If a criminal tortures others, he must obviously enjoy being tortured. Of course he wouldn't, but it would be a good punishment.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

It was actually an analogy, false or correct. Still an argument though....

It did have an analogy in it but by your definition it was an opinion. Living in society is like a game. If you break the rules people won't want you to play.
A game like hockey, for example? Anyway, your opinion that life in society is a like a game offers no support for CP. Even if you are right all you are saying is that some people are of the opinion that people who break the rules shouldn't play anymore. So you've told us some people have this opinion. A little thought would also show that not playing could be like being put in the penalty box. It's a weak analogy and a reference to opinions. And it implies that these opinions are universal, which they are not.

You are bad:

1. Since you didn't poll the people, you simply don't KNOW if they had an argument or not.
2. What's wrong with opinions, when making laws? Remember, here we are not making laws, we are debating, so we prefer arguments. That doesn't mean laws can not be made on opinions or desires.
3. You have to try much harder if you want to use my arguments against me.

Nothing wrong with opinions. It was you who had a problem with them. I am just pointing out that your argument is not an argument. You are simply saying that some people want CP. Some people have that opinion.
So what.
No one here denies that some people want CP.

Am I bad?
How strange?
Was that another argument?

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

No, in a reasonable society. You tell me a single reason why a sick, evil murderer should be given the same exact rights as those good citizens, after causing them so much pain.

A convicted murderer loses all sorts of rights. What are you talking about?

 

[Norsefire]

A convicted murderer loses all sorts of rights. What are you talking about?

I am addressing Tiassa, who believes that those same kinds of sick criminals deserve to walk the streets freely.

Apparantly, they must enjoy what they do, correct? Therefore, a criminal who tortures would enjoy only the most brutal torture to be applied to him. It is, after all, his own logic.

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert title here)

No, in a reasonable society. You tell me a single reason why a sick, evil murderer should be given the same exact rights as those good citizens, after causing them so much pain.

As our associate has pointed out, they do lose certain rights. For instance, they're not walking around on the street like the rest of us. But part of their equal protection is that they don't stop being human just because they're convicted of a crime.

I recognize that this fact upsets you, but there's not much I can do to cushion the blow.

Human beings that have caused others' much pain.

And?

A very simple one. We could assume that criminals enjoy what they do, and therefore would enjoy it to be done to them. If a criminal tortures others, he must obviously enjoy being tortured. Of course he wouldn't, but it would be a good punishment.

In other words, it would be a punishment satisfactory to your emotional needs.

Arguing from emotion and declaring simplistic logical assertions rational in order to accommodate those emotions does not help anything.

Oh, right. It makes you happy. Torturing and killing people makes you happy. Good for you. Obviously, that sort of shite has worked so well in the past. It's how the Israelis put down the Palestinians for good, you know. It's why there's peace in the Middle East this very day.

You may not like human rights, Norsefire, or you might think them something you or I have the right to withdraw in order to accommodate our emotional needs, but if you can't tell the difference between American society, for instance, under a president who gives general respect to human rights and, say, the current regime, that would be your problem.

Bloodlust gave us an excuse to get into this mess, and bloodlust is what justifies the crap we're doing abroad right now. I would hope could see that it never leads to anything good.

Oh, right. It gives people an excuse to kill one another.

And, just to be clear, does that please you?

 

[Norsefire]

Does what please me? Let me clarify that the people we would "put down" are those very same people which have murdered others, disrupted the peace, and tortured others into insanity.


They may not stop being human, but they certainly are no longer human at heart, and soul. Is their punishment of jail, which includes TV's and basketball and other recreation in a sedentary, calm life truly adequate? You tell me why they don't deserve to be executed for such heinous deeds as I mentioned above.


This is no bloodlust. It is a neutral punishment. Remember the logic, the criminal must enjoy what he does so why not please him even more? After all, as you say he is Human and deserves to have a bit of....fun.

 

[spidergoat]

You hope the people you have killed are guilty of the crimes for which they are convicted, but that is not necessarily so. Some people are wrongly convicted.

Robbing a human being of freedom is a terrible thing, and TV doesn't make up for it.

Capital punishment costs more, it's not a deterrent, and we as human beings make mistakes in how it's applied. We aren't trying to be cruel when we lock someone up for life, we are merely separating them from society, which is all society needs. Do you really trust your government with the power to kill you? The same government that runs the DMV?

There is no net benefit to society from the death penalty, the only reason it's legal is because it wins votes. It gives the appearance of being tough on crime, regardless of it's actual effect on crime.