(July 17, 2014 at 4:36 pm)Blackout Wrote: If they have done it then a real human can do it, it's that simple.

Does that make it excusable now?

Quote:I don't accept the argument that criminals lose their humanity and rights because of their actions, as long as you are biologically born as a part of the human species, you'll keep your rights and your humanity until you die, that's how it works, we can't just create a special category of people and say 'these people are not humans'.

You cannot be serious. I refuse to accept that you typed that with a straight face.

You do realise that convicted murderers and the like, already instantly lose their privileges and freedom and liberty, yeah?

So, by your thought-process if I kill your family, slay them, take away their human rights, their right to live, to exist, I don't revoke any of my rights to live?

Quote:Again it's not slavery, they won't lose rights, they'll just be put to work within human beings' physical limits.

That's forced labor, which is slavery...

...actually Blackout, I'm seriously considering ignoring you.

(July 17, 2014 at 5:05 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Reduce the egregious number of appeals. I realize that death is permanent, and we do sometimes make mistakes, but the process just goes too far. Sentencing someone to death should not cost more than sitting them in prison for 50+ years. That's rediculous.

So you propose not giving appeals to an individual when they have their life at stake? Isn't it better to be sure? The more time you take to make the judicial decision, the less likely you are to make mistakes. And I don't think appeals would solve the problem. Don't forget the presumption of innocence principle

Quote:Does that make it excusable now?

Who talked about excusing anything? People seem to love putting words in my mouth.

Quote:]You cannot be serious. I refuse to accept that you typed that with a straight face.

Quote:You do realise that convicted murderers and the like, already instantly lose their privileges and freedom and liberty, yeah?

They don't lose rights. They get their rights restricted. Criminals don't lose a single right where I live, it's just a severe restriction. If I commit a crime, I don't lose my freedom of circulation, it's simply very small since I can only circulate inside the prison. So tell me where is the justification for people to literally lose rights? The whole definition of human rights is inalienability, you can't lose them no matter what. If you support people losing rights, you don't support human rights because you don't agree with the substantial definition of human rights

Quote:So, by your thought-process if I kill your family, slay them, take away their human rights, their right to live, to exist, I don't revoke any of my rights to live?

No you don't. And try to avoid appeal to emotions fallacy... Since when is the criminal system there to support the victim? It's not, it's there for society, the victim is compensated by civil law, but the sentence is not there to make the victim happy. Why do I revoke rights by injuring other rights? If a right can be completely taken away, it's not a right.

Quote:That's forced labor, which is slavery...

...actually Blackout, I'm seriously considering ignoring you.

Slavery equals losing your civil personality and rights. You wouldn't lose rights, you'd be put to work like prisoners are already put to clean and arrange the prison and rooms. .

(July 17, 2014 at 5:06 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: So, by your thought-process if I kill your family, slay them, take away their human rights, their right to live, to exist, I don't revoke any of my rights to live?

To those of us against the death penalty, no, you shouldn't revoke any right to live.

Did you miss the part where it's estimated that 4% of prisoners on death row are innocent?

(July 17, 2014 at 9:06 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote:

(July 17, 2014 at 5:06 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: So, by your thought-process if I kill your family, slay them, take away their human rights, their right to live, to exist, I don't revoke any of my rights to live?

To those of us against the death penalty, no, you shouldn't revoke any right to live.

Did you miss the part where it's estimated that 4% of prisoners on death row are innocent?

4% and dropping, I would imagine.

(July 17, 2014 at 9:08 pm)Chad32 Wrote:

(July 17, 2014 at 9:06 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: To those of us against the death penalty, no, you shouldn't revoke any right to live.

Did you miss the part where it's estimated that 4% of prisoners on death row are innocent?

4% and dropping, I would imagine.

I hope so, but as long as Rick Perry is in office, I'm not getting too excited.

(July 17, 2014 at 5:05 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Reduce the egregious number of appeals. I realize that death is permanent, and we do sometimes make mistakes, but the process just goes too far.

If there is any chance of an innocent person dying for a crime they did not commit, then the process literally cannot go too far. That's why the death penalty is a bad idea. Maximum security prisons, in practice, eliminate any realistic threat to society from its inmates.

(July 17, 2014 at 5:05 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Reduce the egregious number of appeals. I realize that death is permanent, and we do sometimes make mistakes, but the process just goes too far.

No. I used to be pro-death penalty, but when there exists any chance of executing an innocent person, that is something I cannot stomach.

(July 17, 2014 at 9:13 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote:

(July 17, 2014 at 9:08 pm)Chad32 Wrote: 4% and dropping, I would imagine.

I hope so, but as long as Rick Perry is in office, I'm not getting too excited.

For me this isn't just a matter of innocent people being sentenced, it is a matter that people simply don't lose their rights for infringing others' rights. Even if the person is genuinely guilty, you have your rights restricted but you can't lose them. Anyone who supports human rights can't support people losing rights, because human rights are inalienable