The Death Penalty - are you for or against it and why?

[Violet]

Unfortunately, a primary point exemplified in Sae's post will no doubt be missed by others incensed at the Holocaust not being labeled a 'crime'. However, it should be stated by another that the 'values' discussed here are indeed subjective.

I can't screw with people if the more observant members of the forum society tell them what I'm doing to them...

---

---

[Anymouse]

To the deterrent argument: if one were to murder an individual, knowing that the penalty for being caught was death, what more can you do to him? By the threat of death you have removed all deterrent for future murders by the same person.

The poll seems to be running neck-and-neck at the moment. Do we kill half of 'em? and which half? The left half, or the upper half perhaps? Or just hang the poll?

[Darth]

I oppose it, only because it's the end, Some people I want to see suffer. I'm for life sentences actually being life sentences.

Some people I don't want to rehabilitate, give em nothing, no rewards, just a room.

[WiffGiff]

I have the same opinon as you Stue Denim

[Faith No More]

So you conflate emotion and belief together? I was honest about my emotions and stated my arguments. Why don't you be a little honest and keep track of which is which.

And I think others can deal with the "turnabout is fair play" statement in matters of justice a little more efficiently than I can.

Actually, I'd rather you answer my points, suppositions and assumptions instead of supposing about my nerves, mental health or emotional desires.

I was hoping to kind of end this discussion with my last post as this is getting less civil by the post. To be honest, I joined this conversation to hear opposing viewpoints because I am not 100% stuck in my opinion on this matter. I am completely open to being convinced I am wrong on this issue. When you equate my beliefs to that of the Nazis, however, I see no point in dignifying any of it with a response or trying to continue a reasonable debate. If you would like to continue this in a reasonable tone, I am very open to what you have to say. If you only wish to continue in the same insulting manner, then keep it to yourself.

[Violet]

I was hoping to kind of end this discussion with my last post as this is getting less civil by the post. To be honest, I joined this conversation to hear opposing viewpoints because I am not 100% stuck in my opinion on this matter. I am completely open to being convinced I am wrong on this issue. When you equate my beliefs to that of the Nazis, however, I see no point in dignifying any of it with a response or trying to continue a reasonable debate. If you would like to continue this in a reasonable tone, I am very open to what you have to say. If you only wish to continue in the same insulting manner, then keep it to yourself.

He actually didn't 'equate' your beliefs with Nazis. He observed that there were stark similarities between the 'resource' arguments for the death 'penalty' and the justifications used by a number of tyrants to remain in the right when killing scores of hundreds of people. Although I haven't gone back more than 10 posts looking: I think it was you that brought the Nazis into the discussion in the first place. As if they were bad people, evil people, or even cruel. They were people... each with their own beliefs... and plenty of them similar to the beliefs purported by their propaganda machine.

And the arguments are indeed similar. Both of them say 'X is not worth being a part of our society... so we should kill them'. To draw further similarities still: both arguments involve people in this case... and thus it is murder to kill them. Observe:

Criminals are not worth keeping around, so we should kill them.
Jews are not worth keeping around, so we should kill them.

Pretty damn similar. Where they (might) differ is in extent to which the argument is applied and the group of people negatively valued to the point of killing all (or most) of them.

And I might note: I am not so much 'for' the death 'penalty' as I see the people affected as the property of the state. And I strongly encourage my enemies to weaken themselves.

The Silicoid-Meklar fleet employs most of its criminals

[Faith No More]

---

He actually didn't 'equate' your beliefs with Nazis. He observed that there were stark similarities between the 'resource' arguments for the death 'penalty' and the justifications used by a number of tyrants to remain in the right when killing scores of hundreds of people. Although I haven't gone back more than 10 posts looking: I think it was you that brought the Nazis into the discussion in the first place. As if they were bad people, evil people, or even cruel. They were people... each with their own beliefs... and plenty of them similar to the beliefs purported by their propaganda machine.

And the arguments are indeed similar. Both of them say 'X is not worth being a part of our society... so we should kill them'. To draw further similarities still: both arguments involve people in this case... and thus it is murder to kill them. Observe:

Criminals are not worth keeping around, so we should kill them.
Jews are not worth keeping around, so we should kill them.

Pretty damn similar. Where they (might) differ is in extent to which the argument is applied and the group of people negatively valued to the point of killing all (or most) of them.

And I might note: I am not so much 'for' the death 'penalty' as I see the people affected as the property of the state. And I strongly encourage my enemies to weaken themselves.

The Silicoid-Meklar fleet employs most of its criminals

---

I understand your point and agree it is a slippery slope to deem someone not worth living. Is that a reason to avoid the situation, or to strictly define the parameters of which it should be applied? I guess I would need first hand experience in the legal system to truly answer that.

Again I have to be honest, the more I read yours and Moros' responses, the less sure I am about this issue. In fact, I would say you guys are just short of getting me to reverse my opinion entirely.

[Violet]

I understand your point and agree it is a slippery slope to deem someone not worth living. Is that a reason to avoid the situation, or to strictly define the parameters of which it should be applied? I guess I would need first hand experience in the legal system to truly answer that.

What is acceptable varies by person... I accept torture in the streets. So something that could lead to it isn't a slippery slope to me

There's more than two choices here... I choose to deal out death when I think it is worth it. 9 times out of 10 and still more: a criminal is more useful alive and working than killed for haste's sake. If you are rid of your poor: you've lost the wide majority of your criminals. If you don't hold things out of your people's reach: you've lost most of the rest. What remains are then mostly people like me: who weren't following the law in the first place.

And many of us are not evil so much as free-sprited. And what you have left come mostly in 2 varieties: the people you should employ... and the psychotic. It's not even worth taking the time to make laws for people that fit in none of these... they are a small enough group to manage case-by-case. Most of them being the 'rich criminals'... or greed whores as I call them. Take their money and they are usually well-handled.

Of all the criminals: it's only the rich criminals and the psychos I have no appreciation of as people. And they can still be made use of (take the first one's money, stick the second in a country you don't like).

The better resource argument is thus: recycle, reuse, refit.

[Autumnlicious]

Again I have to be honest, the more I read yours and Moros' responses, the less sure I am about this issue. In fact, I would say you guys are just short of getting me to reverse my opinion entirely.

To be honest, I don't want you to 'reverse' your opinion by anything other than reasonable arguments, understood and acted upon solely by you. Because I consider that, by entering this thread, each and every one us can make statements, produce evidence and support our respective views and in turn learn, modify and grow what we think is right.

Because there are so few 'rights' in this world, with the rest left up to only what a large collection of over-pretentious apes can attempt to articulate.

[Napoléon]

I must admit that for myself coming into this thread I had a very one way opinion on the death penalty. But to be fair when you do consider that innocents can be killed, it does make you think.
As I've said though, I think there are good reasons for both sides of the argument, and personally I'm happy to go along with what the general concensus thinks is right.