Chefelf.com Night Life: Capital Punishment - Chefelf.com Night Life

Jump to content

  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

Capital Punishment with assigned sides

#16 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 23 October 2007 - 07:43 PM

ND: I'm not talking about dollars. Capital Punishment saves lives! More capital executions in Texas! Fewer murders! The stats speak for themselves!
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#17 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 23 October 2007 - 07:47 PM

OF course getting rid of guns might help.
0

#18 User is offline   Spoon Poetic Icon

  • Pimpin'
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 2,876
  • Joined: 27-September 05
  • Gender:Female
  • Country:United States

Posted 23 October 2007 - 08:32 PM

I like the idea of colour coding posts, but it's up to you guys. It would make things a little easier to discern, I think, but over all not a necessity.

Barend, if you want to join in, the Sharpie says you're against the death penalty.
I am writing about Jm in my signature because apparently it's an effective method of ignoring him.
0

#19 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 23 October 2007 - 08:59 PM

Fine, then I guess I'm against it...

which I am.

I believe in street justice mang!

I should be allowed to murder anyone who ques across an intersection.
0

#20 User is offline   ?!! Icon

  • Mini Boss
  • PipPip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 182
  • Joined: 20-September 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Under a rock
  • Interests:Interests
  • Country:United States

Posted 24 October 2007 - 05:03 PM

Obviously, the main issue of capital punishment is ethics, mainly whether or not we actually have the right to deny a person their life even if that person has done the same. Since I HAVE to be against it here, I'd say that killing people, no matter what they've done, is unethical. You can't just kill people back, that just makes us equal to them, especially if the person you just killed turns out to be innocent. Oh, sure, you could ask about the people who have conclusive, binding evidence against them, but then "conclusive, binding evidence" wasn't exactly the same as, say, in the 1800s.

People for the death penalty (like ME) argue that the death penalty removes horrible murderers from the society while also making the punishment so severe that would-be murderers don't risk it, making less murders all around. However, taking the more modern non-religious view of things, a murderer would suffer much more in prison for his crimes than he would if given the sweet, sweet release of death. Plus, most would-be murderers that would receive the death penalty are too far gone to care about the possible consequences.

Capital punishment (which seems like such a WEAK term for the death penalty that it probably isn't and I look like an idiot right now) would also deny the right of clearly insane but treatable people to recieve treatment. The thing is, we have the insanity defense. The thing next to that thing is, a court isn't perfect, sometimes not all the evidence is given, or there are cool twists like in those Law and Order shows. In which case, the defendant would be offed, and new evidence exonerating the person from responsibility could come up after this happens, potentially meaning the person was screwed by time.

That was a pretty weak response, but there you go.
We're whalers on the moon
We carry a harpoon
But there ain't no whales so we tell tall tales
And sing a whaling tune

0

#21 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 24 October 2007 - 06:58 PM

Anyone advocating that it's a violation of human rights to kill people but that it's not a violation to lock them up for decades ought to send me a copy of them human rights. Because I thought the only reason they were able to lock you up in the first place was that our society denied you the right of free action once you'd broken one of its basic rules. So, let's not get all up on "human rights" here. You do the crime, you lose some of your rights, and you accept what follows.

The issue is deterrence. If the death penalty deters murder, than we're saving lives by enforcing it. If applying it to lesser crimes would increase the likelihod of those crimes plus murder, then we should not apply it there (hence the exception of rape as a Capital crime). By this reasoning, and considering that the goal is to prevent murder, the death penalty should be enforced only to deter murder. All other crimes should have incarceration penalties.
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#22 User is offline   Ninja Duck Icon

  • Cheer up, emo duck.
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 1,912
  • Joined: 30-October 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Thrillsville
  • Country:United States

Posted 25 October 2007 - 08:15 PM

Civ: Even though murder rates in Texas have dropped, we don't know it's because of executions, and frankly I find it hard to believe. Most murders are acts of passion, so it's not like the would-be murderers sit at home reading the newspaper and thinking "They're killing murderers who get caught! I'd better change my ways or at least move to another state before I kill people!" If I were to kill someone, I wouldn't even have a contingency plan if I get caught because getting caught would be unacceptable no matter what the government will do to me.

Even if executions do keep murder rates low, that sort of ends-justify-their-means mentality can't (well, shouldn't) exist in government anyway. Imagine if the army had just marched in and wiped out the original community to have AIDS. A lot of lives would have been saved, but there would have rightfully been an outrage because the government can't and shouldn't decide the worth of a life just like that. Even though criminals forfeit their rights, the right to life is in the Declaration of Independence, for cryin' out loud. (Although you're Canadian, so I guess your government doesn't have any restrictions about killing you. tongue.gif )
0

#23 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 25 October 2007 - 09:21 PM

Let's not get all apple-and-orangey here. I didn't say the goal was to reduce the number of DEATHS, as in your disease example. The goal is to reduce the number of MURDERS. This whole "ends don't justify means" argument is all for show. Of course they do. We incarcerate people in order to deter crime, and ostensibly to reform the criminal. In cases where reform is considered unlikely, where a person is considered a danger to the community, the decision is that execution is a more effective response to the crimes committed. And not that I havn't already mentioned it, but it's a deterrant as well. Here in Canada, we don't have a death penalty, and our murder rates sure haven't fallen like Texas's have!
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#24 User is offline   Ninja Duck Icon

  • Cheer up, emo duck.
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 1,912
  • Joined: 30-October 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Thrillsville
  • Country:United States

Posted 25 October 2007 - 11:16 PM

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Oct 26 2007, 02:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Let's not get all apple-and-orangey here. I didn't say the goal was to reduce the number of DEATHS, as in your disease example. The goal is to reduce the number of MURDERS.


Is the distinction really that big? If people are going to die, shouldn't the goal be to reduce the number? I guess that's another debate.

According to Wikipedia, murder per capita in the US is still 2.5 times higher than in Canada, so someone in the US must be doing something wrong. What causes murder is a complex issue, and it depends on a number of factors like income, race, even temperature. What your argument boils down to is that you have a graph, and while you have correlation, I don't see the causation.

Life is important, and the government can try all it likes, but it will never have the right or maybe even the competence to decide who lives and who dies. Some things are too big for white men in tophats and powdered wigs to decide. There have been so many cases of someone getting wrongly executed, and what can you do then? Apologize?
0

#25 User is offline   Slade Icon

  • Full of Bombs and/or Keys
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 8,626
  • Joined: 30-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:United States

Posted 26 October 2007 - 10:35 AM

Hey, count me in for a highlighter/thumbtack spin. Actually, could you maybe spin a coffee mug for me? tongue.gif
This space for rent. Inquire within.
0

#26 User is offline   Deepsycher Icon

  • Giantness of Heart
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Former Members
  • Posts: 6,220
  • Joined: 22-December 05
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 26 October 2007 - 10:40 AM

Good thing about capitalization for the more you kill:

For now "The lesser the man the bigger the share."

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 26 October 2007 - 10:41 AM

0

#27 User is offline   Spoon Poetic Icon

  • Pimpin'
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 2,876
  • Joined: 27-September 05
  • Gender:Female
  • Country:United States

Posted 26 October 2007 - 11:25 AM

Slade, no coffee mug for you, but my cell phone antennae points to pro-death penalty. Dee, if you want to participate, you get to argue against the death penalty.
I am writing about Jm in my signature because apparently it's an effective method of ignoring him.
0

#28 User is offline   Deepsycher Icon

  • Giantness of Heart
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Former Members
  • Posts: 6,220
  • Joined: 22-December 05
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 26 October 2007 - 03:21 PM

My understanding of capital punishment is the Death Penality.
QUOTE (Spoon Poetic @ Oct 26 2007, 11:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Dee, if you want to participate, you get to argue against the death penalty.

QUOTE (Spoon Poetic @ Oct 22 2007, 05:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So: Capital Punishment. Should it be in use or not? Not just "is it morally right or wrong," also argue the economical/polital/etc implications and affects.

Highlighted in bold: I am getting mixed messages from these two statements.

I am just putting a point down about the economical side like how you said about charging for a "calender but bigger" for the board.

Sorry. I think it is rude for you to attempt to control me by going back over your statement.

Okay I done an advantage towards it not in the direct favour of people.

The unfortunately thing is that people can wrongfully be prosecuted.
If they want to do an eye for an eye they must have absolutely proof.

To me it goes a lot deeper than deciding to have capital punishment or not.
It will still get used by people who are economically affected by the capitalist society.

Joke: I wouldn't want to flip coins for people in a capital because what good is that going to do? Nothing. They have to flip their own coins or let others in control do it for them depending on their choices.

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 26 October 2007 - 03:39 PM

0

#29 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 26 October 2007 - 03:45 PM

All right you morons! You lose, cause we got Dee on our side!

I think.
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#30 User is offline   Deepsycher Icon

  • Giantness of Heart
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Former Members
  • Posts: 6,220
  • Joined: 22-December 05
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 26 October 2007 - 05:16 PM

I did assign my thoughts to both sides. I don't want to say anything else until I have another thought to the subject.

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 26 October 2007 - 05:23 PM

0

  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3


Fast Reply

  • Decrease editor size
  • Increase editor size