Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Emanick1

Death Penalty

Should it be legal?  

138 members have voted

  1. 1. Should it? Well!?

    • Yes.
      79
    • No.
      59


Recommended Posts

This is largely offtopic, but firefighters do that. They will do controlled burns of an area, to eliminate the dried brush and whatnot, so that if a forest fire rolls on through, it won't have as much stuff to sustain it. :D

But extinguishing a fire that's already blazing is quite a different matter from stopping it from spreading in a certain direction by burning the brush...

Then would it be equivalent to preventing future crimes from occurring?

Not quite. Because preventing a fire from spreading doesn't stop it. You have to use water to do that.

 

Anyway, that's a bit off-topic... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you stop the "fire" from spreading, that prevents you from having to punish the "fire" in the future, right?

No, because it will still be burning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@evin: Take one side or the other please, being hypocritical isn't something you do in a debate...

 

As for firefighting, get off that subject and create a new topic for it if you want to further discuss it. This topic is about the death penalty.

 

If someone doesn't already know, I'm against the death penalty...

 

~sax rocks1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@evin: Take one side or the other please, being hypocritical isn't something you do in a debate...

 

As for firefighting, get off that subject and create a new topic for it if you want to further discuss it. This topic is about the death penalty.

 

If someone doesn't already know, I'm against the death penalty...

 

~sax rocks1

In case you didn't catch on, the fire is supposed to represent the killer :P. And not taking a side in a debate and being thick headed enough to carry it through to the end isn't being a hypocrite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No! I saw this on Walker: Texas Ranger. There was this guy that was going to be executed, but he was innocent!! As long as there's a chance for error we should not sentence mans to death, because after the deed is done there is no going back!!!

 

Also, about the fire subject, we didn't start it. It was always burning since the worlds been turning. Executing dudes isn't going to put it out!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@evin: Take one side or the other please, being hypocritical isn't something you do in a debate...

I've taken the same side the whole time. I've not been hypocritical. And don't tell me how to debate. :wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since no one ever bothered to look into what i've said in past posts, Killing isn't natural in any way, shape or form. Killing also, can't be justified because its not even just in the first place. (I really expected one or two of you to realise what I was doing...)

 

Why does it seems that a majority of the moderator/tech support/retired moderators don't support the death penalty?

 

I'm not going to find the link for it, Its somewhere in a post by kittenblob or Dani (in this topic) with a link to a website that shows that more murders take place in American states with the death penalty then without it.

 

@Evin below- you should take his debating advice! He's clearly the better debater. :cute:

 

@Lilshu: [sarcasm] Your a true genius aren't you lilshu. Your just pouring with oodles and oodles of knowledge and fairness. [sarcasm]

 

~sax rocks1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since no one ever bothered to look into what i've said in past posts, Killing isn't natural in any way, shape or form.

SOURCE PL0X!?! Seriously, what world do you live in? Killing occurs all the time, naturally, in animals and in human beings.

 

Killing also, can't be justified because its not even just in the first place. (I really expected one or two of you to realise what I was doing...)

Who says killing can never be just? You?

 

Why does it seems that a majority of the moderator/tech support/retired moderators don't support the death penalty?

I don't know, probably just a coincidence.

 

@Evin below- you should take his debating advice! He's clearly the better debater. :)

 

@Lilshu: [sarcasm] Your a true genius aren't you lilshu. Your just pouring with oodles and oodles of knowledge and fairness. [sarcasm]

Um, he has a point. You're hardly debating at all. You're just spewing your opinion out and expecting everyone to take you seriously. Counter my points, please...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since no one ever bothered to look into what i've said in past posts, Killing isn't natural in any way, shape or form.

SOURCE PL0X!?! Seriously, what world do you live in? Killing occurs all the time, naturally, in animals and in human beings.

 

Killing also, can't be justified because its not even just in the first place. (I really expected one or two of you to realise what I was doing...)

Who says killing can never be just? You?

 

Why does it seems that a majority of the moderator/tech support/retired moderators don't support the death penalty?

I don't know, probably just a coincidence.

 

@Evin below- you should take his debating advice! He's clearly the better debater. :D

 

@Lilshu: [sarcasm] Your a true genius aren't you lilshu. Your just pouring with oodles and oodles of knowledge and fairness. [sarcasm]

Um, he has a point. You're hardly debating at all. You're just spewing your opinion out and expecting everyone to take you seriously. Counter my points, please...

 

 

TOO MANY QUOTES!!!!!!!!!

 

Lilshu, I don't know how many staff their are. If I see four on at a time I think thats a record. Excuse me, for being so naive...I've not been an active member of sals for quite long (around, half a year)...

 

Here is a correction. Humans killing humans is not natural (I really could care less if i've made a mistake regarding plurals)...And just because, their is a great amount of particapation in something (such as, killing) that doesn't mean its natural too follow what they are doing...

 

And lastly, how did you prove that survey was false?

 

@evin:Killing can't be justified because once done it can't be un-done. Once your dead, your dead. Their is no crime that you could commit that should result in you being killed...I'm sorry if its really that hard for people in this day and age to be divine but, going with the excuse "theirs already a lot of it, why not continue" won't follow through...

 

~sax rocks1

Edited by Sax Rocks1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is a correction. Humans killing humans is not natural (I really could care less if i've made a mistake regarding plurals)...And just because, their is a great amount of particapation in something (such as, killing) that doesn't mean its natural too follow what they are doing...

How do you know that it's not natural? This is ticking me off. It's just like people who say that "homosexuality isn't natural" - how can you possibly know what is and isn't natural?

 

@evin:Killing can't be justified because once done it can't be un-done. Once your dead, your dead. Their is no crime that you could commit that should result in you being killed...I'm sorry if its really that hard for people in this day and age to be divine but, going with the excuse "theirs already a lot of it, why not continue" won't follow through...

Nothing done can ever truly be undone. If you jail someone for ten years, they won't get those years back. If a surgeon botches an operation, that can't be undone. If you break your nose, it can be set but it'll always be a bit crooked. When you exert punishment on someone, it is a punshment whose marks will be upon them forever, whether physically or emotionally. And I've never said "there's already a lot of killing, why not continue?" That's not the reasoning behind it. You're just saying "killing isn't natural" over and over and not giving any evidence of such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it that hard to go back a few pages and read what I said? If you're not even willing to do that, I doubt you're willing to go and research anything else for your side of the debate.

 

I don't know how to copy the chart without messing it up, but look at this chart. It shows the homocide rates between Death/Non death penalty states over a decade thing. Yeah, I just said "decade thing" :o

 

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.ph...=12&did=168

 

Killing won't stop killing.

 

How much of that depends on the punishment, and how much depends on the type of people. An area that is predominantly upper class will have fewer killing amounts than an area that is... "ghetto-ish", not because of the punishment, but because the type of people. I'm not saying no upperclass people kill and that all ghetto class people do, but there is a difference in the amounts of crimes committed in "bad sections of town".

 

Arrgh! Now my brain is confused because I asked myself just now if people have less killings because they are upperclass, or because they don't have the death penalty, or if people have the death penalty because they have more lowerclass people or because they have more killings...or.... urrgh. :)

 

Even she considered that that chart could be false.

 

 

:D, Lilshu, A couple pages back I did go to the effort of getting that link, look around pages 10+ and you should see my link for it...Thanks for proving me wrong with the survey.

 

Humans killing other Humans is not rational/natural because humans wern't meant to kill other humans. If we were, their would be an instinct for that. Instead we have human nature and a magnitude of things (such as, quarrels or arguments or racial disputes) which caused humans to kill other humans.

 

As for homosexuality, I don't know how I can explain how its not natural without me getting a possible warning (which will probably result in me being banned :(. Just look at my warn numbers...).

 

~sax rocks1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Humans killing other Humans is not rational/natural because humans wern't meant to kill other humans.

How can you possibly know what humans were and weren't "meant to do"?

 

If we were, their would be an instinct for that.

There has always been a killing instinct, especially in self defense. Society has dampened the killer instinct in most human beings.

 

Instead we have human nature and a magnitude of things (such as, quarrels or arguments or racial disputes) which caused humans to kill other humans.

So human nature causes us to kill. How is that different from killer instinct?

 

As for homosexuality, I don't know how I can explain how its not natural without me getting a possible warning (which will probably result in me being banned :) . Just look at my warn numbers...).

You can explain why you think it's "unnatural" without being banned if you do it in a mature way. But that belongs in the homosexuality topic anyway.

Edited by Evin290

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Humans killing other Humans is not rational/natural because humans wern't meant to kill other humans. If we were, their would be an instinct for that.

Don't try and combine rational/natural. It may not be rational, but it is natural. There is an instinct, and we do have the capability.

 

 

How can you possibly know what humans were and weren't "meant to do"?

 

If we were meant to blow each others brains out we would have an instinct for that which we don't...We do however, have survival instincts and instincts that dictate to us that killing animals for food is just dandy...

 

@evin: I'm not taking any risks regarding warns and things...

 

@Lilshu:I have the capability to get banned from sal's runescape forum, That doesn't mean I should jump at that chance :lol:

 

Is their a possibility that you, evin and you, lilshu could start debating against each other and not be jumping straight at my throat?

 

~sax rocks1 :D

Edited by Sax Rocks1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion if they threaten the world you kill em. But face the truth the next year another person wants to dominate the world, and you kill em again. WUT A POINTLESS CIRCLE. Does it really matter if they rot in prison or confinment, or die right after. Some day there gonna die, and someday someone will follow in there footsteps. But thats life hard to change. (unless you have nukes lots of nukes). In my opinion i really don care if they die by hand or in jail, its all gonna hapen again...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@evin: I'm not taking any risks regarding warns and things...

It's not a risk. If you actually have a valid and mature point make it. Mods aren't going to warn you for that.

 

I believe that we are on opposite sides of the debate, yet we both agree that the points your present are ridiculous. We both vie up against incorrect information.

Yes, that's exactly what we're doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i support the death penality i belive in an eye for an eye and a life for a life

You realize that the law isn't an eye for an eye now, right? And that it never will be? If you pluck out someone's eye, you're going to be charged with assault and sent to jail for a few years and fined a bit of money, but you're not going to have your eye plucked out for it.

 

Personally, I think thousands of years of laws gravitating away from the "eye for an eye" principle should be proof enough that it's unjust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Humans killing other Humans is not rational/natural because humans wern't meant to kill other humans. If we were, their would be an instinct for that.

 

As far as I can tell, a mortar is not naturally occurring. Guns are not naturally occurring. We invented them. Therefor, it is not natural that one would have a instinct to kill everything with a gun.

 

Also, in the "natural world" (the one consisting of all things living that are not human). Those animals tend to kill each-other. So, actually, it can be said that it is natural to kill one's fellow man.

 

Now, there are laws, and when those laws are broken. We must be given a penalty to discourage against doing so again. In the case of the Death Penalty, it is used against a crime of equal magnitude.

 

The punishment fits the crime.

 

~John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a point in the evolution of mankind, when we did kill each-other, most likely for 'property'. If not kill, we fought over group leaders. So what is not just to us now, wouldnt really bother us in the past. Yes, religion, culture, and other things changed that drastically.

 

If I'm wrong, please tell :) Only so much a 13 y/o can know ^_^

 

 

EDIT: Im forgetting my plurals ^_^

Edited by Big Tree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There was a point in the evolution of mankind, when we did kill each-other, most likely for 'property'. If not kill, we fought over group leaders. So what is not just to us now, wouldnt really bother us in the past. Yes, religion, culture, and other thing changed that drastically.

Yes, morals certainly didn't exist as long as human beings have, and morals are part of what made human beings what we are today. But suggesting that killing is "amoral" is very different from suggesting that it is "unnatural," which is what Sax was doing...

Edited by Evin290

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only read this last page and from what I can tell so far is that nobody has posted this yet.

 

I support the death penatly. I don't want to pay taxes so that somebody who killed somebody else, possibly someone I knew or loved, can live in realative safety with free health care, food and a roof over their head.

 

I really think the "eye for an eye" method of doing things would work very well. Could you imagine how fast the crime rate would drop if when you stole something you got your hand cut off? It certainly would make me think twice about doing something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I support the death penatly. I don't want to pay taxes so that somebody who killed somebody else, possibly someone I knew or loved, can live in realative safety with free health care, food and a roof over their head.

And why not kill off poor people too? That way we won't have our taxes go toward welfare. And let's kill off all of the kids so that our tax money isn't used for education. [/sarcasm]

 

I really think the "eye for an eye" method of doing things would work very well. Could you imagine how fast the crime rate would drop if when you stole something you got your hand cut off? It certainly would make me think twice about doing something like that.

Yes, the crime rate would drop, but it certainly is cruel and unusual punishment, cutting somebody's hand off. The justice system isn't designed to completely prevent crime - it's designed to implement justice upon those who committed crimes. And if they caught the wrong guy, the government would feel pretty stupid about cutting an innocent person's hand off. What do you say, "whoops, sorry. Our bad that you're disabled for the rest of your life..." It's the same with the death penalty - you can't reverse it if you made a mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And why not kill off poor people too? That way we won't have our taxes go toward welfare. And let's kill off all of the kids so that our tax money isn't used for education.

 

Because those people dident do anything wrong. I don't mind helping people that can't help themselves.

 

Yes, the crime rate would drop, but it certainly is cruel and unusual punishment, cutting somebody's hand off. The justice system isn't designed to completely prevent crime - it's designed to implement justice upon those who committed crimes. And if they caught the wrong guy, the government would feel pretty stupid about cutting an innocent person's hand off. What do you say, "whoops, sorry. Our bad that you're disabled for the rest of your life..." It's the same with the death penalty - you can't reverse it if you made a mistake.

 

It's not designed to prevent crime! Listen to what you are saying. So we are saying to criminals then "we dont care that you do crimes, but know that justice will be served." I don't think so, I'd feel a lot safer if they said "we care that you do crimes, and if you do do them know the punishment will fit the crime."

 

It may be effective, but I wouldn't really call it humane. Losing a hand severely limits your capabilities to support yourself and family.

 

And if you were a criminal would that more than likely stop you from stealing something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not designed to prevent crime! Listen to what you are saying. So we are saying to criminals then "we dont care that you do crimes, but know that justice will be served." I don't think so, I'd feel a lot safer if they said "we care that you do crimes, and if you do do them know the punishment will fit the crime."

Sorry, it's not designed to prevent crime at all costs. If that were the case, the death penalty would be implemented for every crime. It's not that the government doesn't care that people do crimes; that's why justice is served if they do.

 

It may be effective, but I wouldn't really call it humane. Losing a hand severely limits your capabilities to support yourself and family.

 

And if you were a criminal would that more than likely stop you from stealing something?

Yes, but it's the government's job to protect human rights, not to prevent any and all crime at all costs. Cutting off someone's hand is cruel and unusual punishment, as is taking someone's life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, but it's the government's job to protect human rights, not to prevent any and all crime at all costs. Cutting off someone's hand is cruel and unusual punishment, as is taking someone's life.

 

1. The death penatly is humane in the sense of how it's done, the worse the executioned feels is the pinprick of the needle.

2. Does somebody who hasen't treated someone in a humane way deserve to be treated humanley in the first place? No, especially if you kill somebody they diden't show any compassion to the person they killed why should we show them any?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.