Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum

Recommended Posts

If you want to make the argument that we should save his life for the reason that the appeals process is lengthy and the cost is going to be more in the long run.

There are many more practical reasons than that. :/ Look into it. I'm surprised you're so poorly informed on this debate- it's not how you used to post, unless my memory of you has been tainted by nostalgia.

 

lol. Nostalgia is one possible explanation. Who is being dismissive now? I'll be frank. As long as the death penalty is used in absolute cases, I don't really have a problem with it in most cases. It is like saying the death penalty should never be used because there is a chance that an innocent person will be put to death. Life is risk. I could die driving to work every day, and I would go not knowing that my end was near.

 

However, with that being said, I noticed that you completely ignored my question. :) It is nice to know that I'm correct with my theory. The reason that you reacted so strongly to my statement that it is an emotional issue is because I am definitely right. These other side issues are what you are using to justify your beliefs, so that you can feel vindicated by the evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is like saying the death penalty should never be used because there is a chance that an innocent person will be put to death. Life is risk. I could die driving to work every day, and I would go not knowing that my end was near.

 

However, with that being said, I noticed that you completely ignored my question. :) It is nice to know that I'm correct with my theory. The reason that you reacted so strongly to my statement that it is an emotional issue is because I am definitely right. These other side issues are what you are using to justify your beliefs, so that you can feel vindicated by the evidence.

 

Except the risk need not be faced in this case. I would really like to know what arguments there are in support of your moral stance on Death Penalty without appealing to emotions. I don't see how justice can be better served by executing an individual instead of life imprisonment. I'll even accept religious/theological perspectives if you have any because I've also examined mine when thinking of the ethics of this debate. Catholic social teachings play a big role in my stance here.

 

Why is it better to execute an individual? I argue they experience more suffering incarcerated, that they can be productive to society by means of prison labour or community service and they are given a chance to repent and seek forgiveness, both from the families of their victims and their God. And as we agreed before, it's cheaper to keep them locked away and having the death penalty will do nothing to the crime statistics so why have it?

Edited by Phoenix Rider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I'd like to bring up is this: A murderers victim did not get a peaceful death; why should the murder get one with a lethal injection?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I'd like to bring up is this: A murderers victim did not get a peaceful death; why should the murder get one with a lethal injection?

 

Because we execute criminals. We don't torture and murder them. Can't believe you're asking this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I'd like to bring up is this: A murderers victim did not get a peaceful death; why should the murder get one with a lethal injection?

Oh please. If I ever were to murder someone, I would hardly brutally murder my victim, even if emotions were involved. See, the thing is, if you want to get away with murder, it is generally a good idea to either make sure there are no ties that connect you to the murder, or to simply make it seem like there were no murder at all.

 

Not to mention it is far simpler to kill someone in a sneaky and peaceful manner (paralyzating poison/gas) than to do it brutally, like choking them.

 

 

As for the actual juridical reason as to why executions will be done in a humane fashion: Every human has a right to not be tortured. We are not beasts nor should we act like beasts even if some countries has a policy of putting down beasts draped in human clothing. There is never a good reason to sacrifice our standards and principles just for the sake of dealing with mindless beasts. :/

 

Edit: I just realized that, in the 7-8 minutes I spent thinking this over and typing this up, 3 Staff basically counter-post against Error404. Way to go on making a lynch mob, guys. :P

 

Vote: Lilshu

Obviously bandwagoning. :mad:

Edited by Yuanrang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm against the death penalty; I believe that a murderer shouldn't get a peaceful death through the death penalty.

Edited by error404

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...but dying of old age or from illness in prison is just as peaceful as how the victims would most likely die, had they not been murdered. What exactly is your point? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...but dying of old age or from illness in prison is just as peaceful as how the victims would most likely die, had they not been murdered. What exactly is your point? :huh:

I think he may be getting at the death penalty being a light sentencing in comparison to a lifetime in jail.

 

Either way, that gets into the idea that jail time and so on is about revenge and punishment rather than prevention of crime, removal of threats to society, and rehabilitation. (Something which I find rather disagreeable.)

While I agree on a lifetime in jail being a harder sentence than a quick execution, it is still a rather poor choice of words. Dying in prison is just as peaceful as being executed, which in turn making it sound like he want a brutal end of the murderer's life. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...but dying of old age or from illness in prison is just as peaceful as how the victims would most likely die, had they not been murdered. What exactly is your point? :huh:

I think he may be getting at the death penalty being a light sentencing in comparison to a lifetime in jail.

 

Either way, that gets into the idea that jail time and so on is about revenge and punishment rather than prevention of crime, removal of threats to society, and rehabilitation. (Something which I find rather disagreeable.)

While I agree on a lifetime in jail being a harder sentence than a quick execution, it is still a rather poor choice of words. Dying in prison is just as peaceful as being executed, which in turn making it sound like he want a brutal end of the murderer's life. :P

Mhm, I agree, I think I could have put it in a better way than I did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When that is cleared up, I would just point out that I completely agree with you, Error. My personal view is that someone should spend their entire life in prison for taking someone's life. It is perhaps not fair in the ancient tradition of "an eye for an eye", but I tend to believe that such a practice just makes everyone blind.

 

Ironically, I am very anti-death penalty for more sinister reasons. I see a swift execution to be the easy way out. Nothing is more suitable than to slowly rot away in prison while you have to face the reality of your actions. I guess I do not have a very gentle mindset, but then again, one should not be gentle with murderers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to make the argument that we should save his life for the reason that the appeals process is lengthy and the cost is going to be more in the long run.

There are many more practical reasons than that. :/ Look into it. I'm surprised you're so poorly informed on this debate- it's not how you used to post, unless my memory of you has been tainted by nostalgia.

 

lol. Nostalgia is one possible explanation. Who is being dismissive now? I'll be frank. As long as the death penalty is used in absolute cases, I don't really have a problem with it in most cases. It is like saying the death penalty should never be used because there is a chance that an innocent person will be put to death. Life is risk. I could die driving to work every day, and I would go not knowing that my end was near.

 

However, with that being said, I noticed that you completely ignored my question. :) It is nice to know that I'm correct with my theory. The reason that you reacted so strongly to my statement that it is an emotional issue is because I am definitely right. These other side issues are what you are using to justify your beliefs, so that you can feel vindicated by the evidence.

I'm being entirely dismissive out of frustration with your attitude- my strong reaction is to you alone. Even when I presented evidence to the contrary, you ignored it and kept on with your tone. Unless you're willing to go look at the reasoning I provided, and the reasoning provided by countless others in this thread, (and not immediately write it off as fiddlesticks) I don't see any point in continuing this discussion. I'm not going to get drawn into an argument with someone over something stupid like a pissing contest.

 

If you can show the decency and respect to earnestly consider other people's thoughts and ideas I'd be more than willing to continue with this discussion. I do apologize for my terse responses. I hope that we can stop this now and carry on like civilized individuals.

I don't know whether or not I should laugh or shake my head at the fact that you directed me to wikipedia. I brought up a few points in response to your earlier response to me. You did not really address any of these. Ad hominem is silly, especially over something so inconsequential. So, consider our 'debate' over. I'm not just trying to troll you on this topic in all honesty. You dismiss my argument against people who support the death penalty as irrelevant. Is this just? Plenty of people have discussed the other issues pertaining to this issue to death. Why retread old ground?

 

It is like saying the death penalty should never be used because there is a chance that an innocent person will be put to death. Life is risk. I could die driving to work every day, and I would go not knowing that my end was near.

 

However, with that being said, I noticed that you completely ignored my question. :) It is nice to know that I'm correct with my theory. The reason that you reacted so strongly to my statement that it is an emotional issue is because I am definitely right. These other side issues are what you are using to justify your beliefs, so that you can feel vindicated by the evidence.

 

Except the risk need not be faced in this case. I would really like to know what arguments there are in support of your moral stance on Death Penalty without appealing to emotions. I don't see how justice can be better served by executing an individual instead of life imprisonment. I'll even accept religious/theological perspectives if you have any because I've also examined mine when thinking of the ethics of this debate. Catholic social teachings play a big role in my stance here.

 

Why is it better to execute an individual? I argue they experience more suffering incarcerated, that they can be productive to society by means of prison labour or community service and they are given a chance to repent and seek forgiveness, both from the families of their victims and their God. And as we agreed before, it's cheaper to keep them locked away and having the death penalty will do nothing to the crime statistics so why have it?

To me, this is not a personal issue. I'm not clamoring for justice for a wronged person. None of my close relatives/family have been murdered, so it is not an emotional issue to me. It is purely based on justice. Let's assume for an instant that two of my younger brothers were murdered, would I want revenge? I would probably want to kill the person myself. That would be an emotional response. However, would it would still be just to put this person to death? Criminal justice is based on precedents. There are penalties for breaking the law. Why should I have to appeal to emotion? Emotion is irrelevant. It is based on cause and effect.

 

My problem is that you are making this a black and white case. In most situations, life in prison without parole might be a better decisions. I don't think that this will always be the case. I also think that it makes mockery of our justice system when you have cruel people who have been on death roll for 10 years. I would rather that justice was swift. If I were ever executed, I would want to die by firing squad. :P

 

If you want to make a theological case for this, one only has to look at the Israelites. In that situation, there were very clear rules and regulations that helped to keep things running.

 

edit:

 

My requirements for the death penalty would be limited to people who have killed multiple people. Otherwise, I would agree with you. Your random Joe who killed his uncle, should not probably be sentenced to the death sentence. BTK who has tortured and killed multiple people with an absolutely staggering amount of evidence should be taken to a wall and removed with no appeals allowed.

Edited by mormril

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know whether or not I should laugh or shake my head at the fact that you directed me to wikipedia.

If I were you, I would broaden your horizons.

 

See, I laugh when people dismiss Wikipedia because it is an online encyclopedia which are almost freely edited, and thus are not reliable sources. Be that as it may, it is still the most efficient tool in existence to find sources to conduct further research. What is the alternative? Put blind faith into studies, research and data gathering? Those are frequently manipulated. Studies and research twisted by impartial scientists and researchers. There is nothing truly credible in the world, simply because all sources of information are corrupt from a certain point of view.

 

Yes, Wikipedia is perhaps one of the sources which are easiest to influence and edit, but by laughing at lilshu for using Wikipedia as a source just broadcast narrowmindedness. If one of my students show up with only reference notes and sources from Wikipedia, I know he or she did poor research. If one of them show up with a paper with no reference notes or sources from Wikipedia, I know he or she is a liar or exceptional, and in my experience, exceptional students are very few and far between. Everyone uses Wikipedia, so why frown on it as a source? :huh:

 

If you want to make a theological case for this...

Well, unless you want me to find the warning stick... let us not. This is absolutely not the right kind of debate to pollute with religion.

 

I also think that it makes mockery of our justice system when you have cruel people who have been on death roll for 10 years. I would rather that justice was swift. If I were ever executed, I would want to die by firing squad. :P

...this is why I can never understand countries with the death penalty.

 

If the death penalty is such a swift show of justice to excessively punish those that are brutal savages (in this case, referred to as "cruel people" by Mormil), why would it have to be swift? I consider the death penalty to be an extension of just vengeance. It is the idea that one should seek righteous vengeance for unspeakable crimes commited against someone through excessive means. Why the, I wonder, do you want to be civilized about it? There is absolutely nothing civilized about vengeance. It is wrath incarnate. If someone murdered my better half, or anyone I truly loved, I would not be happy if someone electrocuted the monster. No, I would much rather cooly torture, maim and torment said for as long as possible until true justice has been dealt. Murder is not just the removal of a life, but it is also the act of inflicting immense pain and suffering of the aquaintances of the deceased. Justice, in this case, is inflicting all that on the culprit.

 

So yes, I do not understand the death penalty. I do not find swift executions to be civilized nor justice at all. It is a cheap way out, away from guilt and consequences. We all die, but by giving a murderer the easy way out to not have to rot away in prison is just a disgrace. Let them grow old. Let them remember. Let them regret. Let them stew in their agonized regret until the day they finally die, just do not kill them mercifully. At least have the decency to torture them to death first. That is justice.

Edited by Yuanrang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to add there is no proven benefit to support the death penalty; whether it deters crime or reduces cost. There are arguments that it costs more once you consider the appeals and procedures; similarly the fact that you have to spend life in prison may deter crime more effectively. The lack of evidence from the capital punishment supporters is enough for me to be against the death penalty. The burden of proof is theirs to uphold - and if enough evidence is given, then I will happily support the death penalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know whether or not I should laugh or shake my head at the fact that you directed me to wikipedia.

If I were you, I would broaden your horizons.

 

See, I laugh when people dismiss Wikipedia because it is an online encyclopedia which are almost freely edited, and thus are not reliable sources. Be that as it may, it is still the most efficient tool in existence to find sources to conduct further research. What is the alternative? Put blind faith into studies, research and data gathering? Those are frequently manipulated. Studies and research twisted by impartial scientists and researchers. There is nothing truly credible in the world, simply because all sources of information are corrupt from a certain point of view.

 

Yes, Wikipedia is perhaps one of the sources which are easiest to influence and edit, but by laughing at lilshu for using Wikipedia as a source just broadcast narrowmindedness. If one of my students show up with only reference notes and sources from Wikipedia, I know he or she did poor research. If one of them show up with a paper with no reference notes or sources from Wikipedia, I know he or she is a liar or exceptional, and in my experience, exceptional students are very few and far between. Everyone uses Wikipedia, so why frown on it as a source? :huh:

 

If you want to make a theological case for this...

Well, unless you want me to find the warning stick... let us not. This is absolutely not the right kind of debate to pollute with religion.

 

I also think that it makes mockery of our justice system when you have cruel people who have been on death roll for 10 years. I would rather that justice was swift. If I were ever executed, I would want to die by firing squad. :P

...this is why I can never understand countries with the death penalty.

 

If the death penalty is such a swift show of justice to excessively punish those that are brutal savages (in this case, referred to as "cruel people" by Mormil), why would it have to be swift? I consider the death penalty to be an extension of just vengeance. It is the idea that one should seek righteous vengeance for unspeakable crimes commited against someone through excessive means. Why the, I wonder, do you want to be civilized about it? There is absolutely nothing civilized about vengeance. It is wrath incarnate. If someone murdered my better half, or anyone I truly loved, I would not be happy if someone electrocuted the monster. No, I would much rather cooly torture, maim and torment said for as long as possible until true justice has been dealt. Murder is not just the removal of a life, but it is also the act of inflicting immense pain and suffering of the aquaintances of the deceased. Justice, in this case, is inflicting all that on the culprit.

 

So yes, I do not understand the death penalty. I do not find swift executions to be civilized nor justice at all. It is a cheap way out, away from guilt and consequences. We all die, but by giving a murderer the easy way out to not have to rot away in prison is just a disgrace. Let them grow old. Let them remember. Let them regret. Let them stew in their agonized regret until the day they finally die, just do not kill them mercifully. At least have the decency to torture them to death first. That is justice.

Religion isn't that much of an addition to the religion; emotional arguments have been brought up before and arguments from the point of religion (like me believing that the death penalty is wrong partly because the bible forbids killing (and it is more nuanced than that, I suppose, but let's not get into that :P)) are not that different.

 

Another thing to add to the arguments over which results in more justice. I've been watching 'America's Hardest Prisons' (a show on Nat Geo, each episode shows a different prison with a few inmates being the focus of the show) and you see some people who get life, and just cannot get to grips with it. Being imprisoned for life is not being let off easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been trying to justify why the death sentence is a bad idea, but let me just say this.

 

If you cannot fix a person through prison, there are only a limited amount of things they can do without being a danger to themselves and others. The death penalty should be a last resort considering that prison is still a good correctional facility and then you have other options such as psychiatric hospitals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think we as humans don't have the right to take another human's life (there are situations where it's necessary, obviously). I realize that's naive, but it's how I feel. Also, life in prison seems worse than a short, easy way out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I were you, I would broaden your horizons. See, I laugh when people dismiss Wikipedia because it is an online encyclopedia which are almost freely edited, and thus are not reliable sources. Be that as it may, it is still the most efficient tool in existence to find sources to conduct further research. What is the alternative? Put blind faith into studies, research and data gathering? Those are frequently manipulated. Studies and research twisted by impartial scientists and researchers. There is nothing truly credible in the world, simply because all sources of information are corrupt from a certain point of view. Yes, Wikipedia is perhaps one of the sources which are easiest to influence and edit, but by laughing at lilshu for using Wikipedia as a source just broadcast narrowmindedness. If one of my students show up with only reference notes and sources from Wikipedia, I know he or she did poor research. If one of them show up with a paper with no reference notes or sources from Wikipedia, I know he or she is a liar or exceptional, and in my experience, exceptional students are very few and far between. Everyone uses Wikipedia, so why frown on it as a source? :huh:

Impassioned speech, yuanrang. You misunderstand me completely. I am actually not opposed to wikipedia in the slightest.

 

Well, unless you want me to find the warning stick... let us not. This is absolutely not the right kind of debate to pollute with religion.

Phoenix rider and me were discussing the issue. Apparently free discussion is discouraged. Being banned would amuse me. :cute:

 

If the death penalty is such a swift show of justice to excessively punish those that are brutal savages (in this case, referred to as "cruel people" by Mormil), why would it have to be swift? I consider the death penalty to be an extension of just vengeance. It is the idea that one should seek righteous vengeance for unspeakable crimes commited against someone through excessive means. Why the, I wonder, do you want to be civilized about it? There is absolutely nothing civilized about vengeance. It is wrath incarnate. If someone murdered my better half, or anyone I truly loved, I would not be happy if someone electrocuted the monster. No, I would much rather cooly torture, maim and torment said for as long as possible until true justice has been dealt. Murder is not just the removal of a life, but it is also the act of inflicting immense pain and suffering of the aquaintances of the deceased. Justice, in this case, is inflicting all that on the culprit. So yes, I do not understand the death penalty. I do not find swift executions to be civilized nor justice at all. It is a cheap way out, away from guilt and consequences. We all die, but by giving a murderer the easy way out to not have to rot away in prison is just a disgrace. Let them grow old. Let them remember. Let them regret. Let them stew in their agonized regret until the day they finally die, just do not kill them mercifully. At least have the decency to torture them to death first. That is justice.

Humans are fallible. Even if somebody had killed my brothers, I would kill them, not prolong their life. Vengeance in the form of torture is pointless. You are hurting yourself as much as the person you are torturing. An eternity of nothingness is all the punishment that is needed. It is naive to assume that you can obtain justice in that form anyway. They will suffer knowing that they will die throughout their entire trial, and then they will die. That is justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, this is not a personal issue. I'm not clamoring for justice for a wronged person. None of my close relatives/family have been murdered, so it is not an emotional issue to me. It is purely based on justice. Let's assume for an instant that two of my younger brothers were murdered, would I want revenge? I would probably want to kill the person myself. That would be an emotional response. However, would it would still be just to put this person to death? Criminal justice is based on precedents. There are penalties for breaking the law. Why should I have to appeal to emotion? Emotion is irrelevant. It is based on cause and effect.

 

My problem is that you are making this a black and white case. In most situations, life in prison without parole might be a better decisions. I don't think that this will always be the case. I also think that it makes mockery of our justice system when you have cruel people who have been on death roll for 10 years. I would rather that justice was swift. If I were ever executed, I would want to die by firing squad. :P

 

If you want to make a theological case for this, one only has to look at the Israelites. In that situation, there were very clear rules and regulations that helped to keep things running.

 

See, here's what I don't like about the way you present your arguments. You grant that the Death Penalty is more expensive to run but to counter that, you are asking for the costs to be lowered by cutting standards just to have the death penalty. I find that language dangerous as it puts us in the position were we cut standards just to uphold a policy which has little/no evidence to support it's superiority.

 

I ask for your patience mormril but I still don't understand from your explanation WHY it is a moral imperative to have the death penalty over the alternative. Why is it morally justified for society to continue to have it? What do we lose if we don't?

 

You quoted the justice system in the Old Testament. Is that where you are basing your claims? Cause if that were the case, I would rebut by saying the justice system at the time were meant for their cultural and historical context and shouldn't be enforced to a modern society. This is the same way as Jewish Kosher laws no longer apply or the ban on interfaith marriage as they were used to isolate the Kingdom of Israel from neighbouring cultures yet such isolation is unneeded for the modern Church. The case where Jesus prevented the stoning of the adulterer despite it being part of the Jewish law shows the limitations of that system of justice and how many of the laws are not meant to be practised in the present day.

 

@Yuan, I'm sorry if you feel discussing theology is somehow not constructive. I simply want to know why mormril holds his moral stance on the topic and if theology is one of the reasons for it, then I want to know. For believers, religion and the value judgements we get from it affect many views and beliefs we hold as individuals and I think it is unfair to ignore that aspect of a person.

Edited by Phoenix Rider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think after 7 pages we've determined the only reason for the death penalty is "justice." I have not seen a single rational reason to continue it, only the emotional appeal to this undefined, and thereby meaningless, concept of justice. People seem to be for the death penalty because it makes the victims feel better (something that isn't even true.)

 

I think the only way they can justify that reason of "justice" is if they somehow show it is a moral imperative to maintain the death penalty as that is the only way for justice to be met. The burden of proof now falls on the proposition side. Why is the death penalty a moral imperative? Why is it morally more superior than the alternative?

Edited by Phoenix Rider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Impassioned speech, yuanrang. You misunderstand me completely. I am actually not opposed to wikipedia in the slightest.

 

Oh really? From where I am standing, it seems like you were looking down on Mr. Shu for pointing to Wikipedia for evidence. I suppose it was just a rather poor choice of words, I should have remembered that Shu was the better debator of the two of you, it seemed so weird to have you of all people look down on him. That said, you really ought to work on making your intention obvious. I am fairly sure Lilshu misunderstood you as well, but I will let him comment on that if that really was not the case. :)

 

Phoenix rider and me were discussing the issue. Apparently free discussion is discouraged. Being banned would amuse me. :cute:

It is a common fact that Sal's Law dictate that whenever a debate topic is created, it will eventually turn into a religious debate should it stay alive. It is a more local form of Goodwin's law. You are free to debate religion all you want in an appropriate religion discussion or through personal messages, which in this case should be ideal since apparently only you two are involved in that discussion. Heck, you can even make a 10-man personal message group if more join up, just keep it away from this thread. :)

 

Oh, I would not ban you. I believe I said "warning stick", which is completely different from a "ban hammer". Y'know, different words, different meanings, different punishments..

Again, this is not a religious debate nor should it be turned into one. The beauty of religion is that absolutely no religion is considered to be universally correct, and since we are a forum of people from many lifestyles, ethical ways of life and religions, we aim at not polluting our daily lives with blatant religious propaganda and mentalities.

 

Humans are fallible. Even if somebody had killed my brothers, I would kill them, not prolong their life. Vengeance in the form of torture is pointless. You are hurting yourself as much as the person you are torturing. An eternity of nothingness is all the punishment that is needed. It is naive to assume that you can obtain justice in that form anyway. They will suffer knowing that they will die throughout their entire trial, and then they will die. That is justice.

Saying that humans are fallible is like saying that a dog breathes or animals reproduce. Every living being is fallible in their own way, there is no need to point that out as an argument, simply because it is not an argument in itself. That said, if we were to do nothing in life because we dreaded the act of being wrong or doing the wrong thing, nothing would be done. That would be pure apathy.

 

I never said that torture was the best choice, but what I did say was that it is the purest form of equivalent exchange. It is naturally prone to abuse, but every single law is, as is power. It is easy to say that "an eternity of nothingness" is all the punishment needed, but where exactly is the proof of that being the actual punishment? I do not see pro-death sentence supporters dying just so they can figure out what is beyond life. The fact is that no one knows what death is like since no living being has ever been recorded and verified to have returned from certain death and the oblivion of not existing.

Furthermore, how can an eternity of being nothing be a punishment when, by your own definition, one would simply not be? One can say that it is removal of the right to live, but that is ridiculous. That statement immediately assume that the life would be worth living, when fact is, many people experience lives that are hardly worth living at all. In fact, I would assume (and correctly so, I suspect) that criminals in general are one of the most exposed groups at having horrible lives. No, your own statement implies that everything will be gone on death: both good and bad. That means that, instead of spending a long life being miserable and living a horrible life in prison, you will have all our good moments and bad moments wiped out prematurely. That is just silly, because both options lead to the same outcome: death. Humans are not immortal.

Why then, I wonder, do we allow criminals to not live a long and bad life where they have to regret their actions as punishment, but rather reward them by not letting them face the hard truth of their actions?

 

The death penalty is never the right option, simply because it aids the criminal more than anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phoenix rider and me were discussing the issue. Apparently free discussion is discouraged. Being banned would amuse me. :cute:

It is a common fact that Sal's Law dictate that whenever a debate topic is created, it will eventually turn into a religious debate should it stay alive. It is a more local form of Goodwin's law. You are free to debate religion all you want in an appropriate religion discussion or through personal messages, which in this case should be ideal since apparently only you two are involved in that discussion. Heck, you can even make a 10-man personal message group if more join up, just keep it away from this thread. :)

 

Oh, I would not ban you. I believe I said "warning stick", which is completely different from a "ban hammer". Y'know, different words, different meanings, different punishments..

Again, this is not a religious debate nor should it be turned into one. The beauty of religion is that absolutely no religion is considered to be universally correct, and since we are a forum of people from many lifestyles, ethical ways of life and religions, we aim at not polluting our daily lives with blatant religious propaganda and mentalities.

 

I am on your side of this debate but I must disagree with your position here. As I have said before, religion is a a great influence in someone's moral and philosophical stance. Whilst it should not be the centre of the discussion, it is part of it whether you like it or not. If it is discussing the merits of the Death Penalty, why should it be forbidden from being discussed simply because your views are hostile against it?

 

If we were to discuss theology, we are not doing it to as propaganda and will it harm your daily life as you so over-exaggeratedly warn. Nor will it pollute ANYTHING if done in a civilised manner. That is simply your opinion and not an objective fact. Just because you are hostile against it, it doesn't give you the right to deny a valid conversation taking place nor should your hostile views against faith cloud your moderating. I know there are different views on Sal's but it is a cheap attempt at political correctness to silence those views that some may vehemently be against.

 

I have read the rules. Nowhere do they give you the right to warn people for discussing theology and I would like to see you somehow interpret to do thatt. If I were to turn this into a religious debate with mormril then I am perfectly within the rules (but I won't do that cause it's in poor taste and achieves little).

 

I respect you Yuan but I would ask you calm down a little bit and think this true. Would threatening people really be justified here?

 

I'm sorry if it went abit off-topic but I felt it needed to be brought up. I would like to return to the debate now and I eagerly await mormril's moral argument for the death penalty and why it is morally superior.

Edited by Phoenix Rider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I have said before, religion is a a great influence in someone's moral and philosophical stance. Whilst it should not be the centre of the discussion, it is part of it whether you like it or not. If it is discussing the merits of the Death Penalty, why should it be forbidden from being discussed simply because your views are hostile against it?

I agree with your first comment about religion being a great influence. I suppose it is time to drop some knowledge that might surprise.

 

Yes, I do believe that religion is a great influence in someone's moral and philosophical stance. I also think that religion, lifestyles and ethics are integral in the development of a human being's concious and philosophical mind. See, what you might know is that I am a teacher. What you probably do not know is that I actually teach Religion as well. Perhaps even more surprising to some: I am not actually an atheist either.

 

Though yes, I am hostile towards using religion in debates. The reason for this is extremely simple: Religion (also lifestyles and ethics), as I teach the subject, is a subject intended to bring mental and often spiritual enlightenment. It is meant to enrich and to illuminate the human mind. The problem with religion is that it is always that highly volatile subject which creates massive arguments out of thin air. Religion is a very volatile subject, and on an internet forum such as this, it becomes a very touchy subject. You will quickly notice that people will snap at the slightest religious comment because they do not share that faith, or they are put off by it. In my experience, and it is quite extensive to be honest, debates on this forum always tend to go down the drain when debates are involved. More often than not, the topic of conversation ends up severely alienating forum members from each other and completely derail the intention of the thread.

That said, religious discussions are perfectly okay as a stand-alone topic, but this is not a religious topic, nor should it be since the death penalty is a global thing. Bringing religion into this thread is a very strong derailment in its own right.

There is nothing wrong with debating over views spawned by religious and spiritual beliefs and ideas, but the problem occurs when you start using this religious material as evidence or arguments. Religion is not proof of anything, the «Proof of God» topic certainly taught the forum that much. Religion is an idea. It is a belief and a conviction of something being true, but it can not be proven in a clear and unquestionable way. That is just not the essence of Religion, is it? If we had all the answers, why would we then need a deity? Why would we hope and believe in something far greater than us? The truth is, we most likely would not, and if we still did, we would probably not believe that strongly because our own hubris would slowly make us doubt the value of deities.

 

Nor will it pollute ANYTHING if done in a civilised manner.

True, but there is nothing civilized about this forum nor this debate room. In an ideal enviroment, it would work wonders. This place is anything but ideal.

 

That is simply your opinion and not an objective fact.

Sure, it is my opinion, but I base it on nearly 8 years of observations and nearly 7 years of having to deal with situations where I have seen how the use of religion has been corruptive. Did you, for instance, know that we once had a very clear guideline that said that religion was actually not an argument in debates and such arguments were to be kept in separate topics? When we rewrote the rule system, that extended rule part (not the old Dark Light A topic) was merged into the new rules. I think part of the old rule I am talking about was incorporated into the «Rudeness and flaming» part, just heavily simplified and lobotomized.

 

Just because you are hostile against it, it doesn't give you the right to deny a valid conversation taking place nor should your hostile views against faith cloud your moderating.

I am not denying you to have a valid (and valuable) conversation around it, I am merely saying that I would deny you to do it in this thread. You have PMs. You have the ability to make a new thread. You have the ability to discuss the practice of the death penalty in topics that revolve around certain religions, faiths and lifestyles which specifically allow such practices.

 

Again, I do not have hostile views against faiths nor am I atheist, I just do not bring my personal beliefs into my task as a moderator.

 

I know there are different views on Sal's but it is a cheap attempt at political correctness to silence those views that some may vehemently be against.

I would agree if it was the case of me completely censoring you. Seeing that I have no problems about the topic being discussed as long as it is done in the correct manner, I would hardly say that I attempt to silence anyone.

 

I have read the rules. Nowhere do they give you the right to warn people for discussing theology and I would like to see you somehow interpret to do thatt.

Do not take this the wrong way (as in threatening), but.. you would be surprised. :P

 

Edit:

Looking at the extent of this post and how generally off-topic it is, I am going to lay the matter dead here. I think I have said what needs to be said on this particular diversion.

Edited by Yuanrang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, this is not a personal issue. I'm not clamoring for justice for a wronged person. None of my close relatives/family have been murdered, so it is not an emotional issue to me. It is purely based on justice. Let's assume for an instant that two of my younger brothers were murdered, would I want revenge? I would probably want to kill the person myself. That would be an emotional response. However, would it would still be just to put this person to death? Criminal justice is based on precedents. There are penalties for breaking the law. Why should I have to appeal to emotion? Emotion is irrelevant. It is based on cause and effect.

 

My problem is that you are making this a black and white case. In most situations, life in prison without parole might be a better decisions. I don't think that this will always be the case. I also think that it makes mockery of our justice system when you have cruel people who have been on death roll for 10 years. I would rather that justice was swift. If I were ever executed, I would want to die by firing squad. :P

 

If you want to make a theological case for this, one only has to look at the Israelites. In that situation, there were very clear rules and regulations that helped to keep things running.

 

See, here's what I don't like about the way you present your arguments. You grant that the Death Penalty is more expensive to run but to counter that, you are asking for the costs to be lowered by cutting standards just to have the death penalty. I find that language dangerous as it puts us in the position were we cut standards just to uphold a policy which has little/no evidence to support it's superiority.

 

I ask for your patience mormril but I still don't understand from your explanation WHY it is a moral imperative to have the death penalty over the alternative. Why is it morally justified for society to continue to have it? What do we lose if we don't?

 

You quoted the justice system in the Old Testament. Is that where you are basing your claims? Cause if that were the case, I would rebut by saying the justice system at the time were meant for their cultural and historical context and shouldn't be enforced to a modern society. This is the same way as Jewish Kosher laws no longer apply or the ban on interfaith marriage as they were used to isolate the Kingdom of Israel from neighbouring cultures yet such isolation is unneeded for the modern Church. The case where Jesus prevented the stoning of the adulterer despite it being part of the Jewish law shows the limitations of that system of justice and how many of the laws are not meant to be practised in the present day.

 

@Yuan, I'm sorry if you feel discussing theology is somehow not constructive. I simply want to know why mormril holds his moral stance on the topic and if theology is one of the reasons for it, then I want to know. For believers, religion and the value judgements we get from it affect many views and beliefs we hold as individuals and I think it is unfair to ignore that aspect of a person.

 

Our viewpoints are not as far removed as most of you are making out. I do not believe that the death penalty should be used in most situations. Most people convicted of these crimes should serve life in prison without parole, because I have sympathy for the viewpoint that mistakes are possible. Your problem lies in the fact that you are seeing this as one rule fits all. I don’t hold you in contempt for your views. I’m merely pointing out that your mercy seems misplaced. To pick a protagonist from a movie, take Hannibal Lecter. He is a killer, without mercy or repentance. He is going to be a danger and threat as long as he lives. You can put him in a cage, but you will never turn such a person. Do you think that you are going to hurt such a person by putting him in prison for life? Lowering the requirements would be a slippery slope. And in such a case, I think the extra money is worth the effort. If you are a Christian, then you understand that true justice comes after death (I do not believe in an eternity of hell).

 

The reason that most people object to the death penalty lies in emotion, or even some kind of twisted logic where they fear that they will someday be in such a situation as described. After all, if you are put in prison for life, there is a chance that your mistake will be found out. Our laws are based on precedent. People have mocked my use of the word justice. Justice is actually a very aptly used word. One definition from Merriam Webster defines justice as ‘the quality of conforming to law’ or ‘the quality of being just, impartial, or fair. Everybody has their own concept of fairness. But a common event that you know from your childhood, could be described as what is equitable. It could be described as a balance. Let’s say that there are clearly defined laws that define the punishment for murder. Tell me, how am I being arrogant to say that it is justice when a convicted man is put to death? How is this some 'ill-defined' vague concept of justice? So, enlighten me, educated people, is murder fine then? Those who go to the other extreme, arguing for a lifetime of ‘suffering’ I would argue are basing this on vengeance, not justice.

I would agree with you, Phoenix Rider. Circumstances have changed, and the requirements that the Israelites had cannot be duplicated. With that being said, the precepts or logic that this was based on (I would argue) cannot be changed.

 

Oh really? From where I am standing' date=' it seems like you were looking down on Mr. Shu for pointing to Wikipedia for evidence. I suppose it was just a rather poor choice of words, I should have remembered that Shu was the better debator of the two of you, it seemed so weird to have you of all people look down on him. That said, you really ought to work on making your intention obvious. I am fairly sure Lilshu misunderstood you as well, but I will let him comment on that if that really was not the case. :)[/quote']

I must've really offended you, Yuan. You seem genuinely peeved. My comment was directed at Lilshu. Leave him to his own interpretation.

 

Saying that humans are fallible is like saying that a dog breathes or animals reproduce. Every living being is fallible in their own way' date=' there is no need to point that out as an argument, simply because it is not an argument in itself. That said, if we were to do nothing in life because we dreaded the act of being wrong or doing the wrong thing, nothing would be done. That would be pure apathy.

 

I never said that torture was the best choice, but what I did say was that it is the purest form of equivalent exchange. It is naturally prone to abuse, but every single law is, as is power. It is easy to say that "an eternity of nothingness" is all the punishment needed, but where exactly is the proof of that being the actual punishment? I do not see pro-death sentence supporters dying just so they can figure out what is beyond life. The fact is that no one knows what death is like since no living being has ever been recorded and verified to have returned from certain death and the oblivion of not existing.

All have fallen short of perfection, right? It is the purest form of exchange, but who is going to torture the man to death. The victim? What if the victim does not want to? Is the court going to appoint some man to torture a man until he dies? This would lead to fear and hatred.

 

Jesus. Kthxbai.

Edited by mormril

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, this is not a personal issue. I'm not clamoring for justice for a wronged person. None of my close relatives/family have been murdered, so it is not an emotional issue to me. It is purely based on justice. Let's assume for an instant that two of my younger brothers were murdered, would I want revenge? I would probably want to kill the person myself. That would be an emotional response. However, would it would still be just to put this person to death? Criminal justice is based on precedents. There are penalties for breaking the law. Why should I have to appeal to emotion? Emotion is irrelevant. It is based on cause and effect.

 

My problem is that you are making this a black and white case. In most situations, life in prison without parole might be a better decisions. I don't think that this will always be the case. I also think that it makes mockery of our justice system when you have cruel people who have been on death roll for 10 years. I would rather that justice was swift. If I were ever executed, I would want to die by firing squad. :P

 

If you want to make a theological case for this, one only has to look at the Israelites. In that situation, there were very clear rules and regulations that helped to keep things running.

 

See, here's what I don't like about the way you present your arguments. You grant that the Death Penalty is more expensive to run but to counter that, you are asking for the costs to be lowered by cutting standards just to have the death penalty. I find that language dangerous as it puts us in the position were we cut standards just to uphold a policy which has little/no evidence to support it's superiority.

 

I ask for your patience mormril but I still don't understand from your explanation WHY it is a moral imperative to have the death penalty over the alternative. Why is it morally justified for society to continue to have it? What do we lose if we don't?

 

You quoted the justice system in the Old Testament. Is that where you are basing your claims? Cause if that were the case, I would rebut by saying the justice system at the time were meant for their cultural and historical context and shouldn't be enforced to a modern society. This is the same way as Jewish Kosher laws no longer apply or the ban on interfaith marriage as they were used to isolate the Kingdom of Israel from neighbouring cultures yet such isolation is unneeded for the modern Church. The case where Jesus prevented the stoning of the adulterer despite it being part of the Jewish law shows the limitations of that system of justice and how many of the laws are not meant to be practised in the present day.

 

@Yuan, I'm sorry if you feel discussing theology is somehow not constructive. I simply want to know why mormril holds his moral stance on the topic and if theology is one of the reasons for it, then I want to know. For believers, religion and the value judgements we get from it affect many views and beliefs we hold as individuals and I think it is unfair to ignore that aspect of a person.

 

Our viewpoints are not as far removed as most of you are making out. I do not believe that the death penalty should be used in most situations. Most people convicted of these crimes should serve life in prison without parole, because I have sympathy for the viewpoint that mistakes are possible. Your problem lies in the fact that you are seeing this as one rule fits all. I don’t hold you in contempt for your views. I’m merely pointing out that your mercy seems misplaced. To pick a protagonist from a movie, take Hannibal Lecter. He is a killer, without mercy or repentance. He is going to be a danger and threat as long as he lives. You can put him in a cage, but you will never turn such a person. Do you think that you are going to hurt such a person by putting him in prison for life? Lowering the requirements would be a slippery slope. And in such a case, I think the extra money is worth the effort. If you are a Christian, then you understand that true justice comes after death (I do not believe in an eternity of hell).

 

The reason that most people object to the death penalty lies in emotion, or even some kind of twisted logic where they fear that they will someday be in such a situation as described. After all, if you are put in prison for life, there is a chance that your mistake will be found out. Our laws are based on precedent. People have mocked my use of the word justice. Justice is actually a very aptly used word. One definition from Merriam Webster defines justice as ‘the quality of conforming to law’ or ‘the quality of being just, impartial, or fair. Everybody has their own concept of fairness. But a common event that you know from your childhood, could be described as what is equitable. It could be described as a balance. Let’s say that there are clearly defined laws that define the punishment for murder. Tell me, how am I being arrogant to say that it is justice when a convicted man is put to death? How is this some 'ill-defined' vague concept of justice? So, enlighten me, educated people, is murder fine then? Those who go to the other extreme, arguing for a lifetime of ‘suffering’ I would argue are basing this on vengeance, not justice.

I would agree with you, Phoenix Rider. Circumstances have changed, and the requirements that the Israelites had cannot be duplicated. With that being said, the precepts or logic that this was based on (I would argue) cannot be changed.

 

I am all in favour of letting the psychopaths and unrepentant scum face justice hence I am in favour of letting them rot in jail for the rest on their life. However, I still don't see why killing them would change anything. Why would you put in the extra cash to remove a contained danger when the individual can simply be isolated from society behind bars and prevented from ever doing harm?

 

You base your moral views on this desire for justice. You claim there is a need to restore balance, order and fairness and that can the death penalty brings that. That is so wrong in so many levels. The principle of Lex talionis or "an eye for an eye" has been rightly condemned as far back as Jesus Christ and Saint Augustine on the grounds that the purpose of the justice system is to limit or prevent vengeance and violence rather than encourage it. Saint Augustine wrote in his letter "Contra Faustrum" how it is a bygone concept and how Christ abolished it. The eye for an eye mentality is archaic, breeds anger and is rejected by modern society.

 

Think about it! On these grounds, the murderer is killed yes! But the rapist is also sexually abused, the torturer tortured, the thief robbed of his belongings and a wife beater beaten. How is this rational or sane? How do you expect to limit violence when we respond to it with more violence. That is not how modern society thinks.

 

I understand you are Seventh Day Adventist and have a different view on the Old Testament than I have but for Heaven's sake man. This mentality of seeking vengeance, it's precepts and logic, was flawed from the start and have been rejected by the greatest thinkers of the Christian and secular world so you are wrong to assume that it can be applied today.

 

I believe in justice. I believe in an absolute and I believe in an objective Truth. But we are temporal creatures. Our job here is to simply limit the violence and pain of the world. It is He who makes the final call. Why does killing a man change anything or bring more justice? Doesn't putting a criminal on trail, finding him guilty, locking him up and preventing him doing more harm already give that?

 

Oh and I'm not even going to comment on your views of Hell. That's a different debate.

Edited by Phoenix Rider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You base your moral views on this desire for justice. You claim there is a need to restore balance' date=' order and fairness and that can the death penalty brings that. That is so wrong in so many levels. The principle of Lex talionis or "an eye for an eye" has been rightly condemned as far back as Jesus Christ and Saint Augustine on the grounds that the purpose of the justice system is to limit or prevent vengeance and violence rather than encourage it. Saint Augustine wrote in his letter "Contra Faustrum" how it is a bygone concept and how Christ abolished it. The eye for an eye mentality is archaic, breeds anger and is rejected by modern society.[/quote']

You are kind of right, but I just don’t like the way that you are presenting the information. Executing justice (no pun intended :P ) does not restore balance or fairness to life. Life is inherently unfair, and any attempt to make it so is pretty much doomed to fail. A court system built on precedent with penalties for those who severely break the law is based on justice, or equitable treatment. Even for the taking of another person’s life – which I do not think should be done lightly at all!

I think we both can agree that Jesus had a lot of moral teachings that were contrary to the usual views (an eye for an eye mantra). I believe that your perception of this is flawed. These were personal teachings for us as human beings. Jesus also stated (Matthew 22:21) ‘…Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’, and to God the things that are God’s.’ What I’m saying is that there is a definite distinction between us, personally, and governmental authority.

 

Think about it! On these grounds' date=' the murderer is killed yes! But the rapist is also sexually abused, the torturer tortured, the thief robbed of his belongings and a wife beater beaten. How is this rational or sane? How do you expect to limit violence when we respond to it with more violence. That is not how modern society thinks.[/quote']

Yes, and I’m not in favor of that. Yuanrang, on the other hand, seems comfortable with this idea. Ok so temporarily skipping over that point, so answer me this: Is there EVER a circumstance where a person should be put to death in the United States, for any reason?

 

I understand you are Seventh Day Adventist and have a different view on the Old Testament than I have but for Heaven's sake man. This mentality of seeking vengeance' date=' it's precepts and logic, was flawed from the start and have been rejected by the greatest thinkers of the Christian and secular world so you are wrong to assume that it can be applied today.

 

I believe in justice. I believe in an absolute and I believe in an objective Truth. But we are temporal creatures. Our job here is to simply limit the violence and pain of the world. It is He who makes the final call. Why does killing a man change anything or bring more justice? Doesn't putting a criminal on trail, finding him guilty, locking him up and preventing him doing more harm already give that?[/quote']

 

What motivation does a person who has a life sentence in prison (our Hannibal Lecter) to not kill again? If he EVER has the opportunity, he will. Do you deny this? Do you think that you can rehabilitate a person with enough time in jail? So, these people are carefully watched. The odds of this happening are extremely remote, right? Let’s assume that a prison guard is killed by Hannibal. What is the punishment? Isolation? Tell him that he should not do it again? Give him a bible? Play scream music in his cell 24 7? Are you going to give him 25 life sentences instead of 20 (I’m being partially facetious).

If we want to use a parallel, consider Sal’s. In this ecosystem, you can get 7 warnings before you are banned. Moderators warn you, and tell you this information. As you get closer to the magic 7 point, they caution you. Is it then vengeance when you get banned?! How is that rational, PR? Clear warnings, clear rules, and clear violations. The punishment was clearly stated. Tell me, what makes it vengeance? The answer lies in the fact that you are emotionally conflicted by the severity of the penalty. This is NOT based on logic. There is a victim when people are murdered. But there is also a duty to society to protect against such people.

Mormril' date=' you still have not given any reason why the death penalty is necessary. If you have, I haven't been able to pick up on it even after reading your posts several times. Can you give me a short and sweet reasoning why it is absolutely necessary to execute someone?

 

I liked your example, so let's stick with that- what benefit would be gained from executing Hannibal Lecter rather than giving him a life sentence? Why is it necessary to have him executed?[/quote']

Necessary. What is necessary? Food, water, and shelter? Pure anarchy could exist. Democracy, freedom, none of these things are essential for life. Does that mean that these things are worthless? You could ban the death penalty, and the world would continue as it has continued for several thousand years. Why not?

There is a law and there is a penalty for the transgression of the law. Why do you assume that Hannibal Lecter wants to die? He is obviously a clever, if unethical, person. He will continue to live out the rest of his days fed, given medical attention, and he may kill again, given the chance. My question is why does justice bother you? Why are you so unyielding obstinate in this belief that the death penalty is completely wrong? I don’t know about you, Lilshu, but very little in life is as black and white as I first thought; yet here I seem to be the only person who sees this fact. You all have these firmly decided opinions based on what? Discomfort? Emotional distress at the thought of Hannibal dying? Distress at the thought that your tax dollars could be better used for something else (do you know how many people are on death row? Kind of insignificant when congress is not willing to make changes that actually matter, but I digress).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

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