Do you agree with capital punishment?

Killing, murder, has a motive. Sometimes it's simply because the killer is twisted and wants pleasure


But in the case of justice, it's different. You tell me A SINGLE REASON why a criminal, who has murdered countless innocence, should be allowed to live?

I understand you want to help them. Indeed. They enjoy what they do, so a killer will ENJOY being killed, and a rapist will ENJOY being raped by a robot or something, and a torturer will ENJOY being tortured.

Just use that logic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No killers and rapists don't enjoy the same being done to them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Precisely. But one would assume that they enjoy the action of raping and killing, and apply it as a punishment while masking it with a sincere desire to "help" them.


So, while the criminal is there, we could just say "we have a treat for you, I know you'll love it"

And he'll be like "No, no, please no!"

And we'll be like "What? Don't you like it? Sure, you do, you even showed us"


See......perfect.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Did you really just complain that I hurt the feelings of a post?

Nice dodge. Seems to me if life and death are the same, there's no reason to be prosecuting "murder" in the first place. What does it matter if it's all the same?

Your opinion of me hasn't any credibility. I mean, really, man. Maybe you're some awesome person in real life, but the part you play here is so fundamentally dishonest. Like the time you were screaming about academic equality while pushing a supremacist agenda.

Oh, did I hurt the feelings of a post?

Seriously ... the poor f@ckin' post!

And why not? Like father, like son.

So let's think about debt for a minute. If you take a loan to finance your car, or maybe a house, why would you pay the money back to, say, me?

Just as dead people don't pay, neither do they collect debts. If I say, lost a bet we had on the Super Bowl, and you died—say, keeled over of a stroke—before I got back from the bank with the cash, why should Norsefire, or Sandy, or anyone else get the payoff?

Consent of the governed to accept the coercive force of government.

Well, since you demand that life and death are the same thing, why not?

I, on the other hand, assert that life and death aren't the same. When you're paying taxes, or a speeding ticket, or being arrested for driving under the influence, you're alive.

When you're dead ...? Well, you're dead.

But since it's all the same to you ....

 

but its ok if they get imprisoned for 25 years?

 

I forgot drunk driving if killing more than 2. This is just from yesterday's news, you tell me dear anti-CP people if you are the father, how do you feel?:

Toledo, Ohio: Michael Gagnon,24 was charged with aggravated vehicular homicide. After having his bloodalcohol level 3 TIMES the legal limit, he drove his truck into a minivan, killing mother Bethany, 36 and her kids Jordan, 10, Vadi 2 months, Lacie 7, Haley 10. The father and another kid are in serious condition and another kid Sidney 8, is in critical condition.

Were I the father, I would pray to let the fucker go free so I could kill him by my own hand. But that is just me, little old Defi....

After all, I doubt he can get life without parole for aggravated homicide. That means that the fucker can be back on the streets in a few years and can get drunk and kill again.

Slightly related news: The woman who tried to shot president Ford back in 1975 just got released at age 77. She was sentenced to LIFE, but can apply for PAROLE after 10 years. The point here is, well figure it out for yourself....

 

You make too much sense for a non-logical-guy, and that is not allowed in this thread!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(I guess crying would be more appropriate)

 

can i cry in your arms? /hug

 

Nor does anyone else's, should they have the temerity to have an opinion different than yours.

So the ignorant savagery of the post doesn't reflect badly on the poster? You're splitting hairs. But hey, it's your colorful insults that make your posts interesting.

Of course not. But I would expect you to pay my family. The family is the aggrieved party, in addition to the victim, of course.

Indeed. And that applies to the death penalty as well. It enjoys broad support.

You're being intentionally obtuse. They are the same in that they are alternate punishments for the crime of murder. Life in prison, or death.

Yes, but when paying a speeding ticket or your taxes; you haven't unjustly taken anyone else's life, have you?

Exactly. When your victim is dead, he's dead. You can't make it up to him. You can't bring him back. All that can be done is to give you a dose of your own medicine. The ultimate in fairness.

 

I'm not so sure that prison is such a good idea either, but that's another issue.

If people are not sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, doesn't that mean the crime was not the ultimate in evil? I'm sure the victims of drunk drivers are angry and seek revenge, but revenge is not justice. People make mistakes, and sometimes they deserve a second chance. That's why we don't kill people for every minor infraction of the law.

If you want to sentence someone to life without any possibility of parole, that is possible, and still preferable to death.

Charles Manson is elegible for parole now and then, doesn't mean he's going to get it.

 

And execution is justice. Would justice not be to send to the criminal what he gave to others? A criminal who takes the life of another in cold blood should deserve nothing less than that.

 

A criminal is just a label. Any of us could be criminals if the circumstances were different. There are all sorts of reasons why someone would kill, some of them perfectly good reasons.

 

Precisely, crime is a perspective. In the perspective of society, one who murders in cold blood is harmful and criminal, and by the perspective of society, and their form of justice, the criminal will be punished as they see fit, and in this case an eye for an eye. One who kills cannot live, one who tortures must be tortured to insanity, one who rapes will be violated.

Nobody is harmed apart from the harmful, so what objection do you hold against it?

 

Perhaps the killer was following the same principle, and eye for an eye. Is that the lesson you want to teach?

 

That is entirely different, then. I have said before, if the killer killed for a legitimate reason, it's entirely different (such as revenge). However, IN COLD BLOOD it's also different.

 

I already explained, cases where we can know all the details reliably are few.

 

Something about honesty

Actually, it has to do with a member's integrity. I don't have a very high opinion of the part you play since it is fundamentally dishonest. Perhaps that concept confuses you, or maybe not. But there you go.

Not automatically.

Then make sure you write that into the bet.

So why not sue the killer's parents for lots of money? Or does the familial extension only work in one direction?

And would that mean that an acquitted killer should be able to take it out on the family of the deceased for having dragged him through the trial? What of a killer who is convicted and then, in later years, exonerated?

Historically speaking, broad support of conservative issues tend to challenge the limits of rationality. We can certainly agree on what a person's reasons for advocating state-sponsored homicide are, but we're generally not going to agree that those reasons are rational.

You should have given a better answer to the question in the first place:

Madanthonywayne: The punishment should fit the crime. They took six lives unjustly and in cold blood. They deserve death. Nothing more, nothing less.

Tiassa: And who the hell are you to decide who deserves what?

Madanthonywayne: Same to you, bud. Who are you to say they don't deserve to be executed?​

According to the philosophy I'm espousing, at least that person is alive if we get it wrong. Apparently, at least, to follow your part in the discussion, that doesn't matter:

Tiassa: You would really pretend that life and death are the same?

Madanthonywayne: They are alternative sentences for the crime of murder. Each with a long history of being imposed for the crime of murder. Each is legal in the US.​

That wasn't much of an answer you gave, was it? Simply repeat the obvious in lieu of addressing the question.

Way I figure it, if you had a rational argument, you could present it honestly.

 

Someone has probably already said this but there are only 3 reasons for criminal punishments

1) protect the population
2) rehabilitate the offender so they can be a productive member of sociaty
3) deter others from comiting offences

none of these need death

jail protects the public

if rehabilitation isnt possable and the offence is of a segnificant degree (ie not a compulsive litterer) then life without Parole is enough protection

death isnt a deterant. deterants dont actually work

 

I thought we were already done with this thread, the pro side winning...

You forgot:

4) Justice
5) Punishment (I know but your 2) also doesn't make sense)
6) Payback
etc.etc.

I refuted the protect the population myth earlier (with the driver's example), since you can't guarantee that they don't kill in prison (prisoners should be protected too) or they would not be released ever.

Sure they do. If I slap you in the face hard everytime when you make an illogical argument, you would smarten up real quick!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please moderator close this thread, no new argument presented in the last few days on the anti side....

 

Actually Your wrong

Define Justice

and you will NEVER find payback or punishment in any legal definition. In fact the law comes down really hard on people that take revenge.