You will see the death penalty enacted on high profile politician's in the not too distant future. There are times when we should guide our decisions with a moral compass. And other times we will not stand for crimes against humanity. This subject matter will not be told. It will be shown.
I still remember Stanley Hoss when I was around 8. He raped a 19 y. o. and was sent to a workhouse. He escaped and killed a police officer and kidnapped and most likely killed a woman and her daughter. They finally caught him and imprisoned him (the death penalty had been stopped). There he beat a guard to death. He eventually committed suicide 5 years later.state-killings-in-the-steel-city.org/.../
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
"it doesn't make sense to keep them alive (financially)"How can you put a price on a life though?
We have had this conversation. Why is it difficult to understand that money and resources are limited, and if you are helping or trying to help someone beyond measure, someone else is not getting that much needed help. It's not about money it's about one life vs other lives. Would you sacrifice lives of 10 children when trying to fund the life of an aggressive prisoner (if you were balancing the government budget)? How exactly we can put a price on life depends on the formula and methods used...All I am saying is it can make sense even from a morality standpoint.
This was posted a day ago and yes we already did. Murder is murder. If I don't give my money to a homeless man I am not responsible for his death but if I kill him I am. I done discussing it. It's more than obvious and it's how the law works.
It's not murder or illegal if it is something which is included as a law. You should never be able to make that decision but the government can and that's the point. The question asks, is death penalty moral? and the answer is yes.
It is taking a life. It is murder. Look, stop bothering me ok?
Not what the definition of murder is but ok.
Alright it is unjust lawful killing make you happier? Same with war killings.
I think we (each) have made our positions clear. This conversation is over. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8YMJcIvpUlc , apologies for the time wasted.
By the same token, the West used to apply such barbaric punishments towards criminals. So what changed? Normative morality might be useful for descriptive purposes, and panders to a certain liberal desire not to offend anybody, but I don't think it's the full explanation.
I think it's an embarrassment burglar can't be shot in the UK they 100% deserve it
@ConstantPain No guns here man. Fisticuffs is what we will have to use.
That's the base for law, not the death penalty.
"Your whole base for the death penalty is that a person committed a crime that they didn't have the right to commit."Using that logical basis, a kidnapper did not have the right to incarcerate an individual against his will, therefore it would be immoral to incarcerate that kidnapper. You might want to rethink your thesis here.
@Liam_Hayden you might want to rethink your thesis I'm talking about killing people you're talking about arresting them. Quite different tbh. By arresting them you take them off the street. We live in a world we live in we're all horny for rights. No one has the right to decide who should live and who should die. It's very subjective. Killing someone literally doesn't change anything. If a serial killer raped and killed 40 women and then he (you have to have a penis to rape someone) were killed. There are 41 people dead doesn't change the fact the women are gone. Deterrence Retribution and Reformation are the three pillars. When executed correctly it can be effective. If you give up on them and you don't put the effort in when you took that job to work with criminals then of course the system will fail us.
@Liam_HaydenHung for a sheep than a lamb If the punishment is too harsh people will just commit a more serious crime to get the same punishment. It's been repeated time and time again through out history. Crimes committed show the problems in society. Petty theft has been a popular crime for years why? Anyone who uses bible quotes as their reasoning has no leg to stand on. The bible is a book of contradictions written by multiple people not some mythical god who will smite us. To those who complain about paying we pay for protection. If our taxes were distributed using equity we'd see more of a difference. The issue is everyone has different priorities. I think we should put more money into education. By increasing the budget, we raise the literacy rate, invent new ways to teach students, lessen the stress on everyone in education, have more educated people to help tackle the problems we have and there would be less stupid people in the world. Some would want national defense to be a priority because of MAD that ensures the peace. Too many conflicting views and closed minds just lead to setbacks in society and less peace. If you're all for cleansing society change how the society is run. Without a huge reformation we will continue down this path like we have for hundreds of years. Don't you think if we had more developed cities places to turn these people wouldn't set out to kill rape pillage and steal? No one is born evil. Nobody is born and suddenly decides to shoot up a school.
Do you actually believe women can't rape?
@themythos it's literally written into the law. Your opinion doesn't matter to the law. Sure I think it should be equal and women are treated differently when it comes to sex crimes but the reality is women can't rape in the eyes of the law. The law is law you don't like it change it.
Please quote or link thar law
@themythos this really reflects on the American education system poorly. I learnt about this when I was 12 in Citizenship. According to the law, only a man can commit rape (as the penetration has to be with a penis). However, both women and men can be raped. A rape can occur within a relationship or within a marriage. The law says:‘A’ is guilty of rape if:he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of ‘B’ with his penis;‘B’ does not consent to the penetration, and‘A’ does not reasonably believe that ‘B’ consents.www.BBC.co.uk › schools › pdfPDFRape briefing - BBCThe BBC is trusted and well known source for information.
doesn't reflect anything about education thats just two different countries laws.here's our version. UCR definition of rape is: Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim. ucr.fbi.gov/.../rape
@themythos fair point I was wrong. Law making is subjective too that's why I think some people get arrested for stupid shit
And we should lower ourself to their level? If someone is serious danger to society sure chop of his head or whatever but torture is simply for your own satisfaction
There was no mention of torture, but if they are willing to torture others I say they get the exact same punishment.
Why do criminals sentenced to death need to suffer more? It seems rather pointless. Its Just society lowering its self to criminals degree
The entire bible is just a bunch of dicks just contradicting eachother
@Hannibal_Lecter420 My opinion is based on human decency. I don't believe in murder but with a username like hannibal lecter, I'll assume you like seeing people die.
I don't mind but I hate the hypocrisy. If you kill someone because they didn't have the right then you should be killed to because you didn't have the right
@Hannibal_Lecter420 The hypocrisy is only in killing someone for killing someone.
I don't think 'eye for an eye' is why we do it aislin. We do it so we can minimise the damage/harm to people and property outside and inside (the jail). If someone is going to harm more people alive than dead, you are basically saying his life is more valuable than others.
@sensible27 By murdering someone you are doing the exact thing they've done. There is no getting around that pesky problem.
It still does make sense to kill someone if they are going to kill 20 others? Minimising the damage seems like a reasonable thing otherwise you could just let irrational terrorists run over the planet?
Lol why don't we do what we did couple hundred years ago. Ship everyone who's pissed you off to Australia
There was no rude undertone to it. I don't even have a fixed viewpoint on this, it just seems like a rational argument.
@sensible27 It still does make sense to kill someone if they are going to kill 20 others?That's what prison is for.
It's about capital allocation. To take care of an inmate for an year the average costs are around 20k to 60k depending on the state. If you transfer those resources elsewhere say a hospital or homeless shelter, you are still saving lives? It's just about who is being more productive and providing a better return on investment for the tax payer in some sense. You might wanna do these calculations but it is someone's full time job to do just this (probably).
@sensible27 It doesn't matter, you can't put a price on any life. I have no problem with having them earn their keep but I don't agree with murder. I will never agree with any murder. It's a slippery slope.
You could argue once someone takes a life they lose the right to live
How hanibal? You do eat other animals right?
Actually you can aislin. It is known as economics and power, what you are arguing is theoretical and philosophical to some degree but not practical. We put a value on life all the time, if we didn't a lot of things we do now could never have come to life.
We reward risk with money, riskier jobs are higher paid and that is what they are paid for, for risking their lives. Insurance, countries and militaries do this on a daily basis.
@sensible27 just giving an opposing opinion. I don't think the death penalty does much
@Hannibal_Lecter420 "You could argue once someone takes a life they lose the right to live"So I guess with that argument, the actual executioner loses his or her right to live, possibly the judge as well depending on how you look at it.
Hanibal death penalty does save money? And just to be clear here I personally don't agree with the death penalty I am just arguing for rationalities sake, it does seem immoral but economical in some sense and it is valid to try to save more lives with that amount than one.
@sensible27 this goes back way before 1066 the hue& cry and the tithing though not as applicable in the modern ageIf you see someone commit a crime its your responsibility to turn them in. The tithing consisted of ten men who were responsible for each other this stopped others committing crimes. Loosely applied to the modern world its our responsibility as a member of society to protect others. Not kill others on purpose. Take the Murdrum fine. William the Conqueror (Bastard) put that in place to protect his men. Any dead Norman found in your village meant that the whole village was fined. They worked together to save the others from fines. Thats what we do now they use our taxes to incarcerate the criminals to protect society. Some people are wrongfully arrested or arrested for absolutely stupid things in my opinion. Yet as a society we all pay for protection and for the faults of others. If we all worked together we could make the world a decent place for everyone. Greed and selfishness is only going to worsen the problem. Children are born into unstable families or are pushed down the wrong path because they surrounded themselves with immoral people then become immoral themselves. If we had places to go people to turn to allowed people to have abortions freely we wouldn't have people born into unsafe families who then go on to commit crimes.
@sensible27 we spend millions on killing people. If we spent that money opening up places for at risk kids or for people who need refuge we could steer people away from committing crimes make them feel understood and appreciated
I agree on the first but murder? So you kill a guy in selfdefense and the court calls it murder so now death penalty for you?
Ah nvm I misread that in a hurry