Voted "I'm opposed to it." The purpose of the law in general and the penal system in particular is first and foremost, to protect society, second to punish the guilty and third and least, to reform the criminal if possible. In that order.
Capital punishment, generally speaking, does not seem to afford those benefits. First, it is the surety of punishment, not its severity, that is a deterrent to crime. If an individual is sure that they will be punished, they will likely not act. If that individual believes that they might get away with it, they will likely run the risk.
So in that sense, capital punishment fails its first and most important test. It does not deter and therefore it does not protect the society. Throw in that it applies only in cases of premeditation - crimes of passion are not premeditated - and the range of those whom capital punishment applies becomes proportionately smaller.
Secondly, it is axiomatic that we shape our laws and then our laws shape us. In that context, capital punishment reflects - and is a result of - the society's treatment of life as a means rather than an end. In this it is the parallel of the abortion argument. The planted axiom of liberal abortion laws is that life has no value save that which each individual attributes to it, therefore the law has no proper standing to afford it protection.
Capital punishment is a case of the society deciding that the value of life is contingent rather than absolute. That action decides life's value rather than life's inherent worth. When the society places vengeance over any inherent value to life, it will apt in its larger context to see more of the former and value the latter less and less.
To be sure, in the matter of capital punishment that is at the margins and dealing with decidedly unsympathetic individuals. Arguably the case can be made that "killing the killer" suggests that society places a much higher value on life. However, on balance, the inspiration of capital punishment is vengeance and not justice and thus both the value of life and the value of justice is undermined.
Beyond that, humans are imperfect and there are issues related to failings of the legal system. In the question of justice, the accidental execution of the innocent is not an injustice that can be undone. Indeed, it is what suggests that vengeance - and not justice - is what inspires laws that condone capital punishment.
In short, capital punishment harms society with too few countervailing benefits.
oh yes. compassion doesn't make the world a better place it makes the streets dirty and unsafe. Executing criminals reduces our tax dollars spent on criminals and removes the potential for repeat offenders
now to preempt your usual poorly thought out counter arguments
1. do not respond with studies saying 3 strike policies make the person fight harder on their last arrest. this is not the same thing as saying we have more criminals overall. we don't. executing criminals reduces overall crime by removing repeat offenders. no more 9 or 10 arrests for the same person
2. do not say executions are expensive, executions are very cheap. only LIBERAL execution methods are expensive
Executions themselves are cheap but investigations/litigation is expensive and +90% of people in prison are there on plea bargains and on top of that if people aren't taking plea bargains, the court system will become back-logged and instead of spending money to house people in prison, you'll be spending that money to hold people pre-trail.
then the system will need to be streamlined. I favor a system of decimation where the judge rolls a 10 sided die and if it comes up on a 1 you get executed right away in the court room after being convicted of a felony. no appeals allowed.
Will you stand by that view when you're ass is wrongfully convicted or do you just don't think that will happen to you because you're white?
research.msu.edu/.../
But what portion of the population do you think should have to commit an execution? Because if every person has to commit 1 in their lifetime, you'd need 4 million executions per year (there aren't that many births in this country annually).
I believe that people should rot in prison and not be allowed to get the easy way out unless they are pedophiles or rapist. Drugs and theft should be worked with instead of just having lives thrown away when we can find ways to fix those things. It’ll take trial and error cause a lot of people will fail but some people have came out of prison and started their lives and built themselves into better people. The other people that don’t want help can stay there and never see their friends and family or even the general public ever again
How many times is this going to be asked this week? You are # 25 in line.
Opinion
13Opinion
sadly, i think it's necessary in extreme cases where you have convicts like in the story i read last night: https://www.freshedits.com/spotlight/a-teenage-friendship-gone-wrong-the-skylar-neese-case/30.html?fps=fb&br_t=ch&_pg=p12&fbclid=IwAR3KftE4ol028STKc-rzoogc-ePpN3Ai6UGMZVPYBHiL2fiWo_SNKXw8rDU
there will be people who are like Shelia Eddy who have no conscience-who have no issue with killing someone so brutally just because you don't like them and will likely murder again.
I don't support it. Having to make other people responsible for killing people sounds very unethical in my opinion. Some people may deserve to die for their crimes, but I don't think anyone deserves the job of an executor.
i think execution should be like jury duty. everyone should have a moral obligation to kill. makes us stronger people and helps fill us with the wisdom that can only come from seeing death.
I think the greatest problem in the west today is our lives are too safe. Safety prevents suffering and a reasonable amount of suffering is necessary for our lives to turn out well or we will make bad choices as we lack wisdom. Wisdom only comes from suffering
@007kingifrit Do you have any evidence that killing makes "people stronger" (although the opposite seems to be true if you look up perpetrator trauma) or are you talking out of your ass again?
en.wikipedia.org/.../Perpetrator_trauma
look at the suicide rates by class, wealthier a person is the more likely their kids are to have mental disorders and kill themselves. look at all the millenial wimps unable to show basic resilience. look at the rise of feelings based reasoning in america as wealth and safety have increased. that's my evidence
suffering helps us grow as people. if the world becomes too luxurious we will destroy ourselves
@007kingifrit
That's not evidence that being forced to kill people will harden them. In fact, even when people have to kill in self defense it traumatizes them:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3974970/
"suffering helps us grow as people. if the world becomes too luxurious we will destroy ourselves"
Nope you're just being a bitter asshole.
no im right, but you as usual try to use knowledge to replace wisdom. people are traumatized by anything in this soft society of ours. people who are used to killing and death are much stronger more reliable people
@007kingifrit "but you as usual try to use knowledge to replace wisdom."
News flash: making sense (i. e wisdom) and being fact aren't always the same thing. What you call "wisdom" is just your confirmation bias.
wisdom is the ability to know the nature of man and thus know yourself and others. this is not learned in a classroom, it is learned through suffering
as any honest person will tell you, the time you suffered the most in life? its also the time you learned the most about yourself. Remove the suffering early on and people grow up to be awful, angry, and unfulfilled seeking purpose everyday and never finding it.
@007kingifrit Wisdom is learned through all our experiences (trial and tribulations). But the fact of the matter is traumatic experiences don't always strengthen people, they can also weaken them. We even have a name for that: PTSD.
But just because you're a bitter twisted asswipe doesn't mean that everyone else has to be for society to function.
seeing as the most dangerous people in history are always people who wanted to build a perfect world... yea it kinda does actually.
optimists are dangerous. once you justify your actions by claiming to pursue utopia you can justify any amount of wrongdoing.
you call me bitter, but the truth is the happiest people are the ones who expect life to be full of suffering, to them all the bad things that happen are expected. and all the good things are special little gifts
even your academic knowledge based sources confirm this with decades of happiness research. unhappiness comes from comparing life to our expectations and coming up short NOT from suffering
@007kingifrit
"seeing as the most dangerous people in history are always people who wanted to build a perfect world... yea it kinda does actually."
We're talking about a better world, not a utopian vision dumbass.
"unhappiness comes from comparing life to our expectations and coming up short NOT from suffering" suffering is well known to induce depression and what you described is a feature intrinsic to capitalism, not human nature.
suffering causes no unhappiness. expectations of no suffering + suffering cause unhappiness. it is our expecctations that cause us to be unhappy
for you; a "better" world and a utopia are one in the same. you don't understand you can't fix the things you want to fix. they aren't broken. capitalism is just people owning their own property and deciding what to do with it
@007kingifrit
"expectations of no suffering + suffering cause unhappiness." That's Bullshit, for example losing a pet causes plenty of unhappiness even though pretty much everyone knows that humans have longer life expectancies than dogs.
"capitalism is just people owning their own property and deciding what to do with it". And it's about concentrating as much wealth as possible and when that's the objective, you inevitably compare yourself to others and no matter how much you have you only want more.
actually socialism always concentrates wealth. because as soon as you decide to make everyone equal (even though freedom naturally trends to inequality) you then need an AUTHORITY to force people to remain equal... but since humans are naturally selfish that authority will always keep more for themselves. thus becoming a concentration of wealth
all socialist societies end up with extreme poverty for the many. and a few super rich
@007kingifrit Except socialism doesn't "force everyone to be equal" it prevents you from exploiting the labor of others. And Capitalism is an inherently authoritarian system of production while socialism is a democratic one. You're just spinning things any which way you can.
socialism is inherently authoritarian. it makes people be equal. freedom inherently makes inequality
capitalism doesn't exploit you. it lets you do what you want with your own stuff
@007kingifrit "it makes people be equal" no it doesn't; you work harder or smarter, you earn more. socialism just prevents you from using property rights to exploit the labor of others.
that's not true at all. socialism doesn't let you earn more
@007kingifrit Well in communist countries and worker cooperatives people didn't have fixed or equal wages (unless you're going to say "that's not 'real' socialism").
oooooh really, then where was the middle class? the lower class? where did the people with more money spend it? hmmmm?
@007kingifrit Wages in the middle class are between $40,100 to $120,400 so not everyone in the middle class makes the same.
not in any way a response to what you were asked. if people in the soviet union were allowed to make more or less money than one another... where is the increased wealth of one group over another? they obviously must have classes if they can have more. we humans inherently form hierarchy.
and don't be semantic or technical about what we define as "middle class". if people have more than one another... the aren't equal
@007kingifrit Classes are only classes because we've subdivided them as such. The fact is not everyone in the USSR made the same amount of money. Socialism doesn't prevent you from making more from working harder, it just prevents you from exploiting the work of others.
no, classes are classes because biology requires us to make classes. we are social creatures and we do this naturally. if one group has more money than another. they will form a separate us vs them culture
@007kingifrit OK, then if that's how you define it the USSR had classes but then we're just arguing semantics.
its not semantics. it literally defeats the entire point of socialism
@007kingifrit Well socialists didn't define classes as people who had any difference in the amount of money they earned but that's how you define it so yes you're arguing semantics.
it doesn't matter how socialism defines classes. it comes to my definition in the end
i use practical definitions; i define things are they must exist. not how academic sissy dreamers wish they could exist
@007kingifrit Or more like you just use whatever definition is most useful to your position.
didn't really respond. it doesn't matter how socialism defines classes. it comes to the same outcome in the end
@007kingifrit Yep, a way better standard of living than under the previous capitalist regime. Seriously, people always try to compare socialist countries to current capitalist ones ignoring that those countries were way more backwards when they were capitalist.
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? russia was not capitalist before the USSR
and you changed the subject entirely. again
Oh my lord. At least have this conversation under @007kingifrit's reply and not mine. Or go to dms. I can't find a way to mute these notifications and it's starting to get fucking annoying.
yea im done, quid always responds even if he has to change the topic. its like he thinks he loses if he says nothing even though he lost the first time he changed the topic
@007kingifrit It was capitalist. Not free market capitalism but capitalism none the less.
You have people such as Maxine Waters pushing violence, And it’s going to get someone hurt/killed
And not by the police. I believe Waters wants that also myself. Civil unrest plays into the Democratic
Party. If the people turn on her! And the Government then they have lost control.
Washington is just a small # of politicians. So their best weapon is Civil unrest.
But that’s only my opinion.
Yes. If it can be proven through hard scientific evidence or caught on camera someone doing something horrible and inhuman like premeditated murder or just something unspeakable then the person must be put to death. No waiting 10 or 20 years on death row non sense. They will be put to death upon conviction.
No. I don't think that the State has the right to take a person's life!!
In contrast, I don't want to pay taxes to keep them in prison, so I think they need to work, and contribute to society, rather than just rot in a cell.
Somewhere between E and F, which basically means no. I think there are people who deserve to die, but I don't like the state being in that business.
If the criminal justice system actually worked yes. People in jail for like should be executed instead of a burden on society
Opposed. 100% sentence for a crime we can only by 99% sure of guilt.
It should be expanded to liberals.
You're saying people who disagree with you should be killed for it and on my other post you're complaining about how the left is taking away freedom. You're so stupid you're beyond parody.
I'm very much against it.
I am absolutely opposed to it.
No executions , no abortions
Very much so.
Don’t support it.
Mixed thoughts
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
