1. Post #1
    Dennab
    August 2011
    3,194 Posts
    My personal answer is a certain and indefinite no, it should not be allowed in any capacity anywhere, and in fact the death penalty itself should be abolished. To see countries still support and commit public hangings is disgusting. I make this thread because my friend is a dumb fuck and he was talking about how he supports public hangings (and the death penalty for that matter(after I posted a video he said "well only if they're guilty!")). Basically the whole point of this thread is to see if anyone actually thinks its an acceptable action, and to see their logic and reasoning for such a stance.

    (User was banned for this post ("No debate presented" - Megafan))
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  2. Post #2
    Dennab
    January 2012
    821 Posts
    God no.

    If they have to (Like a serial killer) 10+ people murdered), do It private.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  3. Post #3
    Absolute tosser, manchild, and belligerent douche-nozzle.
    download's Avatar
    July 2006
    6,812 Posts
    I think regular execution is wrong, so no.

    While ever there is the tiniest hint (and there always will be, no matter who did what) that the person is innocent, I will never support execution. The idea that innocent people have been killed in the name of justice is disgusting
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Australia Show Events

  4. Post #4
    God no.

    If they have to (Like a serial killer) 10+ people murdered), do It private.
    I'm going to have to agree with this guy here, on all parts.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United States Show Events

  5. Post #5
    The Union Jack would look a shit ton better with a Hammer and Sickle in the middle of it
    Bobie's Avatar
    November 2007
    7,267 Posts
    i can't see any advantages in public execution as opposed to standard execution (aside from the fact that i absolutely hate capital punishment) - it simply infringes on a massive amount of human rights; and was only ever acceptable in the dark ages
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events

  6. Post #6
    xxBeASTxx's Avatar
    August 2012
    30 Posts
    happens everyday blud round hackney init next man starts talkin waste bled u dont even no man hollas his crew shit goes down bled gets shanked
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events

  7. Post #7
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    June 2005
    15,081 Posts
    Executions are wrong full stop.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events

  8. Post #8
    MyBigBoner.com
    fritzel's Avatar
    March 2009
    4,640 Posts
    What happens when someone take hostages to demand release of a prisoner ? Is it wise on out part to feed that potential sleeper cell on our taxes, only to see him getting released later and causing much more havoc ?

    I am against public executions. But some wrecks need to be executed for the greater good of humanity.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 India Show Events

  9. Post #9
    Oh and I'd like to mention that I'm the person he mentioned in the op, I chose not to respond back to not cause more conflict and he took it as me liking public execution and overreacted like usual. And if you read my post above there's only a certain time where I believe execution is right, and that's only and I cannot stress this enough, but only when it's a serial killer who's murdered a ton of people and has no guilt or remorse about it. Him and I both have issues and he's trying to demonize me even more, so move along folks, no need to feed him. Think of me as bad for wanting only serial killers to be executed, but we all have our personal opinions on this topic and I believe it's best to not let him take his anger out on me even more, which he does to everyone he knows, I know that's personal stuff but I felt that it was necessary to mention such a thing for once. And in case anyone didn't get the memo, I don't support public execution whatsoever, it's a step backward and I'd rather have it done in private, kids and the like don't need to see this kind of stuff.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United States Show Events

  10. Post #10
    Valnar's Avatar
    November 2007
    2,615 Posts
    I am against executions morally but to help further that position I am also against it because it is usually more expensive than life imprisonment.

    Here is a snippit from a paper on the subject which talks about estimates of the cost of execution against life imprisonment.

    While not empirically based, studies to date have estimated total
    costs for capital cases in the millions of dollars. A New York study compares
    a $1.4 million cost figure for each death penalty trial with $602,000
    for the cost of life imprisonment for forty years in non-capital cases.[95]
    Florida has estimated that the true cost of each execution is approximately
    $3.2 million, or approximately six times what it would cost to
    keep that person in prison for all of his or her natural life.[96] Based upon
    our research and data currently available, these appear to be reasonable
    estimates of the overall costs incurred in capital and non-capital cases.
    Here is a link to that paper.
    http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/vi...14&context=llr

    Basically what the paper as a whole says is that due to the nature of executions there are a lot more costs associated to it.

    To name a few of those extra costs, the average time prisoners spend on death row is 8 years and those prisons are more expensive to maintain than normal prisons, capital punishment cases are estimated to take up to 3.5 times longer than non-capital trials and appeals to the state's highest court are automatically granted to people who have been given a death sentence.

    Execution can be extremely expensive, and besides that there are other arguments that can be made against the death penalty.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  11. Post #11
    Gold Member

    May 2005
    2,268 Posts
    No, it's bad
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  12. Post #12
    Gold Member
    Splarg!'s Avatar
    September 2005
    2,432 Posts
    And if you read my post above there's only a certain time where I believe execution is right, and that's only and I cannot stress this enough, but only when it's a serial killer who's murdered a ton of people and has no guilt or remorse about it.
    Why keep the whole capital punishment system around purely for a small group of people? Why is it completely necessary that we kill them in the first place?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  13. Post #13
    I'd rather not get into the details about that due to Clementine, like I stated before.

    Edited:

    Though I'll keep it simple if you really want an answer, like Fritzel said in his post, some people just don't deserve to live.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United States Show Events

  14. Post #14
    Dennab
    August 2011
    3,194 Posts
    I'm going to have to agree with this guy here, on all parts.
    Bullshit you do lol, don't back out of your bullshit about supporting Public Executions just because you don't want to look retarded on FP. You literally were saying

    And when confronted on voice, you said that they need to be serial killers, so no you don't agree with him, you want them to be publicly murdered
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  15. Post #15
    Audio-Surfer's Avatar
    February 2008
    268 Posts
    Any form of punishment is a cop-out. You're attacking the effect and not the cause of the problem.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  16. Post #16
    Like I said earlier, and I know you ignored my post, I chose to not respond back for a reason. I'm going to leave this thread now and let people discuss because this kind of shit isn't needed here.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United States Show Events

  17. Post #17
    Gold Member
    Splarg!'s Avatar
    September 2005
    2,432 Posts
    Clementine, I'm not crazy about his opinions either but this isn't really the greatest place for a personal argument.


    I'd rather not get into the details about that due to Clementine, like I stated before.

    Edited:

    Though I'll keep it simple if you really want an answer, like Fritzel said in his post, some people just don't deserve to live.
    So it's pretty much the same argument everyone always uses in support of the death penalty.

    Tell me, how is it for the greater good of humanity that we participate in killing at all? How does it benefit us to do away with a few people that are completely isolated from us and will never see the light of day again anyway? Because we've decided they've "given up their right to live?"


    Also, have a look at this nice map that groups us with some of the most oppressive governments in the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_...ent_by_country
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  18. Post #18
    Dennab
    August 2011
    3,194 Posts
    Like I said earlier, and I know you ignored my post, I chose to not respond back for a reason. I'm going to leave this thread now and let people discuss because this kind of shit isn't needed here.
    Actually it literally is, its mass debate, that's what this entire board is made for, to debate things, explain your logic and reasoning for being for public execution, and don't change your opinion just because you realized your opinion is laughable. You had already been laughed at by everyone in the chat, and even then you didn't change your opinion, so yes, you do support public execution.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  19. Post #19
    Gold Member
    Floreum's Avatar
    March 2006
    995 Posts
    Bullshit you do lol, don't back out of your bullshit about supporting Public Executions just because you don't want to look retarded on FP. You literally were saying

    And when confronted on voice, you said that they need to be serial killers, so no you don't agree with him, you want them to be publicly murdered
    So, you're mad and you have to come onto this forum to bring up some personal chats between you and your friends just to show that he is wrong on an opinion he has by posting it here so that like-minded people will agree with you and you can rub it in his face. How do we know you didn't cut out the part he explained himself further and you're trying to demonize him?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Canada Show Events

  20. Post #20
    Dennab
    August 2011
    3,194 Posts
    So, you're mad and you have to come onto this forum to bring up some personal chats between you and your friends just to show that he is wrong on an opinion he has by posting it here so that like-minded people will agree with you and you can rub it in his face. How do we know you didn't cut out the part he explained himself further and you're trying to demonize him?
    Do you want me to take a picture of the entire skype chat from that point down? Because I don't think everyone wants to see our posting of pictures and other links.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  21. Post #21
    Played it for the plot
    Dennab
    October 2008
    14,789 Posts
    Public execution doesn't infringe on any more rights than regular execution, and the criminal threw his own rights out the window when he infringed on his victim's rights.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  22. Post #22
    Dennab
    August 2011
    3,194 Posts
    Public execution doesn't infringe on any more rights than regular execution, and the criminal threw his own rights out the window when he infringed on his victim's rights.
    Did they also turn themselves into animals? Like, are they no longer humans not deserving of the basic human rights? You want to give the government the ability to take away people's basic human right to life? That and give them the ability to murder their own civilians? That's not even the only thing, morally execution is fucked up, how could you support useless revenge? Its not like you're stopping a violent person, they are done with their crimes, they are pacified, there is no reason to kill them besides idiotic revenge. Another thing is that it costs like 6x more to kill them, if that's the only thing you care about.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  23. Post #23
    Gold Member
    Benf199105's Avatar
    December 2006
    3,115 Posts
    Did they also turn themselves into animals? Like, are they no longer humans not deserving of the basic human rights? You want to give the government the ability to take away people's basic human right to life? That and give them the ability to murder their own civilians? That's not even the only thing, morally execution is fucked up, how could you support useless revenge? Its not like you're stopping a violent person, they are done with their crimes, they are pacified, there is no reason to kill them besides idiotic revenge. Another thing is that it costs like 6x more to kill them, if that's the only thing you care about.
    This line of argument fails to take into account the right to life of the victim.

    From a perspective of 'equality', i'd often say it was unfair and unjust for a killer to be allowed to live, after unlawfully and knowingly stopping another from living.

    In a system without execution for serious crimes, the one's who wrong others end up with a better quality of life than their victims. Which system is more morally problematic? The one where the unjust are punished equally, or the one where they live a better life than the innocents that were killed?

    Edit:

    I also presume the cost of execution is linked to the extensive long stays on death row and the trials, retrails, hearings and so on. Depends what they class as a direct cost of execution.

    "While not empirically based, studies to date have estimated total
    costs for capital cases in the millions of dollars. A New York study compares
    a $1.4 million cost figure for each death penalty trial with $602,000
    for the cost of life imprisonment for forty years in non-capital cases."
    Thought so.

    - Furthermore, by adding in the cost of executions, do people like yourself not run the risk or "pricing" a victim's life?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events

  24. Post #24
    Gold Member
    reedbo's Avatar
    July 2005
    2,484 Posts
    Did they also turn themselves into animals? Like, are they no longer humans not deserving of the basic human rights? You want to give the government the ability to take away people's basic human right to life? That and give them the ability to murder their own civilians? That's not even the only thing, morally execution is fucked up, how could you support useless revenge? Its not like you're stopping a violent person, they are done with their crimes, they are pacified, there is no reason to kill them besides idiotic revenge. Another thing is that it costs like 6x more to kill them, if that's the only thing you care about.
    They don't have human rights as soon as they kill another human as far as I'm concerned. I don't think the government should be given the duty of execution however. I think it would be better if the inmate makes his own decision whether he wan't to live or die. Give him the option of a life sentence or a cyanide pill. I agree that executions are wrong but I do feel that when you take another humans life you sacrifice your own in the process and you void your own human rights.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  25. Post #25
    N-12_Aden's Avatar
    April 2011
    2,801 Posts
    Hell no public execution isn't right. Its sad that execution's used to be fucking public spectacle. Its barbaric, cruel, and just wrong.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  26. Post #26
    Dennab
    August 2011
    3,194 Posts
    This line of argument fails to take into account the right to life of the victim.

    From a perspective of 'equality', i'd often say it was unfair and unjust for a killer to be allowed to live, after unlawfully and knowingly stopping another from living.

    In a system without execution for serious crimes, the one's who wrong others end up with a better quality of life than their victims. Which system is more morally problematic? The one where the unjust are punished equally, or the one where they live a better life than the innocents that were killed?

    Edit:

    I also presume the cost of execution is linked to the extensive long stays on death row and the trials, retrails, hearings and so on. Depends what they class as a direct cost of execution.



    Thought so.

    - Furthermore, by adding in the cost of executions, do people like yourself not run the risk or "pricing" a victim's life?
    An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind bucko. Equality when its comes to murder isn't equality at all, its tyranny, its barbaric, and its disgusting. They don't end up with a better quality of lives, if they're really bad killers, then they are likely to be terrorized daily, and we all know that prison/jail in the USA at least is awful, so no, its not a good life, one would likely rather be dead than live through all that.

    Then the cost argument is a moot point because we have no information either way.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  27. Post #27

    December 2011
    38 Posts
    An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind bucko. Equality when its comes to murder isn't equality at all, its tyranny, its barbaric, and its disgusting. They don't end up with a better quality of lives, if they're really bad killers, then they are likely to be terrorized daily, and we all know that prison/jail in the USA at least is awful, so no, its not a good life, one would likely rather be dead than live through all that.

    Then the cost argument is a moot point because we have no information either way.
    Yeah, sure, if he/she/it has done one murder/rape/public masturbation session, sure, but if he/she/it has done ten murders/one hundred rapes/does nothing but break public indecency laws, then by all means.

    An eye for ten eyes seems pretty fair to me.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events

  28. Post #28
    Gold Member
    reedbo's Avatar
    July 2005
    2,484 Posts
    An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind bucko. Equality when its comes to murder isn't equality at all, its tyranny, its barbaric, and its disgusting. They don't end up with a better quality of lives, if they're really bad killers, then they are likely to be terrorized daily, and we all know that prison/jail in the USA at least is awful, so no, its not a good life, one would likely rather be dead than live through all that.

    Then the cost argument is a moot point because we have no information either way.
    That saying poorly applies to murder.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  29. Post #29
    Gold Member
    Benf199105's Avatar
    December 2006
    3,115 Posts
    An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind bucko. Equality when its comes to murder isn't equality at all, its tyranny, its barbaric, and its disgusting.
    You're bringing in an emotional response that isn't anything to do with logic. - "barbaric, disgusting" etc. Stick to you're own rules OP.

    Furthermore, the "an eye for an eye" analogy isn't that way at all. It only makes those who wronged blind, we aren't blinding the innocent remember.

    They don't end up with a better quality of lives, if they're really bad killers, then they are likely to be terrorized daily, and we all know that prison/jail in the USA at least is awful, so no, its not a good life, one would likely rather be dead than live through all that.

    Then the cost argument is a moot point because we have no information either way.
    Also on your point of "they don't have better quality of life". Thats semi-retarded. Life > no life, thus a killer who continues living has a better quality of life, even at it's most insufferable, when compared to their victim, as death is non-comparable to life.

    Try again "bucko".
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events

  30. Post #30
    Valnar's Avatar
    November 2007
    2,615 Posts
    This line of argument fails to take into account the right to life of the victim.

    From a perspective of 'equality', i'd often say it was unfair and unjust for a killer to be allowed to live, after unlawfully and knowingly stopping another from living.

    In a system without execution for serious crimes, the one's who wrong others end up with a better quality of life than their victims. Which system is more morally problematic? The one where the unjust are punished equally, or the one where they live a better life than the innocents that were killed?

    Edit:
    Why is the only argument for the death penalty vengeance?

    You aren't looking to fix anything in society you are looking to give people revenge, revenge is not justice.

    Let me tell you what is morally problematic, the fact that people have and will continue to be wrongfully executed.

    At least in a system where life imprisonment is the harshest sentence people who are actually innocent can still have a chance to recover.

    I also presume the cost of execution is linked to the extensive long stays on death row and the trials, retrails, hearings and so on. Depends what they class as a direct cost of execution.
    Of course death row and trials and all of those others count as part of the cost of execution, because they it is necessary part of the process.

    Thought so.
    Are you going to actually look at the entirety of what I quoted or any part of the paper I linked?

    Such as the part of how those numbers were reasonable estimates.

    Or are you just going to condescendingly dismiss my evidence without actually providing any on your own?

    - Furthermore, by adding in the cost of executions, do people like yourself not run the risk or "pricing" a victim's life?
    No you aren't, because life imprisonment is still a valid form of punishment.

    Life imprisonment is less morally questionable, generally cheaper or at least the same cost of execution, and allows wrongfully convicted people at least a chance of returning to a normal life.

    Does that not make life imprisonment a better choice for society?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  31. Post #31
    Gold Member
    Benf199105's Avatar
    December 2006
    3,115 Posts
    Why is the only argument for the death penalty vengeance?

    You aren't looking to fix anything in society you are looking to give people revenge, revenge is not justice.

    Let me tell you what is morally problematic, the fact that people have and will continue to be wrongfully executed.

    At least in a system where life imprisonment is the harshest sentence people who are actually innocent can still have a chance to recover.



    Of course death row and trials and all of those others count as part of the cost of execution, because they it is necessary part of the process.



    Are you going to actually look at the entirety of what I quoted or any part of the paper I linked?

    Such as the part of how those numbers were reasonable estimates.

    Or are you just going to condescendingly dismiss my evidence without actually providing any on your own?



    No you aren't, because life imprisonment is still a valid form of punishment.

    Life imprisonment is less morally questionable, generally cheaper or at least the same cost of execution, and allows wrongfully convicted people at least a chance of returning to a normal life.

    Does that not make life imprisonment a better choice for society?
    I agree that the death penalty does not tackle the cause of crime. I don't believe I stated it did so in anyway. This being true does not absolve those who commit crimes from punishment however. We should punish those who commit crimes, whilst working to tackle their causes. I didn't allude or state I was against this in anyway however.

    There is, as you said, also the problem of incorrect execution, as there is inocrrect imprisonment, something we should tackle wholheartedly in both cases.

    I've already read the paper beforehand for a class, and my point still stands, it is not empirically tested, and furthermore, we do not price justice in Pounds or Dollars, and we never have.

    Does life inprisonment provide a better choice? - Questionable, many see the law as a tool to punish, some to rehabilitate. If you sit on one side or the other you will always disagree about which side is better.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events

  32. Post #32
    Valnar's Avatar
    November 2007
    2,615 Posts
    I agree that the death penalty does not tackle the cause of crime. I don't believe I stated it did so in anyway. This being true does not absolve those who commit crimes from punishment however. We should punish those who commit crimes, whilst working to tackle their causes. I didn't allude or state I was against this in anyway however.

    There is, as you said, also the problem of incorrect execution, as there is inocrrect imprisonment, something we should tackle wholheartedly in both cases.

    I've already read the paper beforehand for a class, and my point still stands, it is not empirically tested, and furthermore, we do not price justice in Pounds or Dollars, and we never have.

    Does life inprisonment provide a better choice? - Questionable, many see the law as a tool to punish, some to rehabilitate. If you sit on one side or the other you will always disagree about which side is better.

    If the death penalty doesn't tackle the cause of crime, doesn't deal with criminals any more effectively than imprisonment and has much worse ramifications for those who are falsely convicted than why is it a better punishment than imprisonment?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  33. Post #33
    Gold Member
    Benf199105's Avatar
    December 2006
    3,115 Posts
    If the death penalty doesn't tackle the cause of crime, doesn't deal with criminals any more effectively than imprisonment and has much worse ramifications for those who are falsely convicted than why is it a better punishment imprisonment?
    Imprisoning someone doesn't deal with the causes of crime either.

    I don't know exactly what you mean by "deal with criminals any more effectively"

    I only support the death penalty in what in english law is pertained to be "morally certain" (Look up Hyam v DPP or Lord Hailsham if you haven't heard the term). Thus the ramifications part of your argument is something I agree with and aim to minimise as much as possible.

    Thus it's at least equal, and could be described as much better from a retributionary standpoint. Reformist standpoint, it's obviously worse, but it someone knowingly slaughters 20 people, like Harris and Klebold or Timothy McVeigh, or Charles Manson, I think they deserve an adequate punishment, and imprisonment is not adequate given the nature and fallout of their acts.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events

  34. Post #34
    The Union Jack would look a shit ton better with a Hammer and Sickle in the middle of it
    Bobie's Avatar
    November 2007
    7,267 Posts
    Any form of punishment is a cop-out. You're attacking the effect and not the cause of the problem.
    this x a million, exactly my thoughts.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events

  35. Post #35
    Valnar's Avatar
    November 2007
    2,615 Posts
    Imprisoning someone doesn't deal with the causes of crime.
    Ok, so execution doesn't deal with the cause of crime better than imprisonment
    I don't know exactly what you mean by "deal with criminals any more effectively"
    A criminal who is imprisoned for life and one who is executed are both taken out of society and thus can't commit their crime again.

    I only support the death penalty in what in english law is pertained to be "morally certain" (Look up Hyam v DPP or Lord Hailsham if you haven't heard the term). Thus the ramifications part of your argument is something I agree with and aim to minimise as much as possible.
    So are you implying that there is some ratio of wrongful executions to correct executions greater than 0 that makes it an acceptable form of punishment over imprisonment?

    Again you are evading my question I have posed a couple of times.

    Why is the death penalty a better form of punishment than life imprisonment in any regard other than vengeance?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  36. Post #36
    Gold Member
    Benf199105's Avatar
    December 2006
    3,115 Posts
    Ok so there it doesn't do anything better than imprisonment


    A criminal who is imprisoned for life and one who is executed are both taken out of society and thus can't commit their crime again.



    So are you implying that there is some ratio of wrongful executions to correct executions greater than 0 that makes it an acceptable form of punishment over imprisonment?

    Again you are evading my question I have posed a couple of times.

    Why is the death penalty a better form of punishment than life imprisonment in any regard other than vengeance?
    To answer your question - it is a matter of equality. Treating two people the same.

    If you are killed, the only adequate ramification for the person who killed you, is to also be killed. You act unjustly to the one who was killed if you extend a better life to the person who unlawfully ended theit life. That's what I believe anyway.

    Simply put, if you were to weigh up the costs in a sort of hedonistic calculus (using Utils for example) approach it would be something like:

    Murderer kills victim : Killer = 0utils Victim = -100utils

    Imprison the Killer:
    Killer = Any number between 0utils and -99utils (as life is always greater than death) Victim = -100

    Killer is still alive and even though he is in prison he at least gets to experience life, meaning his number is always greater than the victim.

    Execute the killer:
    Killer = -100utils Victim = -100utils
    Equality.


    You can substitute any numbers in there; But my premise is thus:

    Life is always greater than no life. Thus, even an imprisoned life is more prefferable to no life at all. Thus, by extending the killer a continuing life, you treat them better than the innocent victim.

    I accept you may not agree with the premise, so we won't agree.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events

  37. Post #37
    Valnar's Avatar
    November 2007
    2,615 Posts
    To answer your question - it is a matter of equality. Treating two people the same.

    If you are killed, the only adequate ramification for the person who killed you, is to also be killed. You act unjustly to the one who was killed if you extend a better life to the person who unlawfully ended theit life. That's what I believe anyway.

    Simply put, if you were to weigh up the costs in a sort of hedonistic calculus (using Utils for example) approach it would be something like:

    Murderer kills victim : Killer = 0utils Victim = -100utils

    Imprison the Killer:
    Killer = Any number between 0utils and -99utils (as life is always greater than death) Victim = -100

    Killer is still alive and even though he is in prison he at least gets to experience life, meaning his number is always greater than the victim.

    Execute the killer:
    Killer = -100utils Victim = -100utils
    Equality.


    You can substitute any numbers in there; But my premise is thus:

    Life is always greater than no life. Thus, even an imprisoned life is more prefferable to no life at all. Thus, by extending the killer a continuing life, you treat them better than the innocent victim.

    I accept you may not agree with the premise, so we won't agree.
    I just can't see how the death penalty can work in the way you want it to work, especially since now you have put what is essentially a value on human life.

    Not only that but I can't see ever having an acceptable amount of innocent executions because I don't believe there is an acceptable amount.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  38. Post #38
    Gold Member
    Benf199105's Avatar
    December 2006
    3,115 Posts
    I just can't see how the death penalty can work in the way you want it to work, especially since now you have put what is essentially a value on human life.

    Not only that but I can't see ever having an acceptable amount of innocent executions because I don't believe there is an acceptable amount.
    The only thing I support the death penalty for is the equality of outcomes for the victim and perpatrator.

    I'm not valuing a human life, it's just a way to illustrate what I mean when I say "treating people equally".

    Innocent deaths happen in all walks of life, not just in the justice system. The number of innocent executions when compared to murders is miniscule, fractional, and so small it is almost uncountable.

    Maybe we should worry about stopping the thousands of murders before we worry about the tiny amount of false executions (not saying either is a higher priority, in a perfect world we'd have no murders, and thus no punishments).
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events

  39. Post #39
    Dennab
    August 2011
    3,194 Posts
    You're bringing in an emotional response that isn't anything to do with logic. - "barbaric, disgusting" etc. Stick to you're own rules OP.

    Furthermore, the "an eye for an eye" analogy isn't that way at all. It only makes those who wronged blind, we aren't blinding the innocent remember.



    Also on your point of "they don't have better quality of life". Thats semi-retarded. Life > no life, thus a killer who continues living has a better quality of life, even at it's most insufferable, when compared to their victim, as death is non-comparable to life.

    Try again "bucko".
    Implying that murder can ever be logical, and that the whole concept that you're peddling isn't an emotional response to what you believe to be a terrible event deserving of extreme retribution. Hypocrite.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  40. Post #40
    Gold Member
    Benf199105's Avatar
    December 2006
    3,115 Posts
    Implying that murder can ever be logical,
    You asked in the OP for Logic and reasoning, hence the logical approach. If anything you implied it could by stating that we should use logic and reasoning in the OP.

    Basically the whole point of this thread is to see if anyone actually thinks its an acceptable action, and to see their logic and reasoning for such a stance.
    and that the whole concept that you're peddling isn't an emotional response to what you believe to be a terrible event deserving of extreme retribution. Hypocrite.
    I've brought in no emotional response, unlike you did in your earlier posts.

    Nor have I made a normative claim about what murder is or what it entails. All i've said is that I believe in equal treatment for the killer and the victim. There is no emotive response here, only the logical premise that life is always preferable to no-life.

    I urge you to read more carefully.

    (It also doesn't matter if I did have an emotive reponse to murder and retribution, as I haven't used it to justify my standpoint, I've only used logic reasoned easily from a premise (albeit one which can be contested without emotive reactions aswell)).
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events