Death Penalty - Debate Archive

Go down

Death Penalty - Debate Archive

Post  Kevin Conner on Thu Mar 06, 2008 12:41 pm

Kevin Conner Posted: Mar 4 2008, 10:13 PM


Death Penalty.

Choose your side -

Pro

Con


DEBATE!!!

Kairiki Posted: Mar 5 2008, 01:28 AM


Hmm, I suppose I'll be the first to answer this...?

I'm completely against it. I understand that people do horrible things that can't and shouldn't be forgiven. But that doesn't give us the right to play God with other people's lives. For one, prison should be ample punishment, but only if we get stricter on what merits time in there. And failing that, it should be between the victims of the crime and the person who did it. That wouldn't really work for large scale crimes, but I still think there's a better way than killing people.

(Kairiki is not the best debater person, but hopes she's gotten what she's trying to say across.)



MessiahForHire Posted: Mar 5 2008, 01:30 AM


I am for the death penalty, but only in extreme cases.

If someone murders multiple people, they should not go to prison. They have taken peoples' lives, and therefore have forfeitted theirs. They have no excuse whatsoever to have killed people. Someone who has killed someone else by accident does not diserve to die as well, but if someone who has killed multiple people, or tortured people should be put to death. They reject their humanity, and should be stripped of their lives.



r1nn Posted: Mar 5 2008, 01:56 AM

I'm against the death penalty. Reasons being:

1. There are cases in which the criminal put on death trial is actually innocent instead of guilty. If that person actually gets the death penalty, then we as a government are taking away an innocent life.

2. I hold the belief that no person has the right to take away another person's life, except in some cases of self-defense, even if that right to take away another person's life is enforced by the government in some way.

3. Being in prison for life can be a good punishment, if not a better punishment compared to the death penalty. I understand that some prisons are kept well and that the prisoners get everything from food, clothes, to a job, but not all prisons are like this. Others are in bad shape and hold some of the worst criminals out there. No one would prefer living in a prison if they could live in their own house.

I have some other points but I'll bring them up when more people participate in this discussion.


MessiahForHire Posted: Mar 5 2008, 02:02 AM


QUOTE (r1nn @ Mar 5 2008, 01:56 AM)
I'm against the death penalty. Reasons being:

1. There are cases in which the criminal put on death trial is actually innocent instead of guilty. If that person actually gets the death penalty, then we as a government are taking away an innocent life.


I do agree with this comment r1nn, I would not like to see an innocent put to death. I believe that someone should only be put to death when it's beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person whas proven guilty. Also, if the death penalty were used by a unanimous vote of a collection of people.




r1nn Posted: Mar 5 2008, 02:09 AM


Newbie


Group: Shogun
Posts: 4
Member No.: 3
Joined: 2-March 08



QUOTE (MessiahForHire @ Mar 5 2008, 02:02 AM)
QUOTE (r1nn @ Mar 5 2008, 01:56 AM)
I'm against the death penalty. Reasons being:

1. There are cases in which the criminal put on death trial is actually innocent instead of guilty. If that person actually gets the death penalty, then we as a government are taking away an innocent life.



I do agree with this comment r1nn, I would not like to see an innocent put to death. I believe that someone should only be put to death when it's beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person whas proven guilty. Also, if the death penalty were used by a unanimous vote of a collection of people.


Hmm, here's another thing to consider:

What if the person was completely sorry for what they did, and was doing everything he or she could to change? (Not only community service, but had a different attitude than before, and a different outlook on life, let's say.) Also let's say that they apologized to all innocent parties involved. Does the person then still deserve death, just because the loss of their family member(s)/friends can't be undone?

Hmm, I guess my point here is, it's hard to draw the line on whether or not to be merciful when it comes to keeping a life. Like Kairiki said, it's like playing the role of God.
MessiahForHire Posted: Mar 5 2008, 02:24 AM
QUOTE (r1nn @ Mar 5 2008, 02:09 AM)
QUOTE (MessiahForHire @ Mar 5 2008, 02:02 AM)
QUOTE (r1nn @ Mar 5 2008, 01:56 AM)
I'm against the death penalty. Reasons being:

1. There are cases in which the criminal put on death trial is actually innocent instead of guilty. If that person actually gets the death penalty, then we as a government are taking away an innocent life.


I do agree with this comment r1nn, I would not like to see an innocent put to death. I believe that someone should only be put to death when it's beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person whas proven guilty. Also, if the death penalty were used by a unanimous vote of a collection of people.


Hmm, here's another thing to consider:

What if the person was completely sorry for what they did, and was doing everything he or she could to change? (Not only community service, but had a different attitude than before, and a different outlook on life, let's say.) Also let's say that they apologized to all innocent parties involved. Does the person then still deserve death, just because the loss of their family member(s)/friends can't be undone?
Member No.: 6
Joined: 5-March 08


Hmm, I guess my point here is, it's hard to draw the line on whether or not to be merciful when it comes to keeping a life. Like Kairiki said, it's like playing the role of God.


Well, like I said, if everyone in the group thought that person still deserved death, and all voted, then the said criminal should be dead. If the someone said they were truly sorry, and they were let off the hook, then anyone could basically do that and not die.

It should be the friends and family and other close persons that decide if they want to persue a death penalty. If not, then criminal goes to prison. If hey decide to persue, then there will be a vote from a neutral party.

r1nn Posted: Mar 5 2008, 02:37 AM

QUOTE ("MessiahForHire")
Well, like I said, if everyone in the group thought that person still deserved death, and all voted, then the said criminal should be dead. If the someone said they were truly sorry, and they were let off the hook, then anyone could basically do hat and not die.

That's true enough. Personally I do not see this as a bad thing and this is where we disagree. : o

QUOTE ("MessiahForHire")
It should be the friends and family and other close persons that decide if they want to persue a death penalty. If not, then criminal goes o prison. If hey decide to persue, then there will be a vote from a neutral party.

If I was for the death penalty, I'd probably go with what you said here. I wonder if this is how they sentence people in the US Courts? I know that most states do hold the death penalty but some don't, and that's about it. : P

Is that how they decide the death penalty up in Canada, or? I'm just curious.

MessiahForHire Posted: Mar 5 2008, 02:40 AM
QUOTE (r1nn @ Mar 5 2008, 02:37 AM)
Is that how they decide the death penalty up in Canada, or? I'm just curious.
Nah, that's just how I think it should be done.


The Amoeba Posted: Mar 5 2008, 02:54 AM
The Amoeba thinks it would be a good idea to point out that there is NO death penalty in Canada. There was, but it was abolished permenently in 1976. The punishment that replaced it is life in prison with no chance of parole for the first 25 years.

Kevin Conner
Emperor
Emperor

Posts : 116
Join date : 2008-03-06
Age : 39

Character sheet
Name of Player and Character, and quick Description: Choose my Character!
Stats: Ability Scores, Class, Level, HP, Equipped Items, etc:

View user profile http://panada.forummotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Death Penalty - Debate Archive

Post  Kevin Conner on Thu Mar 06, 2008 12:57 pm

I've done my best to quote the appropriate people.

My position:

There are men and women on the face of this earth whose sole purpose is to cause all of these: death, pain and suffering. These people have not within them the capacity for rehabilitation.

The Death Penalty is, in truth, a means to remove these people from the burden of society. These people whose lives revolve around causing unmitigated harm upon not just society, but individuals, through a direct influence of killing and inflicting without remorse or cause.

Those who kill in self defense, those who kill without mental faculties, those who kill for survival (i.e. lives being indirectly threatened and left without any other recourse), those who kill upon orders or protection of our country are not those of who I speak.

Those who kill for religious superiority, those who kill for racial superiority, those who kill for hate and nothing else, those who kill for enjoyment, those who kill for governmental superiority, and those who kill to just cause suffering.

These are people who are without remorse, without conscience, and without re-habilitation. These people are not just burdens on society, but are active hindrances. These people have no value for life. These people have no value for commitment. These people do not deserve to live.

By burden of society, I do not mean homeless, I do not mean crippled or infirmed. Those people do have value, and do contribute in non-material ways. Though, I don't want to see anyone homeless, and would prefer them to be assisted.

The people I discuss as hindrances, are people who hinder not only the material aspects of society, but the immaterial as well. People who actually move society backwards. Not backwards as in Amish rejecting industrialization, but backwards as in causing harm, and a feral regression below that of civilized animal structures, and entering the realm equaled only by animals affected with severe diseases such as rabies.



By forcing the state to pay for these murderers and killers to remain alive, they hinder us even more. They cannot even be productive in the prisons. They would seek to undermine and hinder any effective product we may receive from them!

Due to ACLU lawsuits forbidding state work camps, depending on where you live, we cannot even have these people provide for us simple state needs such as License Plates.



This type of disgusting human refuse has only one thing to offer society -- damnation.


There are only two courses left:

Expulsion from our society - which would thus allow these murderers to kill people of other societies.
or
Termination - permanently removing a threat of pure evil to humanity.


The unfortunate thing about the Death Penalty is that the USA doesn't have a federal standard. Due to this failing, we have nut job murderers for judges in Texas, who will gladly put a man to death without any evidence.

The system needs an overhaul, but outright abolishing the death penalty will only further strain our society, and add one more weight to those who wish to undermine such a society.

Kevin Conner
Emperor
Emperor

Posts : 116
Join date : 2008-03-06
Age : 39

Character sheet
Name of Player and Character, and quick Description: Choose my Character!
Stats: Ability Scores, Class, Level, HP, Equipped Items, etc:

View user profile http://panada.forummotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Death Penalty - Debate Archive

Post  El Mariachi on Wed Mar 26, 2008 9:26 pm

The quick and dirty answer is yes, I'm for the Death Penalty. Because I agree that:
Kevin Conner wrote:The Death Penalty is, in truth, a means to remove these people from the burden of society. These people whose lives revolve around causing unmitigated harm upon not just society, but individuals, through a direct influence of killing and inflicting without remorse or cause.

But this topic is one where I truly become extremely sick and twisted, Twisted Evil the long answer is that I'm against it, because I do believe that there are fates worse than death. I believe that those "people who are without remorse, without conscience, and without re-habilitation," should be kept in prison for life, where they are routinely tortured, taken to the edge of their pain threshold, allowed to heal for a bit, and taken back again. After a short while they will be begging for death, yet those wishes won't be granted. Perhaps it is a good thing that I'm not in power, and that even if I was there are things to prevent me from ruling with an iron fist.

El Mariachi

Posts : 4
Join date : 2008-03-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Death Penalty - Debate Archive

Post  Kevin Conner on Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:29 pm

Torture is a fundamental crime against our country and ideals.

Even if it weren't, who would you hire to torture? How would you torture? Not only are you harming the person who is being tortured, but you are encouraging a vulgar state of mind in the man or woman hired to carry out the torture.

Kevin Conner
Emperor
Emperor

Posts : 116
Join date : 2008-03-06
Age : 39

Character sheet
Name of Player and Character, and quick Description: Choose my Character!
Stats: Ability Scores, Class, Level, HP, Equipped Items, etc:

View user profile http://panada.forummotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Death Penalty - Debate Archive

Post  El Mariachi on Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:22 pm

Yeah, I admit that there are flaws in my suggestion. The biggest, aside from the fact that torture is against all that we believe, is that the people who would have no problem doing any of this, are the type of people that we'd be locking up.

Yet, as the military proves, it is possible to break someone, and then mold them into the type of person that you wish. These 'reprogramed' people will do things and not be bothered by them. Just look at the marine who threw the dog off a cliff, or what happened awhile back in the US military prisons. Of course these people normally don't handle regular society well afterwards, and that can lead to other problems latter on.

El Mariachi

Posts : 4
Join date : 2008-03-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Death Penalty - Debate Archive

Post  Kevin Conner on Sat Apr 05, 2008 1:17 am

Programming was experimented upon by the CIA in the 50s and 60s. It did not work. I seriously doubt that programming would work in the criminal justice system.

Kevin Conner
Emperor
Emperor

Posts : 116
Join date : 2008-03-06
Age : 39

Character sheet
Name of Player and Character, and quick Description: Choose my Character!
Stats: Ability Scores, Class, Level, HP, Equipped Items, etc:

View user profile http://panada.forummotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Death Penalty - Debate Archive

Post  Rachel on Mon May 05, 2008 8:55 am

"There are men and women on the face of this earth whose sole purpose is to cause all of these: death, pain and suffering. These people have not within them the capacity for rehabilitation."
you're basically dehumanising people, and using that as an excuse to take away their human rights. human rights have to be inalienable and irremovable, otherwise they aren't 'rights' but civil 'gifts' that someone aka tyrant kevin chooses to bestow and withhold according to his uninformed opinon. i say uniformed because there is no way whatsoever that you can qualify that statement above. in fact i think it is a general rule that abusers have been abused; e.g. bullies are usually facing family problems etc. therefore can you really punish them for a fate inflicted onto them by someone/thing that pushed them to the point wherein they lost all concept of reality and natural order or relationship- think of frankenstein's monster. however i dont think they should be excused because of that; ultimate power lies in our decision of how we react and wheter we will succomb to or defy our abusers. but at the same time, by killing them we just consummate the cycle of abuse. surely we should offer them some sort of hope of redemption? rather then condemning them not only in what they have done, but in what they are. the death penalty is a statement that the condemned is wholly infected, through and through- there is no redeeming element in his entire person that would argue his existence, he is nothing but a blot on the universe. You are not just punishing him for his crime, but for his total existence.
if we went back in time to when hitler was a kid, would you kill him? was he already evil? and therefore already deserving of capital punishment? should we just invent some sort of evil detecting test and just kill off all the men and women whose sole purpose is to cause death, pain and suffering? even before they have caused it. the fact that they were born evil means they aren't human, so it would just be like swatting annoying flies or killing the dogs that bark at night.
in saying that however, i havent actually drawn any conclusion about capital punishment. how could i argue this to someone whose child was brutally raped or murdered. death penalty crossed my mind for the first time this week when i was musing over the whole austrian 'house of horrors' thing. honestly i havent experienced enough to formulate a validate opinion.

p.s. i haven't actually followed the entire debate. it may have moved in a totally new direction. but this is just my developing opinion about capital punishment.

Rachel

Posts : 6
Join date : 2008-03-12

Character sheet
Name of Player and Character, and quick Description: Ethereal
Stats: Ability Scores, Class, Level, HP, Equipped Items, etc:

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Death Penalty - Debate Archive

Post  Kevin Conner on Mon May 05, 2008 10:12 am

For those of you who don't know, Nicodemus is my friend from Ireland. So we insult each other out of luv Very Happy

p.s. i haven't actually followed the entire debate. it may have moved in a totally new direction. but this is just my developing opinion about capital punishment.

That's ok, I plan on tearing your argument to ribbons just the same Very Happy

nicodemus wrote:"There are men and women on the face of this earth whose sole purpose is to cause all of these: death, pain and suffering. These people have not within them the capacity for rehabilitation."
you're basically dehumanising people, and using that as an excuse to take away their human rights. human rights have to be inalienable and irremovable, otherwise they aren't 'rights' but civil 'gifts' that someone aka tyrant kevin chooses to bestow and withhold according to his uninformed opinon.

Ok, first problem I have is you call me tyrant kevin. Not even Capital T Capital K. You give me LOWER CASE T AND K!

Second problem is my name is GOD Kevin. CAPITAL G O D, K then lowercase evin. Thank you. Cool

i say uniformed because there is no way whatsoever that you can qualify that statement above. in fact i think it is a general rule that abusers have been abused; e.g. bullies are usually facing family problems etc. therefore can you really punish them for a fate inflicted onto them by someone/thing that pushed them to the point wherein they lost all concept of reality and natural order or relationship- think of frankenstein's monster. however i dont think they should be excused because of that; ultimate power lies in our decision of how we react and wheter we will succomb to or defy our abusers. but at the same time, by killing them we just consummate the cycle of abuse. surely we should offer them some sort of hope of redemption? rather then condemning them not only in what they have done, but in what they are. the death penalty is a statement that the condemned is wholly infected, through and through- there is no redeeming element in his entire person that would argue his existence, he is nothing but a blot on the universe. You are not just punishing him for his crime, but for his total existence.

You ignore the founding principles of society.

Principle number 1: Society is a collection of individuals working for their advancement.
Principle number 2: the Welfare of the society is determined by a balance between the minorities and the majority
Principle number 3: Crime is an anarchistic, antisocial (sociopathic) response to a healthy society.
Principle number 4: Rebellion is a response by one or more groups to acts taken by society. Rebellion can be for constructive or destructive purposes.

Sociopathic behavior has one purpose, to distabilize the society in a violent, bloody, destructive manner. By the very nature of crime, society becomes a victim, not just those affected by the crime itself. Crime thus devalues the value of society, while trying to elevate its own anti-social nature. Keep in mind, society has RIGHTS, as society IS a collection of all those who play a part! For society to stabilize, those criminals must be removed. Since these criminals have forsaken the rights of society, they are no longer bound by the rights an individual may have in society. However, for society to judge criminals without turning into criminals, society must usually act with the intent of seeing a better future. Some criminals devalue this as well. When given a second chance these criminals purposely cause further irreparable (sp? no time to spellcheck) damage to the people. By irreparable I mean times where criminals purposely remove members of society, for which there is no power in the heavens to restore said member i.e. killing.

Ideologies always change, and thus damage to ideology can always be "repaired" if society chooses to repair.
Same with reputations.
Cutting a woman's head off, however, cannot be repaired (at least not in this day and age, it's a death sentence).

Criminals who thus devalue all members of society, and eagerly repeat their crimes, are criminals who are no longer bound by human rights.


You see, Human Rights are a two way street. If you are repeatedly and eagerly removing the rights of another human being without just cause (i.e. self defense), you are no longer respecting the value of Human Rights. In order for the ideology of Human Rights to exist, it must be respected. On an order of magnitude, cold blooded murder is the willfull destruction of society without cause. It is a violation of the fundamental rights of humanity. People who are clearly, and without doubt, the perpetrators of these actions are not just of no value, they aren't just worthless, but they are a debitor of society. They are destroying society without purpose other than to cause death and pain and destruction.

These people need to be forcibly removed.

It is not society's responsibility to coddle these murderers. It was the murderer's responsibility not to kill others. They are costing lives, money, time, and energy for no purpose.


It isn't Tyrant Kevin who said these murderers are worthless, it is the murderers themselves who devalued their own life by forsaking the values of humanity for the purpose to irreparably (sp) harm everyone and everything they could.

The only solution is exile or permanent removal.

if we went back in time to when hitler was a kid, would you kill him? was he already evil? and therefore already deserving of capital punishment? should we just invent some sort of evil detecting test and just kill off all the men and women whose sole purpose is to cause death, pain and suffering? even before they have caused it. the fact that they were born evil means they aren't human, so it would just be like swatting annoying flies or killing the dogs that bark at night.

That's a stupid argument, I'm going to pimp slap you because I know your smarter than that.

in saying that however, i havent actually drawn any conclusion about capital punishment. how could i argue this to someone whose child was brutally raped or murdered. death penalty crossed my mind for the first time this week when i was musing over the whole austrian 'house of horrors' thing. honestly i havent experienced enough to formulate a validate opinion.

No, you haven't, and your opinion is not valid, but feel free to post it again Razz

;D


just kidding, but I am glad u posted :HUGS:

Kevin Conner
Emperor
Emperor

Posts : 116
Join date : 2008-03-06
Age : 39

Character sheet
Name of Player and Character, and quick Description: Choose my Character!
Stats: Ability Scores, Class, Level, HP, Equipped Items, etc:

View user profile http://panada.forummotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Death Penalty - Debate Archive

Post  Rachel on Mon May 05, 2008 12:12 pm

"Criminals who thus devalue all members of society, and eagerly repeat their crimes, are criminals who are no longer bound by human rights."
van
so basically we have to earn our human rights? what does that imply for abortion? and if we have to 'deserve' human rights, surely there is also the option of allowing the murderor to redeem himself? to become useful, or to like balance out the damage he caused by doing something productive? like community service? (realise that wouldnt really equate to mass murder etc. but its the idea). why is expulsion the only choice? theres some guy somewhere over in your country that killed loads of prostitutes and now hes in jail constructing plans for a shelter for prostitutes/homeless/drug addicts. like i said earlier, by killing someone you are effectively saying that their TOTAL existence has been destructive to society- since birth. you can remove someone from society without destroying them. (i realise we have to pay for the prisons, but according to your theory isnt it also our responsibility to keep the harmony, and therefore ensure that criminals are imprisoned?) and doesnt vandalism disrespects society? and there is a difference in disrespecting society and disrespecting law. besides, isnt crime usually as self-destructive?and that is not the only evaluation of society, its like liberal socialism, the rights of the individual have to be just as important as that of the community, look what happened in the French Revolution.

Rachel

Posts : 6
Join date : 2008-03-12

Character sheet
Name of Player and Character, and quick Description: Ethereal
Stats: Ability Scores, Class, Level, HP, Equipped Items, etc:

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Death Penalty - Debate Archive

Post  Kevin Conner on Mon May 05, 2008 12:48 pm

nicodemus wrote:"Criminals who thus devalue all members of society, and eagerly repeat their crimes, are criminals who are no longer bound by human rights."
van
so basically we have to earn our human rights?

No, but you can throw them away. Do you know what human means? Razz It is not in relation to our species. Our species is under the homo-genus, homo - sapiens - sapiens. Humanitas means of the relation to the ideal of humanity. Humanity is to be humane, of possessing the conceptual values of being human, which, btw, can be further researched into meaning possessing quality of thought and wisdom.

By proving you have no thought, wisdom, and other aspects of Humanitas, you are proving you are no longer bound by human rights, especially once you forsake the rights of others.

what does that imply for abortion?

Abortion is not the murder of an individual, regardless of what the pope or other ultra-fascist christians may have you believe.

and if we have to 'deserve' human rights, surely there is also the option of allowing the murderor to redeem himself?

Circumstances depending, however, the normal answer to that question is:

"Can you bring them back?"

Irreplaceable damage can rarely, if ever, be redeemed.

to become useful, or to like balance out the damage he caused by doing something productive? like community service? (realise that wouldnt really equate to mass murder etc. but its the idea).

You mean like the chain gangs? LOL yeah, that worked out real well. So well in fact that the ACLU and Anmesty international had unpaid prison work related programs completely banned in the United States. Prisoners are no longer forced or even allowed to repay their debt to society by performing any unpaid service.

why is expulsion the only choice? theres some guy somewhere over in your country that killed loads of prostitutes and now hes in jail constructing plans for a shelter for prostitutes/homeless/drug addicts. like i said earlier, by killing someone you are effectively saying that their TOTAL existence has been destructive to society- since birth.

WRONG, you're stating that they have been so destructive the risk for their presence far outweighs any good they might have or might do, even if it means they might "cure cancer". Although, the US has tap danced around that issue rather nicely. after WWII, Certain Nazi Scientists were smuggled to the USA, where their knowledge was encouraged, taken, and once they were of no use, were exiled and then their locations were given to the Masad.

heh

you can remove someone from society without destroying them. (i realise we have to pay for the prisons, but according to your theory isnt it also our responsibility to keep the harmony, and therefore ensure that criminals are imprisoned?) and doesnt vandalism disrespects society? and there is a difference in disrespecting society and disrespecting law. besides, isnt crime usually as self-destructive?and that is not the only evaluation of society, its like liberal socialism, the rights of the individual have to be just as important as that of the community, look what happened in the French Revolution.

They already destroyed themselves. You seem caught in the delusion that destruction is what we are performing in vengeful retaliation. The death penalty isn't in retaliation, it's in self defense for the harm they have proven they will further cause society.

Kevin Conner
Emperor
Emperor

Posts : 116
Join date : 2008-03-06
Age : 39

Character sheet
Name of Player and Character, and quick Description: Choose my Character!
Stats: Ability Scores, Class, Level, HP, Equipped Items, etc:

View user profile http://panada.forummotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Death Penalty - Debate Archive

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum