| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
MetalheadNorm
Joined: 21 May 2008
Posts: 1041
Location: Michigan
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 5:10 am Post subject: |
 |
|
^Good, now explain to me how you came to those conclusions. Putting down these absolute rules is not very good, but it is still interesting to see how you came up with them.
_________________
Music Collection
268 x CD
032 x Cassette
032 x 12" Vinyl
001 x 10" Vinyl
008 x 7" Vinyl
003 x Hooded Sweatshirt
016 x T-shirt
011 x Patch
028 x Band Pin |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Vampyromaniac
Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
@Norm I apologize for calling out you and OpenYourEyes, I responded to some of the first posts you all made (this thread has grown FAST) and since then you have both made it clear that circumstance may dictate variations in what should be right or wrong.
I have to ask though,
| MetalHeadNorm wrote: | | And even if you are able to decide whether or not to shoot him within the 10 seconds, you still don't know if you did the right thing. Maybe he was bluffing and only one person would have died, maybe that guy was the most honest guy in the world and he had to do what he did to save his ill grandmother. The point is that it's impossible to know, and no human is qualified to pass judgments acting like they are able to determine all these factors. |
Are you trying to present a philosophical argument or do you actually believe we should NEVER pass judgement upon another?
Also, regardless of what you believe is the right thing to do, do you personally think you would have shot the man who threatened to kill the child after having already killed a different child immediately prior, or would you have neglected to pass judgement based on ideals?
_________________
[/u] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eastwinn 
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 2853
Location: Anne Arundel County, Maryland
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 5:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
If you kill someone for killing someone else, are you any better than they are?
Suppose that you justify it by claiming that they deserved to be killed. How do you know that the person they killed didn't deserve it as well?
That sums up my arguments against capital punishment. The government is not here to instate karma.
_________________
As Ellie Draws - surreal sketches and characters.
| John Cage wrote: | | The first question I ask myself when something doesn't seem to be beautiful is why do I think it's not beautiful. And very shortly you discover that there is no reason. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RichardGHP
Joined: 01 May 2009
Posts: 2327
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 5:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| karatechess wrote: | | RichardGHP wrote: | | Raping the offender is not an acceptable punishment for rape, burning the offender's house and possessions is not an acceptable punishment for arson, so why should killing the offender be an acceptable punishment for murder? |
Because with murder you're actually taking a life. But that might just be my view. |
So? With rape, you're actually raping someone. With arson, you're actually burning something.
In terms of criminality, punishment need not fit the crime, on the grounds of practicality. Imprisonment is more humane and more effective. Executing the offender is fascist, cowardly, impractical and unhelpful. Imprisonment is a much more efficient method of punishment.
| Quote: | 1) Is it alright to murder someone who is trying to kill you?
2) is it alright to murder someone you honestly believe will try to kill you?
3) Is it alright to kill someone who threatens your life, or the life of your friends, family, etc.?
4) Is it alright to kill someone because they killed someone close to you? If so, what about their motives... what if they had a "good" (see above examples) reason? |
Yes, yes, possibly, doubtful. In the first two cases the appropriate charge would likely be manslaughter. The third example is quite swingy, and the fourth could be justified as a crime of passion. Any Q.C. or foreign equivalent would probably obtain acquittal for someone charged with murder in any of the circumstances you suggested. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OpenYourEyes
Joined: 18 Jul 2007
Posts: 4086
Location: I'm not sure. It's dark and I hear laughing.
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 5:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MetalheadNorm wrote: | | ^Good, now explain to me how you came to those conclusions. Putting down these absolute rules is not very good, but it is still interesting to see how you came up with them. |
I don't believe they're absolute facts, they're all my own opinions. I just didn't explicitly say that because what a person says should be taken as their opinion, unless it's a widely known fact.
I came to those conclusions because they're what make the most sense to me. Don't kill people for no reasonable reason, or you should die.
I will say this, however: I would not want to be one of the people that has to kill the ones on death row.
_________________
| blingdomepiece wrote: | | Eastwinn wrote: | As a kid I wasted my time cheating in SimCity or the Sims, and now that I'm discovering how much fun it is to not cheat, I'm also discovering how stupidly hard it is  |
Set all the tax rates to 9. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vampyromaniac
Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 5:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RichardGHP wrote: | [
In terms of criminality, punishment need not fit the crime, on the grounds of practicality. Imprisonment is more humane and more effective. Executing the offender is fascist, cowardly, impractical and unhelpful. Imprisonment is a much more efficient method of punishment. |
I disagree. Consider this: It costs $50,000 per prisoner per year to maintain the US prison system. (which is more than double my salary btw, and also more than the average American makes) Which means that from a financial standpoint prisoners detract from society more than 'free' people contribute.
"Wait vampyro, you're putting a price on human life by saying we should kill prisoners (at least in some cases) to save money! There is no price on human life!"
Unfortunately, yes the heck there is. there is a price on human life so long as there are people starving in other countries who could be saved by financial donations. Should we spend money to keep murderers alive if the cost is innocent lives? with $50k per year we could save a LOT of people.
Now I'm not saying all prisoners should be executed, but I do think that, at least in extreme cases, some should. (Also we need to find a way to decrease the cost of prison maintenance.)
_________________
[/u] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RichardGHP
Joined: 01 May 2009
Posts: 2327
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
I can't believe you're thinking of such crass things as money while we're discussing something as serious as the death penalty. I know it does play a part in the grand scheme of things, but we're talking about human lives. There is no price you can put on one, no matter how you interprate the adage.
Replace efficient with effective. Point stands. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eastwinn
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 2853
Location: Anne Arundel County, Maryland
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RichardGHP wrote: | | Executing the offender is fascist [...] |
I forgot to mention this in my other post. When you kill a prisoner, you silence them. It reeks of totalitarian-government-themed sci-fi thrillers. I don't want a government that silence's individuals.
_________________
As Ellie Draws - surreal sketches and characters.
| John Cage wrote: | | The first question I ask myself when something doesn't seem to be beautiful is why do I think it's not beautiful. And very shortly you discover that there is no reason. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vampyromaniac
Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RichardGHP wrote: | I can't believe you're thinking of such crass things as money while we're discussing something as serious as the death penalty. I know it does play a part in the grand scheme of things, but we're talking about human lives. There is no price you can put on one, no matter how you interprate the adage.
Replace efficient with effective. Point stands. |
The whole point I was trying to make is that I was talking about saving human lives also. The difference is that I was talking about using $50,000 to save multiple people who have not ben convicted of serious offenses, whereas you are saying the $50,000 should be used to save a single convicted criminal.
I'm not trying to equate money to human life, I'm trying to say that money is a tool which can be used to save lives, so why waste it by saving a smaller number of people who have been convicted for serious crimes? I don't mean drug possession, I don't mean assault and battery, I mean people such as repeat murderers.
So we are left with 3 options.
1) Leave convicted murderers on the streets, where they may kill again.
2) Imprison murderers, thereby saving their lives and those of their otential victims
3) Kill the murderers, thereby saving the lives of their potential victims, and use the money saved from not having to imprison said murderer to save starving people in 3rd world countries.
#3 results in the most people being saved. Is it wrong to attempt to look at something that should be looked at with sympathy and emotion with cold logic? I personally would shoot an innocent person if I was 100% sure it would save five other innocent people. To not do so would be SELFISH because I would be putting my own mental stability above 4 innocent lives. That being said, I'm not 100% of anything other than the fact that I exist. I am not even 100% sure that the world in which we live exists, or that you exist, etc., so the above example is more of a hypothetical example than something that could EVER happen.
_________________
[/u]
Last edited by Vampyromaniac on Sun Nov 28, 2010 6:03 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BlueTornado
Joined: 12 Mar 2008
Posts: 2175
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 6:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
This thread is more civil than I thought it would be.
Anywho, as mentioned how are people who deserve to die determined?
If you ask me, the only way I'd kill is in self-defense. As for executing people, here are some things I've noticed:
There's a risk of executing innocent people, and humans are not perfect. Even the best investigators are wrong sometimes. If an innocent person is executed, it can't be undone, but if he/she is in prison and found innocent, he/she can be released.
It is also more expensive to execute someone than to keep them in prison, at least under America's justice system. The main thing that makes it expensive is appeals.
In some cases, criminals would actually rather die than stay in prison, and in a way, it can "put them out of their misery." Thinking about it, a suicidal person who has no plan could kill someone, and have the state end their life. In addition, there are people who are even willing to risk their lives for committing crimes.
Finally, if you read some murder victims' statements concerning the death penalty, there's actually no guarantee that it provides closure.
I have other things to say about it, but I'm not sure if I should put some of my religious beliefs out here to support my viewpoint.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RichardGHP
Joined: 01 May 2009
Posts: 2327
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 6:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I can accept that the death penalty is justified in extreme cases such as cruel tyrants (e.g. Saddam) and serial killers (e.g. Ted Bundy), but not so in almost any other case. Both are examples of truly evil human beings who got what they deserved, but I can't see the justification in killing someone for one murder or any lesser crime. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vampyromaniac
Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 6:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BlueTornado wrote: | It is also more expensive to execute someone than to keep them in prison, at least under America's justice system. The main thing that makes it expensive is appeals.
|
Then many of my points are moot, and I am saddened. I still stand by any points I have made that are not directly related to saving money by killing murderers.
Also, just for the record:
| RichardGHP wrote: | I can accept that the death penalty is justified in extreme cases such as cruel tyrants (e.g. Saddam) and serial killers (e.g. Ted Bundy), but not so in almost any other case. Both are examples of truly evil human beings who got what they deserved, but I can't see the justification in killing someone for one murder or any lesser crime.
|
I wouldn't advocate the death penalty for a single murder or any less offense either. For repeat murderers, mass murderers, or possibly repeat rapists (people take rape lightly but to me murder can sometimes be justified whereas you have no excuse for rape. It's difficult to prove though, which is why I don't think it should ever be a just cause for the death penatly except in the extremely rare 0.01% of cases where there is undeniable proof).
And as for bluetornado's point of prisoners who would prefer to die, I think that should be the prisoner's choice. If you honestly wish to kill yourself, it's not a decision I'm going to support but i think you should have the right to do it.
EDIT: So it doesn't seem like I'm avoiding this point: | BlueTornado wrote: | | There's a risk of executing innocent people, and humans are not perfect. Even the best investigators are wrong sometimes. If an innocent person is executed, it can't be undone, but if he/she is in prison and found innocent, he/she can be released. |
Assuming it honestly does cost less to keep a prisoner alive, (50k per year adds up fast) I have no problem with saying the death penalty should be only used in the MOST extreme of cases (such as RichardGHP mentioned) because of the risk of executing an innocent.
As far as killing prisoner's for the 'closure' of a victim's family members, we don't need to pander to the wishes of those whose better sense has been warped by a lust for revenge. That's not worth the life of a potentially innocent person.
_________________
[/u] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ready2rock
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 1738
Location: somewhere in this vast universe
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 6:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
I feel that killing should only happen as a last resort if your life is threatened or if it is your duty to do so (e.g. someone in the military).
Of course, it is easy to say this sitting here typing on a computer, but the answer becomes much more instinctive when actually faced with the situation.
Speaking of which, this is a similar question (but if it's too off topic, you can just ignore it). You always see on TV shows about having to decide between giving into the demands of a "bad guy" or him (or her) murdering a loved one. I'm curious as to what people think they would do when faced with that situation.
By the way, I believe that there is a difference between killing and murdering.
Finally, it is without a doubt acceptable to kill scum in mafia. 
_________________
 
 
REREAD YOUR POSTS BEFORE YOU SUBMIT THEM!!!
Posts that win: this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this whole thread, this, these, this, this |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karatechess
Joined: 25 May 2008
Posts: 977
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 6:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Vampyromaniac wrote: | | The whole point I was trying to make is that I was talking about saving human lives also. The difference is that I was talking about using $50,000 to save multiple people who have not ben convicted of serious offenses, whereas you are saying the $50,000 should be used to save a single convicted criminal....I personally would shoot an innocent person if I was 100% sure it would save five other innocent people. To not do so would be SELFISH because I would be putting my own mental stability above 4 innocent lives... |
Sounds about like my argument in History last year regarding the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Yes 100k-200k Japanese were killed, but it ended the war which in the long run it was estimated to kill at least another million on both sides, so it saved countless lives. (And then there was the rebuttal of "But we should have gone in to fight instead of killing all those Japanese people because they weren't American." It was ridiculous. Guess who got most of the classes support? Yeah, she did. It's just sad.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vampyromaniac
Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| karatechess wrote: | | Vampyromaniac wrote: | | The whole point I was trying to make is that I was talking about saving human lives also. The difference is that I was talking about using $50,000 to save multiple people who have not ben convicted of serious offenses, whereas you are saying the $50,000 should be used to save a single convicted criminal....I personally would shoot an innocent person if I was 100% sure it would save five other innocent people. To not do so would be SELFISH because I would be putting my own mental stability above 4 innocent lives... |
Sounds about like my argument in History last year regarding the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Yes 100k-200k Japanese were killed, but it ended the war which in the long run it was estimated to kill at least another million on both sides, so it saved countless lives. (And then there was the rebuttal of "But we should have gone in to fight instead of killing all those Japanese people because they weren't American." It was ridiculous. Guess who got most of the classes support? Yeah, she did. It's just sad.) |
*facepalm*
What's even worse: when the whole "mosque near ground zero" controversy got brought up in my girlfriend's school she made the point that most practicioners of Islam have nothing to do with the taliban, and even though she was of the opinion that it was still disrespectful to build it there, she got blacklisted by her class for having even said that. Furthermore, the resulting argument ended with one of them suggesting that the U.S. should just bomb every other country in the world. And he wasn't joking. And he was supported by nearly every student in the class. My rage feels boundless.
HOW DO PEOPLE EVEN BECOME SO IGNORANT? (<--only intended for my particular example)
_________________
[/u] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Copyright © 2006-2024 ScoreHero, LLC
|
Powered by phpBB
|
![Inbox [ Login ]](templates/subSilver/images/icon_mini_message.gif){kind=icon}
Inbox [ Login ]
Search
Memberlist
Profile
Log in
