Capital Punishment

[Uncle FEFL]

"First of all it's spelled 'Jail', and no I have not. My friend has, and he learned to sleep with his eyes open. I said at most it's uncomfortable because of the others there with you. Generally if you are there in the first place, you have already learned something about being protective of yourself." Right my bad.

Not sure where the rest of the reply fits in the argument, however.

Have you even fully read all my comments? I have a mental disorder, of course I am mentally challenged (to a certain degree). It doesn't make me any better, in fact sometimes I am almost sub human. Reduced to an animal like state. Have you ever been so enraged that when you next wake up, you have no idea where you are, and what you did. It's fucking scary. I don't know where you get off by saying anyone's comments are childish. I type properly, have sentence structure, and fully complete thoughts. If anything I am far from childish.Right, so that gives you the right to end a person's life "in the name of justice," then?

By childish, I meant opinion. Not in intelligence.

Dude, try to come up with a proper analogy that can even come close to the seriousness of the subject at hand. If I agreed with you on this, then anyone who has an internet connection must die. Everyone has pirated, plagiarized, etc. at one point or another. In fact I could say you're "batshit insane" for even suggesting such a sick suggestion.You'll have to reread that, seeing as how you completely missed the point.

No, you're wrong. War is hell, I will stick to that. It matters not what social class you are, any innocent life taken is tragic. You miss the entire point. When a military is going out with the mission of protecting your rights, you should be thankful. Shit happens, and I will repeat this as much as the situation necessitates. Get it through your head that when a war is going on things happen, sometimes you cannot control the outcome. This is especially true when the enemy combatants blend in so well with the populace, they may disappear at any given moment. Sure if an innocent is aimed at purposely and killed, then this necessitates death. But when bullets are flying all over the place, and people are being taken hostage shit happens. It's a fact that you cannot deny. If you think that that is debatable and not true, then you are a fool.Right, so you WANT to start the debate on why I think war shouldn't be fought with guns which lead to death?

EDIT: By the way, I didn't say that there weren't horrors of war. I said that it's odd for an innocent to die and be okay during war, but not out of war. No one is the judge of another's life (at least, they shouldn't be).

QUOTEDon't throw the word "bigot" around so lightly. This should be a respectable debate, and calling me narrow minded just because I whole heartedly disagree with you is DISRESPECTFUL. I have not once said anything about how the points you have made are narrow minded, or anything pertaining to your mindset. Because everything you have said has a place in this topic. Except for most of this post, which is just a giant flame in disguise.

You are narrow-minded, "I won't change my mind, it's a FACT. Just like religion, blah blah blah." When you actually listen to someone, your opinion is much more subject to change.

Let me tell you something, sir. I changed my point of view on everything. Religion, politics, social standings, economic opinions, you name it. I was completely changed by a group of incredibly intelligent people of whom I argued with over the internet about my stance as a Christian (which I am no longer, clearly). You know why? Because I couldn't beat them in any debate. Therefore, they were right, and now I agree with things that they say, and they agree with things that I say (disagreements everywhere of course. I'm not a robot). Now, I challenge people like you to try and change. Not for the better, or for the worse, but for yourself. I am not flaming you, because it's the truth. They argued with me the same way I am with you. I'm trying to help, not hurt. This debate is fairly complex; some think it's OK sometimes, some think it's not OK at all, and some think it's definitely OK because those people are purely evil and whatnot. Some think something else tied to those. However, that third belief is the belief I try to change.

EDIT: I don't care if you hold the same opinion as me or not. It's your opinion that I would like to see changed. Notice how I am arguing with you (and I called out DeltaForce as well, but he hasn't responded yet), yet many hold the opinion that capital punishment should not be outlawed.

QUOTE

You can't change an opinion that takes no thought. You can't change a person that doesn't listen.

Just analyze this for a second.

 

[Sterling]

"First of all it's spelled 'Jail', and no I have not. My friend has, and he learned to sleep with his eyes open. I said at most it's uncomfortable because of the others there with you. Generally if you are there in the first place, you have already learned something about being protective of yourself." Right my bad.

Not sure where the rest of the reply fits in the argument, however.

Right, so that gives you the right to end a person's life "in the name of justice," then?

Who said it gave me the right?

By childish, I meant opinion. Not in intelligence.

I knew what you meant, just throwing it out there for you to correct yourself.

Dude, try to come up with a proper analogy that can even come close to the seriousness of the subject at hand. If I agreed with you on this, then anyone who has an internet connection must die. Everyone has pirated, plagiarized, etc. at one point or another. In fact I could say you're "batshit insane" for even suggesting such a sick suggestion.You'll have to reread that, seeing as how you completely missed the point.

I read it plenty of times. You missed the point by broaching another subject with a completely different consequence and degree of seriousness in an poorly written analogy.

No, you're wrong. War is hell, I will stick to that. It matters not what social class you are, any innocent life taken is tragic. You miss the entire point. When a military is going out with the mission of protecting your rights, you should be thankful. Shit happens, and I will repeat this as much as the situation necessitates. Get it through your head that when a war is going on things happen, sometimes you cannot control the outcome. This is especially true when the enemy combatants blend in so well with the populace, they may disappear at any given moment. Sure if an innocent is aimed at purposely and killed, then this necessitates death. But when bullets are flying all over the place, and people are being taken hostage shit happens. It's a fact that you cannot deny. If you think that that is debatable and not true, then you are a fool.
Right, so you WANT to start the debate on why I think war shouldn't be fought with guns which lead to death?

What gives you the idea that that was my motive? Maybe I just want you to see that no matter how hard you try nothing is controllable in war?
EDIT: By the way, I didn't say that there weren't horrors of war. I said that it's odd for an innocent to die and be okay during war, but not out of war. No one is the judge of another's life (at least, they shouldn't be).
It's not okay, and it never was. It's just an accepted consequence that occurs because of war. It will always be that way until the humans in the field are replaced with robot who make no mistakes.

Don't throw the word "bigot" around so lightly. This should be a respectable debate, and calling me narrow minded just because I whole heartedly disagree with you is DISRESPECTFUL. I have not once said anything about how the points you have made are narrow minded, or anything pertaining to your mindset. Because everything you have said has a place in this topic. Except for most of this post, which is just a giant flame in disguise.

You are narrow-minded, "I won't change my mind, it's a FACT. Just like religion, blah blah blah." When you actually listen to someone, your opinion is much more subject to change.

Let me tell you something, sir. I changed my point of view on everything. Religion, politics, social standings, economic opinions, you name it. I was completely changed by a group of incredibly intelligent people of whom I argued with over the internet about my stance as a Christian (which I am no longer, clearly). You know why? Because I couldn't beat them in any debate. Therefore, they were right, and now I agree with things that they say, and they agree with things that I say (disagreements everywhere of course. I'm not a robot). Now, I challenge people like you to try and change. Not for the better, or for the worse, but for yourself. I am not flaming you, because it's the truth. They argued with me the same way I am with you. I'm trying to help, not hurt. This debate is fairly complex; some think it's OK sometimes, some think it's not OK at all, and some think it's definitely OK because those people are purely evil and whatnot. Some think something else tied to those. However, that third belief is the belief I try to change.

I am glad you completely changed yourself as a person. I can appreciate someone with intelligence and a worthy debatist (A Master Debater if you will), but what I don't appreciate is when someone calls me a narrow minded bigot because someone else so strongly believes that my way of thinking is wrong. If I think I need to change, that is my concern, and no one else's. I would rather argue to the death about something I believe in, than submit to something I consider wrong. If someone is so easily changed by others, it isn't a good quality to have. I do research, and after every possible outcome is me being wrong, then I admit defeat. I am open minded. For reference, drag yourself over to the Ground Zero Mosque thread and you'll see what I mean. If you read every reply by me, you'll notice that I had changed my opinion on that whole subject because of, Bri, Blood Fetish, etc.

EDIT: I don't care if you hold the same opinion as me or not. It's your opinion that I would like to see changed. Notice how I am arguing with you (and I called out DelatForce as well, but he hasn't responded yet), yet many hold the opinion that capital punishment should not be outlawed.

The same can be said for anyone who wants to spread a certain opinion or mindset. If I just decided to jump on you band wagon because you bested me (Or you think you did) in an internet debate, I would be just as bad as many of the people on certain bandwagons now.

QUOTE

You can't change an opinion that takes no thought. You can't change a person that doesn't listen.

Just analyze this for a second.

Just because I argue doesn't mean that the words I hear fall useless to the ground, and the same for type. I am not permafrost, I have an open mind and will fight for the things I believe in, and change my mind if neccessary.

EDIT: Minor spelling errors.

 

[0ddity]

Not to be a prick or anything, but Sterl, are you going to bother responding to my last post, or am I just wasting my time arguing with you?

 

[Sterling]

Not to be a prick or anything, but Sterl, are you going to bother responding to my last post, or am I just wasting my time arguing with you?
XD I had to save the post I was going to reply to you because the quote tags were acting up. I'll have the post edited in a sec. No offense take BTW.

I guess I did misunderstand. I thought you were referring to my quote. Sorry about that. The argument here is there are innocents that get executed. Though through current advances in technology and forensics more and more cases are being proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused are guilty.
I don't think there's any evidence to support that idea. Not all cases rely on DNA, and even ones that do, there is huge room for human error. Labs make mistakes, and police labs are biased in favor of police, which can lead to intentional or unintentional false positives.


Most cases don't need DNA testing. DNA testing is for cases such as [censored] murders. Where the sample is easily identified. Finger prints usually suffice, especially where no DNA can be found.

Spoiler

QUOTE

Spoiler

Two people cannot have the same fingerprints. So far as forensic science has been able to determine, not even identical twins have exactly matched fingerprints. This helps makes the analysis of fingerprints still one of the main means in which to identify people involved in a crime.

Though fingerprints cannot be identical, they can, in fact be very similar. Two identical twins, for example will have fingerprints that to the naked eye might appear identical. In fact some fingerprint characteristics may be a result of genetics. Thus it may be possible to preliminarily identify familial ties by examining the fingerprints of close family members.

This is particularly the case if parents have similar fingerprints. Similarities among children may then occur quite regularly. Some families enjoy buying a fingerprinting kit and comparing family fingerprints. This work makes for a great science project for elementary or secondary school students.

When we hear the word fingerprints, we mostly think of fingers. However, “fingerprints” also refers to the distinct and unique patterns formed on the toes. Again, these patterns have never been found to be identical even in twins.

Even though fingerprints are likely proven exceptionally unique, fingerprint evidence is often of secondary importance when DNA evidence can be found. DNA is often referred to as the genetic fingerprints of a person, because it is also different for each person. Like analysis of fingerprints, DNA evidence looks at the fine differences between collected samples and suspects. It can quickly rule in or rule out the presence of the possibility that a person is responsible for a crime

There is plenty of evidence to support the growing trend of cases proven beyond a doubt are the direct cause of improved forensics.

"Not saying that these cases are 100% accurate, but they are slowly becoming that way."
I don't think so. Even in cases where someone was convicted on the basis of DNA or other forensic evidence, later retesting sometimes shows those findings were wrong or the facts overstated.

The cases where bias involved mean nothing when compared to the accuracy of forensic evidence. Bias is the result of human error, not the machines that do quite a bit of analyzing.

"The situations people find themselves in probably could have been adverted by some simple common sense. Set ups are a way for revenge, and if the innocent party is executed, only to be found innocent after the fact, then an investigation should be opened on the case again."
Blaming the victim of a false conviction for that conviction, really? In some cases, their lack of common sense equates to being a certain skin color, or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. And as for intentional set-ups, I would think that accounts for a very low percentage of wrongful convictions. Most can be attributed to eyewitness misidentification, faulty forensics and inadequate defense representation.

Again bias and the subject of racial inequity are of human error. Most people aren't actually stupid. People choose to be stupid, in fact I know people that can't do math that have more common sense than a scientist who may have 200 more IQ than him. Eyewitness misidentification occurs when the eyewitness shouldn't have spoken. Have you by any chance seen 12 angry men? It's a great flick, that gives a prime example of a bad eyewitness. Mistakes in Forensics isn't the fault of the data, it's all human error. The mechanics are scientifically sound, humans are not unfortunately. In the case of inadequate lawyers, sometimes the lawyer can't defend them well because they know they did it. If a case has an inadequate lawyer, usually the case will be postponed until a new one is assigned. Shoot only just in 1963, the Supreme Court decision to enforce the right for any accused person that could not afford a lawyer would be assigned one was just decided. Just think only about 40 years ago, you would not be assigned one if you couldn't afford one. You had to testify against yourself.

 

[monkat]

Ok, so, imagine I killed someone, justifiably. Would you really want to take this from the world?

Spoiler

 

[gameguy95]

i think that capital punishment should replace life in prison because why should we keep them in prison until they die when we can end their suffering right now and save our cash and prison room

 

[0ddity]

i think that capital punishment should replace life in prison because why should we keep them in prison until they die when we can end their suffering right now and save our cash and prison room

This has been answered. It costs more money to execute someone than it does to imprison them for life. And you can get LIP for crimes other than murder, are you suggested that crimes like, drug trafficking should be punishable by death?

 

[Sterling]

Ok, so, imagine I killed someone, justifiably. Would you really want to take this from the world?

Spoiler

All I have to say to this is: DO NOT WANT!!!

Completely irrelevant and a hazard to the well being of my eyes.

I think Ima take a picture of me without my shirt and teach you the meaning of "Scarred for Lyfe."

 

[Uncle FEFL]

Who said it gave me the right?...? You did. You said that a person who murders deserves to be put to death. You assume the right to know when someone lives or dies.

"I knew what you meant, just throwing it out there for you to correct yourself." This doesn't make any sense. Honesty helps, you know. Why would you want me to clarify (not correct myself, because my thought wasn't corrected, for I had no need to) myself on something you already understood?

I read it plenty of times. You missed the point by broaching another subject with a completely different consequence and degree of seriousness in an poorly written analogy.No, no, no. I was not trying to pop into another subject. I was comparing your opinion with the one I posted (which I didn't think of by the way).

What gives you the idea that that was my motive? Maybe I just want you to see that no matter how hard you try nothing is controllable in war?[/b]

It's not okay, and it never was. It's just an accepted consequence that occurs because of war. It will always be that way until the humans in the field are replaced with robot who make no mistakes.I think it's completely controllable.

Yeah, because humans have it in their nature to kill their own kind. That's completely contradictory to your opinion on this topic. Death is not an accepted consequence in my book, pal.

QUOTEI am glad you completely changed yourself as a person. I can appreciate someone with intelligence and a worthy debatist (A Master Debater if you will), but what I don't appreciate is when someone calls me a narrow minded bigot because someone else so strongly believes that my way of thinking is wrong. If I think I need to change, that is my concern, and no one else's. I would rather argue to the death about something I believe in, than submit to something I consider wrong. If someone is so easily changed by others, it isn't a good quality to have. I do research, and after every possible outcome is me being wrong, then I admit defeat. I am open minded. For reference, drag yourself over to the Ground Zero Mosque thread and you'll see what I mean. If you read every reply by me, you'll notice that I had changed my opinion on that whole subject because of, Bri, Blood Fetish, etc.

You're right. I'm sorry for saying that. You obviously aren't one seeing as you say you can actually change your mind. I thought you were some idiot Republican (not to be confused with reasonable Republicans) based on that comment of yours. Again, sorry.

Now to the debate: If you were implying me, I am by no means a master debater or intelligent, or rather I'm not an idiot, poster at all (I've still much to learn

). However, I disagree. I don't care if it's over the internet, or in real life, I will debate with opinions I find wrong if I think it'll help (which isn't often). I'm not perfect, clearly, but I try to help. I find the death penalty to be wrong because I don't think anyone has judgement over another's life, you think the opposite. I disagree.

Also, I don't change my opinion for the hell of it. It took much thought and I haven't changed many opinions since.

QUOTE

The same can be said for anyone who wants to spread a certain opinion or mindset. If I just decided to jump on you band wagon because you bested me (Or you think you did) in an internet debate, I would be just as bad as many of the people on certain bandwagons now.

I don't want you to join my bandwagon. I want you to think for yourself (which you have shown me you do). Changing your opinion to one that says "capital punishment is wrong" isn't joining my bandwagon, because there a whole bunch more opinions that ride with it.

 

[0ddity]

So, I'm not sure exactly what you're saying in your post. You're agreeing that human error occurs, that innocent people are executed, but that it's worth it to get the bad guys? If that is the case, I would argue that the innocents constitutional rights being violated in the most egregious way outweighs the need for revenge by society.

And I agree, when applied correctly, forensics can be accurate. But fingerprinting, for example is a forensic tool that is often overstated in court. Watch Penn & Teller's Bullshit criminal justice episode for a better explanation. And yes, 12 Angry Men is one of my favorite movies (the original, not the remake) and is one of the reasons I believe the death penalty is wrong.

 

[Sterling]

Who said it gave me the right?...? You did. You said that a person who murders deserves to be put to death. You assume the right to know when someone lives or dies.

I did not say myself specifically has the right to kill someone. I said through due process of law you may lose your right to life, and if I was on a jury, only one part of.... say 12.... decisions would be my part in it.

"I knew what you meant, just throwing it out there for you to correct yourself." This doesn't make any sense. Honesty helps, you know. Why would you want me to clarify (not correct myself, because my thought wasn't corrected, for I had no need to) myself on something you already understood?

Because when someone corrects themselves others who look at the text can see it better, and the other person won't look like a self righteous douche (Which I apologize for correcting you on your spelling now).

I read it plenty of times. You missed the point by broaching another subject with a completely different consequence and degree of seriousness in an poorly written analogy.No, no, no. I was not trying to pop into another subject. I was comparing your opinion with the one I posted (which I didn't think of by the way).

Well whoever thought of it must not have put much thought into it's conception. Was it Rydian?

What gives you the idea that that was my motive? Maybe I just want you to see that no matter how hard you try nothing is controllable in war?[/b]

It's not okay, and it never was. It's just an accepted consequence that occurs because of war. It will always be that way until the humans in the field are replaced with robot who make no mistakes.

I think it's completely controllable.

Yeah, because humans have it in their nature to kill their own kind. That's completely contradictory to your opinion on this topic. Death is not an accepted consequence in my book, pal.

Yet people kill others all the time, so I would argue it isn't in Human nature to do that sort of stuff, but rather against the conscience and then it's completely ignored. It isn't contradictory to my opinion because I don't think it's right that innocents get killed in war. It just happens. Sure some parts of war are controllable, but if war was completely controllable, then there wouldn't be any war...

QUOTE

I am glad you completely changed yourself as a person. I can appreciate someone with intelligence and a worthy debatist (A Master Debater if you will), but what I don't appreciate is when someone calls me a narrow minded bigot because someone else so strongly believes that my way of thinking is wrong. If I think I need to change, that is my concern, and no one else's. I would rather argue to the death about something I believe in, than submit to something I consider wrong. If someone is so easily changed by others, it isn't a good quality to have. I do research, and after every possible outcome is me being wrong, then I admit defeat. I am open minded. For reference, drag yourself over to the Ground Zero Mosque thread and you'll see what I mean. If you read every reply by me, you'll notice that I had changed my opinion on that whole subject because of, Bri, Blood Fetish, etc.

You're right. I'm sorry for saying that. You obviously aren't one seeing as you say you can actually change your mind. I thought you were some idiot Republican (not to be confused with reasonable Republicans) based on that comment of yours. Again, sorry.

Now to the debate: If you were implying me, I am by no means a master debater or intelligent, or rather I'm not an idiot, poster at all (I've still much to learn

). However, I disagree. I don't care if it's over the internet, or in real life, I will debate with opinions I find wrong if I think it'll help (which isn't often). I'm not perfect, clearly, but I try to help. I find the death penalty to be wrong because I don't think anyone has judgement over another's life, you think the opposite. I disagree.

I was make a joke on the Master Debater thing.

woulda made it make more sense. xD

Also, I don't change my opinion for the hell of it. It took much thought and I haven't changed many opinions since.

I don't want you to join my bandwagon. I want you to think for yourself (which you have shown me you do). Changing your opinion to one that says "capital punishment is wrong" isn't joining my bandwagon, because there a whole bunch more opinions that ride with it.

Alright, I'll concede on this point. Because debating is all about changing others opinions.

 

[Sterling]

So, I'm not sure exactly what you're saying in your post. You're agreeing that human error occurs, that innocent people are executed, but that it's worth it to get the bad guys? If that is the case, I would argue that the innocents constitutional rights being violated in the most egregious way outweighs the need for revenge by society.

My point was in war things like that happen, and I think I am starting to see the whole picture of the Death Penalty anyways. The Constitution's protections unfortunately do not apply to other contries, so people don't get the same protections in a country that's at war with us.

And I agree, when applied correctly, forensics can be accurate. But fingerprinting, for example is a forensic tool that is often overstated in court. Watch Penn & Teller's Bullshit criminal justice episode for a better explanation. And yes, 12 Angry Men is one of my favorite movies (the original, not the remake) and is one of the reasons I believe the death penalty is wrong.

12 Angry Men also changed my outlook on the US court system. On my part however, it changed the way I looked at it, and see the troublesome parts of it, and want some change. Also I'll have to watch that episode. You have linkey?

EDIT: Also A double post was necessary for this. If a mod wants to merge it they can.

 

[0ddity]

We aren't talking about war here though, we're talking about law & order in the USA. We're talking about US citizens being executed in the US by their own government in violation of their constitutional rights.

 

[cruddybuddy]

I used to be pro-capital punishment, but I'm sick of millions of unborn humans being murdered every year, so in an effort to remain consistent I'm going to say that nobody has the right to take the life of another human unless it is self defense.

 

[Advi]

The death penalty is simply a necessary evil. There are people out there that out of choice, not by nature, that choose to do things that pose a threat to the well-being of others, and some of these things can be extreme to say the least.

I believe that some crimes are simply inexcusable, like...

Cannibalism, bugchasing and other crimes against humanity. Murder linked to crimes against nature as well.
High treason (for example, selling nuclear weapons or intelligence to other governments at war with their own country, actions that could pose an extreme threat to the country)
Intentional acts of torture to another person. (Think of the "Saw" films but without the Hollywood.)

And so on. Some people do not deserve to live.

 

[Inori]

I really do feel for Sterl500, since it seems like he has to argue with everyone, but I still have some questions left unanswered in regards to your response to me. Let me clarify that I am not doing this to attack you personally, it`s your view (i.e that Capital Punishment is a need) that I have a problem with.

When a person who has nothing to do with the person who murdered someone, then it is not revenge. The only case where this is true is when the person doing the execution has some sort of connection with the victim. Then it could be called revenge.

0ddity brought expressed the point I was trying to make, in a much better way. Capital Punishment in itself is the most extreme form of revenge for the wrongdoings done to society. Why do you think that a majority of Capital Punishment was performed in public, previously? It was so that people could be satisfied. Yes, I do know that part of the satisfication is perhaps because "there is one less of those on the streets", but even so, if that were the entire reason people felt satisfied, then they would have kept those things in jail, rather than in the public. I don`t think revenge is so black and white to the point where it = you kill the person that killed the person you cared for.

What I am saying that when push comes to shove, they are still human in the end, just like you and me. To say that they don`t deserve a life because they`ve taken another life, you are basically doing the same thing that they have done -- deprive someone of a life.

The way I see it, if the executioner has nightmares and would wish to stop their job, then they would. However most do not. They feel it is their Civil duty, and take comfort in knowing there is one less potential killer that could be on the streets.

The bold text is what I have an issue with. How do you know? Who`s to say that they don`t enjoy their job? Who`s to say that they are not like the own scum that they are killing? It irks me how people have the temerity to "kill in the name of justice" or because it is their "civic duty". There is no such thing. To me, this kind of "justice" (Capital Punishment) is purely revenge, but dressed up so people don`t have to feel bad about themselves.

I have a hypothetical situation: Killer A, a death row inmate had killed Killer B, who was also a death row inmate. Wouldn`t Killer A be exercising their "civic duty"? Or is that also wrong, because it`s something the law didn`t say it was okay for Killer A to kill, as opposed to the law saying an executioner has the right to kill?


QUOTE

And so on. Some people do not deserve to live.

No one has the right to say that. We are human, just as they are. To say that we are above them is laughable, because we are all equal.
And who knows, what if to those aforementioned people, we law abiding citizens are the ones that don`t deserve to live? Would that justify their killing, the same way people try to justify Capital Punishment?

 

[Sterling]

We aren't talking about war here though, we're talking about law & order in the USA. We're talking about US citizens being executed in the US by their own government in violation of their constitutional rights.
But that was the point you were referring back to. In any case if you are proven guilty and you know you aren't guilty then you fight for it. However some people who are guilty play on this, and it is not only wrong but misleading. In my mind if you have been proven guilty in the court of law then you are guilty unless something else comes into light that throw the decision into questionable light..

I really do feel for Sterl500, since it seems like he has to argue with everyone, but I still have some questions left unanswered in regards to your response to me. Let me clarify that I am not doing this to attack you personally, it`s your view (i.e that Capital Punishment is a need) that I have a problem with.

I don't mind, in fact it isn't often that I feel the need to express myself like this.

When a person who has nothing to do with the person who murdered someone, then it is not revenge. The only case where this is true is when the person doing the execution has some sort of connection with the victim. Then it could be called revenge.

0ddity brought expressed the point I was trying to make, in a much better way. Capital Punishment in itself is the most extreme form of revenge for the wrongdoings done to society. Why do you think that a majority of Capital Punishment was performed in public, previously? It was so that people could be satisfied. Yes, I do know that part of the satisfication is perhaps because "there is one less of those on the streets", but even so, if that were the entire reason people felt satisfied, then they would have kept those things in jail, rather than in the public. I don`t think revenge is so black and white to the point where it = you kill the person that killed the person you cared for.

What I am saying that when push comes to shove, they are still human in the end, just like you and me. To say that they don`t deserve a life because they`ve taken another life, you are basically doing the same thing that they have done -- deprive someone of a life.

Yes, but there remains an underlying reason. The people who kill others also kill others in jail. This could be for gang initiation, or some other for of group acceptance. When these people also get out of jail (If they ever do), they most likely have another chance to kill someone. It makes sense that if someone takes a life they should be punished. When they are allowed to live, they don't feel punished, and are still ready to kill on moments notice. What if a fellow inmate is due out, all this person did was a breaking and entering charge. Then according to some gang initiation or this guy rubs another the wrong way and kills him. This man was due for a new lease on life, a second chance. This man has prematurely departed from this world, all because maybe he looked at this guy (who should have been on death row) the wrong way.

QUOTE

The way I see it, if the executioner has nightmares and would wish to stop their job, then they would. However most do not. They feel it is their Civil duty, and take comfort in knowing there is one less potential killer that could be on the streets.

The bold text is what I have an issue with. How do you know? Who`s to say that they don`t enjoy their job? Who`s to say that they are not like the own scum that they are killing? It irks me how people have the temerity to "kill in the name of justice" or because it is their "civic duty". There is no such thing. To me, this kind of "justice" (Capital Punishment) is purely revenge, but dressed up so people don`t have to feel bad about themselves.

Oh c'mon, if you killed someone you'd feel bad. These people who execute others always feel bad. No matter which way you put it you still take another's life, and if you are a reasonable person you will always feel bad about it. If you think about it, sometimes the people on death row change, but you cannot provide recompense for a loss of life. Without a court order they will not get off.

I have a hypothetical situation: Killer A, a death row inmate had killed Killer B, who was also a death row inmate. Wouldn`t Killer A be exercising their "civic duty"? Or is that also wrong, because it`s something the law didn`t say it was okay for Killer A to kill, as opposed to the law saying an executioner has the right to kill?

Answer to above: They are both going to die anyways, because they are both condemned, one just meets his maker earlier. It makes no difference, because they both will eventually pay the ultimate price. Answer below is when it matters from a moral sense.

Hypothetical answer #2 to above: What if one of these guys was innocent and was about to be released, and the guy gets killed. How would you react to that?

 

[0ddity]

We aren't talking about war here though, we're talking about law & order in the USA. We're talking about US citizens being executed in the US by their own government in violation of their constitutional rights.

But that was the point you were referring back to. In any case if you are proven guilty and you know you aren't guilty then you fight for it. However some people who are guilty play on this, and it is not only wrong but misleading. In my mind if you have been proven guilty in the court of law then you are guilty unless something else comes into light that throw the decision into questionable light..

I brought up war? When?

The point is, innocent people are convicted, innocent people are executed.

I don't think there is any excuse to continue executing innocent people. Like I said earlier, once convicted, it's very hard to get a conviction reversed, especially because of "actual innocence" in which case you have to prove you didn't commit the crime, all the while prosecutors are arguing against your requests to retest evidence and judges are agreeing with them, more often then not. Death is just too final, some people are in prison for decades before they manage to prove their case and be released.

 

[Uncle FEFL]

@Sterl: Points answered respectively.

That's asserting your perceived right to judgement of another's life. Just because it's 1/12 of a complete voting, doesn't mean it doesn't matter.

OK.

It was someone from Serenesforest.net

When I say "Yeah, because...," I'm being sarcastic. And no. If people weren't so stupid there wouldn't be war.

Uh...I totally was not thinking of that. However, you have now made me lol.

EDIT: Added a needed word to my first point.

 

[ZAFDeltaForce]

Capital punishment has been shown to be an ineffective deterrent. It does not keep society safer.
Capital punishment (inclusive of "death row" and the repeals process) generally costs more money than detaining a prisoner for life. It does not save money.
Capital punishment can be done quicker and more importantly, painlessly using methods such as nitrogen asphyxiation. It fulfills a barbaric sense of "vengeance", ignoring justice and humanity.
Capital punishment has quite a few false positives over the years. You can release someone from prison, but you can't bring them back to life.

I think this man summarized the entire topic