Nice fucking strawman m8. But hey, you're the moral arbiter right? I am glad you are not in the legal system, we as a species would be fucked.kyp275 said:
Poll: More punishing; Death Penalty or Life in Prison
- Thread starter tippy2k2
- Start date
Defaulting to personal insults instead of arguing your points, classy. As for your post, no, I'm not the moral arbiter - there's a reason why we have a jury system where the criminal is judged by his peers, THOSE PEOPLE are the arbiter.DerangedHobo said:
Not that you'd agree I think, since you're the one that's been talking like he's the moral arbiter in here, going so far as to calling everyone he disagrees with "screaming mongoloids".
Don't fucking insult everyone's intelligence by claiming you wanted a 'classy argument' here. 'Classy arguments' don't start off with you shitting on everything.kyp275 said:
And that's the big joke, that the 'deranged hobo' seemingly has a better moral compass than those who think it is 'justice' to have a state sanctioned murder program so they can... what, exactly? Save 'tax payer money'? Get some perverse vicarious win out of their execution?
The only reason I picked "Death Penalty" is because in the past, there have been many cases of murderers who have both repented on their crimes and attempted to make amends for them and to rob them of this is something I always felt was a waste. True their crimes can never be reversed but if their choices have lead them to prevent another mistake from happening then their deaths are wasted.
I also have to say that I was a proponent of the death penalty until I did research on it and found the nightmarish cases of wrongful deaths (usually people of African descent, sadly) and in a case of life in prison, these minor... glitches can be ironed out. Death is a final solution to a problem that still plagues modern law and I feel that it is should only be reserved for people that absolutely need it- some gang banger should NEVER be put to death while Charles Manson is still living.
I also have to say that I was a proponent of the death penalty until I did research on it and found the nightmarish cases of wrongful deaths (usually people of African descent, sadly) and in a case of life in prison, these minor... glitches can be ironed out. Death is a final solution to a problem that still plagues modern law and I feel that it is should only be reserved for people that absolutely need it- some gang banger should NEVER be put to death while Charles Manson is still living.
I agree with DerangedHobo in that I am disgusted by the people who want to just have this guy taken out and shot like he's some wild animal and pretend they're still civilized.
I am also befuddled at the fact that people talk about this guy as scum, evil, whatever word you want to use, but then think he shouldn't have to live alone in a room, because that would be 'cruel'. No problems with killing someone, but locking them away? No, that's too far! Give me a break, people.
Here's the thing: all these people who want him to die think that he forfeited his right to live when he committed this crime, which sounds like one of the many ridiculous excuses used by people to justify their bad actions, but the question isn't 'What gives them the right to live?' it's 'What gives us the right to take his life?' because deliberately taking lives is why we condemn these people, yet somehow it's okay to sink to their level.
I am also befuddled at the fact that people talk about this guy as scum, evil, whatever word you want to use, but then think he shouldn't have to live alone in a room, because that would be 'cruel'. No problems with killing someone, but locking them away? No, that's too far! Give me a break, people.
Here's the thing: all these people who want him to die think that he forfeited his right to live when he committed this crime, which sounds like one of the many ridiculous excuses used by people to justify their bad actions, but the question isn't 'What gives them the right to live?' it's 'What gives us the right to take his life?' because deliberately taking lives is why we condemn these people, yet somehow it's okay to sink to their level.
Depends on the person and prison in question now doesn't it. But really, is that truly what's important here? I understand anger, and desire to hurt those who've hurt or frightened you. But that instinct, however justified, is a bad one. What modern society ought to aim for is dealing with people who can't be allowed into society as humanely as possible. Not to punish them to make them suffer as their victims, that's revenge and cruelty.
Sometimes people through patience and guidance can be rehabilitated. Sometimes people pose such a threat they can never be allowed back in society. I'd say it can be argued that in those situations it's better for all parties involved to have the criminal executed.
Besides it has been proven often that severity of punishment is a poor detergent for criminal activity.
Sometimes people through patience and guidance can be rehabilitated. Sometimes people pose such a threat they can never be allowed back in society. I'd say it can be argued that in those situations it's better for all parties involved to have the criminal executed.
Besides it has been proven often that severity of punishment is a poor detergent for criminal activity.
I'm pretty sure the one that literally started off by insulting everyone here is you. Need I point you back to your "screaming mongoloid" comment again?DerangedHobo said:
Well, I bow down to your infinite wisdom and unassailable logic, I mean, what else can anyone say when your argument literally boils down to "I'm right because I said I'm right".
It's called a social contract, it's called being part of a society. "Deliberately taking lives" is not why we condemn these people - Deliberately taking lives without justification is why we condemn them. That's the distinction that you're missing there, without that what's the difference between someone robbing you on the street and the tax collector? or a kidnapper and the state when it imprisons the kidnapper?IOwnTheSpire said:
Nearly every criminal who harms someone else feels justified in their actions. They'll say they deserved it, or they had it coming, but we don't let them go just because they feel justified in their actions. What someone deserves or doesn't deserve is not an objective truth. The reason we imprison people is because it's necessary to keep them from doing any more harm, but the death penalty is not necessary; we don't have to kill people to keep them from harming others as long we keep them imprisoned, therefore there's no reason to execute people.kyp275 said:
My thing is, even though a life sentence is the 'worse' of the two punishments in terms of mental anguish, solitary thoughts, etc...I'm not cool with the fact that I pay taxes to keep these pieces of human filth alive. March them out back, make them dig a big hole and stand in it, then give each them a bullet to the brain. Problem. Fracking. Solved.
They have no LEGAL justification. If I think my neighbor's dog is a little shit that keeps me awake for a week straight, and I walk over and shoot it in the face, I'd say I felt justified in doing it. It's still illegal and I'd be jailed for animal cruelty, etc, but if the dog was attacking me and I shot it in the face, not only would I FEEL justified in doing it, I'd also be LEGALLY justified in doing it.IOwnTheSpire said:
Difference between you and me? I don't throw shit and then talk about how another person is being counter-intuitive to the 'discussion of a topic'.kyp275 said:
Answer my fucking question then. What do you get from killing people? Go ahead, I'll wait.
In a life which you didn't sign up for, a part of a society which you never chose. This is more a 'Faustian bargain' than it is 'mutual contract'.
Fun fact: Morality is subjective and like Spire pointed out, few people do 'evil' acts without justifying it in their heads. Your reasoning is just as flawed as the criminals which you condemn, do I have to bring up Shariah law?
Edit: Quoting
errrfreaper said:
what second chance? The choice is rotting away in prison with no hope for being acquited in the future or death penalty. And considering where exactly the Boston Bomber would be spending life in prison (ie the federal supermax prison in Colorado that is on par with the Gulag or Gitmo), yes i would prefer death.
But you are not on death row, it should at the very least be the choice of the individual. I'm pretty sure freaper wasn't talking about a second chance outside of prison but a chance to repent in their own private way or to be at peace with their mistakes. The victim does not have a choice in his execution.Ryotknife said:
yea well he has years to find peace. It took Timothy Mcveigh 4 years to be executed (the average is usually 27 years, but cases like these get fast tracked), plenty of time to repent or whathaveyou. If he squanders that time, well thats on him.DerangedHobo said:
Also, why should a government care if a criminal repents or not? That is more the domain of religion with the afterlife and whatnot.
...If you're going to keep him in prison for a shit ton of time anyway, why execute him? Why cross that line? You want it televised and monetized at the same time?Ryotknife said:
It's not personal justification I was talking about, or as you said indeed everything could potentially be "justified". The justification here is one that is decided by the society, usually through the legal system, that's all there is to it, whether it be the death penalty or any other civil/criminal offense. There's no "objective truth" or some universal moral standard by which everything from the death penalty down to the fine for not cutting your lawn is judged against - it's simply what the society in which you live in have decided is or isn't allowed - the universe doesn't give two shits whether you have the death penalty or not.IOwnTheSpire said:
There are a lot more factors than just simply preventing people from doing more harm when it comes to the CJ system and imprisonment, if that's the only criteria, one can even argue that mass execution for everyone would be a far quicker and simpler system. We don't do that anymore precisely because we're concerned with more than just recidivism rates.
No, you literally started by throwing shit at people, the posts don't lie.DerangedHobo said:
Punishment, sense of justice, permanent elimination of unwanted element from society etc., it would depend on the person you ask. My answer may be different then, say, someone who was directly affected by the bombing in this case. FYI, my feelings on this case would include those 3.
Don't like it? feel free to move. Can't move? too bad. Welcome to the real world, where the Universe doesn't revolve around your existence. A pedophile turned child molester also didn't sign up for this life nor chose the society in which he/she lives, doesn't mean we go "Awww, poor child molester, too bad our society's value doesn't match yours, please continue to do whatever it is you want".
Already went over this above. Morality is indeed subjective - which changes absolutely nothing. Not sure what Shariah law have to do with anything here, if you meant to use that as an example of "bad laws imposed by society", I would agree, but only because my own subjective morality disagrees with the values imposed by Shariah, not because there's some Universal Scale on which my morality scored higher than Shariah's.