I'm just going to state that in the case of war, it has to be a Just War, otherwise the killing isn't justified. You have to be going in for legitimate, serious reasons, and that is when I back it. And only then.Vryyk said:I really don't like this line of logic. Saying that two wrongs don't make a right assumes that there is in fact, two wrongs. There is one wrong being done if a mass murderer is given lethal injection, and that is the murders he committed.Squid94 said:Killing people to show them that killing is wrong? Nope, not what I see as justifiable.
And if you believe killing to be an inexcusable, unambiguous wrong, perhaps you would like to jettison the military? Their whole business is killing after all.
He's Canadian, at least judging by his profile. And even if he were American, what the hell does that have to do with the accuracy of his figures, which are (indirectly) from Amnesty International?Vitum said:Seeing as you're American, I hope if you understand if I don't believe China, Iran and Iraq being in the top 3.
TheAmazingHobo said:Well, this argument of course only works in those backwater, third-world countries where routine medical procedures regularly bankrupt people due to a non-functioning care-system.twistedheat15 said:This, ya could argue that there's a lot of convictions where the person was innocent, but there's even more where it was blatantly obvious that the person was guilty, described it in detail, then laughed about it. Throwing him on death row for 25 years, and using tax payers money to keep him fed, sheltered and healthy is just lame. It's sad that someone in jail could get a toothache, go to the site doctor to get fixed, and sit back in their cell sucking a lollipop by weeks end. But then a tax payer does the same thing, and ends up with a $750 bill at the end cuz he finds out his insurance doesn't cover what he needed done.Swny Nerdgasm said:I think it should be used more, Hell why do inmates on death row take o long to die? Convict them, bring them out back and put a bullet in their head.
Additionally, you might wanna find someone who has actually been in prison and have nice chat with him, about how much golly fun it is to lose control over your life and be deprived of your freedom.
Best find somebody who tried to kill himself while in prison,
I hear there are one or two people who tried to do that for whatever silly reason.
(Seriously dude, if you think prison is fun or IN ANY WAY preferable to live outside of prison, you might want to get your head chec... oh shit, forgot, that´s expensive. Dammit.)
What you're saying here is reasonable enough. I disagree, but it's reasonable, so let me try a different tack.Squid94 said:I'm just going to state that in the case of war, it has to be a Just War, otherwise the killing isn't justified. You have to be going in for legitimate, serious reasons, and that is when I back it. And only then.Vryyk said:I really don't like this line of logic. Saying that two wrongs don't make a right assumes that there is in fact, two wrongs. There is one wrong being done if a mass murderer is given lethal injection, and that is the murders he committed.Squid94 said:Killing people to show them that killing is wrong? Nope, not what I see as justifiable.
And if you believe killing to be an inexcusable, unambiguous wrong, perhaps you would like to jettison the military? Their whole business is killing after all.
On execution, I believe there are always alternatives. There is a chance that the criminal can reform, though it's not always going to happen, but that opportunity has to be given, and in the mean time, they can wait in prison, which can be viewed as a worse punishment. Execution at least gives the criminals the opportunity to escape their actions.
Also, there is the scenario in which a mistake is made, and it has happened, in which the wrong person is executed, which is beyond terrible for anyone involved. At least with alternatives punishments, like prison, the mistake can be undone to an extent. But with Capital Punishment, that's a serious screw-up.
It's still a very strong indicator, though. And the key words in my post were 'pretty much'. I know nothing is ever 100%, but it's getting close.thaluikhain said:That's true, though risks can be minimised. Nobody has ever escaped from a US Supermax prison, ever, for example.Duffeknol said:When (s)he's still alive, there's always the chance of escape.
No, you can't. DNA comparisons are almost without possibility of error, yes, but all they can do is tell you if the sample matches a person. They can't tell you if the criminal left the sample in the first place, and they don't guarantee you will find a sample.Duffeknol said:Also with modern DNA evidence techniques we can pretty much rule out the possibility that innocents get executed,
I hate to break it to you, but if someone goes to jail, even if they are later found out to be innocent, their life is basically over. NOBODY is going to hire someone who went to jail, even if they were innocent.Squid94 said:.
Also, there is the scenario in which a mistake is made, and it has happened, in which the wrong person is executed, which is beyond terrible for anyone involved. At least with alternatives punishments, like prison, the mistake can be undone to an extent. But with Capital Punishment, that's a serious screw-up.
I'd rather not have to pay for them to live their entire life in a cell.Lizardon said:But keeping someone locked up is also a crime, and what do we do with the people who do that?El Cookio said:Surely, as killing people is a crime, killing someone for committing a crime is a bit..daft?
Honestly, I don't see death as a punishment, I'd rather have serious murders live out their lives miserable in a cell.
Yup, I see where you're coming from on this one, and it can be frustrating to realise that I'm paying for what could be considered a relatively easy going lifestyle for them, considering their position in life. In an ideal world, the authorities would cut back on some of the features of prison life that aren't entirely necessary, such as some of the luxuries they're allowed. This would cost less for the rest of society.Vryyk said:What you're saying here is reasonable enough. I disagree, but it's reasonable, so let me try a different tack.Squid94 said:I'm just going to state that in the case of war, it has to be a Just War, otherwise the killing isn't justified. You have to be going in for legitimate, serious reasons, and that is when I back it. And only then.Vryyk said:I really don't like this line of logic. Saying that two wrongs don't make a right assumes that there is in fact, two wrongs. There is one wrong being done if a mass murderer is given lethal injection, and that is the murders he committed.Squid94 said:Killing people to show them that killing is wrong? Nope, not what I see as justifiable.
And if you believe killing to be an inexcusable, unambiguous wrong, perhaps you would like to jettison the military? Their whole business is killing after all.
On execution, I believe there are always alternatives. There is a chance that the criminal can reform, though it's not always going to happen, but that opportunity has to be given, and in the mean time, they can wait in prison, which can be viewed as a worse punishment. Execution at least gives the criminals the opportunity to escape their actions.
Also, there is the scenario in which a mistake is made, and it has happened, in which the wrong person is executed, which is beyond terrible for anyone involved. At least with alternatives punishments, like prison, the mistake can be undone to an extent. But with Capital Punishment, that's a serious screw-up.
Would you agree that as a taxpayer, having to shoulder the cost of their imprisonment for the entirety of their lives (and note that they receive full medical care, recreational activities such as D&D and painting supplies, not to mention pretty good food) is a bit excessive?
And if you agree with this sentiment, would you consider severe prison budget cuts a legitimate means to alleviate the tax burden off of us honest citizens?
i think in this day and age we should be using the death sentence less and less and using rehabilitation and crime prevention more.Arizona Kyle said:In a day and age where men/women are killing each other, stealing millions of dollars, using drugs to the extreme, selling drugs, and oh so much more. Do you believe that the death sentence should be used more often rather then wasting tax payer money on some criminal that will never get out of prison
But, in the former, you would be sentencing them to a fate worse than the crime.meowchef said:Every single time a person is convicted of rape or murder.
Not necessarily. They destroyed at least one life... you destroy one life.LegendaryGamer0 said:But, in the former, you would be sentencing them to a fate worse than the crime.meowchef said:Every single time a person is convicted of rape or murder.
So... you are all for taking a life if to cut costs?New Troll said:Eye For An Eye justice, with extreme prejudice. I'm all for it.
I believe executions are much more economical than life-imprisonment. I could be wrong, but have yet to see otherwise. Course I'm also not a big fan of the prison system. Turning criminals into sadists before releasing them back among the world. Sure there's those who do in fact turn thier life around, but they seem to be the minority. Just not worth it in my opinion.
An Eye For An Eye isn't exactly the best way to go about things. :/meowchef said:Not necessarily. They destroyed at least one life... you destroy one life.LegendaryGamer0 said:But, in the former, you would be sentencing them to a fate worse than the crime.meowchef said:Every single time a person is convicted of rape or murder.
In one, you live.ninjastovall0 said:Have you been raped? how do you know its worse? Such a traumatic experience and then having to live with it could be seen as worse than death.LegendaryGamer0 said:But, in the former, you would be sentencing them to a fate worse than the crime.meowchef said:Every single time a person is convicted of rape or murder.