Ok, after reading all of the posts, I have come to several conclusions.
1. Half of you think killing is never ok, but have different opinions of what to do with the person instead of killing them. Life in prison/solitary confinement, and torture were the main choices, and in some cases, you'd actually try to rectify the person to get them back into society. I think we can all agree though, that the amount of rectification would depend on their crime, and would have to be damn certain that they were rectified, so we don't have repeat offenders out on the streets.
2. The other half of you think killing is ok, but there was a bit of gray area about what constitutes killing. Everything from: touching kids, to killing a busload of grandmas, to rape. Most of the examples were taking the life of another, which seems to imply that most of you (in this half at least) believe the phrase "An eye for an eye".
3. There is a bit of debate about what the purpose of prisons is, and I have to agree, it really does depend on the country. The US has the most prisoners out of any other country (as a percentage), so it is safe to assume that it is for the sake of quarantine. I think we can all agree that we don't want prisoners out on the street with normal people, but is quarantine really all that should be done for them? If you stick prisoners in prison, even if it is for their entire lives, what good does that do? I think putting someone in prison for life is a passive way of killing them, something that I am not ok with. Another point that was brought up, was the cost of prisons and the actual killing process of a death sentence. I didn't want this to enter discussion, but I didn't make that clear in the original post, and figured this thread had died, so didn't think of adding it in.
To re-state my original post, I want you to decide whether it is ok to kill a person or not, and in what circumstances is it ok to kill someone, and when it is not. A really simple question, but you have to do a couple things to get to the answer that I want:
- Ignore the laws and regulations of your country. I don't want to know what your country does, I want to know what you would do if the choice was completely up to you.
- Decide what to do with the person after you have decided to kill them or keep them alive. You can tell that some people's answers depend on what they think can and should be done with them after the fact, and I didn't want that to happen. I just want to know whether you think it is ok or not to kill someone, not "Well now that they are not dead, what now? Well they stay in prison and suck up my cash for the rest of their life... I am changing my answer to: kill the bastard"
- Ignore the process that must be taken in judging the person guilty or not, and the process that leads to them dying. In this thread, the decision is made by you. You either decide the person will live, or they will die. If they die, a pit opens up beneath them and they are disintegrated. This way, all irrelevant things can be ignored, like the cost of re-trials, appeals, how much it costs to kill a guy, lawyers, etc.
I am glad everyone contributed their bit, the discussion was (heated at times) but interesting. I am glad to see that there are several conflicting opinions from the states, which supports my belief that you aren't all murdering psychopaths (lol, kidding). I imagine if we got a good percentage of the internet to weigh in, most would not support the killing people (or they could be convinced otherwise if they were to answer as I would like them to answer). I say "the internet" because the public is ignorant and stupid. Besides, the internet is the boiling pot of opinions, and only the strongest ones survive.
Also, I know that was really TL;DR, but I hope everyone that weighed in, reads it.
It would be nice if you stated what your opinion was under the new clarified circumstances, but I won't bend your leg to make you do it
*comes back to 200 posts later*
lawl, I wish.
1. Half of you think killing is never ok, but have different opinions of what to do with the person instead of killing them. Life in prison/solitary confinement, and torture were the main choices, and in some cases, you'd actually try to rectify the person to get them back into society. I think we can all agree though, that the amount of rectification would depend on their crime, and would have to be damn certain that they were rectified, so we don't have repeat offenders out on the streets.
2. The other half of you think killing is ok, but there was a bit of gray area about what constitutes killing. Everything from: touching kids, to killing a busload of grandmas, to rape. Most of the examples were taking the life of another, which seems to imply that most of you (in this half at least) believe the phrase "An eye for an eye".
3. There is a bit of debate about what the purpose of prisons is, and I have to agree, it really does depend on the country. The US has the most prisoners out of any other country (as a percentage), so it is safe to assume that it is for the sake of quarantine. I think we can all agree that we don't want prisoners out on the street with normal people, but is quarantine really all that should be done for them? If you stick prisoners in prison, even if it is for their entire lives, what good does that do? I think putting someone in prison for life is a passive way of killing them, something that I am not ok with. Another point that was brought up, was the cost of prisons and the actual killing process of a death sentence. I didn't want this to enter discussion, but I didn't make that clear in the original post, and figured this thread had died, so didn't think of adding it in.
To re-state my original post, I want you to decide whether it is ok to kill a person or not, and in what circumstances is it ok to kill someone, and when it is not. A really simple question, but you have to do a couple things to get to the answer that I want:
- Ignore the laws and regulations of your country. I don't want to know what your country does, I want to know what you would do if the choice was completely up to you.
- Decide what to do with the person after you have decided to kill them or keep them alive. You can tell that some people's answers depend on what they think can and should be done with them after the fact, and I didn't want that to happen. I just want to know whether you think it is ok or not to kill someone, not "Well now that they are not dead, what now? Well they stay in prison and suck up my cash for the rest of their life... I am changing my answer to: kill the bastard"
- Ignore the process that must be taken in judging the person guilty or not, and the process that leads to them dying. In this thread, the decision is made by you. You either decide the person will live, or they will die. If they die, a pit opens up beneath them and they are disintegrated. This way, all irrelevant things can be ignored, like the cost of re-trials, appeals, how much it costs to kill a guy, lawyers, etc.
I am glad everyone contributed their bit, the discussion was (heated at times) but interesting. I am glad to see that there are several conflicting opinions from the states, which supports my belief that you aren't all murdering psychopaths (lol, kidding). I imagine if we got a good percentage of the internet to weigh in, most would not support the killing people (or they could be convinced otherwise if they were to answer as I would like them to answer). I say "the internet" because the public is ignorant and stupid. Besides, the internet is the boiling pot of opinions, and only the strongest ones survive.
Also, I know that was really TL;DR, but I hope everyone that weighed in, reads it.
It would be nice if you stated what your opinion was under the new clarified circumstances, but I won't bend your leg to make you do it
*comes back to 200 posts later*
lawl, I wish.
