The Death Penalty

[Darksage]

Do you support it?

[Mystic-Spirit]

Yeah sorta determines details of what they did.

[Nori]

It depends on what was done, and why it was done.

[Darksage]

Well the death penalty is only given in cases of murder....At least thats all I know of...

[LegendGenesis]

On the whole, no. But in really heinous crimes (serial killers for example), yeah, it'd fit.

[DyBre]

I think only for cases such as things like serial killers.

Though I do think that imprisonment for life is a worse punishment, but with the serious problems with over crowded prisons, and if they have commited serious crimes, I think the death penalty would be best for them.

[Darksage]

For the record I mean this for people who intentionally have killed another person.

I support it 100%. Life in prison is not worse. A killer will do anything he can to stay alive, even if it's in prison. if the thought of capital punishment was in the heads of murderers before they they killed their victim I'm sure they would have never killed in the first place.

[Vol Opt OS]

It's lame, what else is there to say?

[Darksage]

That's your opinion. the death penalty serves to keep justice. It is no different than sending someone to jail for robbing a bank. The punishment must be adequate for the crime, locking someone up is not enough if they killed someone else. some people have even made statments saying things like "I knew I would'nt get the [electric] chair, so yeah". They kill because they know there is no consequance. if their is no punishment fitting for a crime the law is rendered impotent.

[Vol Opt OS]

They kill because they know there is no consequance. if their is no punishment fitting for a crime the law is rendered impotent.

I smell a blanket statement.

You still can't justify the need to kill people for killing people. I don't see logic in that. I see how it can be a punishment, which is really understandable. But have you heard of all the shit the people in Death Row have to go through?

Months of waiting for the day they will die, and they can't commit suicide. That's almost as brutal as Guantanimo Bay or maybe even the Patriot Act. You want a punishment? Kick the fucker in the nuts a few times. And what now? I can get the death penalty because I DDoS Wal-Mart? BS.

Maybe if it isn't being exploited as much as it is nowdays, I would be cool with it. Besides, there are people who were found innocent after they recieved their injection.

[Darksage]

A blanket statement? Um... no.

Yes yes they go through hell, but I never said I agreed with that now did I? ;) I havent even thought about that yet

People are being found innocent after they were killed? Name one, I've only heard that happen once (I'm not even sure if it EVER happened honestly) out of like 700+ times it's happened in the US

[Vol Opt OS]

I'm sure you can do that on your own time. Who knows? I could give you a falsy document.

And Blanket Statement yes. War crimes anyone? Or how about that person who was in the wrong place at the wrong time? Shit happens.

I've stated my stance on the DP and it sucks.

[Darksage]

Actually I dont think it's ever happened...

I said killed intentionally. "wrong place, wrong time" goes out the window there, and people killed in war arent considered murdered, just KIA

[Vol Opt OS]

I said killed intentionally. "wrong place, wrong time" goes out the window there, and people killed in war arent considered murdered, just KIA

War Crimes, not numbers. KIA is a totally diffrent deal in itself.
http://www.crimesofwar.org/
An example of a war crime onto an innocent person could be a grunt making his living off of the German military in 1942. Although this man did not agree with the orders he was issued, he still suffred death on an outlandish cause. Hmm.. Genocide is murder isn't it? More of a blood bath, but it still holds that same cause.

[DarkMagicianGrl]

I dont. Killing someone who has killed others makes you no better than them

[Darksage]

Oh really? Then what do you do with the murderer?

[Darksage]

I think justice outweighs money any day

[Mystic-Spirit]

I dont. Killing someone who has killed others makes you no better than them

Really now? So if the guy murdered a family member of yours you wouldn't want him to get punished to where he feels his own pain? It's a punishment not a killing, big difference.

[DarkMagicianGrl]

Mystic that made no sense at all...


Guy kills someone. State kills guy. Family of guy takes vengence on people who helped decide to kill guy. Cycle starts over.

[Darksage]

That never happens really DMG, it's not the family just one person.
And the argument "Killing the person makes you no better than them" is not true, so nobody bring that up or I'll have to waste 3 minutes of my life proving it wrong. ;)

[DarkMagicianGrl]

Actually that staement is a matter of my opinion therefore in cannot be proven wrong. ;)

I do not support the death penelty becuase IMO (see? opinion?) it would make you no better than the murderer. Let them rot in jail and have time to think over everything that theyve done. sure, plenty will feel no remorse becuase some are just that sick but plenty of others will and that internal torture alone is good enough for me

[Darksage]

Well you have to base your opinio on something ;)

That is the killer's argument, saying that the state, gov't, or w/e is now no better than the killer. that is only intended to soften their resolve and btry to bring them down to the killer's level.

"It's one thing not to take action if you witness a man being killed, but if you do not look for justice, the man dies twice."

[Shinkouseikatsu]

Yes, why not?! Eye for an eye!

[escaflowne16]

Death penalty not always given to punish someone who killed others, it can be given as a warning (some kind of shock teraphy for the society) to prevent further / more victims.
Recently the singapore government hanged a 25 year old guy who caried a few grams of heroin (they dont even care he's an australian citizen) n i agreed with their decision. I think when u sit on a leader chair u have to think wide n far ahead, sacrificing 1 person for a better society is acceptable.

[Darksage]

How do you weigh human life? How can you just say killing one person is better than killing ten?

[RustyGonzo]

Because it is. Would you rather have one person in your... say, your city/town die or ten, all at once? Killing one is better than ten. But that's obvious.

And I sometimes agree with the death penalty. If it's a serial killer, sure. If a man killed one man, no.

[l33tpocky]

I believe that it is not our place to judge who lives or dies even the ones that have comitted murder its not our place to say who lives or dies.

[RustyGonzo]

Mhm, good point. But I still agree with Shink:

why not?! Eye for an eye!

[Goten4]

why have them killed, when you can just torture them. Like start my cutting off a finger, then a toe until he is wishing you would kill him.

[Loveless Slave]

Woooh hold on there Goten4. If you do that, those money loving lawyers will come down and release whoever is getting tortured.

All im'a say is that killing is wrong no matter who commits it. I'm totally against the death penalty. Let murderes rot in jail.

[Shinkouseikatsu]

I believe that it is not our place to judge who lives or dies even the ones that have comitted murder its not our place to say who lives or dies.
Indeed, it's not our place to judge who dies and who lives, but what do you think those killers thought of whenever they kill someone?!

Look, when I said "Eye for an Eye"....I meant, whoever kills, gets killed back. The way I see it, why bother giving them a life in prison sentence? It's a waste of tax payers' money, and *aheem* I'm one of those tax payers. I don't want to see my tax money nurturing criminals in jail. Some criminals actually prefers the life in jail because they have free food, lodging.. so and so...

If you think about it this way, those tax money are better off...going to children's education like financial aid, textbooks...food for the needy..

[escaflowne16]

I believe that it is not our place to judge who lives or dies even the ones that have comitted murder its not our place to say who lives or dies.
true, its not our place. Thats why we got court, judge, lawyer, etc. Either way, "somebody" has to do it, its part of living in a society.

[Darksage]

Your first sentence agreed with pocky, and then the second didn't... lol
It is our place. The death penalty reaffirms the value of human life.

[Shinkouseikatsu]

true, its not our place. Thats why we got court, judge, lawyer, etc. Either way, "somebody" has to do it, its part of living in a society.
That doesn't make any sense at all. Next time, don't say anything.. lol

[escaflowne16]

by "our" i mean we as ordinary citizen. Sorry if thats confuse u all..

[Swift]

Some people deserve to die.

[Poki]

why have them killed, when you can just torture them. Like start my cutting off a finger, then a toe until he is wishing you would kill him.


That my friend is a case of Cruel and unusual punishment it would be never be allowed even though it still goes on.

The death penalty also known as 'Capital Punishment' has always been one of the more sensative subjects to date.

Many of you who agree with this punishment are classified as Utilitarians, in that you justify the capital punishment because it prevents the criminal from repeating his crime, it also deters crime by discouraging would-be offenders. For, both of these contribute to a greater balance of happiness in society.

But what you don't know is that this resoning has many problems as well. First, the burden of proof is on the defender of capital punishment to show that the same effects could not be accomplished with less severe punishment, such as life imprisonment. This is important because Utilitarians are considered to uphold the happiness in society and reduce the unhappiness of an individual, but then this would contradict the fact that they agree with the death penalty. This greatly contradicts imposing the least severe of two possible punishments when everything else is equal.

We also have the Retributive arguements most of you might know about these such as: punishment equal to harm or an eye for an eye.

Here's an example i'm sure most of you have heard about the Law of Hammurabi:

"If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death. If it kills the son of the owner, then the son of that builder shall be put to death."

This does not prove why Capital punishment is justifyed it only proves otherwise for example: "If it [i.e., a collapsed house] kills the son of the owner, then the son of the builder shall be put to death." Second, as a strict formula of retribution, lex talionis punishment may even be inadequate. For example, if a terrorist or mass murderer kills ten people, then taking his single life is technically not punishment in kind"

And another thing that might make people believe that the Death penalty is in fact a pro would be that critics of capital punishment argue that the true basis of a retributive justification is not foundational but can be found within the feelings of vengeance. Yes we know that Vengeance is a natural human emotion, but then if we as human can temper our natural feelings of fear lust and greed then the impulse of vengeance should be as well.

My teacher always said "Laws about punishment, then, should not be grounded in our extreme feelings, but should instead be based on our more tempered ones. When we moderate our natural feelings of vengeance, there should be little inclination to execute criminals."

I would go on and on but right now i've gotta go, I am against the Death penalty on it's face i'm also against the way the death penalty has been distributed over the years.

I'll leave you with an interesting quote.

"I kill people to teach people that killing is wrong" A judge in Texas once said this.

[Darksage]

If you're against the death penalty perhaps you should read an essay ed Koch wrote on it. Very informative.



Do you believe that life is valuable? I do, life is very precious. When a murderer takes someone else's life, it is not an injustice to kill him, the injustice is NOT killing him. Capital Pinishment helps affirm the value of human life

[Poki]

If that is so true then why are people who up hold Capital punishment walking amongst us as though they haven't committed an act of murder?

I'm not going to argue and say that a murderer has the right to be punishment free, but i'm not going to agree that you can justify the world by doing the same. If that is justice then what is considered to be unjustice?

And in the end it all comes down to the emotion one feels, humans by nature have this flaw, and yes if i were in a position in which one of my family members was harmed i would no doubt be blinded by hatred and try to do the same to the criminal. But tell me what does that prove? That i can just as easily commit the same as he/she? that i'm no better than the rest of them.


Can you proudly go outside and say "i've killed someone who has killed someone because it is the right thing to do?" or that you support this way of living?


Anyways that's your opinion and this is mine, regardless of how much we can debate about this topic we aren't making any changes in the real world.

[Darksage]

Wrong. Capital Punishment is upheld by the state, not by "average" people. When we are citizens of this country and vote for officials, we give up certain rights. Quite frankly, the state has powers that people do not. When the state forces you to give it money, it's called taxation, when your neighbor does it, it's extortion. When a man is in prison, it's jail, when you lock your neighbor in your basement, it's kidnapping. The state is not murdering the killer, that is just an argument to soften the resolve of those condemning the murderer to death and try to bring them down to his/her level. Rather, it is an act to preserve justice.

[escaflowne16]

And in the end it all comes down to the emotion one feels, humans by nature have this flaw, and yes if i were in a position in which one of my family members was harmed i would no doubt be blinded by hatred and try to do the same to the criminal. But tell me what does that prove? That i can just as easily commit the same as he/she? that i'm no better than the rest of them.


If its me, i would report to the police, have trial on him n hope he got death penalty. If the judge didnt give him at least a life time in prison, i think i'll be furious n kill him myself. So, basically, yes, i want him die. I dont know if this makes me no better than him or not, but if it about family, logic doesnt work anymore


Anyways that's your opinion and this is mine, regardless of how much we can debate about this topic we aren't making any changes in the real world.
hahahah.. rite. Sometimes i wonder why we discuss this so seriously when it doesnt gonna change anything at all lol. Anyone planing on becoming senate member? :)


Wrong. Capital Punishment is upheld by the state, not by "average" people. When we are citizens of this country and vote for officials, we give up certain rights. Quite frankly, the state has powers that people do not. When the state forces you to give it money, it's called taxation, when your neighbor does it, it's extortion. When a man is in prison, it's jail, when you lock your neighbor in your basement, it's kidnapping. The state is not murdering the killer, that is just an argument to soften the resolve of those condemning the murderer to death and try to bring them down to his/her level. Rather, it is an act to preserve justice

so what u say is, when the one who did it is the people in power, it becomes right thing to do?

[Darksage]

I'm saying that is is not the "an eye for an eye"/Hammurabi concept. It's serving justice.

[Poki]

Wrong. Capital Punishment is upheld by the state, not by "average" people. When we are citizens of this country and vote for officials, we give up certain rights. Quite frankly, the state has powers that people do not. When the state forces you to give it money, it's called taxation, when your neighbor does it, it's extortion. When a man is in prison, it's jail, when you lock your neighbor in your basement, it's kidnapping. The state is not murdering the killer, that is just an argument to soften the resolve of those condemning the murderer to death and try to bring them down to his/her level. Rather, it is an act to preserve justice.


And this quite frankly explains why we are still the ones who are allowing Capital punishment to exist. I just read one of your ealier posts and i was quite upset that you were so ignorant to something that has been not only shown on T.V but taught in school. You've only heard of one cause where the death penalty casualty was innocent? where have you been living all this time?

And no the state is not preserving justice, if this were such then tell me why there have been thousands of cases in which the punishment doesn't fit the crime? Tell me why is it that over the years the distribution of Capital punishment against certain criminals was unjust? The government in no way sees the 'Death penalty' as a way to store balance and justice they see it as a way to PUNISH yeah punish something you learn way back when teacher's actually taught something.

And before any of you go coocoo with this my post remember that it's my opinion.

[escaflowne16]

I'm saying that is is not the "an eye for an eye"/Hammurabi concept. It's serving justice.
yes, sure. But justice is depend how ppl see it. Like, if u're a strong country, u can run a batallion of tank on your own citizen, making a field full of corpse n see it as serving justice, "their" justice. Ppl on other country may criticize it, talking about international human right n all, but still cant do anything 'bout it sice it's "domestic affair".
Different ppl in defferent country with different interest has their own definition on "justice"

[zabuza0]

its the final penalty it has to be done in last resort *two wrong dont make a right*

[Poki]

^For once he's right...........*lol*

[zabuza0]

hey whats that suposed to mean!!! lol!
......

[Poki]

Nothing.....really nothing.....lol

[zabuza0]

right.... T.T

[Poki]

^I'm always right....

[FinalDragoon]

I agree with it.


Though morally I'd like to believe that there should be no death penalty, that we have no right to take a life - a gift from god. But life doesn't work like that.

It's more logical for us to simply eleminate those deserving of the death penalty, why? Because it's expensive for us to keep them in prison. In all honesty prisoners get a good education, food, television, someplace to live, and even mediocre entertainment. That's more than a lot of people have, considering these people have done something wrong, prison isn't that bad of a punishment. Keeping people in prison is expensive for the taxpayers, so it's a lot more effective to simply use the 'death penalty' which is honestly more than most deserve, but it's a lot more effecient then giving them life in prison.

[Darksage]

For your religious reference, there are even examples in the Torah and Old Testament where something like the death penalty is used (ie crucifixion)

"Thou shalt not kill" instead of "You shall not murder." (it was changed), and that ties into my previous post about the state having capabilities the person does not

I just read one of your ealier posts and i was quite upset that you were so ignorant to something that has been not only shown on T.V but taught in school. You've only heard of one cause where the death penalty casualty was innocent? where have you been living all this time?

Thats why I believe I ASKED how many, because I dont know what school YOU go to but in MINE we didnt learn ANYTHING about this

[CK]

I think like grandpas that rape little children and michale jackson should get get death pently , but its not like there getting killed on the spot they got 10months-3years and if they figure out a way good for them if not to bad

[Poki]

I'm done with this debate, we all have our opinions and beliefs. It's just sad to think that most of you base your agreements on petty facts or the few murder cases you see on t.v, and i might not provide the best of facts for my answer either but at least i'm well educated in this topic.

It's good you stick by your answer though that's what a good debater does...so i guess end of story for me.

[zabuza0]

^exacly..

[CK]

loosers stick it out
you cant take it you have no reasons not to have it

[Darksage]

I'm done with this debate, we all have our opinions and beliefs. It's just sad to think that most of you base your agreements on petty facts or the few murder cases you see on t.v, and i might not provide the best of facts for my answer either but at least i'm well educated in this topic.

It's good you stick by your answer though that's what a good debater does...so i guess end of story for me.
hm? who's post is this in response to?

[gsv]

I think the death penalty is pretty fair because it punishes the person who's done the wrong things well and is really one of the only ways to do it appropriately. Of course there have been times when the death penalty has been abused, etc. which I don't like.

[Poki]

hm? who's post is this in response to?


Ah no one. If you read carefully i wasn't responding to anyone.

[Tyteman]

i am in favor of capital punishment ... why waste our taxes on criminals when they can be spent for shelters?..

also .. a note.. we kill people who kill people in order to teach people not to kill people..

For your religious reference, there are even examples in the Torah and Old Testament where something like the death penalty is used (ie crucifixion)

ok.. i honestly have to comment on this.. crucifixion is the roman's death penalty.. for the jews it was being stoned to death..i would know considering i have been going to catholic schools for *counts fingers* about 12-13 yrs..
pls do correct me if i'm wrong.. and i apologize if this sounds rude but i'm hungry and my fridge is empty.. x.x

[Darksage]

well that was the first example that came to mind, I never really researched the EXACT punishments but I know the bible says it is just to kill to preserve justice and life.

[Kimeru]

I'll make an attempt at reviving an actually intelligent debate.

I am against it.
As I see it, the point in going to prison is not punishment (although this kind of vision of prison and everything related to it has been increasing due to all the communication mediums), it is reformation.

I think there is no man who can't be reformed (then again if it would be a mental health issue, there is the "nuthouse"), then again if there were, is death really the appropiate thing for him?

And as DMG mentioned on other words, violence only brings violence in return. There is no such a thing as equivalent exchange, a life for another. Pointless.

Behind every big action (or measures taken) there is economical reasons involved.

We, human beings, always aim for the easy way.
Why do you believe everything that mediums says without going to check by yourself? Because it is easier than going to check.
Why do the ministery of education decides that they have to order a group of children of (about) the same age and put them into a classroom all togheter? Because it is easier for the teachers to teach.
Why do the government decides to execute them instead of holding them in prison? Because it is easier, and not to mention cheaper.

As I was saying, economy always influxes. (A good example of this would be the story of the game "Oni" or the reasons why priests (or whatever they are) can't have gfs/wifes/kids, even though in a time they did allow it, but when they had descendence, their possesions went to them instead of the church, so they most likely had forbidden it because, that way, they could keep their stuff. (And even though the bible does support marriage, and even Jesus himself got his girlfriend pregnant)

So, it is a wrong thing to do, but in the reasons of economy and since it is easier, it is the thing to do.

I still do not support it.

[Darksage]

Thank you :biggrin:

No it's not for reformation, it's a court sentence, thats a punishment.

Condemning a murderer to death is not violence, rather it prevents more violence. Statistics show that most murderers commit more crime once they get out of prison. And like I explained previously, the state has power that people do not. When the state forces you to give it money, it's called taxation, when your neighbor does it, it's extortion. When the state puts a man is in prison, it's jail, when you lock your neighbor in your basement, it's kidnapping. The state has power that the people do not. Capital punishment is not murder, but it is killing. There should be a very clear distinction between those two words. Whether it is the state's intent or not, it serves justice. Many people hold human life in a high value, and letting a murderer live after killing another person decreases the value of human life. It's not the "an eye for an eye" concept, and it certainly cannot be countered by the "two wrongs don't make a right" phrase either. The only wrong thing to do is not end the murderers life.

Jesus got his girlfriend pregnant? No no no, that Da Vinci Code thing (or wherever you heard that) is not proven, not yet anyway, but I dont think it's true

[Kimeru]

it serves justice

Explain me how is that "justice"?

[Darksage]

Because he took someone's life away, like I said human life is very precious, and to let a murder live after he kills is like saying you can rob a bank and only go to prison for a day. the punishment must be adequate for the crime. Prison is not enough for murder. Justice is the death penalty

[Obsideon]

Ideally I opose the death penalty, two wrongs do not make a right, and life is the most precious thing there is, so why waste it? unfortunately I'm not so much an idealist to believe that it is not necessary. If people can't be human enough not to kill another human in the first place, then they have to realize that there are consequences for their actions. Still, life impresonment seems the much better option in most cases. I believe the deat penealty should only be ennacted in the worse and most extreme of cases. Such cases as mass murder, serial murder/rape, (honestly I think castration would be a more fitting punishment for rape but that'd be viewed as cruel and unnusual), genoside, etc.

[Kimeru]

Because he took someone's life away, like I said human life is very precious, and to let a murder live after he kills is like saying you can rob a bank and only go to prison for a day. the punishment must be adequate for the crime. Prison is not enough for murder. Justice is the death penalty
A life for another? I repeat myself, there is not such a thing as equivalent exchange, a life for another life (or lives).

Prison is not enough for murder.
Too bad you think about it that way. You can't top a thing with another, and death is not appropiate for it. How does that even makes it better? It doesn't - at all.

Justice is the death penalty
With that way of thinking there was a time when it was thought that justice was arresting a black man for taking a sit in a bus.

Besides, what a concept of life we are giving, huh? A living form that takes life away from another deserves death?
So, when you step over an insect and kill it, would you deserve death? We are talking about the same thing - taking life away from a living creature.
So, may you want to say an insect's life is not as valuable as a human being's is? In that case, how so? Being smaller? (There is infanticide) Being annoying? (Oh, quite a few people I would kill if that would be the case) Just not having bones? OR just because we can?
--

Ideally I opose the death penalty, two wrongs do not make a right, and life is the most precious thing there is, so why waste it?

Precisely. It is wasting a life. A human life, and killing someone doesn't make you less human.

Taking a life in "revenge" for the killed one and calling it "justice", doesn't make it right.


(And, Darksage, I find it funny when you contradict yourself. ;) http://forums.otakuworks.com/showpost.php?p=102102&postcount=22 )

[Poki]

Because he took someone's life away, like I said human life is very precious, and to let a murder live after he kills is like saying you can rob a bank and only go to prison for a day. the punishment must be adequate for the crime. Prison is not enough for murder. Justice is the death penalty


Sorry i know i said i wasn't going to get involved again but this post really irked me.

Human life is precious and yet you are all for the death penalty? pretty funny isn't it? Now explain to me why saying that prison isn't enough for a murderer, is it because if they were sent to prison they would live a comfortable life? Sure they'll get fed and have the ability to participate in various activities, but are you sure that's what really goes on or something the media shows you? Do you know how many officers of the law abuse their power? how many prisoners have taken their own lives while in a prison cell because they couldn't handle living there? Oh but you wouldn't care because apparantly eliminating those who kill is the justified thing to do.

Am i saying that those who murder should roam free? No. But i'm not saying that taking away their lives is the right thing to do either.

Only hypocrites justify death as the right thing to do.

[Obsideon]

But Kimeru this is not an ideal world. You can't justify killing someone as penalty for muder, but only as preventitive. A person who has committed such attocities that I listed can not be expected to repent (in a non-relgious meaning) and live their life the right way, without killing people that is. And if they are that great of a threat prison wont be enough to contain them. There are only two good things about the death penalty. ONE, it gets rid of the people who cannot co-exist with society without death as consequence. TWO, it sets a precident, and deturs criminals, I know it's a harsh way to look at it, taking one person's life to prevent another from killing another, but it works, and if done as specified, in only the most extreme of cases, it is not unjust. I would love to live in a fairy-world where the death penalty was not necessary, but I don't, and hope you realize you don't either.

Killing someone doesn't make you less human. Killing someone is an inhuman thing to do, the act of taking a life doesn't necessarily make you less human, but can you really class people who kill for the sake of killing with those who save lives? There are two sides to humanity, and at least the one extreme cannot be excepted. We cannot have monsters amoungst us, and that is all I would have the death penalty applied to, those people who have lost their humanity and kill for the sake or pleasure of killing.

[Kimeru]

But Kimeru this is not an ideal world. You can't justify killing someone as penalty for muder, but only as preventitive. A person who has committed such attocities that I listed can not be expected to repent (in a non-relgious meaning) and live their life the right way, without killing people that is. And if they are that great of a threat prison wont be enough to contain them. There are only two good things about the death penalty. ONE, it gets rid of the people who cannot co-exist with society without death as consequence. TWO, it sets a precident, and deturs criminals, I know it's a harsh way to look at it, taking one person's life to prevent another from killing another, but it works, and if done as specified, in only the most extreme of cases, it is not unjust. I would love to live in a fairy-world where the death penalty was not necessary, but I don't, and hope you realize you don't either.

Killing someone doesn't make you less human. Killing someone is an inhuman thing to do, the act of taking a life doesn't necessarily make you less human, but can you really class people who kill for the sake of killing with those who save lives? There are two sides to humanity, and at least the one extreme cannot be excepted. We cannot have monsters amoungst us, and that is all I would have the death penalty applied to, those people who have lost their humanity and kill for the sake or pleasure of killing.
When you are talking about the people who can't co-exist at all (harming people in prison, harming people in the manicomy (sp?) or wherever they hold them), then yes, I have to agree. But I haven't meet any of those people ever, though, so they are a minority and most of the people judged to the death penalty, are judged deribatedly (sp?), should we say?

Besides, what Darksage is trying to state (and what I'm trying to argue) is that a person who kills deserve death.

[Darksage]

A life for another? I repeat myself, there is not such a thing as equivalent exchange, a life for another life (or lives).
It's not an exchange, this isn't FMA, it's a punishment. If a man robs a bank and steals $10 million, let's say he goes to jail for like 20 years. How do you think the length of his sentence is determined? Like I said the punishment must fit the crime, just like you wouldn't only get a slap on the wrist for killing 4 people in the mall, or 20 years in prison for jaywalking

Too bad you think about it that way. You can't top a thing with another, and death is not appropiate for it. How does that even makes it better? It doesn't - at all.
You don't get it. It's not making it better. It's a punishment for a crime. Punishments never make anything better. They punish the criminal

With that way of thinking there was a time when it was thought that justice was arresting a black man for taking a sit in a bus.
Well, you have your own opinion of justice. But in the United States all that really matters is the court's interpretation of justice, and that is the law. This is how things work. accept it

Besides, what a concept of life we are giving, huh? A living form that takes life away from another deserves death?
So, when you step over an insect and kill it, would you deserve death? We are talking about the same thing - taking life away from a living creature.
So, may you want to say an insect's life is not as valuable as a human being's is? In that case, how so? Being smaller? (There is infanticide) Being annoying? (Oh, quite a few people I would kill if that would be the case) Just not having bones? OR just because we can?
We are not talking about the same thing. I specifically said HUMAN like was valuable. There are animal rights groups that can worry about animals and other living things. Honestly that had nothing to do with this. The death penalty is given in the case of murder and every US court defines murder along the lined of "one human taking the life of another human. . . ."
Yes we are superior, that is obvious. While all living creatures depend on each other in an ecosystem, we are still the most developed and highly-intellegent species. It even says in the bible that God gave man dominion over all the beasts in the world.



Precisely. It is wasting a life. A human life, and killing someone doesn't make you less human.

Taking a life in "revenge" for the killed one and calling it "justice", doesn't make it right.
Well, honestly I meant this debate foor people who are from this country and know about these cases and etc, I guess it doesn't really matter, but, the way I am debating is about US law, and in this country, you can think whatever the hell you want of "justice", but "justice" IS the law.)

(And, Darksage, I find it funny when you contradict yourself. ;) http://forums.otakuworks.com/showpost.php?p=102102&postcount=22)
You've never heard of a person's views change? I mad that post a considerabley long time ago, and after that post, I read an essay on Capital Punishment by ed Koch that opened me up to some new facts.

But ironically, you are wrong, so hah. I did not change my opinion. In that post I said that no person has the right to take another life, and in this thread I specifically explained that the state is performing the action, and in this country the state has powers that the people do now ;)

[Poki]

But Kimeru this is not an ideal world. You can't justify killing someone as penalty for muder, but only as preventitive. A person who has committed such attocities that I listed can not be expected to repent (in a non-relgious meaning) and live their life the right way, without killing people that is. And if they are that great of a threat prison wont be enough to contain them. There are only two good things about the death penalty. ONE, it gets rid of the people who cannot co-exist with society without death as consequence. TWO, it sets a precident, and deturs criminals, I know it's a harsh way to look at it, taking one person's life to prevent another from killing another, but it works, and if done as specified, in only the most extreme of cases, it is not unjust. I would love to live in a fairy-world where the death penalty was not necessary, but I don't, and hope you realize you don't either.

Killing someone doesn't make you less human. Killing someone is an inhuman thing to do, the act of taking a life doesn't necessarily make you less human, but can you really class people who kill for the sake of killing with those who save lives? There are two sides to humanity, and at least the one extreme cannot be excepted. We cannot have monsters amoungst us, and that is all I would have the death penalty applied to, those people who have lost their humanity and kill for the sake or pleasure of killing.


So 'Capital Punishment' works? That's what your saying right?

Let's see did you know the crime has actually increased over the years? Oh yeah I see the example being set right there. Do you really think that showing the public that you have the power to kill someone who has committed such crimes will stop others from doing the same? It actually does the reverse, many criminals who commit a crime are trying to prove to others that they can do something, while others see killing someone as a normal routine such as drinking your OJ in the morning *no pun intended* And i'm glad that taking away the life of another to set an example is the best thing to do. *note the sarcasm*

And then this is where the 'punishment fit for the crime' is not validated. You call those who kill other people Monsters, and yet those who can kill animals/nature which are living things mind you are only serving a month worth of time.......i really see the logic there.

Yes it is true that we might have to live in a fary tale world if we do not wish to see this 'punishment' but having people who are ignorant living among us is the real crime. Murderes live every where around you, people just don't think that the crimes they commit are significant unless it involves killing a human being.

[Obsideon]

We're both for the deathpenalty in one form or another but I disagree with you DarkSage. There is not justice is saying "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life," that is only vandeta. If you kill a person for muder, do they suffer afterwards? They are not paying for their crime, they are set free, true they lose their life, but is that really enough? can anything really be enough to pay-back a murder? I don't think so, so why try? If you look at it as punishment, the person dies because they did something wrong, then you are only looking at it in a way that is equally wrong, suppose they mudered a man in their own form of justice? Vigelante's aren't granted special treatment, in fact they are scorned, but are they not doing exactly what the government does?

Edit: I'm editing this post to only avoid double posting

Poki, do not assume. You assume I am with the masses? that I burn forests and kill animals right? Well that's a mistake. I'm an animal and nature lover. I nearly puke at the sight of an animal being mistreated and if I cried more easily, would cry at the loss of forests in this country.

If you could show me, how the population:murder-rate ratio has gone up in areas with the increase of the death penalty you might just change my mind. I am not unreasonable. But unless you can I do this, not just show me an increase of murder rate, that proves nothing, population increases so do all things within it, I will stand but my statement.

I cannot argue with people that killing an animal is an equivelent crime to killing a man, it would never prevail, do I feel that way? I value animal life just as much, if not more then I do human life (shamefully I do not have the streangth to be a vegetarian) but that is another issue.

A person who kills for fun, or for killing's sake, to me is not a person, because that person has lost their sense of right and wrong, that fundemental thing that allows people to live together. I cannot think of a person like that without being disgusted, but mind you I do not limit this feelling toward said type of people, I limmit the death penalty to them because it is more feasable. I donot side with the death penalty lightly, in fact this is the first debate I have entered the topic with.

[Poki]

^I'm impressed. You seem to play both sides to this argument quite well but are still getting your point across.

Justice does vary from culture to culture and i'm guessing that DS is very influenced by the american way of law, there's no problem there. To each his own. So I apologize for calling you ignorant, I should have taken into consideration that you are very influenced by the law.

[Kimeru]

It's not an exchange, this isn't FMA, it's a punishment. If a man robs a bank and steals $10 million, let's say he goes to jail for like 20 years. How do you think the length of his sentence is determined? Like I said the punishment must fit the crime, just like you wouldn't only get a slap on the wrist for killing 4 people in the mall, or 20 years in prison for jaywalking


You don't get it. It's not making it better. It's a punishment for a crime. Punishments never make anything better. They punish the criminal


Well, you have your own opinion of justice. But in the United States all that really matters is the court's interpretation of justice, and that is the law. This is how things work. accept it


We are not talking about the same thing. I specifically said HUMAN like was valuable. There are animal rights groups that can worry about animals and other living things. Honestly that had nothing to do with this. The death penalty is given in the case of murder and every US court defines murder along the lined of "one human taking the life of another human. . . ."
Yes we are superior, that is obvious. While all living creatures depend on each other in an ecosystem, we are still the most developed and highly-intellegent species. It even says in the bible that God gave man dominion over all the beasts in the world.






Well, honestly I meant this debate foor people who are from this country and know about these cases and etc, I guess it doesn't really matter, but, the way I am debating is about US law, and in this country, you can think whatever the hell you want of "justice", but "justice" IS the law.)


You've never heard of a person's views change? I mad that post a considerabley long time ago, and after that post, I read an essay on Capital Punishment by ed Koch that opened me up to some new facts.

But ironically, you are wrong, so hah. I did not change my opinion. In that post I said that no person has the right to take another life, and in this thread I specifically explained that the state is performing the action, and in this country the state has powers that the people do now ;)
Really, your post contained some nitpicking, I would say. (Not going to be an hypocrite, I nitpick a lot myself.)

It's not an exchange, this isn't FMA, it's a punishment. If a man robs a bank and steals $10 million, let's say he goes to jail for like 20 years. How do you think the length of his sentence is determined? Like I said the punishment must fit the crime, just like you wouldn't only get a slap on the wrist for killing 4 people in the mall, or 20 years in prison for jaywalking


Equivalency of exchange was something FMA adopted, and didn't create.
And what you are going about, is completely nonesense. There "is" a fitting sentence for murder (decided in a court, but there is not and will never be such a thing as "fitting", not with prison and not with death), but we are discussing death penalty, then again, and not going about how many years should someone be jailed.

You don't get it. It's not making it better. It's a punishment for a crime. Punishments never make anything better. They punish the criminal

Exactly, it doesn't make it better and doesn't help at all, therefore it is wasting a life.

Well, you have your own opinion of justice. But in the United States all that really matters is the court's interpretation of justice, and that is the law. This is how things work. accept it

There is a big difference between accepting something and agreeing with it. I accept the fact death penalty exists, however I do not agree with it in most of the cases.

We are not talking about the same thing. I specifically said HUMAN like was valuable. There are animal rights groups that can worry about animals and other living things. Honestly that had nothing to do with this. The death penalty is given in the case of murder and every US court defines murder along the lined of "one human taking the life of another human. . . ."
Yes we are superior, that is obvious. While all living creatures depend on each other in an ecosystem, we are still the most developed and highly-intellegent species. It even says in the bible that God gave man dominion over all the beasts in the world.

But we, human beings, are animals, may I remind you? And it IS still life. An specie doesn't determin how much worth a life is.
"one human taking the life of another human. . . ." And killing him too, is a fitting punishment? It is not, it really is nonesense and worthless. (Then again, on most cases. Because you seem to be taking "killers" as a whole, and without any remark on their reasons, so that's how I'm referring to them.)
And, at last, if we are talking about actual facts, I wouldn't put the bible into this.

Well, honestly I meant this debate foor people who are from this country and know about these cases and etc, I guess it doesn't really matter, but, the way I am debating is about US law, and in this country, you can think whatever the hell you want of "justice", but "justice" IS the law.)

WRONG. Law != Justice. They are two different things, but the law is the law and it has to be accepted, but there is no reason to agree with it nor anything we can do about it.

You've never heard of a person's views change? I mad that post a considerabley long time ago, and after that post, I read an essay on Capital Punishment by ed Koch that opened me up to some new facts.

Then you are currently saying the opposite? Which is even wronger.

But ironically, you are wrong, so hah. I did not change my opinion. In that post I said that no person has the right to take another life, and in this thread I specifically explained that the state is performing the action, and in this country the state has powers that the people do now

That's not really irony, and you haven't do anything to disrupt my argument and prove me wrong, so I don't know what you are laughing about.
And "the state" isn't tangible. A living person is the one who kills a person who is given the death penalty.

So, really, I am just saying how you mean "anyone who kills" (and disregarding reasons, such as passional, mental disorders, etc), and that is what I think it is plain wrong.


EDIT: Exactly, I am with what Obsideon is saying.

[Obsideon]

Poki: " ... You seem to play both sides to this argument ... " That's because this isn't a black and white issue, I don't think I've ever seen an issue that is black and white. I haven't answered the above poll, and probably wont. If I were to say yes, I may be implying that the death penalty is the answer to all cases of murder, if I were to say no, I'd be completely negating everything I have said thus far.

Kimeru: "Exactly, I am with what Obsideon is saying." *smiles* I'm glad to be agreed with.

[Kimeru]

I may be implying that the death penalty is the answer to all cases of murder, if I were to say no, I'd be completely negating everything I have said thus far.

Precisely. And that's the reason why I went arguing on DS about how it was not appropiate for all cases, and yet sounded as if I I would have negated it completely.

[Darksage]

God, so many replies >.<
Sorry i know i said i wasn't going to get involved again but this post really irked me.

Human life is precious and yet you are all for the death penalty? pretty funny isn't it? Now explain to me why saying that prison isn't enough for a murderer, is it because if they were sent to prison they would live a comfortable life? Sure they'll get fed and have the ability to participate in various activities, but are you sure that's what really goes on or something the media shows you? Do you know how many officers of the law abuse their power? how many prisoners have taken their own lives while in a prison cell because they couldn't handle living there? Oh but you wouldn't care because apparantly eliminating those who kill is the justified thing to do.

Am i saying that those who murder should roam free? No. But i'm not saying that taking away their lives is the right thing to do either.

Only hypocrites justify death as the right thing to do.
Like I said numerous times, the death penalty reaffirms the preciousness of human life. If the murder does not value another's human life, why should the state value his? And yeah yeah yeah I know the crap that happens in prison but that doesn't matter

Let's see did you know the crime has actually increased over the years? Oh yeah I see the example being set right there. Do you really think that showing the public that you have the power to kill someone who has committed such crimes will stop others from doing the same? It actually does the reverse, many criminals who commit a crime are trying to prove to others that they can do something, while others see killing someone as a normal routine such as drinking your OJ in the morning *no pun intended* And i'm glad that taking away the life of another to set an example is the best thing to do. *note the sarcasm*

And then this is where the 'punishment fit for the crime' is not validated. You call those who kill other people Monsters, and yet those who can kill animals/nature which are living things mind you are only serving a month worth of time.......i really see the logic there.

Yes it is true that we might have to live in a fary tale world if we do not wish to see this 'punishment' but having people who are ignorant living among us is the real crime. Murderes live every where around you, people just don't think that the crimes they commit are significant unless it involves killing a human being.
Read the essay by Ed Koch please, he explains things so much better than I can, and he picks apart EVERY single opposing argument against the death penalty.

And what you are going about, is completely nonesense. There "is" a fitting sentence for murder (decided in a court, but there is not and will never be such a thing as "fitting", not with prison and not with death), but we are discussing death penalty, then again, and not going about how many years should someone be jailed.
Uh no it's not nonsense. It is so stupid when you just say that and not prove it. I am using these court sentences about prisons to prove to you that the severity of the punishment (sometimes length of time in prison) is determined by the seriousness of the crime. The more serious the crime, the worse the punishment. That is utterly obvious, so duh.


But we, human beings, are animals, may I remind you? And it IS still life. An specie doesn't determin how much worth a life is.
"one human taking the life of another human. . . ." And killing him too, is a fitting punishment? It is not, it really is nonesense and worthless. (Then again, on most cases. Because you seem to be taking "killers" as a whole, and without any remark on their reasons, so that's how I'm referring to them.)
And, at last, if we are talking about actual facts, I wouldn't put the bible into this.
Yeah no shit we're animals but when I say animals thats a generalization for everything else. If someone held a gun to your head and a dog's head, I'm sure you'd rather have the dog killed, but you'd probably say "no" just to piss me off :lol:. but like Poki mentioned, you dont get as serious a punishment for killing an animal as you do for killing a human, so as I deduced before, that dooes mean human life is more valuable
And I only mentioned the bible so no one would counter me with a religious reason

WRONG. Law != Justice. They are two different things, but the law is the law and it has to be accepted, but there is no reason to agree with it nor anything we can do about it.
(I guess thats supposed to be a broken equal sign?) Uh no, as I KEEP TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO YOU in the case of the courts the law serves justice, so the law transitively is justice. RIGHT.

Then you are currently saying the opposite? Which is even wronger.Uh no, thats why I wrote more >.> . . . .

That's not really irony, and you haven't do anything to disrupt my argument and prove me wrong, so I don't know what you are laughing about.
And "the state" isn't tangible. A living person is the one who kills a person who is given the death penalty.

So, really, I am just saying how you mean "anyone who kills" (and disregarding reasons, such as passional, mental disorders, etc), and that is what I think it is plain wrong.


EDIT: Exactly, I am with what Obsideon is saying.
Now this is where I begin to get agitated. I laid out my entire argument through this whole threat, and you bring up things like insects, say that the law isnt justice, NOT prove them, and then have the audacity to say I haven't disproved you? Debates go in chronological order my friend. I posted my argument first, therefore you must oppose mine with relevant facts and then I will go against yours.
"The state isn't tangiuble" So?

We're both for the deathpenalty in one form or another but I disagree with you DarkSage. There is not justice is saying "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life," that is only vandeta. If you kill a person for muder, do they suffer afterwards? They are not paying for their crime, they are set free, true they lose their life, but is that really enough? can anything really be enough to pay-back a murder? I don't think so, so why try? If you look at it as punishment, the person dies because they did something wrong, then you are only looking at it in a way that is equally wrong, suppose they mudered a man in their own form of justice? Vigelante's aren't granted special treatment, in fact they are scorned, but are they not doing exactly what the government does?

*sigh* I said all too many times that it isn't the "eye for an eye" concept. You can think it is, but that isn't the point here. The point is this: Why are there punishments? Because people commit crime. Why are punishments severe? because the crime a criminal committed a more severe crime. When you shoot someone in the head, does he suffer? Uh, no. So when the death penalty is used there's no suffering either. I know thats not the case all the time, and a lot of times people do suffer when they are murderer, but you can say the same thing for them. They are also set free, yada yada yada...

Precisely. And that's the reason why I went arguing on DS about how it was not appropiate for all cases, and yet sounded as if I I would have negated it completely.
Well no one ever brought up people with mental disorders or anything like that, and I thought that everybody would have the common sense to realize that there are and always will be exceptions. Well fine, my argument (which I thought was obvious, sorry for assuming that you guys have common sense) is applied for people who have no mental disorders or whatever and do it of their own conscience.

[Poki]

^Your posts always seem to anger me.... ><

Okay i'll lay out your belief:

Man kills someone> Man goes to prison>Is sentenced as in 'Death penalty> 'Death penalty' is justified not the same as committing murder> Ahh another murderer taken off the street *Yet the government couldn't care less since they've just done the same*> You don't have to worry since you're not the one who killed him anyways> End result? the oh so famous example was set so those who think of murdering wont do it for fear of being punished.> POINT? NONE.

I guess that's the difference between me and many of you. Yes at times I myself contradict my own words but having spent most of my time 'disecting' cases as my profesor would put it I've seen that there is never an in between to a yes or no. While most of the time i debate that there could be another way to deal with such cases I must also realize that there aren't that many choices to chose from.

But whatever the point I stand by my opinion *something we all have...lol* and say that 'Capital punishment by whatever means is never justified'

[Darksage]

But whatever the point I stand by my opinion *something we all have...lol* and say that 'Capital punishment by whatever means is never justified'
Well you see, not to be mean, but in a debate, you keep arguing with facts with those who oppose you until one side has no more facts to oppose the other, and that is when he aknowledges the opposing side to be correct. If you are going to believe you are correct without disproving anything in the huge-ass post I just made (Sorry to be stingy but I mad that whole thing and you didn't respond to any of it so yeah you can say I am annoyed). You say other people are ignorant and hypocrites but thats what you're doing now >.>

[Obsideon]

DarkSage: "*sigh* I said all too many times that it isn't the "eye for an eye" concept. " but it IS the eye for an eye concept, that concept has been the foundation for law and justice since the time of Hamurabi (sp), what is the core of that concept? When you commit a crime, you have to pay for it in equivelence to the severity of the crime. If I stole an antique from you worth a thousand dollars I would have to pay you a thousand dollars minimal (supposing I couldn't return the antique). How is your defense of the death penalty any different? You kill so you must die as punishment, death is the only thing trully as severe as death right?

But what purpose does it do to punish them in this way? I've listed what I think, but you seem to be in defense of the punishment for punishment's sake.

Edit:

Poki: If you cannot see in colour you need to have your eyes checked. Life would be so much simpler if things were black and white, BUT THEY'RE NOT. There are thousands of colours and many shades of grey. If you disect a case and find that there are only a few choices, and that only one can be right, well that's fine, for that case, but if you disect another case you might find a completely different choice to be right. What's right in one situation is not necessarily right in another. When you start looking at things like that you become cold and calloused to the world, which is funny because I was getting the exact opposite picture of you. It's true there aren't always a lot of choices in life, but there ARE choices, so even if the path in front of you doesn't fork in a thousand directions you can still pick which of the few given to follow. And I've never encountered a situation with just two (unless you look at it from a certain perspective, then you can see two choices that subdevide etc.)

[Darksage]

Oh, haha I guess that is true then, but so what if it's right?

...it can be easily demonstrated that the death penalty strengthens the value of human life. If the penalty for rape were lowered, clearly it would signal a lessened regard for the victims' suffering...When we lower the penalty for murder, it signals a lessened regard for the for the value of the victim's life.


And here, I am trying to find Koch's essay but for now this:

And will you profane Me among My people...killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live...? (Ezekiel 13:19)


...it can be easily demonstrated that the death penalty strengthens the value of human life. If the penalty for rape were lowered, clearly it would signal a lessened regard for the victims' suffering...When we lower the penalty for murder, it signals a lessened regard for the for the value of the victim's life.
Former New York Mayor Ed Koch (1)


Capital punishment has always been, understandably, a very controversial subject. God is the giver of life, and whether done by gun, gas, chair, or needle, the taking of a human life must be approached very somberly and carefully. In light of this, we present Part 2 of our "Issues of Life" series (2). In this article, we will draw a concise, yet thorough overview of capital punishment throughout both Testaments, showing that ever since sin entered the world, God has ordained (and never retracted) the death penalty as a means to protect the innocent by eliminating violent criminals from society.
In the Book of Genesis, we see that God created human beings in His own image. Because of this, He sees murder as a particularly heinous crime. He sees human life as being so sacred that anyone who takes a person's life must consequentially give up their own. The first civil law that God ever ordained (long before the Law of Moses) was Genesis 9:6: "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed."

We then go on to God's establishment of the Law of Moses, which is summarized in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-17). In verse 13, we see the sixth Commandment, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" (Exodus 20:13). A better translation of this verse is "Thou Shalt Not Murder", murder meaning to willfully take the life of an innocent person. This could not have been a prohibition of the death penalty, since in the very next chapter, God specifically commands the death penalty for a number of different offenses. In fact, Numbers 35:33 tells us that when governments fail to punish murderers by death, God judges that nation guilty of the murder victim's blood!

Moving on to the New Testament, we will begin by looking at an all important question: It has been asked "Would Jesus throw the switch?" My answer may surprise some, but yes, I believe He would. In Luke 19:12-27, Jesus shares the Parable of the Unjust Servant. Here we see an interesting, yet often overlooked element of Jesus' teaching. In this parable, Jesus portrays Himself as a nobleman who goes on a journey, entrusting his goods to three stewards. When He returns, two of the stewards have made profits of the money entrusted to them, and He rewards them accordingly. The third one, however, hid his portion of the treasure, and gained nothing. The Nobleman's somewhat shocking response is to take away the small amount of money from the unjust servant, give it to the servant with the most money, and to order the unjust servant to be slain before him! This is a start contrast to the weak, pacifist image of Jesus often presented by popular religion. In fact, many will be slain at Jesus' return ( 2 Thessalonians 1:8; 2:8), and capital punishment will continue to be practiced during His Millennial reign as well (Isaiah 11:4-9).

We see further New Testament support for the death penalty in both the life and the writings of the Apostle Paul. In Acts 25:11, as he is standing trial before the Roman Governor Festus, Paul makes this interesting statement: "... if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die..." In other words, Paul recognized that, as a government official, Governor Festus had a God-given right to take his life if he had done anything to warrant it, and he was fully willing to submit to execution if necessary.

He further expands this principle in Romans 13:1-4. In these verses, Paul tells us that civil government is ordained of God, and that one of its duties is to bear the sword and execute wrath against those who do evil. These are strong words indeed. Since the only use of a sword is to kill, this verse is a clear reference to God's endorsement of capital punishment when necessary.

In the debate over capital punishment, the word "compassion" is often used, and rightfully so. In arguing in favor of the death penalty, we are certainly not denying the need for reform in the way it is carried out. We do realize that there are tragic discrepancies in the current criminal justice system, particularly in regards to race and economic status. Thankfully, the Bible addresses these concerns as well. It gives us strict guidelines in order to be sure that the sentence is carried out properly and fairly. These include:


1. Proportionality (Exodus 21:23-25)
2. Intent (Numbers 35:22-24)

3. Due process (Deuteronomy 17:8-9; Numbers 35)

4. Individual responsibility ( Deuteronomy 24:16)

5. Fairness, regardless of the wealth or class of the accused (Numbers 35:29-31; Exodus 23:6-7)

6. Certainty of guilt (Deuteronomy 17:6; Numbers 35:30). (3)


When properly carried out, the swift execution of violent criminals is one of the most compassionate things a just government can do. It permanently removes the offender from society, never to harm another person. It also sends a powerful message to would-be criminals. The deterrent value of a consistently enforced death penalty is a powerful restraining agent against crime. In fact, according to a 1985 study by Stephen K. Layson in the "Southern Economics Journal", each execution performed in the U.S. deters approximately eighteen murders. For example, in a 1961 California case known as "People v. Love," the convicts specifically admitted that their decision not to kill hostages was motivated by fear of the death penalty. (4) Ecclesiastes 8:11 gives us wise counsel: "Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil."
Its a horrible thing to have to take a human life. God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11). In a perfect world, capital punishment would not be necessary. It is an unfortunate fact of life that, as long as sin, rebellion and violence exist on this planet, there will be a need for a properly exercised death penalty to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. In closing, I will again quote from Mayor Koch:


The death of anyone-even a convicted killer-diminishes us all. But we are diminished even more by a justice system that fails to function. It is an illusion to let ourselves believe that doing away with capital punishment removes the murderers deed from our conscience...When we protect guilty lives, we give up innocent lives in exchange. (5)
© 2003 JHB

[Poki]

Well you see, not to be mean, but in a debate, you keep arguing with facts with those who oppose you until one side has no more facts to oppose the other, and that is when he aknowledges the opposing side to be correct. If you are going to believe you are correct without disproving anything in the huge-ass post I just made (Sorry to be stingy but I mad that whole thing and you didn't respond to any of it so yeah you can say I am annoyed). You say other people are ignorant and hypocrites but thats what you're doing now >.>

Oi I think that you haven't read any of the posts I've ever made before. And if you want me to disprove any of your arguments it's not possible. Why? I'll tell you why because what's the point? I gave you my opinion haven't I, an opinion which seemed to bash heads with your own. Can you disprove my arguments? No. Do you know why it's not easy to disprove any of the arguments here because they are all based on our opinions and what we believe. I said those who werent educated in this topic were ignorant because they only get by on what they saw on T.V and the only reason i called you a hypocrite was because you said that life is precious and yet taking the life of another because they are in the wrong is justified. Have you really read what you yourself has written?

You seem to stick to the fact that the Law is almighty and if you go against the law you deserved to be punished. What type of bull is that? Punishment fits the crime......yeah that is if the power didn't take advantage...... I assume since you believe that the law is always right that if they told you to cut off the hand of the youngest sibling in your family you'll do it?

Dang it i didn't get to respond to your entire post because my internet connection got cut off. I'm not surprised that you would feel stingy either...

[Obsideon]

DarkSage: and when someone trully has a change of heart? or when they're crime was an accident or self defence? should the death penalty really be applied to all cases? waste a life that could do good, kill someone who could save someone else? How can NOT killing someone possably imply that you DON'T value life? It's an oxymoron. OK, I'll bang you in the head from now on instead of shaking your hand, that should show you how I value intellect right? by potentially doing brain damage and destroying it?

Poki: With that stand this entire debate is pointless. There will never be an end if you just argue opinions and bash heads like that, you need to be open to an change of mind, or to view your oponents opinions and consider them as reasonable.

[Poki]

DarkSage: "*sigh* I said all too many times that it isn't the "eye for an eye" concept. " but it IS the eye for an eye concept, that concept has been the foundation for law and justice since the time of Hamurabi (sp), what is the core of that concept? When you commit a crime, you have to pay for it in equivelence to the severity of the crime. If I stole an antique from you worth a thousand dollars I would have to pay you a thousand dollars minimal (supposing I couldn't return the antique). How is your defense of the death penalty any different? You kill so you must die as punishment, death is the only thing trully as severe as death right?

But what purpose does it do to punish them in this way? I've listed what I think, but you seem to be in defense of the punishment for punishment's sake.

Edit:

Poki: If you cannot see in colour you need to have your eyes checked. Life would be so much simpler if things were black and white, BUT THEY'RE NOT. There are thousands of colours and many shades of grey. If you disect a case and find that there are only a few choices, and that only one can be right, well that's fine, for that case, but if you disect another case you might find a completely different choice to be right. What's right in one situation is not necessarily right in another. When you start looking at things like that you become cold and calloused to the world, which is funny because I was getting the exact opposite picture of you. It's true there aren't always a lot of choices in life, but there ARE choices, so even if the path in front of you doesn't fork in a thousand directions you can still pick which of the few given to follow. And I've never encountered a situation with just two (unless you look at it from a certain perspective, then you can see two choices that subdevide etc.)


Re read that post I made. I said that when it all comes down to it we are faced with Black and White, why? Because it's what comes with the damn law. You can go up in front of a judge and argue why someone is guilty or innocent but what will be the outcome? And it's true not all cases are the same we all know that, if all cases were treated the same then what's the point of having a court and jury. From experience i know that there is always an inbetween *heck i got thrown out of a debate room for it* but when you get down to it who wants to hear it? If everyone who held a position in government that could make a difference thought the same way as many of you did then maby there could be a chance that the Law wouldn't be so unjust with people. Maybe the grey in between would be something that everyone would think about everytime they face an issue in life.


And even if Life were to be Black and White the simplicity on its own would be a problem because then we would have to chose what is black and what is white....don't know if you understood what i just said.

[Darksage]

Oi I think that you haven't read any of the posts I've ever made before. And if you want me to disprove any of your arguments it's not possible. Why? I'll tell you why because what's the point? I gave you my opinion haven't I, an opinion which seemed to bash heads with your own. Can you disprove my arguments? No. Do you know why it's not easy to disprove any of the arguments here because they are all based on our opinions and what we believe. I said those who werent educated in this topic were ignorant because they only get by on what they saw on T.V and the only reason i called you a hypocrite was because you said that life is precious and yet taking the life of another because they are in the wrong is justified. Have you really read what you yourself has written?

You seem to stick to the fact that the Law is almighty and if you go against the law you deserved to be punished. What type of bull is that? Punishment fits the crime......yeah that is if the power didn't take advantage...... I assume since you believe that the law is always right that if they told you to cut off the hand of the youngest sibling in your family you'll do it?

Dang it i didn't get to respond to your entire post because my internet connection got cut off. I'm not surprised that you would feel stingy either...
I based my opinion on facts, that is what an opinion is. what afcts have you based yours on? (I'm not saying that you didnt use any..)

And it's so simple I dont get how no one understands it. Judges of the zsupreme Court dpont make decisions based on what they think do they? They do it by the law. Judicial review allows the Supreme court to verify the constitutionality of every law. Thats is why I say in order to fully understand this situation you must disregard every opinion and belief you personally have and look at the law.
...it can be easily demonstrated that the death penalty strengthens the value of human life. If the penalty for rape were lowered, clearly it would signal a lessened regard for the victims' suffering...When we lower the penalty for murder, it signals a lessened regard for the for the value of the victim's life.
Former New York Mayor Ed Koch (1)

[Poki]

^That's where you're wrong, decisions are always always going to be based on what a person believes is right and what is wrong. Who makes decisions 'The people' and people by nature will stick by what they believe and use that to make to a conclusion. And those who make decisions have arguements just like ours to get a point across so that the final option is something they are satisfied with.

Reading that article again*read it too much ><* just reminds me of the whole 'God and obvious choices' arguement we had in class.....that's another arguement.

[Darksage]

DarkSage: and when someone trully has a change of heart? or when they're crime was an accident or self defence? should the death penalty really be applied to all cases? waste a life that could do good, kill someone who could save someone else? How can NOT killing someone possably imply that you DON'T value life? It's an oxymoron.
When you protect guilty lives you give up innocent ones.

As I said every case is not to be taken exactly the same way, there are always exceptions, but as I said a few posts ago: My argument is for cases where a person kills another person out of his own conscience

^That's where you're wrong, decisions are always always going to be based on what a person believes is right and what is wrong. Who makes decisions 'The people' and people by nature will stick by what they believe and use that to make to a conclusion. And those who make decisions have arguements just like ours to get a point across so that the final option is something they are satisfied with.

Uh, so you're telling me that a man who opens fire in a mall and kills 13 people can go to court and only get 200 hours of community service because the judge feels bad for him? I mean yes it will have some im[act on his decision but it's still in the parameters of the law

[Obsideon]

DarkSage:
...it can be easily demonstrated that the death penalty strengthens the value of human life. If the penalty for rape were lowered, clearly it would signal a lessened regard for the victims' suffering...When we lower the penalty for murder, it signals a lessened regard for the for the value of the victim's life.
Former New York Mayor Ed Koch (1)
THERE IS NO SENSE IN THAT! Killing means you value life?! Did you not hear me the first time through? You cannot say you value something by destroying it! Let us show we value the earth by poluting it. Let us show we love our neighbors by mistreating them. Let us show we value air by poluting it! Let us prove how well we like our water clean by pouring our waste into it! I tell you there is no sense in this!

[Darksage]

Sorry, I am not explaining it again. it is not my problem if you don't understand it.

EDIT: Meh what the hell I will

Your examples are just dumb (honestly..) and have no logical comparison. t values human life because it says "hey, this person took his life, so now we will justly take his life because he did not see the value in the other person's life."

The true injustice is letting the guilty live. If they want to repent then can do it with God. Why do humans so ignorantly let the guilty live and the innocent die? "but he had a change of heart" well isn't that convenient. Murderers will do anything to stay alive. Giving them a life term in prison is a victory for them. So killing them and making them wait on death row IS making them suffer.

[Poki]

Uh, so you're telling me that a man who opens fire in a mall and kills 13 people can go to court and only get 200 hours of community service because the judge feels bad for him? I mean yes it will have some im[act on his decision but it's still in the parameters of the law


No. I am not telling you that it's okay for a man to go on about his way and kill whomever he pleases nor am i saying that because it is the law the law must punish all who oppose it by taking their life because it is the law?!!!

Do you really feel that passionate about the law even after knowing all the miss use through out the years? I said before that from birth a child is being taught what is wrong and what is right, but who's to say what is right and what is wrong? Because a law was made we must all abide by the rules? Because you are so keen on upholding the law in all its glory we are suddenly convineced that capital punishment is justified. (And i only use this word because it's exactly the same word you used before) If a man killed 13 people then let 13 people of his own family die is that not an eye for an eye? there is never such a thing as punishment fit for a crime.

[Obsideon]

DarkSage: You are explaining a system of revenge, do I completely disagree with everything you say, no, but the idea that killing a person shows you value life is absurd and rediculous. There are two reasons that validate the death sentense. One, to detur further murder, two, to elimenate murderers from society and thus prevent further murder. Revenge . . . Justice, whatever you want to call it is irrelevant. Moreover only those who prove that they are worthy of the Death Sentense should get it, how do you prove this? I've made a list, and it remains incomplete. And when did you explain it in the first place? when you quoted it? You cannot use what one man said as fact, it is opinion, no less valid then my own. Furthermore you have failed to negate my facts, and yes I have provided them though I did so in a sarcastic way, prove to me that the concept of destroying something can imply that you value it? It is true a high penalty for destroying something can imply that it is valued, but in the death penalty you are destroying the very thing you value and contradicting yourself. If you are not going to explain this then you forfeit, you realize that? when you refuse to partake in a debate you have lost.

[Darksage]

Like I said, if you are punished by the law, then what the law says is right because that is what will not get you punished. It's so simple... All you have to thinkk about is where you live and what the law is.

Uh no, if a man kills 13 people, then the eye for an eye thing will be to kill the man 13 times :lol: The people in his family didnt kill anyone why should they die?

Thats why I said it's NOT the eye for an eye for an eye concept, not always

DarkSage: You are explaining a system of revenge, do I completely disagree with everything you say, no, but the idea that killing a person shows you value life is absurd and rediculous. There are two reasons that validate the death sentense. One, to detur further murder, two, to elimenate murderers from society and thus prevent further murder. Revenge . . . Justice, whatever you want to call it is irrelevant. Moreover only those who prove that they are worthy of the Death Sentense should get it, how do you prove this? I've made a list, and it remains incomplete. And when did you explain it in the first place? when you quoted it? You cannot use what one man said as fact, it is opinion, no less valid then my own. Furthermore you have failed to negate my facts, and yes I have provided them though I did so in a sarcastic way, prove to me that the concept of destroying something can imply that you value it? It is true a high penalty for destroying something can imply that it is valued, but in the death penalty you are destroying the very thing you value and contradicting yourself. If you are not going to explain this then you forfeit, you realize that? when you refuse to partake in a debate you have lost.
No, sorry but what he said was fact. It's simple logic:
-Raping someone is a crime
-Rape has a harsh punishment
--Rape is a serious crime

Therefore:
-We lower the crime for rape
--Rape is a less serious crime

It's the same for capital punishment. not an opinion, but fact ;)

[Poki]

You don't take this topic seriously do you? (>_<)

[Darksage]

Once again. that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said and disproves nothing I stated

[Obsideon]

In Messopotamia, A man named Hammurabi wrote the first written law still recorded. One law in this dictated, that if a man built another man a house, and the house colapsed and killed the latter man's son, the builder's son must be killed for justice.

"All you have to thinkk about is where you live and what the law is. " - DarkSage

The law is not always right my friend. Right and Wrong are determined by the indevidual, not by the government. I know what is right, you know what is right, Poki knows what is right, forgive me for playing the trascendentalist here but you cannot stalk so blindly in the government.

[Darksage]

But as I think you said before (someone said it) the world isn't so ideal. People who love insects cant take your life because you stepped on an ant, even though they think it is wrong to do so. Law enforcement, military, judges, so many forces are behind the law, and the fact of the matter is that in todays world what the law says is what is right. If you cannot accept that don't even continue debating

[Poki]

I'd like for you to take a minute and just read what you posted above me, do you understand why i called you ignorant. 'We live in a world where the law is right' yeah that is so true that it's just ludricous. I want you to really explain to me why the law is always right.

[Obsideon]

DarkSage: the law cannot dictate right or wrong, the law dictates legal or illegal. And we, the people, dictate the law. Or don't you get that? I'm not saying we shouldnt obide by the law, it is law, if we don't obide by it we WILL get punished, I'm saying that it's not always right. Just because the law has the power to be enforced doesn't make it right! The law doesn't get to say what is right and what is wrong just because it has power, that is dictatorship and autocracy! This (or at least where I am) is America, a land founded on the fundemental principles that all men are created equal and with unnalienable rights, that the government and law is formed to protect these rights, and that the people have the power and authority over the government. Or have you not read the Declaration of Independence? I accept law as law, not as right, and to say that I haven't the right of debate if I do not believe the law is always right is pure stupidity!

Poki: I completely agree with you there

[Darksage]

I'd like for you to take a minute and just read what you posted above me, do you understand why i called you ignorant. 'We live in a world where the law is right' yeah that is so true that it's just ludricous. I want you to really explain to me why the law is always right.
It's not ludicrous. You take "right" and "wrong" too lose to heart. IfYour parrents say you can't watch TV and you do, you disobeyed theyr rule, 'broke he law' if you will, so then what happens? You get grounded, or whatever your parents do. Thats the punishment. hence: If you get punished, you did something wrong.

EDIT: Obsideon read my post too

[Darksage]

Right:
correct: socially right or correct; "it isn't right to leave the party without saying goodbye"; "correct behavior"

in conformance with justice or law or morality; "do the right thing and confess"

Wrong:
incorrect: not correct; not in conformity with fact or truth; "an incorrect calculation"; "the report in the paper is wrong"; "your information is wrong"; "the clock showed the wrong time"; "found themselves on the wrong road"; "based on the wrong assumptions"

non-conforming with justice or law or morality

Apparently, you two don't even know the exact definitions of the words "right" and wrong"

[Poki]

Right:
correct: socially right or correct; "it isn't right to leave the party without saying goodbye"; "correct behavior"

in conformance with justice or law or morality; "do the right thing and confess"

Wrong:
incorrect: not correct; not in conformity with fact or truth; "an incorrect calculation"; "the report in the paper is wrong"; "your information is wrong"; "the clock showed the wrong time"; "found themselves on the wrong road"; "based on the wrong assumptions"

non-conforming with justice or law or morality

Apparently, you two don't even know the exact definitions of the words "right" and wrong"

Double standards.

And you don't seem to know that sometimes those who uphold the law commit more wrong than right. But who cares since it's the law at work right?

[Darksage]

Double standards? Those are the definitions. right there. They say "wrong" is what does not conform with law. Therefore the law is right. Capital Punishment is upheld by law. capital punishment is right.

[Kimeru]

Uh no it's not nonsense. It is so stupid when you just say that and not prove it. I am using these court sentences about prisons to prove to you that the severity of the punishment (sometimes length of time in prison) is determined by the seriousness of the crime. The more serious the crime, the worse the punishment. That is utterly obvious, so duh.

And how did you prove your point, there?

If someone held a gun to your head and a dog's head, I'm sure you'd rather have the dog killed, but you'd probably say "no" just to piss me off . :lol:

Damn. You know me way too well. XD

Well no one ever brought up people with mental disorders or anything like that, and I thought that everybody would have the common sense to realize that there are and always will be exceptions. Well fine, my argument (which I thought was obvious, sorry for assuming that you guys have common sense) is applied for people who have no mental disorders or whatever and do it of their own conscience.

The way you were writing make it sound so much like you were saying every murderer should be killed.

[Obsideon]

Right:
correct: socially right or correct; "it isn't right to leave the party without saying goodbye"; "correct behavior"

in conformance with justice or law or morality; "do the right thing and confess"

Wrong:
incorrect: not correct; not in conformity with fact or truth; "an incorrect calculation"; "the report in the paper is wrong"; "your information is wrong"; "the clock showed the wrong time"; "found themselves on the wrong road"; "based on the wrong assumptions"

non-conforming with justice or law or morality

Apparently, you two don't even know the exact definitions of the words "right" and wrong"


Maybe you have forgotten what the word or means. It has nothing to do with we do not know the "exact definitions" of the words, it't that we are using two different definitions. You are reffering to legally right, we are reffering to morally right. I don't even need to provide you with better (more precise or inclusive) deffinitions, yours work fine.

And you do seem to forget a few concepts. Corruption; often enough the government misuses it's power and does the WRONG thing, I say this in both legal and moral definitions. Also there are times when the courts are wrong, I say this in niether definition but in the meaning that they are incorrect.

In WWII, an American citizen, born the daughter of two japanese immegrants found herself stranded in Japan,long story short, after refusing to give up her american citizenship she was employed by Japan to comunicate the only non-propaganda broadcast over to the phillipeans where Americans would here her. She became known as Tokyo Rose, her identity, and that of other female radio-voices became mixed, so when the war was over, she was charged (after being impressoned for suspicious citizenship) with treason. the so called "evidence" piled against her, recordings of broadcasts that supposedly proved her gilt, was never played, she was convicted, and spent many many years in prison. Finally she was proven innocent, decades later.

THE LAW WAS WRONG! It admitted it, and this is not the only case. In the past, slavery was law, but that was WRONG. You can not trust overidingly in government to dictate write from wrong.

I honestly can't see how someone can put that much faith in politics. Are you ignorant or just stupid? I mean honestly, I'm trying to see things from your point of view here, but to actually believe that whatever the law tells you is right is just plain idiocy. Can you tell me that because it was law blacks were inferior to whites and meant to be slaves? Can you tell me that was right? Can you have faith in a government that condomed such things?

[Darksage]

I honestly can't see how someone can put that much faith in politics. Are you ignorant or just stupid? I mean honestly, I'm trying to see things from your point of view here, but to actually believe that whatever the law tells you is right is just plain idiocy. Can you tell me that because it was law blacks were inferior to whites and meant to be slaves? Can you tell me that was right? Can you have faith in a government that condomed such things?
Let's not start the name calling and just keep this debate nice >_>

Actually genius the law never said that blacks were inferior to whites, it said that blacks were never intended to become citizens of the United States, and the clause "all men" in the Declaration did not literally mean "all men", but rather "all white men who owned land" (so not even all whites), and if they aren't citizens, they have no rights.

It is not idiocy to believe what the law says is right, it's the fucking definition of right. Right is what the law sayys. You keep saying 'right' as if it's something else. Yes I can perfectly well see that it says "...or morality", but disobedience to a set of rules is alsoconsidered immoral by society, so that makes it wrong.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

I think the word you are looking for is "Proper". The law is right, all the time, because thats what "right" means, but that does not mean it is proper: something that should be done in a given situation. Better for both us of? Or no?

[Obsideon]

One, different states had different laws, some implied inferiority, some directly dictated it, or have you not studied your history? I'm not talking about national law here, the death sentense is not a national law, it is determined by the state, my state currently allows the death penalty however has abolished and reinstated it several times.

I'll just ask you one question on whether or not defying the law is right. After that I will except our differences in termanology and back down (not from the entire debate but from this subdebate we're having)

The Runaway Slave Act dictated that when a slave in any state, free or slave, was met by a free white man, that man's obligation was to turn that slave in so theymay be returned to their owner. The Underground Railroad was a system where free peoples would assist runaway slaves on their journey to Canada wherin slavery had already been abolished.

My question is this, were those who participated in the Underground Railroad WRONG for aiding in these men's assention to freedom? Were the slaves wrong for running away? (and there were laws dictating such behaviour was illegal) Or was the Law the one that was WRONG?

[Darksage]

Like I said before, "proper' is the word you are looking for. The answer to your question the way you put it is yes, the people were wrong because the slave owner paid for the slave making it his property, and the constitution protects people's property, and is liable to retuurn it is it's stolen (i dont know what you'd call it here though lol, but it's still "missing property'). So therefoore yes it is wrong (:lol: you dont need to caplitalize it >.>)

Now had your question been worded like this:
I'll just ask you one question on whether or not defying the law is proper SOMETIMES. After that I will except our differences in termanology and back down (not from the entire debate but from this subdebate we're having)

The Runaway Slave Act dictated that when a slave in any state, free or slave, was met by a free white man, that man's obligation was to turn that slave in so theymay be returned to their owner. The Underground Railroad was a system where free peoples would assist runaway slaves on their journey to Canada wherin slavery had already been abolished.

My question is this, was it IMPROPER for the whites to aid these men's assention to freedom? Was it improper of the slaves to run away? (and there were laws dictating such behavior was illegal) Or was the Law the one that was IMPROPER
Well, even this can be debated. The only argument I'd really have is religious, but there's even talk of servants and slaves in the bible, and Jesus is quoted with saying "No servant is greater than his master." so yeah, I guess they were inferior. ---But if I was a slave, I sure as hell would have ran away.--- But we weren't slaves, so we dont really know. Believe it or not a lot of slaves said they were better off while they were in slavery than after they were freed, and slaveholders said that slaves in the South had better lives than immigrants in the North, living on the streets and etc.


But none of this shit has to do with Capital Punishment soo can we get back to it?

[Obsideon]

yes, from now on I shall use a vernacular more sensitive to your method of thinking. I shall say "proper" and "improper" and any other word suitable but "right"

But here is another point for you, we, the people, control (or ideally control) the government. We decide what the laws are, therefore we decide what is right and what is wrong. So your arguement that there is no arguement on the death penalty, that it is simple, that law is what is right and we should believe it, is wrong .. eh ... incorrect. There is not only a point for us to debate it, but a right and obligation. Of course you must know this, you DID create the debate after all (and I use caps instead of putting- ... - around a word).

[Darksage]

Well this isn't a democracy in that sense. We have control in terms of picking the people who represent us in Congress. But we don't for laws or things in in Congress do we? No, so we are not in the 'control' you think.

Seriously now, let's get back to capital Punishment before I have to start deleting posts >.< No one wants that

[Obsideon]

(true but we can protest, vote wisely, run for said roles ourselves and if need-be, overthrow the government, we have that right)

you still claim that it shows you value human life by having the death penalty. But the irony remains and you still haven't been able to negate it. You can call my many examples stupid, but they are valid, because they bring up the core of the sentiment. The idea that statement is founded upon is that you show value to something that cannot be sold by the punishment of destroying it, a harsher punishment dictates a more valuable thing destroyed. But ironically the crime and punishment here are the same. The crime, you take a life, the punishment, your life is taken. To destroy what you value in an attempt of proving you value it is ironic and hypocritical.

Next point. Why do we have justice? Is it to punish those who have done wrong, or to protect those who haven't? Punishment for the sake of punishment is what you seem to be preaching, an eye for an eye because it is "just." But such a system of punishment is pointless and meaningless. No good comes of such punishment. Only man-made into sheep blindly following the sheaperd 'Law.'

[Poki]

Like I said before, "proper' is the word you are looking for. The answer to your question the way you put it is yes, the people were wrong because the slave owner paid for the slave making it his property, and the constitution protects people's property, and is liable to retuurn it is it's stolen (i dont know what you'd call it here though lol, but it's still "missing property'). So therefoore yes it is wrong (:lol: you dont need to caplitalize it >.>)

Now had your question been worded like this:

Well, even this can be debated. The only argument I'd really have is religious, but there's even talk of servants and slaves in the bible, and Jesus is quoted with saying "No servant is greater than his master." so yeah, I guess they were inferior. ---But if I was a slave, I sure as hell would have ran away.--- But we weren't slaves, so we dont really know. Believe it or not a lot of slaves said they were better off while they were in slavery than after they were freed, and slaveholders said that slaves in the South had better lives than immigrants in the North, living on the streets and etc.


But none of this shit has to do with Capital Punishment soo can we get back to it?

I can't believe that you seriously posted any of that. That was not only senseless but very very very "IGNORANT" to what goes on in the world. I'm beginning to think that you have to value for those who cannot protect themselves from the law.

You seem to say that life is valuable and yet stand proudly and say that those who are not worthy of living another second must be 'terminated' because the law says so. Are you that simple minded? Have you not been taught in school the wrongs that have been committed by such laws? Capital punishment is not only a direct violation of 'human rights' it's just plain stupidity for those who have nothing better to do than to play god. Oh wait but even Jesus and God were hypocrites but that's another story.

If this high and mighty 'Law' that you worship so much is the right way of life then tell me why everyday every minute thousands are suffering because of it? tell me why people try and change the law so much if it's 'right and justified'

You can't tell can you. Because you only seem to obide by the rules given to you, it will be hard to see you around your thirties living that way.

[Darksage]

(true but we can protest, vote wisely, run for said roles ourselves and if need-be, overthrow the government, we have that right)
Protesting is not a guaranteed way; voting wisely, come on you know thats bull lol, there are like 400+ people in congress and everyone has their own opinion so voting wisely usually gets the liars in; and it might be hard to overthrow the government, lol, especially if the military is on their side (note I say "if"), and even if we do the one that comes after might be even worse


you still claim that it shows you value human life by having the death penalty. But the irony remains and you still haven't been able to negate it. You can call my many examples stupid, but they are valid, because they bring up the core of the sentiment. The idea that statement is founded upon is that you show value to something that cannot be sold by the punishment of destroying it, a harsher punishment dictates a more valuable thing destroyed. But ironically the crime and punishment here are the same. The crime, you take a life, the punishment, your life is taken. To destroy what you value in an attempt of proving you value it is ironic and hypocritical.
I will answer this later in my reply addressed to Poki...
Next point. Why do we have justice? Is it to punish those who have done wrong, or to protect those who haven't? Punishment for the sake of punishment is what you seem to be preaching, an eye for an eye because it is "just." But such a system of punishment is pointless and meaningless. No good comes of such punishment. Only man-made into sheep blindly following the sheaperd 'Law.'
That doesnt make sense. Punishment is because someone commits a crime, so thats why. Just because it might scare other people from commiting the crime doesnt mean it is the reason a punishment is given.




I can't believe that you seriously posted any of that. That was not only senseless but very very very "IGNORANT" to what goes on in the world. I'm beginning to think that you have to value for those who cannot protect themselves from the law.
Can I say you are stupid? Can I really really say that? I want to so bad, but I wont. What you apparently cannot understand is that with the CURRENT LAW the capital punishment is the justifiable penalty for death. I do not give a shit whether the law is proper or not. With the current law, it fits. You are saying because the law is wrong the death penalty shouldnt be allowed. SO THE LAW MUST BE FUCKING CHANGED FIRST AND THEN CAPITAL PUNISHMENT WILL BE ABOLISHED, NOT BY STARTING BACKWARDS.

You seem to say that life is valuable and yet stand proudly and say that those who are not worthy of living another second must be 'terminated' because the law says so. Are you that simple minded? Have you not been taught in school the wrongs that have been committed by such laws?
And you are of the idiotic opinion that because life is valuable, it means that everybody deserves it. People who value life are the people who deserve life. Murders do not value life, thats why they take it, so they deserve to die.


Capital punishment is not only a direct violation of 'human rights' it's just plain stupidity for those who have nothing better to do than to play god. Oh wait but even Jesus and God were hypocrites but that's another story.
Sorry but that deserves a "fuck you" :sideways:
Read and learn what I already posted and you were two ignorant to read, or read but didn't comprehend: http://forums.otakuworks.com/showpost.php?p=132724&postcount=83

If this high and mighty 'Law' that you worship so much is the right way of life then tell me why everyday every minute thousands are suffering because of it? tell me why people try and change the law so much if it's 'right and justified'
Like I keep saying, look up the definition of "right". Yes, it IS right, but whether it is proper or not is an opinion of the individual

You can't tell can you. Because you only seem to obide by the rules given to you, it will be hard to see you around your thirties living that way.
Uh, what?

[Poki]

Oh now I seriously see why you justify the 'law or current law' as you so highly put it. Not only do you insult me but you resort to the use of vulgarity and you call yourself a mod?


"That doesnt make sense. Punishment is because someone commits a crime, so thats why. Just because it might scare other people from commiting the crime doesnt mean it is the reason a punishment is given."

Oh wait but all of your other posts seem to contradict this one. But who cares apparantly you don't.

"Can I say you are stupid? Can I really really say that? I want to so bad, but I wont. What you apparently cannot understand is that with the CURRENT LAW the capital punishment is the justifiable penalty for death. I do not give a shit whether the law is proper or not. With the current law, it fits. You are saying because the law is wrong the death penalty shouldnt be allowed. SO THE LAW MUST BE FUCKING CHANGED FIRST AND THEN CAPITAL PUNISHMENT WILL BE ABOLISHED, NOT BY STARTING BACKWARDS."

What i want to so bad is to knock you upside the head with a history book and common sense you dimwit. And you're saying that because the law is right *what world are you living in by the way* that the death penalty should be allowed? Are you really that stuck on stupid? You revolve your entire argument on the fact that the law is right, yet if someone give a moral opinion you seem to bash heads because the 'proper' way of life is to follow the law? Yeah i see where that fits in.

"And you are of the idiotic opinion that because life is valuable, it means that everybody deserves it. People who value life are the people who deserve life. Murders do not value life, thats why they take it, so they deserve to die."

No not everyone deserves it especially not you.

"Sorry but that deserves a "fuck you"
Read and learn what I already posted and you were two ignorant to read, or read but didn't comprehend:"

Oh i know what i comprehended that you use the words of other to justify your oh so might belief. Stop trying so hard to throw such idiotic statements in our faces the only thing you are accomplishing is showing us that you little boy can't seem to comprehend the law at all! Take a law class i'm sure you'll fail.

"I believe" that capital punishment is nothing more than a way to try and balance out this world. And yet with all the trying and killing everything has become more unstable. The law itself cannot justify killing someone as a way to preserve peace *what type of sycko are you if you believe that?* If everyone who commited an act of wrong were put through punishments then i'm sure half the world would be gone by now. Don't give me BS about a man who kills conciously and since he kills he must be killed so that the world could see how kindly the law stores peace.

Oh with all that said and i'm sure it went in one ear and out the other:

Fudge you and have a nice day :)

[Darksage]

Oh now I seriously see why you justify the 'law or current law' as you so highly put it. Not only do you insult me but you resort to the use of vulgarity and you call yourself a mod?
You insult God, thats way across the line.
No I never called myself a mod, you did.



Oh wait but all of your other posts seem to contradict this one. But who cares apparantly you don't.
No they don't


What i want to so bad is to knock you upside the head with a history book and common sense you dimwit. And you're saying that because the law is right *what world are you living in by the way* that the death penalty should be allowed? Are you really that stuck on stupid? You revolve your entire argument on the fact that the law is right, yet if someone give a moral opinion you seem to bash heads because the 'proper' way of life is to follow the law? Yeah i see where that fits in.
No this is where you misunderstand. The law = right, I'm glad you just accepted the definition. But did I not just say this:
but whether it is proper or not is an opinion of the individual

Hah, end of story.

No not everyone deserves it especially not you.
Aw, I'm so hurt


Oh i know what i comprehended that you use the words of other to justify your oh so mighty belief. Stop trying so hard to throw such idiotic statements in our faces the only thing you are accomplishing is showing us that you little boy can't seem to comprehend the law at all! Take a law class i'm sure you'll fail.
So what if I use other people's words? :blink:
Trying so hard to throw in idiotic statements? Uh, riiight, now where did I do that? Ohhhh right, the statements that were for the death penalty, and since your against it that makes them stupid. now I get it.
Actually, I am in a Law class. Since Freshman year, and I got a 100 on it everytime on my report card (6 a year, and I'd be more than happy to look for the ones I still have to scan and show you). so yes, I do think you are wrong, I have a very good understanding of the law ad how the justice system works.

"I believe" that capital punishment is nothing more than a way to try and balance out this world. And yet with all the trying and killing everything has become more unstable. The law itself cannot justify killing someone as a way to preserve peace *what type of sycko are you if you believe that?* If everyone who commited an act of wrong were put through punishments then i'm sure half the world would be gone by now. Don't give me BS about a man who kills conciously and since he kills he must be killed so that the world could see how kindly the law stores peace.
How would half the woorld be gone if people were punished for crimes? The death penalty isnt gives for minor crap like running a red light and going through a stop sign, it's given for murderers. So you're saying that half the world is murderers?


Oh with all that said and i'm sure it went in one ear and out the other:

Fudge you and have a nice day :)
:lol:


You know I'm sick and tired of defending my position when you wont offer one. What do you propose then? Now it's my turn to attack you and you to defend yourself.

[Poki]

Yes no wonder you got a 100 in your class since you never even learned how many innocent people were killed with this 'Death penalty' I'm not surprised reallly. And you are what 16? yeah you know so much.

I've offered where i stand or can't you comprehend that? *i felt like borrowing some of your own words and use them as my own* Insulted god? whoa do you really think that matters to me when everyone in this world has a different belief? and maybe even some of us don't at all. "life is precious" those who kill should be killed....hmmm yeah half the world could be called murderes and i didn't specifically say that they should be killed i merely stated that they should be punished because in your eyes those who break the law should be punished...right? *note that the law varies from place to place*

Yes you do contradict yourself, you are just to dense headed to see that.

The fact that you yourself doesn't know what the meaning of Law and preserving peace is, that's is what so idiotic about your posts.

End of story? For you maybe since you never truly cared what others thought to begin with since most of us actually went against the bidding of the 'Law'
To you Capital punishment is a game, and as long as you don't lose you wont ever have to deal with it. That is until you start paying your taxes.

I respect that you believe that the 'Death penalty' is the "proper" thing to do to a criminal who has comitted acts beyond belief. What i don't respect is the fact that you use the "Righteous Law" as a base for your opinions.

[Obsideon]

wow, talk about bloody debate, I see now why the debate room at l-factor (another v-bulletin forum of slightly greater size then this one) has strict rules in the debate room. I'm gonna tackle the slightly off-issues first.

One, something that struck me. DarkSage: "No I never called myself a mod, you did." ummm, what's that thingy under your blue name, I believe it's a title, it says "super moderator," if you don't call yourself a mod I think you should get rid of it.

Poki: "And you are what 16? yeah you know so much." hey now, lets not compare age with intellect. I'm barely seventeen, and I prove my teachers wrong dailly.

You two seem to hate each other so much your english is going down the drain. I'll avoid a thousand quotes though.

Ok, now to the real issue. DarkSage I think I finally got inside your head on this topic. You have some severely limited thinking, you've proven that, this isn't just criticism, you've proven yourself unnable to accept but one defination of a word that has many, you've proven yourself unnable to see reason when laid before you. You are pessemistic, I thought for a moment you were a realist but it's more then that, you seem to think law is law, government is government, and we're skrewed no matter what.

You've studied law, have you read the constitution? ok, I wont expect that of you, how about just the preamble?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

did you catch that? here, let me go over it one more time " ... in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." you see it now? This document IS LAW, even more then the courts the lawyers and the judges, this IS what our government revolves. And what is the purpose of law? nowhere in there do I see it say "in order to ... take innocent lives, and make the people blindly subservient to our will." which should be said for the degree you value law.

You seem to not understand that different people have different views and there is more then one right (again I use the term as synonymous to correct, if you can comprehend that original meaning of it).

"SO THE LAW MUST BE FUCKING CHANGED FIRST AND THEN CAPITAL PUNISHMENT WILL BE ABOLISHED, NOT BY STARTING BACKWARDS."

but that's exactly what we're proposing. changing the law to limitthe death sentense. I didn't think there was any misunderstanding about that, you can't very well start it backwards that would be criminal, the only way to do it would be to start jail breaks and free murderers onto the streets.

You say current law like it's universal. But there's one seriously mistaken part of your theory. and that's the word "current," if law were to be always right (correct), then there would never be any need to change it. Why does law change, because the people dissagree with it, and that is our right (something to which one has a just claim). You seem to think that because government is corrupt it should be corrupt, you seem to think we should just sit back and live with things about law we disagree with. Well damnit if our ancestors thought like you we'd have never become a nation in the first place! That is one of the most unamerican things I've ever heard.

The law is not always right(again as in correct), so how can it always be right (proper), and how can something that has done such wrongs (haneous acts) have you supporting it so blindly?

Are not treaties law? does the same government that cannot obide by it's own law (i.e. breaking treaties) deserve to dictate law to us?

You say insulting god is wrong, and quote the bible even, so I'm gonna assume you're a christian. And doing so, you are one of the worst christians I know (one of the, not THE), you preach murder as justice when your lord said turn the other cheak. You judge everyone and everything when your lord said "judge not lest you be judged by the same measure," you speak of following a hypocrytical governmnet, was not the word "hypocrate" the most screamed of words by jesus?

This is why I called you ignorant before. Because you cannot know and understand these things, and still follow firmly in the beliefs you are. And it is not the belief in the death penalty, but in the government that makes you seem weak.

You think that not all people deserve to live? WHAT THE FUCK GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO SAY THAT!? You think you're GOD?! You think you have the right to say who gets to live and die?! Not all people sentensed to death are guilty. I expect you to know that. And for you to say these people don't deserve to live fucking pisses me off! I would rather let the guilty live then the innocent die! the lives of the innocent is worth more to me then the deaths of the guilty but obviously that's not the case for you. I say abolish the death sentense in all but the most haneous of crimes. You say leave it where it is. Well how the FUCK do you justify a death penalty that can be used on innocent people?! You think our morals and our virtues don't count? Isn't that what your brand of justice is though? some twisted set of morals? The value of life is less important then the value of justic? the value of death? You need to get your priorities checked

[Darksage]

One, something that struck me. DarkSage: "No I never called myself a mod, you did." ummm, what's that thingy under your blue name, I believe it's a title, it says "super moderator," if you don't call yourself a mod I think you should get rid of it.
That's the default title..

You two seem to hate each other so much your english is going down the drain. I'll avoid a thousand quotes though.
I don't hate her, and she doesn't hate me (she "despises" me lol)

Ok, now to the real issue. DarkSage I think I finally got inside your head on this topic. You have some severely limited thinking, you've proven that, this isn't just criticism, you've proven yourself unnable to accept but one defination of a word that has many, you've proven yourself unnable to see reason when laid before you. You are pessemistic, I thought for a moment you were a realist but it's more then that, you seem to think law is law, government is government, and we're skrewed no matter what.
lol, you didn't get inside my head. It may not be what you intended but you're coming off with a cocky attitude here. I do not have severely limited thinking, and I know the word has many definitions but I was only using it in the sense I showed, thats why we didn't understand each other at first, because we wee assuming the other person was using the same definition. Pessemistic? I'll decide whether I am or aren't for myself, although I generally see the good in people and am optimistic but me being a pessimist has nothing to do with this. All I'm saying really is that as long as the law stands it's what punishes us and I'd rather lie and call it right and not go against it and get punished than be a revolutionary.
What you guys are quite content with assuming is that because of that, I agree with all the law all the time. I'd say that makes you ignorant. I do not agree with the law, I live in New York, so please, I see some of the craziest shit with the law.

You've studied law, have you read the constitution? ok, I wont expect that of you, how about just the preamble?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

did you catch that? here, let me go over it one more time " ... in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." you see it now? This document IS LAW, even more then the courts the lawyers and the judges, this IS what our government revolves. And what is the purpose of law? nowhere in there do I see it say "in order to ... take innocent lives, and make the people blindly subservient to our will." which should be said for the degree you value law.
I have read the Constitution (not all of it) and yes I have read the Preamble

Yes yes I regard the constitution higher than the law as well, the founding fathers had a much better plan and vision for this country and if they saw it the way it is right now they would wipe their hands from it or revolt again. I'll be the first to say, politics suck. Political parties suck. It all sucks. But that still doesn't change the fact that the law enforcement is powered by the law and it doesn't change overnight (not usually anyway) so if you disobey an unjust law you still get punished until it goes to the Supreme Court and is overrules or whatever, and sure you can sue and get rich from it but money can never get you back the time you lost and the 'suffering' you went through
When did I say take innocent lives? I said murderers deserve the death penalty. If you are a murderer you can't be innocent can you?

You seem to not understand that different people have different views and there is more then one right (again I use the term as synonymous to correct, if you can comprehend that original meaning of it).
Sure I understand it, but what I seem to understand that other people don't is that just because ou believe it doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean it is what will, should, or shouldn't happen. It's just an opinion, and everyone is entitled to one, but you must also accept that your opinion wont always be regarded
"SO THE LAW MUST BE FUCKING CHANGED FIRST AND THEN CAPITAL PUNISHMENT WILL BE ABOLISHED, NOT BY STARTING BACKWARDS."

but that's exactly what we're proposing. changing the law to limitthe death sentense. I didn't think there was any misunderstanding about that, you can't very well start it backwards that would be criminal, the only way to do it would be to start jail breaks and free murderers onto the streets.
So what do you propose we do with murderers? Thats what I really wanted to know.

You say current law like it's universal. But there's one seriously mistaken part of your theory. and that's the word "current," if law were to be always right (correct), then there would never be any need to change it. Why does law change, because the people dissagree with it, and that is our right (something to which one has a just claim). You seem to think that because government is corrupt it should be corrupt, you seem to think we should just sit back and live with things about law we disagree with. Well damnit if our ancestors thought like you we'd have never become a nation in the first place! That is one of the most unamerican things I've ever heard.
I know the ;aw changes, but not how the people want it to. If we the people didnt want taxes then according to you we shouldn't have to pay taxes, I think everyone hates paying taxes and they could use the money to get themselves out of debt and all, so I'd say they disagree with it dont you? What if people disagreed with all the government? Does that mean that everyone in the government (including elected officals) would just quit their jobs, because we disagree that they are there? No. "The People" have less power than you think. I never said that we should sit back and accept the faults in the government, did I? I'm just saying in today's world it's not as easy to change the government as it was 250+ years ago.
The law is not always right(again as in correct), so how can it always be right (proper), and how can something that has done such wrongs (haneous acts) have you supporting it so blindly?
*sigh* I only said that the law is the rules for the country and even though it may be unjust we will still be punished by it until it is changed, and that doesn't happpen over night.

Are not treaties law? does the same government that cannot obide by it's own law (i.e. breaking treaties) deserve to dictate law to us?
*sigh* I only said that the law is the rules for the country and even though it may be unjust we will still be punished by it until it is changed, and that doesn't happpen over night.

You say insulting god is wrong, and quote the bible even, so I'm gonna assume you're a christian. And doing so, you are one of the worst christians I know (one of the, not THE), you preach murder as justice when your lord said turn the other cheak. You judge everyone and everything when your lord said "judge not lest you be judged by the same measure," you speak of following a hypocrytical governmnet, was not the word "hypocrate" the most screamed of words by jesus?

This is why I called you ignorant before. Because you cannot know and understand these things, and still follow firmly in the beliefs you are. And it is not the belief in the death penalty, but in the government that makes you seem weak.
This is where your bullshit stops. I posted two times the article that proves how the Death Penalty is supported by the Bbile and God. maybe you should read it. Before the Ten Commandments one of the first 'rules' written down by a prophet of God was "If a man sheds blood, then by man will that man's blood be shed" One of the Ten Commandments is also "Thou shat not murder" (it is NOT "Thou shalt not kill, that is a horrible translation of it). In the Bible these things are made very clear: Justice must always be sought after; "murder" and "killing" are not the same thing, a very clear distinction is made between them. Jesus said "turn the other cheek" when someone hits your other cheek. Murder isn't a tap in the face. So please, shut your mouth and don't say I am the worst Christian, thank you very much









Damn, post was too long to be made, rest coming in another post

[Darksage]

You think that not all people deserve to live? WHAT THE FUCK GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO SAY THAT!? You think you're GOD?! You think you have the right to say who gets to live and die?! Not all people sentensed to death are guilty. I expect you to know that. And for you to say these people don't deserve to live fucking pisses me off! I would rather let the guilty live then the innocent die! the lives of the innocent is worth more to me then the deaths of the guilty but obviously that's not the case for you. I say abolish the death sentense in all but the most haneous of crimes. You say leave it where it is.
I never said I have the right to say who dies and who lives, where the fuck are you coming off from? I never said all people sentenced to death were guilty did I? Did I? You assume so much shit and it makes you look so stupid... I very clearly said that those who murder out of their own conscience (by that I mean a person who kills a person not because they have a mental disorder or because it was on accident but because they actually wanted (although sometimes the real sickos just kill for pleasure so they dont "want" to kill, they just do, but this applies to them too) to do it) deserve to die? Why? Because thats what God tells us.
Let the innocent AND guilty live you say? It doesn't work that way, because the guilty kill, and letting them live is jeopardizing more innocent life (once again when I say 'guilty' I mean murderers)
"the lives of the innocent is worth more to me then the deaths of the guilty but obviously that's not the case for you."
Ah, now I use your own response against you: WHAT THE FUCK GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO SAY THAT!? You think you're GOD?! You think you have the right to say who gets to live and die?!

Well how the FUCK do you justify a death penalty that can be used on innocent people?! You think our morals and our virtues don't count? Isn't that what your brand of justice is though? some twisted set of morals? The value of life is less important then the value of justic? the value of death? You need to get your priorities checked
I simply said I agree with the Death Penalty, I never said I agree with the court system that determines a man guilty or innocent based on cases presented by people who's job is do lie. I never said I agree with the methdos. Did I say any of that? No, another blind-ass assumption you made about me that was once again, incorrect

[Kimeru]

I never said I have the right to say who dies and who lives, where the fuck are you coming off from? I never said all people sentenced to death were guilty did I? Did I? You assume so much shit and it makes you look so stupid... I very clearly said that those who murder out of their own conscience (by that I mean a person who kills a person not because they have a mental disorder or because it was on accident but because they actually wanted (although sometimes the real sickos just kill for pleasure so they dont "want" to kill, they just do, but this applies to them too) to do it) deserve to die? Why? Because thats what God tells us.
Let the innocent AND guilty live you say? It doesn't work that way, because the guilty kill, and letting them live is jeopardizing more innocent life (once again when I say 'guilty' I mean murderers)
"the lives of the innocent is worth more to me then the deaths of the guilty but obviously that's not the case for you."
Ah, now I use your own response against you: WHAT THE FUCK GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO SAY THAT!? You think you're GOD?! You think you have the right to say who gets to live and die?!


I simply said I agree with the Death Penalty, I never said I agree with the court system that determines a man guilty or innocent based on cases presented by people who's job is do lie. I never said I agree with the methdos. Did I say any of that? No, another blind-ass assumption you made about me that was once again, incorrect
Even if I would have the time, currently, to read past the entire new replies, by what I read in the last posts, I can see that you're very wrong and you started to lose your mind about it. :D

You started bringing irrelevant stuff, in order to cover half of a post, and making the other half look wrong, when you didn't have anything to prove it wrong, so covering half of the thing was good enough for you. Should I go on? 8D

So, I shall watch how this continues. It is fun when you swearing and name-calling, yourself.

By the way, there is an "Edit" button, so double-posting is not necessary. *points to posts 101 and 102 of this thread*

(Don't expect me to keep posting in this thread, Obsideon is doing perfectly good and he is "correct" and able to explain you things in a way I couldn't. So, have fun.)

[Darksage]

Even if I would have the time, currently, to read past the entire new replies, by what I read in the last posts, I can see that you're very wrong and you started to lose your mind about it. :D

You started bringing irrelevant stuff, in order to cover half of a post, and making the other half look wrong, when you didn't have anything to prove it wrong, so covering half of the thing was good enough for you. Should I go on? 8D

So, I shall watch how this continues. It is fun when you swearing and name-calling, yourself.

By the way, there is an "Edit" button, so double-posting is not necessary.

(Don't expect me to keep posting in this thread, Obsideon is doing perfectly good and he is "correct" and able to explain you things in a way I couldn't. So, have fun.)
See thats what angers me. You didnt even read my posts but you "can see I'm very wrong"? That makes absolutely no sense. I didnt lose my mind, read the posts and then comment, and if you don't have time to read them then don't comment at all

It wasn't irrelevant stuff, I was making analogies. And so far all I've been doing is proving myself correct since people are opposing it. When you all tell me what should be done with murderers (mainly their punishment) then I'll have something to argue about. Right now people are arguing with me and I'm defending my position.

Glad you find it amusing.

By the way, if you actually read my post, it was too long and I had to split it into two posts, so don't comment unless you know what you're talking about.

(If you aren't going to read the replies don't comment at all. First you say you don't have the time to read and then you say "Obsideon is doing perfectly good and he is "correct" and able to explain you things in a way I couldn't": How would you know if you didn't read anything he just posted? You're entitled to your own opinion, so what you mean is "I agree with him" not "he is "correct".)

[Obsideon]

yeah DS, since your posts were too long to keep in one post, I'll not even try to quote them while adding my own stuff.



When you so valiently support the law, and go so far as to define right as correct by the law, degrading moral right as another supporter of this (saying that it is moral to be right by the law ... which is crap if you don't agree with the law) then you proclaim yourself a supporter of the law. When you support a law you support every aspect of it, including the aspects that dictate how it is inforced. Then you proclaim yourself an advocate of law, justice, and the government. You have done and said so much following this that such an assumption is not stupid at all, but common sense. And I'm not allone in saying this, others who have read this debate come to the same conclusion as I do. Many of them however were too irritated by you to post here (no offense, just telling it how it is).

When You support a law under which innocent people are killed, then you support them being killed. You support the god-play of deciding who lives and who dies. When you decide not to kill a man you hold at gun point, you are not deciding who lives and dies, you are simply deciding not to take from them what they have, life, you aren't giving it to them you just aren't taking it. So I'm not playing god at all by saying not to kill people.

When you take an innocent life, you are committing murder, plain and simple. So even what you describe as the better translation "though shalt not murder," is violated by this law.

I've never heard of that prophet, but surely you aren't telling me a prophet has more wisdom then the god he is prophet for. So according to the bible, when god spared Cain after he had killed his brother, surely you aren't telling me that that was wrong, that mercy is wrong.

If you believe something is right, then as far as you are concerned it is. Plain and simple. If you trully believe it then as far as you are concerned it can't be wrong, because you believe it, you believe it to be right. How can you say you understand that just because you believe something doesn't make it right? or are you again using the term to mean lawfull. In which case I should bring up that those who resist the law are the ones that make the world a better place. In addition to our founding fathers, the abolitionists including Henry David Therou, Dr. Martin Luther King Junior, Mahatma Gandi (sp), etc. If you believe in something then you know it to be right, and if you are wrong well so beit, but you fight for what you believe to be right, even if that fighting takes place without violence.

"Let the innocent AND guilty live you say? It doesn't work that way, because the guilty kill, and letting them live is jeopardizing more innocent life"

*smiles* such is my own justification for the death penalty.

The fact is however, you are less likely to kill innocent people if you spare the death penalty to all but those convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of committing the most haneous of crimes. Give the rest a chance to redeem themselves or to one day be proven innocent.

Kimeru, thanks for your support but you should really read back, you might notice DS say "Damn, post was too long to be made, rest coming in another post" he double posted because of a post-length limit probably

[Darksage]

I said that the law is right because thats a definition of it. I never degraded morals or any of that. I am a supporter or the law only when it is just, isn't that how it should be?

I already said, I look at the Death Penalty as a punishment, and I already said I do not agree with the court system that condemns a person nor the process by which it happens. I already stated that all I agree with is that the murderers die. Note I say "murderers" die. Not innocent peoplel. so stop twisting my words and making it sound like I support it when it puts innocent people to death. I even said it before:
I simply said I agree with the Death Penalty, I never said I agree with the court system that determines a man guilty or innocent based on cases presented by people who's job is do lie. I never said I agree with the methdos. Did I say any of that? No, another blind-ass assumption you made about me that was once again, incorrect




"When you take an innocent life, you are committing murder, plain and simple. So even what you describe as the better translation "though shalt not murder," is violated by this law."
(Don't ask me how it's a better trabslation that's just what I read, cause the Bible's and stuff published today are probably way different from the original ones)
If someone kills he isn't innocent, so no it is not violated by this commandment.

I never said a prophet had more wisdom than God (why the hell do you keep twisting my words??), a prophet's wisdom is the wisdom (s)he gets from God, so I'd say that makes it the same wisdom wouldn't you? And if you'd study the Bible, you would notice that the things that happen in the 'beginning' of time are more about mercy, but then Gid says that man is evil, his every thought is evil, and the earth itself is even evil, so mercy became less vital than justice

So people who disobey the law make the world better? So murderers, bank robbers, rapists, theives, they're making the world better? What the hell are you smoking? This is only true when you break an unjust law to prove a point.

And the whole "What if they had a change of heart?" thing... I disagree, they could just lie so they stay alive. Mercy is something you give when it is not going to cause more harm. You show mercy when people really are sorry and want to turn their lives around. If every murderer says that (all too conveniently) then you let them live, thinking you did the right thing by showing mercy, and then then commit crime again. My point is God never said show everyone mercy.

[Obsideon]

Who's twisting who's words now?

You misinterpret my entire formal statement, it was clarification as to former assumptions not a repeated attack. Your defense is not only unnecessary but irrelevant and groundless. You use your statements after the fact to defend against clarification of acusations from before. Bah, you think to eagerly that everyone (here at least) is trying to villainize you without seize.

It is true that murderers would abuse a system that set them free if they had a change of heart, and I never said they should be set free. I simply said that less innocent people would receive the death penalty if only those convicted of the most haneous of crimes received the death penalty.

There are only two things we are disagreed on. How many people should get the death penalty, and whether or not "justice" is a just cause for it (the irony of termenology was intentional so don't try to point it out)

[Darksage]

I know the system would be abused, so what shouuldl be the punishment for the murderers who commit "not-so heinous" murders? (Although I personally think all murder is heinous, it's just some people are twisted and go about it more ellaborately than others lol)

[Obsideon]

no, I agree that all murder is haneous, but mass murder is more vile then a single murder when you look at it. And the punishment is obvious, life impresonment without the possabillity of perole. It keeps them away from innocent people and gives them a chance to prove themselves innocent after the trial, or to prove a mistrial.

[Darksage]

And thats why I posted this:
"...it can be easily demonstrated that the death penalty strengthens the value of human life. If the penalty for rape were lowered, clearly it would signal a lessened regard for the victims' suffering...When we lower the penalty for murder, it signals a lessened regard for the for the value of the victim's life."

[Obsideon]

the statement has value but irony as well. I've said before. You say you want to show the value of something, by protecting it with stern concequence. This makes sense. However, in that concequence you destroy what you want to protect (human life), this is the ultimate irony. An irony so great it borders stupidity (no offense). In the act of execution you show that life is something that can be taken in punishment, this act of taking life shows that you have a low enough value on life to destroy it, justifiably or not. In this mannor the action of preserving the value of somehting lowers the value of that which you would preserve. In attempt to show that human life has worth you achieve the exact opposite.

[Darksage]

Well I guess you can compare it to an antique. It has value but the value is shown when you sell it.
Life is valuable, and decreasing the penalty for murder signifies a lessened regard for the value of the life of the murdered person.

[Obsideon]

mmm, this is all dependent on perspective. How you view value. I'm not misunderstanding the concept you explain. But I disagree. Because of the irony of it. In anything else it might make sense, but I have fully explained why this is too ironic a circumstance. There is only one term I would agree to the death penalty to all convicted of murder (beyond a reasonable doubt), and that would be if each murderer were given a geneous and equivelent period of time to appeal their case. say twenty-fifty years to prove that there's been a mistrial. Each appeal would be to a different judge and if it came to it a different jurry (that is, if a jurry became necessary again). At least that way there is a chance for the innocent to be spared.

[Darksage]

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060115121409990002&ncid=NWS00010000000001

[wastedheart]

i don't belive in the death penalty.

[Darksage]

i don't belive in the death penalty.
*looks at Obsideon and bursts out laughing*
Well thank you for that wonderful and well-informed post, made after 80+ replies of me and Obsideon fiercely debating.

[Darksage]

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060115121409990002&ncid=NWS00010000000001
*in an effort to revive this*

I agree with the reasoning there. The man commited crime deeming a life sentence and while he was serving in prison he orchestrated another crime, making him deserve the death penalty (if you can't see the logic here... then you have mental issues)

[Obsideon]

agreed, but this also supports life sentencing as suppliment to the death penalty. Furthermore I'd call what this man did to be an extreme case, he committed a crime, and then a murder to cover it, then a series of other murders to cover that. Furthermore this man spent a decent time in prison with the oppertunity to prove his own innocence. This is one situation we both agree. The death penalty was justified here, asssuming of course it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt (which I'm not questioning). This does not mean I support the death penalty in all cases however.

[Mystic-Spirit]

Like I said a few months ago. I think it should stay,atleast for most situations.
Most muderers never try to renew themselves, atleast the insane ones won't so why take the chance of them escaping and killing again?

[Darksage]

agreed, but this also supports life sentencing as suppliment to the death penalty. Furthermore I'd call what this man did to be an extreme case, he committed a crime, and then a murder to cover it, then a series of other murders to cover that. Furthermore this man spent a decent time in prison with the oppertunity to prove his own innocence. This is one situation we both agree. The death penalty was justified here, asssuming of course it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt (which I'm not questioning). This does not mean I support the death penalty in all cases however.
True. I never made clear when I created this thread anyway..

When I say "Do you support the Death Penalty?" I mean in cases when someone is guilty of a murder (not self-defense or anything like that) and is either getting a life sentence or put to death.

[Obsideon]

I support life sentencing over death, however in cases such as this, when a murderous person has proven himself incabable of being alive without intentionally causing death, then yes. It is only necessary to get rid of people like this for the safety of others.

[Mystic-Spirit]

I support life sentencing over death, however in cases such as this, when a murderous person has proven himself incabable of being alive without intentionally causing death, then yes. It is only necessary to get rid of people like this for the safety of others.

Nice way of thinking.

[Darksage]

Even though it's just an opinion lol

I think it is unavoidable to give someone the Death Oenalty when they get a life sentence and then commit another crime, cause I mean you can't add to a life sentence

[Mystic-Spirit]

Well most of the time when a murderer commits a crime twice,it's very doubtful he feels remorse for it, or if that he wants to renew himself. Or that he's sane.

[Darksage]

Well how would you know? Just cause it happens more than once doesn't mean he can't change his life around after it. In fact it's usually the mass-murderers who you'd see reading the Bible in prison

[Mystic-Spirit]

Because sometimes it's a sickness to people. A person like that shouldn't live, then for the safety of the people. If a person kills someone once, then get removed from jail, then does the same same thing again, what do you think he's going to do a 3rd time? A person like that is dangerous, why should people have to worry about meeting someone like that?

A murderer should learn his lesson after 1 time. Killing someone isn't a tiny mistake, It's something serious.

[.GalerianRion.]

What is the jury's decision? SPEAK UP, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU.

No.

Verdict: No

I do not agree with the Death Penalty. I suppose you are wondering why [DEAR GOD, Why would you want a PSYCHOTIC RAPIST LIVE?? WHYYYYY!?]
Simple, I prefer...if they have done such a horrible thing that they suffer.

SUFFER = A fate worse than death to me. Who would want to live the rest of their life behind rusty bars with other insane criminals or [even innocent people] and guards that steal from you or perhaps play mind games. That's one shitty life if ya ask me and more deserving of a serial killer than death which frees them from such a life. Twisted.

AGAIN, what if we do the unspeakable and mistake an innocent person for another and send that -innocent- person to the death pentalty. SUCH THOUGHTS. Because it has happened in the past, why not now? It happens and we could possible kill someone who -shouldn't- be killed. *gasp!*

On the other hand, we shall never get rid of the Death Penalty because there are too many people in this world, thus leading to too many people in jail and we need a legal way to get rid of them. :D [/sarcasm]


NOTICE: THIS IS MY VIEW....MIIINE, DON'T STEAL ;D I'm lovin sarcasm today ~

[Mystic-Spirit]

What is the jury's decision? SPEAK UP, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU.

No.

Verdict: No

I do not agree with the Death Penalty. I suppose you are wondering why [DEAR GOD, Why would you want a PSYCHOTIC RAPIST LIVE?? WHYYYYY!?]
Simple, I prefer...if they have done such a horrible thing that they suffer.

SUFFER = A fate worse than death to me. Who would want to live the rest of their life behind rusty bars with other insane criminals or [even innocent people] and guards that steal from you or perhaps play mind games. That's one shitty life if ya ask me and more deserving of a serial killer than death which frees them from such a life. Twisted.

AGAIN, what if we do the unspeakable and mistake an innocent person for another and send that -innocent- person to the death pentalty. SUCH THOUGHTS. Because it has happened in the past, why not now? It happens and we could possible kill someone who -shouldn't- be killed. *gasp!*

On the other hand, we shall never get rid of the Death Penalty because there are too many people in this world, thus leading to too many people in jail and we need a legal way to get rid of them. :D [/sarcasm]


NOTICE: THIS IS MY VIEW....MIIINE, DON'T STEAL ;D I'm lovin sarcasm today ~
I do not agree with the Death Penalty. I suppose you are wondering why [DEAR GOD, Why would you want a PSYCHOTIC RAPIST LIVE?? WHYYYYY!?]
Simple, I prefer...if they have done such a horrible thing that they suffer.

^ Funny.

Anyway what about the Electric chair? There body getting shocked and fried isn't suffering enough? What if they escape? If they do the same crime twice, then I doubt they are innocent.

[.GalerianRion.]

I do not agree with the Death Penalty. I suppose you are wondering why [DEAR GOD, Why would you want a PSYCHOTIC RAPIST LIVE?? WHYYYYY!?]
Simple, I prefer...if they have done such a horrible thing that they suffer.

^ Funny.

Anyway what about the Electric chair? There body getting shocked and fried isn't suffering enough? What if they escape? If they do the same crime twice, then I doubt they are innocent.

When I said "innocents" I did not mean people who do the same crime twice. Innocent means Innocent unless it has some other unknown meaning I've yet to learn of.

In the end, they still die, free from that pain. Electric chair or not.

If they escape then security should put them in a more secure unite or keep a closer eye out for that person.

I'm glad you found that one statement funny :D My sarcasm has been put to use.

[Mystic-Spirit]

When I said "innocents" I did not mean people who do the same crime twice. Innocent means Innocent unless it has some other unknown meaning I've yet to learn of.

In the end, they still die, free from that pain. Electric chair or not.

If they escape then security should put them in a more secure unite or keep a closer eye out for that person.

I'm glad you found that one statement funny :D My sarcasm has been put to use.

Atleast people wont have to worry about that person escaping and killing again.

But, by then they probably killed many innocent bystanders,before they get caught. Why take the chance?

Even if I debate seriously sometimes, I still have an incredible sense of humor.

[.GalerianRion.]

Atleast people wont have to worry about that person escaping and killing again.

But, by then they probably killed many innocent bystanders,before they get caught. Why take the chance?

Even if I debate seriously sometimes, I still have an incredible sense of humor.

This is true, using it not to take the risk of them getting out. However, with such security we -say- we have, we -should not- have a problem with escaping. If it were so, we'd have a *gasp* flaw in the system [who'da thought]


It's good that you have a sense of humor even when seriously debating. It makes it easier to debate -reasonably- with someone :D and I like to use humor/sarcasm in my debates anyways.

[Darksage]

Because sometimes it's a sickness to people. A person like that shouldn't live, then for the safety of the people. If a person kills someone once, then get removed from jail, then does the same same thing again, what do you think he's going to do a 3rd time? A person like that is dangerous, why should people have to worry about meeting someone like that?

A murderer should learn his lesson after 1 time. Killing someone isn't a tiny mistake, It's something serious.
Isn't a religious theme to show everyone mercyy?


.GalerianRion.: But in this country we don't punish to make them suffer. a punishment fits the crime. Is it really fair to make them suffer for their entire life if he painlessly killed someone?


And about the Ed Koch statement about how the Death Penalty upholds the value of huuman life: I can see how you think it is ironic. "Life" in this sense is not individual. It refers to the life of the victim, and society as a whole.

[.GalerianRion.]

Most serial killers and murderers don't kill quickly they let their victims suffer =)

Nothing can make me agree to the Death Penalty though. We're from America, what can ya expect.

[Darksage]

Well I'm from america too, and I agree with it lol

[.GalerianRion.]

I rethought

Though some murderers may kill quickly somtimes, they still -killed- and they still have made the families of that victim suffer. Therefore I still do not agree to the death pentalty

Rape - You cannot avoid the suffering from that. Your physically assulting a girl and forcing her to have sex...that's SICK << - An easy way out like "death" should not be such a privilage given to someone like that =)


ANYWAYS. Welcome to America :D

[Darksage]

:D;
Well, isn't suffering part of life? and the fact remains hat the death penalty Kills the person. Who wants to die? People can say it but deep down they dont want to. Ask any murderer: they'll tell you getting a life sentence is better than the death penalty because they're alive. It's satisfaction for them not suffering.

[.GalerianRion.]

That depends on what suffering your speaking of :D

You can also ask alot of long time prisoners who would prefer to die than be life sentanced.

[Darksage]

Yeah but that's after they've served their sentence (or some of it). It's like a victory for them because they cheat the system: They kill but stay alive themselves

[.GalerianRion.]

Yeah but that's after they've served their sentence (or some of it). It's like a victory for them because they cheat the system: They kill but stay alive themselves


Not if they get life sentance :D

[Mystic-Spirit]

*Cough* Escape *Cough*

[.GalerianRion.]

*Cough* Escape *Cough*


I already said something about this ;D

[Darksage]

Not if they get life sentance :D
But my point is that the murderer is alive. In prison yes, but alive nonetheless.

[.GalerianRion.]

But my point is that the murderer is alive. In prison yes, but alive nonetheless.

Suffering in Prison, which was my whole point

[Darksage]

I dont much care for suffering. They dont suffer. They are in a nice warm place. They get food, exercise. a helluva lot better life than poor people living in the streets.

[.GalerianRion.]

I dont much care for suffering. They dont suffer. They are in a nice warm place. They get food, exercise. a helluva lot better life than poor people living in the streets.

I don't know what prison YOUR thinkin of boy o_O

[Darksage]

Any prison. there are thusands, we just here of abuse in one or two and think they're all bad.