The death penalty

[The Undead Necris Scourge]

Pedophiles aren't criminals but if their lustful desires for children are ever realized it would definitely turn criminal and ruin an innocent child's life. Also pedophiles are often the consumers of child pornography and thats criminal by itself. Would you have a problem with a cannibal let's say they have never killed anyone and live a peaceful life but they have a burning lust for human flesh and blood. To me that sounds like someone who needs professional help before they actually start eating people in RL. Or what about a cannibal who actually eats human meat on occasion, lets say he hasn't killed anyone but he does partake in the eating of human flesh, would you consider that criminal.

Define "child pornography".

Because I do have a problem with people using children to make pornography. However, I don't have a problem with artists depicting children having sex, and people watching that.

I believe thats what you call "Lolicon" and I think its a form of hentai, but yes I do have a problem with people drawing and watching things like that, because obviously the reason you are drawing or watching lolicon, especially if you are the one actually drawing it is because you have some sort of fetish for child like adults or actual children but in court its not criminal and no one should go to jail over that.

[Keronians]

Define "child pornography".

Because I do have a problem with people using children to make pornography. However, I don't have a problem with artists depicting children having sex, and people watching that.

I believe thats what you call "Lolicon" and I think its a form of hentai, but yes I do have a problem with people drawing and watching things like that, because obviously the reason you are drawing or watching lolicon, especially if you are the one actually drawing it is because you have some sort of fetish for child like adults or actual children but in court its not criminal and no one should go to jail over that.

In some places, it is criminal.

I do not mind what sexual urges a person has. The only actual problem I have with people acting upon their urges, is that they always rape the children, and that children are not capable to consent to the sex.

For example, I have no problem with ephebophiles acting upon their urges. So long as the sex was consensual, of course.

[The Parkus Empire]

The success of appeals is largely based on findings that come up later.

lol@posthumousexonerations

Aw, you cawe about udda people so much! ^o^ *pinches cheek*

[Alyakia]

lol@posthumousexonerations

Aw, you cawe about udda people so much! ^o^ *pinches cheek*

arigatou gozaimasu parkus-san

itte! isshoni subete kurimanaru sukammu wo koroshimashou! ^_______^

[The Parkus Empire]

Aw, you cawe about udda people so much! ^o^ *pinches cheek*

arigatou gozaimasu parkus-san

itte! isshoni subete kurimanaru sukammu wo koroshimashou! ^_______^

Except for the first part, I don't know what that means, but it sounds rather affectionate.

[Quelesh]

I oppose the use of the death penalty under all circumstances, because killing is immoral. The fact that another has killed does not make killing him moral.

[The Parkus Empire]

I oppose the use of the death penalty under all circumstances, because killing is immoral. The fact that another has killed does not make killing him moral.

Killing isn't intrinsically unethical.

[Furthermore]

Which is why we have rehabilitation and guards in prisons.

Anyway, I fail to see why it's better to kill someone when it's more expensive, violates human rights, and serves absolutely no purpose other than satisfying people's bloodthirst and hard-on for revenge.

1. it doesn't have to be expensive, the only reason it is, is due to the appeals
2. the human rights argument is a joke. Completely subjective and erratic. Where were the victim's 'human rights?' How come the only people whom have their 'rights violated' seem to be prisoners?
3. It serves the purpose of ending a criminal's career for good, and whats wrong with our human thirst for revenge. Human nature evolved this way for a reason.

How about we keep the appeals.
Just make killing them cheaper.
Thus still keep evildoers gone for good,
while at least taking some of the costs away.
I was implying this, but I guess others are not.
I seriously think the death penalty is needed because of already stated reasons; yes they cost more to make sure they deserve to die, but I still think they deserve to die, not simply chill /go insane in jail.

[The Nuclear Fist]

The idea that a State has the authority to exterminate life is something that summons the feeling of disgust deep within myself. I'm vehemently against State-sanctioned murder, and thus against the death penalty.

[-St George]

1. it doesn't have to be expensive, the only reason it is, is due to the appeals
2. the human rights argument is a joke. Completely subjective and erratic. Where were the victim's 'human rights?' How come the only people whom have their 'rights violated' seem to be prisoners?
3. It serves the purpose of ending a criminal's career for good, and whats wrong with our human thirst for revenge. Human nature evolved this way for a reason.

How about we keep the appeals.
Just make killing them cheaper.
Thus still keep evildoers gone for good,
while at least taking some of the costs away.
I was implying this, but I guess others are not.
I seriously think the death penalty is needed because of already stated reasons; yes they cost more to make sure they deserve to die, but I still think they deserve to die, not simply chill /go insane in jail.

And the innocents who get executed? What about them?

[Furthermore]

How about we keep the appeals.
Just make killing them cheaper.
Thus still keep evildoers gone for good,
while at least taking some of the costs away.
I was implying this, but I guess others are not.
I seriously think the death penalty is needed because of already stated reasons; yes they cost more to make sure they deserve to die, but I still think they deserve to die, not simply chill /go insane in jail.

And the innocents who get executed? What about them?

pretty much =innocents in jail for life.
appeal, then.

[-St George]

And the innocents who get executed? What about them?

=innocents in jail for life.
appeal, then.

>implying they don't already lol

>also implying that it's really quite easy to prove one's innocence

[Alyakia]

I oppose the use of the death penalty under all circumstances, because killing is immoral. The fact that another has killed does not make killing him moral.

Killing isn't intrinsically unethical.

Yes it is. In before cirucumstantial examples.

[Alyakia]

1. it doesn't have to be expensive, the only reason it is, is due to the appeals
2. the human rights argument is a joke. Completely subjective and erratic. Where were the victim's 'human rights?' How come the only people whom have their 'rights violated' seem to be prisoners?
3. It serves the purpose of ending a criminal's career for good, and whats wrong with our human thirst for revenge. Human nature evolved this way for a reason.

How about we keep the appeals.
Just make killing them cheaper.
Thus still keep evildoers gone for good,
while at least taking some of the costs away.
I was implying this, but I guess others are not.
I seriously think the death penalty is needed because of already stated reasons; yes they cost more to make sure they deserve to die, but I still think they deserve to die, not simply chill /go insane in jail.

A very very very small part of the costs.

[Furthermore]

=innocents in jail for life.
appeal, then.

>implying they don't already lol

>also implying that it's really quite easy to prove one's innocence

first comments make no sense to me,

and proving innocence is tough anytime, no matter the sentence.

[Furthermore]

How about we keep the appeals.
Just make killing them cheaper.
Thus still keep evildoers gone for good,
while at least taking some of the costs away.
I was implying this, but I guess others are not.
I seriously think the death penalty is needed because of already stated reasons; yes they cost more to make sure they deserve to die, but I still think they deserve to die, not simply chill /go insane in jail.

A very very very small part of the costs.

Better than nothing.

[Greater Nilfgaard]

whats interesting is how you care about the very few (who potentially) got wrongfully executed, yet don't seem to give a rats ass about the murderers who, having not been executed, get released and kill more people (or just kill fellow prisoners- if it's a life sentence).

You already got your little english lesson, so lets do a little math now, shall we?

There has never been a confirmed wrongful execution in recent memory in the US. But even assuming all of the "potential" cases turn out to be true, your still looking at a maximum of 1 % of executions (which can't be more than a few dozen over 3 decades).

Now, how many murders are there in the US annually ?

15,000...

when u consider that over 60% of prisoners released each year (~200,000) find themselves back in jail within 3 years, it's easy to see that many of the murders are caused by people who were released.

Only a small fraction of murders by released convicts is needed to far outweigh the deaths from any wrongful execution.

Ahuh. Yeah. Hmm. Interesting.

And irrelevant.

Do people get wrongfully sentenced to death? Yes they do.

Have some of those executed been innocent? Yes they have.

How, in the face of these simple, black and white facts, can you support the death penalty?

Because of the simple statistics, I just laid out. If you actually cared about human life, you would pay attention.

Nothing is perfect, but to end the death penalty because there is a tiny chance of someone being wrongfully executed, is absolutely ridiculous.

Especially with thousands of people dying each day of anything from cigarettes to terrorism. Dwelling on someone potentially be wrongfully executed, even after a fair trail and loads of evidence, is ludicrous.

If you really cared about human life, talk about health care reform, not your opposition to the death penalty.

[Greater Nilfgaard]

I oppose the use of the death penalty under all circumstances, because killing is immoral. The fact that another has killed does not make killing him moral.

..

In your opinion

[Greater Nilfgaard]

1. it doesn't have to be expensive, the only reason it is, is due to the appeals
2. the human rights argument is a joke. Completely subjective and erratic. Where were the victim's 'human rights?' How come the only people whom have their 'rights violated' seem to be prisoners?
3. It serves the purpose of ending a criminal's career for good, and whats wrong with our human thirst for revenge. Human nature evolved this way for a reason.

Yeah, human nature evolved to realise that revenge killing is not rational.

Really? When? I must have missed that memo, so has most the world too, apparently.

[Alyakia]

Ahuh. Yeah. Hmm. Interesting.

And irrelevant.

Do people get wrongfully sentenced to death? Yes they do.

Have some of those executed been innocent? Yes they have.

How, in the face of these simple, black and white facts, can you support the death penalty?

Because of the simple statistics, I just laid out. If you actually cared about human life, you would pay attention.

Nothing is perfect, but to end the death penalty because there is a tiny chance of someone being wrongfully executed, is absolutely ridiculous.

Especially with thousands of people dying each day of anything from cigarettes to terrorism. Dwelling on someone potentially be wrongfully executed, even after a fair trail and loads of evidence, is ludicrous.

If you really cared about human life, talk about health care reform, not your opposition to the death penalty.

Your statistics are 1) bullshit and lack critical information and 2) irrelevant to the death penalty.

No. It isn't. If you have a system that costs you extra billions compared to a system without it, will without a doubt eventually result in the execution of innocent people and hundreds of countries are fine without it, get rid of it. You can't use the "nothing is perfect" line to justify trying to keep something that fails on pretty much every front and could be easily abolished.

Oh don't even think about starting that crap. We can multitask you know.

[Horsefish]

Because of the simple statistics, I just laid out. If you actually cared about human life, you would pay attention.

Nothing is perfect, but to end the death penalty because there is a tiny chance of someone being wrongfully executed, is absolutely ridiculous.

Especially with thousands of people dying each day of anything from cigarettes to terrorism. Dwelling on someone potentially be wrongfully executed, even after a fair trail and loads of evidence, is ludicrous.
If you really cared about human life, talk about health care reform, not your opposition to the death penalty.

What, the irrelevant statistics? The ones that take into account the whole spectrum from drug dealing to prostituition? The ones which dont prove a single fucking thing you said and make no point whatsoever?
Find stats for murderers who get released (and if someone was goign to be exectuted they probally wouldn't be eligble for parole anyway) who murder again.

Lol what? thousands of people die a day, fuck this one that could be prevented and is completely unfair. Bit of a shitty attitude you got there.
Also, surely if the trial had been 'fair' and the evidence concrete the wrong person wouldn't have been convicted, it would ahve been thrown out of court?

[Furious Grandmothers]

Killing isn't intrinsically unethical.

Yes it is. In before cirucumstantial examples.

Nope it isn't. Even one of the most extreme examples, the Holocaust, is not unethical intrinsically. Try to wrap your head around this idea for a bit.

OOT: Achievement unlocked: 10 Godwins initiated.

[Crystal Spires]

I think the question of the death penalty generally comes down to this fundamental question: Is doing harm worse than allowing harm? If you are against the death penalty, you are far more against doing harm than allowing it to happen to others. This is honestly a mark of a wholesome person, but a terrible leader. I think personally that a leader being responsible for his civilian's safety, has a responsibility to do harm to prevent further harm to their civilians. This is something the state is obligated to do. War is hell and execution is ruthless, and irreversible but ultimately it is the responsibility of the state to do this on behalf of its civilians. When you refuse state sanctioned executions, the result is that effectively you are permitting murderers to wantonly commit murder and you give them the power to harm civilians as they desire without repercussions. You could claim that jail is punishment enough, but that is a lie, and you all very well know it, because the states that disallow executions also protect their prisoners from cruel and unusual treatment, and also do their best to protect criminals from each other. This is immoral, and unethical ultimately as a leader of your nation.

The United States is perfectly satisfied with carrying out the death penalty because they fully understand that victims desire it as a form of retribution. Their leaders are not afraid of doing harm, nor do they think they have any moral high-ground for committing executions, even though arguably they have every right to commute a sentence. They ultimately do capital punishment because the politicians understand why that works for their populace. They understand that the law does have to advocate for victims of criminal cases, but they have to make their case impartial. But doing so actually hurts their victims. Impartiality takes what is a most personal and private dispute out of the hands of the victim, and denies them the right to come to any form of resolution themselves. This is what the law does when they have any criminal case in any place in the world. It makes what is the most personal affront to a citizen's rights and makes it impersonal on behalf of having impartiality. I think personally unless the victims desire retribution, the state has no business enforcing any form of punishment upon the accused at all, but if the victim demands some sort of compensation or retribution and their claim is valid, the state has every right to exercise even the most extreme method, which is to me capital punishment. I do not believe that justice is EVER meant to be rehabilitative because ultimately whatever causes the criminal's disregard for the victim's rights does not EVER justify what had been done to their victim.

[Alyakia]

If only there was someway to stop murderers from killing more people... Without the death penalty... Alas...

i'm sorry i gave up hope once you talked about how preventing cruel and unusual punishment and preventing prisons turning into jungles is immoral

[Crystal Spires]

If only there was someway to stop murderers from killing more people... Without the death penalty... Alas...

i'm sorry i gave up hope once you talked about how preventing cruel and unusual punishment and preventing prisons turning into jungles is immoral

It is immoral when you allow your own civilians who have committed no act of violence to be subject to far worse cruelty. You disgust me at your indifference with regard to those victims.