Do you support the death penalty?

[Grave_n_idle]

On the other hand, I think society must set an example by placing the need to safeguard it's weakest members over it's lack of resolve. Sure, the death penalty is harsh - but I don't think that any society that WON'T employ the ultimate sanction can actually claim to be truly civilised.

Nothing to do with revenge. It's all about removing the cancer.

I'm really, really hoping this satire.

Why?

The "Utopia justifies the means" sentiment.
The claim that humanity has not reached the apex of civilisation until it starts systematically murdering people.
The dehumanisation of those who commit murder into that of a "cancer".

This is what I'd expect from a Hammurab parody of death penalty advocates.

I didn't say 'utopia justifies the means'. I think protecting children from predators justifies the means.

I also didn't say anything about systematic murder. And I don't see what's wrong with the rest of that claim - if we were truly civilised, we'd protect our weakest members, and we wouldn't make excuses for why we were NOT protecting them, and we wouldn't let the fact that it's unpleasant to kill someone to perpetuate risk.

As for dehumanising murders (you forgot rapists and child abusers) into a cancer - it's a metaphor. A cancerous cell is a cell that actively works against all the other cells, harming those other cells, and ultimately, killing the host.

As such, a murderer/rapist/child abuser is like a cancer in the body of a society. And we don't get all teary-eyed about the poor little cancer when we're treating the patient, and we don't assume that a civilised doctor would spare the poor little cancer cells even though it was going to hurt the patient.


If there is a predator in your society... say, a rapist that preys on kids... and you DON'T kill him, you're an accessory to any future actions of that predator. The blood is on your hands.

[North Suran]

On the other hand, I think society must set an example by placing the need to safeguard it's weakest members over it's lack of resolve. Sure, the death penalty is harsh - but I don't think that any society that WON'T employ the ultimate sanction can actually claim to be truly civilised.

Nothing to do with revenge. It's all about removing the cancer.

I'm really, really hoping this satire.

Why?

The "Utopia justifies the means" sentiment.
The claim that humanity has not reached the apex of civilisation until it starts systematically murdering people.
The dehumanisation of those who commit murder into that of a "cancer".

This is what I'd expect from a Hammurab parody of death penalty advocates.

I didn't say 'utopia justifies the means'. I think protecting children from predators justifies the means.

Hence the sentiment.

I also didn't say anything about systematic murder.

What is capital punishment if not this?

And I don't see what's wrong with the rest of that claim - if we were truly civilised, we'd protect our weakest members, and we wouldn't make excuses for why we were NOT protecting them, and we wouldn't let the fact that it's unpleasant to kill someone to perpetuate risk.

If we were truly civilised, we wouldn't lower ourselves to the level of the worst members of our society.

As for dehumanising murders (you forgot rapists and child abusers) into a cancer - it's a metaphor. A cancerous cell is a cell that actively works against all the other cells, harming those other cells, and ultimately, killing the host.

As such, a murderer/rapist/child abuser is like a cancer in the body of a society. And we don't get all teary-eyed about the poor little cancer when we're treating the patient, and we don't assume that a civilised doctor would spare the poor little cancer cells even though it was going to hurt the patient.

See what I mean about dehumanisation?

It's all fine and well saying these people are cancers. But cancers aren't sentient, living beings who have feelings, emotions, memories and relationships. And cancers are always guilty of their crime, whereas you never know whether the paedophile, rapist or murderer in question has been wrongfully convicted. I take it, if a man was wrongfully convicted for murder and executed, the Jury and the Judge would have to be executed as well, since they are an accessory to murder and so threaten our society?

If there is a predator in your society... say, a rapist that preys on kids... and you DON'T kill him, you're an accessory to any future actions of that predator. The blood is on your hands.

Hence why you put them in prison.

Or are you arguing that there is no middle ground between executing paedos or letting them run amok?

[EvilDarkMagicians]

Nothing to do with revenge. It's all about removing the cancer.

This is the bit I don't particularly like. Why shouldn't we remove the mental health patients that have simply have no chance of ever getting better aren't they too a cancer on society?

[Sveltlande]

several things
firstly when it comes to death penalty i dont think there can be any shades of grey, you're either for it or against it. Those who say we'd onl;y reerve it for the worst are no better than those who watn to see it widely enforced.
Secondly i think the innocence thing is one of the most compelling arguments against the penalty, no court can be right all the time, which means the government will end up killing innocents, which us Brits and Americans seem to already be doing excessively enough anyway.

Moreover many would rather die than goe to prison for life and i think in a great many ways prison is a far far worse punishment (especially looking at your american prisons) but also cleaner , leading to less familial grief.
Finally to rehash what everyone else has said the government cannot have that power over its people. I think all governments should strong and protective but not that strong and protective.
which all boils down to America sucking in this regard
sorry my racism has been brought on the the UK/US football game last night...

[Grave_n_idle]

Nothing to do with revenge. It's all about removing the cancer.

This is the bit I don't particularly like. Why shouldn't we remove the mental health patients that have simply have no chance of ever getting better aren't they too a cancer on society?

I used cancer specifically because of what it does.

You could - if you were looking for a metaphor - say that those mental health patients were akin to a paralysed limb (for example) but certainly not actually akin to a cancer. Well, unless one of these perpetually unhealthy mental health patients was also killing people... in which case, I guess you could argue for cancer.

Now, we could have an argument about what we should do about the paralysed limb, but it's not the same argument as what we should do about cancer.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

Nothing to do with revenge. It's all about removing the cancer.

This is the bit I don't particularly like. Why shouldn't we remove the mental health patients that have simply have no chance of ever getting better aren't they too a cancer on society?

I used cancer specifically because of what it does.

Well both criminals and mental health patients can put a drain on the economy.
They can both breed more of themselves. (Criminals make more criminals in various ways, mental health patients have higher chances of having children with mental health problems).
They both can have can have a big anti-social impact although more likely criminals than people with mental health problems.

I think they can both qualify as cancers.

[Grave_n_idle]

What is capital punishment if not this?

The answer is in the question: "not this".

If we were truly civilised, we wouldn't lower ourselves to the level of the worst members of our society.

WHen someone puts down a rabid dog, you don't accuse them of being the worst person in society, just because what they had to do was unpleasant.

See what I mean about dehumanisation?

What I 'see' is that you don't appear to understand what metaphor is.

It's all fine and well saying these people are cancers. But cancers aren't sentient, living beings who have feelings, emotions, memories and relationships.

So?

You think the victims don't have those things?

Again - I didn't say that murderers ARE cancers, I compared them to cancers on the body of a society. You've got to stop making shit up. But I don't see the problem with dehumanising someone who has already chosen to dehumanise themselves, anyway - so the point is irrelevant.

And cancers are always guilty of their crime, whereas you never know whether the paedophile, rapist or murderer in question has been wrongfully convicted.

I haven't advocated killing innocent people. Only the guilty.

I take it, if a man was wrongfully convicted for murder and executed, the Jury and the Judge would have to be executed as well, since they are an accessory to murder and so threaten our society?

If you don't know the meaning of words, you should really try to avoid using them. CAse in point, this time: "murder".

Hence why you put them in prison.

From which they could escape, be freed by human intervention, or by natural phenomenon. None of which are acceptable.

Or are you arguing that there is no middle ground between executing paedos or letting them run amok?

This was already addressed.

[Grave_n_idle]

Nothing to do with revenge. It's all about removing the cancer.

This is the bit I don't particularly like. Why shouldn't we remove the mental health patients that have simply have no chance of ever getting better aren't they too a cancer on society?

I used cancer specifically because of what it does.

Well both criminals and mental health patients can put a drain on the economy.
They can both breed more of themselves. (Criminals make more criminals in various ways, mental health patients have higher chances of having children with mental health problems).
They both can have can have a big anti-social impact although more likely criminals than people with mental health problems.

I think they can both qualify as cancers.

That's your argument, not mine.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

Nothing to do with revenge. It's all about removing the cancer.

This is the bit I don't particularly like. Why shouldn't we remove the mental health patients that have simply have no chance of ever getting better aren't they too a cancer on society?

I used cancer specifically because of what it does.

Well both criminals and mental health patients can put a drain on the economy.
They can both breed more of themselves. (Criminals make more criminals in various ways, mental health patients have higher chances of having children with mental health problems).
They both can have can have a big anti-social impact although more likely criminals than people with mental health problems.

I think they can both qualify as cancers.

That's your argument, not mine.

Ok, so what qualities does a group have to have to be a cancer on society?

[Grave_n_idle]

Nothing to do with revenge. It's all about removing the cancer.

This is the bit I don't particularly like. Why shouldn't we remove the mental health patients that have simply have no chance of ever getting better aren't they too a cancer on society?

I used cancer specifically because of what it does.

Well both criminals and mental health patients can put a drain on the economy.
They can both breed more of themselves. (Criminals make more criminals in various ways, mental health patients have higher chances of having children with mental health problems).
They both can have can have a big anti-social impact although more likely criminals than people with mental health problems.

I think they can both qualify as cancers.

That's your argument, not mine.

Ok, so what qualities does a group have to have to be a cancer on society?

I would say that - to qualify as (metaphorical) cancer, one would actually have to work towards the detriment of the body.

You could argue a paralysed limb can be a hazard to a body, since it could get trapped in a machine, for example... but the paralysed limb doesn't actively harm the body the way cancer does, and I think you'd find doctors that would agree the things are similar, would be the exceptions.

[Hydesland]

I don't have any overwhelming moral objection to it, although I do object. I mainly just find it a rather pointless endeavour when it's attempted to be practically applied.

[UnitedNationss]

i only support it if killers,rapers,zombies, terrorists,or saddams osamas and obamas thats all who should die thats about it..

[BrightonBurg]

Yes.

Some people are so danerous,so outside the laws of nature and of man,like a mad dog,be put down.

[The Archiepelago]

I fully support the death penalty. Not to be used for petty crimes but like killers,gangs,rapists and terrorists.

[Hydesland]

i only support it if killers,rapers,zombies, terrorists,or saddams osamas and obamas thats all who should die thats about it..

wat

[Manahakatouki]

No, next question....

[UnitedNationss]

i only support it if killers,rapers,zombies, terrorists,or saddams osamas and obamas thats all who should die thats about it..

wat

yah i said it OBAMA

[Hydesland]

i only support it if killers,rapers,zombies, terrorists,or saddams osamas and obamas thats all who should die thats about it..

wat

yah i said it OBAMA

wat

[UnitedNationss]

i only support it if killers,rapers,zombies, terrorists,or saddams osamas and obamas thats all who should die thats about it..

wat

yah i said it OBAMA

wat

wat

[EvilDarkMagicians]

i only support it if killers,rapers,zombies, terrorists,or saddams osamas and obamas thats all who should die thats about it..

wat

yah i said it OBAMA

wat

wat

Who?

[UnitedNationss]

i only support it if killers,rapers,zombies, terrorists,or saddams osamas and obamas thats all who should die thats about it..

wat

yah i said it OBAMA

wat

wat

Who?

they should execute the current president Barak Obama

[Dumb Ideologies]

they should execute the current president Barak Obama

More information needed.

Who should execute the president? From what source does their legitimacy to override a decisive electoral victory derive?

[Desperate Measures]

No. There is no reason to kill a person already removed from society and it is cheaper not to and it is easier to correct a mistake that has been done to a person if that person is still among the living.

Putting someone in jail is never more than a temporary removal. At any point, the imprisoned criminal could escape, be let loose, or freed by fortuitous circumstance.

Execution is the only absolutely sure way to keep someone from returning to the public domain.

Also - how is it easier to correct a mistake if the person is stil lalive, than it is if they are dead? If they are dead, you just mumble 'oops' and it's done.

If they are freed, then the criminal has been deemed fit to return to society. If that was in error, then it is the justice system which must be reformed.
Saying, "Ooops" corrects nothing. The only way to truly correct the mistake is to raise the dead. Then you have the additional problem of a Zombie. And, may I say, the worst type of Zombie. A zombie out for revenge.

[Hydesland]

i only support it if killers,rapers,zombies, terrorists,or saddams osamas and obamas thats all who should die thats about it..

wat

yah i said it OBAMA

wat

wat

Who?

they should execute the current president Barak Obama

That's sexist.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

they should execute the current president Barak Obama

Wow I never though my silly interjection would get the response I was hoping for.