Execution

[All Else Failed]

sometimes, but not always. And that isn't necessarily a bad thing, IMO


The truth according to YOU, so it's your truth not mine. Execution is not state mandated murder - it's a sentence.

Nothing? You're so slanted. One person (executioner) is carrying out a duty as it relates to a legal sentence on a deserving person and the other person (murderer) willfully, wantonly and violently took another person's life undeservedly.

You mean to tell me that you cannot see that?

Tell me how revenge can be good. Besides curing emotions you may feel at that time (not that revenge does this every time vengeance is exacted.).

I could say that same for you and your arguments. The truth according to YOU. Plus what you said doesn't change anything, you just called it a sentence, and its an unjust one at that.



lol oh sweet baby jesus every time I state something that is widely excepted I'm somehow slanted. The executioner is also taking the life of someone wantonly, he DOESN'T have to do it, he can just walk away. It is his decision to kill the person, no one is stopping him from just saying "no.". Plus, you assume some people are "deserving" of death.

 

[NightWarrior]

Tell me how revenge can be good. Besides curing emotions you may feel at that time (not that revenge does this every time vengeance is exacted.).

I could say that same for you and your arguments. The truth according to YOU. Plus what you said doesn't change anything, you just called it a sentence, and its an unjust one at that.



lol oh sweet baby jesus every time I state something that is widely excepted I'm somehow slanted. The executioner is also taking the life of someone wantonly, he DOESN'T have to do it, he can just walk away. It is his decision to kill the person, no one is stopping him from just saying "no.". Plus, you assume some people are "deserving" of death.

I accept that you are right, except for 99.9% of the time.

 

[All Else Failed]

I wasn't talking about myself. 0_o

 

[Peter Parka]

open your mind

Haha, shame others cant do that around here!

 

[Maritxu]

sometimes, but not always. And that isn't necessarily a bad thing, IMO


The truth according to YOU, so it's your truth not mine. Execution is not state mandated murder - it's a sentence.

Nothing? You're so slanted. One person (executioner) is carrying out a duty as it relates to a legal sentence on a deserving person and the other person (murderer) willfully, wantonly and violently took another person's life undeservedly.

You mean to tell me that you cannot see that?

1-Revenge is a bad thing. Specially for the one who takes revenge. I'd like to think I won't ever think something is that worth it.
2-Def it's different to kill than to execute a sentence, I agree. As I already said twice before today, it doesn't mean the second one is good. I def couldn't execute someone, sorry.

 

[Maritxu]

In that country it does.
What country are you referring to, BTW, or are you pulling this out of your ass?

Do you seriously think that because something is legal, it becomes right? I guess that then, the fact that when a woman is raped in some countries, they sentence her to death penalty (yeah, the victim) is just there too, huh? I'm sorry but none of that makes sense. What is just is just, because it is, it doesn't depend on God, law, the goverment or anybody. I def don't want to argue about moral developement stages, but I would hope you understand where I'm comming from

 

[groundpounder]

Do you seriously think that because something is legal, it becomes right? I guess that then, the fact that when a woman is raped in some countries, they sentence her to death penalty (yeah, the victim) is just there too, huh?

Not in the least, and my statement may have inadvertently implied that if someone read too much into it. No way is something right just because it's legal. Imminent domain is one of the best examples of that. Capital punishment for someone convicted of a heinous crime by a jury of his/her peers, however, is not one of them IMO.

I'm sorry but none of that makes sense.

There are plenty of laws on many different levels of governance (local/state/provincal/territorial/national) that just don't make sense. Asinine, out of date, inapplicable, obtuse, severe, abused - you name it. What I meant when I said what I said is a glorified version of "When in Rome, do as the Romans." A person could have a highly evolved sense of justice but if they spit on the sidewalk in certain places, there's going to be hell to pay. Know your surroundings.

What is just is just, because it is, it doesn't depend on God, law, the goverment or anybody. I def don't want to argue about moral developement stages, but I would hope you understand where I'm comming from

Absolutely, and this statement here is as good as any that I've seen in this thread. While what's just is just, the law is the law and sometimes they don't jive.

 

[All Else Failed]

You can try to justify state mandated murder all you want, but in the end, you must look at the deep ethical and moral situations a person(s) is put into when deciding whether or not to execute (willingly murder someone) a individual.

 

[groundpounder]

execution = sentence carried out.
murder = wanton violent act.

both = cessation of life, but execution does not = murder.

Why is that so hard?

 

[All Else Failed]

execution = sentence carried out.
murder = wanton violent act.

both = cessation of life, but execution does not = murder.

Why is that so hard?

No, you're botching definitions. The only thing that makes something a sentence is the position of the person prescribing it, which is inherently flawed since no human should have say over who dies, no one is in that kind of position, judge-jury or otherwise. When jury sentences a person to death THEY THEMSELVES are wantonly (maliciously) taking someone's life with premeditated convictions.

 

[groundpounder]

so now we're putting the wanton violence back on the jury instead of the guy "flicking the switch/inserting the needle"

you're all over the place on this one.

 

[All Else Failed]

so now we're putting the wanton violence back on the jury instead of the guy "flicking the switch/inserting the needle"

you're all over the place on this one.

I'm not saying we are putting all the wanton violence on the jury instead of the murderer, the act they are both committing as more or less equal depending on the crime. The murderer has committed a violent act, and the jury sentencing him to death is also committing a violent act. They might as well just shoot him there.

 

[Agony]

Execution is a magnificent way to deal with criminals. Honestly, death is demonized so much these days it makes us lose sight of whats important. The whole purpose of putting criminals in prison is to appeal to general society's higher standards of living, we don't want to be around those kinds of people so we imprison them. But why should we also be forced to pay year after year to keep these people alive? We should really do away with all repeat offenders because people don't ever change and there is no point in burdening the rest of us just because some people can't meet our standards. It may sound harsh, but it really isn't...death is only death, you're alive one moment and gone the next, nothing inhumane or evil about it.

 

[All Else Failed]

Execution is a magnificent way to deal with criminals. Honestly, death is demonized so much these days it makes us lose sight of whats important. The whole purpose of putting criminals in prison is to appeal to general society's higher standards of living, we don't want to be around those kinds of people so we imprison them. But why should we also be forced to pay year after year to keep these people alive? We should really do away with all repeat offenders because people don't ever change and there is no point in burdening the rest of us just because some people can't meet our standards. It may sound harsh, but it really isn't...death is only death, you're alive one moment and gone the next, nothing inhumane or evil about it.

1) Plenty of people on death row that were "convicted" were found to be innocent

2) I know you won't accept this, but execution is barbaric and a civilized society should have better ways of dealing with criminals.

3) No one should be in the position of ordering people to death, slippery slope.

4) Real murderers are terrible, but they still have rights like anyone else, we can't just ignore them because our emotions get in the way. They just don't magically go away, although limited.

5) People can change. Not all murderers are the same.

6) You're right, death is death. Theres no going back, and its the ultimate price in this reality. So when then, I ask you, should we just flippantly toss the death penalty around like it was like nothing that carries any ethical weight to it?

 

[Agony]

1) Plenty of people on death row that were "convicted" were found to be innocent

2) I know you won't accept this, but execution is barbaric and a civilized society should have better ways of dealing with criminals.

3) No one should be in the position of ordering people to death, slippery slope.

4) Real murderers are terrible, but they still have rights like anyone else, we can't just ignore them because our emotions get in the way. They just don't magically go away, although limited.

5) People can change. Not all murderers are the same.

6) You're right, death is death. Theres no going back, and its the ultimate price in this reality. So when then, I ask you, should we just flippantly toss the death penalty around like it was like nothing that carries any ethical weight to it?

1) True, but if they're dead I really don't think they'll care too much. Sure just up until they die they'll be pissed, but once they die they really won't have a problem with it.

2) Oh please, your narrow minded views of what is and isn't "barbaric" is nothing more than opinion. I think your archaic views on death itself is barbaric, uneducated and savage. My reasoning behind this is that man only fears death because it is the unknown, I say we embrace the unknown.

3) Agreed, no one should be in charge of execution, thats why we have a jury of peers.

4) Convicted murderers don't have rights, many of their so called "rights" are revoked the moment they break the laws and standards of society.

5) Nobody ever truely changes, nobody. I know its hard to accept, but its the truth. No matter where you go or who you meet, people never really change at all.

6) No, we should not bring ethics in when punishing people, ethics change like the wind and the tide, we need hard concrete law in place instead.

 

[All Else Failed]

1) True, but if they're dead I really don't think they'll care too much. Sure just up until they die they'll be pissed, but once they die they really won't have a problem with it.

2) Oh please, your narrow minded views of what is and isn't "barbaric" is nothing more than opinion. I think your archaic views on death itself is barbaric, uneducated and savage. My reasoning behind this is that man only fears death because it is the unknown, I say we embrace the unknown.

3) Agreed, no one should be in charge of execution, thats why we have a jury of peers.

4) Convicted murderers don't have rights, many of their so called "rights" are revoked the moment they break the laws and standards of society.

5) Nobody ever truely changes, nobody. I know its hard to accept, but its the truth. No matter where you go or who you meet, people never really change at all.

6) No, we should not bring ethics in when punishing people, ethics change like the wind and the tide, we need hard concrete law in place instead.

1) So you are willing to kill innocent people. Now I can see who I am dealing with.

2) No, civilized society has largely phased out many barbaric practices, the death penalty is simply a hold over. I would like to hear why you think me thinking that state mandated murder is wrong is somehow archaic, I think it will be entertaining. If you want to embrace the unknown, why haven't you offed yourself yet? Practice what you preach.

3) The peers ARE in charge of a person's sentence. They are one in a body and as a group.

4) Actually no, prisoners do not lose all of their rights when they commit a crime. I thought that was basic, readily available knowledge but apparently not.

5) Any psychologist will tell you that people are certainly capable of change. Its been observed and tested.

6) Um, the law is based on ethics. Perhaps you should study Greek thought.

 

[Agony]

1) So you are willing to kill innocent people. Now I can see who I am dealing with.

2) No, civilized society has largely phased out many barbaric practices, the death penalty is simply a hold over. I would like to hear why you think me thinking that state mandated murder is wrong is somehow archaic, I think it will be entertaining. If you want to embrace the unknown, why haven't you offed yourself yet? Practice what you preach.

3) The peers ARE in charge of a person's sentence. They are one in a body and as a group.

4) Actually no, prisoners do not lose all of their rights when they commit a crime. I thought that was basic, readily available knowledge but apparently not.

5) Any psychologist will tell you that people are certainly capable of change. Its been observed and tested.

6) Um, the law is based on ethics. Perhaps you should study Greek thought.

1) I would phrase it differently...its not so much that I'm willing to kill innocent people as I am capable of making sacrifices for the greater good.

2) I do embrace the unknown, each and every day. Death is just one of many unknowns...I have no fear of death but I am in no particular rush to meet it. I'm the kind of person who would kill himself one day simply out of curiosity to see what else awaits, but there are plenty of unknowns held in life too. If I died this moment I would be perfectly fine with it though.

3) Oh, so you don't think democracy is a stable form of rule? You don't think an overwhelming majority of individuals with a common viewpoint should pass law and judgment? So what form of government DO you prefer?

4) I never said they lose ALL their rights, I suggest you learn the meaning of reading comprehension. I said many rights are revoked when a person is imprisoned, they still retain many rights but its not like they can't walk down to the store and buy a loaf of bread or visit their family.

5) Well, I will retract my statement that nobody ever changes...it can happen...most assuredly though we as a society need to progress much faster with the science of brain surgery and memory manipulation.

6) But ethics only exist as a means of basic law. I mean c'mon, all ethics really are is "if you scratch my back I'll scratch yours". No need to get emotional or spiritual about it whatsoever.

 

[All Else Failed]

1) I would phrase it differently...its not so much that I'm willing to kill innocent people as I am capable of making sacrifices for the greater good.

2) I do embrace the unknown, each and every day. Death is just one of many unknowns...I have no fear of death but I am in no particular rush to meet it. I'm the kind of person who would kill himself one day simply out of curiosity to see what else awaits, but there are plenty of unknowns held in life too. If I died this moment I would be perfectly fine with it though.

3) Oh, so you don't think democracy is a stable form of rule? You don't think an overwhelming majority of individuals with a common viewpoint should pass law and judgment? So what form of government DO you prefer?

4) I never said they lose ALL their rights, I suggest you learn the meaning of reading comprehension. I said many rights are revoked when a person is imprisoned, they still retain many rights but its not like they can't walk down to the store and buy a loaf of bread or visit their family.

5) Well, I will retract my statement that nobody ever changes...it can happen...most assuredly though we as a society need to progress much faster with the science of brain surgery and memory manipulation.

6) But ethics only exist as a means of basic law. I mean c'mon, all ethics really are is "if you scratch my back I'll scratch yours". No need to get emotional or spiritual about it whatsoever.

1) So how is killing an innocent man achieving any sort of "good"?

2) I agree that life has many unknowns, but if I read you correctly, you are too flippant in pushing your view of embracing the unknown (death) into other people's lives.

3) No, democracy is a great form of rule. I wouldn't prefer anything else (well, maybe slightly modified) but my point has nothing to do with voting. It has to do with hypocrisy.


"He killed someone! What a terrible thing to do! What a monster!"


"How should we deal out justice with this monster!?"


"I know, lets do the exact same thing to him, but its ok because we're acting out of fear and emotion and since a bunch of people say murdering someone back is ok, its MUST be ok!"


"three cheers for no common sense!"



Utter hypocrisy.


4) "Convicted murderers don't have rights". Thats an absolute statement, then you go on to say "many of their so called "rights" are revoked" which contradicts your aforementioned statement. Which is it?


5) Yes, Science can help us create better people, I agree with you there.


6) Ethics have nothing to do with spirituality. Logic and ethics go hand in hand, which are secular ideals. I am not clear on what you mean by "if you scratch my back I'll scratch yours". Ethics aren't about that.







I'm going to bed. I'll pick this up tomorrow. I THINK we may have started off on the wrong foot....haha. No hard feelings, eh?

 

[Agony]

1) So how is killing an innocent man achieving any sort of "good"?

2) I agree that life has many unknowns, but if I read you correctly, you are too flippant in pushing your view of embracing the unknown (death) into other people's lives.

3) No, democracy is a great form of rule. I wouldn't prefer anything else (well, maybe slightly modified) but my point has nothing to do with voting. It has to do with hypocrisy.


"He killed someone! What a terrible thing to do! What a monster!"


"How should we deal out justice with this monster!?"


"I know, lets do the exact same thing to him, but its ok because we're acting out of fear and emotion and since a bunch of people say murdering someone back is ok, its MUST be ok!"


"three cheers for no common sense!"



Utter hypocrisy.


4) "Convicted murderers don't have rights". Thats an absolute statement, then you go on to say "many of their so called "rights" are revoked" which contradicts your aforementioned statement. Which is it?


5) Yes, Science can help us create better people, I agree with you there.


6) Ethics have nothing to do with spirituality. Logic and ethics go hand in hand, which are secular ideals. I am not clear on what you mean by "if you scratch my back I'll scratch yours". Ethics aren't about that.







I'm going to bed. I'll pick this up tomorrow. I THINK we may have started off on the wrong foot....haha. No hard feelings, eh?

1) Look at it this way, instead of having thousands of criminals in prison draining our resources and contributing nothing, we kill them all...sure a few innocent people here and there would die, but overall it would benefite society as a whole. [I'm not saying necessarily to kill them all, but just making a point.]

2) If you don't push people in one direction or another, nothing will ever happen.

3) I am a firm believer in the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" sense of justice. You kill someone you pay with your own life...not out of fear but out of equal payment.

4) Yeah I said they don't have rights but in the same sentence and many times after I said "many rights", you really shouldn't need me to point out every little detail for you, you honestly couldn't have figured out what I meant otherwise? If actually so them please let me know, I'll make an effort to be perfectly clear and on spot with every sentence typed henceforth.

5) Haaah, see now we're reaching some common ground. We'll get back to this later.

6) My point was that ethics are simply a means by which we look out for our own self interests by appealing to other people's self interests and sense of reasoning with one another. Bah, I'm too tired now, maybe pick this up later. Agreed, no hard feelings, I never let feelings get in the way of such discussions.

 

[All Else Failed]

1) Look at it this way, instead of having thousands of criminals in prison draining our resources and contributing nothing, we kill them all...sure a few innocent people here and there would die, but overall it would benefite society as a whole. [I'm not saying necessarily to kill them all, but just making a point.]



I simply cannot accept this concept. This is the main idea I disagree with you on. Life has value, even a scum bag's life retains value.


I think it would just have the opposite effect on society....American culture is already incredibly saturated with violence and death, if those in power whom we are supposed to trust slaughter humans like pigs, then what kind of example is that to the people?