|
|
My moral beliefs are directly tied into my spiritual beliefs. There is no separating the two. The same goes for my social values and beliefs. This is also true for a large number of people. Many people would also declare that religion is the origin of morals and ethics. There have been a lot of recent hypotheses (please don't link to them) that declare that morals are learned as society evolves, but those are still just hypotheses, and at most theories. I personally contend that religion is the origin of morals. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that what we consider morals are merely genetic blueprints for survival. Not killing your neighbor and helping them instead helps them survive, so they help you survive. The species, therefore, survives. It's natural selection at its finest. No. First of all, not being politically correct does not kill a human being, the death penalty does. Second of all, it's not about offending people, it's about making a choice that is based in something we all agree on. And that's the conditions of life in prison. Death is not something everyone has the same view on, so it's not right to use death as some form of punishment or answer to anything. It's established what happens to you in the physical realm, but what happens to your person in the supernatural realm, if you believe in that, isn't known, and therefore I don't believe we should have the right to pass judgment on something like that with someone's life. No, I said killing someone is morally reprehensible. That means any form of killing, even in war. The difference is that war isn't always a choice. The death penalty is. And even though you may think they deserve it, who are YOU to decide what happens to someone, especially the leader of another country? They deserve to be in prison for all their years. Anything else is wrong. That's not actually what I was implying. I wasn't saying we base it on the will of the majority which is what Democracy is. I was saying that it should represent everyone, so if government is offending a minority (or in some other way wronging them), it's not doing its job. If we had it that way, women and gays and blacks wouldn't have rights because they aren't the majority (well, women might be now, but you get my point). So the government has to realize that when you are playing with death, it's not simply someone's life at stake (which should be bad enough on its own), but their afterlife. Personally, I don't believe in the afterlife (which is why the idea of life is so sacred to me), but many people do, and there are many different kinds of afterlife. For our government to ignore that obvious fact and act on its own accord is simply wrong. That's not even close to what I was trying to say. I was saying that as a secular nation, we should act as such. However, I DO believe that and maybe that was obvious in what I said, but it's not what I meant (because that has little to do with this debate). And I would disagree with you here, but let's leave it at that for now. Maybe the next debate can be about Secular Government. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again, the morals being evolutionary is simply hypotheses using logic but no proof. These ethics only apply at a basic level of the most grievous sins and really only for the initial rise of humans. Even then there are exceptions and debatable points (we should make that another debate).
Sure, political correctness doesn't get someone killed, but it is about not doing things that go against any one person's beliefs or views. The problem with what you've said is that we all don't agree on life imprisonment. I conceded that from certain perspective's that it is a harsher punishment, I did not concede that it is a harsher punishment. In fact, I believe that from the majority of perspectives it is considered the harshest punishment. I believe that there are certain crimes that justify capital punishment. I believe that there are crimes in which a person should no longer be allowed to live their life. Sure, life imprisonment is something that we all recognize as a punishment, but we don't all agree that it's the appropriate sentence.
Life imprisonment is something that you deem to be the least reprehensible, but to other people letting certain people live after what they've done is more reprehensible than the death penalty. So you're argument that all can agree on this doesn't work, because all can't and don't agree on this.
I am not the one to decide on the leader's punishment, the world is. The collective whole (more realistically the winning side) determines the fate. Who are they? They are the ones representing and protecting the rights of those who have been wronged, murdered and tortured.
Leaving those people alive (in terms of Hitler and Saddam) does make a difference. By not giving them the death penalty (given the option), you would have zealous followers who would murder, take hostage and do anything in attempt to set them free. Napoleon is an incredible example of this with his escape from Elba, causing far more deaths.
From the majority of beliefs, the afterlife is not at stake in the death penalty. Christians can confess and so on. The government does a good job of respecting religious wishes in terms of this.
|
|
|
|
|
after the first three posts, I'll be honest. I skipped the rest. Because I'm going to make it crystal clear. I believe in the death penalty, strongly. Especially for those who take a child's life. Do not tell me I'm ignorant for that. To throw it out there, my nine year old cousin (as many of you know this already) was murdered by her father. The state dropped the death penalty. So while he gets to live his life, she doesn't. She didn't get to grow up. She didn't get to have her first kiss, her first boyfriend, etc. Nothing. Because he selfishly wanted to act as if taking her life was his choice. And when you do that to a child, I think it automatically cancels out your right to say whether you should live or die. That should be up to the community/state that he/she lives around. Maybe I'm biased, but I honestly don't care. I don't think any of you could possibly understand my stance fully unless you had a child close to you that was murdered. Then tell me if you really think they deserve to live. It's like Casey Anthony (google her story if you don't know it). She's a horrifying monster. What she did to her daughter. I was ecstatic to hear they were seeking out the death penalty. All I can say is, I cheered for Florida that day.
Last Edit: Jan 13, 2010 10:44:30 GMT by Kay
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
after the first three posts, I'll be honest. I skipped the rest. Because I'm going to make it crystal clear. I believe in the death penalty, strongly. Especially for those who take a child's life. Do not tell me I'm ignorant for that. To throw it out there, my nine year old cousin (as many of you know this already) was murdered by her father. The state dropped the death penalty. So while he gets to live his life, she doesn't. She didn't get to grow up. She didn't get to have her first kiss, her first boyfriend, etc. Nothing. Because he selfishly wanted to act as if taking her life was his choice. And when you do that to a child, I think it automatically cancels out your right to say whether you should live or die. That should be up to the community/state that he/she lives around. Maybe I'm biased, but I honestly don't care. I don't think any of you could possibly understand my stance fully unless you had a child close to you that was murdered. Then tell me if you really think they deserve to live. It's like Casey Anthony (google her story if you don't know it). She's a horrifying monster. What she did to her daughter. I was ecstatic to hear they were seeking out the death penalty. All I can say is, I cheered for Florida that day. Two things: 1. She misses out on growing up. How does killing him change that? What happened, happened, and as terrible and horrid as that is (I couldn't even imagine), it's our job as a collective, civilized society to act with reason, not emotion. Killing him would change nothing of what happen. If we kill him out of our emotional response, we are the same as him. Not just because we are killing, but because we're acting on impulse and desire and not with logic and thought. 2. While I appreciate what you said and understand that it can't have been easy, I have to expect that you don't actually expect any counter-arguments (though my first point was exactly that, I don't expect a response; not because "I won", but because we both know that this will go nowhere). So while I don't mean to chastise you for posting, but you have to realize that your post offers no room for debate. That's what you believe and you'd made it very clear you don't intend to change. I'm sure none of us do, but we argue with some open-mindedness and with the intent of trying to convince the other person of our views (even if we know we probably won't). You, on the other hand, don't seem to wish to even argue. I'm not trying to sound like an ass, but I'm just trying to understand. Do you intend to debate? If so, I would suggest at least pretending to be more open-minded (it's no fun even trying to argue with someone who refuses to change). If not, then that's fine, and I'm glad you decided to share such a personal anecdote. It hits a bit closer to home (not nearly as much to me or anyone else as it does you, but still) and is definitely something Eric and I (and others in the future) should note and keep in mind. P.S. - If I come off as an uptight, pretentious ass when I post, that's just how I get when I debate. I start going for colorful imagery, pull out all the stops on my vocabulary, and I dare say if you read it aloud, you'd want to do so with a British accent. I think it's because I get loud in person. Since I can't get louder on the internet, I think I try to talk "smarter". It's all subconscious, of course, but even I noticed it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well Luci, that's not entirely true. This debate is pretty close to home for me as well. My sister was murdered several years back. Logically I know the guy who didn't doesn't deserve the death penalty. However, emotionally I don't want him to get the death penalty either. What I want emotionally is for me to be able to torture him until he goes catatonic from the amount of pain he experiences. If he dies after that, that's fine, if not, whatever. Emotionally I'm much less humane than the death penalty.
However, I'm willing to forfeit my personal wants and allow the state to make what judgment they will and I can accept whatever punishment they decide upon.
I'd have to agree with Kay that child murderers deserve the death penalty. It's not about "undoing the crime." It's about showing the person who committed the crime (as well as society) what the value of innocent life is. This crime is not anything that should even be thought about or done again. With whatever time a person is given until the death penalty, they will feel remorse, guilt and fear a million-fold what they will in a lifetime sentence of prison.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And the second they're killed, they're released from that punishment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but the point was that in that amount of time they will experience it far worse than given a lifetime sentence. Also, it shows the point that you do not fuck with (for lack of better phrasing on my part) innocent life. You fuck with innocent life and you pay the ultimate price.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but the point was that in that amount of time they will experience it far worse than given a lifetime sentence. Also, it shows the point that you do not fuck with (for lack of better phrasing on my part) innocent life. You fuck with innocent life and you pay the ultimate price. But again, how would that change anything? They're in prison now. Do we need to deliver this final, unnecessary message to someone who we know can't kill again if we just locked them up forever?
|
|
|
|
|
|
It shows both them as well as the whole of society this message.
Your argument is like telling a child that if they eat any of the cookies they're getting grounded. Then when they eat a cookie instead of grounding them you just get rid of the cookies, because that way they can't eat any cookies.
Locking them away might keep them out of society, which you're saying makes them taken care of. The point of prison is not to remove these people from society, but to punish them and make them pay and suffer for their crimes. Losing your life is the ultimate punishment.
Just putting them in prison is not just (for some murders, not claiming all, but child murders are a good example). It simply removes them from society and makes it so they can't commit the crime again. You're saying once they're there, it makes no difference to the rest of us, but it does. It shows us that people can completely trample our rights and destroy (literally) our lives without facing the appropriate retribution. There is a higher order to things, and that order needs to be enforced.
These people don't respect the rights of others, and have violated basic human rights. They have forfeited their human rights. Removing the death penalty is enforcing these rights to the very people who violated them, while ignoring the rights of the victim who had them taken from them.
The living-victims of murders have forfeited taking personal punishment for the sake of allowing the government to enact justice. Without the death penalty, the punishment for certain crimes cannot be just.
The death penalty does not make society murderers, it does not make the government murderers, and it does not make those who give it as a sentence murderers. The only murderer is the one who committed the crime, and they are responsible for their own death if they receive capital punishment.
|
|
|
|
|
First of all, skip to 1:45 for some light-hearted humor on the topic.Second of all, let me ask you this. Is it still just if your actions are inhumane? It is inhumane to kill someone, so even if that's the only fair punishment, is it necessarily just in that case? If someone was caught torturing children, but they weren't killed, what would we do with them? Kill them? They didn't kill anyone. Torture them? I think that's something we can agree is inhumane. So...life in prison? Really (as cliche as it sounds), are we going to stoop to their level just for some distortion of justice? What would you say if you found out someone was murdered, and while they were murdered someone stood by and watched. They raised no objections, they didn't call the police, they did absolutely nothing to stop them. How is that any different than citizens standing by saying, "give 'em the chair"? And, I haven't brought this up yet, but I think it's time I do. What happens when we execute someone who is innocent? Is collateral damage the price you're willing to pay so our punishments are a little more just (despite being absolute 0% more effective than the non-lethal alternative).
|
|
|
|
|
|
I no where said that a just punishment is the same as what they did. So bringing up torture as a response to torture is completely unnecessary and off-base. Even some things that aren't murder could still deserve the death penalty.
You seem to think as "just" as doing what they did back to them, but that's not the case. Just is giving them a punishment fit for what they have done. That does not equate to what they have done. You seem to have a skewed view of what justice is.
The death penalty is completely painless and sure it ends life, but it is not cruel and it is not sadistic. It is not stooping to their level in any way. They have taken (or ruined) a human life out of greed or some other selfish reason. Their life is taken in turn to restore what is fair and right. As I said before, should they receive the death penalty it is as though they did it themselves. If I steal and go to jail, I put myself there. Society is not the one that put me there, nor is the judge nor are the jurors. You put capital punishment as though it is a crime of society, but it is not. Anyone who receives it is responsible for it themselves. Those who carry it out are not guilty in least.
It's entirely different. The citizens are seeking the punishment of someone who hurt one of their own, who destroyed a life that was (for the most part) innocent. It's not standing by while an innocent life is taken. The person getting "the chair" has committed crimes against humanity and has shown that they do not belong in this world and that they do not deserve to live the rest of their life.
0% more effective at what? Preventing another death from that person? See above about how that's not the point of the death penalty.
You cannot remove punishments simply because there is no way to guarantee their guilt. That's like having a society with no consequences just because there is no definitive proof that someone is guilty. It is not the punishment that is flawed, but the system by which guilt is determined. Advancements in that would prevent this from happening. Imprisoning an innocent person for a lifetime is no better than the death penalty. Should we therefore not do life imprisonments? Hell no, we should just do a better job making sure of guilt and try to create an even more flawless system for determining it. Our system is supposed to be "beyond the shadow of a doubt." If it is indeed so, then there is no problem with the punishment.
|
|
|
|
|
I no where said that a just punishment is the same as what they did. So bringing up torture as a response to torture is completely unnecessary and off-base. Even some things that aren't murder could still deserve the death penalty. You seem to think as "just" as doing what they did back to them, but that's not the case. Just is giving them a punishment fit for what they have done. That does not equate to what they have done. You seem to have a skewed view of what justice is. Wrong. That's what your perception is as I understood it. I see life in prison as the just response, but I interpreted your argument as "an eye for an eye". That means literally that. Someone stabs out your eye, you stab our theirs. Someone takes a life, you have a right to take theirs (or, in this case, the government does). I was by no means trying to suggest that it was just in that sense. I was humoring what I thought to be your belief of what is just. I'm assuming you don't think that since you disagree with the situations I presented. First of all, there have been SEVERAL accounts of where the anesthetic doses were far too low and the murderer experienced extreme agony. It's entirely cruel. Maybe not all the time, but if we're going to take a human life, we can sure as fuck take 2 minutes to make sure we get the doses right. But they don't. Again, who are you to decide that? Who are any of us? We can lock them away and steal their freedoms and rights. But the right to live is not something anyone should be allowed to take. That's exactly why you think we should kill them. Because they've committed the ultimate unforgivable crime. But how does killing them change that? How is giving them a "less just" punishment change anything? It has the exact same effect for all intents and purposes, so why do we have to kill them? I don't see how there can be any other point to killing someone. Killing someone for stealing a keychain will deter someone from stealing a keychain. That's why we have punishments. To regain what was lost and to prevent further crimes from happening. Murder cannot be detered and no punishment can regain what was lost. So why do more than what is necessary? Life in prison is the most we should ever ask for. You're still not understanding what I'm saying. When you take a human life, it is gone. Forever. If you put an innocent person in prison, they've been wronged, but they're still alive and will likely, in most cases, be released and compensated. There's always time to turn back and fix things. But once someone is dead, it doesn't matter if they were innocent or not. They're dead. Nothing can change that. And that's the issue. Because you are suggesting that we level a punishment that cannot be revoked on to people that could possibly be innocent. By the way, there have been cases of innocent people on death row. Luckily, they were caught before they were killed. But it's too late to say that about everyone. Also, if you're interested (or bored and feel like wasting half an hour), check out these videos. You may not agree with them, but I think you should watch them. I was pro-death penalty when I first saw this episode. It's not the reason I changed my views, but even disagreeing with what they say, I think you'll find it interesting like I did. www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAz3gpqi7Rgwww.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL9snaUXJAYwww.youtube.com/watch?v=AqawGQJme2w
|
|
|
|
|
As far as the anesthetic not working, that's not something that I can control. It's not like I'm pro-pain in the death penalty. We should constantly seek the most painless method for it. As far as the innocent people being put on death row, I have said Just because the system for determining guilt is flawed it does not mean that the punishment is flawed. If I know someone is innocent and going to death row and I can do something about it, I will. If I don't, then go ahead and count me as a murderer. Wrong. Punishments are not for that. Punishments are for giving a repercussion to the person who committed the crime. When a child is punished for stealing, it's because they wronged another person. They shouldn't stop stealing because they don't want to be punished, but because they don't want to wrong another person. Our society forgets this all the time because a lot of people have a mentality of, "Well, if I can get away with it..." It's not about not getting caught, it's not about not getting punished, it's about not harming another human being. Who am I? I am a member of society, as are all of us. Together we have defined a set of rights that all humans have and laws by which we will abide. Our agreement is that we will obey this laws and respect these rights in exchange for living as a part of the society. The collection of laws and punishments for breaking the laws are decided and defined by society. By breaking the law, you have already agreed to the punishment by living among society. Of course even past that (into the part that can't really be debated), God has mandated that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for certain crimes. So even if I can't decide, God certainly can in my belief system as well as many others. Killing/exterminating/removing (whatever word you want to use) the criminal is: 1) Not to undo what they've done. You're right, what's done is done. My agreement with the death penalty is not to change the past. 2) Not to prevent them for killing again. It might be an added bonus, but it's not the reason. 3) To punish them for what they have done; to give consequence to action. To give a fair response to their crime. In what way does it have the same effect aside from removing them from society? Past that the effect is entirely different. Let me state this: I have absolutely no compassion, no sympathy and no respect for anyone who has murdered in cold blood. I sympathize with the victims, the ones who has been wronged. Edit: Also, watched the videos. Slightly interesting. Didn't really change my views unless maybe reinforcing my belief in the death penalty.
Last Edit: Jan 14, 2010 4:02:24 GMT by Eric
|
|
|
|
|
As far as the anesthetic not working, that's not something that I can control. It's not like I'm pro-pain in the death penalty. We should constantly seek the most painless method for it. As far as the innocent people being put on death row, I have said Just because the system for determining guilt is flawed it does not mean that the punishment is flawed. If I know someone is innocent and going to death row and I can do something about it, I will. If I don't, then go ahead and count me as a murderer. You openly support a system that you agree is flawed to the point of potentially ending innocent life. I'm sorry, but I have no argument for that. We're friends, but I just can't believe that. That is terrible. Also, if you watch those videos (I didn't watch them and I know some stuff is edited out, so I'm not sure if this was actually in it), you'll see towards the end the woman mentions the paradox that murder is killing someone who is innocent. When we execute someone who is innocent, that makes us murderers. Now what? Should we not also be killed? No really. If an innocent person is executed, that is murder. You cannot refute that. And if murder is punishable by death, now who do we execute for that crime? For morally straight people, yes. For criminals, it's about not getting caught and not getting punished. We wouldn't need punishments for anything if we all knew not to harm human beings (either physically or metaphorically, like through stealing). And I think most of us could live our lives without punishments for most of our actions. Criminals, on the other hand, ignore punishments when they break the law. The harsher the punishment, the more it deters (and, like I said, the punishment also regains what is loss). If murder cannot be deterred and a murder victim cannot be saved, then how does doing anything more than life in prison help anything? Anything more is nothing more than revenge. The problem is that you don't agree that the death penalty deters murders. And if you don't agree with that, then my above argument is invalid. And if that's the case, this can go nowhere. And as a member of society, we have the right to punish and jail those who wish to harm other members of society. But the right to take a human life is not a right we have. I don't know how else to stress this. You seem to think that a single action is grounds for taking away a person's entire life. How? People change. People make mistakes. I'm not saying we should give them a second chance, but to condemn someone's life over a single action. I can't agree to that. But where does God say that not adhering to an eye for an eye is a sin? Just because you may find it morally correct based on YOUR beliefs, we have to represent all beliefs while doing our best to enact justice. Life in prison, though perhaps not as satisfying to you and others, is an unbiased punishment that serves just as much of a purpose as the death penalty. And how is life in prison not punishing them? And even if you think it's a lesser punishment, you have to remember, they are in prison FOR LIFE. It's not like they're "getting away with it". They're not walking the streets again in freedom instead of dying. They are in virtually the same position they would be if they were killed, except they're still breathing and thinking and maybe changing their ways. Every single person you meet in life has an impact on your life. Just because the murderer had a negative impact on someone's life (or many people's) doesn't mean they can't have a positive impact while they're locked away in prison. At that point, they can do positive or they can do nothing. That, or they can be killed and simply do nothing. I'm not asking to forgive them. I'm not asking to understand them. I'm saying you have to realize that even murderers are people. They are humans. They can make change in positive directions, too. And most of them probably won't, but there is a 100% chance they won't if they die. And seeing as we lose absolutely NOTHING by keeping them alive in prison (other than an arguably lesser punishment than what they deserve), why not? Like I said, for all intents and purposes. It removes them from society and they are forced to live the life we dictate. They are being punished and we are being protected. How much more can you ask for? What if we tortured them? Or randomly didn't feed them? Or denied them a bathroom and hygiene? There are a lot of things we can do to them to inflict a harsher punishment while keeping them alive. Just as a thought experiment, what would be an equivalent punishment that wouldn't kill them? In your opinion. This isn't a trap or loaded question. It's honestly just out of curiosity. I have no compassion or sympathy or respect either. But that doesn't give me the right to take their life. Also, I'm glad you watched the videos. I didn't expect them to change your views, but I thought you might find them interesting and they were topical.
|
|
|
|
|
No, I do not openly support a system that kills innocent. How the hell did you read that? No where did I say "if an innocent person dies, so be it." And that's not a paradox. We are not knowingly taking an innocent person's life. We (for the most part, save perhaps lawyers, who I would then agree are murderers) are trying to take a guilty person's life. If I'm in the destruction work and I detonate a building that I have checked and re-checked to be cleared of human life, but somehow someone was still in that building, does that make me a murderer? I wouldn't think so. As far as the bit around the for morally straight people, you're not really getting it. It doesn't matter whether or not criminals care or ignore the punishment. The reason they don't commit crime should not be to not get punished. The reason they shouldn't commit the crime is to not harm another human. They are being punished not for breaking a rule, but for harming another human. And in this case for murdering another human. Here's the problem with the lady's logic on the three types of murders. The ones done out of greed (the cold blooded ones) are done by people that don't expect to get caught. However, is it at all possible to count the number of people that would murder if they thought they'd get caught but not the death sentence? As in, I'm ok if I get caught, as long as I don't get the death sentence. Even these murderers (or would be murderers) know that there's a chance of being caught, they knows this. And for those who are scared of death, that might off-put them from murder. Those who would kill in cold blood could be affected by the death penalty, but it's probably not something that could easily be measured in numbers. You claim that one action is not enough to define a person, but if you state that then I don't think you know how truly horrid a cold blooded murder is. That person has such a degree of selfishness that they are willing to end and destroy an innocent person's life for their fucked up wants. Giving them a chance to make up this action is an act of forgiveness. Forgiveness should not be the primary focus of our judicial system, but rather justice should. As I also said, I don't even view it like we gave them the death penalty. They gave themselves the death penalty. We are not responsible for the crimes that they have committed. They are responsible for it and for the punishment of doing so. As a personal (I know it's wrong to feel this way) belief, I don't even consider anyone that commits murder human. I see them as less than human, probably even less than animal. However, it's kind of hard not to feel that way when you've had experiences with it. Dude, enough with the eye for an eye crap. I have already said that's not what I believe and I made that pretty damn clear, so stop using that phrase as though I believe it. However, in Judaism, Christianity, Islam and almost all major religions declare the death penalty is an acceptable punishment. You can look it up for the individual ones. It has nothing to do with "satisfying" those of us who believe in the death penalty. Do you think it satisfies me when someone dies? Just think of how fucked up that sounds. I'm not sure if that was just a poor choice of words or if that's how you think we who believe in God view someone getting the death penalty. You're saying that we should represent all beliefs, but I have already said that in this current system that is impossible. Only life imprisonment is representing your beliefs, which is as the video said only 36 (or 34, whichever) percent of the countries beliefs. Only life imprisonment does not still represent our beliefs. I never said that life imprisonment wasn't punishing them. I said the point of the death penalty is to punish them, but I also threw in the word fair in there. I didn't think I'd have to put it in all 3 parts (not trying to sound like an ass, I actually thought about it but didn't). The death penalty is the just punishment for what they have done. I didn't say that life imprisonment is letting them get away with it, but it is not giving them the punishment that their actions have warranted. They've had a negative impact on someone's life? Wow, that is such a light way of wording what they have done. They have destroyed a life. Prevented it from living. Taken away any and all future of an innocent person. Any words I try to use to describe this are inadequate, but negative impact take's the cake. By destroying life they have forsaken any rights they have to life and to try to improve. There does exist a low from which you cannot rise from (like child murderers). No matter how many good deeds they would do it would not amount to the justice of giving them the death penalty. There is no punishment aside from the death penalty that we could give them that would not be inhumane. Torture, pain, anything else is simply being cruel and brutal. I don't see the death penalty as cruel. How did you go from supporting the death penalty to not? You had it right in the first place.
Last Edit: Jan 14, 2010 6:05:51 GMT by Eric
|
|
|
