Would you support the reintroduction of the death penalty?

Cedrus · 07-08-2013 10:43PM

epluribusunum wrote: »

................... You are twisting my message actually. ................

Oh the irony!

(Probably doesn't understand irony though, judging by the dictionary and grammar, I'd say this poster is a pond crosser, the loud kind, with tartan pants. They get sarcasm and irony all mixed up over there)

epluribusunum · 07-08-2013 10:48PM

Cedrus wrote: »

Oh the irony!

(Probably doesn't understand irony though, judging by the dictionary and grammar, I'd say this poster is a pond crosser, the loud kind, with tartan pants. They get sarcasm and irony all mixed up over there)

English is my second language out of 3.

According to a philosophical text it says there is an emotional aspect. Maybe this has been degraded since then, but at least at one point it was the case. And just because it is no longer associated with it currently does not mean it is wrong. I do not know, you tell me you are probably an Irishman who cannot speak Irish "for fcuk sake."

Also, the point of the word was that she said a human is a sentient human being and therefore the death penalty is wrong. Lethal injection is not as painful as getting blown up by a bomb. Is this not true?

And having lived in both, I can assure you the Irish are louder than the Americans.

namloc1980 · 07-08-2013 10:59PM

jank wrote: »

You are perpetuating the same old tired arguemnts of a liberal arts student. We appoint judges and juries to dish out punishment to criminals found guilty of crimes. If the crime is serious enough I think the death penalty should be an option. I also notice that we often talk about the rights of criminals yet never talk about the rights of victims.

Everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law including the victim and the perpetrator, in fact it is guaranteed under the Constitution. It would seem that many people would prefer that the perpetrator had little or no rights but if that's the case we might as well dispose with the whole concept of justice altogether. Killing someone is never right, no matter what. If a society reduces itself to killing undesirables in society then it is no better than the murderer.

Love2u · 07-08-2013 11:16PM

No one should have the right to end a persons life. This thread should not even be a conversation. Please close it mod.

epluribusunum · 07-08-2013 11:25PM

Love2u wrote: »

No one should have the right to end a persons life. This thread should not even be a conversation. Please close it mod.

Well then that should apply to murderers too.

The death penalty is not muder. State sanctioned murder is killing people for their beliefs, race, or something else that has nothing to do with a right or a wrong.

Once you committ a horrible act you have forfeited your right to live because you stopped someone else from living or did something else really awful.

osarusan · 07-08-2013 11:35PM

epluribusunum wrote: »

I cannot believe you had the audacity to say that we should not sympathize with victims of terrible acts.

can you quote the post where this was said please?

Love2u · 07-08-2013 11:38PM

epluribusunum wrote: »

Well then that should apply to murderers too.

The death penalty is not muder. State sanctioned murder is killing people for their beliefs, race, or something else that has nothing to do with a right or a wrong.

Once you committ a horrible act you have forfeited your right to live because you stopped someone else from living or did something else really awful.

Two wrongs don't make a right! The death penalty "is" murder. Find something better to talk about on a week night! talking about agreeing with the death penalty doesn't serve you and it certainly doesnt serve our communities.

epluribusunum · 07-08-2013 11:43PM

Love2u wrote: »

Two wrongs don't make a right! The death penalty "is" murder. Find something better to talk about on a week night! talking about agreeing with the death penalty doesn't serve you and it certainly doesnt serve our communities.

To take a waste of life out of society most definetely serves society. You have to do better than saying 2 wrongs do not make a right. You can find a quote or stupid saying for pretty much every argument ever had.

I do appreciate that you actually debate though I will say that.

wp_rathead · 07-08-2013 11:48PM

epluribusunum wrote: »

Well, you are wrong then. It extends far past the physical element. It has been used by many metaphysical philosophers to describe an emotional aspect. Many words have multiple associations.

You are protecting monsters in society because you are so against the death penalty that you have become fixated on the interpretation of a word someone else used. You are protecting someone who would do such a thing as the Boston bombings. How can you possibly believe they have the right to life? Honestly, I would like to hear your opinion.

How can you possibly believe you/we/society/state/law have the right to take theirs?

epluribusunum · 07-08-2013 11:54PM

wprathead wrote: »

How can you possibly believe you/we/society/state/law have the right to take theirs?

You are acting as if they got a parking citation.

They, and others, plan and execute a terrible act. They know what they are doing and the catastrophe it will cause to all victims. If they have no regard for the life of others then they should cease to exist. You may so oh well you have no regard for the life of others, well no because i think everybody who participates in society without having to kill should get to live it is only when they kill or comitt a terrible act they should be killed as punishment.

namloc1980 · 07-08-2013 11:55PM

epluribusunum wrote: »

To take a waste of life out of society most definetely serves society.

No it doesn't. It reduces society to their level by demonstrating that it is indeed acceptable to take a human life, when of course it never ever is?

epluribusunum · 08-08-2013 12:02AM

namloc1980 wrote: »

No it doesn't. It reduces society to their level by demonstrating that it is indeed acceptable to take a human life, when of course it never ever is?

It is not acceptable that is why they ahould be punished.

So you think when people hear of the death penalty they think murder is justifiable? That is impractical. Most would sane people would not have the urge to kill in the first place and do not need a deterrent to stop them. And if there ever was a deterrent it would not be letting the murderer live. society's take on the death penalty is of little relevance to sane people because they do not want to hurt others anyway.

wp_rathead · 08-08-2013 12:02AM

epluribusunum wrote: »

You are acting as if they got a parking citation.

They, and others, plan and execute a terrible act. They know what they are doing and the catastrophe it will cause to all victims. If they have no regard for the life of others then they should cease to exist. You may so oh well you have no regard for the life of others, well no because i think everybody who participates in society without having to kill should get to live it is only when they kill or comitt a terrible act they should be killed as punishment.

namloc1980 comment "it reduces society to their level by demonstrating that it is indeed acceptable to take a human life" answers this post..

“If we believe that murder is wrong and not admissible in our society, then it has to be wrong for everyone, not just individuals but governments as well.”

wexie · 08-08-2013 12:04AM

wprathead wrote: »

How can you possibly believe you/we/society/state/law have the right to take theirs?

It's not so much that society would have the right to take their lives, as that, on the bases of their heinous crimes they forfeited the right to be part of said society.

I absolutely, genuinely believe there are individuals out there that need to be removed from society for the good of society.

Now, whether that be done permanently and irrevocably by means of death, or permanently by actual life sentence, and I do mean: remain in prison until you die of old age, I don't really care.

Personally I think that if a more pragmatic approach was taken to the death penalty there wouldn't be any of this 20 years on death row nonsense and a death penalty wouldn't need to be anymore expensive (probably cheaper) than any other.

Someone like Ariel Castro, there is no need for any appeals or any of that nonsense, they should be taken out back of the courthouse and put down like a rabid dog. Plain and simple.

Of course there will be cases that aren't quite so clear cut and no bringing back the death penalty would not be an easy or straightforward process.

But if you ask me should it be done the answer will be non-hesitant and resounding yes! If nothing else simply because it wouldn't make any sense to keep some of these 'people' alive.

Love2u · 08-08-2013 12:04AM

epluribusunum wrote: »

To take a waste of life out of society most definetely serves society. You have to do better than saying 2 wrongs do not make a right. You can find a quote or stupid saying for pretty much every argument ever had.

I do appreciate that you actually debate though I will say that.

Your so full of wisdom. The topic ain't worth anymore of my precious time. Now here is my quote just for you "I'm off to bed enough said".

epluribusunum · 08-08-2013 12:09AM

wprathead wrote: »

namloc1980 comment "it reduces society to their level by demonstrating that it is indeed acceptable to take a human life" answers this post..

Laws are a reflection of social norms that are implemented for the benefit of society. Social norms tell us not to kill innocent people, if you do you are a monster. The government enforces these laws that we accept as sane beings. The government has the right to right a wrong for the benefit of society. The wrong would be committing a terrible act to an innocent human being.

epluribusunum · 08-08-2013 12:11AM

Love2u wrote: »

Your so full of wisdom. The topic ain't worth anymore of my precious time. Now here is my quote just for you "I'm off to bed enough said".

Logic is hard to manipulate, yes?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 08-08-2013 12:13AM

epluribusunum wrote: »

Laws are a reflection of social norms that are implemented for the benefit of society. Social norms tell us not to kill innocent people, if you do you are a monster. The government enforces these laws that we accept as sane beings. The government has the right to right a wrong for the benefit of society. The wrong would be committing a terrible act to an innocent human being.

And if, as has happened, there is a miscarraige of justice...?

namloc1980 · 08-08-2013 12:14AM

epluribusunum wrote: »

It is not acceptable that is why they ahould be punished.

So you think when people hear of the death penalty they think murder is justifiable? That is impractical. Most would sane people would not have the urge to kill in the first place and do not need a deterrent to stop them. And if there ever was a deterrent it would not be letting the murderer live. society's take on the death penalty is of little relevance to sane people because they do not want to hurt others anyway.

Nice strawman there I must say. And the death penalty is not a deterrent, because if it was murder would be unheard of in the USA. Yet it has a murder rate substantially higher than the European Union, where capital punishment is illegal under all circumstances.

Me_Grapes · 08-08-2013 12:15AM

I've said it before and I'll say it again.....the death penalty is only hypocritical if you deem the murderer as an equal to the person they murdered.

If one does't feel the criminal has the same rights to life as the general populous, then one could say they are not sinking to the criminals level.

epluribusunum · 08-08-2013 12:19AM

namloc1980 wrote: »

Nice strawman there I must say. And the death penalty is not a deterrent, because if it was murder would be unheard of in the USA. Yet it has a murder rate substantially higher than the European Union, where capital punishment is illegal under all circumstances.

The question of it being a deterrent is arguable, but it definetely does not encourage murder. Plus, you are not taking American inner cities vs European inner cities into account. That is irresponsible.

namloc1980 · 08-08-2013 12:19AM

epluribusunum wrote: »

Laws are a reflection of social norms that are implemented for the benefit of society. Social norms tell us not to kill innocent people, if you do you are a monster. The government enforces these laws that we accept as sane beings. The government has the right to right a wrong for the benefit of society. The wrong would be committing a terrible act to an innocent human being.

Yes but that does not extend to killing people. Capital punishment is illegal in Ireland under the constitution, by statute, under EU treaties, under EU law and under the European Convention on Human Rights. Social norms in Ireland tell us that killing humans in any form is wrong.

wp_rathead · 08-08-2013 12:22AM

wexie wrote: »

It's not so much that society would have the right to take their lives, as that, on the bases of their heinous crimes they forfeited the right to be part of said society.

Prison

I absolutely, genuinely believe there are individuals out there that need to be removed from society for the good of society.

Prison

Now, whether that be done permanently and irrevocably by means of death, or permanently by actual life sentence, and I do mean: remain in prison until you die of old age, I don't really care.

I actually agree, longer prison sentences in serious cases are a must

Personally I think that if a more pragmatic approach was taken to the death penalty there wouldn't be any of this 20 years on death row nonsense and a death penalty wouldn't need to be anymore expensive (probably cheaper) than any other.

You not find it disturbing that money is a factor when talking about someones life?

Someone like Ariel Castro, there is no need for any appeals or any of that nonsense, they should be taken out back of the courthouse and put down like a rabid dog. Plain and simple.

Of course there will be cases that aren't quite so clear cut and no bringing back the death penalty would not be an easy or straightforward process.

Trial by media is dangerous, just look at Central Park 5
(obvo no relation to the Castro case just pointing out these high profile Live on TV cases not good baromoter to go by)

But if you ask me should it be done the answer will be non-hesitant and resounding yes! If nothing else simply because it wouldn't make any sense to keep some of these 'people' alive

Sorry that is not a good enough reason to kill someone simply because it doesn't make sense to "keep them alive" imo

epluribusunum · 08-08-2013 12:22AM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

And if, as has happened, there is a miscarraige of justice...?

It would have to be 100 percent. A person like Hitler did terrible acts; with 100 percent confidence everybody can say that, unless you are also a conspiracy theorist?

namloc1980 · 08-08-2013 12:23AM

epluribusunum wrote: »

The question of it being a deterrent is arguable, but it definetely does not encourage murder. Plus, you are not taking American inner cities vs European inner cities into account. That is irresponsible.

Huh? Those are social issues. If american cities are more violent than European city (which I'm not sure they actually are) then that is a social issue that killing people will not fix.

wp_rathead · 08-08-2013 12:25AM

epluribusunum wrote: »

It would have to be 100 percent. A person like Hitler did terrible acts; with 100 percent confidence everybody can say that, unless you are also a conspiracy theorist?

cool, so being anti-death penalty ironically means you are pro-hitler..?

El_Duderino 09 · 08-08-2013 12:25AM

If we/society agree to remove someone's freedom and lock them inside a prison for the rest of their life, we have already ended a huge part of that persons life. Sentenced to shuffle from one room to another and have almost no purpose for the rest of their life.

I don't think it's that much of a leap to just decide to bite the bullet and end that persons life. If we decide they are never fit to return to society, we have already ended their life. We pretend it's more than a technicality that we haven't Killed them yet by keeping them alive whilst they serve their sentence.

If we decide to end someones life because we can't ever trust them in society again, then just have thew courage of that conviction and kill them properly.

namloc1980 · 08-08-2013 12:26AM

epluribusunum wrote: »

It would have to be 100 percent. A person like Hitler did terrible acts; with 100 percent confidence everybody can say that, unless you are also a conspiracy theorist?

Bringing Hitler into it just weakens your argument to be honest.

Love2u · 08-08-2013 12:32AM

epluribusunum wrote: »

Logic is hard to manipulate, yes?

Your boring us now! Death penalty DOES NOT WORK, end of conversation.

epluribusunum · 08-08-2013 12:32AM

namloc1980 wrote: »

Yes but that does not extend to killing people. Capital punishment is illegal in Ireland under the constitution, by statute, under EU treaties, under EU law and under the European Convention on Human Rights. Social norms in Ireland tell us that killing humans in any form is wing.

I am aware of the laws, look at the title.

It extends to killing people if the degree of the crime was as equally as bad as killing someone with the utmost lack of regard for the human race. Right a wrong. There are penalties for everything and they are worst than the act itself, should be no different in this case. This is called punishment. Social norms are a reflection but not an identical agreement. Otherwise, there would be no debate over things like this or abortion for instance because everybody would agree. Social norms differ with people but laws can not be broken. Plus, Just because EU law says something does not mean it is right. You have to use your own logic, not turn to what governments currently think.

Would you support the reintroduction of the death penalty?

Comments