It should be supported in both principle and practice.
Yes in principle, but not in practice due to the ambiguity of social bias.
It should be opposed both in principle and practice.
Even with DNA evidence there have been mistakes - more particularly where Low Copy Number DNA cases have been proven wrong.
And I only agree with military action if it is in direct defensze of us or anotehr nation. Not preemptive defense, but direct defense.
My arguemtn is that the govenrtment should not have the power to kill its citizens for any rteason. It's clear. I could give two ****s about what the crime is, or preventing future crime. The only issue at hand is should the government have the right to murder it's own citizens for any reason(I clarify "citizens" so that the red herring of "war" is not tossed around yet again)Are you denying that people are murdered in prison by convicted murderers? Or is it your view that anyone in prison regardless of reason therefore should be subjected to murder by other inmates as just punishment for any felony crime? Murder is ok - as long as the government isn't directly doing it?
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
Capital punishment is a crazy immoral idea for multiple reasons:
1.It is not cheap.
2.The guy/girl could be proven innocent later.
3. All life should be protected.
4. It is not a deterrent.
5. It is barbaric.
1. Capital punishment is an extremely complex process. Therefore, it is much more expensive than just a life sentence. It costs millions of dollars to be carried out. Having convicts rot in jail is much cheaper.
2. Our legal system is not fallible. It is very possible for new evidence to come in after the conviction that may prove the convict's innocence .But that wont matter if the convict is already dead. At least 350 US citizens were sentenced for the death penalty and proven innocent later.
3. The most important reason is that all life is valuable and equal. Whether it be the life of a fetus or someone that raped and killed thousands of Asian babies. No crime, no matter how detestable it is, makes a convict unworthy of life. I find it rather distasteful that society can choose which among us should die. I wonder how the Christian right has the gall and stupidity to go against its values by supporting this.
4. The supporters of CP is often saying that having CP will stop rapes and murders. It is wrong because only a small percent of criminals that do these crimes are executed. In fact, there is no statistical evidence that shows that countries rate of violent crimes are elated to their possession or lack of CP.
5. There is no difference between the angry right-wingers chanting, "Kill the scum!" and the bloodthirsty mobs in the roman Colosseum. It seems like the 75% of Americans have degenerated into to savages every time someone is convicted of a crime. Killing people for sheer revenge should not be allowed in civilized society.
That is tue, but if the "greater good" is the goal, colateral damage is acceptable to many.2.The guy/girl could be proven innocent later.
I totally disagree with that statemnt. What logical reason do we have to protect all life? In fact, there are plenty of logical reasons to not protect all life.3. All life should be protected.
But that isn't why it exists.4. It is not a deterrent.
I agree that it is a savage, base response, but that alone is not reason enough to stop the death penalty.5. It is barbaric.
I'm on your side, and I oppose the death penalty, bu tthe reasons you give against it are of the same sort as the reasons for it. Purely emotional reasons.
Teh only issue at hand is weather or not we think it is OK to give the governemtn this kind of power.
Because everyone agrees to some degree that there exist reasons to kill. Be it self-defense or what have you,. but everyone agrees that circumstances exist that make killing/murder OK.
Once we open that box, the justifications are mere topics of debate. The main thing is that once this conclusion is reached, justifications can be made to morally accept all sorts of murder/killing.
So then teh limitations become the scenarios. Self-defense vs vengeance. Preemptive self-defense vs. direct self defense. Defense of otehrs vs. defense of an ideology. etc. etc. etc.
Thus the problem is one of opinions. Some people feel it is perfectly moral to act in vengence of others. But when asked "Should the Government have more rights than it's citizens, including the right to muder those citizens?"
I oppose the death penatly becaus eI feel that the Government does not and should not have the right to kill/murder its citizenry. I believe that an individual has the right to kill/murder anotehr individual in direct defense for another or for themselves. That means if they or anotehr person is in imminent danger, lethal force is within their rights.
this includes any individual who works for the govenremtns in some capacity such as Police oofficer etc.
What I have issue with is the premeditated murder of someone by the governments for any reason, justified or not. I do not feel that any citizen has a right to premeditated killing/murder thus, neither should the govenrment. The govenrment should have fewer rights that the people.
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
I say it is justified only IF there is proof that the person convicted really commited the crime. DNA should be the proof in most cases.