View Poll Results: Should Capital Punishment be supported?

Voters
90. You may not vote on this poll
  • It should be supported in both principle and practice.

    43 47.78%
  • Yes in principle, but not in practice due to the ambiguity of social bias.

    14 15.56%
  • It should be opposed both in principle and practice.

    33 36.67%
Page 23 of 42 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 416

Thread: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

  1. #221
    Student Makedde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Tangled In Jon's Carpet Of Chest Hair
    Last Seen
    06-05-09 @ 09:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    219

    Re: Particulars

    Quote Originally Posted by emdash View Post
    I'd like you to compare stats from states/countries that do and do not have capital punishment and tell me that the ones with capital punishment have as many or more murders committed per year. unless that is the case you cannot argue that capital punishment does not act as a deterrent, unless you add the disclaimer that it is your opinion and not founded on fact.
    Okay, I will state for the record that my post was my personal opinion, and I will work on finding some stats for you.

  2. #222
    Dream Walker
    Monk-Eye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Seen
    07-16-15 @ 10:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,265
    Blog Entries
    10

    Point Counter Point

    "Point Counter Point"
    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    That is all your opinion and one I don't personally agree with, you don't seem to understand a lot about anarcho-communist, but that wasn't my point.
    I understand anarcho-communism; I do not agree with egalitarianism, it is simply an excuse for bureaucratic collectivism and in Orwelian terms, "All pigs are created equal, but some are more equal than others."
    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    I was just pointing out that the word libertarian was invented by them and used for at least a century before the type you are talking of took up the term. They still use the term today. If they're not libertarians then I don't know who is unless you are trying to redefine the term.
    I am highly inclined to redefine it.

    The democratic party is libertarian, in large part, with respect to the individualism of moral choices.
    It promotes itself on opposing authoritarian (collectivism) dictates from the public-state contract (goverment) on social-civil issues where individual morality is involved.

    The democratic party is anti-libertarian, in large part, with respect to the individualism of economic choices.
    It promotes itself on enacting authoritarian (collectivism) dictates through the public-state contract (government) on social welfare issues with an egalitarian, wealth redistribution focus.

    The republican party is anti-libertarian, in large part, with respect to the individualism of moral choices.
    It promotes itself on enacting authoritarian (collectivism) dicates through the public-state contract (government) on civil issues where individual morality is involved.

    The republican party is libertarian, in large part, with respect to the individualism of economic choices.
    It promotes itself on opposing authoritarian (collectivism) dictates from the public-state contract (goverment) in economic issues, for laze faire economics.

    The promotions of each party are mixed from issue to issue, which means that they are inconsistent with a fundamental philosophy of libertarianism (individualism), or authoritarianism (collectivism), yet both promote major liberal elements as part of their platforms.

    Thus, the use of the term liberal by republicans about democrats is a reference to democrat's libertarian moral choices - individualism; however, that misappropriate in describing democrat economic principles - collectivism.

    On the contrary, democrats would be justified to use the term liberal about republicans in reference to republican libertarian economic choices - individualism; however, that is misappropriate in describing republican civil positions - collectivism.

    Now, the republican party seems to believe that it has the moral high ground on economic as well as civil issues, and consequently it sees fit to abuse the term liberal with that generalization, under some guise of term it calls conservativism; democrats seem to accept it; to put it bluntly, "I call bullsht!"
    Last edited by Monk-Eye; 12-02-08 at 07:24 AM.

  3. #223
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    09-25-16 @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,365

    Re: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Invayne View Post
    Do you think it's OK for people to steal from each other? The gov. steals from us every day.
    No, but I also oppose most forms of taxation.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  4. #224
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    09-25-16 @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,365

    Re: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    Man I can't believe I missed this. I didn't realise how much of a political philosopher you were Tucker.
    I hide it well. The jokes and nonsense are my camoflague.

    I'd add that as much as is possible no individual should have more power than any other, power needs to be dispersed as widely as possible(while still being realistic.).
    Precisely. This is what I feel the real concept of "equality" entails.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #225
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    My only real issue comes with granting the Government the authority to carry out the action of the death penalty against its people.

    This places the government in a position of superiority over the people because it has a right that supersedes the most basic of rights retained by the people.
    This depends.
    Is capital punishment a means thru which the government protects the rights of people, either directly by killing someone that has shown that he is a threat to society, or as a deterrent to those that might otherwise be a threat to society, or both?

    If so - and I'd argue that it is indeed the case - the government is merely exercising the right of the people to act in their own self-defense.

    Given that, we are not then granting the government a power that we, the people, do not individually posess as a right.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 12-02-08 at 10:05 AM.

  6. #226
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,616

    Re: Dimentia

    Quote Originally Posted by Infinite Chaos View Post
    If an innocent man has a life sentence he or she gets chances to fight to clear his or her name. The state serves as jailor and if the person clears their name the state can compensate.
    Sorry, the state still cannot compensate anyone for even a day wrongfully incarcerated. Money is not a substitute for time lost out of one's life that can never be recovered.

    Try again.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! The Bitchspot Blog YouTube me! The Bitchspot Channel

  7. #227
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,616

    Re: Particulars

    Quote Originally Posted by Cristina View Post
    Capital punishment also does not deter anyone from commiting a crime.
    Prison doesn't deter anyone from committing a crime either, not only those who see others going to prison for their crimes, but even those criminals who have been there themselves and keep committing crimes over and over again.

    Should we stop putting people in prison too?
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! The Bitchspot Blog YouTube me! The Bitchspot Channel

  8. #228
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    09-25-16 @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,365

    joke Re: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    This depends.
    Is capital punishment a means thru which the government protects the rights of people, either directly by killing someone that has shown that he is a threat to society, or as a deterrent to those that might otherwise be a threat to society, or both?

    If so - and I'd argue that it is indeed the case - the government is merely exercising the right of the people to act in their own self-defense.

    Given that, we are not then granting the government a power that we, the people, do not individually posess as a right.
    Premeditated killing is not self-defense, though. Once incarcerated, the defense of the public at large has been achieved. Then the issue changes to the woeful state of a prison system that lets dangerous criminals re-enter the civilian population.

    By allowing the government to exterminate the offender in a premeditated fashion, the issue changes from defense to murder.

    For example, if I were to kill someone who murdered my son 15 years prior, I would be guilty of premeditated murder. I would not be able to use the defense of saying I was "defending" future victims of that murderer. It is a separate action.

    This is analogous to the death penalty.

    Thus we are granting the Government a right not retained by the people.

    The nature of the death penalty as post facto is inherently why it is purely retaliatory.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  9. #229
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Premeditated killing is not self-defense, though.
    It is, as much as it is possible for a government to exercise the right to self-defense on the belalf of its society, when said government is bound by due process (and a multitude of other checks) -- that is, conceptually it is the same, the process just takes longer.

    The nature of the death penalty as post facto is inherently why it is purely retaliatory.
    It does, however, unquestionably protect the rights of the people from any further menace from that particular person.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 12-02-08 at 10:36 AM.

  10. #230
    Sage
    Infinite Chaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:25 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,357

    Re: Dimentia

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Sorry, the state still cannot compensate anyone for even a day wrongfully incarcerated. Money is not a substitute for time lost out of one's life that can never be recovered.
    It does I'm afraid - prisoners have claimed financial compensation for wrongful or false imprisonment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Try again.
    After you...

    OK, one for you - imagine you have been wrongly accused, despite damning DNA evidence, you KNOW you are innocent (not quite a 4 year old baby when the crime was committed but you get the picture) - how many times would YOU try and appeal before resigning yourself to being executed for someone else's crime? (Remember you are against lengthy appeals by the innocent or guilty)

    Take it further - your kid was the 4 year old wrongfully accused but the DNA evidence is overwhelming. You KNOW your kid wasn't anywhere near the scene but has been implicated by DNA.

    Hand your kid over gladly or protest and appeal? And how many times before you accept that your now 10 year old has to die because of your principle?

Page 23 of 42 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •