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 25 of 42 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 416

Thread: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

  1. #241
    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
    The word "Punishment" supports it.
    The word "punishment" was used casually, as in "a consequence for a crime". If you're hanging your hat on my use of that particular word, then you're past grasping.

    If it was defense, tehn the nature of the crimes wouldn;t be taken into account, the nature of recidivism would.
    That's not necessarily the case at all.

    Premeditated Homocide is not a right that the people have.
    Many instances of killing self-defense are premeditated homocides, depending on how you want to define premeditated.
    Did I wake up this morning planning to shoot someone? No.
    Did I wake up this morining intending to kill anyone that tried to kill me? Yes.

    You haven't really supported it, though. You've supported the arguemtn for that the right has been granted by the people to the govenremtn for the purpose of vengeance/punishment, but not for defense.
    Sure I have. People are put to death for many reasons, one of which is their continued threat to society. The nature of their crime and their pattern of behavioir, combined, lead to the conclusion that execution is a valid form of punishment in that it removes the threat to society in a final, permanent manner.

    That's why first-time offenders arent executued, and you aren't executed for your 100th jaywalking ticket.

    My contention is with that right being granted for any reason other than DIRECT defense of the people (this excludes post facto "defense" which is really just vengeance)
    "Really" just vengance? To the exclusion of all other motives?
    Show that there is no 'defense of society' component.
    After all, as has been said numerous times -- there is NO chance they will be a repeat offender, once executed. Do you REALLY think this doesn't cross someones' mind?

    This is the red herring. The prior convictions for non-capital offenses do not illustrate that the Death Penalty is justified.
    By themselves? No.
    But they DO support the argument that past behavior illsustrates a future threat, a necessary component to the 'defense of society' argument.

    Which really means nothing in the context of this debate.
    Incorrect. See above.

    That's really irreleant to my point. I don't care if it realy is 0%, although I seriously doubt it is.
    But, its relevant to mine.

    For crimes people feel the death penalty is warranted and for criminals with a history of recidivism, I don't think they should ever be released
    Given that you admit that these people are a sufficient threat that they must be removed from society, and provided that their crime warrants same, there's no reason to not execute them, should society believe that doing so is acceptable.

  2. #242
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,364

    Re: Losing At Natural Selection

    Quote Originally Posted by Monk-Eye View Post
    "Losing At Natural Selection"
    Nature does not establish a moral absolute by which one is entitled to commit homicide, it also does not rule out reprisal.
    Positive law establishes moral standards, which are based on a collective consensus, keeping in mind that the collective may place restrictions upon its own collective actions, within the public-state contract which is government.
    This would be true i a pure democracy, but we are not in a collective concensus system It is a republic and thus, we do not have a general consensus of views. Nor do we have the ability to influence all but a very small portion of the government in general. The will of th epeople is never taken into account, but teh career politicians seek to gain power through many nefarious routes.

    I had also ignored the possibility that the person was released after serving their punishment according to legal proceedings. Thus, to address your splitting of hairs, whence the court has ruled that the perpetrator is no longer a citizen, that the citizen is illegally present and not under its jurisdiction, the state may politely issue you a can of gasoline, a match, and an ice pick to put the fire out.
    If that were the case, the right would be granted to the people and not the state, so I really wouldn't have an issue with it. If the people had a right to premedtiated homicide undercertain conditions, then I'm OK with the govenrment having the right to premeditated homicide.


    It seems that you concede authority to the government as though it is some autonomous entity with thoughts and actions of its own whereas I conceive of it as a greater individual of its citizenry.
    I do not concede any auhtority to the govenremnt. I actually argue against that concession. Our govenremnt is not a direct democracy and as such it is an autonomous collective separate form teh collective of its citizenry.

    The citizens have the authority to decide which are to be citizen members and even which should remain citizens.
    No, they don't. The representatives of the citizens, A.K.A. the governemnt would have that authority.

    No doubt, and it may be established that through due process the obtrusive persons may have their rights restricted or entirely removed.
    In oorer to protect its people. But how and why does that justify Homicide over incarceration?
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  3. #243
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,364

    Re: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Given that you admit that these people are a sufficient threat that they must be removed from society, and provided that their crime warrants same, there's no reason to not execute them, should society believe that doing so is acceptable.
    This is the real crux of our disagreement.

    Incarceration for life is enough in and of itself to act in defense of society. You need to show a logical reason for the leap from "Incarceration of life" To govenremnt sponsored premeditated homicide not in direct defense of another's life.


    The fact that it goes beyond what is necessary for pure defense is what makes the Death Penalty pure vengeance and retaliation.


    Since the killing is unnecessary for defense purposes, there hasn't been an argument given for why the government should have the right to kill its citizens.

    This is regardless of the fact that the person does not have the right to live anymore.

    As I said to Monk-eye. If the penalty were given in a way that granted the right to kill to the victims family, I wouldn't oppose the death penalty. At least in cases with DNA eveidence and such.

    My issue is not with the act, it is with who carries out the act.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  4. #244
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,364

    Re: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

    Let me make a separate post on this. If the entity that directly carried out the execution were the victims family or the wronged parties, I would not really have much of an issue with the death penalty in extreme cases.

    For example, if John Wayne Gacy were executed by Firing Squad and all of his victim's family memebrs who wanted to participate were the people in that firing squad, I would not have an issue with that. That is the right being retained by the people directly under certain proscribed circumstances.

    That is not an issue for me.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #245
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,605

    Re: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Let me make a separate post on this. If the entity that directly carried out the execution were the victims family or the wronged parties, I would not really have much of an issue with the death penalty in extreme cases.

    For example, if John Wayne Gacy were executed by Firing Squad and all of his victim's family memebrs who wanted to participate were the people in that firing squad, I would not have an issue with that. That is the right being retained by the people directly under certain proscribed circumstances.

    That is not an issue for me.
    But as I'm sure you realize, these cases are not "John Wayne Gacy's victim's families vs. John Wayne Gacy", they are "The State vs. John Wayne Gacy". These people are executed as a function of society as a whole, not just a couple of people who may be taking, perfectly justified IMO, revenge.
    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

  6. #246
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,364

    Re: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    But as I'm sure you realize, these cases are not "John Wayne Gacy's victim's families vs. John Wayne Gacy", they are "The State vs. John Wayne Gacy". These people are executed as a function of society as a whole, not just a couple of people who may be taking, perfectly justified IMO, revenge.
    I do realize that, and I do not think the government should be killing its citizens for any reason, justified or not. (And I don't think citizenship should be revoked for the sake of killing those citizens as well, Monk-eye.)

    I'm distrustful of governemnt competancy, I feel that it is currently astoundingly corrupt, and I believe it currently has more power than the people it is supposed to represent.

    I strongly feel that granting the govenrment the right to kill its people is more authority than it should be given.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  7. #247
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,605

    Re: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I do realize that, and I do not think the government should be killing its citizens for any reason, justified or not.
    You're certainly entitled to your own opinion on the matter.

    I'm distrustful of governemnt competancy, I feel that it is currently astoundingly corrupt, and I believe it currently has more power than the people it is supposed to represent.
    In some ways, of course it is and it has to be. When it comes to national defense, it has to have weapons that are more powerful than any individual or group of people will ever be. Considering that they have enough nukes to destroy the planet several times over, what do you expect?

    I strongly feel that granting the govenrment the right to kill its people is more authority than it should be given.
    Ultimately, it is the people who elect representatives that pass laws that make executions either legal or illegal, therefore you're welcome to your opinion and your ability to vote is not impeded, so by all means, try to get your opinions legislated into law like everyone else.
    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. #248
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    04-04-14 @ 01:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,233

    Re: Point Counter Point

    Quote Originally Posted by Monk-Eye View Post
    "Point Counter 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."
    I am highly inclined to redefine it.
    Well firstly Orwell was close to anarcho-communism secondly you are hardly examining it in close detail but that is another topic.

    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!"
    The word libertarian comes from the French word libertaire meaning anarchism or specifically anarcho-communism.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  9. #249
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    12-22-08 @ 12:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    947

    Re: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Never said that. Nor have I implied that. In fact I don't believe that teh issues are related. One is about the government killing it's citizens, the other is about the abysmal state of our prison system.

    It's a red herring and a non-sequitor argument.



    Again, different issue altogether.

    If you want to discuss the way to fisx the abysmal state of the prison system, so be it, I'll discuss it with you in another thread, but this is about capital punishment. Your argumnets are sillogical because the risk to other inmates is not caused by teh lack of death penalty, it is caused by a failure of the prison system.




    Irrelevant emotional tripe. I never made any arguments about cruelty.



    What nonsense, bonnie. You know I never made any such argument about cruelty.




    Again, noinsense unrelated to my arguments.



    STILL unrelated to my arguments. If yuo want to argue against MY [points on the issue, please do so. Until then, please give up trying to paint my arguemtn into something it most assuredly is not.




    You are missing my point entirely, but still making up arguemtns that are totally unrelated to my point. So I am forced one final time make the point that is the ONLY relevant point on the issue.

    Logical sequence:


    Premise 1: The Governmnt should not have more rights than the Citizens it exists for.

    Premise 2: The citizens do not have the right to kill other citizens in a premeditated fashion.

    Premise 3: The Death Penalty is killing in a premeditated fashion

    Conclusion: The government should NOT be allowed to give out the Death Penalty.




    That is the entirety of my argument. If you disagree with my argument, tell me which premise you find to be in error, or that you do not agree with. Show me what premise you would prefer.

    Responding with emotion-laden nonsense about cruelty, prison murders, etc, will be construed as failure to have a logical response and a tacit agreement that the deat penalty is illogical, irrational and unjustified.

    My argumetn is about teh death penalty, and the government's right to have it. I am not making any emotional pleas.
    It is NOT sillylogical. It is reality because there is no even theoretical "fix" of our prison system to protect inmates from murderers that isn't the most extreme form of cruelty.

    I think you are inaccurate in your view of citizen's rights. While I can't hunt down someone I think may sometime in the future harm me on impressions, I believe the legal standard is the "reasonableness" of using force and deadly force.

    I don't believe your discussion is in terms of reality, but platitudes detached from reality in part because it is premised upon an alternative perfect prison system. Why not, instead, just premise your opposition because you favor a perfect society? Unless you can describe the perfect prison system, there really is no reality behind your reasoning.

    Government has vast rights citizens don't have. Government can tax you. Government and regulate your conduct. Government can arrest you, take any possessions and even your children away from you. Send you to war. Gun you down. Premise 1 is just false.

    Premise 2
    Some of your logic actually doesn't work - I think - for your views. A person is drawing a gun down on me, but I shoot first and kill him. Absolutely, my murder was 'premeditated." Push that back in time. Running towards me with gun-in-hand etc.
    However, you can oppose pre-meditated killing. At least circumstantially, that also means you must accept that there are circumstance that I must accept that people must die for your ethic. However, I suppose you can claim the government's hands are clean of innocent victims lives on the theory of no-action, no-fault. I don't believe inaction against evil to others when only you have the authority or power to act is inaction. I believe it is collaberation with the evil.

    Premise 3
    I agree that the death penalty is pre-meditatively killing someone.

    I doubt we'd every agree on the question of "punishment" as a justification - where I see a murderer who killed a family then laughing over cards and having sex with his prison "wife", living a full live in a full counter prison culture in a life of being provided for by a pure welfare system for him as the most fundamental injustice.

    So you would not allow putting the word "justly" in front of "pre-meditative."

    But I also would put the words "to save the lives of others" at the end of your premise 3.

    The only response you have to that is because you also want a perfect (in that regards) prison system. YET YOU DON'T HAVE THAT AS A CONDITIONAL PREMISE!

    What's the saying? "If if's and buts were candy and nuts, what a Merry Christmas we'd all have."

    I could use your logic to argue that no one should ever be put in prison:

    Premise 1: The government should not have a power than the power of its citizens.

    Premise 2: Citizens do not have the right to involuntarily imprison another citizen.

    Premise 3: Therefore, government does not have the right to involuntarily imprison another citizen.

    Declaring "It's that simple."

    Of course, I'm not in an fashion supporting allow crimes to happen. If you want to talk about how to ending all crime and failures to do so, we can start another thread on that.

    Increasingly in life, I am losing interest in arguing which of various versions of the best absolute standards utopian values are more ethical. Instead, I prefer to look at issues in terms of present reality - calling the cards we have, not the Royal Flush we wish we could draw.

    I believe in the most real terms, it comes down to not if someone is "pre-meditatively" killed. That is a factual certainty. Rather, it is who is pre-meditatively killed." In terms of current reality, I believe those killed under your system are generally far more innocent that those killed in my system.

    If we both assume the premise - of course we have a way to stop killings in this - then there is no discussion left at all.

    Last edited by Bonnie1988; 12-02-08 at 06:00 PM.

  10. #250
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    12-22-08 @ 12:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    947

    Re: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

    Not to trivialize it, I do acknowledge real problems in the death penalty in relation to failures in the justice system to assure the system is not only accurate, but also fairly applied.

Page 25 of 42 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... 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
  •