Yes, but nobody is answering murder with murder; we're answering murder with the death penalty. It is a penalty imposed by the government upon moronic criminals that refused to obey the laws, and thus must be a) swiftly removed from society and b) be given that which they give. Except, it isn't murder in this case because the government is only responding to the external stimuli of crime, and acting with judgement and it is responding to criminals.
Discussion: Death penalty
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
Yes, but nobody is answering murder with murder; we're answering murder with the death penalty. It is a penalty imposed by the government upon moronic criminals that refused to obey the laws, and thus must be a) swiftly removed from society and b) be given that which they give. Except, it isn't murder in this case because the government is only responding to the external stimuli of crime, and acting with judgement and it is responding to criminals.
Yes yes. I obviously should have used the word "killing" or something. I was feeling mischievous.
Only moronic ones?
(a) is achieved by locking them up. (b) is just Old Testament retribution - a kind of vengeful blood lust.
Killing is not necessarily murder; the circumstances are important, you see.
They're all moronic.
A) Then it is achieved by both means, so let us choose the one most fitting; and besides, that isn't really true; many criminals operate their crime operations from behind bars, attack guards and start riots, rape and harm others, etc
B) Of course it's retribution, but retribution is fair. Like it or not, an eye for an eye is as fair as you're going to get. It's like the Golden rule: treat others as you want to be treated. It's a plain and simple instruction as to how to react to the immoral: you give them their own medicine and send them on their merry way. How much simpler can it get?
Norsefire:
I think I'm aware of that, Norsefire.
Interesting that you think that. Probably you have a stereotypical notion of what a "criminal" looks like. You don't think of white-collar criminals. You don't think of people who look just like you.
I already addressed this point in the Debate.
You want to be killed by the state if you commit a crime like financial fraud, as Syzygys advocated in the Debate?
I think I'm aware of that, Norsefire.
Interesting that you think that. Probably you have a stereotypical notion of what a "criminal" looks like. You don't think of white-collar criminals. You don't think of people who look just like you.
I already addressed this point in the Debate.
You want to be killed by the state if you commit a crime like financial fraud, as Syzygys advocated in the Debate?
Good, and I am not surprised, with you being intelligent and all.
Of course I can see criminals as human beings; yes, many of them are driven to their limits by personal problems and such and such. However, that doesn't excuse criminal behavior; and furthermore, we ought to provide criminals with an opportunity to amend their ways and receive an education and counseling if they want to use this opportunity. I have no problem with that. I am not an unforgiving person. However, I am a firm person and I do believe in Justice and the law; and as such, the criminals that refuse to co-operate, show no remorse, and are intent on harming others must be swiftly executed. There is no other alternative, and no reason for apologetics on our part.
Not adequately.
What does it matter what I want, in that case? If you want to ask a criminal his opinion, he probably doesn't even want to go to jail! Or be caught, for that matter. So it's silly to ask such a question.
Never said there wasn't. Fact remains that the death penalty fulfills retributive aspects of justice, which are considered important by a sizeable chunk of the polities in question here. Hence, from a public policy perspective, the provision of this type of justice is counted as a benefit.
The question is how all of the other benefits and costs stack up. To pretend there are no benefits - even if you personally reject retributive models of justice - is either stupid or disingenuous.
The entire thing was cheap. You think calling people names is classy rhetoric?
? That doesn't mean you can substitute polls on up-or-down support for the death penalty for evidence of reasons for said support.
Except for the ones who support it because of its retributive value, and don't particularly care about deterrence.
Except for the ones that are interested in deterrence and prevention of future offenses, and don't care about retributive justice.
There are roughly as many American viewpoints on how the myriad factors involved relate to the question as there are Americans.
Oh? I'd be interested in seeing a poll of how many Americans would sign up for each of his arguments.
Weren't you saying something about "projection?"
And here we have the fantasy ideation again. You not only tell us what we think, but also why we think it, and also why we are wrong to think it, all without troubling with any inconvenient facts or other examinations of reality. Nay, you're too busy with the crusade to be bothered with such trifles: Americans support the death penalty, ergo Americans are laboring under misinformation or some other delusions (simple differences in matters of opinion somehow having been excluded), and it's your place to address this, however inconsequentially.
It's quite rude to use people as props in your fantasy.
When prompted for your motivations for the debate, you supplied the following:
I.e., American ignorance is the motivation for your actions, which are supposed to address this issue. Or is there some other way of reading those sentences? I did ask where "out there" was supposed to be, after all, and if the answer was supposed to be more confined than "the real world," then you've already missed your prompt to let us know.
Good for you.
Except I'm not the one that goes all defensive and childish when criticized.
And we're nowhere near the point of "deference" to "superiority." We're still working on basic questions of respect and good faith.
? Did I say I was?
I've simply spent enough time exposed to both good and bad moderation - in various places - that I'm able to recognize the difference.
And one telltale sign of a bad mod is that he insults people and generally acts like a child when challenged. For example, he might respond to criticism with deflecting insults, typically demeaning the intelligence of the critic. Unfunny usage of sarcasm - i.e. "sneering" - is another red flag.
I don't think so. The insults here are all coming from you.
You're practically an encyclopedia of defense mechanisms, aren't you?
'Chemical Ali' Executed in Iraq
Ali Hassan al-Majid, better known as "Chemical Ali," was executed by hanging Monday in Iraq. Last week, Saddam Hussein's notorious cousin and henchman received his fourth death sentence for crimes against humanity, handed down for his role in the 1988 poison gas attacks that killed more than 5,000 Kurds during a campaign against a Kurdish uprising.
Ali Hassan al-Majid, better known as "Chemical Ali," was executed by hanging Monday in Iraq. Last week, Saddam Hussein's notorious cousin and henchman received his fourth death sentence for crimes against humanity, handed down for his role in the 1988 poison gas attacks that killed more than 5,000 Kurds during a campaign against a Kurdish uprising.
quadraphonics:
Yes, that fact remains.
That does not follow, because, as I said, there's more to justice than retribution.
It's a good thing I didn't do that then, isn't it?
Right. That's why I helpfully expanded on the reasons in my previous reply to you.
Hey look - I covered that in the very next sentence. Perhaps you should read the entire post before hitting the "reply" button and sounding off reflexively.
Like I said in the previous sentence, you mean? Hehe.
Are there? Are you sure you aren't into "fantasy ideation" here? I don't see too many "inconvenient facts" coming from you on this.
You really ought to read the Debate, and the sites cited therein. You might even find some of those "inconvenient facts" you're hankering for.
Yeah. I'm on a crusade, man! Come and join me. :m:
Hehe. Nice irony there.
That was not a reply to any question or comment about my motivations.
Try reading them literally. What they are is a claim that about 50% of Americans are grossly mistaken about the effectiveness of the death penalty in combating crime. They also claim that it is worthwhile to educate those Americans who are so mistaken.
"Out there", in this instance, means out there in big wide internet land, instead of in my head. The internet, by the way, is part of the "real world".
You don't think that educating people about the death penalty is a good idea?
Hey, while we're at it, let's just clarify something, shall we? Are you, quadraphonics, personally in favour of or against the death penalty? Please outline your personal position for me, and your reasons for it. Then I'll have a better idea where you're coming from. Will you actually commit to a position on the topic at hand, or are you only interested in sniping at me?
Hehe. How ironic, once again. Please review the first post of yours that I commented on in this thread. You might want to rethink your approach, in terms of basic questions of respect and good faith, next time. Good luck with that!
Ooh, poor quadraphonics. I'm demeaning his intelligence. And yet, strangely, you were quite happy to demean Syzygys's intelligence, and to put me down. But when it comes to little old you, a whole different set of standards are suddenly demanded, aren't they? Because you're special.
Just maybe you ought to try practicing what you preach. You'd have a tad more credibility that way.
You think? Heh.
Yeah, that's me. Good analysis once again, Sigmund. Keep at it. You're doing well.
Yes, that fact remains.
That does not follow, because, as I said, there's more to justice than retribution.
It's a good thing I didn't do that then, isn't it?
Right. That's why I helpfully expanded on the reasons in my previous reply to you.
Hey look - I covered that in the very next sentence. Perhaps you should read the entire post before hitting the "reply" button and sounding off reflexively.
Like I said in the previous sentence, you mean? Hehe.
Are there? Are you sure you aren't into "fantasy ideation" here? I don't see too many "inconvenient facts" coming from you on this.
You really ought to read the Debate, and the sites cited therein. You might even find some of those "inconvenient facts" you're hankering for.
Yeah. I'm on a crusade, man! Come and join me. :m:
Hehe. Nice irony there.
quadraphonics said:
That was not a reply to any question or comment about my motivations.
Try reading them literally. What they are is a claim that about 50% of Americans are grossly mistaken about the effectiveness of the death penalty in combating crime. They also claim that it is worthwhile to educate those Americans who are so mistaken.
"Out there", in this instance, means out there in big wide internet land, instead of in my head. The internet, by the way, is part of the "real world".
You don't think that educating people about the death penalty is a good idea?
Hey, while we're at it, let's just clarify something, shall we? Are you, quadraphonics, personally in favour of or against the death penalty? Please outline your personal position for me, and your reasons for it. Then I'll have a better idea where you're coming from. Will you actually commit to a position on the topic at hand, or are you only interested in sniping at me?
quadraphonics said:
Hehe. How ironic, once again. Please review the first post of yours that I commented on in this thread. You might want to rethink your approach, in terms of basic questions of respect and good faith, next time. Good luck with that!
Ooh, poor quadraphonics. I'm demeaning his intelligence. And yet, strangely, you were quite happy to demean Syzygys's intelligence, and to put me down. But when it comes to little old you, a whole different set of standards are suddenly demanded, aren't they? Because you're special.
Just maybe you ought to try practicing what you preach. You'd have a tad more credibility that way.
You think? Heh.
Yeah, that's me. Good analysis once again, Sigmund. Keep at it. You're doing well.
Hey, look how well the prison system protects society:
"An identity thief got an extra 102 days behind bars Monday after he was caught taking out credit card lines in other people's names as he served time."
Last time I checked, no dead man commited CC fraud.
"An identity thief got an extra 102 days behind bars Monday after he was caught taking out credit card lines in other people's names as he served time."
Last time I checked, no dead man commited CC fraud.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Last time I checked no dead man ever barged in front of me in a queue. Should we impose the death penalty on queue jumpers?
Last time I checked no dead man ever purloined a pencil from the company stationary store. Should we impose the death penalty on petty thieves?
Last time I checked no dead man ever purloined a pencil from the company stationary store. Should we impose the death penalty on petty thieves?
Well, I am willing to do an experience. We put a huge sign saying:
"Queue jumpers will be shot!!" and we will execute anybody on the spot who jumps the line.
We shall see the deterring power of the death penalty. My guess is that after the first person shot, there will be VERY FEW line jumpers.
You wanna bet?
I think the winner of the debate is James R. If you have a look at the Amnesty International reports about the countries with death penalty, you'll come across cases with mentally ill inmates waiting in death row for up to 40 years.
I agree, there is no need to single out a particular country. It's a global issue.
Hey, it is time to celebrate! After 110 or so posts we have our FIRST poster who didn't just pick a winner but actually brought up an example from the Debate.
Congratulations and please post your email so we can send you a $5 gift certificate and flowers.
Unfortunatelly....
...this sentence has not much to do with the quoted material. We were talking about perfecting the DP system and I made a reference that in certain countries it works just fine. So I don't see the signifficance of mentally ill inmates.
Interestingly the mentally ill didn't even come up in the debate, if I recall. I might remember wrong...
But again, thanks for trying and feel yourself priviledged as one who actually did what we asked for...
Congratulations and please post your email so we can send you a $5 gift certificate and flowers.
Unfortunatelly....
...this sentence has not much to do with the quoted material. We were talking about perfecting the DP system and I made a reference that in certain countries it works just fine. So I don't see the signifficance of mentally ill inmates.
Interestingly the mentally ill didn't even come up in the debate, if I recall. I might remember wrong...
But again, thanks for trying and feel yourself priviledged as one who actually did what we asked for...
It has a lot to do with the quoted material. Since I didn't want to single out a particular country, I kept my quote short. Please go back to your own post (Debate: Death Penalty, post #6) and continue from where I left. Then make a quick search about "Hakamada Iwao" on Amnesty International site. You'll see that it's 41 years, not 40.
Last edited:
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
You didn't answer my question. Should we do it? I was not disputing the outcome of the practice, I was inquiring as to whether or not you would implement it.
No. I listed the crimes in the debate for what I would give DP.
By the way my point was that no, imprisonment is not perfect as a safety measure against criminals. That's why my point in the debate that only DP can make sure they don't commit more crimes stands.
Also I never got an answer why other crimes than murder shouldn't be punished by DP?
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
If one is opposed to the death penalty then one is opposed to the death penalty for all crimes.
That is true. But why is it an automatic assumption that only murder is the only crime that deserves the DP? We never really established that, that's why I included my suggestion list in the Debate for other crimes....
If we agree that the crime and the punishment should be as equal as they can be, sure heinous offenses against several people is just as bad as murder against one.
Let's say I burn down an orphanage for insurance purposes (greed not psycho) and in the process although nobody dies but 2 dozen kids gets life altering, horrific burns. Since I can be punished only once, shouldn't I get the most serious punishment possible? (even burning me at the stake would be just 1 punishment vs. 2 dozens)
Last edited:
Oh yes, about the "society is safe when criminals in prison" shit:
"Amidst the horror and devastation of the massive 7.0 earthquake that has rocked Haiti, almost all of the 4,000 inmates in the capital's main prison have escaped."
We just have to wait when the big one hits California and see how many murderers, rapers, pedophiles get loose....
"Amidst the horror and devastation of the massive 7.0 earthquake that has rocked Haiti, almost all of the 4,000 inmates in the capital's main prison have escaped."
We just have to wait when the big one hits California and see how many murderers, rapers, pedophiles get loose....
Last edited: