The Death Penalty

And again, half the stuff is dismissed outright by the criminal courts, and most of the civil stuff never makes it past suofftopicry judgment. And again, those suits usually have *nothing* to do with the case itself, but conditions in prison and other civil crap unrelated to the case.
 
Correct sir. But I don't think the information I used for my arguement (24 years ago) broke down the cost of incarceration vs. cost of operation for corrections. That is my point. I was extrapolating, incorrectly to apply the same logic to Death vs. Life. I stand corrected.



I did not take it personal sir, and I understand that you want to know, to prevent, and thus eliminate this type of behavior. I understand and that would be wonderful. We humans, as altruistic as we would like to be, have demonstrated an inability to predict, let alone understand, how or why someone is or becomes involved in capital crimes. We have had centuries of study and debate and it will continue. Someday, not in my lifetime I believe, but someday maybe we will be able to figure out the "defect". But I can not see keeping human beings around, just to "study them" like lab rats, who have no contributions to make to society other then death and destruction.
 
I believe that it is immoral. Two wrongs don't make a right. But if someone killed someone I care about I would want them dead.
 
no its not, if someone does something bad to you, the you should do something bad back, thats just what i think, it then makes it even
 
Two wrongs never make a right.

If someones a murderer and you kill them. That's how it should be. Killing them to prevent another murder. But that doesn't make it right.

That murderer will have a brother who thinks it was "wrong" for you to kill them. So they kill you. Which is wrong. And then your brother thinks it's "wrong" and kills them.

Yes that's extreme. But the point is, hate breeds hate breeds hate and you can never set anything right with more violence or "wrongs"
 
Princess.

Think of it like this.

You have an orange.

You add an orange.

What do you have?

Answer- two oranges.

You don't have an apple.

That's why its logically inconsistent to say two wrongs make a right.

As for your next argument...it boils down to murder justifys murder as punishment. I'm not sure how many killers dish out murder as a punishment but I know some do...and I don't fancy having thought processes similar to theirs.

Look up logical fallacies. It will give you a better handle on seeing what people are acutally saying when they make statements, and provide yuo with enormous benefits once you can recongise them.
 
But in making that argument, you're making the assumption that the second killing is wrong... which is also your conclusion.

In other words, you're using the assumption that killing in punishment is wrong, plus the argument that two wrongs don't make a right, to prove that killing in punishment is wrong.
 
Where did I say that? Where did I make a connection between the two arguments?

In other words=the words you put in my mouth

It wasn't an argument for a start. It was a personal reason I don't like the idea of executing people on the pretext of it being just- specificaly it reminds me of some insane people's thought process and the idea of sharing them creeps me out.

I don't even think that killing people is wrong.
 
So, just to clarify, you actually find someone justifying "killing as punishment" weirder than simply deciding there's nothing wrong with killing people at all?


Interesting... people saying stuff like "I don't even think that killing people is wrong" reminds me of insane people's thought processes, and the idea of sharing the internet with them creeps me out.
 
Of course its not always right, but its not always wrong either.

Saying "Killing people is wrong" is an extreme viewpoint don't you think? Implicit in that is the belief that killing is necessarily wrong and I don't agree with that. Things aren't that black and white.

As for killing for punishment I do find it odd that people use justice as a pretext for killing when in fact its for gratification and demonstrating control and power.
 
Gangrel, perhaps you can clear something up for me. It additional appeals don't cost extra, how can it be cheaper to have someone get life instead of execution because of the number of appeals that will be made for those on death row? It would seem then that execution would be far cheaper for the state if there is no cost for appeals.

Also, once the trial is over, I assume the public defender gets paid at that point. Is the public defender required to file any and all appealst that their client wants without any extra remuneration? That would seem to be a little unfair to the public defenders.
 
For me personally, yes. But I don't understand how you can believe that killing is ok (under circumstances which you are unable to define for some reason) yet also believe that the specific justification of killing employed by proponents of the death penalty is somehow equivalent to the thought processes of an insane killer.


What I'm driving at is that since you can't even define why you think killing is ok, yet proponents of the death penalty have rational reasons for believing in it (e.g. prevention of further crime), maybe YOU are the one who is insane.
 
Back
Top