Should he get the Death Penalty?

Should he get the death penalty?


  • Total voters
    13

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
#31
CaptainObvious said:
You understand there is a difference between justified in the sense that the death penalty is not justified in general and justified for the crime committed? I also meant justified Constitutionally.
The constitutionality of the death penalty is irrelevant. I am not disputing you on that, and it does not follow that something is right from its being constitutional. As for the difference between the death penalty being justified for a crime committed, and its being justified in general, you will have to explain the difference to me; and how that has any bearing on what I said that you were responding to (which was presumably what I said about the relation between the lawfulness and morality of a killing); since none of that is clear to me.

CaptainObvious said:
My point is you calling the death penalty murder is incorrect. It doesn't fit the definition of murder.

It's not arbitrary at all. The families of the victim's are seeking justice, the familiy of the accused is not.
I have no interest in discussing semantics here, since they don't seem to have a bearing on anything whatsoever. You can call an execution whatever you like, and I doubt you had any problem understanding me for my word choice. That said, I imagine that since the family of the victims are seeking justice, and that you think the court should only consider their interests in such a case; you would advocate that laws be put into place so that the families of those executed can also seek justice, and that only their interests would be considered in that case. If not, why not? In any case, it seems awful narrow-minded to exclude any factor from a decision as important as whether or not to kill someone, much less every factor but one.
 
Last edited:

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
#32
The constitutionality of the death penalty is irrelevant. I am not disputing you on that, and it does not follow that something is right from its being constitutional.
I didn't say that it does. I was pointing out the distinction between murder and the death penalty. I didn't think it actually HAD to be pointed out but then again......

As for the difference between the death penalty being justified for a crime committed, and its being justified in general, you will have to explain the difference to me; and how that has any bearing on what I said that you were responding to (which was presumably what I said about the relation between the lawfulness and morality of a killing); since none of that is clear to me.
Nowhere did I say "it's justified because it's justified" like you said I did. I was pointing out that murder is unjustified and the death penalty is not.



I have no interest in discussing semantics here, since they don't seem to have a bearing on anything whatsoever. You can call an execution whatever you like, and I doubt you had any problem understanding me for my word choice.
Neither do I, but if we're going to discuss the death penalty and whether this individual should have been put to death, let's at least discuss it honestly and correctly, and not equate things that are completely different in every way, shape, and form.

That said, I imagine that since the family of the victims are seeking justice, and that you think the court should only consider their interests in such a case; you would advocate that laws be put into place so that the families of those executed can also seek justice, and that only their interests would be considered in that case. If not, why not? In any case, it seems awful narrow-minded to exclude any factor from a decision as important as whether or not to kill someone, much less every factor but one.
From whom do the families of the executed seek justice? What crime has been committed against them? How are they on par with the families of the victims?

I agree it is narrow-minded, when did someone suggest every factor but one be considered?
 

Bananas

Endangered Species
#33
CaptainObvious; said:
Yes he did, the death penalty is a sanction like any other sanction. He did pay it with something, he paid it with his life. His view of his life is irrelevant. Society's view of his crime and how it should be sanctioned is.
Then society was too soft on him. Killing him achieved nothing, the "price he paid" was too small.

Elidicous; said:
he'll never know his life was important and that he paid for it because death doesn't allow him to realize this.
suffering and threatened to death, could've been a better solution.
CaptainObvious; said:
I'm trying to understand you. He never knew he was paying his life for his crime? I'm pretty sure he was aware of what was going on.
I think what Elidicous is saying is that how can he be punished with the removal of his life once you take his life away.
 

Bananas

Endangered Species
#35
I disagree, I think the price he paid was equal to the crime committed.
Fair enough, I cant argue against if you think the murder of 16 innocent people and the attempted murder and injuring of 4 others is equal to that of the life of a murdering scumbag.

CaptainObvious; said:
The taking of his life was the punishment.
We realise that. It does not address the point Ellidicous was making though; now he is dead, there is no cognitive function for him to feel that punishment with.

Compared to the kid who was with him who will and is still being punished to this day and will be for many many mor. Killing this guy was the easy option for him. We all die at some point, its not a punishment, once we are gone we are gone, no remorse, no guilt, no pain, no hindsight or foresight, no emotion, no feeling of punishment ...nothing.
 
Last edited:

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
#36
Fair enough, I cant argue against if you think the murder of 16 innocent people and the attempted murder and injuring of 4 others is equal to that of the life of a murdering scumbag.
I don't know what you mean about the attempted murder and injuring of 4 others being equal to the life of the murderer.

EDIT: I gotcha now. Actually I think it's less, they should have beaten him before putting him to death. I don't think the death penalty goes far enough.


We realise that. It does not address the point Ellidicous was making though; now he is dead, there is no cognitive function for him to feel that punishment with.

Compared to the kid who was with him who will and is still being punished to this day and will be for many many mor. Killing this guy was the easy option for him. We all die at some point, its not a punishment, once we are gone we are gone, no remorse, no guilt, no pain, no hindsight or foresight, no emotion, no feeling of punishment ...nothing.
I understand that, but the function of the death penalty is not to have him feel this punishment. I don't see how we can "teach him to be remorseful", if he isn't. he isn't.

My view is he paid a much bigger price than the kid did.
 
Last edited:

Bananas

Endangered Species
#37
....they should have beaten him before putting him to death. I don't think the death penalty goes far enough.
Nope still not far enough in my opinion, anything that ends in an early death is too soft.

My view is he paid a much bigger price than the kid did.
Why do you hold this view?

Ill explian why the kid pays a higher price;
Killing a man is not paying a debt, Ill pay that price, you'll pay that price, that kid will pay that price, their victims paid that price, we will all pay the same price as that murderer. The kid just have to live 40 years if he is lucky, knowing he will be incarcerated for his life, knowing he will be hated by everybody, never knowing love or happiness, never knowing freedom or liberty ;), never being able to make friends with anybody other than the occasional peado or serial killer who he will be forced to share his empty life with, never being able to go a day without the realisation of what he has done, he has to live the rest of his life knowing he has destroyed peoples lives.... and he too will face death one day, just like you, me and that murdering scumbag already has. He too will have to fear the consequence of death but he will not know when his comes. The guy who just got executed had known when his day will come, he probably resided in the fact that it would be game over and just got on with breathing until that day came.
 
Last edited:

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
#38
CaptainObvious said:
Neither do I, but if we're going to discuss the death penalty and whether this individual should have been put to death, let's at least discuss it honestly and correctly, and not equate things that are completely different in every way, shape, and form.
They both involve killing someone. So they are not completely different "in every way, shape, and form."

CaptainObvious said:
From whom do the families of the executed seek justice? What crime has been committed against them? How are they on par with the families of the victims?

I agree it is narrow-minded, when did someone suggest every factor but one be considered?
You have said or strongly implied that the families of the executed should not be considered, because it is the families of the victims of crimes who are seeking justice. If it is not only their concerns we should consider, then why exclude consideration of the families of the person considered for execution in particular. Once again, it seems arbitrary.
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
#39
They both involve killing someone. So they are not completely different "in every way, shape, and form."
Except, again, one is the unjustified killing of another and the other is a penalty for the commission of those crimes codified by statute. So yes, they are completely different.


You have said or strongly implied that the families of the executed should not be considered, because it is the families of the victims of crimes who are seeking justice. If it is not only their concerns we should consider, then why exclude consideration of the families of the person considered for execution in particular. Once again, it seems arbitrary.
All I have implied is that the comparison of the concerns of the two families is specious. The families of the victims are victims themselves and are seeking justice, the family of the convicted is not.
 

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
#40
CaptainObvious said:
Except, again, one is the unjustified killing [yadda yadda]
How are you not simply arguing that the death penalty is legal, and thus is just? What we normally take as the difference between a 'murder' and any other killing, is that the former is legal, whereas the later may not be. Your whole point seems to hinge on the death penalty being legal, since if it were illegal, then the family of the executed would be considered the victims of a crime. So, as a thought experiment, how would you justify not considering the families of the executed, if a state were to unlawfully execute someone?
 
Top