The Death Penalty

nanite1018

Registered Member
#1
Does the government have the right to impose the death penalty on someone? I don't think so. The problem with it is that it is a purely subjective moral judgement. The government shouldn't be in the business of subjective lawmaking, but instead protecting our rights. What greater infringement of our rights than the removal of life? I lone my power to the government, and contractually state that I will abide by the government's decisions. That is the origin of the government's power: the collection of power by mutual consent of the governed.
I don't have the right to kill someone because I think it right. A mob doesn't either. So why is it that when the government, which is really simply an instrument used by all the individual members of society to protect their rights, decides to kill someone, it is okay? Essentially all that is happening is that instead of a small mob, we have a giant mob, one including everyone in the country, all saying that someone should be killed? What is the difference between a small mob and a big mob when it comes to our rights and morality? Nothing. A mob is a mob no matter how many people are in it. And thus the government does not have the right to kill anyone except in the direct defense of others. And thus the death penalty is wrong.
 

Gavik

Registered Member
#2
A: Move this to philosophy.

B: There's no reason to have it. It doesn't save the state the room and board money because the executed are too small in number, and

C: It's too final a decision. Do you know how many people on death row have been found to be innocent? The US even executes children and the retarded.

Besides, are we any more civilized than the murderer if all we can do is inflict the same savage act upon him?
 

Merc

Certified Shitlord
V.I.P.
#3
First, I want you, Gavik, to prove that we execute children.

Where do I stand on the death penalty? Hmm . . . . well, perhaps a ramble will do the trick of sorting through some of my ideas.

I don't like the idea of people deciding who lives and dies simply because I believe people are idiotic, irrational, selfish for the most part, and ignorant. Most people can't decide what they want for dinner, why would we let them decide who dies and lives?

Yet, at the same time, I'm of the belief that some people are simply better off dead. By better off, I mean better for the rest of the population. A guy who rapes children is an example. If you have some sicko running around at night, cradle robbing and fucking kids, he needs to be shot in the face. He has no production value for the country. If we really want a nonviolent solution to this, I say strap 'em with a shock collar, anchor him to a floor in front of a conveyor belt where he can assemble children's toys (a nice way to fuck with him, we're talking serious yet passive punishment!).

Call me a cruel, but some people simply deserve it. When they become threats to others, they should be properly evaluated. Drug dealers don't need to be executed, they need to be punsihed and rehabilitated, they need a second chance in life because they fucked up the first one and everyone deserves a second chance.

I don't like the idea of capital punishment mainly because I don't trust people. However, I think certain people deserve it.
 

tipsycatlover

Registered Member
#4
Before you make superior moral judgments, you might want to meet a few death penalty inmates. Talk to them. See how they feel. Most in their own minds are innocent. No, not innocent of the crime, they will talk endlessly about the crime or crimes themselves, smiling, enjoying every remembered second. They are innocent because the victim deserved it. It is the victim's fault. They are innocent because they had a constitutional right to do what they did. Don't they have a right to pursuit of happiness? Well, seeing the life drain out of a victim makes them happy.

Far from claiming innocence, most death row inmates are proud of themselves and glad to discuss the details of their crimes. Particularly serial killers who will recount details with almost a sense of relief that they get to share. Larry Bittaker who with Roy Norris kidnapped and tortured young girls to death was recounting the murder of a 13 year old girl. He removed her nipples by twisting them off with a coathanger and pliers, she didn't die, he put an ice pick through her ear into her brain and she didn't die. He took the ice pick out and put it in the other ear but it stopped half way in so he started kicking it with his foot until the pick broke off inside her skull. While he was recounting her screams he had an orgasm right in the interviewing room.

William Bonin California's freeway killer murdered more than 30 boys. More because he killed more, they just got him for 30. He loved every second of it. They were strangled with their own t-shirts. He joked about dumping the bodies along the freeways, saying that he could get a ticket for carrying dead meat.

Baha Asgari killed his wife with a baseball bat, decapitated her and carried her head around looking for his 16 year old daughter. He wanted to show her what she could she could expect if she continued to disobey him. He was innocent. He never stopped saying he was innocent. He was innocent because he killed his wife. As soon as we understood that it was his wife, he could go free. All disobedient girls needed to be killed to make an example of them for other girls.

There are some people so utterly evil that they forfeit their right to live, even among other criminals. We put rabid dogs down. We cut out cancerous tumors. There is no reason to keep these kinds alive so they can enjoy reliving their crimes and imaginging committing even more. To prove our moral superiority isn't a reason. It isn't even realistic.
 

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
#5
nanite1018 said:
The government shouldn't be in the business of subjective lawmaking, but instead protecting our rights.
To advocate that the government should protect people's "rights" is to take a stand on a subjective issue. So, really, it seems to me that you're saying that since such matters are subjective, your subjective opinion on the matter is correct. That doesn't make sense.

Perhaps you think that there's some objective reason that rights should be protected? I can't imagine where I might look to find it. What in nature dictates that any course of action is preferable to any other? It seems to me that only men determine such things.

That said, I am more-or-less against the death penalty. "More-or-less" meaning that I wouldn't have anything against it if we lived in a fantasy world where guilt or innocence could be determined beyond all shadow of a doubt.
 
S

Shoryuk3n

Guest
#6
The death penalty is just a way to say: "I'm too lazy to help this poor guy that is mentally unstable so i'd rather kill him".

That is my opinion.

I see murderers this way:

People like you and me ( I assume you are not a murderer) are lucky with the fact we are born with a healthy brain. We understand that killing is wrong. Now when you hear on the news that whole family has been slaughtered, the first thing say is: "I can't imagine how someone could do that!".

So the person who mass mureded has a brain defect. Now what I see as a solution is to help that person/ cure that person like you would cure someone with a desease. Now if you conclude that the poor guy is too mentally damaged that he can not be helped, you let him live a "special" life. With special I mean a life that people watch over you and don't allow you to live in "the real world" becouse you wouldn't be able to handle it.

Those people deserve to live, but seprate from "normal people". Now with the death penalty, you say: "You do no deserve to live". And no-one and I repeat no-one can say that.

People with deseases are helped. Beeing mentally not 100% is a desease isn't it. Why don't they get helped? They get killed for not beeing perfect.
 

Merc

Certified Shitlord
V.I.P.
#7
"Normal" people? There are no such thing, never have, never will be.

I'm pretty sure I've read a study or two, both claimed there were no differences in the brains of criminals and those of "normal" people. So the whole "normal" argument is even further wrong.

You just spent two paragraphs that could have been shortened into one sentence:

So the person who mass mureded has a brain defect. Now what I see as a solution is to help that person/ cure that person like you would cure someone with a desease. Now if you conclude that the poor guy is too mentally damaged that he can not be helped, you let him live a "special" life. With special I mean a life that people watch over you and don't allow you to live in "the real world" becouse you wouldn't be able to handle it.

Those people deserve to live, but seprate from "normal people". Now with the death penalty, you say: "You do no deserve to live". And no-one and I repeat no-one can say that.
Translation: People who commit crimes should go to jail.

The main problem with your argument is that you assume automatically that all of these vicious killers and sadistic child-rapists are just . . . "unstable." That, through some sort of care and love, they'll snap out of it and become better. Read up on some of these people sent there.

If anything, we should just round the really vicious and "unfixable" ones and fly them over Antartica and drop them. It would be fitting.
 
L

LouGehrig

Guest
#8
The death penalty is wrong, but killing may not be wrong. If you see an individual kill another indivdual, it may be a situation that should lead to the killer being killed. The paramount variable is doubt. If there is no doubt, the necessary steps can be taken that may lead to an execution.
 

Gavik

Registered Member
#9
If our government executes 1 innocent person, then we're all accesories to murder.

The death penalty can't be allowed to survive in a civilized society. Funny how no one sees a contradiction between banning the abortion of an unwanted child that will grow up addicted to drugs in poverty-stricken crime infested areas and then advocate for his death once he commits murder. But that was off topic.

For the examples mentioned above, just lock them away. Far away, in solitary confinment inside foot think concrete walls for the rest of their life. It's that simple.

As for executing children, ever hear of being tried as an adult? Making the death penalty available in those cases has been tried as a deterrent to the young hitmen in gangs, who are used because they know they won't be executed.
 

pro2A

Hell, It's about time!
#10
The death penalty is one of those issues I’m a little split on. I lean more towards the side of, if you kill someone you should be put to death. Only after there is 100% indisputable evidence that you did it. Otherwise life in a super-max prison is fine by me.

The other side of me is about rights and freedoms. I consider myself a constitutionalist, and the death penalty is borderline unconstitutional. I also think that if you deprive someone else’s right to life, you forfeit your own rights.

To argue Gavik’s point about the right’s contradictions between abortion and the death penalty, the left is always ready to save a squirrel or some rare bat or something like that, but is willing to abort an unborn fetus.

Putting a killer to death is doing the world a favor. What did an unborn fetus do?