[QUOTE=Mr. America;32769044]You people don't understand the arguments here. We're not talking about necessarily how execution helps society (in terms of benefiting it other than removing the threat). We're talking about the proper and right way to respond to murderers.
Also, if you think a psychological disorder is an excuse why don't you remember that when your daughter is murdered and tortured then see if you are going to sit there and think oh well he's just a little whacky it's alright he deserves to be treated humanely. No, you will think he is deranged put him down. If he can't help it then don't let him fall subject to it again and harm some other dead person. Also, remember that when someone is murdered its not just that person affected. Imagine your parents or brother or wife being taken from you, yeah they are gone forever but your life is forever changed and I would tend to assume that the majority of people would find some solace in the fact that the perpetrator suffered equally.
Justice is something meant to bring about equal actions to perpetrators and make people pay for what they have done. Putting someone to death and torturing them for an atrocious crime is exactly that. However, there is now some sense that because we have new technologies we are suddenly more ethically advanced, which we're not, and therefore we are somehow above killing. Yes, we should not kill as much as possible but when someone who does not want to be a part of a civilized society they do not deserve to be treated in a civil manner and should be treated with EQUAL regard to life as they have previously shown.[/QUOTE]
Because there's a reason for that that makes sense.
Look, they're in OUR society whether they've shown they want to be a part of it or not. And in our society, we don't go around killing people, government sanctioned or not.
[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32769136]Oh, so they get to continue living, while the 50 innocent people that they executed don't?[/QUOTE]
yes.
[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32769136]What about the families that he tore apart? You think they're going to get much relief from the fact that this guy is nice and cozy in a prison cell for the rest of his life?[/QUOTE]
some of them might, some of them might not. indulging the potentially vicious retributive whims of victims isn't the government's business. the government's business is only to prevent the criminal from perpetrating the crime again
[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32769136]And how much they contribute to society? What? A bomber isn't contributing ANYTHING to society, he's hurting it.[/QUOTE]
so stop him from hurting society. but that's all.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;32769103]the value of a human life isn't weighted on how much they contribute to society. we don't execute unemployed people either
then put them in prison for the rest of their lives. torturing them doesn't accomplish anything.
[editline]13th October 2011[/editline]
no it's not.[/QUOTE]
Your argument is ludicrous to compare an unemployed person to a murderer. They don't contribute positively in an economic sense, but they're not running around splitting people open for fun...
Why does everyone want them in prison forever? How is that a better option in any way? They possibly murder again in prison, they could break out, they live a semi-decent life better than people in 3rd world countries.. How is this a "fair" punishment for the havoc they had wreaked? That's a bleeding heart argument that it doesn't matter what people do let them live. Next thing you know you'll be saying people who rob banks shouldn't be put in jail because they didn't hurt someone they just took some money and threatened people's lives that's no biggie.
[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32769161]Okay. I hope you're happy that YOUR hard earned money and tax dollars are going towards keeping awful inhumane people alive who have murdered innocent people and torn apart families and ruined lives.[/QUOTE]
Uh... yeah. Because they need help. That's exactly the same reason we have charities.
[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32769161]Okay. I hope you're happy that YOUR hard earned money and tax dollars are going towards keeping awful inhumane people alive who have murdered innocent people and torn apart families and ruined lives.[/QUOTE]
i completely am.
[editline]13th October 2011[/editline]
i have literally no qualms about spending tax money to keep people in prison
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32769176]Your argument is ludicrous to compare an unemployed person to a murderer. They don't contribute positively in an economic sense, but they're not running around splitting people open for fun...
Why does everyone want them in prison forever? How is that a better option in any way? They possibly murder again in prison, they could break out, they live a semi-decent life better than people in 3rd world countries.. How is this a "fair" punishment for the havoc they had wreaked? That's a bleeding heart argument that it doesn't matter what people do let them live. Next thing you know you'll be saying people who rob banks shouldn't be put in jail because they didn't hurt someone they just took some money and threatened people's lives that's no biggie.[/QUOTE]
Which is why I suggest rehabiliation, but apparently that's slipped everyone's minds.
[QUOTE=Cone;32769169]Because there's a reason for that that makes sense.
Look, they're in OUR society whether they've shown they want to be a part of it or not. And in our society, we don't go around killing people, government sanctioned or not.[/QUOTE]
You're right in OUR society we don't, but they did it in OUR society. SO, they're not a part of it and should not be treated as if they were because their actions now put them outside of OUR society.
+ a reminder that it costs more money to put someone on death row and execute them than it does to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives and that torturing death row inmates would only add to that cost
Rights are rights are rights are rights are rights.
If rights should be a privilege is like asking if cats should be dogs. The presentation is literally a fallacy.
[QUOTE=Lordgeorge16;32768799]I completely agree with OP's thoughts. If someone takes away an innocent life and gets jailed for it, who's to say they're not going to do it again when they get out?
[/QUOTE]
Who's to say the are? It's impossible to know if killing them all will have a net positive or negative impact so it's best to do nothing.
[QUOTE=Lordgeorge16;32768799] It would also serve as an example to scare criminals out of whatever they're going to do. [/quote]
There is no evidence that the death penalty acts as an effective deterrent.
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32768836]Your argument assumes that you think the execution is another wrong.[/QUOTE]
And your argument assumes that it isn't.
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32768836]If you think it is a right then you aren't getting two wrongs, instead you are having a right balancing a wrong.[/quote]
Life is inherently good. Since an execution takes away life it cannot be regarded as a good.
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32768836]They don't deserve to rehabilitated, and as stated if they could and were they would likely prefer to have been killed as they would be massively burdened with guilt that they could not reconcile with. [/QUOTE]
Completely unfounded statement, why would the guilt be irreconcilable? Who are you to say how people should or shouldn't feel?
[quote=Mr. America;32768836]I think a lot of the people that were murdered would be glad to know that the guy who killed them was executed. You don't think that you would be glad to know that the man who tortured/killed you or a loved one was put to death? Or do you really not have any empathy for the victims? I understand your love for life but it goes too far to extend it to those who destroy life for personal pleasure.[/quote]
In the long term they would be much better off forgiving the murderer than seeing him killed. Which would also help to reconcile the offenders 'irreconcilable guilt'
Also what if they feel guilt for letting a man die out of spite? Should we kill them since they would rather die than live with the irreconcilable guilt (which is likely irreconcilable since they guy is dead)?
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;32769220]+ a reminder that it costs more money to put someone on death row and execute them than it does to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives and that torturing death row inmates would only add to that cost[/QUOTE]
Hence why I said just shoot them in the back of the head for $1 and be done with it. We're not discussing our system though, just the right and wrong of what should happen not how to implement it or how it is implemented in our governments... as stated multiple times..
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;32769174]yes.
some of them might, some of them might not. indulging the potentially vicious retributive whims of victims isn't the government's business. the government's business is only to prevent the criminal from perpetrating the crime again
so stop him from hurting society. but that's all.[/QUOTE]
If your mom or a loved one was on a packed public transport bus, and I blew it up to make a bad point about something, would you want me to sit in a prison?
Well considering you're obviously set on being Mr. Ethical, yes, you would. You wouldn't want any harm to come to me, because I was already removed from society.
Do you think everyone who died is going to agree with you on that? They [highlight]WON'T[/highlight]. These people who completely disregard and destroy human life simply do not deserve to be treated with the same level of respect as normal people.
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32769200]You're right in OUR society we don't, but they did it in OUR society. SO, they're not a part of it and should not be treated as if they were because their actions now put them outside of OUR society.[/QUOTE]
But... they are a part of our society, unless they live on a literal desert island they've been living on their whole life, alone.
And even if they weren't a part of it, two things:
1, why do we even have the ability to impose our own laws on them, and
2, WE still live in our society and shall act as members of it, i.e. not killing people.
[editline]14th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32769244]If your mom or a loved one was on a packed public transport bus, and I blew it up to make a bad point about something, would you want me to sit in a prison?
Well considering you're obviously set on being Mr. Ethical, yes, you would. You wouldn't want any harm to come to me, because I was already removed from society.
Do you think everyone who died is going to agree with you on that? They [highlight]WON'T[/highlight]. These people who completely disregard and destroy human life simply do not deserve to be treated with the same level of respect as normal people.[/QUOTE]
why
Your argument just circles back on itself
[QUOTE=mastermaul;32769223]Rights are rights are rights are rights are rights.
If rights should be a privilege is like asking if cats should be dogs. The presentation is literally a fallacy.[/QUOTE]
You accomplished nothing but angering people by posting this. This has been said several times now.
The whole basis of the debate is SHOULD you be able to revoke human rights. Since people are going to be technical and say rights are irrevocable, I ask should they be a privilege instead.
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32769236]Hence why I said just shoot them in the back of the head for $1 and be done with it. [/QUOTE]
you're still wrong. it's not the execution method that costs more, it's all the legal appeals that death row inmates (rightly) have access to
[QUOTE=Cone;32769270]But... they are a part of our society, unless they live on a literal desert island they've been living on their whole life, alone.
And even if they weren't a part of it, two things:
1, why do we even have the ability to impose our own laws on them, and
2, WE still live in our society and shall act as members of it, i.e. not killing people.[/QUOTE]
Oh yes, you're right. I'd love to have murderers and scum bags that wanted to kill innocent people to prove a point in my society! They definitely deserve to be treated the same as a normal person! Thank you for enlightening me.
[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32769293]
The whole basis of the debate is SHOULD you be able to revoke human rights.[/QUOTE]
and i responded to that:
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;32767491]the very term "human rights" necessitates that they be irrevocable. that's what the term "human rights" means; a person deserves them solely by virtue of them being human. op's question is intrinsically worthless[/QUOTE]
(at this point you called me a moron)
so unless you can find out a way to turn someone into a horse or something then, no, you can't revoke their [i]human[/i] rights
[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32769293]You accomplished nothing but angering people by posting this. This has been said several times now.
The whole basis of the debate is SHOULD you be able to revoke human rights. Since people are going to be technical and say rights are irrevocable, I ask should they be a privilege instead.[/QUOTE]
And now we come back to this.
Who's to say when a priviledge can be taken away?
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;32769327]and i responded to that:
(at this point you called me a moron)
so unless you can find out a way to turn someone into a horse or something then, no, you can't revoke their [i]human[/i] rights[/QUOTE]
CAN YOU NOT READ?
For the discussion purposes of this thread, we're discussing if they should be PRIVILEGES instead.
YOU CAN TAKE AWAY PRIVILEGES, THUS IS MY POINT.
Yeah, every human legally has their HUMAN rights because they're HUMAN. What I'm saying is those rights that they're legally given, should be a privilege instead, a privilege that can be revoked under extreme circumstances.
[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32769325]Oh yes, you're right. I'd love to have murderers and scum bags that wanted to kill innocent people to prove a point in my society! They definitely deserve to be treated the same as a normal person! Thank you for enlightening me.[/QUOTE]
Now you're just being a cariciture.
WHY THE FUCK NOT. THEY ARE BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.
[QUOTE=flyschy;32769224]Who's to say the are? It's impossible to know if killing them all will have a net positive or negative impact so it's best to do nothing.
There is no evidence that the death penalty acts as an effective deterrent.
And your argument assumes that it isn't.
Life is inherently good. Since an execution takes away life it cannot be regarded as a good.
Completely unfounded statement, why would the guilt be irreconcilable? Who are you to say how people should or shouldn't feel?
In the long term they would be much better off forgiving the murderer than seeing him killed. Which would also help to reconcile the offenders 'irreconcilable guilt'
Also what if they feel guilt for letting a man die out of spite? Should we kill them since they would rather die than live with the irreconcilable guilt (which is likely irreconcilable since they guy is dead)?[/QUOTE]
I'm aware that my argument assumes that, but that's why I'm arguing that it is not a wrong. Life is not inherently good, obviously, since people with life cause so much damage to other people's lives. I don't see how that's good. Perhaps Hitler/Stalin/Napoleon deserved life, they were all nice guys just a little funky but they deserve to live. In fact, that's why they put Napoleon on an island by himself to rot to death, which is a form of execution. He also received absolutely no care, just a boat ride to the island.
My statement is not unfounded because if someone were in a proper mind they would not support mass murders and thus would not support their previous actions and how could anyone reconcile with something they don't support? I also stated that I believe that would be the majority feeling, not that everyone will. I do believe that is how people SHOULD feel.
Why is everyone asking: "Who are you to decide this? Why does your opinion make up the rule?" WELL.. the most obvious answer to these ridiculous questions is that I clearly don't make the rules and that's why this is a OPINION DEBATE. I'm not making rules that affect you all I'm arguing my opinion.
I don't see how you think they would be better off forgiving a murderer? Please elaborate how forgiving someone for taking your brother is better than knowing that person got equal treatment? If they feel guilt for letting a man die out of spite they shouldn't since they didn't make the call to execute him that was the choice of the criminal; and if he can't reconcile with someone choosing to put themselves in an execution situation it would be stupid to kill them... That's not even a reasonable argument. We are saying you execute people for them murdering, not for them feeling bad. If he felt bad and went out and killed someone then yes execute him, but to suggest you kill him for not being able to reconcile that someone was killed for killing other people is just dumb.
[QUOTE=Cone;32769374]Now you're just being a cariciture.
WHY THE FUCK NOT. THEY ARE BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.[/QUOTE]
YEAH THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE NOW. THIS DISCUSSION IS ABOUT IF THAT SHOULD BE CHANGED.
[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32769359]CAN YOU NOT READ?
For the discussion purposes of this thread, we're discussing if they should be PRIVILEGES instead.
YOU CAN TAKE AWAY PRIVILEGES, THUS IS MY POINT.
Yeah, every human legally has their HUMAN rights because they're HUMAN. What I'm saying is those rights that they're legally given, should be a privilege instead, a privilege that can be revoked under extreme circumstances.[/QUOTE]
that's not what this post says:
[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32769293]
The whole basis of the debate is SHOULD you be able to revoke human rights. Since people are going to be technical and say rights are irrevocable, I ask should they be a privilege instead.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32769379]
Why is everyone asking: "Who are you to decide this? Why does your opinion make up the rule?" WELL.. the most obvious answer to these ridiculous questions is that I clearly don't make the rules and that's why this is a OPINION DEBATE. I'm not making rules that affect you all I'm arguing my opinion.
[/QUOTE]
I'm not referring to you. I'm asking "WHO will decide this?".
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;32769295]you're still wrong. it's not the execution method that costs more, it's all the legal appeals that death row inmates (rightly) have access to[/QUOTE]
That's why I'm advocating doing it immediately, not letting them appeal etc. Can you still not grasp that we're talking hypothetically and not about our government's method?
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;32769395]that's not what this post says:[/QUOTE]
No, that's fucking exactly what that post means.
You can't REVOKE a right, so I'm asking should Human Rights just be Human Privileges, SO THAT THEY CAN BE REVOKED.
Oh lord, this is why I hate debating sometimes, because you have to rephrase the same thing 10 times before some people can fucking understand what you're trying to say.
[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32769359]CAN YOU NOT READ?[/QUOTE]
Your entire arguments are based off of hypothetical situations, subjective emotional responses, repeated bouts of sarcasm, and personal attacks to others who are opposed to your views.
Until you can present one built out of facts and more properly structured reasoning you don't hold claim to much validity.
[QUOTE=Cone;32769402]I'm not referring to you. I'm asking "WHO will decide this?".[/QUOTE]
Society would clearly have to support it in majority. Again, I'm not arguing about implementation just my theory of right and wrong, and why I believe this way.
[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32769388]YEAH THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE NOW. THIS DISCUSSION IS ABOUT IF THAT SHOULD BE CHANGED.[/QUOTE]
Nope. They can't be changed, that's their definition. They are RIGHTS. You cannot revoke them, no matter the title you give them. Call them what you want, every human deserves them and nobody can have them removed, be they called priviledges, rights, whatever, that's just the title we give them BECAUSE THEY CANNOT BE REMOVED.
It's a euphemism. You're just trying to side-step it when it won't fucking work because they're stil the same thing no matter what you call them.
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32769176]Next thing you know you'll be saying people who rob banks shouldn't be put in jail because they didn't hurt someone they just took some money and threatened people's lives that's no biggie.[/QUOTE]
don't just make shit up for no reason
there's absolutely no connection there and you know it (or should anyway)
[quote=BestBuyInBRICK]These people who completely disregard and destroy human life simply do not deserve to be treated with the same level of respect as normal people.[/quote]
why?
every time someone asks you people this question, if you don't dance around it, you reply with "justice is about retribution" and it's not
everything else is just circular thinking
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
