@KazHirai: I was looking around my limo realizing that I had forgotten something back in my hotel room. Apparently it was a can of whoop ass that had Kaz Hirai's name on it.
The only kind of death penalty that Microsoft supports is with upcoming release of Windows 7, which is designed with such an ingenious user interface that using it would feel as if one died and went to heaven.
" This is kind of beside the point but: I always felt like a life sentence is worse then the death sentence. In some ways living in a tiny cell for the rest of your life seems worse then dying. "
I would say this would be true depending on the prisoner requirements. I mean, some criminals get to kick back and watch TV all day in some jails, while in others they require the prisoners to work rigorously.
" @Tebbit: How are they incomparable? People kill and rob people. They use many things. What they use to rob and kill isn't the bad part, the fact that they kdo is. "
He may be referring to the fact that guns are far easier to use, and harder to defend against than knives are.
I must say I'm surprised at the apparent support of capital punishment. Anyway, something I've previously claimed in other religiously focused discussions, is that capital punishment is only something only acceptable in societies in which a large part of the population are religious.
I'll list my general thoughts behind, how religious people can justify CP to themselves:
Belief in some sort of afterlife makes the death penalty not be the final judgement, since that in reality takes place after.
If the convicted is truly wrongfully sentenced to death, God could intervene and not let this person be convicted. Thus if the convicted get killed through their sentence, this proves they probably deserved it.
If a person is sentenced to death wrongfully, they shouldn't really be worried, since they will go to heaven if they did nothing wrong.
An atheist can have a pretty hard time defending the "eye for an eye"-logic behind capital punishment, since according to their belief killing someone is ending their entire existence. An religious person however can excuse their feelings of right to "revenge" though some or all of the points I mentioned.
The fact that 1.3% of death row inmates (Going on the statistic that 80 death row inmates out of 6000) have been freed due to DNA evidence, that in itself should remove the death penalty. Also DNA evidence being faked against the person is more likely, for multiple reasons by the police, a racial bias is the most obvious one.
But again, 1.3%, and ~15% of those who are actually executed, is it actually worth it? I've heard the argument that it is for the greater good, so what if the 15% die, but that is not an argument I feel comfortable with.
I'm against the death penalty because unless you got the person on tape, a stadium of people who witnessed the murder, and the person's full confession with their willingness to be executed, you can never be certain.
Also, it costs more to execute somebody that it does just to lock them up for the rest of their life.
"Even without this, there are plenty of reasons why DNA evidence could not be considered absolute proof. "
Precisely, modern society places way too much faith in DNA evidence. Not only is it never ever 100% accurate in the first place, it's doesn't do the detective work for you, even ignoring the rate of a false match all it does is place someone at the scene it does not prove they commited the crime. Although obviously depending where and what, and how etc you can obviously extrapolate other information. But it seems nowadays like every just goes "Yup, you done, DNA proves you were here."
" The death penalty is fail itself because by killing the killer, you are still getting the blood of him on your hands. I know, kill one save a million, but still, who has the right to choose life or death? "
There is a difference between killing someone who has murdered another, and killing an innocent person. Just like killing someone in self defense is different than killing someone for money. They question is: Who has the legitimate authority to put people to death as punishment? I believe the only legitimate authority is the victim. That poses a problem considering the death penalty can only be justified when the victim is no longer living. So I find it hard to accept that the authority should be delegated to the state. "
Again, flawed logic. Self-Defence =/= the Death Penalty. Whoa, wait, so the victim(s) can kill the criminal? So vengeance? I sure am happy most of the world gets together so they can use their brains and rational thinking instead of letting emotion guide their actions like an individual would. Phew. "
I never said that self defense is the same as the death penalty. Not once did I say Self-Defense=Death Penalty. You just made that up. My obvious point was that not all killing is the same. I'm assuming you agree with me? However, do you feel that it's wrong for someone to kill an aggressor who is attempting to murder them? It is clearly in self defense, defense is the goal, death is the result. That's not too far off from the death penalty.
And no, it looks like you didn't get this point either. No, the victim can not kill the murderer, because the victim is dead. I believe that the only legitimate use of the death penalty is if the victim who was murdered decides to kill the offender. However, it's completely implausible, since the victim cannot do such (you know, with the whole not existing anymore thing).
I used to be all for the death penalty, but upon review, I feel as though death is too easy a punishment for these criminals. In my opinion, holding a person in a cell for the rest of their lives is worse than being killed, because you'll probably wish for death the whole time you're in there. No human interaction, no leaving the cell, just three squares a day and a cot to sleep on, for the rest of your life. If you put those two options out in front of me, I'd choose death any day.
"So because a Jury wrongfully convitcted someone, I become a murder? . "
Technically yes. You pay taxes that are used to kill that person, so you and everyone who gave any amount of money to get that person killed is guilty. "
Come on, that's such bad logic. Do you consider yourself a murder because your federal tax money has went to killing civilians in Iraq?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the death penalty is too easy for these people. Being in a small cell for the rest of there life would be much more punishing then death.
@lilburtonboy7489: I misread what you were saying. I thought you were positing that killing in self defense was the same as killing with the death penalty. But again you're trying to tell me killing from self defense is ALMOST equal to kill someone with the death penalty when they're not even in the same realm. I've already explained several times why in earlier posts.
The victim isn't just the person that was killed. The victims are the friends and family of the deceased also. That is why your idea would never work. We'd have rampant vigilantism and a society based on vengeance. All BAD things. Again, even if the victim could talk to us from the dead that does not mean we carry out their vengeance kilings. That is wrong and barbaric simple. Again as a society we hope together we can make more rational responses to these acts than a single emotional, irrational person would.
"The death penalty is bullshit. Not only is it hypocritical and ineffective as a punishment but it also has one ridiculously gaping hole in it, a paradox, that can't be escaped.
If you support the death penalty and only one SINGLE innocent person is killed and killing an innocent person is murder then you become a murderer and so you also deserve to be killed.
As you can see there is no escaping this paradox. Since we know for sure that many innocent people have been put to death from 1900 to the late 90's, anyone who supported the death penalty and still supports it should also be put to death because not doing so would violate their own moral beliefs. Crazy huh? Yeah not so much. The death penalty is primitive behavior existing in the 21st century. Anyone that supports it is a fucking idiot and has an underdeveloped brain. Simple. "
So because a Jury wrongfully convitcted someone, I become a murder? That's a new one. Honsetly, that paradox is bullshit and you know it: such a scenario would not violate my moral code. Then again, I guess you know me better than I do! Also, I have never been told that I have an underdeveloped brain before. I'll give you kudos for that, it's original. I wonder what other childish names you have up your sleeve for me. "
Riddle me this Kid Crusader:
Did you support the Death Penalty? Even though you fully understood that there was always a chance of killing an innocent? So you felt the risk of killing some innocents was more than worth it if we could kill criminals?
Well fuck, if that isn't murder, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK IS. If a group of people was to get together and kill a supposed criminal, but later found out that they got the the wrong person, they would all be tried for murder (some may get lucky and be tried as accessories to the murder). Oh wait, I'm forgetting something though. Even if the person was a murderer they'd still all be tried for murder. Oh so I get it, even though it is illegal to kill a person, it's perfectly alright to kill a person if the government is behind it. You know because the government isn't made up of flawed human beings at all. Fuck me in the ass. "
Obviously, the fact that an innocent may be killed is unsettling. Creating a straw mans argument out of this scenario is also unsettling. This is not just a group of friends getting together and killing someone. It is a jury of your peers in a fair trail. This is not vigilante justice; that's a poor comparison. Listen, there are many legitimate arguments against the death penalty (most of them in this very thread), but your argument is just not convincing. I believe that the option should be on the table only for some of the most horrendous crimes imaginable. If you want to argue that some states (Texas) go overboard with it, sure. But if you're going to sit there and try to tell me that I am a murder, then this is going no where.
"So because a Jury wrongfully convitcted someone, I become a murder? . "
Technically yes. You pay taxes that are used to kill that person, so you and everyone who gave any amount of money to get that person killed is guilty. "
Come on, that's such bad logic. Do you consider yourself a murder because your federal tax money has went to killing civilians in Iraq? "
Any digital pirates here are also terrorists. Since, you know, it funds terrorism.
" @Tebbit: How are they incomparable? People kill and rob people. They use many things. What they use to rob and kill isn't the bad part, the fact that they kdo is. "
He may be referring to the fact that guns are far easier to use, and harder to defend against than knives are. "
Which wouldn't necessarily have an impact on crime rate.
Besides, if you'll look at the post history, Tebbit is cherry-picking. He completely ignored the point that the availability of guns combined with legislation preventing the carry of guns prevents lawful gun owners from using them for self-defence outside their home. He also completely ignored the point that places like Finland, Austria, and Canada have higher gun-ownership rates per capita, but lower violent crime rates.
" @JeffGoldblum: It's not your website any more than it is mine or anyone else making a contribution to this thread for that matter. "
Yes but, this website has a theme. That theme is video games. I wouldnt mind political conversations if they were intelligent but, its always just people who dont know exactly what they are talking about yelling at each other.
" @JeffGoldblum: It's not your website any more than it is mine or anyone else making a contribution to this thread for that matter. "
Yes but, this website has a theme. That theme is video games. I wouldnt mind political conversations if they were intelligent but, its always just people who dont know exactly what they are talking about yelling at each other. "
This is the OFF TOPIC BOARD. You don't come to this board to discuss video games. Fucking retarded argument that I'm tired of seeing idiots bring up.
Edit: Anyway, I'm a strong supporter of the death penalty. I do not want my tax dollars going towards buying food, electricity and medicine for someone who kills children or murdered an old couple in their home during a robbery, etc. They are people who decided that they were going to ignore another free citizen's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and in my opinion they forfeighted those rights for themselves when they did that. I would also support it in cases where the person is something like a serial rapist.
All types of evidence can be faked; if we decide that we will ignore all of it because of the possibility of it being fabricated then the justice system will go even further down the shitter than it already is.
I have no problem with the death penalty. 1.It frees up jails. 2.it costs less. 3.there are TRUELY some people that shouldn't be allowed to live. 4.it should only happen when beyond the definition of a doubt whether the crime happend.
" @JeffGoldblum: It's not your website any more than it is mine or anyone else making a contribution to this thread for that matter. "
Yes but, this website has a theme. That theme is video games. I wouldnt mind political conversations if they were intelligent but, its always just people who dont know exactly what they are talking about yelling at each other. "
Is there something not intelligent about this topic? I didn't see anything wrong with the discussion being held here and no one is yelling. If you don't care for a topic, don't click on it. Why is that so hard?
" @JeffGoldblum: It's not your website any more than it is mine or anyone else making a contribution to this thread for that matter. "
Yes but, this website has a theme. That theme is video games. I wouldnt mind political conversations if they were intelligent but, its always just people who dont know exactly what they are talking about yelling at each other. "
Is there something not intelligent about this topic? I didn't see anything wrong with the discussion being held here and no one is yelling. If you don't care for a topic, don't click on it. Why is that so hard? "
No the topic is something that should be discussed. Whether the internet is the place to discuss this intelligently is debatable.
"The death penalty is bullshit. Not only is it hypocritical and ineffective as a punishment but it also has one ridiculously gaping hole in it, a paradox, that can't be escaped.
If you support the death penalty and only one SINGLE innocent person is killed and killing an innocent person is murder then you become a murderer and so you also deserve to be killed.
As you can see there is no escaping this paradox. Since we know for sure that many innocent people have been put to death from 1900 to the late 90's, anyone who supported the death penalty and still supports it should also be put to death because not doing so would violate their own moral beliefs. Crazy huh? Yeah not so much. The death penalty is primitive behavior existing in the 21st century. Anyone that supports it is a fucking idiot and has an underdeveloped brain. Simple. "
So because a Jury wrongfully convitcted someone, I become a murder? That's a new one. Honsetly, that paradox is bullshit and you know it: such a scenario would not violate my moral code. Then again, I guess you know me better than I do! Also, I have never been told that I have an underdeveloped brain before. I'll give you kudos for that, it's original. I wonder what other childish names you have up your sleeve for me. "
Riddle me this Kid Crusader:
Did you support the Death Penalty? Even though you fully understood that there was always a chance of killing an innocent? So you felt the risk of killing some innocents was more than worth it if we could kill criminals?
Well fuck, if that isn't murder, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK IS. If a group of people was to get together and kill a supposed criminal, but later found out that they got the the wrong person, they would all be tried for murder (some may get lucky and be tried as accessories to the murder). Oh wait, I'm forgetting something though. Even if the person was a murderer they'd still all be tried for murder. Oh so I get it, even though it is illegal to kill a person, it's perfectly alright to kill a person if the government is behind it. You know because the government isn't made up of flawed human beings at all. Fuck me in the ass. "
Obviously, the fact that an innocent may be killed is unsettling. Creating a straw mans argument out of this scenario is also unsettling. This is not just a group of friends getting together and killing someone. It is a jury of your peers in a fair trail. This is not vigilante justice; that's a poor comparison.Listen, there are many legitimate arguments against the death penalty (most of them in this very thread), but your argument is just not convincing. I believe that the option should be on the table only for some of the most horrendous crimes imaginable. If you want to argue that some states (Texas) go overboard with it, sure. But if you're going to sit there and try to tell me that I am a murder, then this is going no where. "
Wow the loss of an innocent life that you knowingly put at risk is just unsettling? I guess some people here just don't value life very highly. Amazing.
Do you even fucking know what a straw man argument is? This isn't an informal fallacy at all.
If I said ALL people killed from the death penalty are murders therefore you should put to death, THEN it would be an informal fallacy. I shouldn't have to explain any more than that because if you have the audacity to call a Stawman argument then you sure as fuck better know what a Strawman argument is.
A group of your peers finding someone guilty under the notion that they will be put to death, when they FULLY know the person could be innocent is no different than getting a group of your peers together to pull off the justice yourselves. Just because the fucking government does the dirty part at the end doesn't mean you're completely free of any wrongdoing. That is just ignorance in it's finest is all. YOU are still sentencing them to death. How you pull the trigger means jack shit. Simple.
The other arguments are already all true. The ONLY bastion of cocksure argument proponents of the death penalty have left is their flawed moral logic. We know the death penalty is ineffective in deterring crime when it is used as lawfully as possible. We know the death penalty is more costly than long term incarceration. All you people have left is your mental moral code. You can ignore that paradox as much as you want but it was pointed out by an esteemed thinking at the New School for Social Research and a holocaust survivor no less.
As for death penalty, I think it's a bad idea, not because people that commit murders shouldn' t be killed, but because the risk of making a mistake and putting a innocent person to death is still a possiblity.
@JeffGoldblum: I don't know if you've ever watched a session of any parliament or legislative body, but the same is true about the debates that take place there. Besides, the whole point about debate and discussion is to improve your knowledge and understanding, not to prove your knowledge and understanding.
Log in to comment