Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





View Poll Results: Should the federal government allow the death penalty?

Voters
32. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    11 34.38%
  • No

    20 62.50%
  • Other (please explain in a post below)

    1 3.13%
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 108
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    31,754
    vCash
    1490
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I understand the "irreversible penalties portion, but I'm saying if there is 100% knowledge of guilt then whether a penalty is irreversible or not is irrelevant.
    Again "if" should not be applied here. There have been times when someone was found "100%" guilty, killed, and then found to be innocent. You don't need to abolish the judicial system, you need to abolish the punishment that can not be undone.

    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Also, I don't really differentiate between someone who receives the death penalty wrongly vs someone who is wrongly imprisoned for the rest of their life and nobody overturns the decision.
    Fine for your own standards, but in reality the potential to be undone is there, whereas the death penalty cannot. It really doesn't matter if YOU don't differentiate between them, because there is in fact a big difference.

    In both instances their entire life was taken away from them because they were not-guilty.
    The difference: If/when their innocence is proven, one of them gets to enjoy their life again.

    And if you argue that living a life in prison is better than being executed then you've just outlined why people advocate for a death penalty, since you are admitting it's a harsher form of punishment (not saying you did advocate, just extrapolating on a hypothetical counter-argument).
    A harsher form of punishment that is not needed and irreversible, which is why we go in a circle back to it being abolished. Which one is worse is 100% irrelevant since the issue is that one of them should not exist.

    But to me this boils down to States' rights and forcing your opinion upon another person. I just think if States vote to allow the Death Penalty then my proposal set forth in a previous post should be the guide to ensure there are no wrongly executed individuals.
    This is not about state's rights at all. This is about constitutionality (against cruel and unusual punishment), justice and morally correct. States' rights are not above that (see slavery, civil rights act, women's right to vote, interracial marriages, etc.).



    And all this is why I'm so done with debating this issue. I laid out my reasons and you can mince this down to all these miniscule reasons for having it, but its just bending things around the fact that its inhumane in imperfect and that's all that matters.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ja-Blam
    Posts
    7,690
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    Again "if" should not be applied here. There have been times when someone was found "100%" guilty, killed, and then found to be innocent. You don't need to abolish the judicial system, you need to abolish the punishment that can not be undone.

    Fine for your own standards, but in reality the potential to be undone is there, whereas the death penalty cannot. It really doesn't matter if YOU don't differentiate between them, because there is in fact a big difference.

    The difference: If/when their innocence is proven, one of them gets to enjoy their life again.

    A harsher form of punishment that is not needed and irreversible, which is why we go in a circle back to it being abolished. Which one is worse is 100% irrelevant since the issue is that one of them should not exist.

    This is not about state's rights at all. This is about constitutionality (against cruel and unusual punishment), justice and morally correct. States' rights are not above that (see slavery, civil rights act, women's right to vote, interracial marriages, etc.).

    And all this is why I'm so done with debating this issue. I laid out my reasons and you can mince this down to all these miniscule reasons for having it, but its just bending things around the fact that its inhumane in imperfect and that's all that matters.
    "I've made my decision and I haven't actually listened to a single word you've said nor would I care to listen to any counter opinion since it's different than mine, it's obviously inferior and therefore wrong." - That's what that last part sounded like fyi.

    I shall continue responding, but not in the hopes you will reply, but to provide clarity on my point for anyone else reading.

    To the first part, everything I've said is to be taken in conjunction with my proposed revisions to the Death Penalty system. And in what I proposed there would be no "guys were 100% guilty only to be found innocent later on". That would be completely eliminated.

    As to the second part, the potential to be undone was there, but I was careful to word my point, something you didn't pick up on. I don't differentiate between someone who has already served the duration of their sentence, since the entirety of their life was forfeited in incarceratoin.

    As to the first bolded portion. One needs only to look back at the Founding Fathers to determine execution would not fall into the cruel and unusual punishment area considering there were executions at the time the Constitution was written. If the Founding Fathers thought it were cruel or unusual in any way why wouldn't they write that into the constitution to begin with?
    Quote Originally Posted by AmsterNat View Post
    How unsurprising. Dude, give up trying to argue with valade. He cut you into little pieces, had you for breakfast, and shat you out.
    Quote Originally Posted by mariner4life View Post
    Valade you have totally owned this thread. Well done
    My fanbase is growing.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,229
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I guess my counter question to the first one is: How is soceity benefitted by not killing someone who is 100% guilty and will never breathe free air again? Whether the man dies or not is completely irrelevant to societies well being so I see no reason why it shouldn't be left up to the states for their preference in that instance.

    As to the religion bit, I agree with you. But I disagree with the idea that your morals are more valid than someone elses because theirs is founded in religion. What you are trying to do is force everyone in the country to follow your moral code, where it is derived from is irrelevant, it is still your personal morality.

    That is how every law based on morality is determined, but the ones that are generally irrefutable are because everyone shares that same moral principle (i.e. rape is bad). Obviously regarding this issue there is not a strong majority that feels the action is either moral/immoral, so advocating others be forced to adhere to your moral standards is precisely why the States were made in the first place.
    Because not killing people means we never run the risk of killing an innocent. Because not killing people means, as flips said, we can study those people. Because not killing people means we are advancing as a society, past the point where we need to put people to death in a doomed attempt to try and stop crime, which seems to be the whole point anyway, isn't it?

    I would hope everyone shares the moral principle that killing is wrong. It's more than a little frightening that they don't.
    Visit my Blog.



    "Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ja-Blam
    Posts
    7,690
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    Because not killing people means we never run the risk of killing an innocent. Because not killing people means, as flips said, we can study those people. Because not killing people means we are advancing as a society, past the point where we need to put people to death in a doomed attempt to try and stop crime, which seems to be the whole point anyway, isn't it?

    I would hope everyone shares the moral principle that killing is wrong. It's more than a little frightening that they don't.
    I agree as a general principle, but it precludes the idea that killing is necessary in some instances.

    Heck, one could argue that by allowing executions we would actually reinforce the idea that killing someone, while regretful and something to be used sparingly, can sometimes be necessary.

    There's the famous Gandhi quote that goes "an eye for an eye and soon the whole world is blind" but I saw an awesome counter quote, can't remember who by:

    "if you never stand up for yourself and allow them to take your eyes, you'll be just as blind".

    The key is not teaching people that violence is never the answer, it's educating them on when it is the answer.
    Quote Originally Posted by AmsterNat View Post
    How unsurprising. Dude, give up trying to argue with valade. He cut you into little pieces, had you for breakfast, and shat you out.
    Quote Originally Posted by mariner4life View Post
    Valade you have totally owned this thread. Well done
    My fanbase is growing.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    31,754
    vCash
    1490
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    "I've made my decision and I haven't actually listened to a single word you've said nor would I care to listen to any counter opinion since it's different than mine, it's obviously inferior and therefore wrong." - That's what that last part sounded like fyi.

    I shall continue responding, but not in the hopes you will reply, but to provide clarity on my point for anyone else reading.

    To the first part, everything I've said is to be taken in conjunction with my proposed revisions to the Death Penalty system. And in what I proposed there would be no "guys were 100% guilty only to be found innocent later on". That would be completely eliminated.

    As to the second part, the potential to be undone was there, but I was careful to word my point, something you didn't pick up on. I don't differentiate between someone who has already served the duration of their sentence, since the entirety of their life was forfeited in incarceratoin.

    As to the first bolded portion. One needs only to look back at the Founding Fathers to determine execution would not fall into the cruel and unusual punishment area considering there were executions at the time the Constitution was written. If the Founding Fathers thought it were cruel or unusual in any way why wouldn't they write that into the constitution to begin with?

    We're not talking about an ideal or corrected judicial system. We're talking about the system we have and whether it is worthy of a death penalty. It is not. So it should be repealed.

    I absolutely have made up my mind on this issue and I won't hide the fact that I think supporting it requires an uninformed and uncaring/inhumane line of thinking. I'm pretty open minded on most things, but this isn't one of them.

    You do make good points, but they only apply in a perfect judicial system where only guilty people are penalized.

    I have no interest in the founding fathers intent. We're 200+ years past where this society was at the time. They didn't have a problem with slavery either, so we take the ideals that make universal rights and shed the periodic circumstances. We have a right to avoid cruel and unusual punishment and its hard to consider DEATH to be not cruel or unusual.


    On a completely unrelated note, I used to work at a law firm where attorneys would get out of parking tickets on grounds of their constitutional right against unfair fines and penalties. Pretty crazy how those rights can be applied.....although $100 for missing 10 cents worth of meter time is pretty extreme.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    31,754
    vCash
    1490
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    The key is not teaching people that violence is never the answer, it's educating them on when it is the answer.
    And when we have a justice system that routinely allows innocent people to slip through the cracks, it's not the time for violence being an answer.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,229
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    As to the first bolded portion. One needs only to look back at the Founding Fathers to determine execution would not fall into the cruel and unusual punishment area considering there were executions at the time the Constitution was written. If the Founding Fathers thought it were cruel or unusual in any way why wouldn't they write that into the constitution to begin with?
    This is such a non-starter. There were also slaves at the time the Constitution was written, and guns were a musket that had to be reloaded after every shot. Times change. If the Constitution cannot change with them, we're screwed as a nation.
    Visit my Blog.



    "Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,229
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I agree as a general principle, but it precludes the idea that killing is necessary in some instances.

    Heck, one could argue that by allowing executions we would actually reinforce the idea that killing someone, while regretful and something to be used sparingly, can sometimes be necessary.

    There's the famous Gandhi quote that goes "an eye for an eye and soon the whole world is blind" but I saw an awesome counter quote, can't remember who by:

    "if you never stand up for yourself and allow them to take your eyes, you'll be just as blind".

    The key is not teaching people that violence is never the answer, it's educating them on when it is the answer.
    Quotes are nice and all, but they don't really shed any light on this.

    Killing is necessary if someone's life is in danger. Once that threat is removed, once they are locked in a cage, never again to breathe free air, what's the point?

    Again, I ask: Where is the benefit to society in killing someone?
    Visit my Blog.



    "Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    40,047
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    Quotes are nice and all, but they don't really shed any light on this.

    Killing is necessary if someone's life is in danger. Once that threat is removed, once they are locked in a cage, never again to breathe free air, what's the point?

    Again, I ask: Where is the benefit to society in killing someone?
    For counter point or just another idea to further the discussion what about taking away the threat of them killing again in prison?


    Come to psd where admitted dupes who do nothing but troll the gd and fs forum are free. But man don't you dare mention trolling on someone's wall.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    25,683
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by behindmydesk View Post
    For counter point or just another idea to further the discussion what about taking away the threat of them killing again in prison?
    Especially if you think, like I do that certain types of solitary confinement does violate the constitution and is wrong.

    Also, some criminals can still harm society at large from inside jail (Whether they be mobsters, or serial killers with cult followings etc)

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    31,754
    vCash
    1490
    Quote Originally Posted by behindmydesk View Post
    For counter point or just another idea to further the discussion what about taking away the threat of them killing again in prison?
    Then they kill other killers and supporters of capital punishment rejoice.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,229
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by behindmydesk View Post
    For counter point or just another idea to further the discussion what about taking away the threat of them killing again in prison?
    How often to death row inmates actually kill someone else in prison?

    And, really, much of our prison system needs an overhaul.
    Visit my Blog.



    "Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    31,754
    vCash
    1490
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    How often to death row inmates actually kill someone else in prison?

    And, really, much of our prison system needs an overhaul.
    Like not allowing it to be a privatized business?

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,229
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    Like not allowing it to be a privatized business?
    Indeed. And it's kind of ****ed up that we do.
    Visit my Blog.



    "Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    25,683
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    How often to death row inmates actually kill someone else in prison?

    And, really, much of our prison system needs an overhaul.
    Bill James in his crime book had a fascinating proposal about establishing a network of small prisons (like really small like 10-15 people) which were on many different scales of harshness creating incentives for criminals to move up in the system through good behaviour and attempts at some forms of rehabilitation.

    He explains it alot better and that alone makes an awesome book on crime a great read

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •