Ban The Death Penalty

[Meadow]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli's Apprentice

The anti-capital punishment argument relies on the assumption that we're dealing with human beings. We're not. These are animals, and they should be dealt with as animals.

If there's a mad dog killing children in the street, you don't put it in a cage - you shoot it.

Danke, Doktor Goebbels!

[Fez Boy]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli's Apprentice

The anti-capital punishment argument relies on the assumption that we're dealing with human beings. We're not. These are animals, and they should be dealt with as animals.

If there's a mad dog killing children in the street, you don't put it in a cage - you shoot it.

Human beings are still human beings no matter what they've done. Some people may view them as subhuman, but they are still undeniably human.

[Relander]

Originally Posted by Fez Boy

Human beings are still human beings no matter what they've done. Some people may view them as subhuman, but they are still undeniably human.

Then we should talk about murderers as sub-humans in order to avoid this whole human argument as there are different views, what is human.

Death penalty reduces crime in certain location only for short time just like tougher punishments, but then it starts increasing again so defending it by being working deterrent is short-sited. However, applying death penalty has other meanings too which I regard more important: the fact that the criminal who received death penalty, is no longer there to make murders, rape kids etc. after he has got out of jail (if he hasn't got life imprisonment) and justice for the victim & his/her loved ones has happened, bringing comfort.

Though the last argument doesn't apply to all cases, some victims and/or their loved ones don't get any comfort or satisfaction about death of the criminal. That is why the court should ask from concerned people whether they think if death penalty is better than life imprisonment if death penalty is used as form of punishment.

Death penalty is big moral question which will divide people into two camps for tens, if not hundreds of years to come, just like the issue regarding guns in the USA. There's no simple answer, mostly just moral opinions: what is right and wrong.

[Meadow]

Originally Posted by Relander

Then we should talk about murderers as sub-humans in order to avoid this whole human argument as there are different views, what is human.

No. We made the mistake of classing different people as 'sub human' in the 1930s. All people are human from the day they are born until the day they die - they might commit inhuman(e) deeds, but if we start considering anybody 'sub human', it's a slippery slope.

[al3xandra_11]

i agree in death penalty so that murderer may learn....so that they will realize that there's a certain penalty for them...and in that way they will get afraid of doing bad things...like what saddam did....

[Cloak Raider]

It would be impossible to ban the death penalty worldwide, it would just be too hard to do.

[HairySheep]

i think its right just so we can get rid of these people, if it doesnt deter crime or teach a lesson than lets just get rid of these people
if we dont kill them than i think we should make them work in factories or something, like how they used to make lisence plates, cause keeping a murder in prison for the rest of his life (a long time in some cases), not doing anything all all, every single day, defeats the point of him being alive almost

[Joe Bonham]

Sorry, but until you can identify the exact part of their DNA which has made them mysteriously and suddenly transform into a completely different species, they're homo-sapiens. And then you have to clearly define what constitutes an 'animal', because a lot of people would argue that all homo-sapiens are a type of animal. And if animals apparently have no value attached to their lives, I wonder if I could set to work on that list I've got stewing...

Humanity is not a physical state. It is a state of heart and soul.

That is exactly Swift's point in Gulliver's Travels. The horses were people, while the Yahoo tribesmen were animals. Appearances don't matter, only your behavior.

Death penalty reduces crime in certain location only for short time just like tougher punishments, but then it starts increasing again so defending it by being working deterrent is short-sited.

Mind if I take a look at your statistics?

Regardless, there's a logical explanation for that.

As the Death Penalty system ages, more and more rules and red tape are applied to it, decreasing its effectiveness. So while its young its extremely effective, but once it gets corrupted and burdened, it weakens.




Take this into perspective - A murderer is in more danger of getting struck by lightning than he is of getting a lethal injection, so its no surprise there's little deterrence.

[Mastershroom]

I think the death penalty should be abolished. Any time a nation executes a criminal, no matter how atrocious his crimes were or how many he killed, that country is just sinking to his level for revenge.

[WarHawk109]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli's Apprentice

The anti-capital punishment argument relies on the assumption that we're dealing with human beings. We're not. These are animals, and they should be dealt with as animals.

If there's a mad dog killing children in the street, you don't put it in a cage - you shoot it.

But do you trust gubment to make the distinction between humans and animals?

Frankly MA I am shocked that a libertarian such as you would put so much faith in government.

I think the death penalty should only be reserved for tyrants like Saddam and President Tom.