It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
DIPED_IN_SAUCEThose psychos don't deserve to be treated like humans.
By that logic, you are saying that we should just take most of our veterans and soldiers and kill them all. The purpose of prison is to destroy the criminal and bring back the human. Criminals don't deserve do be treated like humans, but humans do, it's very rare that you won't be able to find a piece of human in even the worst criminals.
john18061806By that logic, you are saying that we should just take most of our veterans and soldiers and kill them all.
Did you really just equate combat vets to criminals? If so ETADIK.
A few things regarding that:
1. Most service members have not killed anyone.
2. Killing someone in war/combat is not murder. There is nothing morally wrong with killing someone in combat.
3. When a country goes to war it is the nationally and internationally (within some restrictions) legal justified use of violence against others to implement, enforce, and protect, their foreign policy. Murder is the unlawful (and intentional) destruction of life. We also differentiate between people who kill to protect themselves, others, or their right to property (self defense / castle doctrine) and those who kill others out of malice or carelessness.
Back to the death penalty:
BLUF:
We (the United States) should not use the death penalty. I am a firm believer that some people have, through their own actions, deserve to die. There are many people whom I would be more than willing to violently kill myself, given the actions they have committed. Those who rape come to mind.
However, there are factors that need to be considered when discussing the death penalty. Given the current state of these factors, I am decidedly against the current use of the death penalty in the United States.
The issues are:
1. Are innocent people being killed?
2. Is it financially reasonable to do so?
3. Is it a successful deterrent?
4. Would those who would otherwise be killed returned to society?
The discussion:
1. Undoubtedly innocent people will be killed. It is next to impossible to have 100%, irrefutable knowledge that someone is guilty in all cases. This is why the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond all conceivable doubt. Innocent people have been killed in the past, and it would most likely continue to do so. As technology advances, the percentage would likely shrink, it will likely never go to zero however.
This in itself is not, IMO, reason in itself to discontinue the use of the death penalty.
2. It is currently not financially reasonable to carry out a death sentience. We currently spend millions of dollars on each death sentience. Over an order of magnitude more than on each life in prison sentience. When combined with points three and four (below), it becomes stupid to do so.
3. It has been shown that the current use of the death penalty in the United States is not a deterrent to crime. This is likely due to the selective nature in which the death penalty is chosen. We no longer kill people for such crimes as Grand Theft, Rape, Armed Robbery, or even most Murders. For people to commit the horrific crimes that tend to carry the death penalty, they generally need to be in such sociopathic state that they are either not considering the consequences, or don't care.
4. People who are sentenced to life in prison without parole die in prison. They are removed from society. People who are sentenced to death would be sentenced to life without parole had the death penalty not been available.
If we were to reduce the cost of each execution, and adjust the system so it was a deterrent to violent crime, without an increase in innocent victims, I would be in favor of the death penalty.
cobra_commanderDid you really just equate combat vets to criminals? If so ETADIK.
A few things regarding that:
1. Most service members have not killed anyone.
2. Killing someone in war/combat is not murder. There is nothing morally wrong with killing someone in combat.
3. When a country goes to war it is the nationally and internationally (within some restrictions) legal justified use of violence against others to implement, enforce, and protect, their foreign policy. Murder is the unlawful (and intentional) destruction of life. We also differentiate between people who kill to protect themselves, others, or their right to property (self defense / castle doctrine) and those who kill others out of malice or carelessness.
Back to the death penalty:
BLUF:
We (the United States) should not use the death penalty. I am a firm believer that some people have, through their own actions, deserve to die. There are many people whom I would be more than willing to violently kill myself, given the actions they have committed. Those who rape come to mind.
However, there are factors that need to be considered when discussing the death penalty. Given the current state of these factors, I am decidedly against the current use of the death penalty in the United States.
The issues are:
1. Are innocent people being killed?
2. Is it financially reasonable to do so?
3. Is it a successful deterrent?
4. Would those who would otherwise be killed returned to society?
The discussion:
1. Undoubtedly innocent people will be killed. It is next to impossible to have 100%, irrefutable knowledge that someone is guilty in all cases. This is why the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond all conceivable doubt. Innocent people have been killed in the past, and it would most likely continue to do so. As technology advances, the percentage would likely shrink, it will likely never go to zero however.
This in itself is not, IMO, reason in itself to discontinue the use of the death penalty.
2. It is currently not financially reasonable to carry out a death sentience. We currently spend millions of dollars on each death sentience. Over an order of magnitude more than on each life in prison sentience. When combined with points three and four (below), it becomes stupid to do so.
3. It has been shown that the current use of the death penalty in the United States is not a deterrent to crime. This is likely due to the selective nature in which the death penalty is chosen. We no longer kill people for such crimes as Grand Theft, Rape, Armed Robbery, or even most Murders. For people to commit the horrific crimes that tend to carry the death penalty, they generally need to be in such sociopathic state that they are either not considering the consequences, or don't care.
4. People who are sentenced to life in prison without parole die in prison. They are removed from society. People who are sentenced to death would be sentenced to life without parole had the death penalty not been available.
If we were to reduce the cost of each execution, and adjust the system so it was a deterrent to violent crime, without an increase in innocent victims, I would be in favor of the death penalty.
john18061806By that logic, you are saying that we should just take most of our veterans and soldiers and kill them all. The purpose of prison is to destroy the criminal and bring back the human. Criminals don't deserve do be treated like humans, but humans do, it's very rare that you won't be able to find a piece of human in even the worst criminals.
i am not going to go into my personal views of the death penalty but this is a relevant article, about some recent events here. Alaska does not have a death penalty and many people are extremely angry, like lynch mob angry and want to take action. the comment section has been heavily moderated but you can still get a sense of how people feel. Alaska is interesting because everyone is so adamant about their guns and constitutional rights, this will not be a quick and simple trial but be drug through the court systems and back again for the next few years most likely.
cobra_commanderThere is nothing morally wrong with killing someone in combat.
3. When a country goes to war it is the nationally and internationally (within some restrictions) legal justified use of violence against others to implement, enforce, and protect, their foreign policy. Murder is the unlawful (and intentional) destruction of life.
1. Killing people is morally wrong.
2. Warfare is essentially terrorism justified by money and power. Defensive warfare is morally justified, but most of the military actions of the United States since World War II are completely unjust and offensive.
3. The war on terror is an excuse that the United States has made to be at war.
4. Killing people in combat is just as morally wrong as it is in any other scenario unless in self defense.
5. This discussion needs to go back to the death penalty and not relate to the armed forces because my original statement comparing the two was a statement to point out the logical flaws of the statement I quoted.
cobra_commanderI'll say this. Most people are not killers. Many will hold themselves back from taking a 'kill' shot. Need to make your firing squad up out of killers.
Hang 'em.
they should make the jury that convicted them also kill them
john180618061. Killing people is morally wrong.
2. Warfare is essentially terrorism justified by money and power. Defensive warfare is morally justified, but most of the military actions of the United States since World War II are completely unjust and offensive.
3. The war on terror is an excuse that the United States has made to be at war.
4. Killing people in combat is just as morally wrong as it is in any other scenario unless in self defense.
5. This discussion needs to go back to the death penalty and not relate to the armed forces because my original statement comparing the two was a statement to point out the logical flaws of the statement I quoted.
1. You're right
2. It's not up to the soldiers who fight wars to decide whether or not we start them. They're just there to make sure we win. You can't possibly blame a war that was started unjustly on them.
3. Okay.
4. No it's not, it's just soldiers doing their jobs. I'm sure most soldiers try not to kill whenever possible, but if it's a choice between saving their own life and the lives of those they are fighting next to, and the person they are shooting at, they are going to pick their own life, and it's ridiculous to say it's morally wrong to do so.
5. The problem is your own statement was just as logically flawed, if not more so, than the one you quoted.
Watts4. No it's not, it's just soldiers doing their jobs. I'm sure most soldiers try not to kill whenever possible, but if it's a choice between saving their own life and the lives of those they are fighting next to, and the person they are shooting at, they are going to pick their own life, and it's ridiculous to say it's morally wrong to do so.
5. The problem is your own statement was just as logically flawed, if not more so, than the one you quoted.
4. I was implying a distinction between killing as a whole being unjust vs. following orders. Terrorists follow orders and do their jobs as they are ordered just as soldiers do. Not to say that thier individual killing is morally wrong, but the overall reason for killing typically is.
5. Rabble rabble rabble
WattsI honestly can't figure out what this sentence is supposed to mean.
Collectively, the killing that the military does is immoral. But the individuals who are following orders have no choice. There is a difference. Stating that killing in combat is immoral, but the individuals who have no choice are not immoral.
john18061806Collectively, the killing that the military does is immoral. But the individuals who are following orders have no choice. There is a difference. Stating that killing in combat is immoral, but the individuals who have no choice are not immoral.
Right, which is why soldiers aren't blamed for murder if they kill during a war, and why they aren't considered criminals, and certainly not psychos who should be put down.
Wattscertainly not psychos who should be put down.
Most murderers are normal people who just got the idea in their head that killing people is morally acceptable due to their circumstances, experiences, or extremely strong motives. This is why they go to correctional facilities, if that idea can just be changed, they can go back to society and be normal people. I've met ex-murderers and they are normal people. The notion that all murderers are complete psychos that must be put down is far more ignorant than anything that has been said in this thread.
john18061806Most murderers are normal people who just got the idea in their head that killing people is morally acceptable due to their circumstances, experiences, or extremely strong motives. This is why they go to correctional facilities, if that idea can just be changed, they can go back to society and be normal people. I've met ex-murderers and they are normal people. The notion that all murderers are complete psychos that must be put down is far more ignorant than anything that has been said in this thread.
I agree. But it's far more ridiculous and incredibly disrespectful to compare soldiers serving our country with civilian murders.
