The Death Penaly - Yea Or Nay?

[krahmaan]

Originally Posted by G10

krahman dude, the death penalty is a law that applies only to human beings and not to eating veg, killing bugs or eating meat... Yes it could be classed as an accomplice

As Zap said, he could kill to stay alive and eating is self preservation so not the same as premeditated murder.

True. But he also said killing is killing and that killing makes you a killer. So to put it that way is just like saying if you kill anything alive, then you're a killer. My point being that self preservation is the reason why there's CP. You yourself being so wise must understand that the people who are trying the murderers are now highly afraid of them. So it is not wrong to add that destroying the murderer has now become a form of self preservation. Now what if that murderer ever escaped from prison? Who's to say that anyone of us is barred from ever becoming his next target?

So to keep that from happening, and for the preservation of the rest of human life, CP is just like stopping any future random acts by these murderers. To all of the sudden say that the courts have premeditated to kill the killer, takes away from their right to destroy any chance or threat of a proven murderer to kill someone innocent once again.

I hope this makes sense. I'm not here to put anyones intelligence or point of view down. They can go on believing whatever they want. But I know given the right circumstances, they would most definitely see things in a different light.

[aimhigh]

On my own opinion its NAy. Who gave us the authority to takes one's life? Okay. He did evil yes, but can't we not give him a chance? Maybe he did evil because he never been love, and didn't know the meaning of love. Before we judge the person we have to check first where he came from and the roots why he became evil. We can put him to jail for the rest of his life to pay his evil deeds and I believe staying in a jail for the rest of his/her life is like dying itself but the only difference is that he/she is breathing.

[thegamerslink]

Originally Posted by aimhigh

On my own opinion its NAy. Who gave us the authority to takes one's life? Okay. He did evil yes, but can't we not give him a chance? Maybe he did evil because he never been love, and didn't know the meaning of love. Before we judge the person we have to check first where he came from and the roots why he became evil. We can put him to jail for the rest of his life to pay his evil deeds and I believe staying in a jail for the rest of his/her life is like dying itself but the only difference is that he/she is breathing.

Let me ask a cliche' question here. You want to give the one who committed murder or multiple murders another chance, did that person give his victims another chance? In the instance of Timothy McVeigh, did he give all the men, women, and children that are now dead another chance, did he give the loved ones of all those victims another chance?

In the instance of someone like "The Son of Sam" did he give all his victims a second chance, the victims of any number of other serial killers get a second chance? They have life in prison such as in the case of the one who orchestrated Helter Skelter, what chance of rehabilitation do you think is involved there?

Why are people so ready to protect the perpetrator and so few are willing to protect the victim and their families? It just blows my mind. "Oh they killed the 4 year old little girl after vaginally and anally raping her but give him 30+ years in jail and I'm sure he'll know he did wrong, he probably was abused by his father when he was a child" How could you possibly entertain such ideology???

[John Scott]

It is hypocritical to kill someone for killing someone.

I didn't ask you to repeat the unfounded statement. I asked you to back it up with reasoning.

Do so, or don't lose your political forum privileges.

And, I must say, you should consider the rep to be merciful. Your posts here deserve more than red rep. You should have been banned from this forum, but I'm being nice enough to let you post.

I deserve a Nobel prize.

[Zap]

Originally Posted by John Scott

I didn't ask you to repeat the unfounded statement. I asked you to back it up with reasoning.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=...ypocrisy&meta=
Killing someone because they killed someone is hypocritical.
It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Originally Posted by John Scott

Do so, or don't lose your political forum privileges.

Ahhh. Yes. Agree with me or be banned like Ferre.
If you can't handle opposing viewpoints, then don't post in here.
http://www.v7n.com/forums/politics/6...uidelines.html

1. Enter at Your Own Risk - Controversial topics can become heated very quickly. If you want to participate in the political forums, there will be times that you are going to need thick skin.

[Zap]

What's wrong, John?

Can't you bomb me into red oblivion anymore?

Stop being so childish and debate honestly, without abusing your power.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Zap

What's wrong, John?

Can't you bomb me into red oblivion anymore?

Stop being so childish and debate honestly, without abusing your power.

Huh? Another crap post like this and I'll ban you from the entire forum, not just the politics forum.

Grow up, kiddo. Seriously.

[Zap]

Do you seriously not see the hypocrisy of killing someone for killing someone?
Or are you acting obtuse just to get under my skin?

The reason you kill someone is irrelevant.
I'm sure a murderer has what they think are valid reasons for killing but who gives a ****?
You think you have valid reasons for killing someone, but, again, who gives a ****?
Killing someone because they killed someone is hypocritical.

(And, you're younger than me so maybe you should not be using "Kiddo" when referring to me)

[Zap]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Huh? Another crap post like this and I'll ban you from the entire forum, not just the politics forum.

Grow up, kiddo. Seriously.

Another example of hypocrisy, since we're on the topic.

You post crap posts all the time.

[John Scott]

Killing someone because they killed someone is hypocritical.
It doesn't get any simpler than that

What did I just say? I told you:

Originally Posted by John Scott

I didn't ask you to repeat the unfounded statement. I asked you to back it up with reasoning.

Ahhh. Yes. Agree with me or be banned like Ferre.

Ferre was banned from the political forum for refusing to back up his statements. One specific statement, in fact. He was given many, many chances to back up his statement, and refused. If you want to follow that path, you're more than welcome.

Killing someone because they killed someone is hypocritical.

If I told somebody, "don't kill anybody that has killed other people" and then I proceeded to kill somebody that had killed another person, that would be hypocritical.

But there is no contradiction in telling people not to kill innocent people while killing guilty people.

Explain to me where the contradiction is. Explain fast.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by John Scott

I didn't ask you to repeat the unfounded statement. I asked you to back it up with reasoning.

Reasoning, you know what that is?

Where is the person telling another to do exactly what he does? For hypocrisy to exist, that contradiction must be present.

Are we telling people not to kill guilty people, while we are ourselves killing guilty people? No. We're saying don't kill innocent people.

If I tell you to not to kill a guilty person, then I am indeed a hypocrite. Or, in the same vein of hypocrisy, if I tell you not to kill innocent people, while I am killing innocent people, that is hypocrisy.

But the situation you offered - that of killing a killer - as hypocrisy, doesn't fit the requirement.

You know it, everybody else reading the thread knows it, but you insist on fouling up this forum with your nonsense.

[Chris@Crane]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Reasoning, you know what that is?

Where is the person telling another to do exactly what he does? For hypocrisy to exist, that contradiction must be present.

Are we telling people not to kill guilty people, while we are ourselves killing guilty people? No. We're saying don't kill innocent people.

If I tell you to not to kill a guilty person, then I am indeed a hypocrite. Or, in the same vein of hypocrisy, if I tell you not to kill innocent people, while I am killing innocent people, that is hypocrisy.

But the situation you offered - that of killing a killer - as hypocrisy, doesn't fit the requirement.

You know it, everybody else reading the thread knows it, but you insist on fouling up this forum with your nonsense.

If a legal system says killing is illegal, that implies they are telling you not to do it (by implementing and enforcing the law)

Regardless of whether the victim is innocent or guilty, killing is still a crime (murder)

The offender, despite killing being illegal, is then killed by someone working on behalf of the legal system that says killing is wrong in the first place

That suggests hypocrisy, maybe not on a personal level (ie the person who gives the lethal injection may believe in 'an eye for an eye'), but Capital Punishment isn't given on a personal level.

[thegamerslink]

Originally Posted by Chris@Crane

If a legal system says killing is illegal, that implies they are telling you not to do it (by implementing and enforcing the law)

Regardless of whether the victim is innocent or guilty, killing is still a crime (murder)

The offender, despite killing being illegal, is then killed by someone working on behalf of the legal system that says killing is wrong in the first place

That suggests hypocrisy, maybe not on a personal level (ie the person who gives the lethal injection may believe in 'an eye for an eye'), but Capital Punishment isn't given on a personal level.

You're taking into account that murder has only one meaning in the judicial system. That doesn't equal the facts. The fact is that under the judicial system of the United States murder falls within several different categories from self defense to involuntary manslaughter, and all the way up to first degree murder. If as it has been suggested by some in here murder were totally a clear cut and dry case, anything resulting in the death of another then we wouldn't be having this conversation on this level. It would have a completely different meaning altogether.

As John has pointed out so well the death penalty is not a hypocritical thing when not applied arbitrarily. In Zap's definition you would have to include all aspects of murder to have it fall within the definition of being hypocritical. The fact is that the death penalty isn't used across the board for all murders. It is reserved for first degree murder. And it is not the State that provides it is a Grand Jury that decides it, a group of every day people.

To answer G10's suggestion about someone who was beaten and raised in a hell as a child, giving them the opportunity for rehabilitation, that is good in theory, and it is tried, but you can't remove the possibility of the death penalty because of the special circumstance. Nor is it an excuse for crime, that would be like getting out of a speeding ticket because you were taught to drive fast and didn't know what the speed limit was at the time. Except on a much more grave scale of things.

And yes if someone truly killed without remorse and especially if it was a more than one time happening keeping them alive even in prison is risking or actually almost guaranteeing that it will be repeated. Whether it is to a prison guard, another prisoner, or the prisoner escapes and does it free in society again.

Treason, a crime that throughout our history people have faced hanging and the firing squad over. Why? when one commits treason during war time not only are they betraying their country but they are most probably causing the injury and death of countless soldiers and citizens. So again deserves the death penalty when proven beyond doubt. There are many in Congress and the Senate right now that should be getting investigated for that very same thing.

[tampa_man_33]

I do believe it the death penalty, The families of these heinous crimes need to have closure knowing the person who committed the act will not have a lifetime of three square meals a day and a roof over their head.

[John Scott]

Regardless of whether the victim is innocent or guilty, killing is still a crime (murder)

There is no "murder" when the person being killed is guilty. Murder is the taking of innocent life. So taking guilty life doesn't qualify as murder.

despite killing being illegal

Killing isn't illegal. Murder is. Killing is legal when it isn't murder. For example, executions, self defense, etc.

The state doesn't say "don't kill". It says "don't murder". Big difference.

[Chris@Crane]

Fair enough, I missed that. Sorry.

Originally Posted by John Scott

There is no "murder" when the person being killed is guilty. Murder is the taking of innocent life. So taking guilty life doesn't qualify as murder.

if a convicted murderer is killed, does their killer face a murder charge?

Originally Posted by John Scott

Killing isn't illegal. Murder is. Killing is legal when it isn't murder. For example, executions, self defense, etc.

The state doesn't say "don't kill". It says "don't murder". Big difference.

It's hard to know where the line lies in some cases, that's why I believe CP shouldn't be used, just in case someone undeserving dies.

[John Scott]

if a convicted murderer is killed, does their killer face a murder charge?

I've never heard of an executioner facing a murder charge, have you?

It's hard to know where the line lies in some cases, that's why I believe CP shouldn't be used, just in case someone undeserving dies.

I tend to agree with that. But then I wasn't debating that, was I? I was debating whether or not it's hypocritical to kill murderers.

[Chris@Crane]

Originally Posted by John Scott

I've never heard of an executioner facing a murder charge, have you?

Not an executioner specifically. What if a relative of a murder victim hunted down and killed the murderer?

Originally Posted by John Scott

I tend to agree with that. But then I wasn't debating that, was I? I was debating whether or not it's hypocritical to kill murderers.

I didn't mean to suggest you were debating this, I was just stating my viewpoint.

[thegamerslink]

Could it not be considered accomplice to murder if you have a person that you know for a fact will murder people without remorse or thought. And you allow them the opportunity to now or in the future commit murder? By not giving such a heinous person the death penalty could that not in fact be considered enabling their future killings?

[John Scott]

Not an executioner specifically. What if a relative of a murder victim hunted down and killed the murderer?

Depends on the law. Traditionally, the relatives have the right to exact justice. These days, murderers get off with as little as 12 months. Shoot, some murderers don't even go to prison.

It wasn't too long ago that posters were posted "wanted: dead or alive" which pretty much gave the right to kill the person before he was even tried for the crime.

In modern society, the idea is that citizens give up the right to direct justice, and only the state has that right. And states do hunt down and exact justice, sometimes, and they aren't prosecuted.