Clock Crew

All of this stuff with the Troy Anthony Davis execution brings the death penalty question back to national attention. What do you guys think? Is the death penalty justice or is it just too harsh considering we know innocent people have been put to death?

I don't have too firm of a stance on it, to be honest. I tend to lean towards thinking it's unnecessary. To me, rotting in prison for the rest of your life is more of a punishment than the release death brings a murderer. Conversely, it may not be pleasant but it at least allows innocent people time to be proven innocent, which has happened before, notably when DNA evidence started being used in criminal cases.

I think that (unless they have done a mass slaughter of people) if they have a life time sentence, they should have the choice of death.

Personally I think life imprisonment is a much harsher punishment than death.
death is the end of pain (no I don't believe in an afterlife) and should ideally in judiciary terms be phased out. Gotta maximize the terror and pain you inflict on the condemned...although it IS an extra drain to the economy keeping all them lifers alive for so long.

I don't believe in revenge. Killing a murderer doesn't change what he did, it just add to the bodycount.

I'd argue for it in the case of executing convicted multiple murderers.

It's fucking ridiculous how much money America spends on a prisoner each year (don't get me started on drug crimes). That shit adds up and I don't agree with taxpayer money going to sustaining the life of murderers. Giving a life sentence with no chance of parole is condemning them to serve out their punishment for the rest of their life, against their will. The US penal system claims to be about reform, so I don't exactly see the logic in life imprisonment as a better alternative to execution.

[U2]TVMho2cP1NE[/U2]

Quote from: Sombra;1857154It's fucking ridiculous how much money America spends on a prisoner each year (don't get me started on drug crimes). That shit adds up and I don't agree with taxpayer money going to sustaining the life of murderers. Giving a life sentence with no chance of parole is condemning them to serve out their punishment for the rest of their life, against their will. The US penal system claims to be about reform, so I don't exactly see the logic in life imprisonment as a better alternative to execution.

It costs the legal system more to execute a prisoner than incarcerating them for life.

I think prison's primary purpose is removing dangerous criminals from society. Reforming them is secondary.

I can't watch that youtube link right now so I'll just pretend it doesn't exist for now


I take a pragmatist view on the court system; the goal is to reduce crime. Punishing people, while it might be enjoyable to those wronged, doesn't actually accomplish anything in and of itself. Long prison sentences as a deterrent to crime simply don't work, and people who go to prisons often come out worse than when they went in. I think if somebody has committed a crime severe enough to earn them life in prison it is simply a matter of cost efficiency to kill them after a reasonable time (enough time for evidence of innocence to surface) rather than hold them for a long time.

The idea that we shouldn't kill them because it's worse in jail strikes me as really inhumane and I hope the people in this thread suggesting it are joking.

Quote from: Sadrenaline;1857180It costs the legal system more to execute a prisoner than incarcerating them for life.

That's because the government has gone out of its way to find the most expensive and impracticable ways possible to kill somebody so that the last seconds before they're FUCKING DEAD AND WONT REMEMBER IT is less painful


They should bring back the guillotine. I'm completely serious

Quote from: Sadrenaline;1857180It costs the legal system more to execute a prisoner than incarcerating them for life.

How's that?

Quote from: Sadrenaline;1857180I think prison's primary purpose is removing dangerous criminals from society. Reforming them is secondary.

You think that's how it should be, or how it is? Because if you're arguing the latter, you need to look at some statistics on how many people in prison are actually there for violent crime.

Quote from: Sombra;1857184How's that?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29552692/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/execute-or-not-question-cost/

Quote from: Sombra;1857184How's that?


 
You think that's how it should be, or how it is? Because if you're arguing the latter, you need to look at some statistics on how many people in prison are actually there for violent crime.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost

The cost question is not a fully agreed upon fact, but there's at least a debate as to whether the death penalty is cost effective, ignoring the fact that it's morally wrong.

It's how I think it should be.

I can never vouch for a death penalty, it would be completely hypocritical of us.

You killed him ; we kill you.

And as it was mentioned above, prison is a much more painful sentence than death.

I think it's great.

Whats the point of punishing them with death if they can't even feel the pain of dieing?

it costs less to hold someone for life than to sentence them to death because of all the court fees. Also criminals getting put to death tend to feel less bad about whatever crime they did because they're gonna die for it. It's a waste of resources and unnecessary, and if you care about overcrowded prisons then just get the stoners out of there.

Also whatever happened to the brotherhood of humanity? You don't kill people that don't fit into society, you lock em up!

Quote from: BluezombieClock;1857190I can never vouch for a death penalty, it would be completely hypocritical of us.

You killed him ; we kill you.

And as it was mentioned above, prison is a much more painful sentence than death.

It's not at all hypocritical! It's very possible to kill somebody legally in a number of circumstances. Protecting yourself or your personal property with a shotgun, for example. There's also some leeway for crimes of passion.

What we're doing with the death sentence is
you killed him or multiple people without a good reason; we kill you for a good reason

Quote from: Thor;1857197It's not at all hypocritical! It's very possible to kill somebody legally in a number of circumstances. Protecting yourself or your personal property with a shotgun, for example. There's also some leeway for crimes of passion.

What we're doing with the death sentence is
you killed him or multiple people without a good reason; we kill you for a good reason

Think of it this way; you're a Tae Kwon Do instructor right? You would never just whoop someone's ass for fun. But if someone were about to fight you, you would fight them back to defend yourself. However, if you found out your neighbor had kicked the shit out of a guy on the street, would you condone just going up to said neighbor later and kicking his ass in retribution? Maybe you would, I don't know the code or whatever, but it seems wrong to me to do that. Sort of a two wrongs thing. Though it would make a pretty good movie...

Quote from: F U Clock;1857210Think of it this way; you're a Tae Kwon Do instructor right? You would never just whoop someone's ass for fun. But if someone were about to fight you, you would fight them back to defend yourself. However, if you found out your neighbor had kicked the shit out of a guy on the street, would you condone just going up to said neighbor later and kicking his ass in retribution? Maybe you would, I don't know the code or whatever, but it seems wrong to me to do that. Sort of a two wrongs thing. Though it would make a pretty good movie...

You seem to be thinking of the death penalty as a revenge for something. It's not. The whole point of the criminal justice system is to PREVENT CRIMES FROM OCCURRING. If I had previously made it known on my block that I was a martial artist and would kick the ass of anybody who kicks somebodies ass then your analogy would be accurate.


Lets try a different direction. Lets say there is a person who has killed many times before and has shown no remorse for his deeds, and is very likely to kill again if released. Furthermore, there is a HUGE body of evidence that he is guilty, leaving no shadow of doubt at all. Specifically, John Wayne Gacy. Why shouldn't this man have been killed immediately after he was sent to prison? Say, a week afterward. While in prison he cost tons of money with repeated appeals and various other legal shit, and he NEVER felt any remorse. Why not just kill him quickly and get it done with?

I say replace the death penalty with lifetime solitary confinement.

Nobody wants to fuck with solitary confinement.

As for the case with Troy Davis I don't know where to start, I'm not going to pretend I knew about it before today though I've read up on it a little bit and it all seems like a big load of bullshit what has happened.

Couple things to add:

They just executed Troy Davis about an hour ago.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/21/national/main20109883.shtml

Also I'm seeing a lot of evidence saying yes it's very expensive to execute them, still not sure if it actually costs more or not because there's a lot of conflicting reports. I looked at Amnesty International link but you have to factor that they certainly benefit from talking more about the supporting evidence than the contradictory evidence.

Not sure how often death row inmates are allowed to delay execution but it's pretty much the norm for the execution to take place years afterward, if at all. Like 25% of all deaths on death row are from natural causes.

Also, anyone that claims that threat of execution is a form of torture because inmates have the threat of death looming over their heads is ignoring that the alternative is MORE time spent in a hopeless state against their will with nothing to do but think around what they did and worry about assault/ rape by other inmates if they're not in solitary. If the government is giving them life in prison it's still saying they can't be re-integrated, they're a hopeless cause, and that the prime motive is just to keep them away from society.

I have difficulty understanding how people could support prison because it's WORSE. That's seriously fucked up. People also tend to take RAPE very lightly and seem to consider somebody getting repeatedly raped and beaten to be a reasonable part of capital punishment, which is also really fucked up.

You guys are a bunch of sadists.


I would also like to point this out, assuming we're talking about the american justice system  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

Quote from: Thor;1857227People also tend to take RAPE very lightly and seem to consider somebody getting repeatedly raped and beaten to be a reasonable part of capital punishment, which is also really fucked up.

Yeah I've mentioned that here somewhere before myself. It's funny how marginalized male rape has become, people hardly bat an eye when you make an offhand joke about some guy getting convicted and meeting Bubba in the shower. Everyone does it.

I believe that some people deserve to die because they can do nothing but harm to the world, but I dont trust any institution to decide who dies.

Also does anyone find it hilarious when anti abortion people who say they're "pro-life" support the death penalty?

Honestly, I'm for the death penalty in clear, 100% case and only when the person has done something truly fucked up.  Or if the guy's stabbing inmates all over, but I think they give ya solitary for that.

The death penalty is a sticky issue, I feel like it would be acceptable in some situations but, really, I can't think of any.

The death penalty should be something for horrible people like Timothy McVeigh, but even then the whole concept is fucked to begin with.  Or, an inmate could opt for the death penalty rather than serve their full life-sentence, in which case they get an appointment for that night.

I would like to reiterate, though: The concept as a whole and the fact that it's something humanity even has to discuss in the first place is fucked.

Quote from: Thor;1857216You seem to be thinking of the death penalty as a revenge for something. It's not. The whole point of the criminal justice system is to PREVENT CRIMES FROM OCCURRING. If I had previously made it known on my block that I was a martial artist and would kick the ass of anybody who kicks somebodies ass then your analogy would be accurate.


Lets try a different direction. Lets say there is a person who has killed many times before and has shown no remorse for his deeds, and is very likely to kill again if released. Furthermore, there is a HUGE body of evidence that he is guilty, leaving no shadow of doubt at all. Specifically, John Wayne Gacy. Why shouldn't this man have been killed immediately after he was sent to prison? Say, a week afterward. While in prison he cost tons of money with repeated appeals and various other legal shit, and he NEVER felt any remorse. Why not just kill him quickly and get it done with?

You really don't understand anything, do you?

Quote from: FloundermanClock;1857248Also does anyone find it hilarious when anti abortion people who say they're "pro-life" support the death penalty?

I don't really think it's a hypocrisy. An unborn fetus is innocent to them, someone who has committed a crime bad enough to be sentenced to death isn't.

Doesn't mean the death penalty still isn't wrong.

Quote from: Sadrenaline;1857300I don't really think it's a hypocrisy. An unborn fetus is innocent to them, someone who has committed a crime bad enough to be sentenced to death isn't.

Doesn't mean the death penalty still isn't wrong.

Then they shouldnt be called "pro life". Pro Life implies they are against killing people.

The death penalty is a good thing, why nurture unwantanted elements of society a lifetime in jail when you can simply "remove" them.

I totally agree with death penalty. Sure, there are cons, but the pros outweigh them by a million.

I mean look at it, first of all it'll be a discouragement towards people who want to murder other folks. Then, it'll save the government money if they do it right, like Thor said. Third, most criminals don't see prison as a punishment. I mean come on, you have free food, clothes, bed, bathrooms and even outdoor times. You can also talk to other people. What kind of punishment is that? If I ever reach my low I'll probably get arrested on purpose.

Fourth, there's no guarantee that they come out rehabilitated. What guarantees us that they won't kill again? Might as well not worry about it. Fifth, they killed someone, it would be unfair if they were allowed to keep living. Fuck your hypocrisy, the criminal's death would be totally justified.

Did you know in China when you get the death penalty, they shoot you, and then charge the next of kin for the bullet? True.

And in Japan they make you shoot yourself! Ok not true.

I'm all for the death penalty, I just question the system we use to dispense it. There's already been 69 known cases of wrongful conviction where capital punishment has been applied.

Quote from: DiscoBallClock;1857395I mean look at it, first of all it'll be a discouragement towards people who want to murder other folks.

It is not a discouragement. In fact, states with a death penalty have a higher murder rate per capita than states without it.

QuoteThen, it'll save the government money if they do it right, like Thor said.

How exactly do you "do it right"? Removing the appeal process? The one thing that can possibly protect a wrongfully convicted man from being killed?

QuoteThird, most criminals don't see prison as a punishment. I mean come on, you have free food, clothes, bed, bathrooms and even outdoor times.

How many prisoners or former prisoners have you talked to to reach this conclusion?

QuoteFourth, there's no guarantee that they come out rehabilitated. What guarantees us that they won't kill again? Might as well not worry about it. Fifth, they killed someone, it would be unfair if they were allowed to keep living. Fuck your hypocrisy, the criminal's death would be totally justified.

Both of these points just take it is a given that someone sentenced to death is guilty, which is obviously not necessarily the case. Most criminals who might be sentenced to death would get life in prison if capital punishment was illegal, so I don't see the practical difference when you consider that execution is more expensive and the justice system makes mistakes.

This isn't even getting to the fact that our current implementation of the death penalty is incredibly racist.

Read some stuff here: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf

Wutz deez hippies doing in mah clcokcrew

I don't think one is better than the other. Both are fucked up options for a fucked up world.

Quote from: Sadrenaline;1857180It costs the legal system more to execute a prisoner than incarcerating them for life.

It doesn't have to.

QuoteI think prison's primary purpose is removing dangerous criminals from society. Reforming them is secondary.

While that's a nice idea, I'd say the prison system's primary purpose at this point is to make money from slave labor.

Quote from: Sadrenaline;1857188the fact that it's morally wrong.

This is a meaningless assertion.

Quote from: Topcatyo;1857221I say replace the death penalty with lifetime solitary confinement.

I'm pretty sure that falls under cruel and unusual punishment.
 

Quote from: Sadrenaline;1857300You really don't understand anything, do you?

That's not an argument. If you disagree with Thor, refute what he has to say.

Quote from: AlbinoClock;1857731I'm pretty sure that falls under cruel and unusual punishment.

I followed that quote up with

QuoteNobody wants to fuck with solitary confinement.

So I clearly meant it would be used as a preventative measure against fairly easy crimes to avoid doing (unless you get framed, like... yeah)
And also I wasn't really being entirely serious.  I never stated it so whether or not you believe me is out of my hands.

Quote from: Topcatyo;1857743I followed that quote up with

So I clearly meant it would be used as a preventative measure against fairly easy crimes to avoid doing (unless you get framed, like... yeah)
And also I wasn't really being entirely serious.  I never stated it so whether or not you believe me is out of my hands.

Protections against cruel and unusual punishment don't just apply to people who obey laws. That's the whole point.

Quote from: FloundermanClock;1857248I believe that some people deserve to die because they can do nothing but harm to the world, but I dont trust any institution to decide who dies.

Also does anyone find it hilarious when anti abortion people who say they're "pro-life" support the death penalty?

It's specifically why I don't. I've been fighting the hypocrisies of people of my own faith for a while now, though. I firmly believe any Christian who believes in vengeance of any kind is either not a true Christian or vastly misinterpreted the entire message of the Gospels.

Quote from: AlbinoClock;1857731It doesn't have to.

Again... how do you change this? Nobody's found a solution yet that makes sense.

QuoteThat's not an argument. If you disagree with Thor, refute what he has to say.

I think I have. I've countered the practical justifications people have brought up in this thread with findings from studies, and no one has come up with a way to change the cost issue. All that's left is your own thoughts on whether it's right for the government to kill people, which is a personal opinion.

Quote from: Sadrenaline;1857901Again... how do you change this? Nobody's found a solution yet that makes sense.


 
I think I have. I've countered the practical justifications people have brought up in this thread with findings from studies, and no one has come up with a way to change the cost issue. All that's left is your own thoughts on whether it's right for the government to kill people, which is a personal opinion.

You change the cost issue by using cheaper methods of execution and loosening up laws in order to allow for an easier process. This is nonsense though, because we're not even looking at numbers. You're just saying "it's expensive", which doesn't even mean anything objective. Give me some numbers to work with and maybe I can tell you how you can juggle them, but beyond that the best answer you're going to get is "make it easier to kill people". We certainly do have that option.

Regardless of any of that, if we're going to have a quality discussion forum here, we're not going to do it by making unbacked assertions and throwing ad hominems around. If you've already detailed your legitimate criticism, then you've already detailed it and it's in the thread. If you want to expand on it so that someone can get a better understanding of it, that's all well and good, but don't just insult them. That just makes you look like you can't control yourself and it brings the level of discussion down. You have some interesting points, follow through with them.

Quote from: AlbinoClock;1857914You change the cost issue by using cheaper methods of execution and loosening up laws in order to allow for an easier process. This is nonsense though, because we're not even looking at numbers. You're just saying "it's expensive", which doesn't even mean anything objective. Give me some numbers to work with and maybe I can tell you how you can juggle them, but beyond that the best answer you're going to get is "make it easier to kill people". We certainly do have that option.

The link I provided earlier does in fact mention numbers.

QuoteIn California, home to the nation's biggest death row population at 667, it costs an extra $90,000 per inmate to imprison someone sentenced to death ââ,¬â€ an additional expense that totals more than $63.3 million annually, according to a 2008 study by the state's Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice.

If your argument is that it could cost very little if we just took away their ability to appeal their case, then that's a hypothetical situation and in my opinion a different debate altogether, since that's not the way things are now. Not to mention, suppose you were convicted of a murder you didn't commit - wouldn't you want to be able to appeal a death sentence? There are dozens of people taxpayers have put to death who have been proven innocent. If anything it seems to me like we're too cavalier in executing people.

Quote from: AlbinoClock;1857914You change the cost issue by using cheaper methods of execution and loosening up laws in order to allow for an easier process. This is nonsense though, because we're not even looking at numbers. You're just saying "it's expensive", which doesn't even mean anything objective. Give me some numbers to work with and maybe I can tell you how you can juggle them, but beyond that the best answer you're going to get is "make it easier to kill people". We certainly do have that option.

Cheaper methods of execution? Like, a gallows?

For your other point, I find it absolutely amazing that your way to make the death penalty more viable is to make it easier to execute innoncent people.

Quote from: AlbinoClock;1857744Protections against cruel and unusual punishment don't just apply to people who obey laws. That's the whole point.

I understand that now

Quote from: AdrenalineClock;1857951Cheaper methods of execution? Like, a gallows?

For your other point, I find it absolutely amazing that your way to make the death penalty more viable is to make it easier to execute innoncent people.

I like how you just inserted innocent in there as if I'd said it. Can you make an argument without reconstructing the one you're disagreeing with?

Death is sad

Quote from: AdrenalineClock;1857951Cheaper methods of execution? Like, a gallows?

Why the hell not? I can't imagine it's any less painful than lethal injection.

"And as ye wish that men should do to you, do ye also to them in like manner."

The death penalty has too great of a risk, and I frankly don't think that anyone should be able to decide whether someone else lives or dies.

From what I'm reading, the actual drug combo is only like ~$100.

So it would seem the supposedly higher cost of death penalty would definitely come from fundamental problems with our law system.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/time-death-row

This article gives several reasons: slow capital appeals process, mandatory sentencing reviews. Justice Stephen Breyer blamed the state for delays while Justice Clarence Thomas said it was the fault of death row inmates themselves.

Quote from: AlbinoClock;1858103I like how you just inserted innocent in there as if I'd said it. Can you make an argument without reconstructing the one you're disagreeing with?

What are you talking about? My point is that people get convicted and sentenced to death who are sometimes innocent. By limiting the appeal process to save the state money, you are increasing the chance than an innocent person who is convicted will get executed before the error can be corrected.

The main problem with the death penalty is that not everyone who gets it is guilty. This is what I am arguing.

The death penalty should be applied out of efficiency then "punishment".

Certain people will never be fit to be part of society. And it costs governments a lot to keep them alive all their lives. It would be more resourceful to kill convicted criminals then look after them.

The argument depends on how much you value human life. And since the population is at it's highest in British history, I value it very little.

Quote from: MonsterMunch;1858162The death penalty should be applied out of efficiency then "punishment".

Certain people will never be fit to be part of society. And it costs governments a lot to keep them alive all their lives. It would be more resourceful to kill convicted criminals then look after them.

The argument depends on how much you value human life. And since the population is at it's highest in British history, I value it very little.

It's easy to say that when your head isn't on the chopping block

i feel that it simply should not be in man's power to end the life of his fellow man. and yeah you could use the "but they killed somebody and they got away with that" rebuttal but should we really lower ourselves to the morality of a criminal? aren't we then just as bad? you don't punish a robber by stealing his shit, yknow.

Can anyone find some figures on how many people per year are wrongfully executed so we can compare it to other forms of death in the US? How would it measure up to other risks we take, like driving or making tea? Maybe we can find a figure for inmate killings in states with and without the death penalty by convicted murderers.

Quote from: DumpsterClock;1858269i feel that it simply should not be in man's power to end the life of his fellow man.

But it is. We have weapons.

Quote from: AlbinoClock;1858302But it is. We have weapons.

but their existence is not in itself validation to use them, yknow? killing is killing to me, and killing is inherently wrong. that's just how i see it.

Quote from: DumpsterClock;1858308but their existence is not in itself validation to use them, yknow? killing is killing to me, and killing is inherently wrong. that's just how i see it.

How does anything carry inherent additional meaning? If killing is inherently wrong, does that apply to plants, viruses, and bacteria? Other animals? Just humans? How do I detect the rightness or wrongness of a thing? Can you describe the difference in physical properties?

Quote from: AlbinoClock;1858313How does anything carry inherent additional meaning? If killing is inherently wrong, does that apply to plants, viruses, and bacteria? Other animals? Just humans? How do I detect the rightness or wrongness of a thing? Can you describe the difference in physical properties?

This. Looking at blanket statements like "it's inherently wrong to kill" or "we have no right to take another's life," all life is founded upon killing. Everyone in the world kills to survive. Maybe not directly but you're still relying upon the material of once-living beings to sustain yourself. Plants. Animals. Nobody's forcing you to do it yet you still choose to consume.

Arguing that humanity should be somehow "above" killing is pro-death. Killing is pro-life.

If you argue that it's okay for us to kill crops and animals for nutrition (I'm assuming you do by default since you're posting here), but it's never okay to kill humans for anything, where do you make the jump and what are you factoring in? If you argue that killing has inherent wrongness, isn't everything alive wrong?

I think mayb the death penatly should apply only to people who are attracted to cartoons

I was beginning to actually write a long answer to this page but damn if I don't give a shit anymore. Seriously? We're comparing human lives to the plants and animals we use to live?

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1858395I was beginning to actually write a long answer to this page but damn if I don't give a shit anymore. Seriously? We're comparing human lives to the plants and animals we use to live?

Aight just humor me, what makes it okay to kill a given animal but not a very specific human.

The primary purpose of killing game is for use. The meat for food. The hide for clothing. Etc. Etc. We kill these animals because it is a way for us to survive. However, we do not eat people. We also only allow their use in a scientific or medical parameter with their full consent. This is because humans are intrinsically different from other animals, we are united by our identity as a species. That is the biological way of putting it. Personally, I believe our intelligence lends to something even greater, we can rationalize things unlike any other being known. For people like me, we believe this as a sign of a greater importance, that we are chosen by God. Either way you look at it you can't compare the idea of killing and using an animal for its resources and killing a man because he killed another man simply as a form of revenge.

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1858427The primary purpose of killing game is for use. The meat for food. The hide for clothing. Etc. Etc. We kill these animals because it is a way for us to survive. However, we do not eat people. We also only allow their use in a scientific or medical parameter with their full consent. This is because humans are intrinsically different from other animals, we are united by our identity as a species. That is the biological way of putting it. Personally, I believe our intelligence lends to something even greater, we can rationalize things unlike any other being known. For people like me, we believe this as a sign of a greater importance, that we are chosen by God. Either way you look at it you can't compare the idea of killing and using an animal for its resources and killing a man because he killed another man simply as a form of revenge.

So rationality ought to protect man from being killed by his fellow man?

From Webster on the definition of "rational": "having reason or understanding"

If you search the word "reason" on the same website you get a lot of definitions relying on words like "justified," "rational motive," acting in "rational" ways. So we come to the question, what's rationality?

Am I justified in killing someone that's attempting to kill or gravely injure me for my money or material possessions? I could argue that they were displaying irrational behavior and I was in fear of my own life. Besides capacity to rationalize, what other criteria are we using to raise man above every other animal on the planet in terms of right to kill its own species, according to you?

Does man lose his right to claim himself as rational if he commits an irrational act? Does it depend on the severity of the act or the number of times he commits it? If so, does that revoke his humanity? If not, what other criteria are we using to place man on a pedestal where he can't be touched by capital punishment? At the point where he murders other humans irrationally isn't he more or less the same as a wild animal? If so, aren't we at that point just arguing that he can't be killed by the state because no one intends to eat him?

In which Sombra reveals himself to be a sociopath.

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1858427The primary purpose of killing game is for use. The meat for food. The hide for clothing. Etc. Etc. We kill these animals because it is a way for us to survive. However, we do not eat people. We also only allow their use in a scientific or medical parameter with their full consent. This is because humans are intrinsically different from other animals, we are united by our identity as a species. That is the biological way of putting it. Personally, I believe our intelligence lends to something even greater, we can rationalize things unlike any other being known. For people like me, we believe this as a sign of a greater importance, that we are chosen by God. Either way you look at it you can't compare the idea of killing and using an animal for its resources and killing a man because he killed another man simply as a form of revenge.

Not as a form of revenge, no, but as a way of cleaning up their environment to keep it safe. It's much more like killing a poisonous spider in your house than killing something to make use of its body. I don't know why you immediately jump to objects of human use on the subject of plants, aanimals, and viruses, because I was just listing other types of living things that we do indeed kill. You're 34% different genetically from a daisy. We ain't that special or different. I don't expect you to abandon your quaint theism, but don't go disowning most of the family in the process.

Also, I will totally eat some of those prisoners if they're not all stringy.

Quote from: F U Clock;1858497In which Sombra reveals himself to be a sociopath.

Actually he sounds more like a nihilist, which anyone with sense ought to be.

Before people go crazy about nihilism let me just note that it simply expresses that meaning is projected, and a product of the human mind, not inherent.

Quote from: AlbinoClock;1858498Not as a form of revenge, no, but as a way of cleaning up their environment to keep it safe. It's much more like killing a poisonous spider in your house than killing something to make use of its body. I don't know why you immediately jump to objects of human use on the subject of plants, aanimals, and viruses, because I was just listing other types of living things that we do indeed kill.

So are you saying you are justified from killing a poisonous spider? What has the poisonous spider really done? There aren't really many examples of things that are willing to take down humans unless humans initiated the contact.
Also:

Quote from: You, last page, just sayin'If you argue that it's okay for us to kill crops and animals for nutrition (I'm assuming you do by default since you're posting here), but it's never okay to kill humans for anything, where do you make the jump and what are you factoring in? If you argue that killing has inherent wrongness, isn't everything alive wrong?

QuoteYou're 34% different genetically from a daisy. We ain't that special or different. I don't expect you to abandon your quaint theism, but don't go disowning most of the family in the process.

I'm not going to bore you with the concept of Hox genes and why a large percentage of genes are conserved through species and the like but I'd just like to say that's a really ignorant way of looking at genetic diversity. Its more like saying even though we have so much in common you can see how its the small variable traits that show how different we really are.

Quote from: F U Clock;1858497In which Sombra reveals himself to be a sociopath.

D':

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1858519So are you saying you are justified from killing a poisonous spider? What has the poisonous spider really done? There aren't really many examples of things that are willing to take down humans unless humans initiated the contact.

Moral justification doesn't have objective meaning, it's an emotional appeal. If I saw a poisonous spider in my house I would kill it, I'll also kill perfectly harmless flies because I don't want them breeding and swarming about. Killing is a way to stop living things from doing stuff when nothing else will work.

QuoteI'm not going to bore you with the concept of Hox genes and why a large percentage of genes are conserved through species and the like but I'd just like to say that's a really ignorant way of looking at genetic diversity. Its more like saying even though we have so much in common you can see how its the small variable traits that show how different we really are.

That first quote isn't me.

Of course the small genetic differences between species produce significant differences in organisms, I don't know how you could possibly imagine that I'd suggest otherwise. My point was that simply because we're apparently different doesn't mean we're entirely dissimilar or inherently more valuable than other species, be they animals, plants, fungi, or anything else.

Fuck the death penalty. Getting killed for breaking the law? That isn't freedom.

Do you really think you're free? Pull your dick out in a busy supermarket, and see how free you are.

Quote from: AbsintheClock;1860085Do you really think you're free? Pull your dick out in a busy supermarket, and see how free you are.

Never said I was. That doesn't mean I have to be ok with killing people for breaking the law.

No but you said "that isn't freedom" like freedom is a reason not to use capital punishment. What you meant to say was "I don't like killing people for breaking the law" which is totally irrelevant to freedom.

FREEDOM ISNT FREE

IT COSTS FOLKS LIKE YOU AND ME

Quote from: AbsintheClock;1860093No but you said "that isn't freedom" like freedom is a reason not to use capital punishment. What you meant to say was "I don't like killing people for breaking the law" which is totally irrelevant to freedom.

Well, I think it is relevant. Generally speaking, using murder as an institutionalized punishment for criminal activities indicates an intolerant, heavy-handed, and controlling attitude in a government. It may be more of a symptom than a cause, but I think there is a connection.

Once again what does that have to do with freedom?

Quote from: AbsintheClock;1860107Once again what does that have to do with freedom?

Everything. For a heavy-handed and controlling government is likely to impose unnecessary laws that ultimately serve no purpose other than the petty assertion of authority. These laws, by their very nature, are designed to take away freedom.

Quote from: Sombra;1858588D':

{{{Sombra}}}

Quote from: Sombra;1858588D':

Your crocodile tears don't fool me.

Quote from: Silly Putty Clock;1860110Everything. For a heavy-handed and controlling government is likely to impose unnecessary laws that ultimately serve no purpose other than the petty assertion of authority. These laws, by their very nature, are designed to take away freedom.

This sounds exactly like pretty most governments in the world right now. I don't think the point of the death penalty is to assert authority, in fact I think you're just projecting that opinion to demonize folks who are pro-death penalty. The general idea of the death penalty is to act as a deterrent, to remove a dangerous person from all parts of society including prison, and to vindicate the death of the murdered. You could also argue that person doesn't deserve freedom because they took away another person's freedom to life.

Quote from: AdrenalineClock;1857180It costs the legal system more to execute a prisoner than incarcerating them for life.

This is not true.

Quote from: AbsintheClock;1860121This sounds exactly like pretty most governments in the world right now.

Yes, it does. Bleak, isn't it?

QuoteI don't think the point of the death penalty is to assert authority, in fact I think you're just projecting that opinion to demonize folks who are pro-death penalty.

What is the point, then? What is the point of punishment, if not to assert authority?

QuoteThe general idea of the death penalty is to act as a deterrent, to remove a dangerous person from all parts of society including prison, and to vindicate the death of the murdered. You could also argue that person doesn't deserve freedom because they took away another person's freedom to life.

Either way, I don't agree with it. It's too Mesopotamian for my liking.