Death Penalty?

[AdrenalineClock]

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.

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.

[Topcatyo]

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

I understand that now

[AlbinoClock]

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.

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?

[BluezombieClock]

Death is sad

[RobClock]

Cheaper methods of execution? Like, a gallows?

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

[GearBoxClock]

"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.

[Sombra]

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.

[AdrenalineClock]

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?

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.

[MonsterMunch]

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.

[GearBoxClock]

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.

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

[d u m p y]

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.

[AlbinoClock]

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.

i 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.

[d u m p y]

But 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.

[AlbinoClock]

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.

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?

[Sombra]

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?

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?

[miracle fruit]

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

[Marlin Clock]

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?

[Sombra]

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?

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

[Marlin Clock]

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.

[Sombra]

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.

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?