Capital Punishment

[Mare Tranquillity]

It also allows society to exact vengence which is a very primative and very very powerful emotion and sometimes needs to be vented because .

You present a strong emotional argument, I can't argue with your emotions--they're yours. I can disagree with you conclusions though.

Killing people who kill people to teach people not to kill people has been proven not to work, arbiter is wrong, the death penalty is not a deterent and never has been shown to be one.

There are alternatives to the death penalty and my favorite one is this: there are islands in the South Pacific large enough to hold a good-sized prison population, I think we should take one of those islands that is a long way from anyplace else and put incorrigible criminals there to prey on each other. Give them tools with which to garden and raise their own food, but remove any trees big enough to make a raft. Station a couple of gun boats to go 'round and 'round the island just in case. The only people who would go to this island are the ones who demonstrate that they cannot be allowed to live in civilized society, the ones who cannot be rehabilitated or do not wish to be. This would be considerably more humane than decades of imprisonment or release back into a vlunerable society. Anyone on the island who didn't wish to be there could swim out and drown or be eaten by sharks--a merciful choice when compared to some of the things they have visited on the rest of us.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I love it how conservatives invariably support the death penalty, but get wound up about the idea of 4 undeveloped cells in a mothers womb being terminated.

It's a case of that "judgment" that the Bible says we cannot make, those 4 cells are innocent, but the criminal is guilty. Funny how they skip over all the innocent people who have been executed.

 

[The Scotsman]

There are alternatives to the death penalty and my favorite one is this: there are islands in the South Pacific large enough to hold a good-sized prison population, I think we should take one of those islands that is a long way from anyplace else and put incorrigible criminals there to prey on each other. Give them tools with which to garden and raise their own food, but remove any trees big enough to make a raft. Station a couple of gun boats to go 'round and 'round the island just in case. The only people who would go to this island are the ones who demonstrate that they cannot be allowed to live in civilized society, the ones who cannot be rehabilitated or do not wish to be. This would be considerably more humane than decades of imprisonment or release back into a vlunerable society. Anyone on the island who didn't wish to be there could swim out and drown or be eaten by sharks--a merciful choice when compared to some of the things they have visited on the rest of us.

Yup - a viable alternative in my book.

Gruinard Island an island in the Inner Hebrides off Western Scotland gained fame in the 40s and 50s as Military used it to test chemical and biological weapons. I think to this day it is still extremely dangerous to humans - its nick name is "Antrax Island". A candidate for your colony perhaps

 

[9sublime]

There are alternatives to the death penalty and my favorite one is this: there are islands in the South Pacific large enough to hold a good-sized prison population, I think we should take one of those islands that is a long way from anyplace else and put incorrigible criminals there to prey on each other. Give them tools with which to garden and raise their own food, but remove any trees big enough to make a raft. Station a couple of gun boats to go 'round and 'round the island just in case. The only people who would go to this island are the ones who demonstrate that they cannot be allowed to live in civilized society, the ones who cannot be rehabilitated or do not wish to be. This would be considerably more humane than decades of imprisonment or release back into a vlunerable society. Anyone on the island who didn't wish to be there could swim out and drown or be eaten by sharks--a merciful choice when compared to some of the things they have visited on the rest of us.

That sounds like an epic waste of tax payers money which those individuals do not deserve.

 

[The Scotsman]

That sounds like an epic waste of tax payers money which those individuals do not deserve.

Which individuals are you refering to Sub? Those victims of the crimes who pay their taxes or the ones that commit the crimes?

Without wanting to delve to deeply into the fiscal side of Mare's idea (although we could recruit KPMG if required) it would seem that it's tax beneficial! I don't have the figures at hand, however, the costs incurred in keeping those hard done by prisoners in bed and munchies for years at a time costs a wee bitty more that shoving them on an island I suspect. Tools and equipment provided for their self sufficiency would be a minimal cost and letting them fend for themselves incurrs no further burden upon the tax payer - win win situation if you ask me and carbon neutral!!! We could fulfil our Kyoto obligations at little cost to the economy.... briliant doncha think!!!

And the ever sticky question of Human Rights! Well, its their Island and can do what they like on it surely. These gentlemen, finally living in the kind of environment they wanted, would have on problem communicating grievences to other inmates thus, if one's not happy with Big Nosher smacking you round the head on a more than regular basis or indeed find it a bit inconvinient having anal sex with 20 unshaven, hairy arsed beasties in one go, well then politely suggest that they refrain and discuss alternative avenues of entertainment....basket weaving for example!

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

That sounds like an epic waste of tax payers money which those individuals do not deserve.

It would be cheaper than what we have now by a factor of at least 10. No guards, no super-max prisons, no cost for food, clothing, shelter, or medical care, no supervision, only a couple of gun boats and maybe with satellite imaging we could do away with those. It's fantastically expensive to keep incorrigible inmates in prison--more expensive than sending kids to college, plus we always have the chance of escape or parole with their attendant possiblility of reoffense.

It would also remove the issue of capital punishment from the political discourse, we would not have to take the responsibility of killing people. It would be up to the incorrigibles on the island who would live and who would die--and on their head be it.

 

[arbitor]

I love it how conservatives invariably support the death penalty, but get wound up about the idea of 4 undeveloped cells in a mothers womb being terminated.

I love it how liberals are too dumb to understand the difference between an inocent child and a murderous felon.

 

[numinus]

becuase unlike some people we find that life is valuable. so valuable, in fact, that if you take a life than you must give up your own.

Not really.

The constitution operates on the principle that there are certain INALIENABLE RIGHTS. These rights are NOT granted by the state. They exist INSEPARABLE FROM THE HUMAN PERSON.

First among these inalienable rights is the RIGHT TO LIVE.

So again -- how do you reconcile state murder with this principle?

also, to deny that the death peanalty is a detterant is simply a denial of reality. you cant deny that the death peanalty would make you less likely to commit homcide. in this way it preserves life.

Actually, I do deny that it is a deterrent.

What deters crime is the INEVITABILITY OF CAPTURE, which has something to do with the efficiency of law enforcement, rather than PUNISHMENT.

And since you happily go about spouting deterrent, would you mind citing some credible study to back that up?

you liberals have obviously never been close enough to a rapist or murderer to smell the evil within him.

Actually, I don't consider myself a liberal. And I have been close enough to a murder. Occupational hazzard.

you are so high and rightous you cant imagine anyone not being as high and rightous as yourselves. im sure you would say "why can we exercise the power to take a life?"

Mere contemplation of the law should suffice. You should try it some time.

you know, you could ask that question and we could argue back and forth until the end of time but while we're argueing we have murders and rapists all over our society and endangering our children. my answer to that question is: it has to be done

So, why don't you answer the question?

 

[numinus]

That sounds like an epic waste of tax payers money which those individuals do not deserve.

The operation of law isn't about saving money -- it is about dispensing justice according to PRINCIPLES that apply to everyone.

All human beings deserve this.

 

[9sublime]

I love it how liberals are too dumb to understand the difference between an inocent child and a murderous felon.

Please explain to me how 4 undeveloped cells gain the tag innocent?... and that its also ok to potentially kill an innocent person if they are wrongly convicited of a capital offence?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I love it how liberals are too dumb to understand the difference between an inocent child and a murderous felon.

I love how Christians ignore the admonishment "judge not" in the Bible. Arbiter, do you know how many murderous felons have been executed only to be prove innocent later?

 

[arbitor]

Not really.

The constitution operates on the principle that there are certain INALIENABLE RIGHTS. These rights are NOT granted by the state. They exist INSEPARABLE FROM THE HUMAN PERSON.

First among these inalienable rights is the RIGHT TO LIVE.

So again -- how do you reconcile state murder with this principle?


you know, there are some rights that are granted to the state that are not listed in the constitution. also you forgeting that this criminal already took away those inalienable from someone else. therefore their right is forfiet becuase there is no way to give back the right they took away.


Actually, I do deny that it is a deterrent.

What deters crime is the INEVITABILITY OF CAPTURE, which has something to do with the efficiency of law enforcement, rather than PUNISHMENT.

tell me, how is the weather in the little fantasy world you live in? they are afraid to be cuaght, not punished? that makes SO much sense. so youre saying nobody is afraid to die?





So, why don't you answer the question?

i just did moron. it has to be done. thats my anwser.

 

[arbitor]

Please explain to me how 4 undeveloped cells gain the tag innocent?... and that its also ok to potentially kill an innocent person if they are wrongly convicited of a capital offence?

4 undeveloped cells? are you serious? you need to learn some science. they are made of millions of cells idiot. and those "cells" have a heartbeat and a nervous system. they are as human as you or me. im sure you would say "theyre tiny they arent fully developed" well heres a news flash. NEITHER ARE CHILDREN UNTIL NEAR THE END OF THEIR TEEN YEARS. while youre at it why dont you take away midgets rights. theyre not as big as you therefore they are less of a human right?

is it ok to kill a innocent person? duuuhhhhhhh let me think for a second............................... of course it isnt! dont ask such stupid rhetorical questions. guess what? the world isnt a perfect place ok? some people may be innocently convicted but thats life. you cant just destroy death peanalty for those rare cases. if you want someone to blame then blame the people on the jurry. i feel like im talking to a child here.

 

[9sublime]

4 undeveloped cells? are you serious? you need to learn some science. they are made of millions of cells idiot. and those "cells" have a heartbeat and a nervous system. they are as human as you or me. im sure you would say "theyre tiny they arent fully developed" well heres a news flash. NEITHER ARE CHILDREN UNTIL NEAR THE END OF THEIR TEEN YEARS. while youre at it why dont you take away midgets rights. theyre not as big as you therefore they are less of a human right?

No need for calling me an idiot - especially as you've only shown yourself to be one. Upon conception, believe in ensoulment. However, upon conception the foetus is only made up of the sperm and the egg, 1 second before they join neither of them are regarded as innocent or ensouled - please tell me how this quick change deserves the tag innocent and ensouled?

Of course children aren't fully developed, but they can feel pain and experience emotions unlike the cells that are created straight after a sperm and an egg join. A few cells in a mothers womb are not worthy of the same rights as a child or a fully grown human on death row.

is it ok to kill a innocent person? duuuhhhhhhh let me think for a second............................... of course it isnt! dont ask such stupid rhetorical questions. guess what? the world isnt a perfect place ok? some people may be innocently convicted but thats life. you cant just destroy death peanalty for those rare cases. if you want someone to blame then blame the people on the jurry. i feel like im talking to a child here.

So its OK to accept the word isn't a perfect place when it comes to capital punishment, but when it comes to abortion the idea that the mothers life may not be perfect goes straight out the window. Illogical hypocrisy.

Rather than saying duuuuhhhh and calling me an idiot try and formulate a proper argument with logical consitency, I think you are probably a child that is not fully formed.

 

[arbitor]

No need for calling me an idiot - especially as you've only shown yourself to be one. Upon conception, believe in ensoulment. However, upon conception the foetus is only made up of the sperm and the egg, 1 second before they join neither of them are regarded as innocent or ensouled - please tell me how this quick change deserves the tag innocent and ensouled?


quick change? they are not aware of the pregnancy the moment the egg is fertilized first of all, so by the time they realize it, the baby is already starting to form. secondly, mabye YOU need a lesson on how the fetus is made. an egg is like a blank human shell. and the sperm is the genetic codes (eg. hair color, eye color ect.) seperate they are nothing but together they form a human. i know this a vague discription but its basicly the process in a nutshell.



Of course children aren't fully developed, but they can feel pain and experience emotions


oh i see. they cant feel it, therefore it is okay to kill them. so if you kill someone painlessly it is ok?



unlike the cells that are created straight after a sperm and an egg join.

arent you "straight after a sperm and egg join" too?


A few cells in a mothers womb are not worthy of the same rights as a child or a fully grown human on death row.


again with the "a few cells" thing. oh well. once a liar always a lair i suppose.


So its OK to accept the word isn't a perfect place when it comes to capital punishment, but when it comes to abortion the idea that the mothers life may not be perfect goes straight out the window. Illogical hypocrisy.

see, YOU are taking my words to an illogical extent. im saying the world isnt perfect so there will be flaws in the justice system and YOU are saying someone can do whatever they want becuase nothing is perfect. im not illogical or a hypocrite. you are the one being irrational


Rather than saying duuuuhhhh and calling me an idiot try and formulate a proper argument with logical consitency, I think you are probably a child that is not fully formed.

i did formulate valid arguement. i think you may be an adult but i doubt your mind is fully developed (not that it will ever be). and what do you expect me to say when you make all these ridiculusly ignorant comments?