Unfortunately being the bigger person isn't always the best option. If a person is doing something that could could potentially earn them the death sentence (like stabbing a bunch of disabled people in Japan), then they deserve it. They don't deserve anything less than to be put down. Humans are highly intelligent, and when they decide stabbing people to death is okay, they're incredibly dangerous. Why let someone like that continue to live and risk them doing that to more people?
-
Happy Earth Week! TBT is hosting a series of nature-based mini-events through April 28th. Breed flower hybrids by organizing your collectible lineup, enter our nature photography contest, purchase historically dated scenery collectibles, and earn bells around the site! Read more in the Earth Week and photography contest threads.
death penalty
- Thread starter visibleghost
- Start date
Unfortunately being the bigger person isn't always the best option. If a person is doing something that could could potentially earn them the death sentence (like stabbing a bunch of disabled people in Japan), then they deserve it. They don't deserve anything less than to be put down. Humans are highly intelligent, and when they decide stabbing people to death is okay, they're incredibly dangerous. Why let someone like that continue to live and risk them doing that to more people?
I've always liked the concept of an eye for an eye, but that's mostly because I don't have any symphanty for specific things.
Anyone who's actually seen the courts in action wouldn't have enough confidence in them to give them the power to decide whether someone should live or die.
The system is vastly inefficient and there would be no way to make it more efficient that did not involve deliberately and knowingly executing a certain percentage of innocent people, or at least people whose crime doesn't merit being killed by the state.
Spending millions to determine whether some random drug dealer who shot another drug dealer should be put away for life or executed is just not an efficient use of money and resources.
It's unethical to waste money just so someone's modern enactment of lex talionis can be satisfied.
If killing innocent people is so terrible that the only proper punishment is death, then anyone willing to work on death row should be put to death themselves. But the statement does come to play towards those who really want to change than someone who doesn't. I'm thinking of the Japanese cannibal and some other killer who killed kids and ate them but he tried to justify his actions because what he was doing wasn't taboo to other countries. He was sent to be executed and his finally words were "why am I here? I did nothing wrong".
I have to find the source. Also there's a show about inmates on death row and they go in debt in how they feel about themselves and their crimes.
Anyone who's actually seen the courts in action wouldn't have enough confidence in them to give them the power to decide whether someone should live or die.
The system is vastly inefficient and there would be no way to make it more efficient that did not involve deliberately and knowingly executing a certain percentage of innocent people, or at least people whose crime doesn't merit being killed by the state.
Spending millions to determine whether some random drug dealer who shot another drug dealer should be put away for life or executed is just not an efficient use of money and resources.
It's unethical to waste money just so someone's modern enactment of lex talionis can be satisfied.
If killing innocent people is so terrible that the only proper punishment is death, then anyone willing to work on death row should be put to death themselves. But the statement does come to play towards those who really want to change than someone who doesn't. I'm thinking of the Japanese cannibal and some other killer who killed kids and ate them but he tried to justify his actions because what he was doing wasn't taboo to other countries. He was sent to be executed and his finally words were "why am I here? I did nothing wrong".
I have to find the source. Also there's a show about inmates on death row and they go in debt in how they feel about themselves and their crimes.
Morals are someone's personal beliefs in what is right or wrong, they are not universal.
Your morals are that no one should be killed ever even if they have killed. Cory's are murderers should be put to death by the law. Mine are that I think sex offenders deserve to die (granted I'm still not exactly for the death penalty considering how flawed legal systems are).
Using morals as an argument in this is kind of unproductive
No matter how horrible what they've done is. No one has a right to take their life.
rapists don't deserve the title of "humans" in my opinion
visibleghost
ʕ •̀ o •́ ʔ
locking them up in a prison is a pretty great way to make them stop killing ppl..
visibleghost
ʕ •̀ o •́ ʔ
cool but ur opinion is im my opinion incredibly dsngerous. if many ppl had that opinion i would be very scared about what would happen w stuff in the world.
rapists get prison. that's enough. have your personal hatred but pls don't try o make the state n law n stuff kill rapists k thx
You're right. Everyone has their own beliefs. And that is what this discussion is about. Our beliefs on capital punishment... so how is it unproductive...?
Ableism??? Are you serious? How was that ableist? I wasn't saying that handicapped people are a burden, I was saying that vicious murderers are a burden to all the nice, law abiding people that don't kill their children, rape others or stab them to death!!!
visibleghost
ʕ •̀ o •́ ʔ
sorry but my sjw vision made me see the way u used psychotic and decided it was Ableist.
I think your negative wording of psychopaths might have come off as 'ableist' to him?
And in my opinion your opinion is dangerous and trivializes victims.
Don't worry I doubt anyone in law is going to see the opinion of one mentally ill 21 year old on the internet and go "HE'S RIGHT! KILL ALL RAPISTS!"
But if they choose to take another life, then why is it not okay to end theirs??? I don't get it! I mean I used to be against it, so I kind of do get it, but things like this are minor surgery until they affect you directly, I guess.
Say that someone came into your home and murdered your entire family because they wanted to get away with stealing all your valuable material possessions without having a witness. Things like that happen. Would you still think that person's life is valuable and deserving of protection? Would you honestly still think they deserved to live just because they're human?
From what I understand you're seeing people say "I think x should be killed" and going "BUT MORALS!", and that's where it's unproductive because their morals are clearly a bit different from yours.
Refer back to my analogy of small children. Revenge does not make it right. I get what you're saying, though
But nvll, isn't it a bit of a contradicting thing to specifically want all rapists dead and not the people doing generally thought to be worse crimes? I mean you're free to think that but please acknowledge that it's 100% created by your feelings.
visibleghost
ʕ •̀ o •́ ʔ
personal opinion, personal hatred. not something a government or the law feels.
some would argue it's hypocritical, it's not ok because you are doing the exact same thing they have done. it's absolutely not the same context but it's still a flawed reason. imo killing them is essentially letting them get away with their crimes though. wouldn't you rather see them have to live their life without rights or human interaction? i know that i would rather end my own life than have to live with what i have done if i killed someone. i would rather argue for actual life imprisonment for people as it means they're truly punished for what they have done
Similar threads
