Would you support the reintroduction of the death penalty?

old hippy

Hitchens wrote: »

Would you take a convicted murderer/rapist in as a lodger if he told you he was innocent and homeless?

Would you kindly execute him for the good of humanity?

BeerWolf

cdebru wrote: »

But often people who there was an "unquestionable" doubt about who go through the full processes of appeals end up being executed and then turn out to have been innocent.

Hence why I underlined and placed in bold, "Serial".

Amirani

catallus wrote: »

The craven attitude that we shouldn't kill criminals because a few "innocents" will get caught in the net is really annoying. It is better for ten "innocent" men to die than for one guilty man to go free.

That's a moronic point of view, borderline psychopathic.

jank

In short, YES. Criminal justice in Ireland is a joke thanks mainly to the sociological departments in many NUI colleges where middle class 'lecturers' pander their ideas to the public. It is those of the working class that suffer most from criminals and their violence yet the champagne socialists are never seen around the areas where their ideas are exacting a terrible consequence on the people who live there.

Some people don't deserve to live. Simple. If you don't believe that then mass muderers, perpetrators of genocide, dictators and serial child killers and rapists all deserve to live out the rest of their lives in a relevant comfort of a western jail cell paid for by the tax payer.

end of the road

catallus wrote: »

The craven attitude that we shouldn't kill criminals because a few "innocents" will get caught in the net is really annoying.

well you see many people don't condone or tolerate the killing of innocent people either by criminals or the state, so stating that its okay for multiple innocent people to be executed so we can get to execute one guilty person makes the laws in relation to murder invalid

catallus wrote: »

It is better for ten "innocent" men to die than for one guilty man to go free.

really? would the victims families be okay with that including the family of the first victim who now has to know that another innocent person was killed for killing their loved one even though they didn't do it while the guilty person walks free? doubt it

catallus wrote: »

Tyranny exists in every country in the world; I would prefer to be under the tyranny of the State than the tyranny of the criminal.

ah yeah shur thats grand so, i hear saudi arabia is a lovely place to live, emigrate there

catallus wrote: »

I have yet to see or hear of a case where a person who was executed was "innocent".

a number have been mentioned in this thread, but seeing as you want the death penalty at all costs i can't imagine you will read back the thread to find them.

end of the road

catallus wrote: »

Of course everyone convicted of a crime is guilty! And the rest are guilty of something else!

what is this "something else"

namloc1980

jank wrote: »

In short, YES. Criminal justice in Ireland is a joke thanks mainly to the sociological departments in many NUI colleges where middle class 'lecturers' pander their ideas to the public. It is those of the working class that suffer most from criminals and their violence yet the champagne socialists are never seen around the areas where their ideas are exacting a terrible consequence on the people who live there.

Some people don't deserve to live. Simple. If you don't believe that then mass muderers, perpetrators of genocide, dictators and serial child killers and rapists all deserve to live out the rest of their lives in a relevant comfort of a western jail cell paid for by the tax payer.

Who are we to decide who does and does not deserve life. To paraphrase Gandalf: many who die deserve life, can you give it to them? In addition capital punishment is not a deterrent to crime. Let's take the EU and the USA. Both have large populations and similar standards of living and similar legal standards yet the murder rate is substantially higher in the USA. Guess which one allows state sponsored killing??

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Gatling wrote: »

I haven't declined to answer anything

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So, what do you think should be the punishment for the State in the event of a miscarraige of justice?

Either you have declined or you're not able to.

Gatling

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Either you have declined or you're not able to.

Honestly didn't see that at all

These days so called miscarriage's of justice are few a and far between especially with new technology and better understanding of crimes ,

If someone was sentenced who was actually innocent and not just on some legal technically ,
Id hope they were compensated ,

One case caught my eye a few years ago a man in America was convicted of murder minus any evidence or witness's to his alleged crime ,
He was sentenced to life he served 50 years before being cleared by DNA evidence and released what did receive in return $50 compensation a dollar for every year

osarusan

Gatling wrote: »

Honestly didn't see that at all

These days so called miscarriage's of justice are few a and far between especially with new technology and better understanding of crimes ,

If someone was sentenced who was actually innocent and not just on some legal technically ,
Id hope they were compensated ,

One case caught my eye a few years ago a man in America was convicted of murder minus any evidence or witness's to his alleged crime ,
He was sentenced to life he served 50 years before being cleared by DNA evidence and released what did receive in return $50 compensation a dollar for every year

But the questions is how would you compensate somebody who's already been executed?

Gatling

osarusan wrote: »

But the questions is how would you compensate somebody who's already been executed?

I'm sure a mother or father or 5 siblings would be willing to except a cheque for there loss

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Gatling wrote: »

Honestly didn't see that at all

Fair enough.

These days so called miscarriage's of justice are few a and far between especially with new technology and better understanding of crimes ,

If someone was sentenced who was actually innocent and not just on some legal technically ,
Id hope they were compensated ,

One case caught my eye a few years ago a man in America was convicted of murder minus any evidence or witness's to his alleged crime ,
He was sentenced to life he served 50 years before being cleared by DNA evidence and released what did receive in return $50 compensation a dollar for every year

There are actually quiet a few. Technology is one thing, trails are based on humans and human perception - jurors. And humans make mistakes all the time.

You haven't actually answered my question: I didn't ask how you compensated the victims (let alone their families) I asked how you punished the State for getting it wrong.

Gatling

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Fair enough.



There are actually quiet a few. Technology is one thing, trails are based on humans and human perception - jurors. And humans make mistakes all the time.

You haven't actually answered my question: I didn't ask how you compensated the victims (let alone their families) I asked how you punished the State for getting it wrong.

Its not the state its a legal system that includes prosecution - defence -and 12 individual's
Ultimately

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Gatling wrote: »

Its not the state its a legal system that includes prosecution - defence -and 12 individual's
Ultimately

If a State legalises the death penalty, then the responsibility lies with the State, but you may have a point: if a jury sends an untimately innocent man to the chair, should they be punished?

Who is responsible and what penalty should the pay for killing an innocent person?

Gatling

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

If a State legalises the death penalty, then the responsibility lies with the State, but you may have a point: if a jury sends an untimately innocent man to the chair, should they be punished?

Who is responsible and what penalty should the pay for killing an innocent person?

Its an interesting one actually

Do your arrest 12 people and charge them with

Manslaughter ,

Negligent homicide ,

Remove trial by jury so it doesnt happen

No jury would cause a total meltdown for most people

The whole legal system would need to be rebuilt from the ground up first

jank

namloc1980 wrote: »

Who are we to decide who does and does not deserve life. To paraphrase Gandalf: many who die deserve life, can you give it to them? In addition capital punishment is not a deterrent to crime. Let's take the EU and the USA. Both have large populations and similar standards of living and similar legal standards yet the murder rate is substantially higher in the USA. Guess which one allows state sponsored killing??

You are perpetuating the same old tired arguemnts of a liberal arts student. We appoint judges and juries to dish out punishment to criminals found guilty of crimes. If the crime is serious enough I think the death penalty should be an option. I also notice that we often talk about the rights of criminals yet never talk about the rights of victims.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Gatling wrote: »

Its an interesting one actually

Do your arrest 12 people and charge them with

Manslaughter ,

Negligent homicide ,

Remove trial by jury so it doesnt happen

No jury would cause a total meltdown for most people

The whole legal system would need to be rebuilt from the ground up first

... and who the hell would want to sit on a jury at a murder trial when this is a possible outcome?

So we're back to the fallability of the death sentence as being one of the major reasons I'm against it.

Gatling

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

... and who the hell would want to sit on a jury at a murder trial when this is a possible outcome?

So we're back to the fallability of the death sentence as being one of the major reasons I'm against it.

It's one of them arguments that would go round and round ,

At least you've put up a fair argument rather than I'm against it ,

Most have the usual why are you against it? ehhhh because ehhh

Our current legal system can't even cope with the basic crime nevermind a death sentence

Hitchens

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

...

Oh petal, you still haven't answer my question :rolleyes: #646

Christy42

jank wrote: »

You are perpetuating the same old tired arguemnts of a liberal arts student. We appoint judges and juries to dish out punishment to criminals found guilty of crimes. If the crime is serious enough I think the death penalty should be an option. I also notice that we often talk about the rights of criminals yet never talk about the rights of victims.

You don't defeat those arguments. Just because you want revenge doesn't mean you should be allowed kill someone. Sure, if it would benefit society as a whole and act as a serious deterrent for crime then we can think of introducing it but I haven't seen any evidence to that effect. I don't see how the victims's rights come into this. The victims should receive any care that is appropriate and have the right to have their say in court. They do not have the right to decide the punishment, nor should they ever have this right.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Hitchens wrote: »

Oh petal, you still haven't answer my question :rolleyes: #646

Neither did anyone else...?

old hippy

jank wrote: »

You are perpetuating the same old tired arguemnts of a liberal arts student. We appoint judges and juries to dish out punishment to criminals found guilty of crimes. If the crime is serious enough I think the death penalty should be an option. I also notice that we often talk about the rights of criminals yet never talk about the rights of victims.

The rights of victims are constantly talked about on each and every thread like this.

And then we get the dubious rights of joe keyboard who wants to remove people from society and visit all manner of retribution on the perps. But that's not justice.

diomed

No. People will be calling for the death-penalty for jaywalking, not paying property tax, and I forget the other one.

Hitchens

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Neither did anyone else...?

It was you I asked luv, ...............have you no politically correct answer to hand this time?

osarusan

Hitchens wrote: »

It was you I asked luv, ...............have you no politically correct answer to hand this time?

This was the question by the way:

Hitchens wrote: »

Would you take a convicted murderer/rapist in as a lodger if he told you he was innocent and homeless?

What on earth does it have to do with the death penalty? Regardless of how somebody answers, what insight does it give to anything?

dr.bollocko

Hitchens wrote: »

It was you I asked luv

Hitchens wrote: »

Oh petal

Goading nonsense. Has form for it.

Banned.

jank

Christy42 wrote: »

You don't defeat those arguments. Just because you want revenge doesn't mean you should be allowed kill someone. Sure, if it would benefit society as a whole and act as a serious deterrent for crime then we can think of introducing it but I haven't seen any evidence to that effect. I don't see how the victims's rights come into this. The victims should receive any care that is appropriate and have the right to have their say in court. They do not have the right to decide the punishment, nor should they ever have this right.

It is not a question of revenge. It is a question of justice. In your world view a man like Hitler or Stalin would be jailed at the tax payers expense. Same old progressive nonsense.

old hippy wrote: »

The rights of victims are constantly talked about on each and every thread like this.

And then we get the dubious rights of joe keyboard who wants to remove people from society and visit all manner of retribution on the perps. But that's not justice.

If the crime is serious enough perpetrators should be permanently removed from society. Thats my opinion and many would agree that that is justice. I would change my tune if serious criminals were made to work 16 hour days breaking rocks and living on gruel and water. A flogging here and there wouldn't go astray for serious violent offenders. At the moment the criminal justice system is a joke. Kids walking out of prison with 40 convictions on their rap sheet.

epluribusunum

old hippy wrote: »

Calling people "monsters" is subjective and illogical.

You did not address any issue of debate but instead went ahead and criticized a description because you had no point to make. I said that adults are also a clump of cells just like a fetus and you could not rebut. I said lethal injection is also a medical procedure just like abortion and you could not rebut. These are both derived from science so you cannot manipulate it out of convenience.

Which by the way, I think every sane person would call the Boston bombers monsters. I do not know how you can possibly sympathize with someone who planned, walked along a row of people, dropped bombs, walked away, and watched people scream for their life in distraught, then went ahead and shot a cop from point blank range later that week for no reason, and then when the survivor went to court he looked the family members of the victims in the eyes, smirked and then pleaded "not guilty." If that is not a monster I do not know what is. If he has no remorse for his actions, and no regard for the life of others then why should the tax payers who witnessed this first hand have to pay for him to live the rest of his life? How can you sympathize with someone like that? Disgusting, truly disgusting. He killed this kid who is 8 and took his sister's leg who was 7 and yet according to you he does not deserve to die, that is absurd. It is not about revenge, it is about justice for the victims. And, yes the victims do matter considering how they are completely innocent and had this awful act put on their burden. I cannot believe you had the audacity to say that we should not sympathize with victims of terrible acts. Then who should we sympathize for? Ridiculous.
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1089212/thumbs/o-MARTIN-RICHARD-BOSTON-MARATHON-BOMBINGS-VICTIM-570.jpg?6


Please address the above because you are one sick individual if you can sympathize with those actions. I do not think you live in the real world if this is the case.

You are not using logic but instead an ignorant progressive way of thinking, supported by your profound support of the hippy movement, that rejects common sense. Just because you try to differ in philosophical views of the "mainstream" at the extent of sounding ridiculous does not make you more intellectual, instead most would argue it makes you seem out of touch with reality. Think for yourself and not what a group feeds to you, yeah all forms of abortion is okay but monsters should get to live. Give me a break.

end of the road

epluribusunum wrote: »

I do not know how you can possibly sympathize with someone who planned, walked along a row of people, dropped bombs, walked away, and watched people scream for their life in distraught, then went ahead and shot a cop from point blank range later that week for no reason, and then when the survivor went to court he looked the family members of the victims in the eyes, smirked and then pleaded "not guilty."

she hasn't sympathized with any criminal at all.

epluribusunum wrote: »

If he has no remorse for his actions, and no regard for the life of others then why should the tax payers who witnessed this first hand have to pay for him to live the rest of his life?

why shouldn't they have to pay for him? its their job to pay for him, either to take a life is right or its wrong

epluribusunum wrote: »

How can you sympathize with someone like that? Disgusting, truly disgusting.

she hasn't sympathized with anyone, but well done on trying to twist things and use the well known failed method of using things to try and fail to guilt trip someone into agreeing with you, nice try but it doesn't work, i think your the discusting one claming that somehow because she disagrees with the death penalty that she defends and sympathizes with criminals.

epluribusunum wrote: »

He killed this kid who is 8 and took his sister's leg who was 7 and yet according to you he does not deserve to die, that is absurd.

its not absurd at all, he doesn't deserve to die, saying he does invalidates any laws against murder, condemning murder then condoning state sanctioned killing/murder makes one a hypicrit

epluribusunum wrote: »

It is not about revenge, it is about justice for the victims.

it is about revenge, life in prison can deliver the same justice for the victims at half the cost

epluribusunum wrote: »

I cannot believe you had the audacity to say that we should not sympathize with victims of terrible acts.

she never said that at all, but again well done in trying to twist what she said

epluribusunum wrote: »

You are not using logic but instead an ignorant progressive way of thinking, supported by your profound support of the hippy movement, that rejects common sense. Just because you try to differ in philosophical views of the "mainstream" at the extent of sounding ridiculous does not make you more intellectual, instead most would argue it makes you seem out of touch with reality. Think for yourself and not what a group feeds to you

what a load of complete nonsense, hippy is well able to form her own opinion without being told what to think, not everyone is a sheep, people disagree with the death penalty, except it deal with it and move on, the people of ireland in 2001 voted to remove it from the constitution, i'm sure you as a resident of ireland would have had a chance to vote on this issue.

wp_rathead

No.

epluribusunum

end of the road wrote: »

she hasn't sympathized with any criminal at all.

why shouldn't they have to pay for him? its their job to pay for him, either to take a life is right or its wrong

she hasn't sympathized with anyone, but well done on trying to twist things and use the well known failed method of using things to try and fail to guilt trip someone into agreeing with you, nice try but it doesn't work, i think your the discusting one claming that somehow because she disagrees with the death penalty that she defends and sympathizes with criminals.

its not absurd at all, he doesn't deserve to die, saying he does invalidates any laws against murder, condemning murder then condoning state sanctioned killing/murder makes one a hypicrit

it is about revenge, life in prison can deliver the same justice for the victims at half the cost

she never said that at all, but again well done in trying to twist what she said

what a load of complete nonsense, hippy is well able to form her own opinion without being told what to think, not everyone is a sheep, people disagree with the death penalty, except it deal with it and move on, the people of ireland in 2001 voted to remove it from the constitution, i'm sure you as a resident of ireland would have had a chance to vote on this issue.

Wow, look at you. Accusing me of making false conclusions and yet you do it yourself. I was not a resident nor a citizen of Ireland in 2001 or even close to it, so I am unsure as to where you got that from...

"The rights of victims are constantly talked about on each and every thread like this.

And then we get the dubious rights of joe keyboard who wants to remove people from society and visit all manner of retribution on the perps. But that's not justice."

Those were her exact words! She also claimed the death penalty as "murder", the only way that would be true is if people were executed for their beliefs and not because of a terrible act. This isn't an oppression of human rights, but a justice served to society. Oh, so now I am a sheep because I think the kid deserves to die for what he did? That makes total sense. Anybody who uses the term "sheep" still, is a sheep. Get a new word you progressive intellectual, you. He should not be able to see his family ever again, smell the air of the world, eat food (when people are starving), and be idolized and sympathized by others around the world who are insane when his victims never have the chance to see their families again, or do what they loved and enjoyed to do.

State sanctioned murder is murder because of religious beliefs, political beliefs, skin color, and other reasons that infringe upon someone else's right to live even though they are innocent of terrible acts. The death penalty is a response to a widely accepted social norm broken by a monster. End of story. And anybody who does not agree that that kid deserves to die, is sympathizing with him. I did not get it twisted, the definition is sympathy clearly tells us that you people are sympathizing with monsters. He does not deserve to die? Why? That is sympathy for him right there, you feel as though taking his life would be too harsh for him- sympathy.

wexie

end of the road wrote: »

.....

why shouldn't they have to pay for him? its their job to pay for him, either to take a life is right or its wrong

....

I was actually going to jump in here until I read the drivel above.

If someone can actually say (and believe) that it's the taxpayers JOB....to look after human waste like that then there really is no point in even trying to have a reasoned discussion with them.

Carry on, say hi to the faeries from me.

epluribusunum

Oh she also referred to prospective death penalty candidates as "sentient human beings." Sentient means you have the ability to suffer as well as feel empathy, and so she is saying that she does not want this person to have to suffer the death penalty because he is a "sentient human being". Just like yourself she thinks monsters "do not deserve" the death penalty. Is this not sympathy? Well to you, of course it isn't because you also sympathize with them.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

epluribusunum wrote: »

Oh she also referred to prospective death penalty candidates as "sentient human beings." Sentient means you have the ability to suffer as well as feel empathy, and so she is saying that she does not want this person to have to suffer the death penalty because he is a "sentient human being". Just like yourself she thinks monsters "do not deserve" the death penalty. Is this not sympathy? Well to you, of course it isn't because you also sympathize with them.

Eh, that's not what "sentient" means. You may be thinking of "sociopathic".

epluribusunum

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Eh, that's not what "sentient" means. You may be thinking of "sociopathic".

What? The definition of sentient is the ability to perceive or feel things. A sentient being has empathy towards others and understands what suffering is.

Secondly, she used that word- not me- so get your facts straight. But I like your attempt at sarcasm...quite an original delivery.

Lastly, why are you so protective over such a monster anyway?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

epluribusunum wrote: »

What? The definition of sentient is the ability to perceive or feel things. A sentient being has empathy towards others and understands what suffering is.

Secondly, she used that word- not me- so get your facts straight. But I like your attempt at sarcasm...quite an original delivery.

Lastly, why are you so protective over such a monster anyway?

Perceive, as in physical sensation, not as in emotion/emoathy. Nothing sarcastic about it: the word I put forward genuniely sounds like the word you're thinking of, regardless of what she put forward. You may be be debating a point she never made.

What monster have I pretected?

end of the road

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

What monster have I pretected?

we all know the answer is none, however that poster sounds like one of the "if you don't agree with the death penalty you condone the crime" types, a perfect example is the "if you don't agree with torchering/castration/the death penalty for paediophiles then your a paediophile" brigade, one couldn't make it up

epluribusunum

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Perceive, as in physical sensation, not as in emotion/emoathy. Nothing sarcastic about it: the word I put forward genuniely sounds like the word you're thinking of, regardless of what she put forward. You may be be debating a point she never made.

What monster have I pretected?

Well, you are wrong then. It extends far past the physical element. It has been used by many metaphysical philosophers to describe an emotional aspect. Many words have multiple associations.


You are protecting monsters in society because you are so against the death penalty that you have become fixated on the interpretation of a word someone else used. You are protecting someone who would do such a thing as the Boston bombings. How can you possibly believe they have the right to life? Honestly, I would like to hear your opinion.

epluribusunum

end of the road wrote: »

we all know the answer is none, however that poster sounds like one of the "if you don't agree with the death penalty you condone the crime" types, a perfect example is the "if you don't agree with torchering/castration/the death penalty for paediophiles then your a paediophile" brigade, one couldn't make it up

Again, with the false assumptions...

Who said anything about castration, or torturing*? You are twisting my message actually. You sound like the type of poster who cannot argue with logic so instead manipulates the other's message. You have done this twice now.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

epluribusunum wrote: »

Well, you are wrong then. It extends far past the physical element. It has been used by many metaphysical philosophers to describe an emotional aspect. Many words have multiple associations.

Eh.... no. It's sensory.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sentient
Animals are sentient to danger - doesn't mean they share an emotion with it.

You are protecting monsters in society because you are so against the death penalty that you have become fixated on the interpretation of a word someone else used. You are protecting someone who would do such a thing as the Boston bombings. How can you possibly believe they have the right to life? Honestly, I would like to hear your opinion.

Hey, I'm just trying to help out here. Didn't mean any animosity. However, if helping someone redefine a word is suddenly a sign of monster-protecting I may not bother. God help primary school teachers.

I don't believe I ever mentioned the Boston bombers... Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else?

Cedrus

epluribusunum wrote: »

................... You are twisting my message actually. ................

Oh the irony!

(Probably doesn't understand irony though, judging by the dictionary and grammar, I'd say this poster is a pond crosser, the loud kind, with tartan pants. They get sarcasm and irony all mixed up over there)

epluribusunum

Cedrus wrote: »

Oh the irony!

(Probably doesn't understand irony though, judging by the dictionary and grammar, I'd say this poster is a pond crosser, the loud kind, with tartan pants. They get sarcasm and irony all mixed up over there)

English is my second language out of 3.

According to a philosophical text it says there is an emotional aspect. Maybe this has been degraded since then, but at least at one point it was the case. And just because it is no longer associated with it currently does not mean it is wrong. I do not know, you tell me you are probably an Irishman who cannot speak Irish "for fcuk sake."

Also, the point of the word was that she said a human is a sentient human being and therefore the death penalty is wrong. Lethal injection is not as painful as getting blown up by a bomb. Is this not true?

And having lived in both, I can assure you the Irish are louder than the Americans.

namloc1980

jank wrote: »

You are perpetuating the same old tired arguemnts of a liberal arts student. We appoint judges and juries to dish out punishment to criminals found guilty of crimes. If the crime is serious enough I think the death penalty should be an option. I also notice that we often talk about the rights of criminals yet never talk about the rights of victims.

Everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law including the victim and the perpetrator, in fact it is guaranteed under the Constitution. It would seem that many people would prefer that the perpetrator had little or no rights but if that's the case we might as well dispose with the whole concept of justice altogether. Killing someone is never right, no matter what. If a society reduces itself to killing undesirables in society then it is no better than the murderer.

Love2u

No one should have the right to end a persons life. This thread should not even be a conversation. Please close it mod.

epluribusunum

Love2u wrote: »

No one should have the right to end a persons life. This thread should not even be a conversation. Please close it mod.

Well then that should apply to murderers too.

The death penalty is not muder. State sanctioned murder is killing people for their beliefs, race, or something else that has nothing to do with a right or a wrong.

Once you committ a horrible act you have forfeited your right to live because you stopped someone else from living or did something else really awful.

osarusan

epluribusunum wrote: »

I cannot believe you had the audacity to say that we should not sympathize with victims of terrible acts.

can you quote the post where this was said please?

Love2u

epluribusunum wrote: »

Well then that should apply to murderers too.

The death penalty is not muder. State sanctioned murder is killing people for their beliefs, race, or something else that has nothing to do with a right or a wrong.

Once you committ a horrible act you have forfeited your right to live because you stopped someone else from living or did something else really awful.

Two wrongs don't make a right! The death penalty "is" murder. Find something better to talk about on a week night! talking about agreeing with the death penalty doesn't serve you and it certainly doesnt serve our communities.

epluribusunum

Love2u wrote: »

Two wrongs don't make a right! The death penalty "is" murder. Find something better to talk about on a week night! talking about agreeing with the death penalty doesn't serve you and it certainly doesnt serve our communities.

To take a waste of life out of society most definetely serves society. You have to do better than saying 2 wrongs do not make a right. You can find a quote or stupid saying for pretty much every argument ever had.

I do appreciate that you actually debate though I will say that.

wp_rathead

epluribusunum wrote: »

Well, you are wrong then. It extends far past the physical element. It has been used by many metaphysical philosophers to describe an emotional aspect. Many words have multiple associations.


You are protecting monsters in society because you are so against the death penalty that you have become fixated on the interpretation of a word someone else used. You are protecting someone who would do such a thing as the Boston bombings. How can you possibly believe they have the right to life? Honestly, I would like to hear your opinion.

How can you possibly believe you/we/society/state/law have the right to take theirs?

epluribusunum

wprathead wrote: »

How can you possibly believe you/we/society/state/law have the right to take theirs?

You are acting as if they got a parking citation.

They, and others, plan and execute a terrible act. They know what they are doing and the catastrophe it will cause to all victims. If they have no regard for the life of others then they should cease to exist. You may so oh well you have no regard for the life of others, well no because i think everybody who participates in society without having to kill should get to live it is only when they kill or comitt a terrible act they should be killed as punishment.