Would you support the reintroduction of the death penalty?

namloc1980

epluribusunum wrote: »

To take a waste of life out of society most definetely serves society.

No it doesn't. It reduces society to their level by demonstrating that it is indeed acceptable to take a human life, when of course it never ever is?

epluribusunum

namloc1980 wrote: »

No it doesn't. It reduces society to their level by demonstrating that it is indeed acceptable to take a human life, when of course it never ever is?

It is not acceptable that is why they ahould be punished.

So you think when people hear of the death penalty they think murder is justifiable? That is impractical. Most would sane people would not have the urge to kill in the first place and do not need a deterrent to stop them. And if there ever was a deterrent it would not be letting the murderer live. society's take on the death penalty is of little relevance to sane people because they do not want to hurt others anyway.

wp_rathead

epluribusunum wrote: »

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.

namloc1980 comment "it reduces society to their level by demonstrating that it is indeed acceptable to take a human life" answers this post..

“If we believe that murder is wrong and not admissible in our society, then it has to be wrong for everyone, not just individuals but governments as well.”

wexie

wprathead wrote: »

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

It's not so much that society would have the right to take their lives, as that, on the bases of their heinous crimes they forfeited the right to be part of said society.

I absolutely, genuinely believe there are individuals out there that need to be removed from society for the good of society.

Now, whether that be done permanently and irrevocably by means of death, or permanently by actual life sentence, and I do mean: remain in prison until you die of old age, I don't really care.

Personally I think that if a more pragmatic approach was taken to the death penalty there wouldn't be any of this 20 years on death row nonsense and a death penalty wouldn't need to be anymore expensive (probably cheaper) than any other.

Someone like Ariel Castro, there is no need for any appeals or any of that nonsense, they should be taken out back of the courthouse and put down like a rabid dog. Plain and simple.

Of course there will be cases that aren't quite so clear cut and no bringing back the death penalty would not be an easy or straightforward process.

But if you ask me should it be done the answer will be non-hesitant and resounding yes! If nothing else simply because it wouldn't make any sense to keep some of these 'people' alive.

Love2u

epluribusunum wrote: »

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.

Your so full of wisdom. The topic ain't worth anymore of my precious time. Now here is my quote just for you "I'm off to bed enough said".

epluribusunum

wprathead wrote: »

namloc1980 comment "it reduces society to their level by demonstrating that it is indeed acceptable to take a human life" answers this post..

Laws are a reflection of social norms that are implemented for the benefit of society. Social norms tell us not to kill innocent people, if you do you are a monster. The government enforces these laws that we accept as sane beings. The government has the right to right a wrong for the benefit of society. The wrong would be committing a terrible act to an innocent human being.

epluribusunum

Love2u wrote: »

Your so full of wisdom. The topic ain't worth anymore of my precious time. Now here is my quote just for you "I'm off to bed enough said".

Logic is hard to manipulate, yes?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

epluribusunum wrote: »

Laws are a reflection of social norms that are implemented for the benefit of society. Social norms tell us not to kill innocent people, if you do you are a monster. The government enforces these laws that we accept as sane beings. The government has the right to right a wrong for the benefit of society. The wrong would be committing a terrible act to an innocent human being.

And if, as has happened, there is a miscarraige of justice...?

namloc1980

epluribusunum wrote: »

It is not acceptable that is why they ahould be punished.

So you think when people hear of the death penalty they think murder is justifiable? That is impractical. Most would sane people would not have the urge to kill in the first place and do not need a deterrent to stop them. And if there ever was a deterrent it would not be letting the murderer live. society's take on the death penalty is of little relevance to sane people because they do not want to hurt others anyway.

Nice strawman there I must say. And the death penalty is not a deterrent, because if it was murder would be unheard of in the USA. Yet it has a murder rate substantially higher than the European Union, where capital punishment is illegal under all circumstances.

Me_Grapes

I've said it before and I'll say it again.....the death penalty is only hypocritical if you deem the murderer as an equal to the person they murdered.

If one does't feel the criminal has the same rights to life as the general populous, then one could say they are not sinking to the criminals level.

epluribusunum

namloc1980 wrote: »

Nice strawman there I must say. And the death penalty is not a deterrent, because if it was murder would be unheard of in the USA. Yet it has a murder rate substantially higher than the European Union, where capital punishment is illegal under all circumstances.

The question of it being a deterrent is arguable, but it definetely does not encourage murder. Plus, you are not taking American inner cities vs European inner cities into account. That is irresponsible.

namloc1980

epluribusunum wrote: »

Laws are a reflection of social norms that are implemented for the benefit of society. Social norms tell us not to kill innocent people, if you do you are a monster. The government enforces these laws that we accept as sane beings. The government has the right to right a wrong for the benefit of society. The wrong would be committing a terrible act to an innocent human being.

Yes but that does not extend to killing people. Capital punishment is illegal in Ireland under the constitution, by statute, under EU treaties, under EU law and under the European Convention on Human Rights. Social norms in Ireland tell us that killing humans in any form is wrong.

wp_rathead

wexie wrote: »

It's not so much that society would have the right to take their lives, as that, on the bases of their heinous crimes they forfeited the right to be part of said society.

Prison

I absolutely, genuinely believe there are individuals out there that need to be removed from society for the good of society.

Prison

Now, whether that be done permanently and irrevocably by means of death, or permanently by actual life sentence, and I do mean: remain in prison until you die of old age, I don't really care.

I actually agree, longer prison sentences in serious cases are a must

Personally I think that if a more pragmatic approach was taken to the death penalty there wouldn't be any of this 20 years on death row nonsense and a death penalty wouldn't need to be anymore expensive (probably cheaper) than any other.

You not find it disturbing that money is a factor when talking about someones life?

Someone like Ariel Castro, there is no need for any appeals or any of that nonsense, they should be taken out back of the courthouse and put down like a rabid dog. Plain and simple.

Of course there will be cases that aren't quite so clear cut and no bringing back the death penalty would not be an easy or straightforward process.

Trial by media is dangerous, just look at Central Park 5
(obvo no relation to the Castro case just pointing out these high profile Live on TV cases not good baromoter to go by)

But if you ask me should it be done the answer will be non-hesitant and resounding yes! If nothing else simply because it wouldn't make any sense to keep some of these 'people' alive

Sorry that is not a good enough reason to kill someone simply because it doesn't make sense to "keep them alive" imo

epluribusunum

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

And if, as has happened, there is a miscarraige of justice...?

It would have to be 100 percent. A person like Hitler did terrible acts; with 100 percent confidence everybody can say that, unless you are also a conspiracy theorist?

namloc1980

epluribusunum wrote: »

The question of it being a deterrent is arguable, but it definetely does not encourage murder. Plus, you are not taking American inner cities vs European inner cities into account. That is irresponsible.

Huh? Those are social issues. If american cities are more violent than European city (which I'm not sure they actually are) then that is a social issue that killing people will not fix.

wp_rathead

epluribusunum wrote: »

It would have to be 100 percent. A person like Hitler did terrible acts; with 100 percent confidence everybody can say that, unless you are also a conspiracy theorist?

cool, so being anti-death penalty ironically means you are pro-hitler..?

El_Duderino 09

If we/society agree to remove someone's freedom and lock them inside a prison for the rest of their life, we have already ended a huge part of that persons life. Sentenced to shuffle from one room to another and have almost no purpose for the rest of their life.

I don't think it's that much of a leap to just decide to bite the bullet and end that persons life. If we decide they are never fit to return to society, we have already ended their life. We pretend it's more than a technicality that we haven't Killed them yet by keeping them alive whilst they serve their sentence.

If we decide to end someones life because we can't ever trust them in society again, then just have thew courage of that conviction and kill them properly.

namloc1980

epluribusunum wrote: »

It would have to be 100 percent. A person like Hitler did terrible acts; with 100 percent confidence everybody can say that, unless you are also a conspiracy theorist?

Bringing Hitler into it just weakens your argument to be honest.

Love2u

epluribusunum wrote: »

Logic is hard to manipulate, yes?

Your boring us now! Death penalty DOES NOT WORK, end of conversation.

epluribusunum

namloc1980 wrote: »

Yes but that does not extend to killing people. Capital punishment is illegal in Ireland under the constitution, by statute, under EU treaties, under EU law and under the European Convention on Human Rights. Social norms in Ireland tell us that killing humans in any form is wing.

I am aware of the laws, look at the title.

It extends to killing people if the degree of the crime was as equally as bad as killing someone with the utmost lack of regard for the human race. Right a wrong. There are penalties for everything and they are worst than the act itself, should be no different in this case. This is called punishment. Social norms are a reflection but not an identical agreement. Otherwise, there would be no debate over things like this or abortion for instance because everybody would agree. Social norms differ with people but laws can not be broken. Plus, Just because EU law says something does not mean it is right. You have to use your own logic, not turn to what governments currently think.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

epluribusunum wrote: »

It would have to be 100 percent. A person like Hitler did terrible acts; with 100 percent confidence everybody can say that, unless you are also a conspiracy theorist?

Not to my knowledge. And Hitler committed suicide, so what would that achieve?

epluribusunum wrote: »

The question of it being a deterrent is arguable, but it definetely does not encourage murder. Plus, you are not taking American inner cities vs European inner cities into account. That is irresponsible.

Well, you can't - only one of them has the death penalty.

The question is not "is it a deterrent?" it's "has it ever worked as a deterrent?"

Me_Grapes

epluribusunum wrote: »

Plus, Just because EU law says something does not mean it is right. You have to use your own logic, not turn to what governments currently think.

If I could thank this point a million times, I would

osarusan

epluribusunum wrote: »

I am aware of the laws, look at the title.

If you are aware of the title of the thread, and the laws, then you know that your earlier post is wrong:

epluribusunum wrote: »

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.

In Ireland, and many many other countries, committing a horrible act does not mean a criminal forfeits their right to live.

Me_Grapes

osarusan wrote: »

In Ireland, and many many other countries, committing a horrible act does not mean a criminal forfeits their right to live.

.......but it should.

Should qualify that by saying by "horrible acts" I mean murder.

epluribusunum

I think Hitler would have deserved the death penalty.

It is concerning if you disagree with this. For your mental health.

Just like Anyone else who takes a life. What is the difference in intentionally taking 1 life versus millions? Outside of the quantitative aspect, the principle does not change.

So is there a certain number that must be reached?
Or did he not deserve it at all? I hope you do not believe this.

claypigeon777

The only question that needs answering is whether the death penalty deters criminals? Well statistics show that it doesn't.

Besides violent sadistic psychopaths who commit the most heinous crimes are incapable of empathy, have zero fear and a complete absence of remorse.

If the deaths of other people don't matter why would the death of someone like them?

Their only rule is "Thou shalt not get caught."

The death penalty does not deter them. Rather it encourages them to take more precautions.

namloc1980

epluribusunum wrote: »

I am aware of the laws, look at the title.

It extends to killing people if the degree of the crime was as equally as bad as killing someone with the utmost lack of regard for the human race. Right a wrong. There are penalties for everything and they are worst than the act itself, should be no different in this case. This is called punishment. Social norms are a reflection but not an identical agreement. Otherwise, there would be no debate over things like this or abortion for instance because everybody would agree. Social norms differ with people but laws can not be broken. Plus, Just because EU law says something does not mean it is right. You have to use your own logic, not turn to what governments currently think.

In 2001 Irish society voted in a referendum to completely remove Capital punishment from our Constitution and thus from our legal system. That was society deciding, not "what governments currently think".

namloc1980

Me_Grapes wrote: »

.......but it should.

Should qualify that by saying by "horrible acts" I mean murder.

But it doesn't. We voted in a referendum to say it doesn't.

wp_rathead

epluribusunum wrote: »

I think Hitler would have deserved the death penalty.

It is concerning if you disagree with this. For your mental health.

Just like Anyone else who takes a life. What is the difference in intentionally taking 1 life versus millions? Outside of the quantitative aspect, the principle does not change.

So is there a certain number that must be reached?
Or did he not deserve it at all? I hope you do not believe this.

Nice to see Godwin's law in full flow here

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

epluribusunum wrote: »

I think Hitler would have deserved the death penalty.

Hitler thought so too.

It is concerning if you disagree with this. For your mental health.

Just like Anyone else who takes a life. What is the difference in intentionally taking 1 life versus millions? Outside of the quantitative aspect, the principle does not change.

So is there a certain number that must be reached?
Or did he not deserve it at all? I hope you do not believe this.

Hitler's irrelevant. We're talking about the reintrodcution of the death penalty to modern society, not whether someone from history did or did not deserve to die.

The question is: what do you hope the reintroduction of the death penalty would achieve?

Me_Grapes

namloc1980 wrote: »

But it doesn't. We voted in a referendum to say it doesn't.

I'm well aware of what the majority of people feel about affording human rights to murderers.

I just plain disagree with them.

epluribusunum

Any takers on the Hitler question? Tis a clusterfcuk!

I think Hitler would have deserved the death penalty.

It is concerning if you disagree with this. For your mental health.

Just like Anyone else who takes a life. What is the difference in intentionally taking 1 life versus millions? Outside of the quantitative aspect, the principle does not change.

So is there a certain number that must be reached? If so, at what number did Hitler deserve the death penalty?? 1,2,3, millionth Jew? Which number? Because they all had families, and a life.

Or did he not deserve it at all? I hope you do not believe this.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

epluribusunum wrote: »

Any takers on the Hitler question? Tis a clusterfcuk!

I think Hitler would have deserved the death penalty.

It is concerning if you disagree with this. For your mental health.

Just like Anyone else who takes a life. What is the difference in intentionally taking 1 life versus millions? Outside of the quantitative aspect, the principle does not change.

So is there a certain number that must be reached? If so, at what number did Hitler deserve the death penalty?? 1,2,3, millionth Jew? Which number? Because they all had families, and a life.

Or did he not deserve it at all? I hope you do not believe this.

Three posts up.

epluribusunum

I will re-post it until someone addresses it. Here we go:

I think Hitler would have deserved the death penalty.

It is concerning if you disagree with this. For your mental health.

Just like Anyone else who takes a life. What is the difference in intentionally taking 1 life versus millions? Outside of the quantitative aspect, the principle does not change.

So is there a certain number that must be reached? If so, at what number did Hitler deserve the death penalty?? 1,2,3, millionth Jew? Which number? Because they all had families, and a life.

Or did he not deserve it at all? I hope you do not believe this.

namloc1980

epluribusunum wrote: »

Any takers on the Hitler question? Tis a clusterfcuk!

I think Hitler would have deserved the death penalty.

It is concerning if you disagree with this. For your mental health.

Just like Anyone else who takes a life. What is the difference in intentionally taking 1 life versus millions? Outside of the quantitative aspect, the principle does not change.

So is there a certain number that must be reached? If so, at what number did Hitler deserve the death penalty?? 1,2,3, millionth Jew? Which number? Because they all had families, and a life.

Or did he not deserve it at all? I hope you do not believe this.

What about Stalin, Blair, Bush, Obama, Kissinger?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

epluribusunum wrote: »

I will re-post it until someone addresses it. Here we go:

I think Hitler would have deserved the death penalty.

It is concerning if you disagree with this. For your mental health.

Just like Anyone else who takes a life. What is the difference in intentionally taking 1 life versus millions? Outside of the quantitative aspect, the principle does not change.

So is there a certain number that must be reached? If so, at what number did Hitler deserve the death penalty?? 1,2,3, millionth Jew? Which number? Because they all had families, and a life.

Or did he not deserve it at all? I hope you do not believe this.

Read the posts above yours before doing so.

epluribusunum

HAHAHAHHAHAH!

I will take the point of not addressing it as a win for me. Fair enough, it was an uphill battle for you people.

Thanks guys! I could not have done it without your utter silence and avoidance!

namloc1980

epluribusunum wrote: »

HAHAHAHHAHAH!

I will take the point of not addressing it as a win for me. Fair enough, it was an uphill battle for you people.

Thanks guys! I could not have done it without your utter silence and avoidance!

Whenever someone brings up Hitler it means they have run out of reasonable arguments to continue to support their point and must then resort to Adolf, just as you have.

epluribusunum

Boom. Took you all on and shut you all up. Goodnight.


...crickets...

namloc1980

epluribusunum wrote: »

Boom. Took you all on and shut you all up. Goodnight.


...crickets...

Sure you did....

epluribusunum

namloc1980 wrote: »

Sure you did....

I will re-post it until someone addresses it. Here we go:

I think Hitler would have deserved the death penalty.

It is concerning if you disagree with this. For your mental health.

Just like Anyone else who takes a life. What is the difference in intentionally taking 1 life versus millions? Outside of the quantitative aspect, the principle does not change.

So is there a certain number that must be reached? If so, at what number did Hitler deserve the death penalty?? 1,2,3, millionth Jew? Which number? Because they all had families, and a life.

Or did he not deserve it at all? I hope you do not believe this.

Cedrus

namloc1980 wrote: »

Nice strawman there I must say. And the death penalty is not a deterrent, because if it was murder would be unheard of in the USA. Yet it has a murder rate substantially higher than the European Union, where capital punishment is illegal under all circumstances.

+1 to both points
Epluribusunum specialises in strawmen, I'd like to say textbook, but not really that good, more baiting or trolling, definitely lost sight of the ball and just going for ankles now, the ball is forgotten.

The murder rate in USA v EU is a more complicated kind of fish, with many ingredients in the recipe.
Gun ownership, machismo and lack of access to mental healthcare are high on the US scorecard imo.
The crime stats across the EU and USA are not necessarily directly comparable but the police / judicial systems have not yet collapsed on either side so I'd call a draw there.

epluribusunum

Cedrus wrote: »

+1 to both points
Epluribusunum specialises in strawmen, I'd like to say textbook, but not really that good, more baiting or trolling, definitely lost sight of the ball and just going for ankles now, the ball is forgotten.

The murder rate in USA v EU is a more complicated kind of fish, with many ingredients in the recipe.
Gun ownership, machismo and lack of access to mental healthcare are high on the US scorecard imo.
The crime stats across the EU and USA are not necessarily directly comparable but the police / judicial systems have not yet collapsed on either side so I'd call a draw there.

I will re-post it until someone addresses it. Here we go:

I think Hitler would have deserved the death penalty.

It is concerning if you disagree with this. For your mental health.

Just like Anyone else who takes a life. What is the difference in intentionally taking 1 life versus millions? Outside of the quantitative aspect, the principle does not change.

So is there a certain number that must be reached? If so, at what number did Hitler deserve the death penalty?? 1,2,3, millionth Jew? Which number? Because they all had families, and a life.

Or did he not deserve it at all? I hope you do not believe this.

namloc1980

epluribusunum wrote: »

I will re-post it until someone addresses it. Here we go:

I think Hitler would have deserved the death penalty.

It is concerning if you disagree with this. For your mental health.

Just like Anyone else who takes a life. What is the difference in intentionally taking 1 life versus millions? Outside of the quantitative aspect, the principle does not change.

So is there a certain number that must be reached? If so, at what number did Hitler deserve the death penalty?? 1,2,3, millionth Jew? Which number? Because they all had families, and a life.

Or did he not deserve it at all? I hope you do not believe this.

Why are you going on about Hitler?? Killing humans is wrong full stop. I know you are trying to turn this into a "being anti death penalty means you are pro-Nazis" point which is utterly bizarre and completely weakens and invalidates your arguments to this point.

johnnyskeleton

epluribusunum wrote: »

HAHAHAHHAHAH!

I will take the point of not addressing it as a win for me. Fair enough, it was an uphill battle for you people.

Thanks guys! I could not have done it without your utter silence and avoidance!

24 minutes to win the internets, must be a new record!

shane9689

Jumboman wrote: »

I've a question for people who support human rights for scumbags,

If a member of your family was brutally raped and murdered by a savage criminal would you really care about their human rights or would you want justice ?

history has proven that harsh sentencing doesnt greatly reduce crime rates. rehabilitation and mental care does, if you dont rehabilitate then more scumbags will come from those scumbags...as for the murdering rapists, they most likely should get a life sentence in which case they wont have a chance to do that again

epluribusunum

This must be inconvenient for you.

I would love to hear each of your thoughts, back and forth in your defeated mind. My hypothesis is that it resembles something like this :

"Oh, well he raises a good point"
"Well should I address it? I mean, nobody has yet."
"No, don't he has logic on his side, just stay calm and make jokes- it has worked before."
"Yeah, your right the others who were too big of cowards to use reasoning will follow suit and we can get out of this with terrible sarcasm."
"Yeah, seems like a plan. After all he has just completely destroyed our argument, I wish I could give him props but my shameless ego won't let me."
"No, just continue to act like you are away even though you were just yelling at him about all these stupid arguments a minute ago."
"Doesn't it seem weird though that everybody stopped all of a sudden, and then when he boasted to get a reaction we all chimed in?"
"Yeah, it does but there is nothing we can do anymore."
"True, okay humor it is."

epluribusunum

One last chance. Here we go:

I think Hitler would have deserved the death penalty.

It is concerning if you disagree with this. For your mental health.

Just like Anyone else who takes a life. What is the difference in intentionally taking 1 life versus millions? Outside of the quantitative aspect, the principle does not change.

So is there a certain number that must be reached? If so, at what number did Hitler deserve the death penalty?? 1,2,3, millionth Jew? Which number? Because they all had families, and a life.

Or did he not deserve it at all? I hope you do not believe this.

namloc1980

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

24 minutes to win the internets, must be a new record!

And here's the winning prize!

Yellow121

shane9689 wrote: »

history has proven that harsh sentencing doesnt greatly reduce crime rates. rehabilitation and mental care does, if you dont rehabilitate then more scumbags will come from those scumbags...as for the murdering rapists, they most likely should get a life sentence in which case they wont have a chance to do that again

Why not just kill them to make sure?