Would you support the reintroduction of the death penalty?

epluribusunum

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Except that's not netirel correct, is it? Lots of people are perverts and enjoy sexually manipulating people smaller and weaker, but they don't actually do it.

For example:
Are people born pedophiles, or is it something they become via their experiences of life?
If the former, what can be done to prevent them from acting? Can it be eradicated while they are still in childhood?
If the later, what are the experiences that triggered these 'needs'?

You seriously telling me that the answers to those questions are of no use to society whatsoever?




After last night, you're not really in a position to claim you destoryed anything. Did you ever read any of the serval replies to our question you pretended to ignore?

Thats what she said.

Are you confusing fantasy with reality princess? Your arguments do your intelligence a disservice or perhaps...

Last night, I killed it. I have logic and intelligence on my side.

Lastly, I ignored your reply because you said that Hitler was different than a murderer. At that point my mind immediately deemed you as not reasonable or not intelligent. Maybe both.

Buenas noches Princess.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

epluribusunum wrote: »

Thats what she said.

Are you confusing fantasy with reality princess? Your arguments do your intelligence a disservice or perhaps...

Last night, I killed it. I have logic and intelligence on my side.

Lastly, I ignored your reply because you said that Hitler was different than a murderer. At that point my mind immediately deemed you as not reasonable or not intelligent. Maybe both.

Buenas noches Princess.

A simple "no - I didn't read them" would have sufficed. Taking a (wrong) guess doesn't actually make it look like you did.

epluribusunum

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

A simple "no - I didn't read them" would have sufficed. Taking a (wrong) guess doesn't actually make it look like you did.

I read them and laughed at the stupidity.

Oh so now he is a murderer? Well then, did he deserve the death penalty? Answer this Princess.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

epluribusunum wrote: »

I read them and laughed at the stupidity.

Oh so now he is a murderer? Well then, did he deserve the death penalty? Answer this Princess.

Quote the post where I said he wasn't.

I answered the second one.

C.K Dexter Haven

epluribusunum wrote: »

Answer this Princess.

It's polite to address someone by their full name until properly introduced:)

epluribusunum

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Quote the post where I said he wasn't.

I answered the second one.

Was he a murderer?

If yes, did he deserve the death penalty?


You are still avoiding it. Please answer Princess.

epluribusunum

C.K Dexter Haven wrote: »

It's polite to address someone by their full name until properly introduced:)

Well she is already referring to last night...

She thinks we have established chemistry at this point. I just hope she is a female, never can trust the internet.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

epluribusunum wrote: »

Was he a murderer?

If yes, did he deserve the death penalty?


You are still avoiding it. Please answer Princess.

For the second time, I already have !! You claimed you read it.

epluribusunum wrote: »

Well she is already referring to last night...

She thinks we have established chemistry at this point. I just hope she is a female, never can trust the internet.

Wise.

epluribusunum

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

For the second time, I already have !! You claimed you read it.



Wise.

Lets refresh our memories that were never established in the first place then.

Please answer Princess.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

epluribusunum wrote: »

Lets refresh our memories that were never established in the first place then.

Please answer Princess.

They happened. Two or three people answered them. You just ignored them and started spouting **** about winning something and shutting someone up, so exactly why should I beleive you won't do the same tonight?

So, you can refresh your own memory be reading what was written last night - it's still there.

Stabshauptmann

SV wrote: »

Yes but only in extreme cases.

The Birmingham six and the Guildford four would all have been executed had the death penalty been sought in their trials.

catallus

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

The Birmingham six and the Guildford four would all have been executed had the death penalty been sought in their trials.

yeah.

and?

epluribusunum

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

They happened. Two or three people answered them. You just ignored them and started spouting **** about winning something and shutting someone up, so exactly why should I beleive you won't do the same tonight?

So, you can refresh your own memory be reading what was written last night - it's still there.

See I think that is the underlying problem here. You are not thinking for yourself. Do not worry about others.

1
Was Hitler a murderer?

2
Did Hitler deserve the death penalty?

Simple yes or a no.

Otherwise, you look like someone who cannot think for yourself. Just answer Princess. I have confidence in you, you can do it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

catallus wrote: »

yeah.

and?

This was pretty much the attitude of the arresting and convicting officers, I beleive.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

epluribusunum wrote: »

See I think that is the underlying problem here. You are not thinking for yourself. Do not worry about others.

1
Was Hitler a murderer?

2
Did Hitler deserve the death penalty?

Simple yes or a no.

Otherwise, you look like someone who cannot think for yourself. Just answer Princess. I have confidence in you, you can do it.

I have done it.

Last chance. Either respond to the answers I gave, or I'll pass on the "opportunity of learning how to think for myself" and we'll be done here.

epluribusunum

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I have done it.

End of line. Respond to the answers I gave, or I'll pass on the opportunity of learning how to think for myself, thank you very much.

A yes and a no would be simpler than a paragraph of nothing.

You got this Princess.

Was Hitler a murderer?

Did Hitler deserve the death penalty in your mind?

wonderfullife

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

I would but only in circumstances where it would be appropriate and if the sentence was carried out quickly (within 12 months). I think the death penalty for some crimes is necessary, eg, premeditated murder, serial rape, child abuse. Who agrees with me?

I'm sure most of this has been addressed but it's a long thread I'll give it my best shot to make this worth reading, whether you agree with the sentiment or not.

So, "some crimes" you say:

1. Premeditated Murder. Why? Murder is murder. Sure, it can be broken down to various sub-sets and circumstances but it remains murder, irrespective of state of mind.

Anyway, In recent years, the courts have really re-defined the classic notion of pre-meditation. We tend to view premeditation as scheming and hatching the plan over days or weeks and commit the crime.

Yet legally, premeditation can mean within seconds of the murder occurring.

So you could find yourself in a situation where you head off to the cinema with your partner and somewhere between leaving home and getting home, a sequence of events occur and you kill someone. You didn't leave the house planning it but legally that act could be determined to be premeditated.

So you feel that too deserves death? Or do you want to stick to the old fashioned black and white, clear cut, movie style premeditation?

2. Serial Rape? How many? 2? 3? 4? 5? And if you want death for someone who rapes 3 people, why not twice? And how about if you rape the same person 3-times?

More to the point, if it's death for serial rapists, where is the deterrent to stop them raping in the first place? "ah sure it's grand i'm not even on my first strike, i'll rape her and her, i'll only get 6-12 years sure tops, but 3rd time i'll be careful with it".

3. Child Abuse. Vile. But again where's the line here? Death for all child abusers? So death for someone who physically abuses a child with slapping, punching, hair pulling and death for someone who rapes a child? And even within that there are varying degrees of severity.

The point is this -if you're going down an arbitrary road like this with catch-all sentences (i.e. death) for crimes which intrinsically have a whole spectrum of severity, on a moral level alone that's a minefield.


Funnily enough, i actually loosely know 2 people sentenced to death in Ireland. Commuted to life in the end. They were young when they committed their crime (murder). There is no defence to murder, certainly not age. And whether life imprisonment should mean life is another matter again. This might be hard for some to read but, to my mind, they are good people. I wasn't born when they did what they did and i can only judge a person or people by my interactions with them. But they are intrinsically good people.

The death penalty effectively means 1 mistake could cost you your life. None of us when we are born come into this world consciously intent on committing murder, rape or any other serious crimes. If and when they happen they deserve to be punished.

If we seek to punish by taking a life then we're acknowledging as a people that redemption is not possible. That it's not possible to repent and to change. We all make mistakes in this life and unfortunately some peoples mistakes end up ruining their own lives and often those of others. Victims of murder will never have the opportunity to live on and to change. But those left behind can.

I'm always fascinated watching this video. Jo Berry,whose father died in an IRA bomb, discussing meeting the man who killed her father. Like anyone else, if someone killed my father my initial reaction would be wanting them dead. The likes of this woman remind us that humanity can rise above it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coljnvVH18o

epluribusunum

Princess given the fact you have clearly avoided these questions I think I can safely assume the answers to your thoughts. I think you believe that Hitler was indeed a murderer. Fair enough, I think most people would agree with this because it is a matter of fact and not opinionated. Okay, so far you are looking good Princess, let's see if you can keep it going... I also think that you believe he deserved to die for his actions. Nice! I like it you are really using all your brain power now.

Okay, so here we have Mr. Hitler who has murdered millions of people, and you agree that he deserves to die as a just form of punishment. Note: These are assumptions given that you have not answered for 24 hours two simple yes or no questions.

Okay, grand. Now, what number would you say tipped you off that Hitler deserved the death penalty? At which dead body would you say to yourself, "alright that was a bit inhumane I think he deserves to die himself", which body?
Because I would argue it should have been the first one. Because you cannot give out a death penalty sentence based on extraneous acts of the criminal. Meaning, it is not okay to say that the first victim would have put him in life in prison but as he carried on it meant the death penalty, the reason is because the additional killings had nothing to do with the initial killing. And a death is a death. Huh, go figure!

So, if Mr. Prague is killed in a gas chamber or a street ally what is the difference? Or, if Mr. Prague is killed at the same time as millions or alone what is the difference?

Well, I will answer this for you as well because you have demonstrated you are incapable of thinking independently. Well Princess, the answer would be there is absolutely no difference between both circumstances. They both mean Mr. Prague ceases to exist. The extraneous scenarios do not matter whatsoever to Mr. Prague.

Therefore, we can assume you are in favor of the death penalty. We can also assume that anybody who believes Hitler should have been killed if captured, believes in the death penalty as a just punishment for some criminals.

Love2u

wonderfullife wrote: »

I'm sure most of this has been addressed but it's a long thread I'll give it my best shot to make this worth reading, whether you agree with the sentiment or not.

So, "some crimes" you say:

1. Premeditated Murder. Why? Murder is murder. Sure, it can be broken down to various sub-sets and circumstances but it remains murder, irrespective of state of mind.

Anyway, In recent years, the courts have really re-defined the classic notion of pre-meditation. We tend to view premeditation as scheming and hatching the plan over days or weeks and commit the crime.

Yet legally, premeditation can mean within seconds of the murder occurring.

So you could find yourself in a situation where you head off to the cinema with your partner and somewhere between leaving home and getting home, a sequence of events occur and you kill someone. You didn't leave the house planning it but legally that act could be determined to be premeditated.

So you feel that too deserves death? Or do you want to stick to the old fashioned black and white, clear cut, movie style premeditation?

2. Serial Rape? How many? 2? 3? 4? 5? And if you want death for someone who rapes 3 people, why not twice? And how about if you rape the same person 3-times?

More to the point, if it's death for serial rapists, where is the deterrent to stop them raping in the first place? "ah sure it's grand i'm not even on my first strike, i'll rape her and her, i'll only get 6-12 years sure tops, but 3rd time i'll be careful with it".

3. Child Abuse. Vile. But again where's the line here? Death for all child abusers? So death for someone who physically abuses a child with slapping, punching, hair pulling and death for someone who rapes a child? And even within that there are varying degrees of severity.

The point is this -if you're going down an arbitrary road like this with catch-all sentences (i.e. death) for crimes which intrinsically have a whole spectrum of severity, on a moral level alone that's a minefield.


Funnily enough, i actually loosely know 2 people sentenced to death in Ireland. Commuted to life in the end. They were young when they committed their crime (murder). There is no defence to murder, certainly not age. And whether life imprisonment should mean life is another matter again. This might be hard for some to read but, to my mind, they are good people. I wasn't born when they did what they did and i can only judge a person or people by my interactions with them. But they are intrinsically good people.

The death penalty effectively means 1 mistake could cost you your life. None of us when we are born come into this world consciously intent on committing murder, rape or any other serious crimes. If and when they happen they deserve to be punished.

If we seek to punish by taking a life then we're acknowledging as a people that redemption is not possible. That it's not possible to repent and to change. We all make mistakes in this life and unfortunately some peoples mistakes end up ruining their own lives and often those of others. Victims of murder will never have the opportunity to live on and to change. But those left behind can.

I'm always fascinated watching this video. Jo Berry,whose father died in an IRA bomb, discussing meeting the man who killed her father. Like anyone else, if someone killed my father my initial reaction would be wanting them dead. The likes of this woman remind us that humanity can rise above it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coljnvVH18o

Well articulated.

Love2u

epluribusunum wrote: »

Princess given the fact you have clearly avoided these questions I think I can safely assume the answers to your thoughts. I think you believe that Hitler was indeed a murderer. Fair enough, I think most people would agree with this because it is a matter of fact and not opinionated. Okay, so far you are looking good Princess, let's see if you can keep it going... I also think that you believe he deserved to die for his actions. Nice! I like it you are really using all your brain power now.

Okay, so here we have Mr. Hitler who has murdered millions of people, and you agree that he deserves to die as a just form of punishment. Note: These are assumptions given that you have not answered for 24 hours two simple yes or no questions.

Okay, grand. Now, what number would you say tipped you off that Hitler deserved the death penalty? At which dead body would you say to yourself, "alright that was a bit inhumane I think he deserves to die himself", which body?
Because I would argue it should have been the first one. Because you cannot give out a death penalty sentence based on extraneous acts of the criminal. Meaning, it is not okay to say that the first victim would have put him in life in prison but as he carried on it meant the death penalty, the reason is because the additional killings had nothing to do with the initial killing. And a death is a death. Huh, go figure!

So, if Mr. Prague is killed in a gas chamber or a street ally what is the difference? Or, if Mr. Prague is killed at the same time as millions or alone what is the difference?

Well, I will answer this for you as well because you have demonstrated you are incapable of thinking independently. Well Princess, the answer would be there is absolutely no difference between both circumstances. They both mean Mr. Prague ceases to exist. The extraneous scenarios do not matter whatsoever to Mr. Prague.

Therefore, we can assume you are in favor of the death penalty. We can also assume that anybody who believes Hitler should have been killed if captured, believes in the death penalty as a just punishment for some criminals.

Death penalty is murder! It's doesn't work, it doesn't benefit our society.

God help anyone who happened to go down a wrong path or make a mistake in life if you were the decision maker!! Death penalty is not the solution.

Love2u

epluribusunum wrote: »

First, off you are clearly sympathizing with them given that you do not mention the inhumane act that they do in order to be a candidate for the death penalty, but call the penalty itself inhumane.You did not introduce any logic into your argument, it is all opinion-based. You are sympathizing with them otherwise you would not say "even until they die if that is necessary". The word even tells me that it is almost too much for your too put them in prison for life. So someone who is a death penalty candidate may have the right to get out of prison at one point?

It is not my "twisted logic" that tells me that that person does not believe Hitler's crimes did not warrant the death penalty. It is the fact that the person came out and said straight up "he did not deserve it at all." Therefore, he believes his actions did not warrant the death penalty. Were you awake when writing this? I do not believe I ever said it was condoning the actions, but it is sympathizing with the actions and the monster. HUGE DIFFERENCE, AND YOU JUST PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.

[B]More importantly though, how come the criminal has the right to end the life of an innocent human being without any regard or reason but the State which creates, enforces, and interprets the laws does not have the right to kill such a person? You are giving a convicted criminal more power than the State which oversees all of society, for the betterment of society. Makes absolutely no sense.

Justice is the equity of treatment and fairness. We use punishments of justice for all acts, so why does the death penalty differ? Your twisted logic and emotions tell you otherwise I will assume. It is not hypocritical, because then you are saying that only certain crimes of equal punishment are hypocritical. Which in itself, is the definition of hypocrisy.

It is justice though, yes. Our punishments are set up on the basis of the act, -since the beginning of civilization- because humans directly relate the magnitude of a crime with the magnitude of punishment. Because it makes sense. Should you be in prison for a parking citation? No. How about selling heroin? Yes. As a society we create punishments that we deem fair, the parking citation cost is the cost of what society deems fair for illegally parking, the prison term is a time sentence of what society deems fair for illegally selling drugs. Why should death yield a different outcome? You yourself are being hypocritical if you think justice should be sought for only certain crimes. The death penalty is an act of justice, just like any other punishment we enforce. [/B]

Okay, and why did only 1 person who said by the way said "Hitler did not deserve it at all" address the Hitler thing? I well tell you why.

Because everyone in their right mind believes he would have deserved the death penalty. What is the difference between him and another murderer though? This is the question.

At what number did it become awful: 1,2,3,50,000, millionth? Or was it the method he used?

Everyone said "oh, b-b-b-b-b-b but that's different" How?

There is no difference to each individual, which by the way if you truly cared about society then you would care about each innocent individual who make up society. You know, their families and their lives are ruined but somehow they are no longer part of society? Well, at least they were before they were killed. At what number should we have been like "Alright Hitler, now you deserve to die, come on that last one was a bit over the top"? Because if you feel as though it is the sheer quantitative aspect then you are demeaning the life of an innocent individual. So according to your logic, Hitler did not deserve the death penalty if he would have killed 1 Slav, but since he killed millions he does. So when you are murdered in a large group in a chamber you deserve justice, but when you are murdered alone in the street by a rapist you do not? That same sense of fear overcomes you, that seem realization that you are about to die hits you, and you cease to exist in the same way. Makes no sense at all. If you are intentionally murdered you deserve justice no matter what the circumstances are.

At the end of the day, you are taking someone's only guaranteed life that we know of away from them and altering the life of those around them. You say you care about society- well then you would care about the individuals that make up society. You are referring to society as if we are aliens from another planet, we are society - you and I and the others- so if someone on here was a victim then as an individual of society they would deserve justice, that is if you care about society. Just because we do not bat an eyelid when we hear of murder on the news every night around the world, does not make it anymore just. If you take someone's life or do another terrible act just as bad, you do not deserve the right to life. I do not care about vengeance, deterrence, political beliefs, religious beliefs, etc. if someone takes someone else's only life away that we know of then they should not have their right to life. If you cared about society so much then you would look around you and see all of the horrible acts done and realize those victims are a part of society, or at least once were...

Yawn! Boring!

Love2u

wprathead wrote: »

..but a criminal DOESN'T have "right to kill"- that is why they are sent to prison..

If a "criminal doesn't have the right to kill" why would we have the right to kill through the death penalty! ?? This thread is getting ridiculous now.

Amirani

wonderfullife wrote: »

I'm sure most of this has been addressed but it's a long thread I'll give it my best shot to make this worth reading, whether you agree with the sentiment or not.

So, "some crimes" you say:

1. Premeditated Murder. Why? Murder is murder. Sure, it can be broken down to various sub-sets and circumstances but it remains murder, irrespective of state of mind.

Anyway, In recent years, the courts have really re-defined the classic notion of pre-meditation. We tend to view premeditation as scheming and hatching the plan over days or weeks and commit the crime.

Yet legally, premeditation can mean within seconds of the murder occurring.

So you could find yourself in a situation where you head off to the cinema with your partner and somewhere between leaving home and getting home, a sequence of events occur and you kill someone. You didn't leave the house planning it but legally that act could be determined to be premeditated.

So you feel that too deserves death? Or do you want to stick to the old fashioned black and white, clear cut, movie style premeditation?

2. Serial Rape? How many? 2? 3? 4? 5? And if you want death for someone who rapes 3 people, why not twice? And how about if you rape the same person 3-times?

More to the point, if it's death for serial rapists, where is the deterrent to stop them raping in the first place? "ah sure it's grand i'm not even on my first strike, i'll rape her and her, i'll only get 6-12 years sure tops, but 3rd time i'll be careful with it".

3. Child Abuse. Vile. But again where's the line here? Death for all child abusers? So death for someone who physically abuses a child with slapping, punching, hair pulling and death for someone who rapes a child? And even within that there are varying degrees of severity.

The point is this -if you're going down an arbitrary road like this with catch-all sentences (i.e. death) for crimes which intrinsically have a whole spectrum of severity, on a moral level alone that's a minefield.


Funnily enough, i actually loosely know 2 people sentenced to death in Ireland. Commuted to life in the end. They were young when they committed their crime (murder). There is no defence to murder, certainly not age. And whether life imprisonment should mean life is another matter again. This might be hard for some to read but, to my mind, they are good people. I wasn't born when they did what they did and i can only judge a person or people by my interactions with them. But they are intrinsically good people.

The death penalty effectively means 1 mistake could cost you your life. None of us when we are born come into this world consciously intent on committing murder, rape or any other serious crimes. If and when they happen they deserve to be punished.

If we seek to punish by taking a life then we're acknowledging as a people that redemption is not possible. That it's not possible to repent and to change. We all make mistakes in this life and unfortunately some peoples mistakes end up ruining their own lives and often those of others. Victims of murder will never have the opportunity to live on and to change. But those left behind can.

I'm always fascinated watching this video. Jo Berry,whose father died in an IRA bomb, discussing meeting the man who killed her father. Like anyone else, if someone killed my father my initial reaction would be wanting them dead. The likes of this woman remind us that humanity can rise above it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coljnvVH18o

That's a really fantastic post.

old hippy

catallus wrote: »

yeah.

and?

And would you be delighted that all those innocent people would have been murdered, just to please your archaic craving for blood lust?

old hippy

catallus wrote: »

And by the way, I could not care less what you read or watch; you can do your own thing; we are all of us led ultimately by our own lights, and that is the most basic responsibility of all.

Well, I care when someone tells me to get a real understanding of humanity to watch a film.

Which one did you have in mind? Back to the Future? The Sound of Music? Avatar?

long range shooter

No this is why

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution

Life in prison is the best

end of the road

epluribusunum wrote: »

Was Hitler a murderer?

yes

epluribusunum wrote: »

Did Hitler deserve the death penalty?

no

wp_rathead

Love2u wrote: »

If a "criminal doesn't have the right to kill" why would we have the right to kill through the death penalty! ?? This thread is getting ridiculous now.

....??
yes i know... that is my point
i'm argueing against Death Penalty..

Love2u

wprathead wrote: »

....??
yes i know... that is my point
i'm argueing against Death Penalty..

Oops!! Sorry wprathead.

epluribusunum

Love2u wrote: »

Oops!! Sorry wprathead.

Nothing gets past you.

Eejit: A Scot and Irish word for idiot.

The person is on your side, and you do not even realize it.

Anyway who rebuts with "yawn, boring" to logic and then does not know who is on their side or not- when clearly they have stated their point- is by the definition an eejit.

Something tells me you had to sit next time to the smart kids in class...:D

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

epluribusunum wrote: »

Nothing gets past you.

Eejit: A Scot and Irish word for idiot.

The person is on your side, and you do not even realize it.

Anyway who rebuts with "yawn, boring" to logic and then does not know who is on their side or not- when clearly they have stated their point- is by the definition an eejit.

Something tells me you had to sit next time to the smart kids in class...:D

Did you find my answer yet?

epluribusunum

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Did you find my answer yet?

So far, end of the road is the only person who believes Hitler did not deserve the death penalty if captured. Everyone else is silent.

Although he is a psychopath, I respect his independent thinking- something that has escaped you and may be hard to reclaim. I wish you the best of luck. And you should also work on your unoriginal sarcasm.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

epluribusunum wrote: »

So far, end of the road is the only person who believes Hitler deserved the death penalty is captured. Everyone else is silent.

Although he is a psychopath, I respect his independent thinking- something that has escaped you and may be hard to reclaim. I wish you the best of luck. And you should also work on your unoriginal sarcasm.

No, he wasn't, there were three of us.

In post number 731, I rendered your question irrelevant. I say so because we're talking about Hitler, or Nazi Germany, or the 1940s; we were talkin abotu Ireland now.

I oppose the death penalty on three counts, all of which I have stated numerous times in this thread:
1 - Fallability.
2 - Cost (both of appeals and leaving the EU).
3 - Pointlessness.

"Was Hitler a murderer?" does not address any of these three points in the same way "how would you feel if you mother/wife/girlfriend/child was raped and murdered?" does not engage me, and is therefore a pointless, strawman argument.

If you wish to chat about my views on moral ehtics and Nazism, fine - but start a new thread before doing so, so we can keep these issues sepearte.

Namloc1980 nad osaruran also replied to your post (as you well know).

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

epluribusunum wrote: »

So far, end of the road is the only person who believes Hitler deserved the death penalty is captured. Everyone else is silent.

No, he wasn't, there were three of us.

In post number 731, I rendered your question irrelevant. I say so because we're not talking about Hitler, or Nazi Germany, or the 1940s; we were talking about Ireland and now.

I oppose the death penalty on three counts, all of which I have stated numerous times in this thread:
1 - Fallability.
2 - Cost (both of appeals and leaving the EU).
3 - Pointlessness.

"Was Hitler a murderer?" does not address any of these three points in the same way "how would you feel if you mother/wife/girlfriend/child was raped and murdered?" does not engage me, and is therefore a pointless, strawman argument.

If you wish to chat about my views on moral ehtics and Nazism, fine - but start a new thread before doing so, so we can keep these issues sepearte.

Namloc1980 nad osaruran also replied to your post (as you well know).

Piliger

The death penalty is an easy out for a perpetrator. I believe the ultimate punishment for a human being is whole life in prison, by far.

The death penalty is also an action of supreme hypocrisy for a democracy that opposes killing.

So on those two counts, I oppose any possibility of bring the death penalty to Ireland or any other country.

epluribusunum

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No, he wasn't, there were three of us.

In post number 731, I rendered your question irrelevant. I say so because we're not talking about Hitler, or Nazi Germany, or the 1940s; we were talking about Ireland and now.

I oppose the death penalty on three counts, all of which I have stated numerous times in this thread:
1 - Fallability.
2 - Cost (both of appeals and leaving the EU).
3 - Pointlessness.

"Was Hitler a murderer?" does not address any of these three points in the same way "how would you feel if you mother/wife/girlfriend/child was raped and murdered?" does not engage me, and is therefore a pointless, strawman argument.

If you wish to chat about my views on moral ehtics and Nazism, fine - but start a new thread before doing so, so we can keep these issues sepearte.

Namloc1980 nad osaruran also replied to your post (as you well know).

So a murder in the 1940s differs than a murder now? Either way somebody dies, how does time and space effect the act of killing someone? Well, it does not. It is irrelevant to you because you think he deserved the death penalty. It is either a yes or a no. Not irrelevant, you look like a coward when you avoid a question that is clearly of relevance but does not support your pitiable argument.

And the others did not address the point, but just supported end of the road. I need you to answer yes or no. So far we only have one declared psychopath on this thread, feel free to join him. Or, think for yourself and answer the question.

Did Hitler deserve the death penalty?

namloc1980

epluribusunum wrote: »

So far, end of the road is the only person who believes Hitler did not deserve the death penalty if captured. Everyone else is silent.

Although he is a psychopath, I respect his independent thinking- something that has escaped you and may be hard to reclaim. I wish you the best of luck. And you should also work on your unoriginal sarcasm.

Eh....I answered you pages back and said the death penalty is wrong full stop. You chose to ignore it.

epluribusunum

namloc1980 wrote: »

Eh....I answered you pages back and said the death penalty is wrong full stop. You chose to ignore it.

Did Hitler deserve the death penalty? Yes or a no.

Do not evade it by saying you disagree with the death penalty as a whole, answer this specific question.

wp_rathead

epluribusunum wrote: »

So a murder in the 1940s differs than a murder now? Either way somebody dies, how does time and space effect the act of killing someone? Well, it does not. It is irrelevant to you because you think he deserved the death penalty. It is either a yes or a no. Not irrelevant, you look like a coward when you avoid a question that is clearly of relevance but does not support your pitiable argument.

And the others did not address the point, but just supported end of the road. I need you to answer yes or no. So far we only have one declared psychopath on this thread, feel free to join him. Or, think for yourself and answer the question.

Did Hitler deserve the death penalty?

calling people a psychopath because they oppose death penalty? really?
why are you obsesed with hitler? read the thread title? is irrelevant

epluribusunum

wprathead wrote: »

calling people a psychopath because they oppose death penalty? really?
why are you obsesed with hitler? read the thread title? is irrelevant

Did Hitler deserve it?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

epluribusunum wrote: »

So a murder in the 1940s differs than a murder now? Either way somebody dies, how does time and space effect the act of killing someone? Well, it does not. It is irrelevant to you because you think he deserved the death penalty. It is either a yes or a no. Not irrelevant, you look like a coward when you avoid a question that is clearly of relevance but does not support your pitiable argument.

And the others did not address the point, but just supported end of the road. I need you to answer yes or no. So far we only have one declared psychopath on this thread, feel free to join him. Or, think for yourself and answer the question.

Did Hitler deserve the death penalty?

On which grounds do wish me to answer?

Infallablity (there's a whole philosophy debate on this one, and this is not the thread)
Cost the State too much ()
or
Pointlessness (he ws already dead - what you going to do, fry his courpse?)

wp_rathead

epluribusunum wrote: »

Did Hitler deserve it?

what you hoping to achieve by getting an answer?

namloc1980

epluribusunum wrote: »

Did Hitler deserve the death penalty? Yes or a no.

Do not evade it by saying you disagree with the death penalty as a whole, answer this specific question.

No.

And you seem to have a problem with people who oppose your vengeful bloodlust and who oppose the death penalty. Whether it be Adolf Hitler (who you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with) or some of the thousands of people murdered by the Chinese State annually, killing is wrong and killing humans in the name of justice is just bizarre.

epluribusunum

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

On which grounds do wish me to answer?

Infallablity (there's a whole philosophy debate on this one, and this is not the thread)
Cost the State too much ()
or
Pointlessness (he ws already dead - what you going to do, fry his courpse?)

The entire thread is hypothetical Princess. This is called debate, we debate things to find solutions. Now, Princess I will let you redeem yourself and I will try to stop toying with your intelligence or lack thereof- just answer the question. It is quite simple yes or no.

A yes or a no.

Did Hitler deserve the death penalty, after doing what he did, if captured?

I think I may know why you are making awful attempts at avoiding it...

epluribusunum

wprathead wrote: »

what you hoping to achieve by getting an answer?

If you answer I will show you. Did Hitler deserve the death penalty?

namloc1980

wprathead wrote: »

what you hoping to achieve by getting an answer?

I suspect he'll then make the point that if you think Hitler didn't deserve the death penalty and you oppose the death penalty outright then you're a Nazi sympathizer. I mean it's the natural progression of his "argument": Anti-death penalty advocate = pro-Nazi goose-stepping SS goon. I bet I'm right.

epluribusunum

namloc1980 wrote: »

No.

And you seem to have a problem with people who oppose your vengeful bloodlust and who oppose the death penalty. Whether it be Adolf Hitler (who you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with) or some of the thousands of people murdered by the Chinese State annually, killing is wrong and killing humans in the name of justice is just bizarre.

Okay, so far we have 2. Namloc, and end of the road. I will address that after I am done with Princess- I want her to learn how to think independently.

epluribusunum

namloc1980 wrote: »

I suspect he'll then make the point that if you think Hitler didn't deserve the death penalty and you oppose the death penalty outright then you're a Nazi sympathizer. I mean it's the natural progression of his "argument": Anti-death penalty advocate = pro-Nazi goose-stepping SS goon. I bet I'm right.

Nope. Be patient and I will wait until Princess answers. We are going on 48 hours now...

Cedrus

catallus wrote: »

It is 100% effective. It prevents a criminal from re-offending.
........................

Replacing an electrical fuse with a nail prevents the fuse from blowing ever again, but solves nothing and will usually exacerbate the problem.

Likewise, executing one offender will remove one reoffender, but do nothing to stop the next scrote who, faced with a death sentence for one crime, has no disincentive to stop offending.

catallus

Cedrus wrote: »

Replacing an electrical fuse with a nail prevents the fuse from blowing ever again, but solves nothing and will usually exacerbate the problem.

Likewise, executing one offender will remove one reoffender, but do nothing to stop the next scrote who, faced with a death sentence for one crime, has no disincentive to stop offending.

You're over-analyzing the whole thing.

The next scrote doesn't have any incentive to stop offending as things stand.