Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Neal on June 7, 2012 at 5:58pm

Like I said, a very very few would never ever be allowed to rejoin the public. That has nothing to do with the conversation of capital punishment.

The topic is capital punishment, not rehabilitation, not severity of the crime, not mental sickness, not anything else that has been thrown in.

I think the conversation is whether capital punishment is a moral and just action, my answer is a resounding no. I've read no argument here that has changed my mind.

Permalink Reply by Michel on June 7, 2012 at 5:25pm

Breivek is no doubt crazy and most probably a lost cause. But you still don't kill people like that. You study them, not to fix them obviously but to understand how these aberrations come about.

Killing him would free him, and it would be a wasted opportunity to learn. How often can you get brains like his (live) under the scrutiny of science? Even if it was only to detect the next crackpot before he had a chance to show us how defective he is.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Neal on June 7, 2012 at 5:41pm

I am making extreme arguments because people are making the case for extreme punishment. 

I'm not comparing apples and oranges, I am well informed on the penal institution, probably more so than even Keely.

I will not play nice with the lame idea that death is the only answer. 

Permalink Reply by Michel on June 7, 2012 at 6:54pm

@Keely - 

For some reason..o.O I can't reply to your comments (hmmm)

Happens with heated discussions =)

It's because Neal has reached the maximum number of reply indentations, eight. You can now only reply to #7, or start from the top.

Permalink Reply by Neal on June 7, 2012 at 8:38pm

I was saying we had gotten off topic, nothing else. I did the deed, (off topic), definitely. Was trying to convey some of the reasons why I thought it ludicrous to defend a punishment that I find immoral, crude and inhuman. 

So f it's back on topic, what is your answer to capital punishment. I don't need an apologist, just your answer to the thought.

I think you already stated you were against, so we agree. =)

Permalink Reply by Daryl on June 7, 2012 at 9:06pm

Neal - I will not play nice with the lame idea that death is the only answer.

How about the best answer?

Things live. Things die. We're human. We've decided we shouldn't kill each other. But why shouldn't breaking the rule result in the same loss of life the murderer caused? Then it'll be, "Oooh. Penal system. Come to rehabilitate me." Not. "I'd better not kill that guy because I'll be next."

I'm not saying to make the guy suffer. I'm saying remove him. As long as he can manipulate matter in this universe he is dangerous.  Besides, if you are willing to end somebody's ability to experience the universe, you do not deserve to experience it yourself. And as atheists we should look at this crime more harshly than Christians. We understand than more than likely there is nothing afterward and that makes it a worse crime than if you think there's some mystical happy land waiting. Right?

Permalink Reply by Neal on June 8, 2012 at 7:16am

@Daryl - I understand what you are saying, but there are inconsistencies in your argument.

Does capital punishment stop crime? No. The south accounts for 80% of the executions in the U.S., yet at the same time has the highest regional murder rate. 

Capital punishment has never been proven to stop crime. In fact, when Canada dropped the death penalty, murder rates dropped by 27%.

"Oooh. Penal system. Come to rehabilitate me." Not. "I'd better not kill that guy because I'll be next."

People who commit murder do not care about the consequences, simple as that. Think about it. We've stated that some people are psychopaths and a danger to the public. Do you really think these people are sane enough to care about any penalty for the crime?

I will stop with the hyperbole and stick with facts. So far, those in favor of the death penalty have not come up with any credible data supporting that cause.

I'm all ears.

Permalink Reply by Daryl on June 7, 2012 at 7:19pm

I'd like to retract the last paragraph of my original post. I misspoke. I was trying to say that the country decides how it deals with its criminals. I'd don't think the victims themselves should decide a punishment because of the emotion involved. It should be more the neighborhood of people who logically don't want this kind of person living with them.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michel on June 7, 2012 at 8:13pm

the country decides how it deals with its criminals.

This is where we're at now. Countries decide what are crimes and how to deal with their problems. A situation which allows for all the possible injustices you can think of.

I think that as the world gets smaller and countries keep on exchanging more and more with one another, this modus operandi will stop working. Local laws will eventually have to somehow unify.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Daryl on June 7, 2012 at 8:38pm

You'll have to force them to unify. And you what happens when you force a group to do something they don't want to do? They rebel and their new system will be even farther away from yours, if they win. If they don't then you are the mighty oppressor.

This is how things should be run.

1. There should be a working UN that can actually enforce world rules through a super-massive defensive pact. Mainly, no wars. The modern UN is a joke because dictators can play the 'We're United Game' and turn around, massacre innocents, and blow up every inferior nation in their path.

2. It should leave governments alone though. If everybody had the same government we obviously couldn't learn from each other. Have you ever thought of something and went, "That sounds great," and then you tried it and it didn't work due to a factor you never would've thought of in a million years unless you actually did it for yourself? Now let's say everyone in the world had to do that the exact same way until a single one world government, that isn't doing this for themselves, got around to changing the process to something else. Isn't it going to take a while before you can make your cool thing work? It will especially if you have more than one thing you're doing the exact same way until they change it. What if we just let everyone experiment in their own backyards with the proper process and then learn from each other's mistakes? Otherwise you may never have a working process. Because honestly, I don't think that random guy thousands of miles away who's in control of your life really gives a crap.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ali on June 8, 2012 at 2:51pm

It seems to me that All the criminals will find a way to get rid of the "responsibility" of their actions by claiming illness (and what if ? ) if there is no reforms plan for the society (including testing children in schools) then to me there is no point to keep these killers in our society...


I do think that the death penalty should be very limited , I don't mind study of the extreme cases and after the study ends ..... get rid of them

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by zrdm on June 9, 2012 at 4:32am

terror is not necessarily evil though, it is to virtue as jealousy is to love. Sometimes you must strike terror in the hearts of your enemies. Though a enemy reconciled is gone forever, unlike a vanquished foe, at times reconciliation is untenable.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page