Ok so your an intelligent person who believes dead people suffer more. In hell I take it? I don't share that view, when your dead your dead caput. And yes, I did previously say that I would support the death penalty (if you can call it that ie support) only in clear cut cases where there is mean zero doubt, that however was a long time ago and many of my views have changed since then.
It's not a question of heaven and hell; I'm not very religious, to be honest..but I believe when you're dead you're DONE, you can't experience any aspect of life anymore...and like I said before, some aspects, whether limited or not, are better than none. :/
How can we respect the social morality laid out by a state which inflicts such levels of violence against individuals? We need laws, and we need ways of enforcing them and/or penalties for trangressing them. But for a state to kill those it deems suficciently transgressive erodes the entire moral fabric of the society and weakens the respect for social morality that the laws that are designed to protect.
Pretty much what I'm getting out of this thread after reading about 3 pages is that me and robjones are in agreement. It would make sense, we were raised in the same way in the same place lol. But, I've also gotten the vibe that people like Toopac prefer taking quotes out of context. Stox, well, he takes things out of context and throws personal jabs in at the same time, thus, negating his opinion as well. But, not as much because it's slightly obvious he actually researched his position. My position is this. If more than 3 people saw you do what you did, and there is physical evidence as well, you did it. Time to die. You should be put to death for the following reasons: 1. Premeditated murder in any amount. 2. Aggravated Sexual Assault on a Child. That is all. There is no reason to kill anyone else. Regular adult rapists, imho, can not be rehabilitated, however, it should not be a punishment of death. 25 years without parole sounds nice. As has been stated, the reasoning behind the murder is also required. Police need 3 things to prove a murder, motive, means, opportunity. If you can not show why a person killed someone else, a person will not be convicted (without a confession). The defense of mentally insane, as determined by law, is that one must have not known, at the time of the incident, that what they were doing was wrong. 2nd degree murder, which is murder that is not premeditated, should not be punishable by death, and isn't.
So no actual argument for slaughting humans then, just the statment that it should be done and in what curcumstances? What a worthless argument you have presented.
I could quite easily respect a state which imposes the death penalty. It would show it cares about its citizens and their safety. What laws would you suggest? What deterrents to stop more people murdering/raping etc? Face it, prisons are overcrowded and sentences aren't a deterrent. I'm not saying every murderer/rapist etc should be hanged, each case is different, but come on face it there's scum on this earth who should be put to sleep.
How does killing individuals for being sufficiently transgressive show that a state cares about your safety? They would have already commited the crime to have been given death and the crime they had commited would see them in prison indefinately if it also qualifies them for being killed. There are plenty of statistics that show violent crime rates in places where the death penalty exists far exceeds those of places without the death penalty. So it isn't a deterent, certainly not an effective one. And why does violent crime thrive in places with the death penalty? because when a state inflicts such levels of violence against individuals nobody respects thier social morality. If prisons are overcrowded, build new ones. If the sentences aren't deterents change them. it's simply lazy, not tpo mention bloodthursty and calous, to say it;s easier to just kill people instead of improvong the system which they are a part of.
Hey, smart guy. The question in the OP is what are my views. I gave them. I don't need to attempt to argue with a piece of euro trash that thinks the world should agree with him. Go pound sand. While I may not agree with your views, I can at least respect them. However, when all you do is insult EVERYONE that disagrees with you, no matter the topic, it brings people to not respect your views, and certainly not respect you. All I've ever seen you do in P&R is attack people and their views. You never EVER respect other people's views. Basically, with you, it's either they agree with you, or they're morons. So don't go spouting all that moral high ground crap you like to spout. Because, you're just like 3/4 of this world. You have this inability to think that maybe, just maybe, it's ok for someone to have a different view point.
I'm not going to respect veiws which are poorly thought out, supported by nothing and regurgitated rhetoric. your "opinions" are frankly worthless.
One thing my travels have taught me is that if you say something long enough and often enough, eventually it will become reality.
How can you say someone's views are supported by nothing? Your views don't have to have SUPPORT, they belong to you. This isn't a logic course, where you're trying to formulate a valid argument and therefore providing proof of its validity. You yourself provide no proof for your so-called statistics..yeah, I can just as easily say "75% of people whose name begins with 'st' are gay." Does that make it true? No. Your lack of respect for other people's 'arguments', or really, their opinions, makes me disregard your arguments. If you went to a debate meet and did what you do..well, needless to say, you wouldn't be there.
No my veiws are supported by factual data, so they aren't opinions. If you had statistical data that showed 75% of people who's names begin with "st" are gay then it would cease to be an "opinion" and instead would be a fact. I don't have to respect your opinions. Where did this assumption that opinions have to be respected come from? I don't care about your opinions, they are worthless.
to be honest, I don't know what to say. I don't think it's right to take away a human life, but I also don't think it's right to let someone kill someone else without a huge consequence.
Hahaha we have a lot in common then. I've heard of some socialist guy that's in the 'Bama administration who wrote a book about different scenarios for how to reduce the population, and one of them being adding stuff to the food to make people sterile. Hell I kinda like that idea. Cause you're not really hurting anyone, you're just preventing more assholes from clogging up the highway, making lines longer, spamming your email, etc. Now I am half-joking but in all honesty, why do people insist on reproducing? We have this plastic thing now called condoms and they've worked great for decades. Now I'm not about restricting people their freedom to reproduce, that's up to them to decide whether they want to add to the stock of assholes we already have, but I do wish people could just use what little mush they have between their ears before satisfying their impulse. I kind of doubt the really violent crimes are being committed because the offenders simply don't respect the government's morality. There has to be a better explanation than that. The system could be improved by ending the drug war, which would substantially reduce the prisoner population; then we could focus on real crime.
Where is the "factual data"? Again, it ceases to be an opinion when you provide the FACTS. You haven't provided shit, so pipe down. And the "ASSumption" came from the fact that there is a general respect for other people's opinions in a discussion, whether online or in person. You saying other people's opinions are worthless makes YOU worthless.
Ah, an empiricist, but still one with a bit of illogical thinking. The "fact" would be that you have statistical data. Your conclusions based on the statistical data would still be an opinion - one inferred from the datam but still an opinion. (75% is hardly predictive by the way.) A rationalist would argue that some truths can be apprehended by the mind directly (a priori). While empiricism has provided a sound foundation for scientific advancements, it is not particularly good for moral/ethical arguments, and any discussion of the death penalty is based in ethics. So, for those who demand clarity of thought, first seek clarity within your own thoughts. And for those of an empirical bent, remember that fatalism (determinism) goes hand in hand with empiricism, meaning it really doesn't matter since whatever happens was predestined to occur anyway. Yes, empiricism and free will have always been strange bedfellows...