The Boston Bomber suspect is captured!!! SRejoice!!!!
It's relieving they didn't execute him. Whenever Obama says "we will bring them to justice", usually just means killing them.
Quote from: Dudecore on April 19, 2013, 09:09:46 PM
It's relieving they didn't execute him. Whenever Obama says "we will bring them to justice", usually just means killing them.
Yea I'm glad too.
My thought is why not kill him. Is your thought to torture him???
Interesting....
Quote from: FlickerYourOwnIdentity on April 19, 2013, 10:29:06 PM
My thought is why not kill him. Is your thought to torture him???
Interesting....
No to question him. Don't torture him (I hope)
Personal opinion: i think he forfeited any 'right' to live, and honestly could not care less if he died or lived. As long as he spends the rest of his life without freedoms, treated like the animal he is, his termination/continued survival means nothing.
Quote from: FlickerYourOwnIdentity on April 19, 2013, 10:29:06 PM
My thought is why not kill him. Is your thought to torture him???
Interesting....
Solitary confinement for life. I don't agree with the death penalty for any reasons.
Quote from: MisterJH on April 19, 2013, 10:34:21 PM
Personal opinion: i think he forfeited any 'right' to live, and honestly could not care less if he died or lived. As long as he spends the rest of his life without freedoms, treated like the animal he is, his termination/continued survival means nothing.
Fortunately our legal system doesn't work that way. The state should not have the right to kill anyone - and everyone should have the right to a fair and legal trial. While what he allegedly did is horrible, it doesn't favor anyone to lose our own humanity in the process.
Are we really losing humanity by killing someone who clearly has no respect for humanity? I'm glad they caught him alive but the question is still relevant.
I'm perfectly ok with the death penalty.
Now, I also they should have a fair trial, questioning, then death.
I would apply the penalty to serial killers, terrorists, Kim Kardshian, and people like hitler.
Just my 2 cents
Eye for eye does nothing but leave the whole world blind.
Hundreds of ppl die daily in close proximity to one another for far more retarded reasons and no one cares. Bombs near a highly crowded area and a kill count of 3 is fairly weak and pathetic. I saw the video of those smoke bombs...... U should be optimistic and be grateful it wasn't 150 dead
Quote from: NyghtHawk on April 19, 2013, 11:27:41 PM
Are we really losing humanity by killing someone who clearly has no respect for humanity? I'm glad they caught him alive but the question is still relevant.
Yes. We are absolutely losing humanity by killing anybody for any reason. We are intelligent, civil beings. Not savages.
Quote from: Mikefrompluto on April 20, 2013, 01:23:50 AM
Quote from: NyghtHawk on April 19, 2013, 11:27:41 PM
Are we really losing humanity by killing someone who clearly has no respect for humanity? I'm glad they caught him alive but the question is still relevant.
Yes. We are absolutely losing humanity by killing anybody for any reason. We are intelligent, civil beings. Not savages.
Im not saying just kill people for whatever. I'm referring to people who have no humanity such as the bombers who killed innocent people. To me why should they have the luxury of staying alive and we as taxpayers pay for them to live when they committed heinous acts?
I'm more absolutely mortified at the unwarranted searches, and people being ordered to stay inside by armored vehicles. The Patriot act has never scared me more.
Quote from: NyghtHawk on April 20, 2013, 01:50:20 AM
Quote from: Mikefrompluto on April 20, 2013, 01:23:50 AM
Quote from: NyghtHawk on April 19, 2013, 11:27:41 PM
Are we really losing humanity by killing someone who clearly has no respect for humanity? I'm glad they caught him alive but the question is still relevant.
Yes. We are absolutely losing humanity by killing anybody for any reason. We are intelligent, civil beings. Not savages.
Im not saying just kill people for whatever. I'm referring to people who have no humanity such as the bombers who killed innocent people. To me why should they have the luxury of staying alive and we as taxpayers pay for them to live when they committed heinous acts?
I recall, from previous topics, that you're a Christian. Am i correct?
No matter what the government does with him, it's probably better than what might have happened if say a group of vigilantes found him
I'm amazed he was taken alive. I was sure he'd take his own life before being arrested, or go down in a shoot-out like his brother.
He's likely to be put to death, like it or not. I understand both sides of the death penalty debate, but I admit I have trouble with the exuberant cost it takes to keep a mass murderer alive in prison, while a bullet costs 10 cents, and that taxpayer money could go to injured veterans, needy families, better education to prevent murderers in the next generation, etc... Does that make me a savage for wanting to do something that actually helps people, instead of giving this dirtbag a hot 3 meals a day, shelter, and other dirtbags for him to give tips to?
I could go on, but if I started posting in-depth details on my polical views, I'd never shut up.
Quote from: Majriti on April 20, 2013, 12:13:01 AM
Eye for eye does nothing but leave the whole world blind.
Hundreds of ppl die daily in close proximity to one another for far more retarded reasons and no one cares. Bombs near a highly crowded area and a kill count of 3 is fairly weak and pathetic. I saw the video of those smoke bombs...... U should be optimistic and be grateful it wasn't 150 dead
Not true, death penalty kills the killer and that's the end of it. Only one victim is required for death penalty. I will never be grateful for evil deeds being done.
It seems funny that everyone is so quick to prescribe the same punishment to someone else that they find so deplorable to begin with. It isn't about justice at that point, it's about revenge.
I think anyone who feels like this gentleman lacks humanity, looks at themselves also. You support a government that starves millions in North Korea by filing sanctions against them. You support a war that bombs and kills hundreds of children. If bombing is a "terrorist" act, what do you call what we do in Afganistan?
If you support that type of freedom, then I suggest you imagine what it would be like subscribe the ones you love to either at random and live with the results. We're profoundly lucky to be born where we are, have the genes we have, have a good upbringing and good ideas. Some are not. In a very true sense they are unlucky to be who they are.
Even if you believe in a "soul", in what way are you responsible for not having the soul of a psychopath? Life is made up of very complex, intertwining things. The past makes up the future in perpetuity. The Big Bang till this very moment you're reading this (or not). It cannot be undone.
Anyone so quick to wish death upon another should understand that an unbalanced justice system could easily do the same to them. To Gorzo's point: the United States has 25% of the worlds prison population. It is a gigantic industry to lock up people. Non-violent drug offenders to actual murders. Costs are high because there is money to be made. Unfortunately our myopic view of our fellow man makes it so that no one is outraged about this. "It's not me." "If they weren't doing anything wrong, they wouldn't be there." "It's their fault." ect ect. Again, in a very real sense you're supremely lucky to NOT have a combination of bad genes, bad upbringing, bad ideas and bad luck. No one is responcible for their genes. Where and what time they were born. In which region to which type of parents. Is it any surprise that some people turn out violent?
I'd must prefer a system of law that demonstrated cooperation and compassion for its criminals. Any of us could have been dealt a much different hand in life, and would be no step closer to claiming we are solely responcible for it. Incarceration is enough, with rehabilitation the goal. Killing someone does little more then satisfy the most basic parts of our primate brains.
Killing innocent people had nothing to do with the right to bear arms.
I'm not sure how to solve the prison issue. i always belived life imprisonment was they way to go because people deep down have good in them, they only ignore it. but Lets look at the extreme on both sides to get some perspective on this. Again, these are only to make a point
Why don't we have someone set up cameras everywhere and for every little thing people do zap them to oblivion. Someone belch too loud? Zap them! Someone's too lazy? Zap them! Someone blink too many times a miunet? Zap them!
And the other side
Oh that person just committed a mass murder, I'm sure he won't do it again, lets give him another chance. Oh that person is a serial rapist, and has no empathy whatsoever, lets tell him to stop and give him another chance. Oh that person just pulled a bank robbery every hour of the day for a month, I'm sure he'll stop eventually, lets give him another chance. Oh that person is making bombs and mixing dangerous substances in there basement, I'm sure its nothing
I understand that both of these are completely out of line with what people belive, I'm just showing them to make a point
Now. After looking at both extremes, what should we do with the Boston bomber?
Quote from: KangaRod on April 20, 2013, 08:21:26 AM
Quote from: Dudecore on April 20, 2013, 08:12:33 AM
It seems funny that everyone is so quick to prescribe the same punishment to someone else that they find so deplorable to begin with. It isn't about justice at that point, it's about revenge.
This. This. This.
I wish all Americans could realize how disgustingly hypocritical you can be.
Can't you just admit that criminals come with a different mindset and that a deterrent that may work for you clearly has not worked for them (otherwise they wouldn't be criminals, they'd be normal people.)
Instead of enacting the threat of punishment that has clearly failed (otherwise they wouldn't have committed the crime) perhaps we can feed them 3 hot meals a day and put a roof over their head and attempt to figure out why they felt hurting so many people was so important to them.
Also, just FYI don't forget, anyone who believes in the infallibility of your great constitution must also hail these terrorists as heroes. People like this and Chris Dorner are just enacting their (apparent) God given 2nd amendment right to take up arms against what they believe is a tyrannical government.
I know that it's not all Americans that are walking contradictions, but from what I've seen and heard its a good lot of you.
Hail these people, or admit the 2nd amendment is an outdated piece of legislation and renounce your right to bear arms.
Do you believe that the bomber was taking up arms against the government? That's quite a stretch.
I don't think anyone was suggesting we let him go as an alternative for punishment. I was merely suggesting we do not kill him.
I wasn't saying you said we let him go either. The first part was saying the punishment should fit the crime. The second part was to get a perspective on the severity of things, with the first part as a buffer to keep people objective.
If we can somehow, let him feel the full impact of what he has done, awaken his empathy, that will give him something to think about while he rots away in prison
I would have to say the majority of us on here are lucky in that we can look at this from a somewhat "scholarly" perspective. What I mean by this is that few of us have been touched directly by a violent crime, and are therefor unaware of how it can effect someone and their perspective on life.
Before becoming a teacher, I worked as. Juvenile officer. I worked with kids 11 to 16 who did everything from skipping school to murder. I have read victim impact statements and seen how violent crimes effect parents, siblings, friends and others. It is amazing how one deplorable act can Chang not only the life of the victim, but all those around them.
In October of last year, a fellow teacher was assaulted in a school parking lot and sent to the hospital. She is still in the process of recovering and continuously reminded of the event when she gets court papers or hears of another court date. Her children don't understand what happened and don't understand why their mom is upset at times.
Given this, I believe the death penalty is an appropriate punishment. To take someone's life means you forfeit yours. There is never just one victim, but a larger group of people effected by that one act.
Im a christian, i still dont believe he deserves the luxury of life. Especially when it costs ME money, and he has given up any humanity. As i said before, he is an animal who deserves to be treated like an animal.
The money issue... It pretty much breaks even. You can either pay for life in prison or attorneys and extra appeals afforded those on death row. You are not really saving money either way.
Quote from: Dmreiss on April 20, 2013, 10:51:06 AM
I would have to say the majority of us on here are lucky in that we can look at this from a somewhat "scholarly" perspective. What I mean by this is that few of us have been touched directly by a violent crime, and are therefor unaware of how it can effect someone and their perspective on life.
Before becoming a teacher, I worked as. Juvenile officer. I worked with kids 11 to 16 who did everything from skipping school to murder. I have read victim impact statements and seen how violent crimes effect parents, siblings, friends and others. It is amazing how one deplorable act can Chang not only the life of the victim, but all those around them.
In October of last year, a fellow teacher was assaulted in a school parking lot and sent to the hospital. She is still in the process of recovering and continuously reminded of the event when she gets court papers or hears of another court date. Her children don't understand what happened and don't understand why their mom is upset at times.
Given this, I believe the death penalty is an appropriate punishment. To take someone's life means you forfeit yours. There is never just one victim, but a larger group of people effected by that one act.
I don't see how the death penalty differs from life sentence in terms of dealing with emotional mind states of those individuals. Either way they aren't going to be able to terrorize those individuals anymore.
Also, if something horrible like this befalls someone i know and love, or myself personally, I'd like to believe im a better person then to kill another. With that being said, I may experience outrage or require retribution. That doesn't make my opinion of the matter any more informed.
The system we have is meant to be fair to all individuals. It isn't going to shock me when his lawyer receives death threats. It doesn't surprise me that Christians would do un-Christian things like command death as punishment, it doesn't surprise me that our human rights to person and property are being violated to keep us "safe".
A system that can turn on its worst individuals can turn on anyone. The tired phrase of "you can tell a lot about a culture by how they treat their criminals" has never had more meaning.
But that is just it... Very few of us on here have been in that situation. And we should all count ourselves lucky for that.
Quote from: Dmreiss on April 20, 2013, 12:24:26 PM
But that is just it... Very few of us on here have been in that situation. And we should all count ourselves lucky for that.
That is a wonderful way to view this. Be happy it wasn't you, and this person won't be able to do this again. Thinking that killing a human is the solution to the problem, or that everyone's opinion about killing him is the answer - I'm sorry. We've got to be better then that, all of us.
At what point does enough become enough? The Colorado shooting, Connecticut, now this? How do we show that these are not acceptable? Right now, what we as a society are doing, is not working. If it did, these events would not continue to happen. Is life in prison a deterrent? I am not sure.
And realistically, I doubt Massachusetts has the death penalty, so this is purely academic.
Quote from: Dmreiss on April 20, 2013, 12:51:41 PM
At what point does enough become enough? The Colorado shooting, Connecticut, now this? How do we show that these are not acceptable? Right now, what we as a society are doing, is not working. If it did, these events would not continue to happen. Is life in prison a deterrent? I am not sure.
And realistically, I doubt Massachusetts has the death penalty, so this is purely academic.
The death penalty is an abysmal failure as a deterrent for crime. Also, none of those crimes were committed because the perpetrators were worried about the consequence. If sentencing worked as a deterrent for crime, there would be less crime.
Crimes of passion, rationality is not trademark of those crimes. Most criminals do not imagine they will be caught, leaving the "deterrent" holding its hat. By mostly every measure we have to view data, deterrents are unreasonably ineffective. The death penalty has killed innocent people, railroaded by prosecutors and a lopsided legal system. Killing an innocent person is in fact murder, so the state has murdered people under the guise justice.
I see your points, and understand where you are coming from. I just cannot agree that those that have murdered deserve compassion. Once you have crossed that threshold, I believe different measures new to be considered. We become so concerned with the rights of the accused, that we miss the rights of the victim.
I think this may be a topic we respectfully agree to disagree and will not be sorted out over an M:TG forum, but it has been interesting.
Quote from: KangaRod on April 20, 2013, 11:14:59 AM
Quote from: Coffee Vampire on April 20, 2013, 10:03:08 AM
Do you believe that the bomber was taking up arms against the government? That's quite a stretch.
Well, he's either a freedom fighter or a deranged psychopath that set up a bomb for his own perverted morbid satisfaction.
The general consensus is that he is a terrorist though.
Quote from: NyghtHawk on April 20, 2013, 09:21:36 AM
Killing innocent people had nothing to do with the right to bear arms.
Quote"I think without any doubt, if you look at why our Founding Fathers put it there, they had lived under the tyranny of King George and they wanted to make sure that these free people in this new country would never be subjugated again and have to live under tyranny,"
Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association
Quote
"I think principally the Second Amendment deals with keeping the government from going astray in a tyrannical direction,"
Larry Pratt, executive director, Gun Owners of America
Those guys seem to think the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to fight tyranny. How do you think you use arms to fight tyrants?
Irrelevant to how anyone feels to the second amendment, my point was how does this relate to this in incident in any way?They killed people with bombs not guns....
Let me tell you guys something.
I am a Christian. What does that have to do with my belief on the death penalty? That is completely stupid, that's like saying all Muslims believe that terrorism is the way.
And, if a serial killer decides to kill people with a gun, the government should not take away the right to bear arms because of that serial killer. And even if they did, that serial killer would use an alternate weapon, like a knife, or an axe. Anything, and people would be able to protect theirselves like they would have been able to with arms.
What if we applied this reasoning to cars. Imagine if a person was killing people off by hitting them with a car that he steals. He Isnt caught, and we don't know what to do. Does that give the government the right to completely get rid of cars to stop this person.
Just my 5 cents
If we found a way to make him feel the full impact of what he has done, that might be punishment enough because it would be staggering. Though, I admit, that would be almost impossible to do
Quote from: FlickerYourOwnIdentity on April 20, 2013, 02:00:18 PM
Let me tell you guys something.
I am a Christian. What does that have to do with my belief on the death penalty? That is completely stupid, that's like saying all Muslims believe that terrorism is the way.
Thou shalt not kill, let those who are without sin throw the first stone, if someone slaps you, turn and offer them the other cheek, grant forgiveness to those who ask for it. Are these not things found in the bible?
Quote from: Mikefrompluto on April 20, 2013, 02:21:32 PM
Quote from: FlickerYourOwnIdentity on April 20, 2013, 02:00:18 PM
Let me tell you guys something.
I am a Christian. What does that have to do with my belief on the death penalty? That is completely stupid, that's like saying all Muslims believe that terrorism is the way.
Thou shalt not kill, let those who are without sin throw the first stone, if someone slaps you, turn and offer them the other cheek, grant forgiveness to those who ask for it. Are these not things found in the bible?
yes they are
Quote from: Birdbrain on April 20, 2013, 02:26:57 PM
Quote from: Mikefrompluto on April 20, 2013, 02:21:32 PM
Quote from: FlickerYourOwnIdentity on April 20, 2013, 02:00:18 PM
Let me tell you guys something.
I am a Christian. What does that have to do with my belief on the death penalty? That is completely stupid, that's like saying all Muslims believe that terrorism is the way.
Thou shalt not kill, let those who are without sin throw the first stone, if someone slaps you, turn and offer them the other cheek, grant forgiveness to those who ask for it. Are these not things found in the bible?
yes they are
They apply to all crimes. Not just ones you pick and choose. All or nothing. That's what being a Christian has to do with whether you agree with the death penalty or not.
Quote from: Mikefrompluto on April 20, 2013, 02:30:50 PM
Quote from: Birdbrain on April 20, 2013, 02:26:57 PM
Quote from: Mikefrompluto on April 20, 2013, 02:21:32 PM
Quote from: FlickerYourOwnIdentity on April 20, 2013, 02:00:18 PM
Let me tell you guys something.
I am a Christian. What does that have to do with my belief on the death penalty? That is completely stupid, that's like saying all Muslims believe that terrorism is the way.
Thou shalt not kill, let those who are without sin throw the first stone, if someone slaps you, turn and offer them the other cheek, grant forgiveness to those who ask for it. Are these not things found in the bible?
yes they are
They apply to all crimes. Not just ones you pick and choose. All or nothing. That's what being a Christian has to do with whether you agree with the death penalty or not.
Terribly sorry to interrupt but I just had an possibly relevant thought experiment: if your brother rapes and kills my daughter, and you use force to prevent me from killing him as the punishment, can I respond with force, please?
Mike, has God not killed people for their transgressions???
Quote from: FlickerYourOwnIdentity on April 20, 2013, 03:29:06 PM
Mike, has God not killed people for their transgressions???
Are you God? Sorry to seem trollish but the question poses a legitimate point. Just because God has killed people (in the Old Testement, where a lot of old laws have become obsolete due to Christ's redemption, I might add), it doesn't give Christians the right to do the same
I do not believe the death penalty is a deterrant. Obviously, it doesn't work like that. I do believe that convicted murderers should not ever be allowed to be in society again. I support life in prison for anyone who consciously kills a person, or (like the bomber), multiple people. With NO chance of getting out.
However, people get out after killing all the time. Of course, the death penalty isn't a way to scare people into not killing, but it prevents them from killing again; thus saving lives. Isn't that what we do in war, kill to save lives? Are we fighting a war in our own country?
These are questions that sometimes can be hard to answer, and it's hard to say when to kill. When is it murder, or when is it protection? This debate, like abortion and gun control, is impossible. Both sides want all or nothing.
No coffee we are not god, but you get the point.
Quote from: Coffee Vampire on April 20, 2013, 03:47:21 PM
Quote from: FlickerYourOwnIdentity on April 20, 2013, 03:29:06 PM
Mike, has God not killed people for their transgressions???
Are you God? Sorry to seem trollish but the question poses a legitimate point. Just because God has killed people (in the Old Testement, where a lot of old laws have become obsolete due to Christ's redemption, I might add), it doesn't give Christians the right to do the same
I do not believe the death penalty is a deterrant.
Of course you're right, punishment is not a deterrent, nor it is a redemption time vessel for the lawbreakers. It should only be about restitution (not possible to raise dead) and retribution (full logical 1 life = 1 life punishment sounds legit to me).
So you're saying I'm worse than a sociopath who has raped and murdered 3000 people if I believe the only way to keep society safe from an indomitable monster is regrettably have to put him to death? I think you're stretching it a little far there :P
In a perfect world, no one would need the death penalty. In a perfect world, no heinous crimes would be committed to warrent such a thing. We don't live in a perfect world.
I know it's a hot button issue, but let's keep it in perspective. Both sides bring very valid points to this debate, and ignoring the other side just because you disagree, and calling them terrible people, is not a good way to represent your opinions.
I do believe in the death penalty, but only for -extreme- cases of dangerous individuals. I don't -like- it, I don't want people to be put to death, and wish there a logical, efficient alternative where no one would die or be hurt. but believe it is necessary for the good of society. It's not about revenge. It's not about retribution. I am not a savage. I am not a hypocrite. I am a kind, caring, empathic, loving, smart, logical human being who just wants the best for everyone.
And if I ever did something so terrible, so gruesome and inhuman as to ruin hundreds of lives...you damn well better kill me.
Thanks Gorzo, I agree with this ^ so much.
I disagree with you kanga. Prisoners can still commit crimes
They can cause riots in prison, they can still kill people and do most of the stuff that they did outside prison to hurt people. And what's the punishment? A longer sentence? Doesn't seem like an appropriate way to punish them, because they already threw there life away and are in prison.
The idea of the death penalty puts a bad taste in my mouth. But it's a necessary evil, because we can't let them feel the full impact of what they have done
I would do my best to protect everyone. And give you animals to eat there brains
People eat animals every day
I wouldn't be the one carrying out the death penalty. I'd probably throw up if I did
Also, I'm not the one deciding. I'm just saying its a neccisary evil. And I too would prefer to give people life imprisonment because I believe deep down everyone has good in them
I just want everyone to understand the United States has murdered more innocent people then this bomber and 3,000 of his buddies could ever do. We've destroyed lives, destroyed families, and created a generation of angry young men hellbent on destroying us.
We've got to leave Afganistan, Iraq, Isreal anywhere we dont belong. Our officials must face trial for war crimes. Right now doctors are working around the clock to force feed prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. Prisoners who have not had a trial, no right to habeas corpus. We've starved millions around the world by denying them crucial aid - because philosophically they disagree with us.
No one has the right to do any of those things, and yet here we are. Detesting the fact that a bomber should live? What are we even doing? Horrible tragedy occurs, many injured and 3 dead. We've got much explaining to do ourselves, and plenty of blood on our hands.
Right now drones are flying over our heads, prepared to kill people with hellfire. The humanity of war has been removed. No longer does the person pulling the trigger and see himself beyond the scope. It's a big videogame, bombs dropped from miles above. The cries and screams of families seperated in haste fall on no one. We're losing this battle.
Quote from: FlickerYourOwnIdentity on April 20, 2013, 08:44:45 PM
I'm just going to throw this out there, who is a republican, and who is a democrat.
I will just have that survey fester among us...
I do not subscribe to this illegitimate form of government. A government that has killed innocent people daily for 12 years, in an illegal war on a foreign people.
I never voted. But I pick and choose things from both sides, and something's I even am in between on like the death penalty
And I'm against abortion knowing that there are more people waiting to adopt than there are abortions
I like the fact that people on these forums can talk about social problems without much butthurt. I see more drama from the single card discussion threads on mtgsalv, fighting over whether {Legion's Innitiative} should be mythic or not. Props to this community.
Quote from: Coffee Vampire on April 20, 2013, 09:29:39 PM
I like the fact that people on these forums can talk about social problems without much butthurt. I see more drama from the single card discussion threads on mtgsalv, fighting over whether {Legion's Innitiative} should be mythic or not. Props to this community.
MTGS is unreadable. Those people are so mean to each other. Everything is a fight, full of that typical Internet machismo. You'd think all of them were on the Protour constantly.
MTGO must be flooded with those dudes. Sometimes you win/lose a match and you are bombarded by insults. It doesn't happen in testing, but once you start playing for prizes in organized tournaments - the hounds come out.
Quote from: Dudecore on April 20, 2013, 09:54:20 PM
Quote from: Coffee Vampire on April 20, 2013, 09:29:39 PM
I like the fact that people on these forums can talk about social problems without much butthurt. I see more drama from the single card discussion threads on mtgsalv, fighting over whether {Legion's Innitiative} should be mythic or not. Props to this community.
MTGS is unreadable. Those people are so mean to each other. Everything is a fight, full of that typical Internet machismo. You'd think all of them were on the Protour constantly.
MTGO must be flooded with those dudes. Sometimes you win/lose a match and you are bombarded by insults. It doesn't happen in testing, but once you start playing for prizes in organized tournaments - the hounds come out.
some people need to just grow up I guess
Piotr mentioned reconciliation. For me that is the most important facet of justice. Too often we confuse justice with pure retribution but the math doesn't work when the death sentence is enacted. The people who suffered were not repaid. Yes, Dzhokha's life should be forfeit, but in lifelong servitude to the people of Boston. He should work in isolation cleaning, weeding, whatever labor is needed. When he works to the satisfaction of his supervisors, he eats. If he tries to leave confinement he dies. His life is in his hands, to live and serve or to withdraw and die. A lifetime of hard work may not be worth 3 people's lives but it is worth more than an easy death.
That seems like a reasonable punishment. And they should also find a way to let him see/feel the full impact of his crime as well
Sure, serving a lifetime as a grave digger should give him time to consider his decision.
Quote from: KangaRod on April 20, 2013, 06:40:16 PM
So, in the end it's only about your own perverted sense of self satisfaction?
It is about justice defined as 'give to everyone what they deserve'. If you conciously murder innocent people you deserve logical punishment. Under iMtG Law death penalty seems perfectly logical for murder. No need to get emotional here.
Quote from: KangaRod on April 20, 2013, 07:56:58 PM
It's about getting back at them, and making yourself feel a perverted sense of self satisfaction in that either
Yes, and I find denying the retribution part (vengeance) of the punishment from the victims morally unacceptable. The murderer can be punished regardless of his will, he has no say in this all, he forfeited the protection of the law when he broke it. It is not an evil deed to deal lawful punishment.
Quote from: Langku on April 20, 2013, 10:32:18 PM
Piotr mentioned reconciliation. For me that is the most important facet of justice. Too often we confuse justice with pure retribution but the math doesn't work when the death sentence is enacted. The people who suffered were not repaid. Yes, Dzhokha's life should be forfeit, but in lifelong servitude to the people of Boston. He should work in isolation cleaning, weeding, whatever labor is needed. When he works to the satisfaction of his supervisors, he eats. If he tries to leave confinement he dies. His life is in his hands, to live and serve or to withdraw and die. A lifetime of hard work may not be worth 3 people's lives but it is worth more than an easy death.
That is not restitution nor reconciliation, the person who was murdered was not my slave, he was a loved member of a family, slave cannot replace that life lost. A thousand slaves are not worth one life of any of my daughters, and I think it's logical enough.
In murder case restitution is not possible because we are unable to raise dead yet. We are only left with retribution and because no restitution is possible, we can go all the way to take the life of the murderer in revenge. That's how I see the logic of murder cases.
"Innocent people are too often sentenced to death. Since 1973, over 140 people have been released from death rows in 26 states because of innocence. Nationally, at least one person is exonerated for every 10 that are executed. " - ALCU
It sends the wrong message: why kill people who kill people to show killing is wrong? It is useless because it does not bring the victims life back. Also, it brings unnecessary stress and financial hardship to the families of those convicted. Particularly if they believe that individual is innocent - to have to watch the premeditated murder ceremony.
Quote from: KangaRod on April 21, 2013, 06:16:56 AM
Can you explain why the death penalty is logical and allowed for you to carry out, and why it is not for me to do to your daughter?
No idea what you mean.
There saying how can you say kill the bomber suspect when you wouldn't let them murder your daughter
Let's define some things then.
There's a fundamental difference between 'kill' and 'murder'. Killing is obvious. Murder is consciously killing an innocent person not in self defence. In murder cases, innocent person is a person not guilty of murder.
Killing murderers sends a rather simple message: if you murder then you will be killed.
Quote from: Birdbrain on April 21, 2013, 10:17:56 AM
There saying how can you say kill the bomber suspect when you wouldn't let them murder your daughter
I wouldn't kill a suspect, that would be murder. I would kill a man proven guilty of murder, fundamental difference.
And Kanga. What are you trying to say? Don't dance around it. Jump right in and just say it
Quote from: FlickerYourOwnIdentity on April 20, 2013, 03:29:06 PM
Mike, has God not killed people for their transgressions???
Christians believe we were made by Him like Him ;)
I think the awnser to that one is God sees what's in a persons heart, there potential, shortcomings realized and otherwise. While we have a limited view. We only see what's on the outside, and the fruits of people's lives. So we can't determine whether this or that person should live or die
God punished Sodom and Gomorra and the Canaanites because of what was in there hearts. Not because of there race
So Piotr, are you saying we should kill this guy, yet God was unjust in Sodom and Gomorra, and the Canaanites. When he can see what's in a person and you can't?
This thread should be locked before we go into full internet machismo mode. We are already on the way there. By the way, I agree with Birdbrain.
Quote from: Bozo_Law on April 21, 2013, 12:35:29 PM
This thread should be locked before we go into full internet machismo mode. We are already on the way there. By the way, I agree with Birdbrain.
Have there been any victims yet?
Quote from: Mikefrompluto on April 21, 2013, 12:38:32 PM
Quote from: Bozo_Law on April 21, 2013, 12:35:29 PM
This thread should be locked before we go into full internet machismo mode. We are already on the way there. By the way, I agree with Birdbrain.
Have there been any victims yet?
Not yet. But probably soon.
Quote from: Bozo_Law on April 21, 2013, 12:39:34 PM
Quote from: Mikefrompluto on April 21, 2013, 12:38:32 PM
Quote from: Bozo_Law on April 21, 2013, 12:35:29 PM
This thread should be locked before we go into full internet machismo mode. We are already on the way there. By the way, I agree with Birdbrain.
Have there been any victims yet?
Not yet. But probably soon.
Until there is a victim, iMtG law is preventing us from locking this thread. That would be prevention by use of force.
Ill try to keep my questions from causing a heated debate
This community has proven it can go through many more pages before things get out of hand many times. That is what I love about these topics.
Quote from: Birdbrain on April 21, 2013, 11:28:54 AM
I think the awnser to that one is God sees what's in a persons heart, there potential, shortcomings realized and otherwise. While we have a limited view. We only see what's on the outside, and the fruits of people's lives. So we can't determine whether this or that person should live or die
Oh yes we can, we don't need to look in murderer's heart, looking at his deeds is sufficient. Murder happens in real world not in heart.
In this case its clear as day what was in his heart. In some cases, it may have been an accident and even though the person might hate the other person. And they say its a murder? What's in the heart does matter when judging murder cases
Quote from: KangaRod on April 21, 2013, 01:53:38 PM
Why is it ok for some people to consciously decide to kill a person and other people can be sentenced to death for consciously deciding to kill a person?
It is not ok to kill a person, it is only ok to kill a murderer.
Is it ok to sentence someone to death who accidentally killed someone?
Edit: even if you think it was murder?
Quote from: Birdbrain on April 21, 2013, 02:15:37 PM
Is it ok to sentence someone to death who accidentally killed someone?
Edit: even if you think it was murder?
What is the definition of murder?
Intentionally causing someone's death. If you think someone caused it, but it was really an accident is it ok to sentence them to death?
Of course not.
So what is in a persons heart does matter in these cases. And man cannot fully understand what is in a persons heart
There is none. Except that some people say its ok
I break into your house, beat you up and tie you to a chair. I kill your mother while you are watching. Do you need to know what is in my heart to know if I'm murderer?
Quote from: Piotr on April 21, 2013, 03:16:12 PM
I break into your house, beat you up and tie you to a chair. I kill your mother while you are watching. Do you need to know what is in my heart to know if I'm murderer?
Wow. This is such an amazing quote. +1 to you Piotr. +1 to you.
You would kill me too, espeacily sense i wouldn't just sit back and let you kill her. so noone would still know who it was. Also, if they catch the wrong guy, what then? They can't see into his heart to know he's the wrong guy. Also, what if he was innocent and framed? What then? Is it ok to execute him? Even though he's innocent?
Quote from: Piotr on April 21, 2013, 03:16:12 PM
I break into your house, beat you up and tie you to a chair. I kill your mother while you are watching. Do you need to know what is in my heart to know if I'm murderer?
Well if you did that because my mother busted into your house and tied you up while killing your mother, without telling me, would that not change the situation? In your eyes you are just in acting justice but in mine you are a murderer.
Quote from: Vyse on April 21, 2013, 03:41:47 PM
Quote from: Piotr on April 21, 2013, 03:16:12 PM
I break into your house, beat you up and tie you to a chair. I kill your mother while you are watching. Do you need to know what is in my heart to know if I'm murderer?
Well if you did that because my mother busted into your house and tied you up while killing your mother, without telling me, would that not change the situation? In your eyes you are just in acting justice but in mine you are a murderer.
what if his mothers husband started it by killing your mothers husband. What than?
What if your mother died from malaria or stampeded by elephants. Should we give the death penalty to malaria? Either way someone is dead.
(Obviously rhetorical)
If you kill someone for killing someone, shouldn't you be killed? An eye for an eye could go on indefinitely. Even if its justified under the law, its hypocritical
Quote from: Birdbrain on April 21, 2013, 04:01:06 PM
If you kill someone for killing someone, shouldn't you be killed? An eye for an eye could go on indefinitely. Even if its justified under the law, its hypocritical
See: Romeo and Juliet (fictional but still applies,) the Hatfields and McCoys, etc.
Quote from: Birdbrain on April 21, 2013, 04:01:06 PM
If you kill someone for killing someone, shouldn't you be killed?
Of course not: iMtG law says that the punishment is to be dealt *regardless of the will of the one being punished*. It says so to make sure you cannot be legally punished for dealing legal punishment. If it didn't say 'regardless of the will of the one being punished', the punishment would be illegal because the law says that you cannot do to others what they wouldn't like to be done to them. Punishment is something nobody likes to be done to them ;)
Most state laws work different from that.
Quote from: Mikefrompluto on April 21, 2013, 04:05:26 PM
Quote from: Birdbrain on April 21, 2013, 04:01:06 PM
If you kill someone for killing someone, shouldn't you be killed? An eye for an eye could go on indefinitely. Even if its justified under the law, its hypocritical
See: Romeo and Juliet (fictional but still applies,) the Hatfields and McCoys, etc.
You cannot prevent .poo. from happening, there always will be problems because you cannot stop all the bad people all the time. You can only try to have the best available law and the best available system of enforcing the law.
There could be other ways to take away someone's life other than killing them. I know for a fact oppression takes away someone's life. All the people in Dafur and Zimbabwe that lived through the mass killing still had tere life taken away from them until it stoped. If someone's free will is taken from them, there life is technically gone, because there life is technically not theres
I wouldn't wish these things on anyone. Just saying there are other ways to take a life
No need to complicate simple things, please.
Quote from: Piotr on April 21, 2013, 04:24:41 PM
Quote from: Mikefrompluto on April 21, 2013, 04:05:26 PM
Quote from: Birdbrain on April 21, 2013, 04:01:06 PM
If you kill someone for killing someone, shouldn't you be killed? An eye for an eye could go on indefinitely. Even if its justified under the law, its hypocritical
See: Romeo and Juliet (fictional but still applies,) the Hatfields and McCoys, etc.
You cannot prevent .poo. from happening, there always will be problems because you cannot stop all the bad people all the time. You can only try to have the best available law and the best available system of enforcing the law.
I was not arguing one side or the other. Just offering examples of a statement someone made.
Taking away someone's purpose in life takes away there life as well. Because that reduces them to nothing
Quote from: Mikefrompluto on April 21, 2013, 04:34:05 PM
Quote from: Piotr on April 21, 2013, 04:24:41 PM
Quote from: Mikefrompluto on April 21, 2013, 04:05:26 PM
Quote from: Birdbrain on April 21, 2013, 04:01:06 PM
If you kill someone for killing someone, shouldn't you be killed? An eye for an eye could go on indefinitely. Even if its justified under the law, its hypocritical
See: Romeo and Juliet (fictional but still applies,) the Hatfields and McCoys, etc.
You cannot prevent .poo. from happening, there always will be problems because you cannot stop all the bad people all the time. You can only try to have the best available law and the best available system of enforcing the law.
I was not arguing one side or the other. Just offering examples of a statement someone made.
I'm not offended in either case, and I hope I'm not offending you ;)
Quote from: Birdbrain on April 21, 2013, 04:49:07 PM
Taking away someone's purpose in life takes away there life as well. Because that reduces them to nothing
And for that, would you propose what kind of punishment?
I don't decide people's punishments. That's not my job, I'm just trying to say there are other ways to take a life than killing them as well. He's going to feel the consiqunces of his behavior. Natural and otherwise
Quote from: Piotr on April 21, 2013, 05:23:14 PM
Quote from: Mikefrompluto on April 21, 2013, 04:34:05 PM
Quote from: Piotr on April 21, 2013, 04:24:41 PM
Quote from: Mikefrompluto on April 21, 2013, 04:05:26 PM
Quote from: Birdbrain on April 21, 2013, 04:01:06 PM
If you kill someone for killing someone, shouldn't you be killed? An eye for an eye could go on indefinitely. Even if its justified under the law, its hypocritical
See: Romeo and Juliet (fictional but still applies,) the Hatfields and McCoys, etc.
You cannot prevent .poo. from happening, there always will be problems because you cannot stop all the bad people all the time. You can only try to have the best available law and the best available system of enforcing the law.
I was not arguing one side or the other. Just offering examples of a statement someone made.
I'm not offended in either case, and I hope I'm not offending you ;)
No sir, not offended here.
Gonna jump right in. I believe in the death penalty myself. I think it should be pushed more personally. Why does someone who has murdered someone and most likely brought grief to the family of that person get to live? Although they're actions have been somewhat limited in jail they enjoy luxuries a lot of people do not have. I spent three months in boot camp and had less freedoms then the convicted felons. Although it was my choice to join the military I chose to protect people that hate me because of a war I had no decision in. These convicts have better meals than veterans deployed overseas. They have conjugal visits while our veterans barely get to speak to they're loved ones. Tell me how this is right? If you are to abolish the death penalty like so many of you want you must take away the luxuries of the incarcerated. What's rehabilitating about working out and watching tv everyday? Hell they can take college courses while in jail. How many people can't afford college and end up destitute while convicts get to go to school? So yes I would rather a murderer be put to death then live a life in more luxury than the majority if Americans.
Night wolf, did you read langku's suggestion of what to do with the murder? Here just a sec ill quote it...
Quote from: Langku on April 20, 2013, 10:32:18 PM
Piotr mentioned reconciliation. For me that is the most important facet of justice. Too often we confuse justice with pure retribution but the math doesn't work when the death sentence is enacted. The people who suffered were not repaid. Yes, Dzhokha's life should be forfeit, but in lifelong servitude to the people of Boston. He should work in isolation cleaning, weeding, whatever labor is needed. When he works to the satisfaction of his supervisors, he eats. If he tries to leave confinement he dies. His life is in his hands, to live and serve or to withdraw and die. A lifetime of hard work may not be worth 3 people's lives but it is worth more than an easy death.
I want to ask a different question, how many of you have seen Argo. If not I encourage you to watch it, it is an amazing film.
SPOILER FOR ARGO IN THE REST OF THIS REPLY, IF YOU WANNA WATCH IT, DON'T READ THIS, AND IF YOU DO DON'T GET MAD AT ME!
In the movie's opening scene, Iranians are trying to break down the gates of the emmbassy in order to get into the embassy and torture, and or kill the people inside. They beginning the invasion of the embassy by just one climbing over the fence. Then more people climb, and soon they are overcome. People are taken hostage and six people get away to the Canadian ammbassitor which is still in Iran. All he'll breaks loose over in Iran, and there is a very, VERY slim rate of survival. They barely escape with their lives, but during this period of time when the six people escaped and were in hiding, mass panic ensues among the Americans. People are killed practically everyday in Iran during this time, just for looking like an American, or looking like they have something to do with it.
Now all of this could have been prevented if the soldiers had shot those first people climbing over the gate, instead they shoot tear gas into the mass crowd after getting past the wall surrounding the embassy, who then get into the embassy itself.
Do you think the soldiers should have shot those first few people who burned the American flag cheering?
Well what started the Iranians hating Americans in the first place? Prevention is the best cure
Quote from: KangaRod on April 21, 2013, 09:55:29 PM
I don't understand why people are so obsessed with judgement and punishment of individuals other than themselves.
The funny thing is kanga, if I did this God strike me down where I stand. I would despise myself if I was a murderer, or a serial killer, I would beg someone to kill me.
Judgement and punishment... I'll refer to another movie, which I believe perfectly depicts a senario where there is no judgement, or punishment.
Dark Knight Rises.
IM SORRY BUT DARK KNIGHT RISES SPOILER ALERT FOR PRACTICALLY REST OF ARTICLE!!!
When Bane is in charge the city, people ran around committing crimes, executing former officials of the law. What happened during that period where people had no form of justice, no form of just judgement.
To put it simply, hell broke loose.
Nobody stopped those crimes because there were no consequences!!! That world that you describe, where "there is no need for justice like that", Is A Living HELL! WOULD YOU RATHER KANGA THAT PEOPLE RUN AROUND KILLING YOUR LOVING FAMILY JUST BECAUSE THEY COULD!!! WOULDNT YOU WANT JUSTICE!!!!
If not I feel sorry for you.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be punishment. I definitely agree with the concept of your statement infinite. I'm just saying, there are other ways (other than tourture that is) to exact punishment. And on the climbing over the fence thing, they could have shot to disable, not just shot to kill. You don't have to kill someone just because there invading your embassy. After all, what is the American embassy for? Correct me if I'm wrong (I often am) I understand it to be for peace
Quote from: Birdbrain on April 21, 2013, 10:30:38 PM
I'm not saying there shouldn't be punishment. I definitely agree with the concept of your statement infinite. I'm just saying, there are other ways (other than tourture that is) to exact punishment. And on the climbing over the fence thing, they could have shot to disable, not just shot to kill. You don't have to kill someone just because there invading your embassy. After all, what is the American embassy for? Correct me if I'm wrong (I often am) I understand it to be for peace
Aww but I like the torture :)
In all seriousness the idea is not to disable, the embassy is considered government sanctioned soil, meaning if your trespass with malice intent, we have full right to shoot you and kill you.
And to disable is worse than killing somebody. That's like telling somebody, "oh you won't be able to walk, or sit right for the rest of your life, but at least your still alive!". That is torture, death in my belief is more merciful.
I'm curious what Kangarod belives on killing in self defense. Would they let a person trying to kill them kill them or not?
Then the crowds eyes shift from the heated debate between birdbrain and flicker over to the other debator KANGAROD!
What will he say? Find out on the next episode of, POST YOUR REPLY!!!
Oh, and I hope everyone realizes this, we are not resenting you because of your belief, we are just engaged in a friendly debate. It may not seem like it with all my yelling (sorry, I feed off drama at times), but we are all friends here. Nobody hates you, so just realize, it is ok. :)
Can anyone say GUANTANAMO BAY?
Kanga, not to be "that guy," but I have to point out that for someone with such an obsession against judgment and hypocrisy, you sure are judging those who disagree with you rather quickly and harshly.
Saying that I, dorky gamer nerd who's devoted his entire life to making the people around him happy even when it costs my own happiness or health, am worse than a mass murderer, for example, is pretty dangerous rhetoric.
On an unrelated note, Nightwolf, thank you for your service! They may not have appreciated your precence over there, but if nothing else, I appreciate it over here, and I know I'm not alone. If you're still serving, stay safe! If you're home, welcome back!
I think NightWolf is confusing one bad thing for another. While I appreciate your understanding of what you've sacrificed for what you gained - the fact that we treat veterans like garbage, or believe that prisoners "have it easy" is misguided. They're are not mutually exclusive.
Prisoners do not have an easy life, rehabilitation is not the goal of prison in this country. We merely teach them how to become more effective, more violent, give them no coping skills and life lessons.
I am deeply troubled by the idea so many people believe in "free will". I've had this discussion here before, and unwilling to go about it again. I've said my piece, haven't really been addressed, and haven't made much of an impact. I feel as though we've had a proper discourse.
It is interesting to say that all of mankind is righteous at the core. This poses the question, why are we righteous at our core? If all men are born good, then what corrupts them? What corrupted the first man? It doesn't seem to make sense that everyone has good in them. It's a nice thought, but the theory lacks support. By all indication, people are selfish at the core.
And what of sociopathy? A well established psychiatric condition in which the person simply has no moral compass.
While I wholeheartedly agree that the vast majority of humanity is good in its heart, it's undeniable that there is an existence of evil people out there. They have shown themselves through history, from Caligula to Hitler.
Ideals are good and all, but there is no such thing as perfection. Without compensation for the flaws in the world, in people, in societies, in life, you are either going to collide with disappointment or be run over by the car of life because you didn't look both ways.
Quote from: KangaRod on April 21, 2013, 08:19:04 PM
I don't understand how punishing people actually had any benefit. It's clear that it didn't deter the crime, and so perhaps since it didn't serve its purpose, you can try something new?
I beg your pardon? There's world of evidence to back up theory that punishment deters crime. Even in the particular case of Boston Bombings nothing is clear. For all we know they could have scaled down from 2000 man operation to 2 man operation because 1998 were afraid of the punishment.
We already tried something new: prevention. It failed miserably.
I will repeat: the purpose of punishment is not to deter crime, it is to deal justice. Punishment indeed deters crime, but that's just added bonus.
Quote from: KangaRod on April 22, 2013, 06:09:36 AM
You are incorrect, most modern research is showing that punishment is not a deterrent to criminals, for the simple reason they don't imagine themselves getting caught.
You may as well try to convince me that white is black, lol. Majority of crime is not done by braindead people, but in any case the crime that is deterred by threat of punishment is deterred because majority of people can and do imagine themselves being caught.
Quote from: KangaRod on April 22, 2013, 06:09:36 AM
I think everyone universally agrees that it is unfair to sentence an insane person to death
Not at all. Here's the logic: if they are insane beyond healing and have no free will and are unable to judge what's right and wrong, they are not human and should be put down like a rabid dog they are.
Maybe we should stop putting words in other people mouths first, eh?
The death penalty is a neccisary evil. If we didnt have it, we might be further in debt than we already are. Though that shouldn't be the only reason to have it. Yes people have good deep down, but some people will choose to ignore that good all there lives. So do we choose to let them out on the street and kill again? Should we give them the chance to kill people in prison who committed lesser crimes?
By the way. I'm arguing different sides daily to get a better understanding of the subject
Quote from: Birdbrain on April 22, 2013, 01:41:56 PM
By the way. I'm arguing different sides daily to get a better understanding of the subject
I'm gonna just drop in to this topic to say that you are one of the best people I've seen on the internet in a while for this post, Birdbrain. I'd definitely give you another +1 if I could!
Quote from: Silent1236 on April 22, 2013, 06:02:16 PM
Quote from: Birdbrain on April 22, 2013, 01:41:56 PM
By the way. I'm arguing different sides daily to get a better understanding of the subject
I'm gonna just drop in to this topic to say that you are one of the best people I've seen on the internet in a while for this post, Birdbrain. I'd definitely give you another +1 if I could!
Same here. By being able to argue both sides it makes you a much better debater. Makes it easier to see faults in your own position and makes you listen to and understand others. That is why I enjoy debates. To many people argue (this forum is a big exception).
Quote from: KangaRod on April 22, 2013, 07:27:43 PM
Except that it is many times cheaper to incarcerate a prisoner for life than it is to put one through death row.
This is a lie. Once proven guilty or not, death penalty is much cheaper on average. Before proven guilty, everyone deserves the same fair trial and the cost it the same.
Quote from: KangaRod on April 23, 2013, 06:24:40 AM
Quote from: Piotr on April 23, 2013, 05:40:51 AM
Quote from: KangaRod on April 22, 2013, 07:27:43 PM
Except that it is many times cheaper to incarcerate a prisoner for life than it is to put one through death row.
This is a lie. Once proven guilty or not, death penalty is much cheaper on average. Before proven guilty, everyone deserves the same fair trial and the cost it the same.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
Whoops. That's twice now you've called me a liar without backing it up.
Cliffs notes - it costs (depending on who you ask and what state) 2 to 10 times as much to push someone through death row as it does to when life in prison without parole is sought.
I'm on the verge of going Hide on you, pal. You seem to have problems understanding simple sentences. You show me some crap which stand in contradiction to basic logic and in direct contradiction to what I said: This is a lie. *Once proven guilty* or not, death penalty is much cheaper on average. *Before proven guilty, everyone deserves the same fair trial and the cost it the same.*
Quote from: Piotr on April 23, 2013, 08:37:25 AM
Quote from: KangaRod on April 23, 2013, 06:24:40 AM
Quote from: Piotr on April 23, 2013, 05:40:51 AM
Quote from: KangaRod on April 22, 2013, 07:27:43 PM
Except that it is many times cheaper to incarcerate a prisoner for life than it is to put one through death row.
This is a lie. Once proven guilty or not, death penalty is much cheaper on average. Before proven guilty, everyone deserves the same fair trial and the cost it the same.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
Whoops. That's twice now you've called me a liar without backing it up.
Cliffs notes - it costs (depending on who you ask and what state) 2 to 10 times as much to push someone through death row as it does to when life in prison without parole is sought.
I'm on the verge of going Hide on you, pal. You seem to have problems understanding simple sentences. You show me some crap which stand in contradiction to basic logic and in direct contradiction to what I said: This is a lie. *Once proven guilty* or not, death penalty is much cheaper on average. *Before proven guilty, everyone deserves the same fair trial and the cost it the same.*
Simple sentences and simplified ideas aren't synonymous with basic logic. It would be easy to predict and analyze human actions and responses if we always operated on principles of basic logic. But we do not. What's more, the evidence Kangarod presents stands in stark contrast to your suppositions. Piotr, I value your position and I think your point is at least partially valid but calling someone's stance crap doesn't make it so. If you want a logical discussion then provide evidence, not rhetoric.
Evidence certainly seems to suggest that our current death penalty is not a fiscally wise approach. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29552692/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/execute-or-not-question-cost/
Perhaps the answer to the problem is to improve our system of incarcerated labor. I believe that humans, good and bad, need to repair the damage they do to the community. Death can't really repair, it just placates.
That said, I can certainly understand the reasoning behind the death penalty and on a small scale (old west justice system) it certainly seemed to be a deterrent. Modern justice is so much more convoluted, though, and linking the death penalty to reduced crime rates becomes a big challenge. I did believe the quickest way to protect Boston was to kill both Tsarnaev brothers. But that time has passed. For my part, I feel the time for retaliation ended when he was captured. Now is the time for reparation.
Quote from: Langku on April 23, 2013, 11:31:09 AM
Quote from: Piotr on April 23, 2013, 08:37:25 AM
Quote from: KangaRod on April 23, 2013, 06:24:40 AM
Quote from: Piotr on April 23, 2013, 05:40:51 AM
Quote from: KangaRod on April 22, 2013, 07:27:43 PM
Except that it is many times cheaper to incarcerate a prisoner for life than it is to put one through death row.
This is a lie. Once proven guilty or not, death penalty is much cheaper on average. Before proven guilty, everyone deserves the same fair trial and the cost it the same.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
Whoops. That's twice now you've called me a liar without backing it up.
Cliffs notes - it costs (depending on who you ask and what state) 2 to 10 times as much to push someone through death row as it does to when life in prison without parole is sought.
I'm on the verge of going Hide on you, pal. You seem to have problems understanding simple sentences. You show me some crap which stand in contradiction to basic logic and in direct contradiction to what I said: This is a lie. *Once proven guilty* or not, death penalty is much cheaper on average. *Before proven guilty, everyone deserves the same fair trial and the cost it the same.*
Simple sentences and simplified ideas aren't synonymous with basic logic. It would be easy to predict and analyze human actions and responses if we always operated on principles of basic logic. But we do not. What's more, the evidence Kangarod presents stands in stark contrast to your suppositions. Piotr, I value your position and I think your point is at least partially valid but calling someone's stance crap doesn't make it so. If you want a logical discussion then provide evidence, not rhetoric.
I called his 'evidence' crap after looking at the link he provided and checking that the site is full of it. They claim that *cost of the trial* somehow makes death penalty more expensive, which is utter nonsense as I stated in *Before proven guilty, everyone deserves the same fair trial and the cost it the same.* In any case, it takes some serious balls to try to convince people with half a brain that 20 years in prison is cheaper than reusable rope. I rest my case.
Quote from: Langku on April 23, 2013, 11:31:09 AM
I feel the time for retaliation ended when he was captured. Now is the time for reparation.
Reparation, how? You are gonna make him raise the dead? Or is he supposed to take place of the people he murdered? Be cuddled as the son and made love to as the mother?
Restitution in murder cases is not possible, all we have left is retribution. It is up to the families to decide if they want to pardon the guy, but I do not believe that anyone has the right to stop the victims from demanding and executing the logical sentence. Note that this is my belief based on iMtG Law and has nothing to do with state laws.
Quote from: Langku on April 23, 2013, 11:31:09 AM
Evidence certainly seems to suggest that our current death penalty is not a fiscally wise approach. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29552692/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/execute-or-not-question-cost/
Lol I thought we are having a serious debate here but you are showing me how 20 years in prison and dying of heart attack is called 'capital punishment' in California, hilarious. The rest of the guys sentenced 20 years ago are still alive lol. Man, you have some serious problems with some of the states :P
Not your fault ;)
I will repeat: the purpose of capital punishment for murder is not to save money, it is to deal justice. Capital punishment for murder indeed deters crime and saves money, but that's just added bonus. ;)
Name calling wont get you anywhere kanga. It will only push people away, and not open people up to see your way of thinking. All it does is piss people off
Even if they don't adopt your way of thinking, the purpose in a debate is to share ideas. Sometimes yes, to convince people. Though your never going to convince them if you can't get them to open up to see your way of thinking
Name calling just shuts the door not only for your current argument, but for future ones as well. If your not going to say anything nice in this thread, if your going to be a bull head, if this thread is going to upset you, then don't click on this thread. You won't gain friends by name calling, you will lose them
KangaRod, I see significant difference between
honest capital punishment which causes murderers to actually die by hanging them or whatever
and
your style 'capital punishment' where murderers are kept in prison until they die of old age, as per your 'evidence'.
I call your style 'capital punishment' a big fat lie, not a capital punishment.
One alternative punshment would be to find a way to wake up there empathy and make them realize exactly what they have done
Also, what kind of a punishment is death row anyway? Your not punishing the criminal. Technically your setting them free into death. Sure many people don't want to die, and so it is a deterent. Though, what purpose does it serve?
Retribution.
Quote from: KangaRod on April 23, 2013, 06:24:40 AM
Quote from: Piotr on April 23, 2013, 05:40:51 AM
Quote from: KangaRod on April 22, 2013, 07:27:43 PM
Except that it is many times cheaper to incarcerate a prisoner for life than it is to put one through death row.
This is a lie. Once proven guilty or not, death penalty is much cheaper on average. Before proven guilty, everyone deserves the same fair trial and the cost it the same.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
Whoops. That's twice now you've called me a liar without backing it up.
Cliffs notes - it costs (depending on who you ask and what state) 2 to 10 times as much to push someone through death row as it does to when life in prison without parole is sought.
The fact it costs a ton of money to execute a criminal is a problem with the government not the punishment.
Anything law related in this country costs way more than it should or needs to but it has unfortunately gone that way.
Quote from: Piotr on April 23, 2013, 05:09:33 PM
Retribution.
if its retribution against the perpetrator, how would the punishment follow them into death? You don't belive in God I belive, so how is killing them retribution? What is so terrible in death? What awaits for them in death? In death they are at peace, do you realy want to give them peace?