Do you believe the death penalty is unethical?

[Ten oz]

Try tricking the parents to teach something against their own values. Maybe brainwashing. O.O

Wait, so if a couple of victims families didn't want to seek the death penalty then none of them do? How about we reeducate the ones that think the murderers will suffer more. As you stated earlier, most murderers aren't right in the head. The degree required of mental instability to kill someone is when you reach the level sociopath. Sociopaths cant feel remorse or empathy. In other words they won't feel bad. Which means they won't suffer from guilt as most people think. Also, your a hypocrite if you say no one knows what the victims family's actually want, then proceed to explain what they want....

And I would say yes. Nobody loses any closer from kill the murderer. Some people in Vermont I'm sure want the death penalty. Therefore, yes. They have more closure in Texas.

Don't hospitals have security cameras? Security guards? The gun have finger prints? Powder residue on the killers hands? There's a lot more evidence that could be found.

And, is it worth the cost of ALL those extras just to make prisoners happy? Seems like a pretty lame excuse.

Once again, for the final time. The moral high ground isn't a good argument. Nobody agrees what's right and what's wrong.

You also keep phrasing it wrong. We are killing a murderer. Not murdering a killer. What they did was wrong. What we do is punish them for that wrong. The benefit? Makes people happy. They get a sense of justice. Of course, you want the prisoners to be happy.

 

You can't argue one point without arguing the other point. Its like your trying to say the absolute value of 12 is different from the absolute value of -12!

That isn't what I said at all. My point is that one cannot hide behind victims families as a means of justifying how they feel. All families are not universally for the death penalty. You cannot support any claim that the death penalty helps families find closure!! As I ask; are murder victim families better off in Texas or Vermont? For that matter Texas or England? You answered yes but are purely speculating. So unless you can produce some citation how about you leave families out of it.

[zapatos]

It doesn't "beg the question", it invites one.

If you believe that the death penalty does not lead to killing for no reason, then you ought to be able to show what that reason is.

In what way does the additional death toll from killing killers make the world a better place?

 

It makes some people feel better. It increases the average 'goodness' of the human race. It imposes a penalty that people find appropriate for the crime. It sends a message, whether received or not. It ensures fairness for the person wronged.

 

I am not the one who made the claim that there is 'no good reason'. I stated there was no consensus on what constitutes a good reason. If you think there is consensus then by all means present your evidence here.

[John Cuthber]

In the civilised world, the consensus is that there should be no death penalty.

[StringJunky]

That isn't what I said at all. My point is that one cannot hide behind victims families as a means of justifying how they feel. All families are not universally for the death penalty. You cannot support any claim that the death penalty helps families find closure!! As I ask; are murder victim families better off in Texas or Vermont? For that matter Texas or England? You answered yes but are purely speculating. So unless you can produce some citation how about you leave families out of it.

Who needs universality of opinion to justify something; it's the majority opinion that matters. I repeat: if there is not majority support for any legislation or policy , it will NOT work. To pursue a policy that is not in harmony with theconsensus is essentially a totalitarian policy. If you notice my position is pragmatic, yours is ideological.

Edited June 12, 2016 by StringJunky

[Ten oz]

 

It makes some people feel better. It increases the average 'goodness' of the human race. It imposes a penalty that people find appropriate for the crime. It sends a message, whether received or not. It ensures fairness for the person wronged.

 

I am not the one who made the claim that there is 'no good reason'. I stated there was no consensus on what constitutes a good reason. If you think there is consensus then by all means present your evidence here.

That is a nebulous statememnt which you have no way of truly quantifying. The exact opposite is equally as true; it make some people feel worse. We could state a new thread and debate whether or not revenge has a positive or negative impact of people emotionally. Such an emotionally plea, which is not even commonly shared and the consequence of are not known, simply isn't adequate to justify allowing the for the killing of people.

 

Arguing that because it is the law of the land it is appropriate by popular demand is a flawed argument. Are you telling me you support all laws and aren't for any being changed provided the law has support? Black people sitting in the back of the back was the law, Gays getting dishonorably discharged for being who they are was the law of the land, and so on. I know from reading your post in other threads that you are more than intelligent enough to know that just because something is the law doesn't mean it should be.

 

Who needs universality of opinion to justify something; it's the majority opinion that matters. I repeat: if there is not majority support for any legislation or policy , it will NOT work. To pursue a policy that is not in harmony with theconsensus is essentially a totalitarian policy. If you notice my position is pragmatic, yours is ideological.

"A Pew Research Center poll finds that 56% favor the death penalty for people convicted of murder, while 38% oppose it. But support is as low as it’s been in 40 years. Much of the decline in support over the past two decades has come among Democrats. Currently, just 40% of Democrats favor the death penalty, while 56% are opposed. Republican support for the death penalty (77%) has changed less dramatically."

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/28/5-facts-about-the-death-penalty/

 

From the same link:

"About six-in-ten whites (63%) favor the death penalty, compared with 34% of blacks and 45% of Hispanics. There are also disagreements along racial lines about which groups are most likely to get the death penalty."

 

I think you are over stating the strength of that majority. It is ideological than you choose to admit. Which is why it is such a regional issue with states in the South so strongly for and states in the Northest are against. The Death Penalty is not law of the land in all 50 states. 19 states plus the District of Columbia do not have the Death Penalty. And while capital punishment if federal legal there has been zero military execution since the moratorium on the death penalty ended in 1977 and there has only been 3 federal executions which were all authorized under the same President (Bush 43 former Texas Gov.). Side Not; of the 537 inamates executed in Texas since 1977 a record 152 were executed under George W Bush. The most ever by under any governor until Rick Perry beat the record in 2015.

 

Considering it is a partisan issue with majority democrats against it, considering it has a racial divide with the majority of Blacks and Latinos against it, I think the "pagmatic" position would be to weigh the merits rather than just broadly claim majority rules.

[StringJunky]

Considering it is a partisan issue with majority democrats against it, considering it has a racial divide with the majority of Blacks and Latinos against it, I think the "pagmatic" position would be to weigh the merits rather than just broadly claim majority rules.

I've been arguing the principle that it is consensus that determines the overall morality in any given society; America is not the whole world. I actually haven't had a particular view in this discussion.but it's interesting to notice .the well-worn arguments people carry into a discussion.

[dimreepr]

Consensus determines the overall majority, whilst morality is an individual position.

[Ten oz]

I've been arguing the principle that it is consensus that determines the overall morality in any given society; America is not the whole world. I actually haven't had a particular view in this discussion.but it's interesting to notice .the well-worn arguments people carry into a discussion.

And I showed you that it is a partisan political issue that also is divided across racial lines. "Overall morality of society" doesn't accurate summarize how we in the United States feel about it.

[StringJunky]

Consensus determines the overall majority, whilst morality is an individual position.

The sum of which determines the collective moral code.

[Raider5678]

When what someone currently believe is a fallacy of logic then it isn't "tricking" them to convince them otherwise, it's education.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right

 

 

 

"Wait, so if a couple of victims families didn't want to seek the death penalty then none of them do? "

Strawman- nobody said that did they?

However just one person in that position and with that view voids your tacit assertion that we should kill for the benefit of the bereaved.

 

Also, not all murderers are sociopaths so that part of your post is unsupported.

 

"And I would say yes. Nobody loses any closer from kill the murderer. "

I'm sure you would say that; it doesn't make sense.

 

Can I see the evidence for this claim please?

"They have more closure in Texas."

or is it something you just made up?

It's an issue you have been picked up on before.

Ok then how about this.

 

"Nobody loses any closure if the murderer is executed. Perhaps it doesn't give closure to everyone, but it does give closure to some. People in Texas who want the death penalty and get it, I'm sure find closure. People in Vermont who want the death penalty and can't get it, I'm sure they believe they aren't getting as much closure as they would like."

Where did I go wrong in this logic?

 

Another question, who decided what's wrong and what's right? You? Me? Is it the general consensus? What gives the few the right to decide what's wrong for the many?

 

Also, if all murderers arent sciopaths, then why were you arguing that before? Make up your mind.

Edit:

Memammal was claiming it, not you. My bad.

[dimreepr]

The sum of which determines the collective moral code.

 

 

This is why a quad core processor isn’t, always, four times faster; sometimes we have to go the long way round.

[zapatos]

That is a nebulous statememnt which you have no way of truly quantifying.

So? I also cannot 'truly quantify' the statement that 'some people like vanilla ice cream'. Doesn't make it any less true.

 

The exact opposite is equally as true; it make some people feel worse.

I find it amusing that you criticize my nebulous statement by making one of your own.

 

We could state a new thread and debate whether or not revenge has a positive or negative impact of people emotionally. Such an emotionally plea, which is not even commonly shared and the consequence of are not known, simply isn't adequate to justify allowing the for the killing of people.

Well, then it is fortunate for me I was not trying to justify the killing of people. If you'll read the post over again you'll see I was answering the question "In what way does the additional death toll from killing killers make the world a better place?"

 

Arguing that because it is the law of the land it is appropriate by popular demand is a flawed argument."

Again, fortunately for me, that is not what I was doing.

 

Are you telling me you support all laws and aren't for any being changed provided the law has support? Black people sitting in the back of the back was the law, Gays getting dishonorably discharged for being who they are was the law of the land, and so on. I know from reading your post in other threads that you are more than intelligent enough to know that just because something is the law doesn't mean it should be.

Nice bit of misdirection.

[Ten oz]

Ok then how about this.

 

"Nobody loses any closure if the murderer is executed. Perhaps it doesn't give closure to everyone, but it does give closure to some. People in Texas who want the death penalty and get it, I'm sure find closure. People in Vermont who want the death penalty and can't get it, I'm sure they believe they aren't getting as much closure as they would like."

Where did I go wrong in this logic?

 

Another question, who decided what's wrong and what's right? You? Me? Is it the general consensus? What gives the few the right to decide what's wrong for the many?

 

Also, if all murderers arent sciopaths, then why were you arguing that before? Make up your mind.

These are all strawman arguments. You can't prove capital punishment is a benefit to families of victims. It Capital punishment is worthwhile than where are the tangible arguments for it? Saying that it might help some people somehwere find some amount of closure isn't a tangible justification.

 

What can be proven:

-it is more expensive

-it doesn't lower the murder rate (not a proven deterrent)

-our trail system is not perfect and innocent people do get sentence to die

 

 

The only justifications I have seen so far:

-it might help some people find closure (we don't know though)

-most people approve (not most of minorities or democrats)

-it is current the law

[John Cuthber]

Ok then how about this.

 

"Nobody loses any closure if the murderer is executed. Perhaps it doesn't give closure to everyone, but it does give closure to some. People in Texas who want the death penalty and get it, I'm sure find closure. People in Vermont who want the death penalty and can't get it, I'm sure they believe they aren't getting as much closure as they would like."

Where did I go wrong in this logic?

 

Another question, who decided what's wrong and what's right? You? Me? Is it the general consensus? What gives the few the right to decide what's wrong for the many?

"Where did I go wrong in this logic?"

Here "Nobody loses any closure if the murderer is executed."

for two reason

I lose closure because I see it as another pointless death.

And at least some villains will take the same view you did- it's OK to kill those who kill. and since society kills it's ok to kill society.

 

 

Your last line seems to be arguing against your position.The majority (at least in the Western world where they get to decide) has decided against capital punishment.

[Raider5678]

These are all strawman arguments. You can't prove capital punishment is a benefit to families of victims. It Capital punishment is worthwhile than where are the tangible arguments for it? Saying that it might help some people somehwere find some amount of closure isn't a tangible justification.

 

What can be proven:

-it is more expensive

-it doesn't lower the murder rate (not a proven deterrent)

-our trail system is not perfect and innocent people do get sentence to die

 

 

The only justifications I have seen so far:

-it might help some people find closure (we don't know though)

-most people approve (not most of minorities or democrats)

-it is current the law

One second, your accusing me of strawmanning myself? Wow. That's a first.

 

It DOES help some people find closure.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/05/16/measure-of-relief.html

"A Pew Research Center poll finds that 56% favor the death penalty for people convicted of murder, while 38% oppose it. But support is as low as it’s been in 40 years. Much of the decline in support over the past two decades has come among Democrats. Currently, just 40% of Democrats favor the death penalty, while 56% are opposed. Republican support for the death penalty (77%) has changed less dramatically."

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/28/5-facts-about-the-death-penalty/

 

From the same link:

"About six-in-ten whites (63%) favor the death penalty, compared with 34% of blacks and 45% of Hispanics. There are also disagreements along racial lines about which groups are most likely to get the death penalty."

 

 

Your last line seems to be arguing against your position.The majority (at least in the Western world where they get to decide) has decided against capital punishment.

Ok then. Which post is a lie and which isn't?

[John Cuthber]

 

Ok then. Which post is a lie and which isn't?

I don't know if it's a lie (I doubt it) but this "What gives the few the right to decide what's wrong for the many?" makes no sense because in most cases the majority view rules.

The US just needs to catch up with the rest of the West.

[Raider5678]

I don't know if it's a lie (I doubt it) but this "What gives the few the right to decide what's wrong for the many?" makes no sense because in most cases the majority view rules.

The US just needs to catch up with the rest of the West.

If what you said is true, then my statement makes sense. If your a liar and ten oz is telling the truth, then that makes my sentence not make sense and you a liar.

P.S. by liar I mean that as a singular lie or mistake. As in one of you lied, and one didn't, or at least one of the posts are true and one isn't.

I lose closure because I see it as another pointless death.

And at least some villains will take the same view you did- it's OK to kill those who kill. and since society kills it's ok to kill society.

 

For two reasons.

I'm so sorry that your precious feeling get hurt when they execute someone.

Also, you say that anyone who takes the view I did is a villain. Update:Hillary's a villain!

And since society kills its ok to kill society? That doesn't make sense.

Edited June 12, 2016 by Raider5678

[John Cuthber]

I'm so sorry that your precious feeling get hurt when they execute someone.

Also, you say that anyone who takes the view I did is a villain. Update:Hillary's a villain!

And since society kills its ok to kill society? That doesn't make sense.

"Also, you say that anyone who takes the view I did is a villain."

No I didn't say that.

 

Is it that you can't read, or that you can't stop lying, or what that makes you say that sort of thing?

 

I think I see what your confusion is caused by; you have forgotten that the rest of the world exists.

It takes a special kind of stupid to do that.

Whatever the stats say in the US (broken down by political groups or not), the Western world has overwhelmingly rejected capital punishment.

Edited June 12, 2016 by John Cuthber

[Ten oz]

So? I also cannot 'truly quantify' the statement that 'some people like vanilla ice cream'. Doesn't make it any less true.

 

I find it amusing that you criticize my nebulous statement by making one of your own.

 

Well, then it is fortunate for me I was not trying to justify the killing of people. If you'll read the post over again you'll see I was answering the question "In what way does the additional death toll from killing killers make the world a better place?"

 

Again, fortunately for me, that is not what I was doing.

 

Nice bit of misdirection.

Nope, my point about your argument working equally the opposite way was to illustrate what a week argument is was. That is was an equally untrue as it was possibly true.

 

One second, your accusing me of strawmanning myself? Wow. That's a first.

 

It DOES help some people find closure.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/05/16/measure-of-relief.html

 

Ok then. Which post is a lie and which isn't?

And we know that it also DOESN'T for help families. We know that there are families against it and studies that shows it can prolong closure You cannot prove that it helps to any messure that would be superior to the exact opposite. The argument is weak and anecdotal at best.

*Citations that families are against and studies showing it prolongs closure for some has already been provided.

 

Do you have any agruments that arent as equally false as they are true? Are there any real facts on your side or is it all just anecdotal thoughts about how you assume people feel?

 

Provably true:

-Innocent people (hundreds) have been sent to death row.

-execution is more expensive

-doesn't lower crime

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I provided stats for the United States showing how divided we are on the issue. John Cuthber referenced the "western world". Both John's statement and my stats are true.

Edited June 12, 2016 by Ten oz

[iNow]

Keeping great company

 

[Raider5678]

Keeping great company

No offense, but what does this have to do with it?

China allows homosexuality. Look at the company we're keeping by allowing it?

[John Cuthber]

No offense, but what does this have to do with it?

China allows homosexuality. Look at the company we're keeping by allowing it?

What it has to do with it is that it#s a comment on majority opinion which at least some people here consider to be the basis of morality.

 

Which is clearly more to do with this than homosexuality.

[Raider5678]

What it has to do with it is that it#s a comment on majority opinion which at least some people here consider to be the basis of morality.

 

Which is clearly more to do with this than homosexuality.

I would say that morality is based on majority opinion, and that its subject to change.

[MonDie]

It bothers me that the image seems to sort by total count rather than a percentage.

China contains more than one sixth of humanity.

[StringJunky]

It bothers me that the image seems to sort by total count rather than a percentage.

China contains more than one sixth of humanity.

This istrue but it's still high. From my reading, so far, the worst place to be condemned is Japan. The prison regime is beyond awful; the most paralysing mental torture.and regimen that a person can think of imo.