the death penalty

[Archbio]

How very... Disrespectful. I'm sure you could have found a way to argue without making fun of that fella's religion.

Then the fella shouldn't have brought his religion into it. As a matter of fact, I think it went right over the "no-religious-discussion" line. If it didn't, this did:

No religious justification, huh? Ok, if that were true, we wouldn't have laws.

The implications of that absurd equation between religion and morals are also quite insulting, but mostly I think it's against the rules.

Personally, I think the Death Penalty should be avoided in all cases except those in which a lifetime of criminal seclusion is the only alternative. I have the notion that in a situation like this, the execution would be without most of its usual moral complications if the choice was given to the prisoner.

Lifetime imprisonment (unless innocence is later proven) or execution.

The punishment would be a tad less cruel in any case and, I think, more efficient by a degree.

[Steel Shadow]

The death sentance isn't an easy thing to make an opnion about. Your either on the side of Logic or humanity. Kill them to save others/save money/etc, or don't, because killing is wrong. I don't like it, but I'm siding with the death sentance. But only if its indisputable that the person in question did it, which is a tricky one at best. The justice system doesn't seem to be set up for something like that.

[Toastburner B]

Originally Posted by Lockeownzj00

It is not their job to make us pray nor is it really their right, in my opinion, to use that itchy trigger finger (in regards to execution and such).

You can hardly call it an "itchy trigger finger", Locke. According to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, the average time on death row before execution is 10.43 years (it's near the bottom of the page). For example, Stanley "Tookie" Williams (executed in California) was convicted in 1981...and didn't get executed until 2005. I would hardly call 14 years "itchy".

Originally Posted by Kaelus

What if the trials caught the wrong guy? Justice is not absolute, and no one knows for sure what they're doing in this field.

That is very unlikely. According to this source (yeah...it's Wikipedia, so take it as you will), the U.S. is averaging 1 death sentence for every 325 murder convictions. Nationwide, only 2.5% of convictions end in a death sentence. So, even if you manage to convict the wrong person, you still only have a 1 in 40 chance of being convicted to die. And that’s not counting the three levels of appeals you get before you have your sentence carried out.

[Lockeownzj00]

You can hardly call it an "itchy trigger finger", Locke. According to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, the average time on death row before execution is 10.43 years (it's near the bottom of the page). For example, Stanley "Tookie" Williams was convicted in 1981...and didn't get executed until 2005. I would hardly call 14 years "itchy".

It's not just how soon it happens. I would call Texas, for example, using capital punishment over 250 times since 1982 trigger happy. I would call other countries routinely using it trigger happy.

How very... Disrespectful. I'm sure you could have found a way to argue without making fun of that fella's religion.

This is exactly the kind of free pass religion has somehow tricked society into giving it so there is no critical thought involved. Of course, religious justification are safe as long as you make it taboo to criticize the religion itself! Making outlandish claims and being protected by the 'it's my religion' clause doesn't go as fair or logical debating in my book.

Laws tend to go by the common ground of the religions.

I find it difficult to respond to this argument. It is just a complete case of mis-assesment and superficial logic. I originally wrote a long reply but I know that that really is overstepping the rules. I'll just have to get frustrated and swallow my pride here.

[Toastburner B]

How 'bout we stay on the topic at hand not stray into the lands of religious discussion/flaming/whatever?

Anyways...Locke, are you against captial punishment on principle, or on the chance an innocent man might die, or some other reason? Just wondering.

[Dasanudas]

Originally Posted by Steel Shadow

The death sentance isn't an easy thing to make an opnion about. Your either on the side of Logic or humanity. Kill them to save others/save money/etc, or don't, because killing is wrong. I don't like it, but I'm siding with the death sentance. But only if its indisputable that the person in question did it, which is a tricky one at best. The justice system doesn't seem to be set up for something like that.

How do you justify dividing logic and humanity? Are you saying that executions are always against humanity? Are you saying that acting humanely is always illogical? Please explain further.

Originally Posted by Archbio

Then the fella shouldn't have brought his religion into it. As a matter of fact, I think it went right over the "no-religious-discussion" line.

The implications of that absurd equation between religion and morals are also quite insulting, but mostly I think it's against the rules.

First off, I was not discussing, I was stating, and desiring no dicussion on the point, which came about anyway, and I have been trying to remove.

"This doesn't mean you can't talk about your religion at all--just that no more theologically-based discussions of any kind are going to be permitted, and that any thread we see veering heavily in that direction is either going to be nudged in another direction or closed." - Kurosen, the rules

Stating that I take my system of morality from what I understand to be an infallible source is not the same as trying to convince others of the same. As for equating morality with religion, I agree - they're not the same. However, any system of morality created by a person is, *IN MY OPINION* in essence that person stating they are the ultimate knower of morality, and thus that they are God.

Now, as for what Locke was arguing against, I was not trying to defend myself in the second post, I was trying to get the topic back on track. So let me put it this way:

That's my feeling, that's the reason why. I won't argue this in respect of the other forum goers and fear of the hovering ban-hammer (I just KNOW they're waiting for me to slip up, giggling all the time...I can hear them at night...), but I also won't change them or apologize for them.

Edit:

Originally Posted by Lockeownzj00

I originally wrote a long reply but I know that that really is overstepping the rules. I'll just have to get frustrated and swallow my pride here.

Welcome to my world, but actually - humility is quite enjoyable.

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by Dasanudas

First off, I was not discussing, I was stating, and desiring no dicussion on the point, which came about anyway, and I have been trying to remove.

Sorry but if you're gonna 'state' debatable assertions in a discussion forum, well, that is pretty much what is called discussion.

As soon as someone starts a "Dasanudas makes statements and people accept them without question" forum, then you'll be good to go.

[TheSpacePope]

Originally Posted by Dasanudas

it is a natural law as much as any other physics law that said person must be murdered in return. If it does not happen in this life, they will be punished for it in another. Thus it is actually the duty of the ruler to make sure one who kills is killed in return

just so you can see the difference

fact this fact is masquerading as an opinion

Killing the murderer makes the ruler no better than the man that commited murder in the first place.

opinion this opinion is open to discussion

No one has the right to take the life of another, that is the universes order.
The center of all things decides this for us, no one else. Life inprisionment makes sense, however it is expensive.
Very expensive.

The death penalty is pretty wrong. However, logically I can find no substitute to take out the so called "rabid dogs" of society.
I can think of no reason to kill someone, even if a man kills my family, was that not how it was destined to be?

opinon Rhetorical question

does not the most high make these decisions to better us?

[bolevar321]

Originally Posted by Archbio

Then the fella shouldn't have brought his religion into it. As a matter of fact, I think it went right over the "no-religious-discussion" line. If it didn't, this did:

Then what you do, is you say "we don't subscribe to that belief," you don't mock a person.

Originally Posted by Archbio

The implications of that absurd equation between religion and morals are also quite insulting, but mostly I think it's against the rules.

I did not imply it, I stated it, and justified it. Without anything to structure our concept of morals, there would be no cause for law. We would run by the most "efficient" path, which would be the prevalence of the strong. Whoever survives must be best, and have justified their own reproduction. Cruel, yes, but that is a world without morals.
I'm also not saying that a particular religion is any more moral than the other; but please, try to deny that religion has influence over laws.
BTW- Atheists tend to follow the same moral structure as the rest of their society, even though they don't have religion.

Originally Posted by Archbio

Personally, I think the Death Penalty should be avoided in all cases except those in which a lifetime of criminal seclusion is the only alternative. I have the notion that in a situation like this, the execution would be without most of its usual moral complications if the choice was given to the prisoner.

Lifetime imprisonment (unless innocence is later proven) or execution.

The punishment would be a tad less cruel in any case and, I think, more efficient by a degree.

I'll agree there. That's ALMOST the status quo.

[Archbio]

I did not imply it, I stated it, and justified it. Without anything to structure our concept of morals, there would be no cause for law. We would run by the most "efficient" path, which would be the prevalence of the strong. Whoever survives must be best, and have justified their own reproduction. Cruel, yes, but that is a world without morals.

We don't suscribe to that belief. Which you've just repeated. Even though it's beside the topic, beside the rules, and a subject of implied mocking. Well, it's not really implied if I say I'm mocking the idea, but it's not like I went through the trouble of writing a whole paragraph mocking it.

Oh, and by the way, I'm aware that you stated the absurd notion. I was saying that the implications derived from it were insulting.

I'll agree there. That's ALMOST the status quo.

I don't see how. How often is the opinion of a convicted criminal regarding their own punishment considered?

Life imprisonment is used in places where the death penalty is outlawed, and the death penalty seems to be considered a strictly greater penalty than any other where it is allowed.

but please, try to deny that religion has influence over laws.

That's not exactly an assertion of the same magnitude than: religion is the source of all morality and law.