- Joined
- May 12, 2015
- Messages
- 14,117
- Reaction score
- 4,310
Not unless you want to take away people's rights to fight a conviction.It doesn't have to be.
Not unless you want to take away people's rights to fight a conviction.It doesn't have to be.
That's not a valid point. This was recognized and addressed by our ancestors before they even sailed to America, and the contradiction has been resolved as long as democracy has been around. That old fucker Locke in particular writes about this well. Paraphrasing, that nothing stops a man from exacting too much punishment other than his own reason. The implication is that we will tend to punish too harshly when we do not have our wits about us. This stuff is American judicial bedrock. We can't appeal against it the way you have without looking like goddamn fools.I also think it's all a matter of personal investment. The same people arguing against it ITT would be the first person ready to string someone up for raping and murdering their daughter. Anyone and everyone that's against it in this thread simply hasn't been hurt in the worst circumstances. And they can GTFO.
Unfortunately the people that are usually in favor of the death penalty don't think there's anything wrong with our legal system. Sentencing is biased? So what. Eye witness testimony is unreliable? So what.People complaining about the wrongful convictions: fix your legal system.
eople too often think of the perpetrators perspective. Let's try thinking of capital punishment from a father's perspective. Or a mother, sister, child of the victim, etc.
Imagine someone snatches your 5-6 year old daughter from your back-yard while bla bla bla
That's not a valid point. This was recognized and addressed by our ancestors before they even sailed to America, and the contradiction has been resolved as long as democracy has been around. That old fucker Locke in particular writes about this well. Paraphrasing, that nothing stops a man from exacting too much punishment other than his own reason. The implication is that we will tend to punish too harshly when we do not have our wits about us. This stuff is American judicial bedrock. We can't appeal against it the way you have without looking like goddamn fools.
Bolded, I hadn't thought of that one before. That's a very good point that scales down well.Just to add to this point, any argument that relies on "what if this happened to you" is going to be inherently flawed. What if someone murdered someone I loved? I'd want to kill them myself. What if someone I loved was wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death? I'd want to kill the real culprit and the prosecutor while I was at it. What if Nazi Germany could have prevented your loved one from being hurt? You could come to some pretty terrible conclusions with that line of reasoning.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stoneDon't you think that's hypocritical for a Christian like yourself?
I am not for death penalty, for the reason that innocent people get executed sometimes...but I am for allowing prisoners to opt for execution, by that I mean any prisoner could choose to be executed rather than serve out their sentence, provided the process was transparent, with multiple checks by independent monitors throughout the process to ensure it was actually the will of the prisoner and they weren't being forced to make the choice...also, I would have them use pure heroin as the dug of execution, a LOT of it, injected...don't understand why they don't use that now
I'm against innocent people being put to death, so of course I'm against the death penalty.
Just to add to this point, any argument that relies on "what if this happened to you" is going to be inherently flawed.
I find it quite amusing that conservative positions are driven so strongly by emotional appeals and yet it is liberals so often accused of making emotional arguments.No, it's not. In fact, this should be the basis for any rational thought. "What if I were in X position."
Well, if someone killed my daughter, I'd want them to die. If I murdered someone, it is fair and rational that I be put to death. If my loved one truly did murder someone, then they have to pay the consequences.
I find it quite amusing that conservative positions are driven so strongly by emotional appeals and yet it is liberals so often accused of making emotional arguments.
the death penalty is actually kinda the opposite of the Golden Rule tho....
We're going to show you that killing (namely murder) is the ultimate crime, by....killing you. wait, what? this isn't Hammurabi's code and shit, we did away w/ an eye for an eye quite some time ago
Retribution is not an emotional appeal?It's not an emotional appeal.
It's the basis for logic, law, and morality.
The golden rule.
How else are we to create laws and rules, other than "If I did X, what is fair."
I am saying, if I killed someone in cold blood, without extreme mitigating circumstances, then I deserve the death penalty. If my own child does the same, she deserves the death penalty.