Honestly the death penalty shouldn't even be around in my book. There's a special place in hell for some people but you never know, there's been people convicted of crimes, then killed, later to find they were innocent. We just need less luxurious prison systems. Some people want to go. We should change that. Give people consequences for there actions that they are scared of in more humane of ways. Not only do the people dying suffer, but think of the person pulling the lever or pressing button or anything to do with having to set up the death of another person. Then watching them die horribly. That messes people up. People think that would be a good job. But when you actually do it then talk to me. No one ever thinks of the other people involved. It isn't just a one day deal and only one person Is affected. It takes many years of people knowing their demise. Over a possible mistake. It just isn't right.

002 wrote

Duderino wrote

002 wrote

Fusey wrote What if it was one of your family members then would you want them to be dead?
I know that i wouldn't want a family member dead no matter what they have done.
You need to look at other circumstances such as mental heath issues.

So because they have mental health issues they can run around killing people? The fact is, the more people that are in jail hurt the economy. We as tax payers are paying to feed and shelter them. If they can take someone else's life, why should they get to live?

The death penalty costs more than imprisoning someone for life.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

That's because of all the legal stuff. Trust me, I could get it done for less than 10 bucks.

You want the firing squad?
Why even waste money on bullets, let's just go full Saudi Arabian and behead them.
That'll teach those savages to be violent.

That's right, that's how it should be. You take someones life, your life will be taken. Plain and simple.

002 wrote That's right, that's how it should be. You take someones life, your life will be taken. Plain and simple.

I don't think this is anything you can argue about with logic, but if you think that killing criminals by beheading them is how we become a less violent society, or that it's fulfilling some form of justice, then that is your prerogative.

Plato wrote a book where his character went around debunking everybody's philosophies of justice, so I doubt either of us have a coherent model for it which could hold up under intense scrutiny.

Prison sentences are a good thing, people have to live a shit life for the rest of their lives. Even when they come out, they have a record so very few companies would want to hire them.

The UK's prison sentences are a joke though.

Duderino wrote

002 wrote That's right, that's how it should be. You take someones life, your life will be taken. Plain and simple.

I don't think this is anything you can argue about with logic, but if you think that killing criminals by beheading them is how we become a less violent society, or that it's fulfilling some form of justice, then that is your prerogative.

Plato wrote a book where his character went around debunking everybody's philosophies of justice, so I doubt either of us have a coherent model for it which could hold up under intense scrutiny.

Become less violent? Who said that crap? It's in our blood, look down your line of history. Vikings, barbarians, Nazi Germany, USA bombing Japan (twice), all the wars we've been in. It's in our blood, it's who we are, it's who we've always been.

002 wrote

Duderino wrote

002 wrote That's right, that's how it should be. You take someones life, your life will be taken. Plain and simple.

I don't think this is anything you can argue about with logic, but if you think that killing criminals by beheading them is how we become a less violent society, or that it's fulfilling some form of justice, then that is your prerogative.

Plato wrote a book where his character went around debunking everybody's philosophies of justice, so I doubt either of us have a coherent model for it which could hold up under intense scrutiny.

Become less violent? Who said that crap? It's in our blood, look down your line of history. Vikings, barbarians, Nazi Germany, USA bombing Japan (twice), all the wars we've been in. It's in our blood, it's who we are, it's who we've always been.

You wouldn't say that the goal of humanity is to advance and become less violent towards one another?
History has nothing to do with what we are doing now, and you're assuming that 'it's in our blood' to be violent.
It's not in our blood, violence is the result of inequality and hardship in our world, it's not the other way around.

If we sort out the inequality in the world and lessen the hardships people face then less violence will occur.

Obviously this isn't going to happen overnight, but a state saying that it's OK to murder someone in retaliation and as 'justice' doesn't send the message that violence and violent retaliation is wrong.

Duderino wrote

002 wrote

Duderino wrote

002 wrote That's right, that's how it should be. You take someones life, your life will be taken. Plain and simple.

I don't think this is anything you can argue about with logic, but if you think that killing criminals by beheading them is how we become a less violent society, or that it's fulfilling some form of justice, then that is your prerogative.

Plato wrote a book where his character went around debunking everybody's philosophies of justice, so I doubt either of us have a coherent model for it which could hold up under intense scrutiny.

Become less violent? Who said that crap? It's in our blood, look down your line of history. Vikings, barbarians, Nazi Germany, USA bombing Japan (twice), all the wars we've been in. It's in our blood, it's who we are, it's who we've always been.

You wouldn't say that the goal of humanity is to advance and become less violent towards one another?
History has nothing to do with what we are doing now, and you're assuming that 'it's in our blood' to be violent.
It's not in our blood, violence is the result of inequality and hardship in our world, it's not the other way around.

If we sort out the inequality in the world and lessen the hardships people face then less violence will occur.

Obviously this isn't going to happen overnight, but a state saying that it's OK to murder someone in retaliation and as 'justice' doesn't send the message that violence and violent retaliation is wrong.

The goal of humanity is not to become less violent, it may be on the list but it isn't a big priority. Have you ever heard the fact of "history repeats its self"? What did the white man do when he found the native Americans? We killed them and took their land. What did we do when we found black people? Enslaved them and killed them. What did the Nazi's do when they found Jews? They killed them. What is ISIS doing? Violence is part of yesterday, it's part of today, and will be part of tomorrow. Historically speaking, we kill to protect ourselves, show our dominance, and grow our wealth.

You will never reach equality. Someone will always be shorter, taller, heavier, lighter, darker, smarter, faster, etc.

Plain and simply, you will never end violence. Simple as that. One could argue that killing a murder may help stop violence because that person was a proven murderer, now that they are dead they won't be able to murder anyone else.

It's not so much of stopping violence as it is controlling it. What do we do with a wild fire? The goal is to contain it, not jump to putting it out.

002 wrote

Duderino wrote

002 wrote

Duderino wrote

002 wrote That's right, that's how it should be. You take someones life, your life will be taken. Plain and simple.

I don't think this is anything you can argue about with logic, but if you think that killing criminals by beheading them is how we become a less violent society, or that it's fulfilling some form of justice, then that is your prerogative.

Plato wrote a book where his character went around debunking everybody's philosophies of justice, so I doubt either of us have a coherent model for it which could hold up under intense scrutiny.

Become less violent? Who said that crap? It's in our blood, look down your line of history. Vikings, barbarians, Nazi Germany, USA bombing Japan (twice), all the wars we've been in. It's in our blood, it's who we are, it's who we've always been.

You wouldn't say that the goal of humanity is to advance and become less violent towards one another?
History has nothing to do with what we are doing now, and you're assuming that 'it's in our blood' to be violent.
It's not in our blood, violence is the result of inequality and hardship in our world, it's not the other way around.

If we sort out the inequality in the world and lessen the hardships people face then less violence will occur.

Obviously this isn't going to happen overnight, but a state saying that it's OK to murder someone in retaliation and as 'justice' doesn't send the message that violence and violent retaliation is wrong.

The goal of humanity is not to become less violent, it may be on the list but it isn't a big priority. Have you ever heard the fact of "history repeats its self"? What did the white man do when he found the native Americans? We killed them and took their land. What did we do when we found black people? Enslaved them and killed them. What did the Nazi's do when they found Jews? They killed them. What is ISIS doing? Violence is part of yesterday, it's part of today, and will be part of tomorrow. Historically speaking, we kill to protect ourselves, show our dominance, and grow our wealth.

You will never reach equality. Someone will always be shorter, taller, heavier, lighter, darker, smarter, faster, etc.

Plain and simply, you will never end violence. Simple as that. One could argue that killing a murder may help stop violence because that person was a proven murderer, now that they are dead they won't be able to murder anyone else.

It's not so much of stopping violence as it is controlling it. What do we do with a wild fire? The goal is to contain it, not jump to putting it out.

Historically speaking, we kill to protect ourselves, show our dominance, and grow our wealth.

I think this is becoming too broad of a discussion and needs to be refocused on the death penalty.
So while I agree with what you're saying about violence historically and continuing into the future, I don't think it all extends to the death penalty.

So taking these 3 reasons why we use the death penalty:

1) To protect ourselves.

Putting someone in prison for life will also stop them from killing anyone else.
There are precautions which can be taken to make sure that someone doesn't harm another person which don't involve killing the person.

2) To show our dominance.

I'll assume that you would want this to be changed to something like 'As a deterrent' in the context of the death penalty, so that's what I'll address.
The death penalty does not deter crime, and there are many studies which show this.
For example, North Carolina's murder rate actually declined after they stopped executing people.

3) To grow our wealth.

Using the current systems in place, we know that the death penalty costs more than life imprisonment.
If you wanted to change the current, already barbaric, system into something even more barbaric, like beheading them, then that is an argument for another time.
On the flipside, I could simply say 'Well let's build a prison in space so there is absolutely no chance of them escaping or killing any other innocent people.'

It's possible, but it's not plausible.

It's not so much of stopping violence as it is controlling it. What do we do with a wild fire? The goal is to contain it, not jump to putting it out.

Can you not see that you are the one jumping to put the fire out in this analogy?
Unless you believe that the death penalty should be allowed only for the reason of revenge, you must then believe that it should be allowed for the reason of deterrence.
Deterrence would be putting the fire out, not controlling it. But other fires will always start elsewhere.

The toxins used in a lethal injection is only about 100 bucks. It's all the legal crap that costs so much.

Also, this mentality that locking up murderers will stop them from killing, it won't. Believe it or not, people kill people in jail. These people being killed can be an innocent CO, the dude who is in there because of a DUI, the guy who violated his probation, etc.