Is The Death Sentence Really Needed In Laws?

[Avani]

I just said that to cover that I'm specifically talking about America when I talk about the death penalty, because sometimes I forget to bring that up when I talk about data/trends.

Yea that's fine. I was just making clear that both of us talking in the context of similar principles behind the law.

I'm saying that it can do this just fine with incarceration, whereas in the case of something like war, usually you do actually need to kill people in order to protect citizens. I don't think the state's authority should circumscribe all matters of life or death unless it can be shown that it is in fact necessary to do so.

You are missing the point- it's not about how state behaves in two situations- I was only reminding the most basic and first responsibility of state - keeping the people it rules safe from threats within and without.

Clarifying that my point is that if you're charging someone on a capital crime case, that means they're not coming out either way. So it doesn't really matter all that much if you kill them or if you let them live - there's not all that much at stake, as far as I can tell.

So exactly who is paying for their upkeep and facilities within? And all the security needed to keep them in and to save others from them and what not? Many of these violent criminals end up running their gang inside the jail too an victimizing the weaker and less hardened criminals jeopardizing their reformation too.

For death penalty cases: aggravated murder, so killing someone + something else to make it worse (killing children, murder-robberies, murder-rapes). There was a controversial ruling back in 2008 where the Supreme Court said you can't impose the death penalty for a non-homicide case, but I don't know how much the states have adapted to this, or if that ruling will stick.

As far as the effectiveness of incarceration goes, I mean you can't really study that for lifetime imprisonment or death row, can you? They never get out, unless they're exonerated after the fact. xD But for regular homicide, or rape, recidivism rates are pretty low. I don't know what you'd consider tolerable, but it's in like, the low single digits (1-3%). I don't really know what you mean by "how effective is incarceration," since the alternative to the death penalty is usually framed as life imprisonment, in the U.S. anyway.

Yes you can. You are arguing that death penalty is ineffective deterrent while incarceration works better- if you haven't studied it exactly on what data you are making this conclusion form? There has to be some source you are recalling.

What is a regular homicide exactly? In India death penalty is issued in "rarest of the rare case" and If USA has the option I suspect it's not that common there either. But we are not talking about regular cases are we?

My argument is what I said in my response to your previous quote, in the first paragraph.

Come on - it was a jumbled mess meaning little sense.

Sure, but like I said, I don't see how killing them makes a difference from just locking them up for life. Doesn't matter how psychopathic or violent they are (although, if they were super violent, they'd probably be incarcerated separately from everyone else, obviously). I'm looking at this in terms of "death penalty vs. life sentence," since that's the choice OP gave, not "death penalty vs. walk." They both accomplish the same thing. Society is protected (it's not like these dudes are escaping), and statistics on incidents of violence with lifers versus statistics of violence with death row inmates, afaik, don't exist (probably because it's not like death row inmates can really do all that much, given the circumstances of their incarceration separately from everybody else, from what I've read).

I had edited and added more examples after you quoted me but before you made the post-cases where kept a guy incarcerated till his friends hijacked a plane and got him freed- the guy went on planning 9/11 and 26/11 ( Mumbai) attack. keep counting the lives that might have been saved.

Negotiations

Maulana Masood Azhar – founded Jaish-e-Muhammed in 2000 which gained notoriety for its alleged role in the 2001 Indian Parliament attack.[13][14]
Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh – arrested in 2002 by Pakistani authorities for the abduction and murder of Daniel Pearl.[15][16]
Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar – has played an active role since release in training Islamic militants in POK.[17]

Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, who had been imprisoned in connection with the 1994 Kidnappings of Western tourists in India, went on to murder Daniel Pearl and also allegedly played a significant role in planning the September 11 attacks in the United States.[18]

You must be registered for see links

My original point was that there should be legal principles held above all else under which a country operates, and even though these legal principles are obviously constructed, we should try to emulate the ideal of the rule of law as closely as possible. I agree that all legal principles are constructed. My argument is that the absence of such a legal principle in the United States constitution doesn't mean that it shouldn't exist.

Problem is that people talking against it want it completely abolished. And not only in their own country. Their government and religious as well as supposed humanitarian organizations also lobby and fund against such movements in a country like ours.

As I said in my first post- I don't advocate it lightly but I want the option to stay and state should be have the authority to exercise it.

When I said this, I was responding to someone who I believed took it for granted that the state has the right to take the right to live away from those who take it away from someone else. My point was that it's not something that can be taken for granted.
Not sure what you're trying to communicate to me here. I don't really disagree with anything that's being said in this quote, anyway. As far as ideals being too subjective goes - well, there has to be some kind of ideal. The debate is on what the ideal is, yeah? This is starting to feel very abstract, so I'm willing to drop this point unless I'm reminded of what the relevance was. xD

The topic is should there be death penalty at all and if the state has the authority and why? That's the relevance.

Explained to you in VMs that I typoed when I said that. xD My bad. I agree with this, basically.

I'm well aware of this. I've said in other threads that in the States, Indian dudes can't really get into clubs (maybe this seems minor, but I'm saying that I'm extremely aware of how these stereotypes can pervade into other societies down to the most mundane levels xD) as easily as people of other ethnicities because of stereotypes arising from situations like this (even before that controversial case occurred). I also don't disagree with you about Germany and its handling of refugees, because

You must be registered for see links

. They should have checked themselves before coming at India so hard. Semi-feel like I'm going off topic though.

But India felt the impact from the international backlash, not as much from the crime itself (correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what you described, basically). I don't feel that this is comparable to your average death penalty case in the United States.

No rapists are not given death penalty here- not unless they murdered the person so you saying in a post that it will encourage them to kill doesn't fit in. They kill the victims so that they cannot report the crime at all- a crime that only have incarcerated them.

Death penalty vs. life sentence =/= lightly, imo. Anyway, death penalty has no noted deterring effects as it is instituted in the U.S. Don't know if there's data on how much it deters crime elsewhere.

I just checked wiki a total of 1 person was given death penalty in India in 2015 (1 person in a population of 1.2 billion)
Based on the official statistics of the National Crimes Records Bureau, between 2001 and 2011, an average of 132 death sentences were handed down each year. [4] However, the Supreme Court confirms barely 3 to 4 death sentences each year and only 1 last year.

In USA it says 28- However the wiki didn't mention the type of crime here.

As for the backlash- there is also a thing called racism that's at play here not that many are willing to accept it.

Argument is about life sentence vs. death penalty. If you want to use the scenario of this case, I would say they should have locked him up for life. Cases with minors are a whole different debate, though.

That example was only relevant to show the long term impact on society.

I can concede that if rape was a death penalty case, rapes would (hopefully, honestly, I'm actually not all that convinced that they would...maybe murder-rapes would go up instead, and I'm not joking :|) plummet. xD Is it ever a death penalty case in India? In the United States, it would have to be cases involving minors, but I don't know if that's still legal.

The debate isn't really about whether or not rape should be a death penalty case. But, if you want my opinion, it should be held to the same standard as murder, and I think it's wrong that it isn't held to that standard. But I think this is off topic.

As I said - I am not particularly advocating for death penalty for rape- unless of course it falls in the "rarest of the rare" category- you were talking about crimes not impacting society at large and talking about family seeking revenge so I mentioned the case to show crimes may affect on large scale.

That said, despite the perception that rapists are gonna rape, recidivism for rape is in the single-digits. This might have something to do with the *** offender registry in the United States, and I don't know what systems exist elsewhere. The issue seems to be more about punishing rapists at all rather than whether the punishment works (since way too many rapists never even are apprehended). But again, verging on off-topic.

It is off topic lol. You are on the wrong track.

For minor cases, yes. Not as much for cases like rape and murder (like I said, recidivism in the single digits). We're not gonna start killing people or locking them up for decades over burglaries, I hope.

................

I agree, and like I said, I don't know that keeping people and their property safe requires the death penalty, because it hasn't really been convincingly shown to me that this is the case.

No one can convince each individual because some would always play Uzumaki Naruto.

Yeah, this is why I specified that I was talking about the U.S. I don't know how it really goes in other countries, or what the numbers are. In the U.S., at least, there are other factors besides actual time served; inmates on death row are significantly more expensive to care for than inmates in regular/lifetime incarceration, and litigating their cases is more expensive. I don't know what the time spent on death row is in other countries (where there are death rows, anyway).

I know that in the U.S. you're pretty much saving quite a bit of money if you abolish the death penalty entirely and replace all those cases with life imprisonment cases, and I posted on this earlier in the thread with the sources and such.

Well if cost was the only consideration when it comes to handling criminals and punishments- hanging them on a tree is most cost effective and fast. But we don't do that do we? The options should be weighed carefully but removing death penalty altogether is not practical.

Now reviewing whether the way it's being applied and in the cases it's being applied is another matter.

Some final points:

[LIS T]
[*]I think you mentioned something about how since criminals are different due to intent, the punishments available should be different, and death penalty should be an option when it's clear that the criminal is a true psychopath and only exists to murder, rape, and plunder (not in these words, obviously)? I can't find the quote for some reason, but I'm pretty sure I read it. Just in case, as far as what I think about that goes: still not really convinced that life incarceration doesn't solve the problem. Like I've been saying, in the United States, at least, monetarily, it's not a question of it being more expensive.

As I said here the capital punishments are rare but the option is there. And I am strongly against the activists that keep advocating against it. Because they either have their ulterior political motives ( in India at least) or are people who do not understand legal principles nor think things through. They support abolition of death penalty just to be cool and modern. Steal their wallet and they will be up in arms to beat you up near death.

[* Recidivism is often prevented not only by the fact that we threw people in jail, but by the fact that once they're out of jail, they aren't ever going to be a full citizen again. Felons will always be felons in the US system. Their mobility in the country is limited, their status is going to be recorded and known by their employers most of the time, etc. So it's much harder to get into jail for something felonious (like murder, and especially like rape), come back out, and get away with or consider doing the same thing twice. It's not just about the punishment rendered by the court. And if you're on trial for a capital crime case, you're not getting out, death or life, either way.
[/LIST]

How many of these people who get rehabilitated successfully are psychopath and sociopaths enough to indulge in serious crimes that may warrant death penalty?

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

summary, the sense of safety you're talking about - I don't see why just keeping that person locked up for life isn't enough to maintain it.

Because I don't wish to pay to keep a rapist alive and healthy who wouldn't think twice while torturing a girl to death. The people who do things like that often not only relapse they also use it for threats again and others copy them too when they see these criminals being able to drag out cases in courts and practically get away like 70% times on technicalities. It's not like conviction rate in Western countries is that much higher either.

On top of it if you think just death penalties are a problem there are new theorists that want to abolish the prisons too.

You must be registered for see links

There will always be new experiment but I doubt any of these theories to deal with criminal better are perfect.

 

[Edogawa]

Yes, death penalty should be in laws.

1). Death penalty deters crimes when it is implemented, as Michael Summers, PhD, MBA, Professor of Management Science at Pepperdine University said:

"...[O]ur recent research shows that each execution carried out is correlated with about 74 fewer murders the following year... The study examined the relationship between the number of executions and the number of murders in the U.S. for the 26-year period from 1979 to 2004, using data from publicly available FBI sources... There seems to be an obvious negative correlation in that when executions increase, murders decrease, and when executions decrease, murders increase...

In the early 1980s, the return of the death penalty was associated with a drop in the number of murders. In the mid-to-late 1980s, when the number of executions stabilized at about 20 per year, the number of murders increased. Throughout the 1990s, our society increased the number of executions, and the number of murders plummeted. Since 2001, there has been a decline in executions and an increase in murders.

It is possible that this correlated relationship could be mere coincidence, so we did a regression analysis on the 26-year relationship. The association was significant at the .00005 level, which meant the odds against the pattern being simply a random happening are about 18,000 to one. Further analysis revealed that each execution seems to be associated with 71 fewer murders in the year the execution took place...

We know that, for whatever reason, there is a simple but dramatic relationship between the number of executions carried out and a corresponding reduction in the number of murders..."

2). Anti-death penalty activists say that the death penalty costs more than life in prison; this is false. The cost of trial process is what is expensive, not the death penalty itself. You could hang or shoot the suspect, it will not cost the state a thing. Furthermore, the anti-death penalty activists are basing this statement using American corrupt justice system. In any part of the world, the death penalty is cheap.

Let's also see the difference in costs between death sentence and life in prison.

The cost of executing per criminal is $450,000 x 28 criminals sentenced to death in the United States, referencing Amnesty International = $12,600,000 is what the US spent on executing convicts in 2015 total.

The cost of keeping a convict life in prison is $30,000 per convict x 160,000 convicts sentenced to life in prison in the United States, referencing The Sentencing Project, a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit criminal justice advocacy group 2012 = $480,000,000 is the total cost the US spent on life in prison convicts in total.

Therefore, the assertion that death rows cost more than life in prison is completely false, as figures prove it.

 

[Avani]

Spoiler

But at these points, who does decide when it's right or wrong to kill? The state? I don't see much difference, as in an execution you have a totally disarmed, fastened and often sedated person against a crew of executioners who kill him/her in painful ways (lethal injection is still a novelty, you usually have lapidations, hangings and electric chairs).

Spoiler

Your marines shoot two unarmed fishermen at the coast of Kerala and your state is standing behind them.
They ignore the international law and protocol and did not bother in inform the local authorities that they shoot two people down and when they are stopped by navy ( while they are running away) they claim they thought them to be Somali pirates. As if Somalian pirates are found on coasts of Kerala. In fact if they thought these were pirates then then it was double the reason for them to report to local authorities.

Who gave them right to shoot or armed them, if even the state possess no right to execute anyone? Next time you see a pirate please gift them One piece manga volumes and drink with them.

My point-
As long as there are people who are willing to shoot other people down- State shouldn't be only one without rights. Fighting an enemy or a criminal with your arm tied behind your back is not practical. And either a state possess the right to kill or not- if your army is shooting people down but your state didn't possess the right to begin with, exactly how it can authorize your army?

I agree, but if the state is the first to commit murder, what face would it make while making laws against murdering?

Please google the definition of murder.

I don't know that song, but you will agree with me that to find a peaceful way on one who wants to brawl is way better than fighting with him. You'd even play at his game if you accept to fight him. Not saying it's always possible to not fight him back, but well, I live near a couple of gypsy families and rhetoric saved my butt several times in such situations.

This part adds the volume to your post - but I fail to understand what is has to do with death penalty.

The parallelism you made with an army trying to invade your country grazes the nonsense. You say that someone who breaks the rule is like a military who tries to invade a country because it attacks the law. What? The danger of a aggressive war is billions of times major than the one of a guy who maybe killed somebody. And even in those cases, a peaceful end should be the best solution, as you don't want to let bloodsheds happen among the civil population. But a state that kills you is like an invaded state, there death penalty is 100% active.

No the parallelism you made with that gypsy example above, is what's defined as nonsense. I was referring to state's duties and rights.

Uhm..no?
Europe is super secular, way more than every single state of USA, as well as Canada, Australia, UK and lots of others. Where death
penalty is off.

Super secular lol. If it were that secular how come it's so keen to award Mother Teresa saint hood on a fast track? It's easy to claim being secular when you are living in a homogeneous society comparatively. But that's another debate. Back to the topic:

You must be registered for see links

The thing that makes me curious is that you have lots of preachers who speak in favor of death penalty.
But one of the persons my country can be more proud, Cesare Beccaria, lived during Enlightenment and spoke against death penalty, inspiring thousands of people worldwide. Don't know if he was religious but for sure you couldn't cling to religion in any way during those times in Europe.

The wording itself suggests the concept is coming from a religious background whether the guy practiced it or not. His theory is definitely grounded in the idea that only God has the right to take life otherwise he wouldn't say the "state does not possess the right to take lives". It would rather be along the line of "State shouldn't be given the right to take life" followed by an explanation. But state does end up taking lives in wars - from where that sanction comes? So the idea is rhetoric. Also there are other jurists who do not agree with that view.

And thank God for that! or we would have been living under the Hammurabi code. Made about 5000 years ago which appointed death penalty

.

It's not like you have progressed all that much, if you still believe your beliefs are the only correct interpretation of what's law and what's justice.

Dictatorship much? Laws should be based upon justice, not vice versa. If you give the state the power of creating justice then you must justify Nazism, Fascism and every absolutism or dictatorship ever existed.

Nope. You talk as if justice is a universal concept when every culture sees it differently and in fact even the two individuals from the same culture may not be seeing at it eye to eye.

Law is based upon accepted customs, traditions, beliefs, philosophy prevalent in a country and enacted by the state accordingly. They do not spring from vacuum.

Bold: I hope you were kidding here.

Not at all. Your government offered monetary compensation to dead fisherman's family while it wanted the case to be dismissed. Islamic Law allows accused getting off if one of the relatives of the victims forgives the accused. Taking the compensation of bloody money is acceptable in such a case. They have their own principles behind it. But in such a case the victim becomes a faceless causality and his right to live that was snatched from him becomes of zero value.

Imagine a little kid whose dad gets killed by the state. You give him money so you can say "hey, we slaughtered daddy! but it's OK, now with these you can buy every ice cream you want!".
How do you deal with his old parents? Who need help for everything and now they're forced to go in a retirement home without their son? Who probably get an infarct when you go say them you killed their son? How do you deal with his wife? Who has always loved him and without him has to grow a family and take care of economy alone? You pay her a permanent gigolo?

What kind of stupid argument is that? He should have thought about his kid, parents and wife when he took life of another. You think State has a duty towards the murderer but not towards the victim and his family?

Also all the opposition regarding death penalty comes from POV of the plight of the criminal. What about the victim? Recently it was a huge matter of debate in India and this was some of the SC judges had to say:

“It will help us all (whether retentionists or abolitionists) to put in true context the brutality or otherwise of the deaths, as compared and contrasted with the plight (sad as it is) of those convicted and under sentence of death,” reads the letter.

Nariman added that only a project like this “will help sociologists to draw useful conclusions about the pernicious effects of the death penalty and their relationship with heinous crimes, and above all, whether and to what extent the existing criminal justice system affords relief to victims of dastardly crimes.”

Former Delhi High Court Judge S N Dhingra, however, regretted that there seems to be no concerted effort to focus on victims of crime while convicts get “extraordinary attention” with the support of civil society groups.

“We have reached a stage where nobody cares about victims. If 50 people are killed in a terror attack, you will have a battery of senior lawyers defending the convicts but you would find nobody by the victims’ side,” said Dhingra. He added that death penalty and its execution has a political overtone while victims are easily forgotten.
.

No, a crippled state is the one which selects who lives and who dies. Such a state should really concentrate more about its business and traffic, since a good 90% of the states which use death penalty are underdeveloped.

Developed nations simply shoot them down:

You must be registered for see links

Do you have only rhetorics to offer? You shouldn't undermine the sufferings of voiceless and faceless victims of crimes just because you cannot see them anymore. It's devaluing their worth.

Death penalty is used by the countries that cannot afford to be naive and spoiled and aren't hypocrites about it.

I believe I already answered this but.. have you noticed that the country which really won every single war on its territory, a.k.a Russian Federation, doesn't have death penalty? And the country which always won every war it made (not counting colonial secessions, obviously) a.k.a England, doesn't use war penalty? I don't know where you took your information that not using death penalty = militarily weak but I can assure you it's not the case.

What nonsense you are on about? If you didn't understand my post, it's your problem. I don't have time to repeat myself. Try reading again or just ignore.

What about forced labors? Or socially-useful works? Those are way more useful than both jail and death and you're not being barbaric to anyone.

It was barbaric to shoot those fishermen - How about we keep the marines and make them work for the families of their victims- they can spend their rest of life fishing for them. I wonder if you guys will agree. But then-

Italy is making plans to send in the army after a series of murders as part of a brutal mafia war in Naples, a senior minister has announced.

A deadly turf war is raging between rival Camorra clans for control of extortion and drug markets with nine victims killed since the beginning of the year.

After three murders in just 24 hours, Italy's Interior Minister Angelino Alfano told Sky News Italy: "Now in Naples we need to send in the army.

"We have a division prepared as part of our Safer Streets Operation. Now we have to adapt the regulations so we can deploy more soldiers onto the streets."

National anti-mafia prosecutor Franco Roberti said that the situation in Naples was "unrivalled in Europe".

You must be registered for see links

Not having death penalty but sending army after the criminal gangs..- that's neat. I agree it's swifter and quicker and state still gets to say it didn't issue death penalty while getting rid of those it wants to rid off without having to prove anything in court or being considered barbaric.

 

[-PK-]

That's hypothetical bullshit TBH. Their death solves nothing. It does not bring your parents back. So, it does not matter if they sentence to prison or the death pentaly.



In that case, I shouldn't go to jail for murdering of a crinimal.

Hypothetical BS? Lol sure maybe in your world.

That was just an example but their have been cases similar to what i described in real life and will continue to happen.

That person's death can bring peace to the victim's family or should they continue to suffer because 1 person randomly decided to kill their loved one?
I am not saying the criminal's death solves their misery but to some people it is more comforting than seeing that person live.

 

[Deadlift]

Your marines shoot two unarmed fishermen at the coast of Kerala and your state is standing behind them.
They ignore the international law and protocol and did not bother in inform the local authorities that they shoot two people down and when they are stopped by navy ( while they are running away) they claim they thought them to be Somali pirates. As if Somalian pirates are found on coasts of Kerala. In fact if they thought these were pirates then then it was double the reason for them to report to local authorities.

Who gave them right to shoot or armsed them, if even the state possess no right to execute anyone? Next time you see a pirate please gift them One piece manga volumes and drink with them.

Well, the one of One Piece could be an interesting way, I'd prefer to go see together a Pirates of the Caribbean movie though XD but anyway I can't be serious while talking about Marò, as I was telling you last time, they've become a trash phenomenon. Learn more here:

You must be registered for see links

But it still is obvious that a country defends its countrymen as it can, it's just good sense. As a father would defend his son who did some dumbshit.

My point-
As long as there are people who are willing to shoot other people down- State shouldn't be only one without rights. Fighting an enemy or a criminal with your arm tied behind your back is not practical. And either a state possess the right to kill or not- if your army is shooting people down but your state didn't possess the right to begin with, exactly how it can authorize your army?

It obviously isn't the same thing, as self defence against an external enemy is not the same thing as a vengeance towards one who made a mistake. But let me turn it upside down: if a state claims to have the right to kill who considers useless or dangerous, why should any of us have a problem in killing anyone we believe it's dangerous?

Please google the definition of murder.

Done, and for me it is not any different from other forms of homicide.

This part adds the volume to your post - but I fail to understand what is has to do with death penalty.

No, it's still me the one who fails to understand the parallelism you made between a vulgar homicide and a foreigner invasion.

No the parallelism you made with that gypsy example above, is what's defined as nonsense. I was referring to state's duties and rights.

I was just trying to say that when violence is not required it is better to avoid it. Though I know it's not that simple to define when it's required or not.

Super secular lol. If it were that secular how come it's so keen to award Mother Teresa saint hood on a fast track? It's easy to claim being secular when you are living in a homogeneous society comparatively. But that's another debate. Back to the topic:

Mother Teresa has always been considered a saint woman here. It's just recently that we discovered that maybe she was more of an old crazy woman. But I can be wrong about her, thus I won't judge as it's evil to judge people without knowing. It still is an issue of the Vatican, not Europe (unless you are speaking about geogrphical Europe, but a 10.000 inhabitants town inside a metropolis shouldn't be a big example)

The wording itself suggests the concept is coming from a religious background whether the guy practiced it or not. His theory is definitely grounded in the idea that only God has the right to take life otherwise he wouldn't say the "state does not possess the right to take lives". It would rather be along the line of "State shouldn't be given the right to take life" followed by an explanation. But state does end up taking lives in wars - from where that sanction comes? So the idea is rhetoric. Also there are other jurists who do not agree with that view.

I would never have brought that argument, as I speak in religious terms only when I'm talking about religion or with a religious person. But it definitely makes sense, since playing God is a bad idea, every religious person should agree to that. I say should because it's plenty of Protestant preachers in the USA who go around invoking death penalty as a right and just thing.
But I believe it's not the case, as I would question back why people who consider a deadly sin to kill a cow don't have any problem in killing other people.

It's not like you have progressed all that much, if you still believe your beliefs are the only correct interpretation of what's law and what's justice.

No, we believe every single human being has rights from when he's born to when he dies. No matter what. And the right of the life is undeniable for us.

Nope. You talk as if justice is a universal concept when every culture sees it differently and in fact even the two individuals from the same culture may not be seeing at it eye to eye.

Uh, so you are a morality relativist too? At this point you will end up saying that morality is just a societal concept, as does someone who I'm fixing as soon as I finish my reply to you.
The complexity of the moral values can be seen differently between cultur and culture, but we've always shared some common points. Stealing has always been considered wrong. As well as random manslaughter.
But if you deny any value to morality, how can you speak about who is right and wrong or who deserve this or deserves that?

Law is based upon accepted customs, traditions, beliefs, philosophy prevalent in a country and enacted by the state accordingly. They do not spring from vacuum.

So law = folklore to you?

Not at all. Your government offered monetary compensation to dead fisherman's family while it wanted the case to be dismissed. Islamic Law allows accused getting off if one of the relatives of the victims forgives the accused. Taking the compensation of bloody money is acceptable in such a case. They have their own principles behind it. But in such a case the victim becomes a faceless causality and his right to live that was snatched from him becomes of zero value.

It's likeable that someone tries to help you when you lose an important person by offering something (and money is a thing that everybody likes so one goes quite smooth). But no, money are not a substitute of the life of a human being. Such a belief is way more dangerous than a spared murderer. I know it very well, since in the times of Fascism in Italy you would have gained money if reported someone who disagreed with the ideas of the regimen. It was a carnage. Sons who sold their father, husbands who sold their wives (and vice versa), just for a bunch of money.

What kind of stupid argument is that? He should have thought about his kid, parents and wife when he took life of another. You think State has a duty towards the murderer but not towards the victim and his family?

No, I believe the state has a duty towards everybody. If the murderer has already ruined a family, how different are you if ruin another?

Also all the opposition regarding death penalty comes from POV of the plight of the criminal. What about the victim? Recently it was a huge matter of debate in India and this was some of the SC judges had to say:

“It will help us all (whether retentionists or abolitionists) to put in true context the brutality or otherwise of the deaths, as compared and contrasted with the plight (sad as it is) of those convicted and under sentence of death,” reads the letter.

Uhm.. fantastic, I know India has its positive sides though.

Nariman added that only a project like this “will help sociologists to draw useful conclusions about the pernicious effects of the death penalty and their relationship with heinous crimes, and above all, whether and to what extent the existing criminal justice system affords relief to victims of dastardly crimes.”

Ok, will you inform me when the study is concluded?

Former Delhi High Court Judge S N Dhingra, however, regretted that there seems to be no concerted effort to focus on victims of crime while convicts get “extraordinary attention” with the support of civil society groups.

“We have reached a stage where nobody cares about victims. If 50 people are killed in a terror attack, you will have a battery of senior lawyers defending the convicts but you would find nobody by the victims’ side,” said Dhingra. He added that death penalty and its execution has a political overtone while victims are easily forgotten.

.

It really reminds Italian laws at Fascist times huh.

Developed nations simply shoot them down:

You must be registered for see links

Do you have only rhetorics to offer? You shouldn't undermine the sufferings of voiceless and faceless victims of crimes just because you cannot see them anymore. It's devaluing their worth.

So I have a good rhetoric game?? thank you!! finally someone who acknowledges my progresses :hug:
But still, you don't know what I've seen, so it's better we don't assume personal things about each other. But anyway, do you realize you are basing a law entirely on emotions and primary instincts?

Death penalty is used by the countries that cannot afford to be naive and spoiled and aren't hypocrites about it.

Naive? vengeance is naive, not creating a way more well working system of laws.

What nonsense you are on about? If you didn't understand my post, it's your problem. I don't have time to repeat myself. Try reading again or just ignore.

I guess I'll go with ignore..

It was barbaric to shoot those fishermen - How about we keep the marines and make them work for the families of their victims- they can spend their rest of life fishing for them. I wonder if you guys will agree. But then-

It wouldn't be a bad idea, still better than killing them.

You must be registered for see links

Not having death penalty but sending army after the criminal gangs..- that's neat. I agree it's swifter and quicker and state still gets to say it didn't issue death penalty while getting rid of those it wants to rid off without having to prove anything in court or being considered barbaric.

Uhm, no. It's obvious you don't know what mafia is in Southern Italy. It's not a criminal gang, it's another state. An illegal para-state who snakes around everything in the zones it controls. This is nothing about death penalty, this is war.
They corrupt everything, and never die. Government, military, business.. they're in. Interesting to notice how such a "gang" was born in times where death penalty was in act btw

 

[Lightbringer]

No I don't believe we do. We're not savages.

Killing someone for the act of murder or whatever crime, is no better than the crime itself in my eyes. Yes, they might be deplorable people, but we are different from them, that is why we should seek other methods rather than exacting the same methods as the criminal.

Prisons should be a place of penance and rehabilitation, not torture and death.

 

[Punk Hazard]

No I don't believe we do. We're not savages.

Killing someone for the act of murder or whatever crime, is no better than the crime itself in my eyes. Yes, they might be deplorable people, but we are different from them, that is why we should seek other methods rather than exacting the same methods as the criminal.

Prisons should be a place of penance and rehabilitation, not torture and death.

The difference lies not in not committing the act, but why we commit the act. If the act is justified, then there's no way it's as bad as an unjustified case of the act.

The line being criminal and execution is defined by the line between malice and punishment.

 

[Power Bottom]

Just lock their ass up to rot. The death penalty is the easy way out for them

 

[Lightbringer]

The difference lies not in not committing the act, but why we commit the act. If the act is justified, then there's no way it's as bad as an unjustified case of the act.

The line being criminal and execution is defined by the line between malice and punishment.

And how is killing justified? Perhaps in the murderer's eyes, his act was justified as well. Perhaps he killed another killer for the sake of vengeance or whatever other reason.

Why instantly go and end his life and pretend like we are doing it for the sake of justice. Killing is not justice.

 

[Claymantan]

To Edogawa:

Spoiler

2). Anti-death penalty activists say that the death penalty costs more than life in prison; this is false. The cost of trial process is what is expensive, not the death penalty itself. You could hang or shoot the suspect, it will not cost the state a thing. Furthermore, the anti-death penalty activists are basing this statement using American corrupt justice system. In any part of the world, the death penalty is cheap.

This was like the first thing I said in this thread. I don't see how the trial process expenses don't matter. And the assumption that America's death penalty system is more corrupt than that of other systems needs backing sources, because that's a very contentious claim. xD

The cost of executing per criminal is $450,000 x 28 criminals sentenced to death in the United States, referencing Amnesty International = $12,600,000 is what the US spent on executing convicts in 2015 total.

The cost of keeping a convict life in prison is $30,000 per convict x 160,000 convicts sentenced to life in prison in the United States, referencing The Sentencing Project, a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit criminal justice advocacy group 2012 = $480,000,000 is the total cost the US spent on life in prison convicts in total.

Therefore, the assertion that death rows cost more than life in prison is completely false, as figures prove it.

Duh, because there's more convicts than death row inmates? :| You just aggregated what's being spent. Nobody ever claimed more was being spent on the death penalty than every single prisoner doing time in life sentences combined.

$450,000 * 160,000 executed = $72,000,000,000. + 28 more prisoners = $72,012,000,000.

$30,000* 160,028 imprisoned = $4,800,840,000.

Spoiler

This doesn't prove anything either.

Basically, big strawman response to thread. Afaik no one made any of these claims during the argument, and you're misrepresenting what people mean when they say death penalty is more expensive. They mean if you take one death row case and one life incarceration case, the average amount of money spent on the death penalty case (trial process included, never denied this and Amnesty International accounts for this too) exceeds that of the life sentence case significantly. They're not saying that the few hundred death penalty cases in the U.S. exceed the cost of incarcerating every person incarcerated for life in prison ever.

To JG:

Spoiler

You are missing the point- it's not about how state behaves in two situations- I was only reminding the most basic and first responsibility of state - keeping the people it rules safe from threats within and without.

Okay, I agree, the state has a responsibility to protect its citizens.

So exactly who is paying for their upkeep and facilities within? And all the security needed to keep them in and to save others from them and what not? Many of these violent criminals end up running their gang inside the jail too an victimizing the weaker and less hardened criminals jeopardizing their reformation too.

Afaik it's not really lifers running the gangs. You might be conflating the lifers serving life sentences for non-violent crimes (accumulated offenses that add up to a life sentence =/= someone serving a life sentence for a capital crime; we're talking about the latter).

You're painting a story that needs sources to back up, because while it's true that inmates do this, to say that it's the specifically people serving life sentences for capital crimes needs proof. I strongly doubt it though, because if you're talking about the same lifers who would need separate staffing because they're dangerous, they're not going to be the ones leading the gangs, because they literally can't.

As far as things being on the taxpayer's dollar, so is the death penalty. The other dude posted a bunch of stats and I responded to that (you can read it if you want), but basically, yes, the death penalty is on average more expensive than life sentences. We're just not spending most of our money on death sentences, because obviously far more people are serving capital crime life sentences than are on death row. xD If they were all on death row, the numbers would be different (we'd be spending $0 on life sentences! Life sentences would suddenly be the cheapest option! >.>).

Yes you can. You are arguing that death penalty is ineffective deterrent while incarceration works better- if you haven't studied it exactly on what data you are making this conclusion form? There has to be some source you are recalling.

I didn't know you were talking about deterrence, specifically. Sorry,

You must be registered for see links

is

You must be registered for see links

in

You must be registered for see links

. While the one guy above found one study that said that the death penalty is a deterrent, far more find that it is not a deterrent.

(Obviously, the states without the death penalty have the life sentence in place of it. A study of one is a study of the effectiveness of the other, the studies are based on comparing states.)

There's some texture to the data. Overall, overwhelmingly no deterrence whatsoever in cases of homicide. There was one study where the death penalty was found to have a reductive impact in some states of up to 20% for child-murder (it's in one of the sets linked above), but I looked around and no one's followed up on that, strangely, so I don't know how accepted that is or whether there's been anything done in regards to that since (2009?). Haven't read about any studies finding statistically significant deterrence in other areas.

I should also add, because people always overlook this, but zero deterrence is also the same as saying crime is worse in the states with the death penalty. In other words, states with the death penalty in the U.S. tend to have higher homicide rates (one of the datasets above points out that cops are most at risk working in death-penalty states). However, correlation =/= causation, so I won't dwell on that too much.

What is a regular homicide exactly? In India death penalty is issued in "rarest of the rare case" and If USA has the option I suspect it's not that common there either. But we are not talking about regular cases are we?

We're not, I only mentioned it because I wasn't sure what you meant in reference to "effectiveness." Based on your post I know that you meant deterrence.

I had edited and added more examples after you quoted me but before you made the post-cases where kept a guy incarcerated till his friends hijacked a plane and got him freed- the guy went on planning 9/11 and 26/11 ( Mumbai) attack. keep counting the lives that might have been saved.

If this was 1999, I'd be more moved by this. It's now a post-9/11 world, with all the added security that that implies, especially in the context of the USA. xD

Problem is that people talking against it want it completely abolished. And not only in their own country. Their government and religious as well as supposed humanitarian organizations also lobby and fund against such movements in a country like ours.

As I said in my first post- I don't advocate it lightly but I want the option to stay and state should be have the authority to exercise it.

Is there a legal principle in India that mandates the death penalty? Debate over a law is always legitimate, anyway.

There are some real issues when it comes to foreign intervention in national sovereignty, but I doubt in this case that the foreign organizations just showed up without being called by activists native to India. If they did do that, I don't see why you guys are having such a hard time getting rid of them. xD

No rapists are not given death penalty here- not unless they murdered the person so you saying in a post that it will encourage them to kill doesn't fit in. They kill the victims so that they cannot report the crime at all- a crime that only have incarcerated them.

You're right, it was a silly thing to say. xD

I just checked wiki a total of 1 person was given death penalty in India in 2015 (1 person in a population of 1.2 billion)
Based on the official statistics of the National Crimes Records Bureau, between 2001 and 2011, an average of 132 death sentences were handed down each year. [4] However, the Supreme Court confirms barely 3 to 4 death sentences each year and only 1 last year.

In USA it says 28- However the wiki didn't mention the type of crime here.

What's the point you're making?

As for the backlash- there is also a thing called racism that's at play here not that many are willing to accept it.

The backlash was indeed racist.

That example was only relevant to show the long term impact on society.

The long-term impact on Indian society was due to this particular case being publicized into the international eye. What was the situation with the last high-profile death sentence case in India, if there was such a case that made it into the public eye?

As I said - I am not particularly advocating for death penalty for rape- unless of course it falls in the "rarest of the rare" category- you were talking about crimes not impacting society at large and talking about family seeking revenge so I mentioned the case to show crimes may affect on large scale.

See above.

No one can convince each individual because some would always play Uzumaki Naruto.

Okay, the other way to phrase this is that the only evidence you've shown to say that incarceration alone can't convincingly protect society is a case from 1999 prior to the advent of the post-9/11 American security regime.

Well if cost was the only consideration when it comes to handling criminals and punishments- hanging them on a tree is most cost effective and fast. But we don't do that do we? The options should be weighed carefully but removing death penalty altogether is not practical.

Now reviewing whether the way it's being applied and in the cases it's being applied is another matter.

Seems pretty practical considering the statistics you shared on how rarely it's applied. xD But I agree that cost alone isn't enough to invalidate the death penalty on principle if a cheaper method is available. However, there are reasons why I think a significantly cheaper option will never be found, particularly in the U.S.:

• I don't see how they would make the trial process cheaper.
• I don't see how keeping prisoners on death row could be made significantly cheaper (turning death row detention facilities into Gitmo is never happening, and they by nature have to be incarcerated separately from everyone else)
• I don't see how the process for executions can be sped up significantly more quickly so that the costs of incarcerating death row inmates is mitigated and becomes less of an issue, in the United States, at least. Again, I don't know what kind of process other countries have. People say we could just string death penalty convicts up to a tree, but how many countries are close to realizing this ideal effectively?

And that last point I just made about being unable to realistically mitigate the time prisoners spend on death row in the U.S., here's why:

• It's probably always going to be at least two years before you actually get to do the deed, because there will always have to be a time period where the appeals process can take place (this is always going to be the case, review of court cases is a fundamental part of the American court system that is never going to go away).
• The appeals processes themselves will by nature take a long time.
• You must be registered for see links
  When DNA evidence came about, it was pretty bad publicity for the legitimacy of the death penalty. xD

I mean, these reasons are literally why in the States people are taking 13-30 years to be executed. That other dude claimed corruption, but I'm not really going to pay that any heed unless someone shows me some evidence. xD But my point is that these two issues are fundamental parts of the American legal system that aren't going away anytime soon. So I don't see a cheaper death penalty on the horizon.

Now, you can say, "Well only reserve the death penalty for cases where it's very clear and obvious," like other people have been saying, but that's assuming that that's not what they're already doing. It's a lengthy process to get put on death row (which is partially why the trials are so expensive).

So overall, I'd say reforming the death penalty is the most impractical thing, for the reasons above, in the U.S.. That's why I'm advocating for it being removed within the context of the U.S.

Obviously every legal context is different, and I don't know enough about, say, India. I'd have to know things like "How long are prisoners on death row?" "How expensive are the trials?" "How many instances are there of people being convicted on a death sentence and being found innocent?" "Is there a deterrence effect?" "Can death penalty rulings be appealed?" etc. These are all things I have an idea of for the States, but not elsewhere. I don't know if the United States is a case of exceptionalism or is an example of how any developed country with the death penalty still active would do it.

As I said here the capital punishments are rare but the option is there. And I am strongly against the activists that keep advocating against it. Because they either have their ulterior political motives ( in India at least) or are people who do not understand legal principles nor think things through. They support abolition of death penalty just to be cool and modern. Steal their wallet and they will be up in arms to beat you up near death.

What ulterior political motives? Anyway, I don't support the abolition of the death penalty to be cool and modern, and I'm pretty emphatic that I'm only talking about what (I think, but so far no one's shown that anything I've been saying in regards to how it works in the States is wrong) I know, which is the States.

How many of these people who get rehabilitated successfully are psychopath and sociopaths enough to indulge in serious crimes that may warrant death penalty?

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

The first link is about life sentences being commuted, and I haven't said a single thing saying life sentences should be commuted. I agree with the survivors of the victims; life should mean life.

The second link is more legit, but it's not like I denied that this happens anyway. I said earlier that the recidivism rate for murder is between 1% and 3%. In any case, life incarceration (proper life incarceration) remains a legitimate solution for those cases.

Because I don't wish to pay to keep a rapist alive and healthy who wouldn't think twice while torturing a girl to death. The people who do things like that often not only relapse they also use it for threats again and others copy them too when they see these criminals being able to drag out cases in courts and practically get away like 70% times on technicalities. It's not like conviction rate in Western countries is that much higher either.

Like I said before, personal feelings aren't really a justification for instituting the death penalty as opposed to life incarceration, even if you were the survivor of a victim. Same as personal feelings aren't a justification for legal reform in most areas (it's based on legal principles like whether a law would contradict a right, or would protect a right, would reinforce existing law, etc.) As for the "getting out on technicalities" stuff goes, I agree that life should mean life. I'm advocating for life incarceration, not life incarceration until we forget why we handed down a life sentence in the first place.

On top of it if you think just death penalties are a problem there are new theorists that want to abolish the prisons too.

You must be registered for see links

The essay doesn't say to do away with prisons (maybe I missed the line, but I read it once and skimmed it a second time, so I dunno). It says prisons don't work. Which is what you're also arguing, in a sense. xD

 

[Chie]

And how is killing justified? Perhaps in the murderer's eyes, his act was justified as well. Perhaps he killed another killer for the sake of vengeance or whatever other reason.

Why instantly go and end his life and pretend like we are doing it for the sake of justice. Killing is not justice.

It doesn't matter whether or not they thought it was justified. Naturally, they thought the act was justified- otherwise, they would not have gone through with it. We can't say it was okay because they thought it was okay.

A person killing for the sake of vengeance isn't going to be justified in any way unless they were avenging a death on their side. An eye for an eye is really the only justification for vengeance (imo, you are free to disagree if you think someone should take vengeance farther than exacting the crime that was done to them back on the perpetrator, I just don't).

However, if that is the case then in America (just using this as an example since the OP mentioned this nation)- this does not really have a basis to occur within the US w/ crimes committed by US citizens in the sense that the death penalty is not automatically given... it's never just "instantly go and end his/her life". Extensive trials take place before a decision is made and things go from there. It takes years after the decision is made for the execution to actually happen.

Look at this site for the amount of years, names, etc:

You must be registered for see links

^All of these people were murderers/serial killers. What did they get though? They got years in prison being kept alive, fed, etc via peoples' tax dollars and then their way of death was via lethal injection... while their victims were bludgeoned/shot/stabbed/etc to death. Even this barely seems like justice tbh. Sorry if that sounds morbid on my end.

I guess it's up to one's own perspective, but I don't think that rehabilitation is always the answer as in most cases people relapse and it fails miserably. It also seems like a skewed way of justice when the families of those victims see the murderer getting another chance while their loved one never gets to breathe again. One again, just my point of view.

 

[Dannie]

Yes it is, because there are actually some crazy ass people who live in this world that shoot up schools, churches, and parks all for selfish causes or revenge. What would happen if some maniac shot up 50 people in a community building? Would you not want him/her to die? Are you really going to waste time locking this piece of trash in a cell for the remainder of their life when you can just end their life like they deserve?

"Oh look, this man just raped and murdered an 11 year old girl. Let's lock him up, give him food, shelter, and clothing for the rest of his life."

How Foolish. What a complete waste of resources for this trash that nobody even wants to see.

The death sentence also serves as a form of justice for the murdered victims families. This removes more threats to society. I also see this as an act of free will for the one who broke the law. If you decide to kill someone, you must accept responsibility for your actions and own up to your punishment. It was their decision to kill that man or it was their decision to rape those girls and then kill them afterwards. Why should we show these bastards any sympathy when they are the ones who chose to take that route in the first place?

I am not in favor of people who commit horrible acts and all they get is life in prison. If you want to kill many innocents then meet your punishment and die like the good little piece of shit that you are.

 

[DominiqueX]

Yes it is, because there are actually some crazy ass people who live in this world that shoot up schools, churches, and parks all for selfish causes or revenge. What would happen if some maniac shot up 50 people in a community building? Would you not want him/her to die? Are you really going to waste time locking this piece of trash in a cell for the remainder of their life when you can just end their life like they deserve?

"Oh look, this man just raped and murdered an 11 year old girl. Let's lock him up, give him food, shelter, and clothing for the rest of his life."

How Foolish. What a complete waste of resources for this trash that nobody even wants to see.

The death sentence also serves as a form of justice for the murdered victims families. This removes more threats to society. I also see this as an act of free will for the one who broke the law. If you decide to kill someone, you must accept responsibility for your actions and own up to your punishment. It was their decision to kill that man or it was their decision to rape those girls and then kill them afterwards. Why should we show these bastards any sympathy when they are the ones who chose to take that route in the first place?

I am not in favor of people who commit horrible acts and all they get is life in prison. If you want to kill many innocents then meet your punishment and die like the good little piece of shit that you are.

I agree that there are a lot of monsters in this world who don't deserve to being kept alive with massive amounts of money of innocent people. Such monsters don't deserve food, shelter, clothing etc. But the death penalty is executed in a very bad way, if you ask me. It's just wrong when they sit on their ass in prison for what? 10, 20 years? And then they are killed in ways that cost a massive amount of money too. And that's not necessary. In addition to that, I think a quick death is a gift for them, it's too easy.

If it was up to me to decide what to do with such creatures, I'd force them to serve as test objects for medical research, instead of using and killing countless innocent animals. And when these criminals aren't needed anymore, throw them into a dungeon without daylight, food and water, where they can think about their crimes while dying like trash. Then burn their bodies and get rid of the ashes, maybe even use it as fertilizer, so that they can be useful one last time.

 

[Don Drama]

I mean i know they're are pyschooaths and sociopaths etc etc.

I know that there are people who have no regard for human life.

But why not settle for life in prison?

Do they not know a person's life isnt there own?

What if they killer had relatives that loved them and tried to help?

Who do they turn their anger and anguish towards for giving their love one death sentence instead of life?

The gov cant tell the people their anger isnt justified either.

The goal is to avoid deaths as much as possible. Not reciprocate it as "revenge" or "cause they deserved"

If people keep using this mentality they going to continue to birth the very thing they're trying to defeat.

Just settle for life sentence.

Killing is wrong yeah, But going by that logic look at our history.

America took the live's of millions of innocent people but because it's in our personal interest it's apparently okay.

Besides the optimist need to get real. The gov isnt about bringing peace, it's about personal interest.

Each politician has their own agenda in mind. And when countries work together it's usually for mutual benefit.

Law's arent in place for a Utopian society. it's in place to keep you in check so you as in individual keep provide more to your country.

And when your not or just downright going against set standards (criminals and enemies) you casted aside (jail,prison,etc)


Death Sentence is hypocritical of america!! take it away!

No need to regulate as long as the Government must legalize harvesting of internal organs such as Kidneys and retina to prisoners who are in death row.

 

[Edogawa]

To Edogawa:

This was like the first thing I said in this thread. I don't see how the trial process expenses don't matter. xD

Trial process expenses don't translate to death penalty cost. Two different things.

And the assumption that America's death penalty system is more corrupt than that of other systems needs backing sources, because that's a very contentious claim.

Where did I say that it's more corrupt than other systems? I said that US justice system is more expensive than other countries, and that so-called anti-death penalty activists base death penalty costs using American justice system. It's cheap in other countries.

$450,000 * 160,000 executed = $72,000,000,000. + 28 more prisoners = $72,012,000,000.

I can tell you failed maths. Where did you get 160,000 from? Your calculation is a complete trash. Do you honestly think the US will spend $72 billion on execution? That figure isn't present in federal or state budget. Go back to school and take math lessons.

$30,000* 160,028 imprisoned = $4,800,840,000.

Go to school, boy.

Basically, big strawman response to thread. Afaik no one made any of these claims during the argument, and you're misrepresenting what people mean when they say death penalty is more expensive. They mean if you take one death row case and one life incarceration case, the average amount of money spent on the death penalty case (trial process included, never denied this and Amnesty International accounts for this too) exceeds that of the life sentence case significantly. They're not saying that the few hundred death penalty cases in the U.S. exceed the cost of incarcerating every person incarcerated for life in prison ever.

You're speaking for yourself, not the people.

 

[Avani]

Well, the one of One Piece could be an interesting way, I'd prefer to go see together a Pirates of the Caribbean movie though XD but anyway I can't be serious while talking about Marò, as I was telling you last time, they've become a trash phenomenon. Learn more here:

You must be registered for see links

But it still is obvious that a country defends its countrymen as it can, it's just good sense. As a father would defend his son who did some dumbshit.

Yea- I know all about the public pressure on governments when a citizen goes abroad and ends up involved in some stupid thing - often their own fault.

I am just mocking the whole concept of " state doesn't possess the right to take life" because as humane and principled it comes off, state is obviously been invested that right in to it or it cannot defend either.

It obviously isn't the same thing, as self defence against an external enemy is not the same thing as a vengeance towards one who made a mistake. But let me turn it upside down: if a state claims to have the right to kill who considers useless or dangerous, why should any of us have a problem in killing anyone we believe it's dangerous?

So, in the end you say that the claim that the state doesn't posses the right, is conditional?

"State doesn't possess the right" doesn't sound half as impressive when you consider the part where it does have that right after all. Bring in the " should" and be less of a hypocrite. lol

Done, and for me it is not any different from other forms of homicide.

Unfortunately that doesn't fly since you didn't make this word and we are not talking about your personal feeling about this word. So official meaning stays that says murder is an unauthorized killing. That's the reason why you do not get tried for murder when you shoot in line of duty or fighting an enemy.

No, it's still me the one who fails to understand the parallelism you made between a vulgar homicide and a foreigner invasion.

You don't even understand what murder is.

I was just trying to say that when violence is not required it is better to avoid it. Though I know it's not that simple to define when it's required or not.

You equated talking to gypsies to a criminal being persecuted in court..

Mother Teresa has always been considered a saint woman here. It's just recently that we discovered that maybe she was more of an old crazy woman. But I can be wrong about her, thus I won't judge as it's evil to judge people without knowing. It still is an issue of the Vatican, not Europe (unless you are speaking about geogrphical Europe, but a 10.000 inhabitants town inside a metropolis shouldn't be a big example)

I was talking about Geographical Europe because you were talking about geographical Europe. Let's leave it at that.

I would never have brought that argument, as I speak in religious terms only when I'm talking about religion or with a religious person. But it definitely makes sense, since playing God is a bad idea, every religious person should agree to that. I say should because it's plenty of Protestant preachers in the USA who go around invoking death penalty as a right and just thing.
But I believe it's not the case, as I would question back why people who consider a deadly sin to kill a cow don't have any problem in killing other people.

India is the biggest exporter of the beef in the world. Welcome to India.

. Cow is considered sacred because it has been a backbone to agriculture dependent Indian economy for a long time. Bulls were used in the fields and cow provided milk. It's protected status ensured that even during bad times and famines the farmer may let it fend for itself but wouldn't kill thus the policy protected castles till the weather was better. It does show enough intelligence to understand feelings and get sad or happy along with family members etc.
Hinduismsimply teaches you to respect your means of livelihood or animals or plants from which you are so highly dependent.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

Many in the West will be shocked if you shoot their dog or try to eat it while in some other places it can be a delicacy. So it's not like the concept of regarding your pets or domesticated animals with love and care is completely alien to you :shrug:

No, we believe every single human being has rights from when he's born to when he dies. No matter what. And the right of the life is undeniable for us.

Accept that you don't give a shit when he dies. Then he is just a statistics and useless for the state and state has no responsibility to punish the culprit. Murderer only needs reform.

Uh, so you are a morality relativist too? At this point you will end up saying that morality is just a societal concept, as does someone who I'm fixing as soon as I finish my reply to you.
The complexity of the moral values can be seen differently between cultur and culture, but we've always shared some common points. Stealing has always been considered wrong. As well as random manslaughter.
But if you deny any value to morality, how can you speak about who is right and wrong or who deserve this or deserves that?

Yawn. Justice doesn't have a universal concept. Your rant here has nothing to do with my post.

Law is based upon accepted customs, traditions, beliefs, philosophy prevalent in a country and enacted by the state accordingly. They do not spring from vacuum.

So law = folklore to you?

Go here-

You must be registered for see links

It will be a good start.

I am not going to bother with the rest with this kind of arguments you come up with. I am short on time and yours is more driven by emotions than anything really logical. I disagree with your reasoning. And you disagree with mine. Let's leave at that.

 

[Lightbringer]

It doesn't matter whether or not they thought it was justified. Naturally, they thought the act was justified- otherwise, they would not have gone through with it. We can't say it was okay because they thought it was okay.

A person killing for the sake of vengeance isn't going to be justified in any way unless they were avenging a death on their side. An eye for an eye is really the only justification for vengeance (imo, you are free to disagree if you think someone should take vengeance farther than exacting the crime that was done to them back on the perpetrator, I just don't).

However, if that is the case then in America (just using this as an example since the OP mentioned this nation)- this does not really have a basis to occur within the US w/ crimes committed by US citizens in the sense that the death penalty is not automatically given... it's never just "instantly go and end his/her life". Extensive trials take place before a decision is made and things go from there. It takes years after the decision is made for the execution to actually happen.

Look at this site for the amount of years, names, etc:

You must be registered for see links

^All of these people were murderers/serial killers. What did they get though? They got years in prison being kept alive, fed, etc via peoples' tax dollars and then their way of death was via lethal injection... while their victims were bludgeoned/shot/stabbed/etc to death. Even this barely seems like justice tbh. Sorry if that sounds morbid on my end.

I guess it's up to one's own perspective, but I don't think that rehabilitation is always the answer as in most cases people relapse and it fails miserably. It also seems like a skewed way of justice when the families of those victims see the murderer getting another chance while their loved one never gets to breathe again. One again, just my point of view.

And what exactly do you gain from their death? What is the point of killing them?

Also 4.1% of people sentenced to death end up being innocent of the crime. That is not ok. Their entire life has been crumbled up and discarded from the minds of the majority of people because they've been convicted, especially wrongly.

They were at the wrong place at the wrong time and now their lives have become a living nightmare, waiting to be murdered for something that they have not done.

Sure some people might deserve death. And of course, some people have no chance at being rehabilitated and should be separated from society indefinitely; but if the trade off is killing 4.1% of innocent people, then it is not even a question.

And if enacting death is so important with you, and you're ok with murdering 4.1% of the innocent people, then you're state of mind is no better than the criminals you're condemning and should reevaluate your position.

 

[Trúth]

I used to be 100% in support of it and I actually wished it was done more efficiently. But eh, my opinions been changed by the number of people executed that are actually innocent. Even if the number is small it still bothers me that we discover they're innocent after they've already died for the crime. Sure being in prison for life when you're innocent is bad, but on the chance that your innocence is proven at least you're not dead.

The government should have to pay for you to create a new life in such cases though imo.

 

[Chie]

And what exactly do you gain from their death? What is the point of killing them?

Not me. The victims' families- they need some form of closure.

Also 4.1% of people sentenced to death end up being innocent of the crime. That is not ok. Their entire life has been crumbled up and discarded from the minds of the majority of people because they've been convicted, especially wrongly.

They were at the wrong place at the wrong time and now their lives have become a living nightmare, waiting to be murdered for something that they have not done.

I was unaware of the percentage, so thanks for providing it (albeit without a source, but you're usually a well-informed poster so I don't have a problem taking your word for it).

Sure some people might deserve death. And of course, some people have no chance at being rehabilitated and should be separated from society indefinitely; but if the trade off is killing 4.1% of innocent people, then it is not even a question.

And if enacting death is so important with you, and you're ok with murdering 4.1% of the innocent people, then you're state of mind is no better than the criminals you're condemning and should reevaluate your position.

@underlined- No, I'm not "okay" with murdering innocent people. And that retort could be taken either way btw.
Don't support death penalty? One could say that by default that is equivalent to supporting murder of innocents as adequate repercussions were not present for the individual who willingly carried out the heartless act. Support death penalty? One could say that by default- well, your argument just now. But those are both pretty shoddy and sweeping statements. There's much more to it than that.

I wouldn't say either of us supports "murder of innocents".

I get what you mean. You don't think a chance should be taken when innocent lives could be put on the line. It's not fair and you believe that it's better to not even start a scenario where an innocent person could be placed on death row, that the issue should just not be touched.

However, with this there is no justice for many and crime continues (as most murderers actually don't fear life in prison, if that's the worst that could happen to them) moreso than it does with the presence of the death penalty.

An innocent person being condemned for a crime they did not commit doesn't stem just from the existence of the death penalty. It stems from an inefficient justice system that is not thorough enough. It's a dark reality. Should we also stop putting people behind bars period, since people could mistakenly spend years in prison for something they didn't do? Should we stop punishing criminals altogether and just play it 100% safe then? I don't think that's feasible either.

I'd rather support the usual penalties for crimes (ex in this thread: death penalty for a murderer) in addition to a better, more careful and thorough justice system.

But maybe that's all a pipe dream since the death penalty is not getting removed as you wish and there are not going to be more actions taken in order to truly confirm someone of an evil act like I wish (in order to avoid killing an innocent person) anytime soon.

 

[Torche]

Yes it is, because there are actually some crazy ass people who live in this world that shoot up schools, churches, and parks all for selfish causes or revenge. What would happen if some maniac shot up 50 people in a community building? Would you not want him/her to die? Are you really going to waste time locking this piece of trash in a cell for the remainder of their life when you can just end their life like they deserve?

"Oh look, this man just raped and murdered an 11 year old girl. Let's lock him up, give him food, shelter, and clothing for the rest of his life."

How Foolish. What a complete waste of resources for this trash that nobody even wants to see.

The death sentence also serves as a form of justice for the murdered victims families. This removes more threats to society. I also see this as an act of free will for the one who broke the law. If you decide to kill someone, you must accept responsibility for your actions and own up to your punishment. It was their decision to kill that man or it was their decision to rape those girls and then kill them afterwards. Why should we show these bastards any sympathy when they are the ones who chose to take that route in the first place?

I am not in favor of people who commit horrible acts and all they get is life in prison. If you want to kill many innocents then meet your punishment and die like the good little piece of shit that you are.

You must be registered for see images

Never saw the logic behind wasting resources like that. :|