Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He deserves to live because people like him being executed sets a precedent for a system that convicts and kills innocent people. Besides, life in prison is more than enough - same result for outer society, and less money spent on appeals.
I hope the U.S. does join the rest of the civilized world and abolish the death penalty.
Facts are great and all but even when one presents facts there are others that don't like the source they got them from. Unless the facts agree with their opinion then they don't matter. For instance; chem trails, fracking, global warming, etc..I have found plenty of scientific proof for and against these and it would not help my argument in a debate at all. Since when cant a debate be made with personal opinions or scenarios? Just because I have no issues eliminating a group of killers without thought does not make me wrong, it just means we have different ways of doing things. I don't need facts to back up my opinions, because they are my opinions.
I did not stumble in with an emotional opinion. That is how I feel plain and simple. Eliminating people who don't respect innocent peoples lives is making the world a better place. Not only is there consequence to their actions but now it may also be a deterrent for other contemplating killing someone else. Crime will continue without harsh consequence.
Why should someone be allowed to live after taking someone elses life? Why is their life more important than the victims? Again, there are certain scenarios where I feel the death penalty would be wrong but for the most part I like to fix the problem instead of putting a bandaid over it as harsh as it may sound.
Ok... wow...
I have so much to say, and it's to the point that I'm going to use chapters to separate my points. Should you choose to respond, which I hope you do, you'll only need to respond to one (preferably one of the last two, but if it's necessary, go for the first) as that's all that is necessary to keep the debate going forward. If you really want to respond to all, be my guest, by fair warning, this is going to be LONG.
On the Subjectivity of Opinions
So you're making the claim that, basically, an opinion cannot be wrong. That simply being an opinion grants an opinion validity.
This is not true.
Opinions are simply positions held. An example of one is the justification of slavery. The reason slavery is illegal is because there was a process to determine with opinion was superior, and through this process, the view that slavery was objectively wrong was found to be superior. It's not that both sides didn't make valid points, it's that one was logically stronger, as shown by a consistency of thought and/or the presentation of objective fact. I'll put this in more context by giving a quick analysis of this debate.
On one end, there are people who believed that it was acceptable for one human to own another, while others did not. Those who did generally used an issue of superiority or economics. Both were debunked. There was no sufficient reason to believe one race is objectively superior in any meaningful way to allow them to be owned. Individual liberty was used to say that people have the natural right to acquire property, but the reality is that if you took people out of cultural context, no person would ever say that they would be ok with being someone's property and treated as a commodity rather than an individual. The economic issue used the same issue of individual rights that disproved the superiority one, and also that economic outcome cannot allow for blatant violation of human rights.
One argument as simply more consistent. While it's true that you are allowed to hold opinions that are logically inconsistent, it makes more sense to say that inconsistent arguments are objectively worse and should not be held as they do a disservice to everyone. The relevance here is that we're ultimately talking about what public policy should be. Public policy, I'm sure you agree, should not be decided by opinions that are logically inconsistent. This is why we are a republic, and not a democracy. We aren't held to the views of the majority, rather that each individual has a say but ultimately, better points of view win, at least in theory. This is, after all, why slavery was abolished and why creationism isn't taught in public schools. The arguments say those thing should be happening are worse.
So, the goal here is to decide what the public policy regarding the death penalty will be. The more logical opinion should become the only opinion. And it's not about thought control; if you prove my wrong, I will concede defeat and change my opinion, as any rational person has a responsibility to do. You know, if I want to believe the Earth is flat, fine, but if I'm proven wrong, I have a responsibility to change my view if I cannot sufficiently disprove the argument I'm facing. That's the nature of a good debate. If I prove you wrong, you change your view. If you prove me wrong, I change mine. If that's not the case, then what's the point of having the debate?
In Defense of Individual Autonomy (opposition to capital punishment)
With that out of the way, I will restate my view on this with absolute clarity. First, I will answer the original question posed: "Why does this murdered deserve to live."
He might not. But, as per my view of individual autonomy, it doesn't matter if I, or you, or anyone else thinks he deserves to. The only person who can decide if he deserves to live or not is himself. The principle that guides this view, individual liberalism, is one that nearly everyone ends up agreeing with. It's the view that each person owns their own life.
An example to defend this is the issue of murder. If I killed you, it would be me violating your autonomy. Everyone accepts this and believes I should be punished. There's no disagreement; it's wrong to violate someone's autonomy. The exception is if I kill you while you were trying to kill me. Then, it would be me defending my autonomy, which we probably agree that I would have a reason have this right. Yes, I violated your autonomy in doing so, but it was to defend my own autonomy. The logic here is that autonomy can only be violated when autonomy is actually threatened. It is not justifiable to do this though when autonomy is threatened in an abstract way. Meaning, I couldn't kill you and justify it by saying you have the capability to kill me. While what I'm saying is true, it's not a valid defense. No one would say it is.
So, applying this logic to the death penalty, it is a clear violation of this principle to execute someone who does not represent a literal threat to someone's autonomy. You can argue that they represent an abstract threat, but as we can see, this is not a just reason to end another human beings life. One's potential to kill does not mean they can be killed, one in the act of killing however has temporarily left open their personal right to autonomy. One detained, they no longer represent a literal threat.
So, I'll make this easier for you and explain how you would fight this, should you choose to do so as opposed to defend your point (which I will be analyzing next): you must explain why my view on rights is wrong. My view on this is determined primarily by this, though there are other reasons, which we may need to explore, but for now, this will suffice. If you can prove my view wrong, meaning I have no solid defense, congratulation. You won! If not, I will offer a rebuttal, and this will go on until one of us loses, and hopefully if and when that happens, the losing party has the dignity to publicly concede defeat. I know if you beat me, I will say that you did, and go on my merry way unless I return at a later time with a new argument. Seems fair, correct?
In Opposition of Utilitarianism
Your argument for the death penalty is one of utilitarianism. It's what does the most good for the most amount of people. I've always found utilitarianism to be especially easy to argue against becasue it almost inevitably ends up violating a set ethics or principles, making it inferior.
How I know your argument is utilitarian is from your room full of killers. You see it as being the best option overall. Let's add some details to this scenario, just for the sake of making it reasonably possible. There are 50 people in a room, one of which is not a killer. The room is loaded with bombs, which you have a button to detonate. Assume also that you somehow know that each of those killers will kill exactly 2 people when they leave, meaning if they leave the room a total of 98 people will die. You reason that detonating the bomb is best becasue you save 98 innocent people at the expense of one.
Your reasoning for this is one, that the 98 people are more important that the one, and two, that the 49 killers are bad people and do not deserve to live becasue they do not value the lives of innocent people. These points work in tandem, so I'll address them both with a single argument.
By this definition of what is right, you are violating your own principles to defend this position. Either you have to admit you yourself deserve to die since you killed an innocent person, which you said is what warrants people's deaths by the state, or you simply recognize that you cannot ethically blow up the room because an innocent life will be lost which is explicitly wrong by your own standard of ethics. It's the classic fallacy of utilitarianism. You must choose between two different moral philosophies that you clearly hold, utilitarianism or individualism. And the problem is that when you sacrifice one, the justification for the other disappears.
Let's assume you decide to kill everyone. You justify that view, which is a utilitarian one, by saying that because the 49 people do not deserve to live because they do not respect the lives of the innocent, then the life of one innocent person is reasonable to sacrifice. The problem is that by saying one person can be sacrificed, you lose your validity in determining that the other 49 deserve to die. It would make you eligible for the death penalty because you do not value the life of the innocent. And while if you do believe you deserve death after doing this, which would at least make your views consistent, no reasonable person can say a moral philosophy is good if upholding it demands violating it, which in this case, it seems to. Because if you don't bomb the building, more people are harmed and by your stated logic, allowing this to happen is also wrong. You're put in a philosophy that cannot be morally just. Do you see the problem?
Again, prove to me that your view on respecting the lives of individuals is consistent with your utilitarian view, if you choose to respond to this point as opposed to the latter. Bare in mind, presenting a new argument does not guarantee victory. It only means a new point is in the spotlight and will be debated. This process carries on until one of us cannot make a point anymore. This is how debates work after all.
I have so much to say, and it's to the point that I'm going to use chapters to separate my points. Should you choose to respond, which I hope you do, you'll only need to respond to one (preferably one of the last two, but if it's necessary, go for the first) as that's all that is necessary to keep the debate going forward. If you really want to respond to all, be my guest, by fair warning, this is going to be LONG.
On the Subjectivity of Opinions
So you're making the claim that, basically, an opinion cannot be wrong. That simply being an opinion grants an opinion validity.
This is not true.
Opinions are simply positions held. An example of one is the justification of slavery. The reason slavery is illegal is because there was a process to determine with opinion was superior, and through this process, the view that slavery was objectively wrong was found to be superior. It's not that both sides didn't make valid points, it's that one was logically stronger, as shown by a consistency of thought and/or the presentation of objective fact. I'll put this in more context by giving a quick analysis of this debate.
On one end, there are people who believed that it was acceptable for one human to own another, while others did not. Those who did generally used an issue of superiority or economics. Both were debunked. There was no sufficient reason to believe one race is objectively superior in any meaningful way to allow them to be owned. Individual liberty was used to say that people have the natural right to acquire property, but the reality is that if you took people out of cultural context, no person would ever say that they would be ok with being someone's property and treated as a commodity rather than an individual. The economic issue used the same issue of individual rights that disproved the superiority one, and also that economic outcome cannot allow for blatant violation of human rights.
One argument as simply more consistent. While it's true that you are allowed to hold opinions that are logically inconsistent, it makes more sense to say that inconsistent arguments are objectively worse and should not be held as they do a disservice to everyone. The relevance here is that we're ultimately talking about what public policy should be. Public policy, I'm sure you agree, should not be decided by opinions that are logically inconsistent. This is why we are a republic, and not a democracy. We aren't held to the views of the majority, rather that each individual has a say but ultimately, better points of view win, at least in theory. This is, after all, why slavery was abolished and why creationism isn't taught in public schools. The arguments say those thing should be happening are worse.
So, the goal here is to decide what the public policy regarding the death penalty will be. The more logical opinion should become the only opinion. And it's not about thought control; if you prove my wrong, I will concede defeat and change my opinion, as any rational person has a responsibility to do. You know, if I want to believe the Earth is flat, fine, but if I'm proven wrong, I have a responsibility to change my view if I cannot sufficiently disprove the argument I'm facing. That's the nature of a good debate. If I prove you wrong, you change your view. If you prove me wrong, I change mine. If that's not the case, then what's the point of having the debate?
In Defense of Individual Autonomy (opposition to capital punishment)
With that out of the way, I will restate my view on this with absolute clarity. First, I will answer the original question posed: "Why does this murdered deserve to live."
He might not. But, as per my view of individual autonomy, it doesn't matter if I, or you, or anyone else thinks he deserves to. The only person who can decide if he deserves to live or not is himself. The principle that guides this view, individual liberalism, is one that nearly everyone ends up agreeing with. It's the view that each person owns their own life.
An example to defend this is the issue of murder. If I killed you, it would be me violating your autonomy. Everyone accepts this and believes I should be punished. There's no disagreement; it's wrong to violate someone's autonomy. The exception is if I kill you while you were trying to kill me. Then, it would be me defending my autonomy, which we probably agree that I would have a reason have this right. Yes, I violated your autonomy in doing so, but it was to defend my own autonomy. The logic here is that autonomy can only be violated when autonomy is actually threatened. It is not justifiable to do this though when autonomy is threatened in an abstract way. Meaning, I couldn't kill you and justify it by saying you have the capability to kill me. While what I'm saying is true, it's not a valid defense. No one would say it is.
So, applying this logic to the death penalty, it is a clear violation of this principle to execute someone who does not represent a literal threat to someone's autonomy. You can argue that they represent an abstract threat, but as we can see, this is not a just reason to end another human beings life. One's potential to kill does not mean they can be killed, one in the act of killing however has temporarily left open their personal right to autonomy. One detained, they no longer represent a literal threat.
So, I'll make this easier for you and explain how you would fight this, should you choose to do so as opposed to defend your point (which I will be analyzing next): you must explain why my view on rights is wrong. My view on this is determined primarily by this, though there are other reasons, which we may need to explore, but for now, this will suffice. If you can prove my view wrong, meaning I have no solid defense, congratulation. You won! If not, I will offer a rebuttal, and this will go on until one of us loses, and hopefully if and when that happens, the losing party has the dignity to publicly concede defeat. I know if you beat me, I will say that you did, and go on my merry way unless I return at a later time with a new argument. Seems fair, correct?
In Opposition of Utilitarianism
Your argument for the death penalty is one of utilitarianism. It's what does the most good for the most amount of people. I've always found utilitarianism to be especially easy to argue against becasue it almost inevitably ends up violating a set ethics or principles, making it inferior.
How I know your argument is utilitarian is from your room full of killers. You see it as being the best option overall. Let's add some details to this scenario, just for the sake of making it reasonably possible. There are 50 people in a room, one of which is not a killer. The room is loaded with bombs, which you have a button to detonate. Assume also that you somehow know that each of those killers will kill exactly 2 people when they leave, meaning if they leave the room a total of 98 people will die. You reason that detonating the bomb is best becasue you save 98 innocent people at the expense of one.
Your reasoning for this is one, that the 98 people are more important that the one, and two, that the 49 killers are bad people and do not deserve to live becasue they do not value the lives of innocent people. These points work in tandem, so I'll address them both with a single argument.
By this definition of what is right, you are violating your own principles to defend this position. Either you have to admit you yourself deserve to die since you killed an innocent person, which you said is what warrants people's deaths by the state, or you simply recognize that you cannot ethically blow up the room because an innocent life will be lost which is explicitly wrong by your own standard of ethics. It's the classic fallacy of utilitarianism. You must choose between two different moral philosophies that you clearly hold, utilitarianism or individualism. And the problem is that when you sacrifice one, the justification for the other disappears.
Let's assume you decide to kill everyone. You justify that view, which is a utilitarian one, by saying that because the 49 people do not deserve to live because they do not respect the lives of the innocent, then the life of one innocent person is reasonable to sacrifice. The problem is that by saying one person can be sacrificed, you lose your validity in determining that the other 49 deserve to die. It would make you eligible for the death penalty because you do not value the life of the innocent. And while if you do believe you deserve death after doing this, which would at least make your views consistent, no reasonable person can say a moral philosophy is good if upholding it demands violating it, which in this case, it seems to. Because if you don't bomb the building, more people are harmed and by your stated logic, allowing this to happen is also wrong. You're put in a philosophy that cannot be morally just. Do you see the problem?
Again, prove to me that your view on respecting the lives of individuals is consistent with your utilitarian view, if you choose to respond to this point as opposed to the latter. Bare in mind, presenting a new argument does not guarantee victory. It only means a new point is in the spotlight and will be debated. This process carries on until one of us cannot make a point anymore. This is how debates work after all.
Alright... we made it to the end.
You have a very good argument which I completely understand and respect. You are a better man than I am as the entire basis for my opinion is that I feel that others who don't respect life should be eliminated from society, end of story. As far as opinions go, there is absolutely no validity to them except through the eyes of the person that holds that opinion. What's wrong to some may be right to others. We all have different moral codes, in fact that is what divides our nation.
So tell me, even if say we knew a man sexually assaulted hundreds of infants he should still not be given the death penalty?
It was the fault of the cops and the justice system. He should have been in prison where there were no infants. Incompetent justice is not an excuse for being barbaric.
The reasons why the death penalty is stupid and barbaric are, first, that people who are going to commit capital crimes should be in prison and not allowed to commit them. Most of them got out of prison after using it as their crime university to become hardened criminals. Second, that capital punishment is not severe enough for most capital crimes. They should be required to do hard labor for the rest of their lives. Capital punishment is a pinko wimp's way to let them off easy. Third, they often have information about other serious crimes that may never be solved because the people with the needed information were executed. Why was Jack Ruby executed instead of interrogating him for 20 years to find out the real reason why he killed Lee Harvey Oswald? We could have solved the whole JFK mystery if we weren't so stupid as the advocates of capital punishment are. Fourth, the civilized world judges us by how barbaric we are. They have thousands of reasons to hate us. Being barbaric adds to those reasons. And those are just the tip of the iceberg. In short, capital punishment is so stupid and barbaric, the reasons against it are endless, just like the stupidity in its favor is endless.
The reasons why the death penalty is stupid and barbaric are, first, that people who are going to commit capital crimes should be in prison and not allowed to commit them. Most of them got out of prison after using it as their crime university to become hardened criminals. Second, that capital punishment is not severe enough for most capital crimes. They should be required to do hard labor for the rest of their lives. Capital punishment is a pinko wimp's way to let them off easy. Third, they often have information about other serious crimes that may never be solved because the people with the needed information were executed. Why was Jack Ruby executed instead of interrogating him for 20 years to find out the real reason why he killed Lee Harvey Oswald? We could have solved the whole JFK mystery if we weren't so stupid as the advocates of capital punishment are. Fourth, the civilized world judges us by how barbaric we are. They have thousands of reasons to hate us. Being barbaric adds to those reasons. And those are just the tip of the iceberg. In short, capital punishment is so stupid and barbaric, the reasons against it are endless, just like the stupidity in its favor is endless.
Ruby died of natural causes while awaiting retrial.
Jack Ruby was just an example I chose out of thin air because I couldn't think of a better example at the moment. I knew he was convicted and sentenced to capital punishment, but wasn't aware that he got a new trial and died before being executed. In any case, the point is that there are a large number of criminals who have a lot of knowledge about other crimes, and that knowledge is just one more of many reasons why capital punishment is stupid. What if a child is held prisoner like in the "The Family" TV show and the person with the key to the dungeon and the knowledge of where the dungeon is, is executed for killing other children, so that child in that dungeon dies from running out of supplies and isn't discovered till after being dead several years? Anyway I'm glad you agree with me.
So tell me, even if say we knew a man sexually assaulted hundreds of infants he should still not be given the death penalty?
No, the reason to ban the death penalty has nothing to do with the guy you know committed the crime. It has to do with the guy who you think committed a brutal crime but you don't really know. The trouble is, the death penalty sweeps up both of these people and some of the ones who are convicted on circumstantial evidence are later found to be innocent. The only way to protect those who are wrongly convicted is to not apply the death penalty at all.
I agree that monsters deserve to die but we cannot always know with absolute certainty who the monster is.
The entire moslem terrorist movement terrifies me ...
What things terrify me? Spiders, perhaps. Millipedes, centipedes, that sort of thing. Heights. I'm quite irrationally frightened of those things, but even so I don't know if I'd go so far as to call it "terror." I find them very frightening, but "terror" might be too strong a word.
I'm assuming you're not using the term "terror" in its literal sense, because you've never struck me as the type who would be easily terrified. So I'm assuming you're using the word loosely, to mean some level of "afraid." So OK, you're afraid of Muslim jihadist terrorists to some degree or other. I don't blame you; a lot of people would be.
But no, I'm not afraid of them, because that would be irrational. According to the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), the average American citizen's chances of being killed by a terrorist in any given year is approximately 1 in 20,000,000 - roughly the same odds that you or I will be crushed to death by an item of our own furniture. Do you find your sofa terrifying? Of for that matter, even particularly frightening? I doubt you do, and I know for a fact that I don't.
Similarly, I'm 4 times as likely to be killed by a dog, 2 1/2 times as likely to be struck dead by a bolt of lightning, 10 times as likely to be killed by a deer, and - according to the Centers for Disease Control - 3 times as likely to be killed by a cow in any given year. Personally, I don't find any of those possibilities particularly frightening (much less terrifying), and I would be quite surprised if you do.
So why do you find terrorists so... well... terrifying? Doesn't it strike you as irrational?
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Nox
...and I wish the death penalty to all of them who have brutally murdered any and all victims that they, for some reason, have choosen to murder. Do you condone their actions? Probably not ... but what should be done to/with them?
Well, you're right. I am against such practices. Firmly against.
What should be done with them? Depends on the circumstances. Most of them are engaged in an informal yet nevertheless very genuine asymmetric war against the United States, and as such, can and should be killed whenever and wherever they can be identified and located. The more the better.
Those who are arrested, however? That's a little more complicated, and there are good arguments for several options. Personally, I favor life in prison without chance of parole, and no contact with anyone outside the prison other than their attorneys - complete, and permanent, solitary confinement. But I'm certainly open to entertaining other ideas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Nox
Now going to the next step ... how about a non-moslem thug who murders someone. Is there a different standard now? I have given examples of the extremes ... now, just exactly where do you draw the line on who gets the death penalty. What body count do you have to exceed?
No, there is no different standard in my opinion. Kill 1 person, kill 1,000, kill 1,000,000 - doesn't matter. Capital punishment is morally wrong and indefensible as a component of a criminal justice system in a civilized society, period. If it's morally wrong, it's morally wrong, no matter the offense.
Any system that allows capital punishment for particularly egregious crimes serves only to illustrate the immorality of capital punishment, by exposing it as an emotional (rather than judicial) measure. What society would be saying by allowing capital punishment in extreme cases would be akin to, "Well, yes, capital punishment is morally wrong - unless you really, really make us mad. Then it's morally acceptable. But only if you really **** us off!" Such a standard exposes capital punishment as a tool of revenge, not justice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Nox
Yes ... I am afraid and I reject your trivialization of same. You use the word afraid and try to come across with some self-indulgent macho man bravado. Does any of this make you afraid? If not, why not?
Your turn ...
As I said earlier, no - it does not make me afraid. And further, I reject and somewhat resent your characterization of my position as "self-indulgent, macho bravado." I'm not saying I'm taking it personally of course, or even that I'm angry with you - but even though it may be inadvertent, it's nevertheless a mischaracterization of my position, and I don't think it's warranted or useful.
Aside from my admittedly irrational phobias regarding heights or tiny crawly things with way more legs than any honest creature should need to conduct its business, I simply tend not to be afraid of things that do not pose a rational threat. I take the precaution of buckling my seatbelt every time I fire up the car, but not because I am afraid of dying in an accident - simply because I recognize that there exists the danger of dying in an accident, and I wish to take prudent precautions appropriate to minimizing that risk. Terrorists, murderers, violent criminals of any nature... obviously these are things that I take very seriously, and find extremely concerning, but I do not regard them with fear. I try to evaluate them rationally, and objectively. To do otherwise is to risk an emotional, rather than rational, response to the danger, which is seldom the best course of action in any situation. I would be surprised if I were to learn that your position was really significantly different from mine in that regard.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
