View Single Post

Old 12-27-2008
No country specified. To select a country, go to User CP -> Edit Profile -> Country Khushrenada
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,833
 Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!

Originally Posted by DaDaimon View Post
A life sentence ones elapsed cannot be taken back either, any sentence ones elapsed cannot be taken back either that's the reality of our system. The difference between the two is simply in the amount of time to rectify the wrong and the odds of it being rectified. You state that there is a bigger chance of someone getting out of a life sentence vs a death sentence.
Yes and I've repeatedly explained that the line must be drawn somewhere and I draw it at the punishment with no tangible benefits that anyone has provided. I agree that you can take neither back, and that's unfortunate, but considering the somewhat final nature of death it diminishes the chances even further, again for a practice which we've yet to demonstrate serves much of a purpose.
This must imply that 1. the life sentence to death is longer than the death sentence and 2. that odds of people finding out the 'real truth' is bigger.
Most people who are convicted will live beyond 20 years so what I implied is infact, true. The chances of it coming out are dramatically increased over time, they diminish to somewhat near 0 when the persons dead however.

Again we're noting a lack of notable benefits.
Tell me how many times have you heard of a life sentence being overturned and the prisoner being released? How many times have you heard of a death sentence being overturned and the prisoner released? I can tell you that the latter is far more likely.
What a shower of shite. The convicts are released and their charges are overturned because it has come to light that they were innocent, not because they were on the death penalty so can we please stop with this "It's in the prisoners own interests" pish? Innocent people should be released regardless of the punishment or crime so it's really a failing argument.
Assuming that the degree of error in each is equal, since we're using the same system to determine guilt this seems reasonable. This means that a lot of people are serving a life sentence whilst being innocent that will never be freed.

According to your logic we should ban life sentences as well, since the likelihood for an innocent person, wrongfully imprisoned, to die in prison is at least the same.
Once again I admit that in a perfect world yes we would never punish the innocent, however in reality we must punish the guilty and in this world that means occasionally punishing innocent people by mistake. Thus we must draw a line somewhere of what is acceptable I draw it at the death penalty since it has no benefits of merit compared with life without parole.

That's of course ignoring the moral quandries of what exactly gives anyone the right to decide who lives and dies of course, or the arrogant assumption that we are fit to make such decisions.

That was hardly the point of the argument, the point of the argument was that according to your logic we should not imprison people for life either, since that would equate for most innocent people with a death sentence.
Bullshit, see above - an explanation that's in about 20 of my previous posts as well. I'm assuming your eyesight is perhaps not 20:20.

This is a strawman, I never said that you could take your revenge on an innocent victim. If you want to play by that game fine, but you can play by yourself then.
You are the one saying that revenge is a morally acceptable reason to kill someone when you say the death penalty is acceptable. There's no strawman. Revenge is either a strong reason to morally justify killing someone or it isn't, which is it?

And just so we can clear it up - bullshit like "only if their guilty" cos it wont fly. It's either right or wrong - pick one. It's not my fault you don't like the implications of your own opinions pal.

I never said it should be done for someones personal satisfaction, that's a broad generalization.
Not really, you are saying the reason we should flip the switch, or at the least a contributing factor is to help the surviving victims.

Your killing to make them feel better. Again - I'm only rewording your own opinions in a less clinical and diplomatic bullshit way. Not my fault you aren't comfortable with them.

One of the functions of the criminal justice system is revenge, any law student can tell you that, but let me provide you with a source for it:
Can you read? I've repeatedly stated that although revenge is a commonplace sidekick of justice, it's not the reason we should be doling out the death penalty as opposed to life without parole, because as I've also repeatedly stated - that just boils down to killing for someones pleasure.

Whether or not you accept the death penalty as a punishment should be based upon these objectives.
haha are you shitting me ? Wiki?

Criminals ought to suffer in some way. This is the most widely seen goal. Criminals have taken improper advantage, or inflicted unfair detriment, upon others and consequently, the criminal law will put criminals at some unpleasant disadvantage to "balance the scales." This belief has some connection with utilitarianism. People submit to the law to receive the right not to be murdered and if people contravene these laws, they surrender the rights granted to them by the law. Thus, one who murders may be murdered himself. A related theory includes the idea of "righting the balance."
So again I pose the question, if I am to kill your mother you are free then to kill mines with impunity?

Revenge comes with justice a lot of the time, but it should not be a contributer to increasing the punishment or far fucking less flip the switch on an electric chair. It's not acceptable on a moral ground. They're either guilty or they're not, that's all that should matter or again we're killing for peoples pleasure.

I am sorry, but this is a strawman again. I never said we should let pathological psychopaths loose upon the population, nor can that be infered by my argument, nor the context of the argument. If your only arguments are strawmen, perhaps you should reconsider your careerchoice and start making scarecrows.
It's really not. You are saying that we should kill people becuase some people want them dead. Is this not exactly what you are saying when you list revenge as a reason that the death penalty should exist? You've not touted any other reason for the death penalty other than revenge so again it's not my fault you don't like your own opinion. I just chose to show you an example of how fking ridiculous it is

That's nice, but that's not how our system works.
That's exactly how our system works.
Beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt.
Spouting this bullshit reason does not make the mistakes go away.
That is if the evidence does not convince you must aquit. You're trying to tackle a problem here that's already been tackled in the courtroom.

But that's basically your entire point really, your problem is with the way we weigh the evidence. I have not heard you make one argument in favour of not killing someone who was absolutly guilty of said crime.
The reason I haven't tackled it is because it's a fictional scenario. There is no way to know which cases are mistakes and which aren't. My opinion on it doesn't matter until the system is flawless - it isn't and it's not going to be for a long time so I feel no need to question what gives anyone the right to end anothers life.

I'll slightly reword the question since your clown powers have managed to subvert the point again.

Tell me, if I was with the mother and father of 3 murdered children and I told you behind the glass there was someone who there was a 50/50 chance was either guilty or a mistake was made and he was wrongfully convicted would you be keen to flip the switch?
So I ask again - where is your line? What are your "acceptable" losses.

You champion a system that will kill people it's only a matter of time, any such system is simply unacceptable to me. Especially when we can't really show any decent reason for it to exist. There is nothing anyone has shown me that provides enough of a benefit for me to say "It's unfortunate but it has to be done".

Victims are more than capable of going through the grieving process without the death penalty which is so far all of your reasoning I've seen. So there is no compelling reason for me to murder innocent people.

Yes I have a blog. Read it newbie.

Khushrenada is offline

Reply With Quote