Enough to make one support the death penalty...

[KumarS]

The strangest part of humane executions is that even the most bloody and gruesome can still be harmless if it's fast enough.

Put the convicted at the end of a rocket-sled track in front of a concrete wall. Have him blindfolded and deafened by noise-cancelling headphones. Shoot another wall of concrete at 'em. Quick, painless, humane.

If this is "humane", and not a punishment, then why not use the same with terminally-ill cancer patients?
But maybe I did not understand your point well..

 

[KumarS]

Just because I believe the punishment should fit the crime doesn't mean I'm a sociopath.

"Sociopath" is a word that is used by a majority of people to label a minority of people that are not liked by the majority
If you look at history, the worst human offenders is most of the times the majority.
Jeff Dahmer is a nice guy, if compared with what many "respectable" Americans, Indians Germans, Chinese and Japanese did through history

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Seriously, this is going into "edgy YouTube anarchist" territory, when you compared death penalty advocates to the Nazis.

 

[trustbutverify]

But we are still talking about the same thing: killing of an human being
So all people condoning or even supporting the suppression of another human being who is already in prison and not for self-defence, whether they are killer of 8-year olds, gas chamber supporters, death penalty supporters or killers of their wives, after all are not much different from each other

They are completely different from each other. Utterly different.

 

[Belz...]

people who murder 8-year olds may have some remote point that make their horrible crime still horrible but at least somehow understandable (maybe they were abused themselves for years..).

That's not a remote point. It's not even a point.

People who support death penalty in most case are supporting the death of another human being they know nothing about and without even that small reason.

That's not true. Though I may disagree with them, several reasons have been given in this very thread.

 

[trustbutverify]

"Sociopath" is a word that is used by a majority of people to label a minority of people that are not liked by the majority
If you look at history, the worst human offenders is most of the times the majority.
Jeff Dahmer is a nice guy, if compared with what many "respectable" Americans, Indians Germans, Chinese and Japanese did through history

"Sociopath" is a word used by people to describe those incapable of feeling empathy for others. It describes a very specific psychological condition. Many world leaders and "respectable" folk have been correctly diagnosed as sociopaths. Also, non-sociopaths are capable of committing violent crimes, of course. Some crimes, particularly those involving extreme cruelty, tend to be performed by sociopaths.

Jeffery Dahmer isn't a "nice guy", no matter who you compare him with. These ridiculous statements you make are the product of ignorance and a set of political dogma you've adopted.

 

[fuelair]

This is why I added a "maybe".
But look it from this point of view: people who murder 8-year olds may have some remote point that make their horrible crime still horrible but at least somehow understandable (maybe they were abused themselves for years..).
People who support death penalty in most case are supporting the death of another human being they know nothing about and without even that small reason.
There is no reason that 8-year-olds suffer more than 18-year olds when put to death

Hence my conclusion



People supporting death penalty because they want revenge are (roughly) at the same moral level of people who murder since they support the same behaviour

If you cannot distinguish the vast separation between the two I have no interest in your beliefs on the subject - though as I said earlier I truly hope no one does such things to any of your family or loved ones so you will not need to know. I care too much to let slime live - or ever want them to.

 

[KumarS]

That's not a remote point. It's not even a point.

That's not true. Though I may disagree with them, several reasons have been given in this very thread.

Well.. it would be great if you could elaborate more than "that` s not a remote point" and "that` s not true" if you wish to discuss.
Sure, I could re-read and interpret all your comments from the beginning of this thread, but that is time-taking

 

[Belz...]

Well.. it would be great if you could elaborate more than "that` s not a remote point" and "that` s not true" if you wish to discuss.

You're the one who made the claim that they might have some remote point. I'm saying they don't. Support your claim.

And about the reasons of people in favour of the death penalty, you can't seriously expect me to believe that you haven't seen them.

 

[KumarS]

You're the one who made the claim that they might have some remote point. I'm saying they don't. Support your claim.

You mean, some remote point that may make murders, even the worst ones, as somehow understandable to a point, even if not forgivable?
Well.. for killing of minors, for example, being under heavy drug influence, being under severe so-called "mental health problems" etc. may help us understand why a person did what he did.
For killing of another adult can be many more: revenge, betrayal, having no money and killing while stealing, etc. are all reasons that, while may not condone a murder, may at least help us understand why it happened.
A person who supports death penalty, instead, usually is not under drug influence, does not have any reason of revenge, betrayal, etc. against the death penalty convict and therefore his/her support for the cold-blood murder of this unarmed convict is possibly worse from a moral point of view.

And about the reasons of people in favour of the death penalty, you can't seriously expect me to believe that you haven't seen them.

I do.
But, honestly, none of them makes really sense from a logical point of view.
They are just a masquerade for the blood-and-gore desire of revenge and frustration that most people have.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

The death penalty is NOT murder. It is deciding under due process of law that someone has forfeited their right to life because of their crimes. And please stop going SO EDGY I CAN CUT REALITY! It seriously doesn't bolster your argument that the state exercising its monopoly on force is somehow more depraved than sadistic murderers.

 

[Belz...]

Well.. for killing of minors, for example, being under heavy drug influence, being under severe so-called "mental health problems" etc. may help us understand why a person did what he did.

I don't think "drugs" is a "reason" to kill a kid. It's a cause, perhaps. Is that what you meant ?

For killing of another adult can be many more: revenge, betrayal, having no money and killing while stealing, etc. are all reasons that, while may not condone a murder, may at least help us understand why it happened.
A person who supports death penalty, instead, usually is not under drug influence, does not have any reason of revenge, betrayal, etc. against the death penalty convict and therefore his/her support for the cold-blood murder of this unarmed convict is possibly worse from a moral point of view.

Ignored. You specifically mentioned killing children.

But, honestly, none of them makes really sense from a logical point of view.
They are just a masquerade for the blood-and-gore desire of revenge and frustration that most people have.

Yes, but they are reasons nonetheless. Find me a moral reasoning that is NOT based on emotions.

 

[KumarS]

I don't think "drugs" is a "reason" to kill a kid. It's a cause, perhaps. Is that what you meant ?

Mm.. Maybe "cause" would be a better word.
Or "reason". Not a justification, though..

Ignored. You specifically mentioned killing children.

I wasnt meaning only children, but if you want to focus only on children, this is OK

Yes, but they are reasons nonetheless. Find me a moral reasoning that is NOT based on emotions.

The borderline between reasons and excuses is many times nonexistent.
You can find such kind of "reasons" for killing children if you like, or for gassing people, or for enslaving them or for torturing them..

 

[KumarS]

The death penalty is NOT murder. It is deciding under due process of law that someone has forfeited their right to life because of their crimes. And please stop going SO EDGY I CAN CUT REALITY! It seriously doesn't bolster your argument that the state exercising its monopoly on force is somehow more depraved than sadistic murderers.

The point is that people supporting death penalty are also sadistic murderers, like the convicts
The only big difference between death penalty supporters and people convicted of death penalty is the power, the former have power and therefore they will not be executed, the second ones do not have power so they will be executed.

 

[Belz...]

The borderline between reasons and excuses is many times nonexistent.
You can find such kind of "reasons" for killing children if you like, or for gassing people, or for enslaving them or for torturing them..

Yes but when do you begin to consider them reasons at all ? When they "seem" logical ? Or when they agree with you ? What're your criteria ?

 

[KumarS]

Yes but when do you begin to consider them reasons at all ? When they "seem" logical ? Or when they agree with you ? What're your criteria ?

My criterion would be that homicide can only be acceptable for strict self-defense.
For example, if a thief comes to your house and threatens to kill your family.

This is certainly not the case of death penalty, which therefore is murder

 

[MontagK505]

The point is that people supporting death penalty are also sadistic murderers, like the convicts
The only big difference between death penalty supporters and people convicted of death penalty is the power, the former have power and therefore they will not be executed, the second ones do not have power so they will be executed.

Your argument is simplistic. Executing someone with a guillotine for instance, is hardly sadistic compared with what was done to the girls. As for the "who has the power" argument, you are correct, ALL government authority rests ultimately on the right to power. (You think this is news?) By the rules most states use, the people in the OP had no "right" to murder and rape young girls.

 

[Belz...]

My criterion would be that homicide can only be acceptable for strict self-defense.

That wasn't my question: I am asking you what criteria you use to judge whether someone's reasons are reasons at all. If you expect them to be entirely impartial, you are going to be very dissapointed.

This is certainly not the case of death penalty, which therefore is murder

That's a definition no one uses. "Murder" is an illegal killing, which makes zero sense in the case of a state-sanctioned execution.

 

[KumarS]

That wasn't my question: I am asking you what criteria you use to judge whether someone's reasons are reasons at all. If you expect them to be entirely impartial, you are going to be very dissapointed.

All criteria any of us uses to define if something is right or wrong are inherently not impartial, since we have never talked directly to God/Buddha/Allah.
The criteria I use is that killing of another human being can be accepted in cases of strict self defence.
Which is still a broad criterion .

That's a definition no one uses. "Murder" is an illegal killing, which makes zero sense in the case of a state-sanctioned execution.

We can call an apple as "orange" but it is still an apple.
People call killings of other human beings as "murder" or not depending on whether they do not side with the killer or do. The killing of infidel by the ISIS would be murder for an American,not murder for a ISIS fighter
The execution of a convicted inmate would not be murder in Texas, the same killing would not be accepted in Brazil

 

[KumarS]

Your argument is simplistic. Executing someone with a guillotine for instance, is hardly sadistic compared with what was done to the girls.

Your argument is simplistic. What was done to the girls was hardly sadistic compared to what was done by Mao to some political prisoners.

By the rules most states use, the people in the OP had no "right" to murder and rape young girls.

By the rules most states use, the people in the execution chamber have the right to fit a killing needle into the convict arm.