Reason +1; NM abolishes the death penalty.Follow

Why should I?

Human nature does not exist.If it does exists, it exists entirely because we have created it freely. People like you who believe humans to be inherently evil, or even simply covetous




Then I can translate for you you apparent illiterate, for a price. What are you going to offer me so that I can give you the gift of reading


Seriously? Moe I KNOW THAT YOU ARE SMART. You honestly don't agree that ;liberalism is unintelligible. In order for something to be non-intelligible, means that the um.. corpus, that you are attacking conveys no information at all in any logical system known to existence.

You cannot possibly mean that



Oh god forgive me for an agreement error at 3:35; at least I didn't get the dreaded "is(sic)"



Yeah... and you're the one that proclaims to have an evil view of human nature You can't really do that without amorality implied; of course the nice thing about amorality is that it's simply a condition into which humans are born

Except... for your own of course. You sound like a @#%^ing darth vader bringing balance to the world, no matter the cost. Sure, go with it, but at least put some restraints on your empire of death

Edited, Mar 20th 2009 3:48am by Pensive

Read my previous post Pensive.

Or at least get me some popcorn.

Indeed. You just need to look at places that do what Moe is advocating, like Iran, or Saudi Arabia. Is it better over there? Are people safer? Are victims happier?

Moe


This is an attempted reductio against your conception of human nature of the question of: what can we do once we have decided to remove people from our presence.

You know what I think the ideal situation would be? Set them up to a life simulator in a lab that simulates (forever) the whims and desires of what the criminal wants to do. Unfortunately, that costs too much money, so prison is the best we've got right now.

Honestly I don't think that corporal punishment or exile are bad ideas, but killing is never, in any case, justified, acceptable, or even necessary

Reading that article makes me lose a little faith in humanity. Not the criminal in question, but for all of the bloodthirsty hate and calls for retribution in the comments area. I submitted one but I honestly don't think that it will get posted. Here it was:



My my aren't we a bloodthirsty little bunch.

The prison system according to modern liberalism (read: locke and the rest of enlightenment philosophy) is ideally meant to -isolate- prisoners from society so they cannot commit their crimes again. Punishment is a -side effect- of incarceration, not its purpose.

and some other typical bleeding heart stuff about not being able to judge people for murder.

But really, its the bloodthirsty mob that gets me every time. Even a beast can be bloodthirsty... let's at least use reason and not emotions and "justice" to punish people.

Edited, Mar 21st 2009 8:17pm by Pensive

Fine. Every murder committed in a state that has the Death Penalty.



Well, that was easy. Next.

Huh, so it follows that in every state without the death penalty, criminals chose to murder because they knew they wouldn't be killed by the government, NW. Way to kick your own a$$, sport.

Totem

Not that it matters, really. The average rates are what's important. If you have to choose between two life-saving operations and one makes one in every six people grow tentacles and the other makes one makes one in twelve sprout tentacles of equal size then you pick the latter and evacuate the area of Japanese schoolgirls ASAP.

No dumbass, it points to the fact that capital punishment means nothing to murderers as made evident by homicides committed in states that have the death penalty.

It supports my argument dumbass, whether or not the death penalty exists, murderers will still commit murder. Duh.


Keep squiggling little worm, you might find your way out.

Edited, Mar 22nd 2009 10:37am by NaughtyWord

I always viewed capital punishment as not serving the purpose of justice myself. Life in jail without parole seems like the most effective way to punish someone for taking another person's life, having to reflect on your wrong doing instead of getting a ticket to eternal slumber. Besides, I think many murderers in a sense did so entirely of their free will... some people might have had past experiences or genetic flaws or mental instabilities that make them more open to the possibility of taking another person's life, and our society should be finding ways to locate and fix such flaws before they grow out of hand, dealing with the source of the problem, not the creations of it.

It's generally accepted in East Asian countries. Japan has a 79% approval of the death penalty. Of course, it's used far less than China which is 15(Japan) against 470(China).

In terms of Intentional Homicide per capita, Japan(DP) holds between 0.5 to 1.1 per 100,000; UK(LI) holds 2.1 per 100,000; the United States holds 5.6 per 100,000.

What I believe is its primarily cultural and societal norms which end up dictating wether the death penalty is an effective deterrent, however in the case of Japan at least is its social stigma against criminals in general. That and a generally strong economy and a small gap between rich and poor likely helps.

There is a flaw in your logic here.

Hint: Richardson is a politician. He has to take into account the feelings of his constituencies, the way the ploitical wind is blowing, even if the issue itself is very simplistic.