Life Sentence vs. Capital Punishment

First of all, using this or did you really pay that much attention in your college logic class? Here's a tip: when you name fallacies by their latin, you don't sound smart- you sound like a prick.



I don't understand how this justifies capital punishment.

and of course one acquaintance is not enough to support an argument, I haven't done a research paper on the topic and can't quote actual data. ( I did not know I was being graded :\ )


but your paper was tl;dr so this:

It does not make it morally justifiable to kill someone. As you have figured out the system and would rather be on death row than be stuck with a life sentence, based on the (hopeful) estimate of 1/3 exoneration rate; go play Russian roulette with a six shooter that has 4 bullets.

I am going to go back to masturbating - never to visit Serious Discussion again. +2 WIS -2 INT and that is fine

OH WAIT! not even a six shooter. You would seriously rather be on death row with those odds? Talk about balls

...Sorry...for...doing what my college courses have been ordering me to do?

When I say, "Argument from popularity" or "Popular authority" instead of "argumentum ad populum" do I really sound like less of a prick? Because I don't see it. And yes...I do pay attention in my logic courses...it's...why I take them. IF I plan on becoming a philosophy professor in the next 8 years(which I do) I should probably pay attention in my classes. Wouldn't you agree?



I don't understand how this justifies capital punishment.

and of course one acquaintance is not enough to support an argument, I haven't done a research paper on the topic and can't quote actual data. ( I did not know I was being graded :\ )[/quote]

It doesn't necessarily justify the entirety of capital punishment, but what it does do is render your objection that "Sometimes innocent people are killed" moot. Unless you start protesting EVERYTHING that sometimes kills innocent people, including having a speed limit above 35 mph...you're being a bit disingenuous in making that objection.



I'd say it'd be more -2 WIS and -2 INT if you want to avoid serious discussion because...the facts don't support your presuppositions about reality, and it makes you recoil in frustration. But in any case, you're mis characterizing the system. It's not "Russian roulette" on the capital punishment side and just...living on the other side. People who are convicted of murder and get sentenced to life in prison...die...in Prison. Whether because of old age or in fact suicide. So it's more playing Russian Roulette with a full barrel if you're sentenced to life, or taking a bullet out and trying it with Capital Punishment. You're just about gauranteed death in a life imprisonment for murder, with less than a 10th of a percent chance of ever getting exonerated for what you didn't do...whereas you have over 10 times that chance if you're put on Capital Punishment.



The fact is, you're going to die either way. Either in prison, alone and hated and having been pushed through the system of prisoners for years on end, or sooner via an injection made in front of people who want to see you dead, that you don't see, in front of a priest who offers you spiritual redemption before the button is pressed. At the very least, I have a statistically probable chance of getting exonerated if I opt for the death penalty. Please tell me why I shouldn't take that? Because again...I'm gonna die either way.

The punishment should fit the crime, that is my opinion.

I'm quite conflicted with this while I believe murderers should be hanged or so to speak, there have been cases of arresting/convicting the wrong guy and killing him/her would just eliminate his chances of clearing his name.

I'm really surprised that majority of the votes are for capital punishment though since I heard that majority of the world population are Christians/Catholics, so I just kinda took it for granted that many if not the majority of te people here are Christians or Catholics, and I thought that their religion has a thing about taking the life of others. But, I guess that I really can't say much since I'm an Atheist.

This.

People will be murdered, raped, we're talking about the humankind. Deal with it.

I think it is fair that society sustains someone in prison. Regardless how much someone is a son of a bitch, is not his fault to be so. Unfortunately, the only option for him to exist is like that, and it could happen to anyone. I could be born psychopath or had a traumatic childhood or anything like that, and I wouldn't want to die.

Capital punishment is a "better" option. However, I think that someone being imprisoned for about 20, 30 years is already something absurdly aggressive.

so many capital punishment fans...I LOVE YOU FAKKU FORUM!

Well like most things this subject is not black and white. Many things must be taken into account such as severity of the crime as well as in-depth psychological examinations of the parties who carried out the crime. Though in my opinion a bullet in the head is the quickest form of rehabilitation.

You see that's the problem with issues that affect so many things and have severe implications. Personally, if I had a choice and it was related to me, I would advocate for capital punishment as retribution for the crimes committed against me. However, that's just a personal belief in my moral system and rather unfeasible. It's something that I would like to do, having control on the outcome of someone's life, but then I have to think about my own self. I would like to be able to say that I would face the end without any apprehension but I know that's not true and I would probably be begging for my life or an extension anyway. On the other hand, I do think it is wrong but not because of the reasons others have stated - you cannot bring an innocent back, it is in many ways far easier on the criminal than making them face up to what they have done and change. But then on the flip side I'm letting the person have the life sentence with access to clean, dry cell, maybe books and TV, good healthy food, and occasional sex. So there's no clear cut answer and that's part of the reason why this argument will never die. Either way someone is going to wind up with blood on their hands and no amount of washing will make it go away.

But on top of that there is clear moral and social objections. Firstly you are putting great power into state hands, I do not think the state should have the ability to arbitrarily sign death sentences, that is not only very dangerous but a clear breach of civil liberties and rights every human has. Secondly it is not morally acceptable to kill someone because they have killed someone else. Just because they have taken someones human rights it does not give you any more right to abuse theirs. However I will give an exception if the person serving multiple life sentences since I really don't want to waste all my tax money on supporting the person through prison. Anyway, that's my 2 cents to the dialogue.

Well if you were the one wronged you would of course be biased and seek the maximum possible punishment, but a society cannot properly function if such things are left up to biased parties. That is why we have our legal system in place where a jury of the accused piers' hear the pleas of the defendant as well as the plaintiff and come to a conclusion. Then if the jury finds the defendant guilty a judge sentences them depending on the severity of your crimes. It is a good system though I agree with your feelings on giving the state the final say considering it is the community in which the crime takes place that should be left in charge of making such decisions. Though sadly the way our system of government works everyone in a suit wants someone in a higher position to hold their hand on the tough issues. It is a flawed system, but it is one we have no say in. (My apologies if this post is a bit choppy it is difficult to gather my thoughts at this point in time.)

Capital Punishment is just such a loaded phrase and it leads many to assume that it is a punishment for the offender. And you bring up a good point about it being a community decision since people should see it as way to segregate (now that's a loaded word if any) them into the "don't deserve to live among the rest of society anymore" category." That would probably make u feel a little better that other people share the responsiblity of sending a person, albeit a very deserving one, to their death since their crime was so heinous that it affected the community as a whole not just the crimial and the victims but even then this clashes with the idea of individuality and the inherent, or some ppl like to call perceived, rights of being human and free will and establishes group think bias. That is the inherent flaw of ALL the justice systems whether if its just a judge or even a jury decision; they're still thinking about how it affects something bigger than themselves. That's the fatal flaw of the argument since we're projecting our personal beliefs and assumptions and oversimplifying how society would handle the decision when we know it doesn't work that way. And then there's also the flaws of life incarceration, i.e. the appeal system, because once capital punishment is abolished then what's next on the chopping block? Heck, there's already plans that the ACLU has started to get rid of the entire prison system altogether. That's the bad side of progressivism that many ppl overlook but that's an entirely different topic altogether. There's no clear cut answer of who's right or wrong.

Capital punishment confers upon governments the power to take away life.

The argument of reciprocity is often used to justify it.

However, officially sanctioning and committing the very act it is meant to protect its citizens against is self-contradictory.

Life sentence, although much costlier can serve the same function.

I believe in Capital Punishment because if they have killed someone, the same thing should be done to them. An eye for an eye.

Posting a quick response and totally not going through 5 pages of posting. I believe capital punishment is cheaper than building more prisons...so with the U.S. economy getting its ass handed and California (to my knowledge) college systems are getting their ass handed with tuition raises due to budget cuts => Capital punishment. After all, its Cheaper, Faster, and more Efficient, if morally questionable.

Capital punishment for murderers. If you kill someone and it is not in self-defense, you fully deserve to die, preferably painfully. I am aware that proving something is done in self-defense might be complicated, but still, thats what I think.