Thee Great leveller who cometh right soon...

[Blaggard]

What do you think about the death penalty in various countries, China still has one, as does the US, and various Middle Eastern countries where you can be put to death for example for adultery or being homosexual: is there a moral argument for killing someone over the alternative, if so what is it?

Simple question..?

I know you are probably bored rigid of this question, but I think it still has legs, although not so much arms, although Reagan did try to supply the contras with... meh you get the point..?

[The Voice of Time]

It's all wrong.

For one reason: broken people must be repaired, they are not consumer electronics we can just discard and get rid of.

And of course for the reason that adultery in some countries is the only way to get to meet with somebody you really want to have intimate, loving and/or sexual affairs with. So they are just escaping inhumane laws and customs. The whole concept of marriage is also quite ridiculous in my opinion as it presumes humans to be absolutistic and not variable, but that's another discussion.

As for homosexuality, people should be able to express and satisfy themselves sexually as long as it doesn't encroach on other people's person and self-hood or cause harm to property that is in an affectionate relation to others. And no, people are not properties of other people, so you can't decide whether your daughter or son shall have sex with somebody of their own gender or not.

[thedoc]

What do you think about the death penalty in various countries, China still has one, as does the US, and various Middle Eastern countries where you can be put to death for example for adultery or being homosexual: is there a moral argument for killing someone over the alternative, if so what is it?

Simple question..?

I know you are probably bored rigid of this question, but I think it still has legs, although not so much arms, although Reagan did try to supply the contras with... meh you get the point..?

If someone commits a crime and cannot be reformed they need to be removed from society in general. Incarceration can be expensive, death is relatively cheap by comparison. Find some other way to remove these people from society that is less expensive and I would say OK, go for it, just don't make me pay for it.

[Blaggard]

What do you think about the death penalty in various countries, China still has one, as does the US, and various Middle Eastern countries where you can be put to death for example for adultery or being homosexual: is there a moral argument for killing someone over the alternative, if so what is it?

Simple question..?

I know you are probably bored rigid of this question, but I think it still has legs, although not so much arms, although Reagan did try to supply the contras with... meh you get the point..?

If someone commits a crime and cannot be reformed they need to be removed from society in general. Incarceration can be expensive, death is relatively cheap by comparison. Find some other way to remove these people from society that is less expensive and I would say OK, go for it, just don't make me pay for it.

Actually because of the appellate procedure the death sentence becomes far more expensive than life imprisonment. which is why many states have scrapped it, for example it is estimated that should the death sentence be brought back in the state of New York it would cost at least ten times as much as the incarceration of a felon for life, which in no way implies the death sentence is hence wrong, but it is basically an outmoded ideal that really has no place in modern society and never really had one 4000 years ago,; it's just a matter of revenge for revenges sake, it is not justice, you can't make two wrongs into a right by magic. You can literally spend years tied up in court battles in the US that cost the tax payer so much that the more simple solution of a life sentence becomes much more expedient. The same goes for English legal appelate and it is because of that the reason for a death sentence is not for pragmatism but for revenge only and solely. There is no rational other than it. The death sentence is state sanctioned murder for the sake of revenge and nothing else.

Oh and states that scrapped it in the US and then brought it back saw no fall in the rates of murder, in fact in some states they saw a rise. Which is obvious no murderer ever thinks he will be caught. Hence Columbo.

[Blaggard]

It's all wrong.

For one reason: broken people must be repaired, they are not consumer electronics we can just discard and get rid of.

And of course for the reason that adultery in some countries is the only way to get to meet with somebody you really want to have intimate, loving and/or sexual affairs with. So they are just escaping inhumane laws and customs. The whole concept of marriage is also quite ridiculous in my opinion as it presumes humans to be absolutistic and not variable, but that's another discussion.

As for homosexuality, people should be able to express and satisfy themselves sexually as long as it doesn't encroach on other people's person and self-hood or cause harm to property that is in an affectionate relation to others. And no, people are not properties of other people, so you can't decide whether your daughter or son shall have sex with somebody of their own gender or not.

I agree VOT as usual.

[Impenitent]

if justice was reform

-Imp

[Blaggard]

I kinda get what you mean if justice sought to reform the offender. But I may be wrong and usually am so can you elaborate on that?

[SpheresOfBalance]

What do you think about the death penalty in various countries, China still has one, as does the US, and various Middle Eastern countries where you can be put to death for example for adultery or being homosexual: is there a moral argument for killing someone over the alternative, if so what is it?

Simple question..?

I know you are probably bored rigid of this question, but I think it still has legs, although not so much arms, although Reagan did try to supply the contras with... meh you get the point..?

If someone commits a crime and cannot be reformed they need to be removed from society in general. Incarceration can be expensive, death is relatively cheap by comparison. Find some other way to remove these people from society that is less expensive and I would say OK, go for it, just don't make me pay for it.

What a sick ass view, to consider money over the life of a relatively ignorant human, usually a victim of less than optimal education and means. You should put a cork in it, and thank your lucky stars!

[SpheresOfBalance]

I kinda get what you mean if justice sought to reform the offender. But I may be wrong and usually am so can you elaborate on that?

Never gonna happen, I think he only did a proper paragraph once or twice. His way of...

Never mind!

[Impenitent]

I kinda get what you mean if justice sought to reform the offender. But I may be wrong and usually am so can you elaborate on that?

if you think justice is a re-compensating idea, how does training a murderer to follow society's edicts (reform) compensate the victim or the victim's relatives?

justice is not reform

getting what you give is justice

-Imp

[SpheresOfBalance]

I kinda get what you mean if justice sought to reform the offender. But I may be wrong and usually am so can you elaborate on that?

if you think justice is a re-compensating idea, how does training a murderer to follow society's edicts (reform) compensate the victim or the victim's relatives?

justice is not reform

getting what you give is justice

-Imp

Because 'everybody' is trained to follow those laws in the first place, while some are partial to hide behind them, use them to maintain their relative safety, and others believe they get no protection from them, thus see them as useless. It's all a matter of perspective, which involves a plethora of things that affect each perspective, from nepotism, prejudice, education, socioeconomics, and let us not underestimate mans war torn past, with all his powerful weapons justified in the name of either resource/wealth gathering, or at least that's the truth of it. It's no wonder that some ignorant person sees no other way than to commit armed robbery, where someone gets killed. It's all happened before, for other presumed good reasons. No they deserve reprogramming, to fit in with the rest of the automatons, as the system caused them to believe they had no other choice. It's just a shame the system also programs us that there are legitimate reasons to kill. Yes I'm blaming the system for all murders.

[Blaggard]

I kinda get what you mean if justice sought to reform the offender. But I may be wrong and usually am so can you elaborate on that?

if you think justice is a re-compensating idea, how does training a murderer to follow society's edicts (reform) compensate the victim or the victim's relatives?

justice is not reform

getting what you give is justice

-Imp

getting what you give is state sanctioned murder.

I did explain the reason the law of reciprocation came about under Hamrubai's rule of Babylon on another thread I think, ie if a murder has happened to prevent the likelihood of in family feuding the family should be compensated to an extent, this by no means frees the criminal of his crime, but it does allow for less chance at further death occurring due to revenge attacks.

Getting what you give is hardly justice if murder is wrong then killing a person because he has murdered someone is equally wrong, there's a sort of dichotomy there, on the one hand we are saying that murder is bad and the sentence is the same as the crime, regardless of how you want to dress up its legality it's really still just murder.

As I say the Babylonians seemed much more sensible about the idea than the cultures that still use this costly expensive state sanction murder in what is basically just revenge (I mean the famiy is given front row seats to watch a man die, so that somehow that is going to make them feel better) two wrongs do not make a right, and I somehow doubt killing someone is any real compensation to anyone who has lost a family member, as opposed to actually trying to compensate someone's death without encouraging gang land style revenge attacks amongst the families of the aggrieved.

As is say we can't also rule out pragmatism or social welfare from the considerations, so we know that the death sentence does not reduce murder rates, we also find the appellate procedure on death row inmates costs far more than lifetime incarceration, and we also know that in some states where the death sentence has been reintroduced murder rates have actually risen. Because clearly people don't expect to be caught or see incarceration for life as worse than a death sentence and so on, I am sure the reasons are complex, and there is of course some justification in this when you look at the number of unsolved murders in the US. Which is another matter entirely but is relevant.

"An eye for an eye and everyone will go blind."

Justice though is already blind.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I kinda get what you mean if justice sought to reform the offender. But I may be wrong and usually am so can you elaborate on that?

if you think justice is a re-compensating idea, how does training a murderer to follow society's edicts (reform) compensate the victim or the victim's relatives?

justice is not reform

getting what you give is justice

-Imp

getting what you give is state sanctioned murder.

I did explain the reason the law of reciprocation came about under Hamrubai's rule of Babylon on another thread I think, ie if a murder has happened to prevent the likelihood of in family feuding the family should be compensated to an extent, this by no means frees the criminal of his crime, but it does allow for less chance at further death occurring due to revenge attacks.

Getting what you give is hardly justice if murder is wrong then killing a person because he has murdered someone is equally wrong, there's a sort of dichotomy there, on the one hand we are saying that murder is bad and the sentence is the same as the crime, regardless of how you want to dress up its legality it's really still just murder.

As I say the Babylonians seemed much more sensible about the idea than the cultures that still use this costly expensive state sanction murder in what is basically just revenge (I mean the famiy is given front row seats to watch a man die, so that somehow that is going to make them feel better) two wrongs do not make a right, and I somehow doubt killing someone is any real compensation to anyone who has lost a family member, as opposed to actually trying to compensate someone's death without encouraging gang land style revenge attacks amongst the families of the aggrieved.

As is say we can't also rule out pragmatism or social welfare from the considerations, so we know that the death sentence does not reduce murder rates, we also find the appellate procedure on death row inmates costs far more than lifetime incarceration, and we also know that in some states where the death sentence has been reintroduced murder rates have actually risen. Because clearly people don't expect to be caught or see incarceration for life as worse than a death sentence and so on, I am sure the reasons are complex, and there is of course some justification in this when you look at the number of unsolved murders in the US. Which is another matter entirely but is relevant.

So we do have some common ground after all, surprise!

[Blaggard]

So we do have some common ground after all, surprise!

You'll often find people who are somewhat alike argue far more vociferously with each other than those who they share absolutely nothing in common with, people don't engage with people who are the antithesis of the themselves very often. Although I do because bob's a bit crazy and Grey's flogging a book and proselytising his dualist clap trap, so they are kinda funny, mind you I don't claim to be sane but I can see what bob is preaching is ass gravy as is his libertarian idealism which is the antithesis of my liberal but regulated ideas of economics.

In short if you are a fundamentalist Bible thumping/dualist, ex Catholic, who believes in the death penalty and is anti abortion, who also thinks the gays are evil and that anyone who is not pro capitalism and right up Ayn Rand's jacksie is Satan, then I probably wont engage you, although if you are amusing you never know. I'm not gay, but I am liberal which is like being somewhat gay or bisexual because I swing both ways.

[SpheresOfBalance]

So we do have some common ground after all, surprise!

You'll often find people who are somewhat alike argue far more vociferously with each other than those who they share absolutely nothing in common with, people don't engage with people who are the antithesis of the themselves very often. Although I do because bob's a bit crazy and Grey's flogging a book and proselytising his dualist clap trap, so they are kinda funny, mind you I don't claim to be sane but I can see what bob is preaching is ass gravy as is his libertarian idealism which is the antithesis of my liberal but regulated ideas of economics.

Yes, sorry Bob! But he has been the only one that has existed on my ignore list for an indefinite amount of time. You think it's bad now? He's settled down, he used to jump around from thread to thread, popping in just to say, 'Oh ye brothers of tribulation,' or some other such similar nonsense. Quite obnoxious, he was! (I just love Yoda!)