Capitol Punishment

[Spirit of Light]

This is unrelated to what I was talking about. I was talking about how by letting yourself get yourself killed without fighting back you are making your murderer more confident the next time he tries to kill someone else.

But, either way, if you call the police you ARE ultimately resorting to violence. It is the same as hiring someone to use violence in your stead.

Do police always use violence? No
In Norway where I live we should call the police, and not try to fix it our self. that is by law. So even if you in a twisted wat would say by preventing a crime I still make another one, then so be it. I will not use physical violence.

 

[Heyo]

There are a number of good reasons to abandon the death penalty. Cost, uncertainty of guilt, not a deterrent but my ultimate reason is justice and equality. If we think that murder is wrong then it should be wrong for the justice system itself.

 

[Koldo]

Do police always use violence? No
In Norway where I live we should call the police, and not try to fix it our self. that is by law. So even if you in a twisted wat would say by preventing a crime I still make another one, then so be it. I will not use physical violence.

When you call the police to forcefully restrain someone if necessary to prevent a crime, you are using physical violence. There is no way around it.

I am not saying you are doing something wrong. I am merely pointing out you are not using a non violent alternative.

 

[Koldo]

There are a number of good reasons to abandon the death penalty. Cost, uncertainty of guilt, not a deterrent but my ultimate reason is justice and equality. If we think that murder is wrong then it should be wrong for the justice system itself.

Why?

 

[Spirit of Light]

When you call the police to forcefully restrain someone if necessary to prevent a crime, you are using physical violence. There is no way around it.

I am not saying you are doing something wrong. I am merely pointing out you are not using a non violent alternative.

So what you say is that i should tell the police how they should do their job because I am a pacifist so they must follow my rules and not the Norwegian rules for how police should arrest someone?
I can only speak for how i live my life. i can not answer for others. so what choice they do is their own, not mine.

 

[Koldo]

So what you say is that i should tell the police how they should do their job because I am a pacifist so they must follow my rules and not the Norwegian rules for how police should arrest someone?
I can only speak for how i live my life. i can not answer for others. so what choice they do is their own, not mine.

No. What I am saying is that if you want to claim that you never use physical violence and that you think it doesn't solve anything then you should never call the police. Otherwise, you are being hypocritical.

 

[Spirit of Light]

No. What I am saying is that if you want to claim that you never use physical violence and that you think it doesn't solve anything then you should never call the police. Otherwise, you are being hypocritical.

It is said in the law of Norway to call the police if we can not handle a situation on our own. So I am doing the correct thing according to the law.
And as I said, and I can say it again and again and again. It is the police who decide how they treat people, they have rules and regulations on how to arrest someone without harming them. If Norwegian police harm someone they will themself be punished.

As i said. i speak ONLY for how i am doing things. if you disagree on how i should live my life, that is of course ok

 

[Koldo]

It is said in the law of Norway to call the police if we can not handle a situation on our own. So I am doing the correct thing according to the law.

Which is irrelevant to what I am talking about.
You might as well have said that the law in your country is to solve all problems in your own accord. It would be as irrelevant.

And as I said, and I can say it again and again and again. It is the police who decide how they treat people, they have rules and regulations on how to arrest someone without harming them. If Norwegian police harm someone they will themself be punished.

But you are aware that they would have to resort to violence to prevent a murder, for instance, from happening. That makes you responsible for the lawful violence they get to use to do their job if you call them. Therefore you can neither claim that violence doesn't solve anything nor that you are always non violent. You are essentially, lawfully, hiring someone to use violence in your stead.

As i said. i speak ONLY for how i am doing things. if you disagree on how i should live my life, that is of course ok

I don't disagree with how you live your life. I disagree with the claims you made.

 

[Valjean]

That shouldn't justify killing a life.

It's not even factually true.

 

[Valjean]

It is valid justification.

But it's factually incorrect.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It's not even factually true.

Well, it shouldn't.

"Some people are not worth keeping around for the safety of the population." Isn't a good way I'd see it. @Shad. If you committed a heinous crime, do you deserve to be kept around?

It's a moral situation not a legal one.

 

[Valjean]

I'm sorry, but these supposed solutions are absurd. Castration and amputation is not going to stop anyone from killing anyone else.

Why would destroying the means of a crime not reduce the chance of recidivism?
Consider also, Killing isn't generic. It has a context. People act out their ego identities. If one destroys the possibility of a violent or anti-social role to play, the individual will, hopefully, be forced to adopt something more pro-social.

Why are these solutions absurd? Why is rendering someone physically incapable of their crime of choice absurd? Granted, it's different, but is it less draconian than killing the felon, or locking him up for life?

And once you've destroyed their murderous mind/spirit, what point is there in keeping them alive, anyway? And if we did these things, I think we really would become as much a danger to our own society as they are.

So correcting the defect; the 'murderous mind', that causes the murder, renders life intolerable? I lack a murderous mind/spirit, but I never felt my life was pointless because of it.

We remove deleterious defects all the time: Tumors causing physical or psychological problems, abnormal pacing cells or pathways causing cardiac dysrythmias, &c.

If an overactive region in the brain is causing impulse control problems, or rage attacks, why not ablate that region? We do it all the time for seizure disorders. The patient would otherwise be unaffected, and grateful for the ability to maintain control and lead a normal life.

 

[Valjean]

Wrong. It has nothing to do with the death penalty itself nor make any argument against it. You bluffed, nothing more.

The death penalty does not deter or prevent crime -- fact.
The video shows an example of a successful, rehabilitative approach -- which does deter crime; an alternative to our punitive approach, which clearly doesn't work.

"We need to show more kindness and affection towards each other"

Was that a consideration when they killed someone or only a point made after the fact they were caught and convicted?

It was not -- but isn't that what we're trying to deter? How is imitating the attitude or actions of murderer desirable -- especially when it fails at its express purpose?

If people didn't buff and would provide a real source instead of something irrelevant and "google it" I will look.

"There are none so blind..."

 

[Heyo]

Why?

If you have to ask that, I'd have to give you a lecture in moral philosophy that you'd possibly not understand. Too much of a hassle.

 

[Valjean]

Well, it shouldn't.

"Some people are not worth keeping around for the safety of the population." Isn't a good way I'd see it. @Shad. If you committed a heinous crime, do you deserve to be kept around?

It's a moral situation not a legal one.

Exactly -- and you don't seem to see any intrinsic value to human life.

 

[England my lionheart]

I was watching this movie Monster which was a true story of a woman being executed after serial killing I think five guys after a rape. I disagree with capitol punishment with a passion; but, I wonder if there are other people here that disagree with it as well and why?

I disagree with capital punishment too but the sentence should be life imprisonment,no parol,till death,if it's a clear cut case of murder then the perpetrator should be given the option of euthenanasia instigated by themselves imo.

 

[Koldo]

If you have to ask that, I'd have to give you a lecture in moral philosophy that you'd possibly not understand. Too much of a hassle.

That's probably a good idea since I don't quite think you would be able to lecture me on moral philosophy in the first place. Perhaps it would be more useful to simply tell me what philosopher's work you would be using to base your lecture on.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Exactly -- and you don't seem to see any intrinsic value to human life.

Intrinsic value to kill another person?? Please tell me that's not your value.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I disagree with capital punishment too but the sentence should be life imprisonment,no parol,till death,if it's a clear cut case of murder then the perpetrator should be given the option of euthenanasia instigated by themselves imo.

I wouldn't know the alternative. I don't agree with suicide but if I picked the best of two evils I'd let the prisoner decide. Life or death.

 

[Heyo]

That's probably a good idea since I don't quite think you would be able to lecture me on moral philosophy in the first place. Perhaps it would be more useful to simply tell me what philosopher's work you would be using to base your lecture on.

Kant's "Kritik der reinen Vernunft" and "Kritik der praktischen Vernunft" (there must be translations somewhere if you don't read German) build a very strong case why morals should be categorical (equal for everybody).