Debate Death Penalty

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Happy Fish said:
I didn't skip it. Your statement only holds true if you haven't changed at all in 26 years. Not impossible. Some people in rural areas (or prisons) are like that. Just unlikely if you are here on the Internet since 26 years ago people were still renting videos from Blockbuster as the current hotness in entertainment. People tend to change a lot in 26 years.
Click to expand...
Who cares? Dude stabbed a woman to death like a feral animal. Genuinely, what does it matter that he did it 26 years ago? She's still dead. He can repent, and change all he wants, good for him if so. She's still dead, and he still needs to be punished. Changing your mindset, and behaviour, and what you would do isn't relevant to something that already happened, already caused damage to others, and still needs to be accounted for. The man should have been hanged within a few weeks of his trial, the mere fact that he's even had 26 years change is a disgrace.

Society shouldn't tolerate murderers. Society should have real and lasting consequences for heinous actions. There are things that once you do them, puts you outside the remit of what is permitted within society, and puts you outside a path to re-entering society. Deliberately murdering someone in cold blood is absolutely one of those things; there is no way back from being a murderer, nor should there be. So either he should spend the rest of his life in prison until he dies in there, or - preferably - someone should have hanged him.
 
Happy Fish said:
There is nothing sentimental about life in prison.
Click to expand...
Its very sentimental, because you're refusing to take the last step of permanently and perfectly removing a disruptive anti-social element from society for mawkish reasons. It is ridiculous to simply transform the harm the condemned does from an unstructured criminality to a regulated expense upon the citizenry - in essence, the government assists the criminal in continuing to prey upon the innocent in the form of a tax-payer funded living and healthcare for as long as the criminal's natural life. Every moment of that long, tax-payer funded life, the prospect of their escape and subsequent rampage, or untimely release by malevolent actors, hangs like a sword of Damocles above the polis. All for the sentimentality of a delusional sense of self-righteous magnanimous, megalomaniacal "mercy". Better the criminal be shot dead by a citizen or roped by a neighborhood, then be cozied by government minders, his theft done at arms length by tax-collectors.

Mercy to the condemned is cruelty to the innocent!
 
Happy Fish said:
You are comparing serial murderers to an exceptionally brutal non serial murderer. I'm just going to be at odds with people on subjects like this because I believe in society perusing rehabilitation over retribution. Is that going to work in all cases? Fuck no. Is revenge justified in many cases? Definitely. Is our system set up in a way that even begins to facilitate anything resembling rehabilitation? lmfao no. I just think it is senseless if the family doesn't want the guy to die, because that is the main best reason to kill him. They are the ones that still have to suffer which is why I believe it should be their call.
Click to expand...
He could have easily become a serial killer if he hadn't been caught. Fucking stop already. You are retarded.
 
Chunky Salsa said:
Who cares? Dude stabbed a woman to death like a feral animal. Genuinely, what does it matter that he did it 26 years ago? She's still dead. He can repent, and change all he wants, good for him if so. She's still dead, and he still needs to be punished. Changing your mindset, and behaviour, and what you would do isn't relevant to something that already happened, already caused damage to others, and still needs to be accounted for. The man should have been hanged within a few weeks of his trial, the mere fact that he's even had 26 years change is a disgrace.

Society shouldn't tolerate murderers. Society should have real and lasting consequences for heinous actions. There are things that once you do them, puts you outside the remit of what is permitted within society, and puts you outside a path to re-entering society. Deliberately murdering someone in cold blood is absolutely one of those things; there is no way back from being a murderer, nor should there be. So either he should spend the rest of his life in prison until he dies in there, or - preferably - someone should have hanged him.
Click to expand...
Society encourages murders. They give them uniforms and shiny guns. Sometimes they give them electric chairs and gas chambers. All society cares about is that the "right" people are murdered. Solving murder with murder is typically what people have done historically, but long term we should consider doing better. That or at least "hang him" as you said before he lives what is considered a life sentence. He could have been put to work, reeducated in the most traumatic way possible, and all sorts of other things. This situation is wasteful at best. The family should have a say in this case, but generally speaking if someone is no longer a danger to society after a long period of time I don't agree that there is any good reason to treat them as they are still a danger. If the state takes too long to take revenge, that is on the state.
 
Happy Fish said:
Society encourages murders. They give them uniforms and shiny guns. Sometimes they give them electric chairs and gas chambers. All society cares about is that the "right" people are murdered. Solving murder with murder is typically what people have done historically, but long term we should consider doing better. That or at least "hang him" as you said before he lives what is considered a life sentence. He could have been put to work, reeducated in the most traumatic way possible, and all sorts of other things. This situation is wasteful at best. The family should have a say in this case, but generally speaking if someone is no longer a danger to society after a long period of time I don't agree that there is any good reason to treat them as they are still a danger. If the state takes too long to take revenge, that is on the state.
Click to expand...
You making no distinction between murder and killing in general means we're not going to agree on anything,
 
Chunky Salsa said:
You making no distinction between murder and killing in general means we're not going to agree on anything,
Click to expand...
No, I think we agree that we aren't going to agree. Killing is killing is killing. If you think a permission slip from the government makes it better, well, lmao.
 
Happy Fish said:
No, I think we agree that we aren't going to agree. Killing is killing is killing. If you think a permission slip from the government makes it better, well, lmao.
Click to expand...
The permission doesn't come from the government; it's a matter of morality. There is simply killing which is good, and killing which is bad. Killing a murderer is a good thing. You not getting that makes me assume you're either a teenager, a homosexual, painfully privileged; or all of the above. I'd ask your opinion on if you think cops should be able to restrain people; but I assume you'd default to "Kidnapping is kidnapping!"

The government executing someone is the citizenry handing over the responsibility of individually dragging out people from their houses and hanging them from a tree when they do terrible things; purely because we have too many people and such a complex society that doing it ourselves is now impractical. The entire legal system is just that same spreading out of responsibility; you are tried and sentenced by a jury of your peers through a system that the government watches over as a function of its role within society. You are not tried and sentenced by your government.

There are people that should be dragged out of their homes and hanged to death. It is fundamentally impractical for this to be done by the local community; so the responsibility falls to the state to carry it out. I'd personally prefer if this nogs local community killed him for sure, but needs must.
 
DoomsdayElite said:
You are a stupid gorilla nigger, like the one Missouri just executed.
Click to expand...
I think it is funny that a ghoul who jerks off to the people who die thread keeps replying like I give two shits what they think about the death penalty and murder. If anything you are just bitter there wasn't cam footage of the stabbing for you to watch.
Chunky Salsa said:
The permission doesn't come from the government; it's a matter of morality. There is simply killing which is good, and killing which is bad. Killing a murderer is a good thing. You not getting that makes me assume you're either a teenager, a homosexual, painfully privileged; or all of the above. I'd ask your opinion on if you think cops should be able to restrain people; but I assume you'd default to "Kidnapping is kidnapping!"

The government executing someone is the citizenry handing over the responsibility of individually dragging out people from their houses and hanging them from a tree when they do terrible things; purely because we have too many people and such a complex society that doing it ourselves is now impractical. The entire legal system is just that same spreading out of responsibility; you are tried and sentenced by a jury of your peers through a system that the government watches over as a function of its role within society. You are not tried and sentenced by your government.

There are people that should be dragged out of their homes and hanged to death. It is fundamentally impractical for this to be done by the local community; so the responsibility falls to the state to carry it out. I'd personally prefer if this nogs local community killed him for sure, but needs must.
Click to expand...
Are you really trying to pull the card of objective morality? Nobody has time for that philosophical debate. The state has executed plenty of innocent people. Context matters but no, killing people is never "good." Necessary sometimes but never "good."
 
It's been theorized that the low crime rates of Western Europe, whites not migrants, is due to the heavy application of capital punishment up until the 1900s. Basically anyone with anti social or sociopathic traits were culled by the state.

If anything we need to expand capital punishment in the US and speed up it's application.
 
Happy Fish said:
There is nothing sentimental about life in prison. Life in prison is not getting away with anything. It is being punished by being stripped of freedom for the rest of your life, especially if there is no chance of parole.
Click to expand...

Then I suppose the outcome of his death is better as it makes society safer and ends his potential suffering. Either way that would mean the opinion of the family is meaningless.
 
Sicko Hunter said:
remember getting into an argument with a family member when the Mike Brown shooting ten years ago pulling up the police report of what really happened (Him strong arm robbing a corner store then charging a cop reaching for his gun) and the response I got "I don't want to see that you're being racist" or some variant of "You've been reading too many far-right websites". If the truth goes against the accepted leftist narrative they have zero interest in it. It's too uncomfortable for them to even think about.
Click to expand...
What I do is bring up black-on-black violence, how most victims of black crime are actually other blacks, how defending black criminals means outright ignoring the plight of their black victims. And then for the coup de grâce I accuse them of being racists who don't care about the black community, which always ALWAYS shuts them the fuck up because they know that I know that they know accusations of racism is all they care about, that's why they do all this shit so when they get labelled as such they shit themselves.
LaxerBRO said:
Then if they object to the report you impeach them and question if they find the Black Attorney General Eric Holder to be racist.
Click to expand...
The only thing lefties hate more than white conservatives are black conservatives (or really any black who wont follow the script). Every time one of them talks you see lefties going full klan-mode.
Snekposter said:
Awww man, did he at least let you bring up the Croatian Ustase
Click to expand...
It don't matter since for them literally-nazi muslims are better than white christians.
 
cybertoaster said:
What I do is bring up black-on-black violence, how most victims of black crime are actually other blacks, how defending black criminals means outright ignoring the plight of their black victims. And then for the coup de grâce I accuse them of being racists who don't care about the black community, which always ALWAYS shuts them the fuck up because they know that I know that they know accusations of racism is all they care about, that's why they do all this shit so when they get labelled as such they shit themselves.
Click to expand...
I gave up trying to have honest discussions about race with my loved ones years ago after making a family member cry in a discussion about crime statistics which I now think back on and cringe for ever thinking that would work. It's simply not worth it. The only thing you accomplish if you have leftist family members is creating a rift between you and that person. The programming in your average leftie is so strong and so deep you would basically have to completely deconstruct their entire world view to get them to understand.
 
LaxerBRO said:
I find the argument that the anti-death penalty activists use that the surviving family doesn't want the convict to be executed to be extremely weak.

If that is the premise, then in situations where the family does not budge or even calls for execution then these activists would have no position.
Click to expand...
If someone murdered a loved one, I'd want their execution televised and livestreamed.
 
AllieKat said:
It's been theorized that the low crime rates of Western Europe, whites not migrants, is due to the heavy application of capital punishment up until the 1900s. Basically anyone with anti social or sociopathic traits were culled by the state.

If anything we need to expand capital punishment in the US and speed up it's application.
Click to expand...
If this was true than the Jews living in Europe’s capitals would have been culled.
 
Happy Fish said:
You are comparing serial murderers to an exceptionally brutal non serial murderer. I'm just going to be at odds with people on subjects like this because I believe in society perusing rehabilitation over retribution. Is that going to work in all cases? Fuck no. Is revenge justified in many cases? Definitely. Is our system set up in a way that even begins to facilitate anything resembling rehabilitation? lmfao no. I just think it is senseless if the family doesn't want the guy to die, because that is the main best reason to kill him. They are the ones that still have to suffer which is why I believe it should be their call.
Click to expand...
You really think prison is going to force nigs to behave? Even this wasn't an adequate punishment given one of us is certainly worth more than one of them. If the state had any balls they'd round up his family tree and make mulch for making the mistake of targeting the founding stock
 
Frederica Bernkastel said:
Then I suppose the outcome of his death is better as it makes society safer and ends his potential suffering. Either way that would mean the opinion of the family is meaningless.
Click to expand...
Not really. Even if you view letting him live as less humane, the family should still have that call. They are the ones who have to live with his actions. Mercy or revenge should be in their hands.

The best and greatest said:
Your basic bitch sophistry isn't impressive to anyone. Just stop lol
Click to expand...
Who are you calling a sophist? I take great offense to that remark. Well done. If you knuckle-dragging screwheads want me to stop explaining basic ideas like "Two wrongs don't make a right" in the middle of your bloodlust circlejerk, maybe stop quoting me like you want my opinion?
 
Happy Fish said:
Not really. Even if you view letting him live as less humane, the family should still have that call. They are the ones who have to live with his actions. Mercy or revenge should be in their hands.
Click to expand...
The family shouldn't have the call because the man was a danger to society and an escape risk. A single family's sentimental opinion can't get in the way of public safety. Otherwise, more life could be at risk. The fundamental role of the state is to protect society, and killing violent criminals is a legitimate way of doing that.
More so, your apprehension to the death penalty is illogical. There is no reason to oppose the death penalty if you already see the alternative of life in prison as even more heinous.

This argument is also silly. Williams was a multiple felon with multiple victims. There's no argument to be made as to why the wishes of a single family should overrule theirs.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom