Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes.

No.

Only for certain crimes. (Name please)

[Vector]

His argument is that because it was founded by Christians, it'd better keep following Christian law.

Logically, that means that because it was founded by slave-owners, it'd better keep following slave-owner values.

[Leafsnail]

How about the biblical laws by which adulteresses may be stoned to death?

He's already said he's perfectly fine with innocent people dying as a result of his "steamlined" court system.  Do you think he cares about adulteresses...?

[Vector]

How about the biblical laws by which adulteresses may be stoned to death?

He's already said he's perfectly fine with innocent people dying as a result of his "steamlined" court system.  Do you think he cares about adulteresses...?

... Right.  I forgot.

But still, stoning is a bloody terrible way to die.

[Lysabild]

Any good ways to die except in your bed, warm, drunk and with a smile on your face while you gloat on the living people crying at the edge as you think "Haha, I'm outta here."... What?~

[Leafsnail]

It may be hard for some to admit, but gory deaths deter crimes. I wished we televised executions and used more graphic methods of death, such as a return to electrocution or gas. All methods of execution can potentially cause excruciating pain, even lethal injections, so I see no problem with it.

I have... a feeling that he won't care too much about how horrible a death stoning is either.

[Vector]

Right.  I forgot we were talking to Mr.Fascism here.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

=
But still, stoning is a bloody terrible way to die.

Indeed. It's probably good that I'm not President, since I would threaten nations that practice stoning with immediate invasion should they refuse to ban it's practice, consequences be dammed.

[ECrownofFire]

The state has the authority to execute its people.

Every person has an immutable right to live.

Going to slightly play the devil's advocate here, and say that people also have the right to freedom (as in not being in jail).

[Taricus]

=
But still, stoning is a bloody terrible way to die.

Indeed. It's probably good that I'm not President, since I would threaten nations that practice stoning with immediate invasion should they refuse to ban it's practice, consequences be dammed.

Worse way to die than that you know. All of those slower and more painful.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The state has the authority to execute its people.

Every person has an immutable right to live.

Going to slightly play the devil's advocate here, and say that people also have the right to freedom (as in not being in jail).

That's less immutable.Total freedom is violent anarchy.

[ECrownofFire]

The state has the authority to execute its people.

Every person has an immutable right to live.

Going to slightly play the devil's advocate here, and say that people also have the right to freedom (as in not being in jail).

That's less immutable.Total freedom is violent anarchy.

And what makes one right less immutable than any other right? For example, which is more "immutable", freedom of religion, or freedom of speech? (To have FoS without FoR, you'd be able to practice religion in private, but not publicly)

[Trapezohedron]

I think the death sentence should be supported, to a degree.

Life imprisonment might not be enough, since seriously now, the guy might escape and continue his killing spree. At least, permanently cripple the guy's legs, and one arm and eye. That should keep him from being able to do anything significant.

However, crippling might be abused, if allowed. You know, politicians and other higher-ups might be bashing other people with that, because they didn't vote for them in the elections.

Also, the death sentence, like MetalSlimeHunt posted in the first page, might be abused too when it's allowed, with those pesky politics people killing certain people just to get a better rank.

Seriously, as much as I support death sentence, to a degree (terrorists, mass murderers), it can be abused by evil politics people if it becomes the norm, with the country eating itself. 

[MetalSlimeHunt]

And what makes one right less immutable than any other right? For example, which is more "immutable", freedom of religion, or freedom of speech? (To have FoS without FoR, you'd be able to practice religion in private, but not publicly)

Any right, to be a functional right, must apply to any and all situations that do not involve fringing upon another person's rights. Essentially, maximizing their freedoms without taking anyone else's. Once someone has been charged with and convicted of a victim crime, their presence in the outside world is dangerous to others and infringes upon their right to live in peace. In the old days, we would kill or exile these criminals to protect the rights of others since there was no other way to be rid of them. However, these days we have facilities to hold these people, so something can be done about them without violating their right to live. Hence, the death penalty is immoral.

Life imprisonment might not be enough, since seriously now, the guy might escape and continue his killing spree. At least, permanently cripple the guy's legs, and one arm and eye. That should keep him from being able to do anything significant.

It is unethical to cause unnecessary harm to another individual without their consent, especially if the harm in question is permanent. You need to understand, even though these people have been convicted by a jury, that doesn't mean that they did indeed commit the crime. It only means that the jury found them to appear guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and as we all know, people are very, very fallible. We have to treat criminals in prison as if they might still be innocent of their crimes, because that very well may be the case.

Furthermore, escaping from maximum security prison in the US is essentially impossible.

[ECrownofFire]

And what makes one right less immutable than any other right? For example, which is more "immutable", freedom of religion, or freedom of speech? (To have FoS without FoR, you'd be able to practice religion in private, but not publicly)

Any right, to be a functional right, must apply to any and all situations that do not involve fringing upon another person's rights. Essentially, maximizing their freedoms without taking anyone else's. Once someone has been charged with and convicted of a victim crime, their presence in the outside world is dangerous to others and infringes upon their right to live in peace. In the old days, we would kill or exile these criminals to protect the rights of others since there was no other way to be rid of them. However, these days we have facilities to hold these people, so something can be done about them without violating their right to live. Hence, the death penalty is immoral.

Yes, but why is it immoral? Is it not more immoral to let them suffer in jail? Is it not more humane to simply kill them and end their suffering?

Devil's advocacy aside, the innocents that unfortunately get caught in the death penalty are the largest problem with the death penalty (it's not exactly reversible like life in jail).

[ChairmanPoo]

It may be hard for some to admit, but gory deaths deter crimes. I wished we televised executions and used more graphic methods of death, such as a return to electrocution or gas. All methods of execution can potentially cause excruciating pain, even lethal injections, so I see no problem with it.

I have... a feeling that he won't care too much about how horrible a death stoning is either.

 To be fair, once you have jumped in the death penalty bandwagon, it sort of makes more sense to make it more bloody and public than private and whitewashed (as is done nowadays, in an attempt to make it seem more "civilized)