Capital Punishment Vs Humanitarianism I wrote this about Capital Punishment, enjoy.

[Revan 0]

Everyday, horrible things happen in the world. Consequences for the worst crimes imaginable are numerous, yet no matter what wrong doings have occurred, the death penalty should not be one of them. Before you can present any kind of counter argument to my philosophy you must first tell me that the killing of another human being can be humane. So let me ask you, do you believe that murder can be rationalized? Regardless of what someone has done they too are human, and if we kill them as a response to their actions, are we not criminals ourselves? As I speak to you today, people are sitting on death row waiting to receive the same fate they gave others; it seems barbaric that the only way to deal with these people is to do to them exactly what they did to others. If they deserve consequences because killing is wrong, then why it it okay to kill them? Secondly, I would like to bring to your attention that live imprisonment as an alternative to capital punishment is economically beneficial. It costs less to imprison someone for life than it does to kill them. Due to appeals and things of that nature, the average bill of execution is two million dollars, while life imprisonment typically ends up at a mere twenty five thousand dollars per a year. Next, the government should not have the right to take something away that they are incapable of giving back. There have been a hundred twenty two inmates that been exonerated after spending an average of nine years on death row. With that statistic, the probability that an innocent person has been executed in the United States is remarkable. Finally, I will address deterrence. Does someone who knows the death penalty could be applied to them for their crimes decide not to commit them? No. Our state of California has had wavering laws on the death penalty for the last fifty years. During the years of capital punishment murder rates were twice as high. Not only does this disprove the deterrent argument, but it also suggests that killers are perhaps motivated by the consequence of death. Through the aforementioned arguments I think it is prudent that you realize the injustice taking place in this country. Realize what is truly happening here, and think, do I really want to support the killing of others?Tell me what you think Let's argue!

Edited November 27, 2007 by Revan (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

Before you can present any kind of counter argument to my philosophy you must first tell me that the killing of another human being can be humane.

Since you said it, i'll put it in quotes:

The killing of another human being can be humane.

Does every other poster have to follow this requirement, too? If we consider what humane is, we can very well be kind to the convicted. Indeed, we could give him a full course meal every day till his/her day comes. We could also, rather than making them suffer through the whole ordeal, provide comfort during the execution: quick and painless. No electric chairs, nothing that'll allow them to feel pain in the process. If you believe being humane means being kind to the person (or animal, although we're not talking about animals), then wouldn't you say this is quite kind?

 

So let me ask you, do you believe that murder can be rationalized? Regardless of what someone has done they too are human, and if we kill them as a response to their actions, are we not criminals ourselves? As I speak to you today, people are sitting on death row waiting to receive the same fate they gave others; it seems barbaric that the only way to deal with these people is to do to them exactly what they did to others. If they deserve consequences because killing is wrong, then why it it okay to kill them?

Did you know that most of the people waiting on death row die a natural death before being executed? However, there's a philosophy known as Justice. There are differences between the intention(s) of the murderer and the intention(s) of the one providing justice. The murderer tends to act on wanting to place misery into the victim(')s(') li[fe/ves], while the latter acts based on wanting to end any further misery. Your statement implies that both are equal, when that is not the case. However, if the one providing justice does it for the same reason as the murderer, then the one supposedly providing justice is as equally guilty as the murderer. The murderer did away with someone who was innocent, while the one providing justice is doing away with one that is proven guilty.

 

Secondly, I would like to bring to your attention that live imprisonment as an alternative to capital punishment is economically beneficial. It costs less to imprison someone for life than it does to kill them. Due to appeals and things of that nature, the average bill of execution is two million dollars, while life imprisonment typically ends up at a mere twenty five thousand dollars per a year.

Let's ask a few questions: How many people do get sentenced to capital punishment? Is more money truly wasted on capital punishment as it is wasted on life imprisonment, as you so imply? How many people do truly get life imprisonment? What's the average age of people found guilty for murder? What are the mental effects caused by life imprisonment? (: I place this question with higher priority than the others.)

 

Next, the government should not have the right to take something away that they are incapable of giving back. There have been a hundred twenty two inmates that been exonerated after spending an average of nine years on death row. With that statistic, the probability that an innocent person has been executed in the United States is remarkable.

9 years? Don't you think that's more than enough time to find a person innocent of the crime that has been attributed to them? I'm quite sure a lot others have wasted more than 9 years waiting for their end—especially if the government wants to save some money, which i'm sure that's a top priority of theirs.

 

Finally, I will address deterrence. Does someone who knows the death penalty could be applied to them for their crimes decide not to commit them? No. Our state of California has had wavering laws on the death penalty for the last fifty years. *During the years of capital punishment murder rates were twice as high. Not only does this disprove the deterrent argument, but it also suggests that killers are perhaps motivated by the consequence of death.

Not if the ones included were the ones that were performing capital punishment. For even in the begining of your post, you equal the ones committing capital punishment with the murderers. And like you've said, "during the years.*"

 

Through the aforementioned arguments I think it is prudent that you realize the [1]injustice[/1] taking place in this country. Realize what is truly happening here, and think, do I really want to support the [2]killing of others[/2]?

I don't support murder (2), i support justice (1). (Note: these references were made to correct or imply a different definition, not to state that they both mean the same.)

[silver_wolves 0]

I agree that it is kind of inhumane, however, the people on death row are the worst. they usually have killed many people. they would be serving their life in jail, and personally, what is the point of that. your in jail for your whole life and thats all you have. i would rather be on death row. i think it would maybe be better if they gave them the choice of life without parole or the death penalty. i would consider it more humane.however, no matter how you look at it, its still killing another human, which is not that good. i dont like it, but sometimes they deserve it. its not as if every murder is put on death row. most arent. and the ones that are, usually are serial killers, chain killers, or just insane people. im guess i am kind of nuetral on it.

[bishoujo 0]

Everyday, horrible things happen in the world. Consequences for the worst crimes imaginable are numerous, yet no matter what wrong doings have occurred, the death penalty should not be one of them. Before you can present any kind of counter argument to my philosophy you must first tell me that the killing of another human being can be humane. So let me ask you, do you believe that murder can be rationalized? Regardless of what someone has done they too are human, and if we kill them as a response to their actions, are we not criminals ourselves? As I speak to you today, people are sitting on death row waiting to receive the same fate they gave others; it seems barbaric that the only way to deal with these people is to do to them exactly what they did to others. If they deserve consequences because killing is wrong, then why it it okay to kill them?

I agree with you on this. I find it appalling that from the olden days till now executioners, prison officers etc are made to stain their hands with murderer's blood. I'm sure many of them were not willing to take the lives of others, whether they are criminals or not, but because their country has capital punishment, they have no choice.

Secondly, I would like to bring to your attention that live imprisonment as an alternative to capital punishment is economically beneficial. It costs less to imprison someone for life than it does to kill them. Due to appeals and things of that nature, the average bill of execution is two million dollars, while life imprisonment typically ends up at a mere twenty five thousand dollars per a year.

Really? Why is the bill for execution so high? What do they do? Anyway, I think what's the most economically beneficial thing is to have criminals compensate their victims for life or for however long their sentence is, or to do work for the country, like hard labor or something. Better than wasting money letting them sit in jail and doing nothing to earn their 3 meals and bed.

Next, the government should not have the right to take something away that they are incapable of giving back. There have been a hundred twenty two inmates that been exonerated after spending an average of nine years on death row. With that statistic, the probability that an innocent person has been executed in the United States is remarkable.

Yes that's true, same argument as nobody having the right to take another's life.

Finally, I will address deterrence. Does someone who knows the death penalty could be applied to them for their crimes decide not to commit them? No. Our state of California has had wavering laws on the death penalty for the last fifty years. During the years of capital punishment murder rates were twice as high. Not only does this disprove the deterrent argument, but it also suggests that killers are perhaps motivated by the consequence of death.

I believe the crime rates depend on societal changes. The death penalty remains the same, but temptations for murders seem to be ever changing -- higher cost of living (robbery + murder), violence in the media, stress leading to psychological problems and violence tendencies, gun laws. You can't conclude that the death penalty has absolutely no deterrant effect. Who knows, if you remove the death penalty, murder rates may even increase.

But still, it's true that nobody has the right to claim the lives of others. Anyway, so what if the murderer is dead. Doesn't change anything and nobody benefits. In my opinion, they should be put to good use -- compensate the family, do free labor etc.
Edited November 28, 2007 by bishoujo (see edit history)

[Mailoreothoriel 0]

Everyday, horrible things happen in the world. Consequences for the worst crimes imaginable are numerous, yet no matter what wrong doings have occurred, the death penalty should not be one of them.Before you can present any kind of counter argument to my philosophy you must first tell me that the killing of another human being can be humane. So let me ask you, do you believe that murder can be rationalized? Regardless of what someone has done they too are human, and if we kill them as a response to their actions, are we not criminals ourselves? As I speak to you today, people are sitting on death row waiting to receive the same fate they gave others; it seems barbaric that the only way to deal with these people is to do to them exactly what they did to others. If they deserve consequences because killing is wrong, then why it it okay to kill them?
Secondly, I would like to bring to your attention that live imprisonment as an alternative to capital punishment is economically beneficial. It costs less to imprison someone for life than it does to kill them. Due to appeals and things of that nature, the average bill of execution is two million dollars, while life imprisonment typically ends up at a mere twenty five thousand dollars per a year.
Next, the government should not have the right to take something away that they are incapable of giving back. There have been a hundred twenty two inmates that been exonerated after spending an average of nine years on death row. With that statistic, the probability that an innocent person has been executed in the United States is remarkable.
Finally, I will address deterrence. Does someone who knows the death penalty could be applied to them for their crimes decide not to commit them? No. Our state of California has had wavering laws on the death penalty for the last fifty years. During the years of capital punishment murder rates were twice as high. Not only does this disprove the deterrent argument, but it also suggests that killers are perhaps motivated by the consequence of death.
Through the aforementioned arguments I think it is prudent that you realize the injustice taking place in this country. Realize what is truly happening here, and think, do I really want to support the killing of others?

I can explain a better philosophy than this, and shorter: Care for yourself, that what you can change. And not the things that are out of your reach. Do what you can, expand your possibilities and change your sorroundings accordingly. By action. And don't let things that you can't change affect your judgement.

[anwiii 17]

well i for one am split for different reasons. at one point in my life, i really believed an eye for an eye. i also believed that if someone murdered and the situation was bad enough to recieve the death penalty, i believed to end that life to protect everyone else from this person including the other prison inmates. half of me says these people on't deserve to live....EVER in this lifetime after they ended someone elses life and commited the worst crime a human can commit.on the other hand, i have grown in my 39 years. there is such a thing as forgiveness and the right guidance and second chances. i know if someone killed someone i loved, it would be hard for me not to find this person, abduct them, and turture them for a week before i take a gun and put them out of their misery with a bullet straight through their brain.i am definately split because if it's not someone i love, it's someone else who was loved by their own family members or friends and i try to think of this issue more objetively than selfishly. this is a very tricky question because both sides will always have valid points.i think i lean more now towards human preservation only because unlike what truefusion said, 9 years is NOT enough time obviously since if you look in past cases, there have been people found innocent after they were put to death so with that as a fact, that is good enough reason not to impose a death penalty when you will be sacrificing innocent lives. i also am pretty firmly against screwing with mother nature. the government didn't create us so i don't feel they have a right to terminate us. they should only have the rights we as people give them to protect our safety which they can do without killing people with a law that allows them to do that. mother nature is not to be messed with. i try not to mess with the natural laws of nature in my own life because i know i will never be stronger than that force and it could backfire just like it has backfired already on our government here in the united states by killing innocent people. also, you take away the potential of that innocent victim. that person could have been the next thomas edison and could have contributed greatly to society....or another martin luther king. we will never know because we killed himi remember writing a paper on this in my philosophy class in college as my final paper. i forget what i wrote or where i stood. all i know is that the death penalty, pro life vs. pro choice, etc...are very hard because of the selfish personal issues i may have if i was personally affected.but i say, when in doubt, don't kill, preserve life. i would also rather give these people 3 meals a day in a cubacle to think about what he/she did for the rest of their lives than give them the easy way out and end it. i believe in a little suffering for those who actually DID commit the crime but that's just me and i don't mind paying taxes for it. i think it costs about 20k a year for each inmate. it adds up because of all the overheadanyway, that's my 2 cents....

[bishoujo 0]

I can explain a better philosophy than this, and shorter: Care for yourself, that what you can change. And not the things that are out of your reach. Do what you can, expand your possibilities and change your sorroundings accordingly. By action. And don't let things that you can't change affect your judgement.

Mailoreothoriel made a good point here. In almost every forum I go to, there are debates about capital punishment. Debating doesn't really serve much contructive purpose, except for allowing the contributors to get many different points of views. If you really want to make a difference, don't commit murder of course, and influence the people around you to be good law-abiding citizens. Then perhaps one day, capital punishment will be abolished.

[truefusion 3]

Although i agree on the fact that an innocent person may be put to death instead of the guilty, before i go on to state a modified version of the system, however, i feel i should address a few things first. But before i do that, to those who state, "You don't have the right to take away someone else's life"—perhaps you should be saying that to the murderers instead. And should people, then, be allowed to take away their own life?—for that's what you are implying. Would this subject be off topic, though? We seem to be in the topic of taking away life, so i don't think it would be. And i don't believe people should be allowed to take their own life, and i bear more reasoning than "it is against God's Will" or as some would say it, "it goes against nature."

 

but i say, when in doubt, don't kill, preserve life. i would also rather give these people 3 meals a day in a cubacle to think about what he/she did for the rest of their lives than give them the easy way out and end it. i believe in a little suffering for those who actually DID commit the crime

(I quote this part because this basically summarizes your post in a few sentences.) You imply in this section that if one does not have doubt, then they might as well go on ahead and take away life, and that life in prison means life in prison. You, also, state that the guilty should receive some form of punishment (i.e. suffering).

For the former: I shall use the same argument as stated against me: What if they're actually innocent and are proven so later on? Also, life in prison doesn't necessarily mean life in prison, especially if they're let out early for "good behavior."

For the latter: However, the guilty is determined by the court, of which the one declared guilty could be innocent. If the guilty who is really innocent receives a form of suffering, that could affect them mentally. If they are later proven innocent and have some scars remaining of which was inflicted by the state (or whatever or whoever had power over them during their jail time), if mental, how are you going to give them their life back? Psychiatry? Pills for the rest of their what-is-now free time on earth? If physical, would you recompensate them for a (good) period of their life? Remember, there is more than one way to take away life, both literally or mentally. Also, physical pain can lead to emotional pain. If you're going to allow some form of suffering to the one declared as guilty, then you are being more inhumane than giving them "the easy way out." If you're going to be completely humane about it, then treat them as if they were royalty. Indeed, praise them for their alleged deeds with support.

 

If you really want to make a difference, don't commit murder of course, and influence the people around you to be good law-abiding citizens. Then perhaps one day, capital punishment will be abolished.

There's one problem with this: people have been doing such for a long while now. You see it on billboards, you see it on signs, you see it on the side of bus stops, you see it on T.V.. What form of media haven't we seen it on? Rather than doing what we are already doing, we should be trying to figure out how to do such a thing more effectively. For if this is what we call being effective, then it is obviously not working. Remember, people will always choose their own ways in doing things. When people are free to do what they please, they are bound to commit non-sense. As it seems, the only way to do so is to get rid of free will. However, people want a sense of freedom, so it's a bit of a loop.

 

i think it would maybe be better if they gave them the choice of life without parole or the death penalty. i would consider it more humane.

Although this would initially do away with the argument, "You don't have the right to take away someone else's life," it implies that people have the right to take their own lives. But it could be taken advantage of, if allowed, however, and you might still anyways put an innocent person to death. For one without hope may consider the death penalty. And a truly guilty person may realize that life doesn't really mean life in prison, and, if and when released, be free to commit the same crime, for a dog returns to its vomit. And if we still allow them to choose afterwards, things may just repeat themselves.

 

[hr=noshade] [/hr]

Now to address the issue of the innocent being put to death, we shall make a modification to the current system. Since Science is said to advance every ten years, although that number should have reduced by now for how many times Science has advanced, a cause for the innocent being declared guilty could be due to the fact that there wasn't an increase in technological advancement. There, of course, could be other causes, like false witnesses or evidence, but that may be a different story.

 

When a person is placed on "death row," by law, they would have to wait 10 years before any further action is taken for them. When 10 years pass, by law, their case would be re-opened, [loop]only this time, any new tools brought about by technological advancement will be used, if any. If none are present, the case will still be re-opened for questioning. During this time, they are to look at the facts, etc, again, and have another case deciding the guilty's fate.[/loop] If they are proven guilty, they shall be placed back on "death row." If proven innocent, they shall be released. If placed back on "death row," they shall, by law, wait for 7 more years. When the 7 years are over, by law, the case will be re-opened, and everything will loop again. If found innocent they will be released. If not, back to death row. Afterwards, by law, they will wait 5 more years. At the end of the 5 years, the case will be re-opened, etc... If proven guilty, however, they will not be placed back on "death row" but be sent directly for death. This gives a total of 23 years for outsiders to try and prove this person innocent. This is, of course, a fresh idea and is open to debate. If any fairness has not increased in this, however, please provide a sound reason; however, i don't see how such an increase is not present. If you bring about money issues that could be involved in this, well, i'm sure we could put those what-would-be-used-otherwise "2 million" dollars into investment here.

[anwiii 17]

Although i agree on the fact that an innocent person may be put to death instead of the guilty, before i go on to state a modified version of the system, however, i feel i should address a few things first. But before i do that, to those who state, "You don't have the right to take away someone else's life"perhaps you should be saying that to the murderers instead. And should people, then, be allowed to take away their own life?for that's what you are implying. Would this subject be off topic, though? We seem to be in the topic of taking away life, so i don't think it would be. And i don't believe people should be allowed to take their own life, and i bear more reasoning than "it is against God's Will" or as some would say it, "it goes against nature."

(I quote this part because this basically summarizes your post in a few sentences.) You imply in this section that if one does not have doubt, then they might as well go on ahead and take away life, and that life in prison means life in prison. You, also, state that the guilty should receive some form of punishment (i.e. suffering).

For the former: I shall use the same argument as stated against me: What if they're actually innocent and are proven so later on? Also, life in prison doesn't necessarily mean life in prison, especially if they're let out early for "good behavior."

For the latter: However, the guilty is determined by the court, of which the one declared guilty could be innocent. If the guilty who is really innocent receives a form of suffering, that could affect them mentally. If they are later proven innocent and have some scars remaining of which was inflicted by the state (or whatever or whoever had power over them during their jail time), if mental, how are you going to give them their life back? Psychiatry? Pills for the rest of their what-is-now free time on earth? If physical, would you recompensate them for a (good) period of their life? Remember, there is more than one way to take away life, both literally or mentally. Also, physical pain can lead to emotional pain. If you're going to allow some form of suffering to the one declared as guilty, then you are being more inhumane than giving them "the easy way out." If you're going to be completely humane about it, then treat them as if they were royalty. Indeed, praise them for their alleged deeds with support.

you quoted one section of my post. i clearly stated i was undecided. i will have personal feelings involved if someone killed my mother or other family member or friends. since you quoted one side, i will state my feeling on the side you quoted. so yes, kill when there is no doubt! kill the MF who killed my mother or my wife or anyone else i am committed to deep inside my own soul. and eye for an eye i say when there is no doubt.

 

the flip side is the innocent. i am for protecting crime victims and the innocent people out there. you are right. the innocent will suffer terribly. even if they get compensated financially, prison can mess them up for life.....just experiencing the whole injustice system knowing that they are innocent and have been screwed over mentally and sometimes physically. and if you put them to death, that is WORSE. you in fact implied it's not. it's worse because you illiminate the potential of ever getting the help they needed. see, i believe we aren't put on this earth to experience more than we can handle and you are treading on thin ice in what is expected of us and the potential we have to offer others in this world(without selfishness). i believe in hope, therefore i believe that we should do everything in our power to preserve hope. this again implies that i believe that even if a murderer has commited terrible acts, there is still a chance to reform somewhat and make up for their wrongs. i also believe that punishment is necessary. are you implying that it's not because it will screw someone up for life if they are innocent?

 

well our justice system isn't perfect but you implied that we should take a life of an innocent victim of our system rather than hold him in a pirison cell. are you kidding me?!?!? i'm assuming you are a christian since you are also posting stuff out of the bible. correct me if i am wrong. maybe you aren't christian. if you are, you're just playing devil's advocate. if you aren't, then i'm curious where you get your information from and who taught you values growing up.

 

so again, i will state it clearly. yes, i believe in preserving life when it comes to people who have been covicted of murder. i am pro choice as well but that doesn't conflict with my belief in preserving life. it just means, it's the woman's body and the woman should have the right to make that moral decision....but that's another story....

 

now what's your point in quoting me and others all the time except to poke holes in what we believe. what do YOU believe? step up and be a man rather than repost everything everyone has already stated.

 

it doesn't take a genious to poke holes the answers to this topic. people have been doing it before i was even born. same thing with abortion and other issues of morality. what is more difficult though and well respected is when someone can actually state an opinion that can be suppored by their own moral or immoral beliefs. i stated my opinion because i can argue what i believe in all day and i'm a better person for standing up for it. are you? what do YOU believe in. i dare you to post it so i can show you how easy it is to poke holes in it. only people who are insecure in their own beliefs do that. you ready to step up and write a page of what YOU believe rather than write two pages of quotes?

 

because if this is what you want, i want the opportunity to pokes holes in what you believe as well. it will be easy as there are valid pros and cons to both sides

step up true fusion. that is a dare to get a real arguement and discussion started. i can tell you like a good debate. you are almost good at it except i have read nowhere in the area where you firmly stand on this issue.

[truefusion 3]

you quoted one section of my post. [1]i clearly stated i was undecided. [2]i will have personal feelings involved if someone killed my mother or other family member or friends. since you quoted one side, i will state my feeling on the side you quoted. [3]so yes, kill when there is no doubt! kill the MF who killed my mother or my wife or anyone else i am committed to deep inside my own soul. and eye for an eye i say when there is no doubt.

[1]Actually, if we look at the pattern, you kept switching from undecided to decided. Let's examine post #6 of this topic. In the second paragraph (i'm not going to include the first, since it leads and connects to the second), first and second sentence, you imply: decided. Second paragraph, 3rd sentence to the end of the 3rd paragraph, you imply: undecided. 4th paragraph, you imply: decided. 5ht paragraph, you imply: undecided. 6th paragraph, you imply: decided.

[2]I, too, would have personal feelings if someone abused or killed a loved one.

[3]And the court asks for beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

the flip side is the innocent. i am for protecting crime victims and the innocent people out there. you are right. the innocent will suffer terribly. even if they get compensated financially, prison can mess them up for life.....just experiencing the whole injustice system knowing that they are innocent and have been screwed over mentally and sometimes physically. and if you put them to death, [1]that is WORSE. you in fact implied it's not. it's worse because you illiminate the potential of ever getting the help they needed. see, i believe we aren't put on this earth to experience more than we can handle and you are treading on thin ice in what is expected of us and the potential we have to offer others in this world(without selfishness). [2]i believe in hope, therefore i believe that we should do everything in our power to preserve hope. this again implies that i believe that even if a murderer has commited terrible acts, there is still a chance to reform somewhat and make up for their wrongs. i also believe that punishment is necessary. [3]are you implying that it's not because it will screw someone up for life if they are innocent?

[1]Although i did imply that it is not, there are some (although many) things that humans can't cure, and sometimes they make things worse when trying to help. Like you said, "potential"—not absolute. I'd rather allow the death of someone than place them in another jail: the psychiatric ward. Like you said, just the mere experience of prison could mess them up for life, especially if it requires years upon years just for them to be proven innocent.

[2]Hope in this subject comes in many different forms: (1) A person suffering severely may hope for death. (2) A murderer hoping to get out of jail to commit the same crime. (3) The innocent hoping to reclaim their integrity (i.e. be proven innocent). (4) The hope that a murderer can change their ways. (5) The hope that the one believed to be innocent be proven innocent.

[3]If punishment means the truama received in prison, then why add insult to injury by inflicting extra punishment that is allowed by law?

 

well our justice system isn't perfect [1]but you implied that we should take a life of an innocent victim of our system rather than hold him in a pirison cell. are you kidding me?!?!? [2]i'm assuming you are a christian since you are also posting stuff out of the bible. correct me if i am wrong. maybe you aren't christian. if you are, you're just playing devil's advocate. if you aren't, then i'm curious where you get your information from and who taught you values growing up.

[1]Did you see or read the part below the horizontal rule? (I say this here because i would like some feedback on it.)

[2]Do you have avatars and or signatures for others enabled?

 

so again, i will state it clearly. yes, i believe in preserving life when it comes to people who have been covicted of murder. i am pro choice as well but that doesn't conflict with my belief in preserving life. it just means, it's the woman's body and the woman should have the right to make that moral decision....but that's another story....

You are decided.

 

[1]now what's your point in quoting me and others all the time except to poke holes in what we believe. [2]what do YOU believe? [3]step up and be a man rather than repost everything everyone has already stated.

 

[...][4]i stated my opinion because i can argue what i believe in all day and i'm a better person for standing up for it. are you? what do YOU believe in. [5]i dare you to post it so i can show you how easy it is to poke holes in it. only people who are insecure in their own beliefs do that. you ready to step up and write a page of what YOU believe rather than write two pages of quotes?

[1]This is a debate. That's what you do in a debate, no?

[2]If i were to post everything i believe in, that would be for another topic. Also, i can't post everything i believe in off the top of my head. And, concerning this topic, did you see or read the part below the horizontal rule?

[3]What shall i post besides what i haven't already posted? Indeed, this topic would be going no where if someone didn't comment on someone else's post. What do you think happens in congress when they plan on passing a new law or bill? Does everyone just state what they believe? Where would that get them? No where, for no one has actually discussed the topic at hand.

[4]I stand up for my beliefs all the time. There are hundreds of people out there who attack my beliefs all the time and they make their attacks public, so i join in to defend my beliefs.

[5]Did you see or read the part below the horizontal rule? Will you consider all that i am mentioning in this post?

 

[1]because if this is what you want, [2]i want the opportunity to pokes holes in what you believe as well. [...][3]i can tell you like a good debate. you are almost good at it except i have read nowhere in the area where you firmly stand on this issue.

[1]I don't ask for the opportunity, and this should be expected in a debate.

[2]This post of yours i'm addressing, is this not what you want? Are you not poking holes?

[3]I do like a good debate. However, i find it a bit dissapointing when the topic-starter does not engage in the same topic they started. It makes you wonder their reason for posting.

[anwiii 17]

first of all, i wasn't debating. i was posting an opinion. to have a debate, it takes two people who take a stand on an issue. you have YET to take a stand and state in one post, your full opinion. all you have been doing is taking the easy way out and poke holes in peoples opinion. what others have done for ages. the same holes on either side.what i can debate you on is what you took a stand on which is very little. you did mention you would rather kill someone innocent of a crime rather than have them suffer in jail. this is what you clearly stated. obvious those who are innocent will clearly state their innocence to their death and in your world, they will not have a voice after a judge sentences them unjustly. maybe they were strong enough to live and survive jail. you see bud, i believe everyone has a purpose. i have been wrongly accused before. it's not fun, but after the transistional anger and emotions, i try to find some good in it. i believe life is about people and because of this, it includes being there for people. all those who have been judged.....innocent or guilty still have potential. people helping people is what this world should be about....wether your in jail or not. and there is lots of potential....even in jail and even wrongly accused. to destroy that potential is unthinkable in my book because it's a human life and people can change the surfacy errors of their ways. some people, in my belief belong in jail just so they can guide those who actually belong there. guide them on the right path and to help them make up for their wrongs. but that's my beliefs. i don't expect anyone to believe in that because there is no factual basis and people like you would find easy holes in it. i'm fine with that and there will never be a debate in my beliefs because they are strong within.now the hazy area you talk about is my mindset if a personal family member was murdered or a friend of mine was killed, etc....i am very vengfull inside my own self. i try my hardest to control it. i have past many hard tests in my lifetime that you would not have the first clue on. i know who i am by nature. inside my own self, i love people. ALL people and i try to guide them in what i have already learned first hand in life. also, i am the complete opposite. i am a hurtfull person. a criminal. i have that mindset. i always asked myself why am i these two different people inside myself.....inside my own soul. the answer is quite simple. the other half of me, the evil side is there to protect me. i have to think evil to protect against it. i have experienced many things in life my friend. things that you could only hold nightmares to my protection sometimes was to prepare and be one step ahead of the evilness out there in this world. i could have only accomlished that by having that same energy inside my own self. the good is stronger inside. i am thankfull for that because i have so much to offer in guidance and i do.so yes, inside i am split although i try to control the negative energy inside me, i really don't know what i would do if someone killed someone close to me. it's hard to stay focused in what is right and wrong sometimes in pre thinking about a scenario that might not ever happen. so there is your conflict because if i ever felt someone should die, they WILL die by my hands and that situation has never come up yet. i hope it never does and i hope i am strong enough to keep the stronger belief that is deep down inside my own soul and spirit.i am a protector in this lifetime. i am also a guide. i help people. that's what i do. i gladly sacrifice everything i have for another and i have always been this way. i feel what goes around comes around and i feel people need a helping hand. maybe one day i will need one. it is SO easy to take advantage of people like me who put so much trust in human nature and others. i don't give up and i don't quit. i don't have much money, but what i do have is may character which includes my morals and values which are of good nature. i'm not perfect and i learn from my mistakes just like eeryone else should. i have been given second chances to learn from my mistakes.the differnce between me and the guy on death row is the degree of mistake. but just because there is a differnce in the degree doesn't mean that we both don't have good inside us. the secret is to tap in to it and allow that to influence our lives by the choices we make in the future. so i talk about potential and what a CRIME it would be to illiminate this potentialwhat does all this have to do with the topic? EVERYTHING. my background to explain why i believe in what i believe. i wont be understood, i know. it's hard to understand someone like me. i come off in many different ways and i realized 15 years ago i will never be understood. the only person who comes close is my wife as we are connected as soulmates and have the same strong energy flowing through both of us. the same, but different, but our differences compliment eachother. what i am weak in, she is strong in. what she is weak in, i am strong in.preservation of life is important because like i said. messing with natural law is wrong. natural law controls us all, not the other way around and to mess with us will only end up backfiring on us. that is a fact wether you believe it or not. we were all born with a purpose. some of us have the natural ability to hit a baseball 500 ft. some of us write songs that are masterpieces. some people can tickle the keyboard in a way no other can touch the keys.....deaf.....blind even.what were you born with truefusion? let me tell you a little about yourself. you can create a good arguement. ok. but what does that mean? well, you have the ability to see all sides of a situation. you have the ability to be objective. you have the ability of knowing right from wrong. these are all abilites to see past most people and the crimes they commit. to really see past and see them inside for what THEY were born with and who they are meant to be. you can see past the surface truefusion. that's what you can do. this is what i know about you despite our differences. you also like people. you also like people. and you like to be in control of your suroundings. these are the other things i know about you. doesn't take a genious to figure you out. it's good qualities if you know how to use them the right way. you judge too quick and you are still insecure with who you are. you can work on those things in time. i am still confused if you are as religious as you make yourself out to be.now, i have explained once again why i am split in my beliefs, i have even opened up more in who i am to believe what i do(rarely talk about my dark side, but i am not ashamed of it, people usually will not understand it if i talk about it)you can try to poke holes, in what i believe, but what you don't know is you can't. you will never succeed. there are no holes in what i believe. life has meaning to me and a purpose. i am also happy with who i am and far from insecure. that's why i don't mind being open and more open if i feel i want to explain who i am further to help others understand. i expect people not to understand and i expect people to take jabs at my beliefs. it's all common place to me as i have been defending my beliefs since age 31(i'm 39 now) when i had what some would call a godly experience(although i don't really believe in "god".....only as a symbol). i believe in a higher power that even i can't yet define. if i didn't believe people had a purpose, i would stop helping people and stop guiding them. i would also end my own life as my life holds no purpose and it would just be a waste of time with all the pain i've experienced in this world. i am meant to exeperience it. why? to be a stronger person. to be able to relate to others and their own situations. there may not be a lot of money that i can make with my purpose in life, but i am rich in other areas.if you notice where i hang out alot on this forum, you will notice i hang out in the business, internet, website, making money forums. these are hobies of mine. aside from hobbies, i am an EXPERT in internet marketing. there is no doubt i could make in a year that people spend a lifetime trying to make if i put all my knowledge together and work hard to succeed in the area of making money on the internet. i don't. i made a choice that money isn't as important in my life as lening a hand to others every day.eeryone is born with gifts. i was born with my own unique gifts and with these gifts i was born with etails a great responsibility so i will end this post by telling you once again that life is precieous. the potential in everyone is worth more than gold. life is about people. who they treat you in a positive or negative way and how you have that same choice in treating them in a positive or negative way. we are all connected. to understand ourselves is to eventually understand others. preservation of life is indeed important....but more than that....neccessary to preserve what is inside us all. the potential and the gifts that are waiting to come out. the good. on the other hand, again, i may makes mistakes in this lifetime and i may believe at one point in my life to take a human life because i feel that person doesn't deserve to live if he has murdered someone that is dear to my heart. this has been one scenario that i haven't been faced with yet but i have experienced similar instances and i have passed these tests so far and i pat myself on the back. hard, yes, because i feel guilty and ashamed that i did NOTHING at the time, but i did do something. i was able to be there for people where i wouldn't have had that chance if i were in jail. i've been in jail. at first it's suffocating but i am a very adaptable person. it turned from suffocating to a comfortable environment because i was productive in helping and guiding those in need of it. showing them how to use their potential and making even the "toughest" man shed a tear. preservation of life. don't take it so lightly when you have yet to experience or know deep down what others have to offer where you make a decision that it's better to kill them.

[truefusion 3]

 

Since i'd run out of quotes, i shall just address things like so, and to show what post i'm addressing.

 

In the same sense, i too was posting my opinion. And i was taking a stand. I have implied my position to the extend that it no longer takes the form of impliciaton. And you have yet to address the majority of my posts.

 

Let me tell you what you have been doing mostly throughout your posts—it is only fair, since you have been doing it to me: For a good portion of your posts, you boast and praise yourself (i would say more than 50%), the remaining parts you speak slander towards the opposing force (me) and you change around my intentions and reasons for what i have stated. Since you go off on your own to promote yourself, you skip a lot of things which should be addressed, and of which i asked for comment on. You say to consider others, but what about what i asked for a comment on? In your slander, you basically state that i am an unjust person who is willing to pervert justice for selfish and uncaring reasons and of who does not consider that these people may be innocent. I tell you i am an open-minded person—yes, if i am forced to regain my integrity, i will—and i am willing to take the side of others who believe opposite of me so long as i see that there is no way to improve what i have been standing for. However, i have given an idea on how to improve the system and increase fairness and justice at the same time—of which i asked for your opinion on the matter.

 

By providing justice, people help other people. You talk about destroying the potential one has to cause a great change—this is where you confuse me to a great extent, and i would agree with you whole-heartedly that i may never understand you on this—but you also support pro choice. While i agree that it is the mother's body, i do not agree that the child's body is also the mothers. You state that terminating such potential is unthinkable and out-right wrong. I am pro life in this instance, for the child is not guilty of anything and cannot be guilty of anything. This, of course, implies my stand on capital punishment. However, i find it hard to believe that you did not see what i posted below the horizontal rule, even though you avoid stating your opinion on the matter—on whether it has increased in fairness or just wouldn't work at all. Perhaps the reason for avoiding it is because it may make me appear otherwise of how you have been making me appear. As for those who should be in jail guiding them on the right path: there is such a thing. In fact, people even hand out Bibles in jail. The face of a believer must shine like the sun when they receive the Bible in jail and they know that they are innocent, for such is bound to increase hope.

 

If a loved one of mine were beaten or killed and i saw the person who did it and later see them in the street, i would call the police and if i were confident of my strength, i'd go and immobilize the person till the police arrive. I would not seek the person's death, for it was not decided upon in a just matter. Although i may be inclined to place him at the edge of death, i will not choose to. And although the person may file battery against me, i would be content with the fact that i was able to take them to court and claim my case against that person—even if i were to lose the case. Their face has been made known and i may never forget it. If i were not confident of my strength, i would stalk the person (i'm not one that is confident of my physical strength, anyways, so this is most likely to be the way i would go about it), making sure they are not out of my sight and that they don't notice me. I would grab any information i possibly can that would allow the police to track this person down with ease. If i have to follow them everywhere they go, then so be it. I would want justice served, and i being one who likes having things acted upon would make sure some form of justice gets served. I would not allow my loved one's death to go in vain. I too hope to be never faced with such an occasion. The last thing i want is to wonder around life knowing that someone got their way.

 

You help people—then help my idea; i seek improvement on such an idea. By improving my idea, you help make a change—a change that helps others. Indeed, if you can't change something, then improve it in a way that makes it lean more towards your beliefs, while making it subtle or oblivious to those who will not change something to meet your beliefs 100%.

 

Potential, without it, you have no case. You say tap into other people's good side. What if there is found no good side? Behold, you gave an idea to improve my idea (and there is no implication that that is what you were aiming for, too!): Let's consider a modification to my idea, where there is actual time taken to find this "good side" in people. Whether or not the person is deceiving the others shall not be taken into consideration; however, they would still be placed on a lie detector after being questioned the first time around. Once the 10 years end, time will be taken to see if there is this potential in others. If the good side is not present, however, or if there is no implication of this "good side," then we shall move onto bringing the case back into question. If found innocent, they shall be released. If not, back they go and will wait 7 years, etc, etc... But if this potential is found, any further action pertaining to the path to death will be postponed. If the person has shown (or proven) that they will be willing to change, then that will be put to the test. The person will be set free, however, not without some monitoring—yes, their life must be open to observation, especially since we are testing whether or not they have a potential. An innocent person would or should be more than happy to allow such a thing; not to say that a truly guilty person won't do the same. However, if they show any intent of ill will, they will be placed back in jail, and the whole process will be started and resetted to a 10 year wait, etc... Only, without any more potential-tapping. Consider this if you will. Even more fairness and justice. Thanks for the indirect improvement, by the way.

 

Like with every law, it must be established by an outside force. And, if i must and though you may claim that i am insecure in my beliefs, of which i stand firm in them—of which implies security, for if merely standing up for one's beliefs means insecurity, then you are as guilty as the claim you attribute to me—if the force that has established this law allows justice, then these "natural laws" no longer apply for perservation of life. Justice is therefore the one that perserves life.

 

Let me tell you a little about myself: I am an search:INTJ (a good place to start is here, also: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/); this should even imply what i am born with. In fact, a lot of things you mentioned about this part about me is quite on the dot, as you will see by researching on INTJs; by "this part", i mean paragraph 11 in your post. Also, you did not answer my question on whether or not you have avatars or signatures enabled for others.

 

You are not split in your beliefs, for you know what you believe and have explicitly stated which side you take in the overall matter. Your dark side has nothing to do with your beliefs. Faith and action are two different things. Faith is capable of powering action. However, that is not always the case. For i've seen many people who say they believe in one thing and even try to prove that they do, but unknowingly contradict their beliefs with their actions. Although this implies that their beliefs are what their actions state, i do understand, however, that it is fully possible to believe one thing but act against it.

 

The only reason i will never be capable of "poking holes" into your belief system is because you may never be willing to admit that i poked holes into your belief system. However, you also state that i have poked holes, which makes things a bit confusing. In fact, you have been ending your posts stating that i have been doing such a thing throughout this topic while adding that i did not make clear my stand on this matter.

 

I would like to ask you your reasoning behind "pro choice." You keep saying perservation of life is of utmost importance and that your pro choice beliefs do not contradict your perservation-of-life beliefs, and i have given my counter argument for your reasons for pro choice; i would like to see if you have more. And here's the thing about making mistakes: real murderers do not see their actions as mistakes. Indeed, some find it entertaining.

 

Again, at the end of your last paragraph, you state something without fully knowing me. You do not truly know my experiences in life, but you state or imply that you in fact do know them. You've said in your post that i was quick to judge. However, it may seem we are both guilty of that matter, if we are at all guilty of such a thing, for quick to judge does not ask for opinions.

 

I await your response—if any.

[Revan 0]

Hey guys, glad I started a good discussion. Anyway I'm not going to bother with quotes just because there were too many responses. The majority of the proponent of Capital Punishment are saying that it is moral to kill if it is in the name of administering justice. This where we disagree and there is simply no point in discussing it after this disagreement because neither of us are going to change our opinions. In my mind life imprisonment is just as much of a consequence as death. Solitary confinement is the most terrifying thing in my mind, I simply cannot fathom lack of any human interaction. I was recently talking to my brother about capital punishment, and he explained his opinion to me in a way that made a large amount of sense. After he read my essay he said, "Yeah Capital Punishment has a lot of flaws, the biggest being it is expensive and you might kill an innocent person; however, there is certain things people do where jail is simply not enough of a consequence. If I was killed wouldn't you want the person who did it killed?" I started thinking, since this situation has never been applied to me I'm not going to base my opinion on it. But, as a result, I can now see the side many of you arguing from. In certain cases it simply isn't enough to imprison someone for life. I think that it is a very complex situation, but there is definitely situation where I believe capital punishment is wrong; however, I think in many years from now I'll be able to see the opposite of opinion.

[patrickcurl 0]

Personally I believe that justice and capital punishment should be used when absolutely necessary, and to curb bad behaviour inherent in society in general.When people hurt other people they deserve to be punished. On the other hand, I believe people who haven't physically hurt another person shouldn't be imprisoned at all, for instance non-violent drug offenders. And on the other hand, I believe people like sex offenders should have their offending member removed(ie castration), and I believe thieves should have something of them stolen - an arm or a leg(depending on the seriousness of the theft). Whether or not it stops the bad behavior you only have so many arms and legs, and when they're all gone you can't very well rob a liquor store.I think it just makes sense as it will be a constant reminder of their actions, but once you cut off their finger, hand, etc, send them on their way, this way our tax dollars won't be wasted on the criminal system.I think the strict punishments would also help to deter the bad behavior. Of course some leniency could be taken with first time offenders, or juveniles.