Nadimos Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) There always exist forgivness. Punishment is something only helpless poeple do. Edited February 19, 2011 by Nadimos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 There always exist forgivness. Punishment is something only helpless poeple do. Thus speaks the voice that believes not in true evil, unregenerate,amoral, sociopathic and without conscience evil, too bad such a thing and people who are such do exist. It always amuses me when such Utopian ideas are put to the personal test, outside of the Quakers I have never seen a true believer when someone despoils their loved ones and ruins their world. By which I mean that that point of view is held safely at a distance of the reality of true evil but never after close contact. Some people are so far beyond the pale of any civilized norm that death is societies answer for their crimes, I have not a moment of regret when one of those type of people is removed from this plane of existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrosocial Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 My veiws o this are mixed, if you take a life you deserve to die(self defence and war excluded). But, the death penalty is painless. The victims most likly didn't get a painful death, so why should the killer? So the next best thing is to rot in solitary getting food and medical care and never have to worry about bills, the econmy, or war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Why is it OK to kill in self defense and in war? It is rare you will need to use deadly force for self defense, I can understand that but using deadly force isn't always a last resort for some people. In the case of war, that depends on so much more then just "War = country = OK" It is not OK to kill in war, and the reason for war matters a lot in the issue. Let me ask again, what is the point is killing someone for a crime they did? What will it solve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrosocial Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Knowing that there is zero chance that person will ever cause harm again. Because I will not call someone who risk their lives. For the safety of my country a killer. In war they save lives. I would perfer we could avoid death and war, but it is not possible. It never will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Knowing that there is zero chance that person will ever cause harm again. Because I will not call someone who risk their lives. For the safety of my country a killer. In war they save lives. I would perfer we could avoid death and war, but it is not possible. It never will be.Wars may or may not save lives. It depends on a lot of things. I see your point about them never causing harm again, but I think it would be much better to use my society system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poradicus Posted April 30, 2011 Share Posted April 30, 2011 I think it is wrong to issue a death penalty especially if the person is innocent. Sometimes the person is innocent and was falsely accused and proven guilty. Does someone deserves to die being falsely accused, that is not law. The death penalty should not be institued on a person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stars2heaven Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 (edited) I'm a little late to the party here so I'll just put in my 2 cents. I think it is unethical for society to have to be burdened with the upkeep of its worst criminals. At the same time, the dead are notoriously unproductive. I would rather such criminals have the choice between death or working to benefit society for the rest of their lives. If they choose death then society is better off not having to feed someone who would destroy other productive and presumably beneficial members of society. If they choose to work then they can pay for their own upkeep and try to return to society something of what they destroyed. Call it slavery if you wish, I don't think that it is inhumane in the least, and more than fair. Edited May 1, 2011 by stars2heaven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 I'm a little late to the party here so I'll just put in my 2 cents. I think it is unethical for society to have to be burdened with the upkeep of its worst criminals. At the same time, the dead are notoriously unproductive. I would rather such criminals have the choice between death or working to benefit society for the rest of their lives. If they choose death then society is better off not having to feed someone who would destroy other productive and presumably beneficial members of society. If they choose to work then they can pay for their own upkeep and try to return to society something of what they destroyed. Call it slavery if you wish, I don't think that it is inhumane in the least, and more than fair.I would not call it slavery at all. The thing is, you need to be kept away from society. Not for punishment, but to be sure you do not kill others again. So like everyone else you should have to work to support yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now