Should The Death Penalty Be Allowed?

Original post by Moonstruck16

Inb4 human rights & rehabilitation

Posted from TSR Mobile

Rehabilitation doesn't always fix anything. A non remorseful serial killer isn't to come his senses what he did was wrong, and he will or might find an opportunity to escape to murder again.

Freedom is a human right, I think. And they lost their right to do whatever they wanted and not live in a prison cell after doing a brutal crime. You don't think some people should lose their rights or privileges after murdering others and conflicting pain for fun? I think they should.

I don't know about you but if I had my family member leaving the world by murder and rape I wouldn't be worry too much about the killer's "rights" after they took other people's rights just to live. Call it karma.
Do wrong to others it might come back on you.

Plus death penalty is a permanent solution to a problem (serial killer ridden for good), and empties the prison cells.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 283

Retired_Messiah

Well when you reduce it down to this:

"killing people is awful and terrible so we're going to kill you"

it suddenly sounds dumb and hypocritical.

Reply 284

Original post by Retired_Messiah

Well when you reduce it down to this:

"killing people is awful and terrible so we're going to kill you"

it suddenly sounds dumb and hypocritical.

I don't think it sounds dumb at all. Its not hypocritical to execute a person after they murdered others. Its hypocritical to be a serial killer and claim murder is wrong and people shouldn't kill each other though.

Reply 285

anosmianAcrimony

20

Original post by SmileyVibe

I don't think it sounds dumb at all. Its not hypocritical to execute a person after they murdered others. Its hypocritical to be a serial killer and claim murder is wrong and people shouldn't kill each other though.

What distinguishes execution from murder?

Reply 286

Original post by anosmianAcrimony

What distinguishes execution from murder?

Well murder and execution are the same thing but for different reasons. Execution is the punishment of a crime. Imprisonment without any parole is a punishment as well.

Plain murder is just killing someone for enjoyment, money, and/or selfish reasons. Like raping and murdering young women on the street that remind you of your ex. Or swindling rich people and then murdering them.

Some parents spank their kids for stealing or misbehaving. And some states in the USA gives an unremorseful serial killer who murdered over 30 people in one lifetime the death penalty aka murder/death or whatever floats your boat on the label of it.

I don't believe every killer needs the death penalty though. Death penalty is rare like a unicorn sighting.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 287

Retired_Messiah

Original post by SmileyVibe

I don't think it sounds dumb at all. Its not hypocritical to execute a person after they murdered others. Its hypocritical to be a serial killer and claim murder is wrong and people shouldn't kill each other though.

Killing people is bad, therefore we're going to kill people that kill people doesn't sound at all iffy?

hm

Reply 288

Original post by SmileyVibe

I don't think it sounds dumb at all. Its not hypocritical to execute a person after they murdered others. Its hypocritical to be a serial killer and claim murder is wrong and people shouldn't kill each other though.

It's really no different. If the death penalty was introduced the government would essentially be serial killers, killing those who kill others.

Original post by ozzyoscy

This is a tautology, but yes stealing is stealing.

You're trying to defend an argument in which you said putting a thief in prison is stealing their stuff...

Original post by anosmianAcrimony

What distinguishes execution from murder?

One has a government endorsing it

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 289

ozzyoscy

Original post by Underscore__

You're trying to defend an argument in which you said putting a thief in prison is stealing their stuff...

You've over analysing an argument and making things up for the sake of arguing, reviving dead arguments for your own benefit.

Reply 290

Moonstruck16

5

Original post by ozzyoscy

You've over analysing an argument and making things up for the sake of arguing, reviving dead arguments for your own benefit.

This.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 291

Original post by ozzyoscy

You've over analysing an argument and making things up for the sake of arguing, reviving dead arguments for your own benefit.

What have I made up? I'm not over analysing it, it doesn't require analysis because it's just so clearly wrong. I would have dropped it ages ago if you'd just conceded it was an erroneous argument to make.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 292

Original post by Underscore__

It's really no different. If the death penalty was introduced the government would essentially be serial killers, killing those who kill others.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Sure. The government is a serial killer that kills as punishment and form of justice.
A serial killer is one person who kills multiple people for their own purpose. The government is a system that enforces its laws and punishes those who breaks them.

Doesn't the government also strip prisoners and serial killers of their freedom and movement or would you rather have serial killers out and about?

Reply 293

Spirited-Sleeper

1

Original post by MockingJay-

What's your verdict? Is it right to kill someone for killing somebody?

What if you send someone to death for a crime it turns out they didn't commit? Pretty sure that's the whole reason it got abolished in the UK. Yes, the death penalty was in force in the UK up until the 60s/70s.

I think it's always going to be a hot topic of discussion, but I think at least if you are gonna use the death penalty make sure they actually did it first. Like a serial killer because then you have plenty of evidence to know they did the crime. Well, crimes.....

Reply 294

Original post by SmileyVibe

Sure. The government is a serial killer that kills as punishment and form of justice.
A serial killer is one person who kills multiple people for their own purpose. The government is a system that enforces its laws and punishes those who breaks them.

I'm sure some serial killers believe what they're doing is justice. Also if the government were killing people for 'justice' they too are killing people for their own purpose. The criminal justice system does not serve as a mechanism to 'punish' people.

Original post by SmileyVibe

Doesn't the government also strip prisoners and serial killers of their freedom and movement or would you rather have serial killers out and about?

Yes but that's not hypocritical. A serial killer killing another serial killer for being a serial killer is hypocritical.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 295

ozzyoscy

Original post by Underscore__

What have I made up? I'm not over analysing it, it doesn't require analysis because it's just so clearly wrong. I would have dropped it ages ago if you'd just conceded it was an erroneous argument to make.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Exactly. You claim I said something that was "clearly wrong", yet need a written concession of defeat. This reveals your real intent here and for arguing with people - self esteem issues, personal problems.

You want me to say that you're smart, that you're right about everything, that you never made anything up etc. or, if not that, for me to at least become obnoxious and abusive, so you can tell yourself I'm 'mad' because I know I'm wrong. Though so far I haven't indulged you at all which, by your own words above, is why you're compelled to keep replying rather than moving on, despite me never indulging your addiction for an epic argument.

Reply 296

Original post by ozzyoscy

Exactly. You claim I said something that was "clearly wrong", yet need a written concession of defeat. This reveals your real intent here and for arguing with people - self esteem issues, personal problems.

You want me to say that you're smart, that you're right about everything, that you never made anything up etc. or, if not that, for me to at least become obnoxious and abusive, so you can tell yourself I'm 'mad' because I know I'm wrong. Though so far I haven't indulged you at all which, by your own words above, is why you're compelled to keep replying rather than moving on, despite me never indulging your addiction for an epic argument.

Haha yeah I want you admit you're wrong so I can feel clever, please just do it or I'll cry. If you say something which someone else tells you is wrong, the normal thing to do is acknowledge you're wrong. Your lack of willingness to admit you said something untrue suggest you have confidence issues

Reply 297

ozzyoscy

Original post by Underscore__

Haha yeah I want you admit you're wrong so I can feel clever, please just do it or I'll cry. If you say something which someone else tells you is wrong, the normal thing to do is acknowledge you're wrong. Your lack of willingness to admit you said something untrue suggest you have confidence issues

- A forced lol variant to give the impression you're blazé about it all and it's not as serious and thus aggravating to you as it appears and it's all ok

- A disguised confession under the guise of sarcasm

- Then copying what I've said and applying it to me. Which means you feel what I said was true, so you use it yourself on me (context be damned) as it's now a proven method.

Don't think I haven't also noticed that you're trying to get the last word, in a last ditch attempt to convince yourself you've 'won' whatever argument you think.

Reply 298

Moonstruck16

5

Original post by ozzyoscy

- A forced lol variant to give the impression you're blazé about it all and it's not as serious and thus aggravating to you as it appears and it's all ok

- A disguised confession under the guise of sarcasm

- Then copying what I've said and applying it to me. Which means you feel what I said was true, so you use it yourself on me (context be damned) as it's now a proven method.

Don't think I haven't also noticed that you're trying to get the last word, in a last ditch attempt to convince yourself you've 'won' whatever argument you think.

He's a supposed lawyer type. They are meant to go down fighting, regardless of how foolish they look.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 299