Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Welcome to the forum → The Lounge → Death Penalty

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

Do humans have needed kno...
Yesterday at 05:32 AM
New Britain
by zeca
January 27, 2026, 08:45 AM
What music are you listen...
by zeca
January 26, 2026, 07:07 PM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
January 23, 2026, 12:21 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
January 22, 2026, 11:33 AM
ركن المتحدثين هايد بارك ل...
by akay
January 18, 2026, 02:48 PM
Is Iran/Persia going to b...
by zeca
January 18, 2026, 08:49 AM
What's happened to the fo...
January 09, 2026, 12:03 PM
Excellence and uniqueness
by akay
January 05, 2026, 10:14 AM
Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 05, 2025, 11:34 PM
Ex-Muslims on Mythvision ...
by zeca
November 02, 2025, 07:58 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
October 23, 2025, 01:36 PM

Theme Changer

 Poll

  • Question: Death Penalty
  • In support of it - 4 (8.7%)
  • Against it - 33 (71.7%)
  • Undecided - 9 (19.6%)
  • Total Voters: 46

 Topic: Death Penalty

 (Read 13058 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 34 5 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Death Penalty
     Reply #60 - September 25, 2011, 01:17 PM
    Good morning. I'm a little more a awake and have edit the other part of my reply. I haven't read your link to David Troy (?) I'm not on a computer wereI ca access large bodies of info or send or receive alot at time. However when I can I will look at it.

    Right now what I am talking about is men and situations I personally know about. I don't say it easily that some, a very small number, of these men it would be better for them to die a controlled death. I would say one, maybe two. I think the second man if he thought the death penalty was an option it would at least manage him. That is he would stop just short of that punishment.
    The other he doesn't care. I do not know how he managed not to be sentenced to death (so be it). I think because the normal mind revolts at the thought, 'he is really as disgusting as he is'. I am medical personal I have spoken to him in the circumstance where he could speak freely (I allowed that but once). He has no remorse. He enjoyed what he did. He would do it again, to another offender, to me, to you, to a baby, to a grandmother, to a prison gaurd, to your dad, to my mom and on and on and on, Every chance he got. Only the died bodies would testify against him.  

    I'm out of time for now and can't save. After Sunday meeting I'll modify to answer your question.

    Quote from: allat on September 25, 2011, 12:25 AM
    I would also like you to explain how you reconcile the notion of a merciful God/Jesus with your idea that humans have the right to kill each other in some cases. In other words, who would Jesus electrocute?


    Sorry, it's actuallly Sunday evening when I'm gettnig back to finish this post,

    Jesus would not electrocute any one I don't image. I'm thinking he would have more effective less inhuman method available.
    However at this period of neither God or Jesus is directly judging and exactting judgement on indivduals. For this time period it's in hands  of human goverment. In the Bible at Roman 13:1-7 it speaks about human governments being in this relative positions of authority. As such these governments can enact laws to keep order. If a human government has the death penalty for a purpose of protecting human life. Then there would not be a need to have to oppose it or support it for that matter.

    Any other questions?
    If at first you succeed...try something harder.

    Failing isn't falling down. Failing is not getting back up again.
  • Re: Death Penalty
     Reply #61 - September 25, 2011, 02:12 PM
    Quote from: Abood on September 25, 2011, 12:37 PM
    Michel Foucault?!?!?! Cheesy

    Your post shows zero knowledge on anything Michel Foucault ever said. I was actually about to tell you Foucault is begging to be read.


    So you're denying the fact that he was against the prison institution for many of the reasons I posted above?
  • Re: Death Penalty
     Reply #62 - September 25, 2011, 03:51 PM
    Quote from: Lynna on September 25, 2011, 11:29 AM
    Sorry. it is 0444 for me and I just woke up.


    Well I asked you several hours before, but anyways...
     
    Quote from: Lynna on September 25, 2011, 11:29 AM
    This question is a lawyers play for sympathy, not meant for those who work in corrections.
    See my face I'm smiling softly as if speaking to a child, "Don't you know darling every one in this prison is innocent. Just ask them" (LOL)


    Maybe you can not grasp the notion that we are adults here. I am not presuming that you have the intellect of a child, should I be?

    I am asking you as an adult, do you believe the justice system makes no mistakes and never convicts someone who is innocent of the crime they are convicted of?

    Quote from: Lynna on September 25, 2011, 11:29 AM
    This is not even a good question. It is exactly what I'm talking about. Don't you realize it is asked in the abstract and unrealistic. 1000 faceless, nameless, without a personal history so called "hardened criminals" and these 1
    or 2 or 10 innocent people.
    Completely innocent? Were not there at all?  In the US a person does not have to be proven innocent. The defense has to be prove there is a reasonable doubt about their guilt.


    No need to try to evade the question, if you can't just answer it.

    Quote from: Lynna on September 25, 2011, 11:29 AM
    Allat what is your experience? What do you know from life about the subject? If it is your opinion and you have never meet any one who murders children for entertainment, that's fine. I just want to know from where you speak. It will help me understand your point better.


    I have met people who have been put in jail for crimes they did not commit because they were unlucky, in the wrong place and too poor to afford lawyers that charge $500 an hour just to talk to you.

    So, now that we have my experience squared away, answer the question:

    Is it justified for any state to murder 1000 "hardened criminals" if 1 or 2 or 10 innocent people get killed along the way?

    And to make it less abstract, consider if one of those innocent people is your family member or close friend.

    Quote from: Lynna on September 25, 2011, 11:29 AM
    Why don't you answer first what message is being sent by letting some one live who continues without remorse to endanger the lives and health of others.


    No. I asked the question first. Do you also not have an answer to this as well: what is the message a state sends when it kills people to show that killing people is wrong?

    "Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused."
  • Re: Death Penalty
     Reply #63 - September 25, 2011, 03:53 PM
    Quote from: Dawahfilms on September 25, 2011, 02:12 PM
    So you're denying the fact that he was against the prison institution for many of the reasons I posted above?


    Foucault analyzed systems of control including religion and prison and others with centralised authoritarian regimes. Does not mean he was automatically pro-death-penalty.
    "Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused."
  • Re: Death Penalty
     Reply #64 - September 25, 2011, 03:58 PM
    Quote from: Dawahfilms on September 25, 2011, 12:34 PM
    Interesting evasions on your part, but Im well informed on the issue. I take a lot of my thoughts on the subject from philosopher Michel Foucault.


    How dare you! Is quran not enough  Wink
    Little Fly, Thy summer's play
    My thoughtless hand has brushed away.

    I too dance and drink, and sing,
    Till some blind hand shall brush my wing.

    Therefore I am a happy fly,
    If I live or if I die.
  • Re: Death Penalty
     Reply #65 - September 25, 2011, 05:05 PM
    Quote from: allat on September 25, 2011, 03:53 PM
    Foucault analyzed systems of control including religion and prison and others with centralised authoritarian regimes. Does not mean he was automatically pro-death-penalty.


    I didn't say he was...I stated rather clearly I was influenced by his thoughts in my critique of the prison system.
  • Re: Death Penalty
     Reply #66 - September 25, 2011, 05:07 PM
    The prison system stinks, but it saved many lives up till now....
    Religion is organized superstition
  • Re: Death Penalty
     Reply #67 - September 25, 2011, 05:26 PM
    I have seen a many a convert who admitted that they hated the death penalty before conversion to Islam.

    Here is another example how religion perverts our instintive urge for compassion and foregivenes.

    Even hand chopping is not seen barbaric!

    Nor do they see how torturing for eternity is not justice....
    Little Fly, Thy summer's play
    My thoughtless hand has brushed away.

    I too dance and drink, and sing,
    Till some blind hand shall brush my wing.

    Therefore I am a happy fly,
    If I live or if I die.
  • Re: Death Penalty
     Reply #68 - September 25, 2011, 05:36 PM
    Quote from: Dawahfilms on September 25, 2011, 05:05 PM
    I didn't say he was...I stated rather clearly I was influenced by his thoughts in my critique of the prison system.

    The fact that you support the death penalty shows that you know shit about Foucauldian thought. At the very least, you've misinterpreted everything you've read by him. At most, you're lying.
  • Re: Death Penalty
     Reply #69 - September 25, 2011, 05:42 PM
    Not necessarily. That he was influenced by him doesn't necessarily mean he agrees with all, or even any, of his conclusions. Grover Norquist was strongly influenced by Lenin's organizational principles (as was Mussolini)-- that doesn't mean they're Leninists nor that they misunderstood him, simply that they took part of his analysis and rejected the rest.
    fuck you
  • Re: Death Penalty
     Reply #70 - September 25, 2011, 05:47 PM
    Quote from: Abood on September 25, 2011, 05:36 PM
    The fact that you support the death penalty shows that you know shit about Foucauldian thought. At the very least, you've misinterpreted everything you've read by him. At most, you're lying.


    So apparently I have to completely agree with the guy to take some of his criticisms as valid?

    Wow, guess they aren't teaching me what "true" critical thinking is in my graduate philosophy program.
  • Re: Death Penalty
     Reply #71 - September 25, 2011, 05:49 PM
    Quote from: Colonel Q-Daffi on September 25, 2011, 05:42 PM
    Not necessarily. That he was influenced by him doesn't necessarily mean he agrees with all, or even any, of his conclusions. Grover Norquist was strongly influenced by Lenin's organizational principles (as was Mussolini)-- that doesn't mean they're Leninists nor that they misunderstood him, simply that they took part of his analysis and rejected the rest.


     Huh? Then why did he quote him?


    The World is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.
                                   Thomas Paine

    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored !- Aldous Huxley
  • Re: Death Penalty
     Reply #72 - September 25, 2011, 05:49 PM
    Quote from: Dawahfilms on September 25, 2011, 05:47 PM
    Wow, guess they aren't teaching me what "true" critical thinking is in my graduate philosophy program.


    Yeah, that "I've got a degree in..." jazz ain't gonna cut much around here. No one cares about your academic qualifications here, just make your points.
    fuck you
  • Re: Death Penalty
     Reply #73 - September 25, 2011, 05:52 PM
    Quote from: hypocrucifier on September 25, 2011, 05:49 PM
    Huh? Then why did he quote him?


    I didn't quote anyone. I just mentioned him in my critique of the prison system.
  • Re: Death Penalty
     Reply #74 - September 25, 2011, 05:53 PM
    Quote from: Colonel Q-Daffi on September 25, 2011, 05:49 PM
    Yeah, that "I've got a degree in..." jazz ain't gonna cut much around here. No one cares about your academic qualifications here, just make your points.


    Well that certainly explains a lot.

    And I think that the last about people "not caring" is just nonsense. All of you use authorities with academic credentials all the time (hence references). You just like to say that to undermine people so it's easier to appear equal in an argument.
  • Re: Death Penalty
     Reply #75 - September 25, 2011, 06:16 PM
    I'm not saying you should agree with everything Foucault says. Of course not. But I'm not seeing any influence. Regardless, those arguments you made are not coherent and the conclusions do not follow from the premises -- and some of the claims aren't even arguments. If you're actually a graduate of philosophy, I'm speechless. Those arguments would give you a pretty low (if not failed) grade.
  • Re: Death Penalty
     Reply #76 - September 25, 2011, 06:18 PM
    Quote from: Dawahfilms on September 25, 2011, 05:53 PM
    Well that certainly explains a lot.

    And I think that the last about people "not caring" is just nonsense. All of you use authorities with academic credentials all the time (hence references). You just like to say that to undermine people so it's easier to appear equal in an argument.

    No one gives a crap about academic qualifications. Referencing things in your argument has nothing to do with academic qualifications. Even an uneducated bum has the ability use reason, research the Internet and provide references as long as s/he is literate.

    We value proper, logically coherent thus valid arguments, not academic qualifications.
  • Re: Death Penalty
     Reply #77 - September 25, 2011, 06:35 PM
    Quote from: chris on September 23, 2011, 05:15 PM
    Among other well trodden reasons, I don't trust the state to make irreversible decisions.


    +1

    I'm pretty much against the death penalty, due to the fallibility of human cognition. Mistake are inevitably made and (though I can't back this up with sources) I'm sure innocent people have been killed.

    We only have one life.

    Quote
    This could be the case and it couldn't. Keeping a man in jail for several years can have absolutely the same effect on the family outside as it can killing him. The  family will eventually move on and learn how to survive on their own in both cases...the only difference is that eventually the guy might get out. The second difference is that in the case of accidentally killing the man over accidentally putting them in jail: the dead guy doesnt have to suffer forever in a prison cell!!!!!!!


    Family bonds can be rekindled, it happens all the time. I'm sure the majority of human being would rather be alive with the possibility of their miscarriage of justice being discovered.

    Death is irreversible, and human beings can - and do - create fulfilling lives after being released from Prison.

    Quote from: Dawahfilms on September 25, 2011, 05:53 PM
    And I think that the last about people "not caring" is just nonsense. All of you use authorities with academic credentials all the time (hence references). You just like to say that to undermine people so it's easier to appear equal in an argument.


    Higher education is admirable IMO - I only finished mandatory schooling - but the way you dropped your credentials in the thread came across as pretty pompous to me.

    An alternative to religion;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2nfXfTg92E

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNW-NXEudk
  • Re: Death Penalty
     Reply #78 - September 25, 2011, 06:43 PM
    Quote from: Abood on September 25, 2011, 06:18 PM
    No one gives a crap about academic qualifications. Referencing things in your argument has nothing to do with academic qualifications. Even an uneducated bum has the ability use reason, research the Internet and provide references as long as s/he is literate.

    We value proper, logically coherent thus valid arguments, not academic qualifications.


    And the context of my credentials dropping was in reference to your rather simpleminded criticism of my view of Foucault. Furthermore, yes you DO give a crap about academic credentials, else you wouldn't use references at all.
  • Re: Death Penalty
     Reply #79 - September 25, 2011, 06:51 PM
     mysmilie_977

    People don't reference things to support their arguments with academic credentials, they do to support their arguments with evidence. If I say X, I don't provide a link to a philosopher who said X, I provide data that shows X is true.

    I'm really questioning your claim that you're a philosophy graduate here.
  • Re: Death Penalty
     Reply #80 - September 25, 2011, 06:53 PM
    Quote from: Dawahfilms on September 25, 2011, 11:40 AM
    If we don't want to kill innocent people we FIX THE WAY WE APPLY JUSTICE, we don't DESTROY THE PUNISHMENT ALL TOGETHER.


    You can't fix the problems of human cognition, and the timeless problem of institutional corruption.
    An alternative to religion;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2nfXfTg92E

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNW-NXEudk
  • Re: Death Penalty
     Reply #81 - September 25, 2011, 06:54 PM
    Quote from: Lynna on September 24, 2011, 06:29 PM
    The questions are not rhetorical.
    Nor are just directed at you personally. Anyone the same opinion could answer.

    When the death penalty is asked for it is because special cirumstances were involved in the crime. Usually a very horrible irreversible crime always against a human life.

    Just wondering what make the one commiting that crime more believible then the  justice system.


    That's completely missing the point.  I'm disagreeing with the death penalty on the grounds that innocent people have been convicted and sentenced to death - in one case, an innocent person has been executed.  If any justice system is to impose an irreversible penalty, then its not good enough for it to be merely "more believable than a criminal", it would have to be infallible first.
    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Death Penalty
     Reply #82 - September 25, 2011, 06:59 PM
    Quote from: Dawahfilms on September 25, 2011, 05:53 PM
    Well that certainly explains a lot.

    And I think that the last about people "not caring" is just nonsense. All of you use authorities with academic credentials all the time (hence references). You just like to say that to undermine people so it's easier to appear equal in an argument.


    I can't speak for everyone else here, but for me a reliable source does not necessarily depend on someone's academic qualifications, and as it comes to this forum, I've never cared about someone's academic qualifications here regarding a social/political debate or discussion unless I think it qualifies them to speak on some particular point of knowledge which I was not myself qualified to speak to knowledgeably.
    fuck you
  • Re: Death Penalty
     Reply #83 - September 25, 2011, 07:20 PM
    Roll Eyes

    So uh, yeah, I am against it. I would reconsider if the law was always just, however I don't think it is.
    n = 0 : n + [1,1,1...]
  • Re: Death Penalty
     Reply #84 - September 25, 2011, 07:23 PM
    Quote from: Abood on September 25, 2011, 06:51 PM
    mysmilie_977

    People don't reference things to support their arguments with academic credentials, they do to support their arguments with evidence. If I say X, I don't provide a link to a philosopher who said X, I provide data that shows X is true.

    I'm really questioning your claim that you're a philosophy graduate here.


    And the evidence is formed by those in said academic positions. What...you get peer reviewed scientific journals from mechanics?
  • Re: Death Penalty
     Reply #85 - September 25, 2011, 07:25 PM
    Quote from: Dawahfilms on September 25, 2011, 11:40 AM
    A little while ago I wrote some common defenses of abolishing he death penalty and then objected to those points:

     
    1) "No person has the right to take another person's life...only God!"
     
    Okay, this is ludicrous for a number of reasons. For one, the sheer inconsistency of people when they say this. Of course we have the right to take other people's lives. We justify this every day in a number of ways. For instance, to defend ourselves. It it remarkable how many people have absolutely NO problem with a man defending his family and killing an attempted murderer, but for some reason think its wrong for the state to execute the murderer after he was successful in killing that man and his family. So, apparently, the murderers life only becomes precious if he's successful in the murder. Wonderful.
     
    And, of course one may say "Well these two situations are different because the man who is defending himself HAS to kill the murderer to live". Yes, but if this is the case then why do you say that he has no RIGHT to kill the man? So now there is an exception? So now the value of the murderer is lower given his actions then but not later when he's caught?
     
    Another question may be, "What is the state protecting itself from by killing the murderer? Why not just lock them up?". Because killing a murderer is not just about protecting one's self but also about the philosophy behind punishment.
     
    2) "If we kill the murderer we become just like them!!!"
     
    Yeah, this is also ludicrous. Firstly, the murderer killed someone for UNJUST reasons. That is why they are a "murderer" and not someone who was defending their lives or the lives of others. The state is killing the murderer for JUST reasons (because of the persons crimes). There is no likeness.
     
    3) "Killing the murderer doesn't bring the victim back!!!"
     
    That's not the point of executing them to begin with. The point is to: A) Exchange one life for the other as FAIRNESS and so as to not exceed the limits and B) As a detterent.
     
    When you keep the murderer in jail his whole life this is actually UNJUST in many ways. For one, you are locking them behind bars their entire life like an animal and mentally and socially torturing them. This is not the same as what happened to the victim. The victim is DEAD. The family is suffering. The man, being behind bars, won't fix any of that either. The point of executing him isn't to fix anything anyways, it's to make sure justice has been served. Justice should be fair. Keeping him behind bars forever is not fair.
     
    Also note the extreme of this "Abolish the death penalty" logic: Anders Breivic...you know...the guy who slaughtered over 70 people in Norway a few months ago? Yeah...he's only getting 23 years in jail and might get out sooner for "good behavior". Many may say "Well he'll get his after that so don't worry" simply assert their inconsistency. This guy shouldn't be "getting his" after prison. The state should be doing it!
     
    Furthermore, this also goes back to the flawed system of the contemporary Western system of punishment surrounding the idea of "Reform". The point of prison and punishment is to "reform". This is nonsense as well, however. How can someone "reform" when the only difference between the punishment for their crime and others is based on the amount of time they have to spend behind bars (and also among others who are worse than themselves), are isolated from society (which is sort of antithetical to 'reforming them' given that a good society is necessary for that sort of behaviorial schooling to take place), and the punishment is not even witnessed by all the law abiding citizens? And also, how are these places "reforming" anyone when nearly half of the prisoners return to prison after release?
     
    Let's be honest here. Prisons were not created to "reform". They were created for two reasons: A) Convenience and B) Practicality. Convenience so that people did not have to see criminals and have them isolated from society (who wants garbage in their backyards, right?) and practicality in the sense that its intention is to protect society from the harm of those criminals. Nothing about increasing the morality of society OR the prisoner. This is simply a farce.
     
    4) "Killing someone costs more than keeping them in prison forever!"
     
    Besides the fact that I find it disturbing that people bring this up as though the value of someone's life is dependant on how much something costs, this is completely foolish reasoning for the primary reason that killing someone only costs more because most western countries have crappy appeals systems. So fix the appeals system if you want it cheaper! Don't get rid of the punishment!
     
    5) "Keeping the death penalty means that there's a chance an innocent person may be killed!"
     
    This is perhaps the strongest objection, but is still flawed. For one, giving the death penalty to an innocent person is a misapplication or mistake of justice, it is not an injustice. The purpose of the death penalty was never to kill innocent people. This sort of reasoning completely misses the point of justice and punishment and looks at everything pragmatically, which is false. I am not saying that killing an innocent person isn't a big deal, but to get rid of an entire form of punishment because of the mistake of its applicaton is simply illogical. If this is really how you think, then you should also justify getting rid of ALL punishments because of the mistakes we make. One could retort "Well its worse if we accidentally kill someone than keeping them in jail". Nonsense. This could be the case and it couldn't. Keeping a man in jail for several years can have absolutely the same effect on the family outside as it can killing him. The  family will eventually move on and learn how to survive on their own in both cases...the only difference is that eventually the guy might get out. The second difference is that in the case of accidentally killing the man over accidentally putting them in jail: the dead guy doesnt have to suffer forever in a prison cell!!!!!!!
     
    If we don't want to kill innocent people we FIX THE WAY WE APPLY JUSTICE, we don't DESTROY THE PUNISHMENT ALL TOGETHER.

    All of your 5 points miss the point and are therefore completely irrelevant. You just don't seem to understand the simple fact that the judicial system either makes mistakes or fits up innocent people, neither of which injustices can be rectified if an innocent convicted individual has been topped. What's so difficult about that? Or do you think that the taking of innocent lives, now and again, is somehow OK?
    Your point 5 is particularly callous and idiotic.
    Religion is ignorance giftwrapped in lyricism.
  • Re: Death Penalty
     Reply #86 - September 25, 2011, 07:26 PM
    It's not the fact that they're in academic positions that makes the evidence valid. If you went out and collected data that data would be as valid as anything compiled by any professional.

    You obviously don't know how academia functions.
  • Re: Death Penalty
     Reply #87 - September 25, 2011, 07:27 PM
    Dawahfilms is an elitist.
    fuck you
  • Re: Death Penalty
     Reply #88 - September 25, 2011, 07:29 PM
    Quote from: sojournerlumus on September 25, 2011, 07:25 PM
    You just don't seem to understand the simple fact that the judicial system either makes mistakes or fits up innocent people, neither of which injustices can be rectified if an innocent convicted individual has been topped.

    Spoken like the best sort of academic - confident enough to speak sound sense in everyday language.
  • Re: Death Penalty
     Reply #89 - September 25, 2011, 07:31 PM
    Quote from: Abood on September 25, 2011, 07:26 PM
    It's not the fact that they're in academic positions that makes the evidence valid. If you went out and collected data that data would be as valid as anything compiled by any professional.

    You obviously don't know how academia functions.


    Im quite aware of them. You seem to think that evidence can be validated equally by everyone, which is the real problem here, therefore discarding all forms of authority for your own uninformed assessment.

  • Previous page 1 2 34 5 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »