Perfect reason why the death penalty exists

[Cecilie1200]

So you believe killing is justified so long as the government says it's ok?

No, dumbass, I just believe it's not murder because, unlike you, I'm aware of what the words I use mean, instead of just using them wildly for an emotional effect.

And speaking of knowing what the words you use mean, how's about you share with us this lofty, nebulous definition of "justice" you keep prattling about?

If someone on death row is killed by another inmate that is classified as murder. How is it any different if the state kills somebody? That is murder.

Also, it's not polite to call people names simply because you don't agree with them.

Here's a thought, Mensa Boy. Take yourself down to Border's and pick up a book known as a "dictionary". In it, you will find that all these little squiggles you're putting on your screen - which we in the know call "words" - have definitions, which explain what one is referring to when one uses one of these "words". In this case, the word "murder", which you erroneously seem to think is synonymous with "killing", actually means "the illegal taking of a human life". That is why when one inmate kills another inmate, it is defined as "murder": because he did not have legal sanction to do so. The state, on the other hand, as the people who codify, enforce, and apply the law, cannot commit murder by executing someone, because it is LEGAL for them to do so. Do you understand the difference between an individual and the state? Can you say, "Duhhh"?

And I'm not calling you names because I don't agree with you. I'm calling you names because you're earning them by sounding like an illiterate boob. And I could probably care even less about being polite to the likes of you, but it would require the invention of new technology.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, I don't think I was disingenuous. I acknowledged that people will be released from prison or escape, while also acknowledging that that doesn't mean that they should be killed.

No, as a matter of fact, you DIDN'T acknowledge it at all. You just kept blathering about how prison was all it took to protect people from predators forever, and then when it was pointed out that as long as they're alive, there's a chance they'll get out, you just blithely moved on to another line of argument as though nothing was said.

So it doesn't matter if you THINK you were disingenuous or not. You were. Also cowardly.

I fail to see how the potential failings of the prison system make it ok to kill a person because they might escape or might get out.

Didn't say it did. All I said was that your argument that prison was the equivalent of "gone forever" was ignorant, since they manifestly are NOT.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You don't have to tell the child that they're gone forever, you can tell the child that they're in jail and can never hurt them again.

What do you tell them when the molester is released?

Do you support the death penalty when murder takes place?

You tell them, "Well, Johnny, don't go out of the house any more, because the liberals are trying to make pond scum into humans again."

 

[Zoom-boing]

You don't have to tell the child that they're gone forever, you can tell the child that they're in jail and can never hurt them again.

What do you tell them when the molester is released?

Do you support the death penalty when murder takes place?

You tell them that the molester was released, I see no reason not to tell them the truth.

No, I don't.

Why not?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, dumbass, I just believe it's not murder because, unlike you, I'm aware of what the words I use mean, instead of just using them wildly for an emotional effect.

And speaking of knowing what the words you use mean, how's about you share with us this lofty, nebulous definition of "justice" you keep prattling about?

If someone on death row is killed by another inmate that is classified as murder. How is it any different if the state kills somebody? That is murder.

Also, it's not polite to call people names simply because you don't agree with them.

Here's a thought, Mensa Boy. Take yourself down to Border's and pick up a book known as a "dictionary". In it, you will find that all these little squiggles you're putting on your screen - which we in the know call "words" - have definitions, which explain what one is referring to when one uses one of these "words". In this case, the word "murder", which you erroneously seem to think is synonymous with "killing", actually means "the illegal taking of a human life". That is why when one inmate kills another inmate, it is defined as "murder": because he did not have legal sanction to do so. The state, on the other hand, as the people who codify, enforce, and apply the law, cannot commit murder by executing someone, because it is LEGAL for them to do so. Do you understand the difference between an individual and the state? Can you say, "Duhhh"?

And I'm not calling you names because I don't agree with you. I'm calling you names because you're earning them by sounding like an illiterate boob. And I could probably care even less about being polite to the likes of you, but it would require the invention of new technology.

So if the government passed a law that said they could give the death penalty to anybody wearing red shoes would that then be legitimate, or would it be murder?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The justice system's responsibility is to punish those that break the law, not murder them.

Once again, Noah Webster, the justice system, by definition, CANNOT "murder" anyone. If I want fuzzy, childish logic with lots of emotional misuse of words, I'll go debate my 13-year-old.

And by the way, executing them IS punishing them. Might not be the punishment YOU wanted, but that doesn't mean it isn't punishment.

Yes, killing them would be a way of punishing them. Punishment in the same way somebody out for vengeance might punish them, thus murdering them.

Which is just as irrelevant as everything else that comes out of your keyboard, since no one is talking about somebody out for vengeance committing murder. We're talking about society legally deciding to exact justice. By the way, why is it you consider it horrible for an individual to decide that death is the appropriate response to child molestation, but not for YOU, another individual, to decide that it isn't? Seems just as arrogant to me, with a whole lot less justification.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What do you tell them when the molester is released?

Do you support the death penalty when murder takes place?

You tell them that the molester was released, I see no reason not to tell them the truth.

No, I don't.

Why not?

I don't believe in the legitimacy of the state to murder people.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You don't have to tell the child that they're gone forever, you can tell the child that they're in jail and can never hurt them again.

What do you tell them when the molester is released?

Do you support the death penalty when murder takes place?

You tell them that the molester was released, I see no reason not to tell them the truth.

No, I don't.

What? You mean tell them that the person who hurt them is now out on the streets, where he can conceivably hurt them again, after you told them he was "gone forever"? So in other words, you DID want them to lie to their kids the first time, just like I said. Thank you.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Once again, Noah Webster, the justice system, by definition, CANNOT "murder" anyone. If I want fuzzy, childish logic with lots of emotional misuse of words, I'll go debate my 13-year-old.

And by the way, executing them IS punishing them. Might not be the punishment YOU wanted, but that doesn't mean it isn't punishment.

Yes, killing them would be a way of punishing them. Punishment in the same way somebody out for vengeance might punish them, thus murdering them.

Which is just as irrelevant as everything else that comes out of your keyboard, since no one is talking about somebody out for vengeance committing murder. We're talking about society legally deciding to exact justice. By the way, why is it you consider it horrible for an individual to decide that death is the appropriate response to child molestation, but not for YOU, another individual, to decide that it isn't? Seems just as arrogant to me, with a whole lot less justification.

The death penalty can't possibly be anything but the state exacting vengeance on a criminal on behalf of their victim.

I said nothing about your argument being arrogant.

 

[Zoom-boing]

You tell them that the molester was released, I see no reason not to tell them the truth.

No, I don't.

Why not?

I don't believe in the legitimacy of the state to murder people.

I got that part from your posts. What's your reasoning?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What do you tell them when the molester is released?

Do you support the death penalty when murder takes place?

You tell them that the molester was released, I see no reason not to tell them the truth.

No, I don't.

What? You mean tell them that the person who hurt them is now out on the streets, where he can conceivably hurt them again, after you told them he was "gone forever"? So in other words, you DID want them to lie to their kids the first time, just like I said. Thank you.

Since I am not able to predict the future I don't think what I said would be a lie.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Why not?

I don't believe in the legitimacy of the state to murder people.

I got that part from your posts. What's your reasoning?

I'm not sure I can make it any clearer than I have. I believe murder is wrong, regardless of whether an individual or the government is the perpetrator.

 

[elvis]

Jail would accomplish that as well.

To me, that's unacceptable. As long as they are still living and breathing I wouldn't feel right telling a child they are gone forever.

You don't have to tell the child that they're gone forever, you can tell the child that they're in jail and can never hurt them again.

that's not what happens, typically. They usually get out.

 

[Article 15]

You don't have to tell the child that they're gone forever, you can tell the child that they're in jail and can never hurt them again.

What do you tell them when the molester is released?

Do you support the death penalty when murder takes place?

You tell them, "Well, Johnny, don't go out of the house any more, because the liberals are trying to make pond scum into humans again."

Kevin isn't a lib and there are posters who are left of center sharing your side of the argument in this thread.

 

[elvis]

Yes, killing them would be a way of punishing them. Punishment in the same way somebody out for vengeance might punish them, thus murdering them.

Which is just as irrelevant as everything else that comes out of your keyboard, since no one is talking about somebody out for vengeance committing murder. We're talking about society legally deciding to exact justice. By the way, why is it you consider it horrible for an individual to decide that death is the appropriate response to child molestation, but not for YOU, another individual, to decide that it isn't? Seems just as arrogant to me, with a whole lot less justification.

The death penalty can't possibly be anything but the state exacting vengeance on a criminal on behalf of their victim.

I said nothing about your argument being arrogant.

That's not true. The people who loved the individuals also feel vengeance.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If someone on death row is killed by another inmate that is classified as murder. How is it any different if the state kills somebody? That is murder.

Also, it's not polite to call people names simply because you don't agree with them.

Here's a thought, Mensa Boy. Take yourself down to Border's and pick up a book known as a "dictionary". In it, you will find that all these little squiggles you're putting on your screen - which we in the know call "words" - have definitions, which explain what one is referring to when one uses one of these "words". In this case, the word "murder", which you erroneously seem to think is synonymous with "killing", actually means "the illegal taking of a human life". That is why when one inmate kills another inmate, it is defined as "murder": because he did not have legal sanction to do so. The state, on the other hand, as the people who codify, enforce, and apply the law, cannot commit murder by executing someone, because it is LEGAL for them to do so. Do you understand the difference between an individual and the state? Can you say, "Duhhh"?

And I'm not calling you names because I don't agree with you. I'm calling you names because you're earning them by sounding like an illiterate boob. And I could probably care even less about being polite to the likes of you, but it would require the invention of new technology.

So if the government passed a law that said they could give the death penalty to anybody wearing red shoes would that then be legitimate, or would it be murder?

You really don't understand English very well, do you? Let me break it down even further for the seriously mentally and language-impaired: "Murder" is a legal term, not a moral one. No matter how much you might want it to be otherwise, it does not designate right and wrong in the slightest, just legality. So yes, if there was a law like your peurile hypothetical, it would not be murder, because it would be legal. Whether or not it would be moral or ethical is a completely different question. Obviously.

If I have to simplify these concepts for you even further, I'm going to have to break out the crayons and construction paper. Maybe get Bill Cosby to come sing the Picture Pages song for you.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

To me, that's unacceptable. As long as they are still living and breathing I wouldn't feel right telling a child they are gone forever.

You don't have to tell the child that they're gone forever, you can tell the child that they're in jail and can never hurt them again.

that's not what happens, typically. They usually get out.

If they're given a life sentence then I can't accurately predict if they'll someday get out, I'm only able to work with the information that I have at the time.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You tell them that the molester was released, I see no reason not to tell them the truth.

No, I don't.

Why not?

I don't believe in the legitimacy of the state to murder people.

He also doesn't believe in the legitimacy of words to have set definitions.

 

[elvis]

Yes, killing them would be a way of punishing them. Punishment in the same way somebody out for vengeance might punish them, thus murdering them.

Which is just as irrelevant as everything else that comes out of your keyboard, since no one is talking about somebody out for vengeance committing murder. We're talking about society legally deciding to exact justice. By the way, why is it you consider it horrible for an individual to decide that death is the appropriate response to child molestation, but not for YOU, another individual, to decide that it isn't? Seems just as arrogant to me, with a whole lot less justification.

The death penalty can't possibly be anything but the state exacting vengeance on a criminal on behalf of their victim.

I said nothing about your argument being arrogant.

If you don't want the state to do it, hand them over to the Saudis.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Which is just as irrelevant as everything else that comes out of your keyboard, since no one is talking about somebody out for vengeance committing murder. We're talking about society legally deciding to exact justice. By the way, why is it you consider it horrible for an individual to decide that death is the appropriate response to child molestation, but not for YOU, another individual, to decide that it isn't? Seems just as arrogant to me, with a whole lot less justification.

The death penalty can't possibly be anything but the state exacting vengeance on a criminal on behalf of their victim.

I said nothing about your argument being arrogant.

That's not true. The people who loved the individuals also feel vengeance.

Regardless, I don't believe that vengeance equals justice.