[Ter]

For those people who think human rights are nonsense, feel free to give them up.

As I said earlier, human rights as defined by some Western countries include the right to abortion on demand and recognition of all kinds of aberrant sexual behaviour as legal.
The majority of today's world does not accept those.
It's not a package deal.

[Unthinking Majority]

The state shouldn't be able to kill its own citizens unless absolutely necessary, like police responding to an active shooter.

[One Degree]

Explain how it is not. The very definition of discrimination includes the word 'unjust'. How can you reconcile that as not being harmful to any society?

People 'preferring' to live with each other is a far cry from exclusion, which you support with your support of discrimination. Your kind makes me sick. Please die soon. I have no respect for people of your ilk, and never will.

Yet, you live in a part of the world where my view would be easily understood compared to the US. Your insults are boring, but your consistent hypocrisy is always good for a chuckle. You really need to spend some time comparing what you say to what you pretend to believe. They have nothing in common.

[Zamuel]

This is where society requires punishment, not just justice.

Punishment is a rehabilitative process, it seeks to teach, to alter behavior, ultimately it rewards and forgives. Justice seeks to re-establish balance in the world. It does not forgive.

The state shouldn't be able to kill its own citizens unless absolutely necessary, like police responding to an active shooter.

The state governs by law. It must provide justice ... if it doesn't people will seek it on their own initiative ... law will become meaningless and the state an obstructive obstacle.

Zam

[One Degree]

Punishment is a rehabilitative process, it seeks to teach, to alter behavior, ultimately it rewards and forgives. Justice seeks to re-establish balance in the world. It does not forgive.

Zam

Yes, I did not take the time to recall the word I needed. ‘Revenge’ instead of ‘punishment’ is closer to my point.

[Pants-of-dog]

As I said earlier, human rights as defined by some Western countries include the right to abortion on demand and recognition of all kinds of aberrant sexual behaviour as legal.
The majority of today's world does not accept those.
It's not a package deal.

Who cares? Like I said, if you think that these countries without these rights are correct, feel free to trade places with someone who likes western human rights paradigms better.

What does this have to do with the fact that people of colour are more likely to receive the death penalty, even in situations where white people would not get the death penalty?

[Zamuel]

Yes, I did not take the time to recall the word I needed. ‘Revenge’ instead of ‘punishment’ is closer to my point.

Closer yes ... but revenge is personal, emotional, and unreasoned ... The state may never act in such a manner. Justice, under law, is what the state must provide.

I am conflicted about a state offering mercy ... I favor the idea that a state may entrust mercy (a very human consideration) to an appointed individual or panel. At the same time, I question whether Justice is served by this ... Does mercy override justice? True Christianity would suggest it does. But can the state adopt religious morality? I can only accept that the "will of the people" is the deciding factor ... and that is what we have now (in the US.)

Zam

[One Degree]

Closer yes ... but revenge is personal, emotional, and unreasoned ... The state may never act in such a manner. Justice, under law, is what the state must provide.

I am conflicted about a state offering mercy ... I favor the idea that a state may entrust mercy (a very human consideration) to an appointed individual or panel. At the same time, I question whether Justice is served by this ... Does mercy override justice? True Christianity would suggest it does. But can the state adopt religious morality? I can only accept that the "will of the people" is the deciding factor ... and that is what we have now (in the US.)

Zam

I agree it is a difficult decision and the will of the people should decide. There is an argument that society does require revenge as well as individuals. Think of 9/11 for example or Pearl Harbor. Same thing with some crimes.

[Ter]

Who cares? Like I said, if you think that these countries without these rights are correct, feel free to trade places with someone who likes western human rights paradigms better.

I am sorry, did you see me assigning a value to this, one way or the other ?
I just stated the facts because you seem to say or think that the packet of human rights is universal and accepted by everybody. It isn't.

What does this have to do with the fact that people of colour are more likely to receive the death penalty, even in situations where white people would not get the death penalty?

How would I know ? I am not a criminologist. Maybe the justice system is not neutral or maybe people of colour commit more horrible crimes ?

[Pants-of-dog]

I am sorry, did you see me assigning a value to this, one way or the other ?
I just stated the facts because you seem to say or think that the packet of human rights is universal and accepted by everybody. It isn't.

How would I know ? I am not a criminologist. Maybe the justice system is not neutral or maybe people of colour commit more horrible crimes ?

So your post was entirely off topic. Great.

Back on topic:

The goal of a penal system should be a reduction in crime. It can do this in two ways: acting as a deterrent or reducing recidivism. Now, the death penalty does not act as a deterrent, but it does prevent recidivism. For some people, like serial rapist/killers who have been killing for decades, it certainly seems like a good idea.

If the death penalty was reserved for these sorts if crimes and was applied equally with no regard for socio-economic standing ir ethnicity, it would be fine.

[Ter]

So your post was entirely off topic. Great.

Back on topic:

The goal of a penal system should be a reduction in crime. It can do this in two ways: acting as a deterrent or reducing recidivism. Now, the death penalty does not act as a deterrent, but it does prevent recidivism. For some people, like serial rapist/killers who have been killing for decades, it certainly seems like a good idea.

If the death penalty was reserved for these sorts if crimes and was applied equally with no regard for socio-economic standing ir ethnicity, it would be fine.

Thank you for agreeing with me on the human rights issue.

You forgot to mention revenge as a motivation to punish criminals.
The victims and victim's families want payback.
It is a human trait and a biblical obligation.

I also agree with you that the death penalty is acceptable for serial killers and especially for criminals who harm children.

[Pants-of-dog]

Thank you for agreeing with me on the human rights issue.

Since your only claim was that some people do not accept or agree with human rights, I saw no reason to remind you for a third time that I discussed people who do not accept or agree with human rights.

You forgot to mention revenge as a motivation to punish criminals.
The victims and victim's families want payback.
It is a human trait and a biblical obligation.

Feelings are not relevant.

I also agree with you that the death penalty is acceptable for serial killers and especially for criminals who harm children.

Again, I am not discussing the inherent goodness or wrongness of the death penalty: my point is that it fails on a practical level.

Black people are more likely to get the death penalty even when controlling for those factors that normally affect sentencing. I am sure the same is true for the poor. Judges are not immune to bias.

[Ter]

Since your only claim was that some people do not accept or agree with human rights, I saw no reason to remind you for a third time that I discussed people who do not accept or agree with human rights.

You are once again talking about human rights as one package. It isn't.
I think most people in the world would agree to elementary human rights but not to the ectopic "rights" that were added to it by Western people.

Feelings are not relevant.

It is laughable that you call the rights of the victims and families of victims "feelings that are not relevant". Luckily the authorities do take the victims and their rights seriously.

Judges are not immune to bias.

I couldn't agree with you more. President Trump was right to question the objectivity of a judge of Latino extraction in a case involving Latino immigration. Finally we see eye to eye on something.

[Pants-of-dog]

You are once again talking about human rights as one package. It isn't.
I think most people in the world would agree to elementary human rights but not to the ectopic "rights" that were added to it by Western people.

Yes, thank you for once again agreeing with me that many people, and even countries, do not agree on human rights.

That makes four or five times you have confirmed my claim that some people do not agree.

Awesome.

Some people do not agree with the western idea of human rights. Yes. We got that. Thank you.

I was speaking of those people, actually. I said they could trade places with someone who does agree with those rights.

Some people do not agree with the western human rights paradigm. Some do. Yes.

I couldn't agree with you more. President Trump was right to question the objectivity of a judge of Latino extraction in a case involving Latino immigration. Finally we see eye to eye on something.

And now you are off topic again.

Do you agree/disagree with the death penalty? Why?

[Ter]

And now you are off topic again.

Yes, guilty as charged.
I was so happy that you said that judges are biased, I couldn't help myself from mentioning that President Trump was right in questioning the impartiality of a judge of Latino extraction in a case about Latino immigration. And the judge was a woman, oy vey.
So I apologise for being a little off-topic.

Do you agree/disagree with the death penalty? Why?

In general I am against the death penalty because:
- it is irreversible
- life without the possibility of parole is much more cruel than the death penalty.
- the death penalty should have no place in the 21st Century

[jessupjonesjnr87]

I'd like to be against the death penalty but when you hear about guys raping and beating old women to death and other heinous crimes these guys have got to die.

Scrap the injection and replace it with the guillotine.

[Pants-of-dog]

In general I am against the death penalty because:
- it is irreversible
- life without the possibility of parole is much more cruel than the death penalty.
- the death penalty should have no place in the 21st Century

Well, now that you have told us your feelings and opinion, do you have any logic or evidence to support these beliefs?

This is a good start to making an actual argument!

[Ter]

Well, now that you have told us your feelings and opinion, do you have any logic or evidence to support these beliefs?

I have answered you on-topic and now you want evidence ?
When I said the death penalty is irreversible, that is not a feeling or an opinion, that is a fact.

I have given some reasons I am against the death penalty in principle.
And that is that, get of my back and go annoy someone else.

[Pants-of-dog]

I have answered you on-topic and now you want evidence ?
When I said the death penalty is irreversible, that is not a feeling or an opinion, that is a fact.

I have given some reasons I am against the death penalty in principle.
And that is that, get of my back and go annoy someone else.

Yes, it is irreversible. It is also impossible to give someone back the time they spent in jail. All sentences are irreversible in this way.

Cruelty is not a good argument. It is you simply showing that you want to be cruel to criminals. Your moral failings are not a reason to formulate policy.

[Unthinking Majority]

The state governs by law. It must provide justice ... if it doesn't people will seek it on their own initiative ... law will become meaningless and the state an obstructive obstacle.

7

It seems much better to have someone locked away for life and work them hard every day to repay their debt to society than to execute them, which is more costly to taxpayers. There's countless examples of convicted murderers/rapists etc. being proven innocent later.