>mfw people will still defend some incarnation of the death penalty
>muh bad peepol shud b punnishd
>muh insatiable appetite for bloodshed
>muh adults are children and should be deterred by punishment
>muh morality stems from undergoing pavlovian conditioning to adhere to laws which may be immoral themselves
>muh autistic need to respect law and order
>muh not recognising that you are conditioned to not break laws and to aim for high paying jobs due to society's structure, which does not have ethics as its driving force
kys
>>1286868
i don't support the death penalty
i support lethal self defence
>>1286868
>muh insatiable appetite for bloodshed
It's what separates from the animals boyo
Tbqh the only reason I'm against the death penalty is because I find it more cruel for a person to live with that guilt alone for decades
>>1286868
the death penalty is abhorrent for a number of reasons. one reason is: what if you're wrong? what if they're innocent?
It also sets a bad precedent for a state being authorised to kill a person.
>>1286868
>muh adults are children and should be deterred by punishment
>muh morality stems from undergoing pavlovian conditioning to adhere to laws which may be immoral themselves
These are unironically true. Punishment isn't enough though. Reforming convicts should be the priority of the prison systems. And of course systems that self-perpetuate tend to be more successful - an asshole being afraid of being hurt by society is useful to the rest of society. Not being an asshole would be even better, but correction must step in where prevention fails.
I generally death penalty distasteful. The thought that causing death of another could come so easily to some of my acquaintances hurts me a bit.
>>1286894
Most of the people you'd be frying don't have a functional sense of empathy or guilt.
>>1286868
What? Adults shouldn't be punished? Are you some kind of moron?
Confirmed for sheltered brat that has never witnessed the world and its cruelty.
>>1287049
Well deterrence works, though conditionally. If broken windows are it's weakness, it's pretty fragile.
Why else are we having an acceleration of this lone gunmen culture if not for the windows each cumulatively breaks?
>>1287074
he's arguing that we shouldn't attempt to shape the behaviour of adults by threatening arbitrary bad things that we'd do to them if they break the rules, like we would with naughty children
I'd guess that OP is still very much in favour of prisons, but with a view to reform rather than punish
>there are still people who believe that aversion to killing another human isn't entirely conditioned from birth by one's culture and that anyone here would be universally berated as an utter coward if they didn't support the death penalty 100 years ago
No OP, you are the one who needs to kys.
I think victims should be given the opportunity to carry out the death sentence.
>>1287118
For the foreseeable future, with our current knowledge of mental health, yes, reforming incarceration is the best option for now
>>1287121
>ethics are meaningless because they can be affected by societal attitudes
I'd disagree with you there
>>1287174
>he thinks laws are about "ethics"
No anon, and they never were. Laws are about maintaining order and stability. Nothing else.
>>1287188
why should they not be ethical?
>>1287205
Because thats not how it works. Thats not how anything works, in fact. "Ethics" are bipolar, fickle things that can often times go spastic over the course of only a few decades, or even years (Such as America going from ultra-conservative to ultra-liberal and then back to conservative again during the 60's-70's - Ethics are also extremely susceptible to the sway of propaganda, appeal to emotion, and other forms of plebbery. Laws should be entirely practical and not focused on people's fleeting feelings. And thankfully, thats the way its been throughout all of human history.
>>1287205
why should they be ethical?
why should they not not be ethical?
why should they not not not be ethical?
>>1287215
>fleeting feelings
ok stalin
>>1287188
That's a valid interpretation of law, but it has no bearing on your original post
>>1287224
The death penalty is generally an acceptable way of maintaining order and stability by purging people who have no hope of ever being rehabilitated.
>>1287222
>Implying Stalin did anything wrong except purge the army at the worst possible time
>>1287235
I understand that that's your view, but your first post had you telling OP to kill himself because his position was influenced by current societal attitudes.
There are valid arguments for the death penalty (though none that I agree with), but your initial point was dumb
>>1287260
That which can be asserted flippantly can be dismissed flippantly, familia.
>>1287053
They do still however get bored.
And life in prison is boring as fuck.
>>1287053
Thats not how crime works
>>1287272
>Assume post-scarcity
also
>being mad that someone shitposts when the OP is itself a shitpost
I think the death penalty should be presented as an alternative to life in prison. Thoughts?
>>1287290
Considering the state of American and Latin-American prisons, this sounds surprisingly not inhumane.
>>1287290
Norway has no death penalty or life imprisonment, and they have one of the lowest reoffending rates in the world.
>>1286868
most people would rather be dead then spend life in prison.
Life in prison kinds sucks.
>>1287315
Because Norway is an extremely homogenous, developed, isolated society that has never seen the horrors of war for several generations and has the privilege of being surrounded by extremely peaceful neighbors. All that while simultaneously refusing to make the same mistakes that its neighbors are making by importing hundreds of thousands of people from undeveloped, war-torn third world countries.
Its the exact same story for Japan.
Isolation + Ethnic and cultural homogeneity + High development = civilized society
>>1287315
Norway is a white nation. Whites are actually capable of improving/reforming themselves.
Don't try to pretend that this would work in Brazil.
Duterte did nothing wrong.
>>1287328
And socialistic policy. America is essentially a fend-for-yourself system, which leads to 1000% Norway's incarceration rate.
>>1287340
Wrong. Norway is state-capitalist, similar in many ways to China in regards to economic policy. The government of Norway owns 37% of the country's economy.
Their welfare system and national healthcare and universities beg to differ. It's a social democracy, which is in the direction of socialism, hence socialistic policy.
>>1287349
How well would you say it's going for them?
I hear everything on the spectrum from "on their way to utopia" to "DANGER IL'AB'IMMINENT"
>>1287376
Norway is on the same boat as Russia: that is to say the state of their economy is very dependent on the price of oil.
That being the case - you can probably imagine how things are going for them right now
>>1287376
Norwegian here, it's pretty utopian
>>1287386
>living in a near utopia
>still posting on anonymous image boards
>>1287392
i have issues prioritizing
>>1287381
Double whammy. I'd rather pay than frack but it seems my """""options""""" as a consumer have all but vanished to make way for the cheapest common denominator.
OP: My family is from El Salvador, where gangs control all public life, the murder rate is over 100, and cost the country 16% of it's GDP, and spread their lawlessness to other places such as Los Angeles, Costa Rica and Mexico.
Are you saying such "people" can be reformed? Are you saying they are better off ruling from the lawless shadow of jail? Why should they have a right to stay alive, just to keep terrorizing the populace, or recruiting young people from jails, on the state's dime at that?
Why do stupid first world liberals think everything would be okay if we all just had organic farms and free PS3s like in Sweden?
Some people can't be reformed, in practice jail only makes people turn worse than they were and these people will only burden society, living only to kill, rape and steal. Do you think that if we just "encouraged" the guys in my pic with ethics, Jesus and farming tools they'll become productive members of society? Allow me to laugh if that's the case.
Here's a good article of what happens when you can't purge scum from your society:
http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21699175-countrys-gangs-specialise-extortion-they-may-be-branching-out-gangs-cost
>>1287415
You can't really act like every country's problems are the same, phampai.
>>1287415
They are a product of their environment, so why would we treat a person badly somewhere where going to commit those crimes anyway?
Unfortunately the situation is bad, but I'm saying we can reduce the crimes to environment and mental health. Remove environment and it becomes a mental health issue, not a law and order issue.
>>1287437
Why would someone not legislate with their own country in mind though? If I believe that the government should spend more on infrastructure, that's because I'm a Canadian, and Canadian roads in many parts of the country are in terrible shape.
>>1287415
Why do jihadists continue being jihadists? Why do billionaires hoard their billions? Why do people send their children to private school? Why do people cooperate with the Chinese government at the expense of the citizens? Why do latin american drug lords continue to terrorise their countries?
Because it benefits them.
Remove the benefit (environment) and you remove the crime (both legal and moral kinds)
>>1287453
>People become Jihadists and blow themselves up because it benefits them
Are liberals literally incapable of conceiving that people do things for the sake of a cause rather than their own narrow self-interest?
>>1287462
Jihadists and islamists hold sex slave auctions and kill those that try to stop them, because they are sexually frustrated desert faggots who are obsessed with poon. The 72 virgins meme benefits them. How are you so retarded to think that they think otherwise?
>>1287428
Ok, I'll admit that El Salvador is a special case. But the people that think that the thing Norway does could be applied universally drank too much Kool-Aid. Some people will never be reformed, and it's time we acknowledge that.
>>1287435
Lmao please stop with the "environment" meme. Most criminals can't control their instincts, most criminals are instrinsically violent and uncapable of civilized life. It's in their genes and ancestry, and no matter how much money you pour into these communities, they'll never become productive citizens.
How come blacks are still a permanent underclass in thr richest and most powerful nation in the world, even below hispanics and asians whose parents didn't know english? How come India, crowded and poor as it is, hasn't descended into the lawless hellhole of Brazil's favelas?
And even assuming that it is indeed just the environment:
1. How would you reform it in a way that is not equally authoritarian as the death penalty? Do we strrilize single mothers, forbid reunions of youths and impose uniforms in public? Or are you a deluded liberal that thinks giving everyone free shit like in scandinavia will make everything better (protip; It doesn't, look at somalis and moroccans in Sweden)
2. What do we do with the current criminals? Do you think a bunch of thugs will reform just because "muh ethics"?
Stop trying to defend murderers and rapists.
>>1287478
>He actually believes the 72 virgins meme
You know this is American propaganda right
>>1287415
Brazilian here.
Thank you for this post based Salvadoreno Anon. In the end it's really OP who, besides being a faggot, is patronizing criminals as if they didn't know better. They know exactly what they're doing.
Crime is a shortcut for poor fag losers to gain money, women and status in their communities. In Brazil, retarded middle class retarded teenage girls will go to favelas to have sex with drug dealers because its "edgy". They know they would never enjoy this status, never be able to buy top brand shoes and clothes and never be able to score this type of pussy by working a normal job. They are not innocent, missguided teens! They understand exactly what the risks and rewards are, and they make the conscious decision to engage in destroying people' lives and families, mostly of other poor people, for his own personal, egoistical gains. Well, then don't complain if society decides that you should be locked in a jail cell or killed.
>>1287462
They believe that it will benefit their faith, their family and their countrymen.
That's still because of the benefit, just abstracted a bit. Jihadists also get a salary higher than many of them would get in work otherwise.
>>1287482
Obviously, everywhere in the world isn't as prosperous as Norway.
But can you deny that:
A. In a country as prosperous as Norway, criminals can and should be reformed, since they have viable alternatives.
B. Achieving prosperity for citizens to the level of Norway would make it much less alluring to be a criminal.
I will concede that the problem is getting to that prosperity, and Norway has it easy because loloilmonee.
>>1287482
[citation needed] for that instinct meme. Are you an evolutionary biologist? A geneticist? What is your profession?
Also,
>implying india is a model poor society
1: accept that there will be an unfair prison system until society changes. Also, I'm against economic migration. I am for global redistribution of wealth, because that would stop gibmedats niggers entering the west and artificially changing the gene pool.
2: murderers and thugs are often murderers and thugs because they need to be. Look at Canada. Do you see many people doing what the Salvadorans do? No, because it isn't a necessity to survive.
Stop trying to defend prison corporatists.
>>1287508
>Are you an evolutionary biologist? A geneticist? What is your profession?
Are we seriously doing this?
>>1287514
>makes claim
>buttfurious at having to prove claim
>>1287443
I don't know. If you ask me why people frame arguments about local issues as all-pervading ones, I couldn't tell you.
I guess they need to puff up their chests to sound relevant and authoritative? Or that it affirms an urgency that people would not act without? I don't know, that's just speculation.
>>1287525
>posting on a Mongolian children's sandpainting board
>will only debate with people who are certified PhDs in evolutionary biology and genetics from Oxford
>>1287530
A study. Give him a single reputable study to evaluate. How does this not benefit you in any way?
>>1287530
>makes claim about genetics
>knows nothing about genetics
>expects to be taken seriously
>blowing my inquiry out of proportion due to severe buttanger
>>1287535
Am I missing something or did you just skip over the part where he directly asked for the profession of the guy he's talking with
>>1287527
It's just a little silly.
>El Salvador is not like Norway
>Therefore Norway's solution to its problems has no merit to it
>>1287540
That would explain things, actually.
>>1287547
>believes criminals are criminals because muh genetics and hence they can't help it
>this is less deterministic than environmental arguments in your mind
apex kek, chum.
>>1287508
>le "muh poor nigger children dindu nuffin we need mo money for dem programs ;__;" meme
Kill yourself. They know exactly what they are doing, they aren't little lost puppies who became forced to hold guns and knives.
They don't do it because they are starving, and they continue doing it in France's Banlieues, in London's Hackney, in Sweden's refugee centers, in Los Angeles and Toronto.
>>1287555
Is every single poor person a criminal?
>>1287555
>muh first world crime happens despite everyone being middle class meme
>muh poverty doesn't exist in the west meme
I bet you haven't worked a day in your life.
>>1287552
I'm arguing criminals are fucking adults, knowing full well the consequences of their actions, and should be treated like adults. Break the law, go to jail/black sack.
>>1287504
Well, yes, if ALL the countries were as rich, white homogenous places like Norway, I guess it would have some merit, but that's like saying "All children would be like Einstein if all classes were taught by CERN researchers", ie. Something physically impossible.
If blacks in the US (and arabs in France, and pakistanis in the UK, and Turks in Germany, and... well, you get the point) continue to be an underclass no matter how much money is poured into them across generations, what makes you think Darkest Africa will go through their own Meiji restoration and become civilized?
We have to think of practical, earthly solutions.
>>1287552
Besides, never did you imply it was the sole source, just the one that actually can be acted on, and one that you believe will yield results.
I can't zap a psychopath into pacifism with mind rays. But I can draft society that supports mutualism so that the more high functioning ones can come to understand its in their benefit. And I can draft a society that doesn't punish the low functioners for genetic determinism.
>>1287558
No. The majority isn't. Which only proves his point that poverty is not an excuse for criminal behavior like retarded SJWs try to reason.
>>1287586
>And I can draft a society that doesn't punish the low functioners for genetic determinism.
>Still arguing for basing systems of law on "ethics" rather than maintaining order and stability
You stop this right now
>>1287561
>Muh poor gang members would be starving in the streets if they didn't rape and stab people
>Detroit has worse crime than India and China because we need mo money for dem program even if our hourly wage is what they would earn in a week
Lmao desu
>>1287578
"Hey poor people, you have the option to stay poor in poor neighbourhoods and be able to see the financial districts from your houses longing for a better life, or you can do some horrible things to make your life bearable, disliking both scenarios but having more resources in the latter."
"Wait why are you committing crimes bro????? You could just stay in poverty bro!!!!1111111 :^D"
>>1287585
social homogeneity is good, i agree, but i believe separate ethnically homogenous communities are capable of not falling for the life sentence and death penalty meme.
>>1287586
environment and mental health are the only causes of crime. prove me wrong frienderino :)
>>1287595
>muh poor peepol bad becos they don wan be poor meme
>>1287596
You seem to be implying order and stability aren't values in the same way that "ethics" are.
I mean this as an honest question, where do you see the distinction?
>someone kills someone else
>Hey, let's feed, clothe and shelter him for the rest of his life. That'll show him!
>>1287602
Do you find gangs in poor areas? Do you find gangs in rich areas? If your answers were not yes and no, in that order, then you are a massive homosex.
Also,
>what is relative cost of living?
>muh poor criminals in London/NYC/Chicago/other rich first world cities would be LITERALLY starving in the streets if they didn't rob, rape and kill people, its the fault of the system maaaan
This is my favorite meme.
>>1287585
I don't think it's a racial problem. The Irish were seen as non-white, were largely poor and had large gang problems in the US and Canada, and they're largely integrated. I think it's a "throw money at a problem and hope it goes away" problem.
Africa is getting more "civilized." Nigeria is about on par with India, Kenya would be on par with South America if not for Somalians and Sudanese raiding across the border all the time.
Namibia, Tanzania, Senegal, and a few others are mostly alright countries.
>>1287595
I agree that poverty isn't an excuse. It doesn't mean it's not a factor though. Some people are always going to be criminals. Some people are mentally ill, and they will commit crimes because they want to. That's why simple solutions don't exist for complex problems.
>>1287607
"Ethics" are often times entirely disconnected from reality, based rather on high-minded idealism and petty thought-experiments more than anything. Order and stability are objective, albeit vague properties required for the functioning of modern industrial nation-states on any level.
>>1287603
>"Hey poor people, you have the option to stay poor in poor neighbourhoods and be able to see the financial districts from your houses longing for a better life, or you can do some horrible things to make your life bearable, disliking both scenarios but having more resources in the latter."
>"Wait why are you committing crimes bro????? You could just stay in poverty bro!!!!1111111 :^D"
I just wish SO MUCH you would come to Brazil to have an enriching encounter with your missguided peaceful Canadians who just didn't have the opportunity!
>>1287603
>environment and health...
I can't, they're some possible causes that we have the capability of addressing.
>>1287602
If more money means incentivizing think tanks to provide studies and draw solutions from them, sure. If more money gets thrown into systems that don't work; without any alternative due to the notion of yours that our institutions are in any way complete, no.
>>1287616
I really wish we could be a bit more specific than these wide sweeping narratives. But the ideas I tend to align with are often lampooned as this.
>>1287607
>order and stability aren't values
Go to a warzone and come back. Then tell us.
>>1287609
>muh prison system should be about punishment meme
Get the fuck out. The only reasons that prison should exist are to protect society from a repeat attack and to reform the perpetrator. Give the whole MUST PUNISH BAD PEOPLE prank a rest.
>>1287616
In the London neighbourhoods near me, there are shit schools, shit job opportunities, etc. One million people last year had to use food banks, and slightly more than that are in poverty in the UK. In some schools around the country, some teachers literally buy students school uniforms because the parents cannot afford it.
>>1287625
I don't understand what you mean, or how it is a counterargument.
>>1287633
nice strawman
>>1287435
>They are a product of their environment, so why would we treat a person badly somewhere where going to commit those crimes anyway?
this is the least respectful thing ever, you are essentially attempting to strip them of their human agency.
As if they were children or animals who can't control their behavior.
I used to be liberal too. "Thugs" and "youths" are the ULTIMATE redpill.
>>1287638
>London
You're British then. That honestly explains everything.
>>1287638
>people should be rewarded for being criminals
Lmao
>>1287623
I see. Unfortunately, I feel they're often conflated, whereas the high minded ideas of order are used to justify brutal autocracy. But that's pretty far from what the actual topic of the thread is.
>>1287633
I never said they weren't.
>You seem to be implying order and stability aren't values in the same way that "ethics" are
>you.. implying
>that
>order and stability
>aren't values
They can be, and they can also be held as high minded ideals IMO.
Order and stability are abstract qualities that are used to describe real life situations in the same way that many high minded values are. There is a spectrum in which they apply and I am in no way implying that they're any, singular thing; good or bad. But I agree with the first anon that I quoted that the further they are from representing reality, the less useful they are to us.
>>1287639
>makes laws that will be completely different to the exact laws in the other 195 countries, so already there is a layer of arbitrary-ness to the lawmaking
>when poor people commit crimes, then scapegoats their human agency and says they did du sumfin
The poor have two options: stay poor, with shit jobs and shit lives, and to commit crimes to risk incarceration for a slightly better life (mo money).
>>1287647
>all people from a certain country must think alike meme
And where are you from, chap?
>>1287654
Reward and punishment treats people like animals. Fuck off with your monotheistic morality.
>>1287638
>I don't understand what you mean, or how it is a counterargument.
You didn't make an argument (besides making an apology for crime, which is not an argument at all, just a personal, edgy opinion) so how can it be a counterargument? As to the meaning of what I said, it's simple. I wish you would meet in real life the criminals you so comfortably (and cynically) patronize from your sheltered home. It's not an argument, just wishful thinking. But a man can dream.
>>1286868
If a state can kill its citizens legally than that in a way justifies killing.
>>1287659
>And where are you from, chap?
Take a guess
>>1287670
Have you even seen someone from outside your country in your life? Even from afar?
>>1287661
People ARE animals. We may strive to be better than that, but we're still animals.
>>1287673
Polish born, migrated to America m8.
>>1287663
Mate, the places that crime happens are in poor countries. In rich countries, it is in the poor areas. How do you not see the correlation?
>>1287670
I must admit I am envious, I never grew up around other English people.
>>1287674
You wouldn't like to be conditioned yourself would you? Then why advocate others being conditioned? What about personal choices?
>Not recognizing that the primary goal of the justice system ought to be rehabilitation
>Not recognizing that some people simply cannot be rehabilitated and thus the death penalty is the answer.
>>1286888
>Implying
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War
>>1287684
not an argument
>>1287676
So you're a foreign born citizen? Damn immigrants forcing their morality on us.
>>1287677
>You wouldn't like to be conditioned yourself would you?
All human societies condition (or attempt to condition) their members to act in a way that society finds desirable. That's just how it works, how it's always worked, and how it always will work. There's nothing wrong with conditioning in and of itself.
>>1287283
You're right, that's how criminals work.
The actor and the act are different things.
>>1287685
Dumb mobile poster.
>>1287684
you sound very sure of that, any citation for your 'cannot be rehabilitated' meme?
also, those that in your mind 'cannot be rehabilitated' are clearly suffering from mental illness and hence have no sufficient human agency. Why should we kill people who cannot help their actions?
>>1287690
If we are talking about gender roles, I have no problem with them. But why should SANE adults be conditioned to act in ways that the state desires? The only counterargument i ever hear is "ugh libtards huhuhuhuh"
>>1287661
>Reward and punishment treats people like animals. Fuck off with your monotheistic morality.
Would you prefer treating them like children, and when they behave like children with no semblance of respect/fear for consequence/authority they rape and kill you or a family member?
>coddling sociopaths in the 2016th year of our lord
>>1287677
We have been conditioned. We don't live in a vacuum and we're conditioned by the societies around us. this is a fact that you have to accept to take the stance that you can make environmental changes in order to get more stable, prosperous societies.
This is why El-salvadorian gangers would destroy Norway's prison system. Norwegians and El-salvadorians are conditioned from birth by two very different surroundings.
I think it's arrogant that, as a social animal, anyone would claim to exist solely as themselves and not the amalgamation of experience and genes.
>>1287684
Is death a fair answer to the mix of genetic, environmental, and personal determiation of whether or not a person is able to be rehabilitated?
I don't want to start shit with this, moreover just give you an example where sympathy might apply:
What about war veterans who can't readjust? It seems that some literally can't inhabit a modern society in all the ways it(we) expects them to. But what the did is undeniably a service to our countries' institutions, if not us.
>>1287698
>Why should we kill people who cannot help their actions?
We should kill them because they cannot help their actions.
When their mental illness is causing extreme criminal activity because they cannot help it, then clearly that's exactly why they cannot be rehabilitated.
>>1287701
I know, as a sane adult, that sane adults have self restraint. Lack of self restraint stems from environment or poor mental health. Why else would it happen? Don't give me your meme tier "peepol horribul" original sin arguments.
>>1287709
Then why kill them when you have the option to not kill them? Seems unnecessarily cruel to me, and sounds like you are the type of person who should be killed if we assume your morals.
>>1287708
>Is death a fair answer to the mix of genetic, environmental, and personal determiation of whether or not a person is able to be rehabilitated?
It's the fairer answer to everyone compared to live, or repeated extended sentences in prison.
>>1286868
Civilizations eliminate dangerous creatures. It's just how history goes.
>>1287708
Granted, I'll admit because of what the other anon said as a disclosure:
"fair" is often one of those high-minded ethics.
And it would technically be "fair" as long as a standard would be set where people are treated equally, though that doesn't mean they are treated well.
I guess I'm asking for opinions, more than anything. But concrete things are always welcome.
>>1287713
>Then why kill them when you have the option to not kill them?
Because killing them is the better option.
>Seems unnecessarily cruel to me, and sounds like you are the type of person who should be killed if we assume your morals
Thinking the death penalty is a good idea is not a crime.
>>1287723
We may have to agree to disagree. Or maybe a compromise, to let them choose? They are still adults, as many anons have applied, though "adultness" is a hard quality to judge in any sense beyond your own personal reservations. Many of them literally could have the underdeveloped minds of children.
Still, why no choice?
>>1287723
Let me present it slightly more coherently:
>sees a criminal kill someone
>thinks this is bad
>kills criminal
>thinks this is good
>>1287685
"Often when I woke in the night, horrific pictures sprang unbidden to my mind—Satan [one of the apes], cupping his hand below Sniff's chin to drink the blood that welled from a great wound on his face; old Rodolf, usually so benign, standing upright to hurl a four-pound rock at Godi's prostrate body; Jomeo tearing a strip of skin from Dé's thigh; Figan, charging and hitting, again and again, the stricken, quivering body of Goliath, one of his childhood heroes..."
>>1287698
>But why should SANE adults be conditioned to act in ways that the state desires?
Why shouldn't they? By what moral principle do you define the act of conditioning as an immoral one?
If the desired effect of the conditioning is to make them better people and if the methods used to condition them are not themselves immoral, I see nothing wrong with the conditioning.
>>1287730
Because the alternative is paying for their continued stay in prison.
>>thinks killing people is acceptable ever
When did I say that?
There's times when killing people can be considered a crime that could be rehabilitated. Such as manslaughter or lone crimes of passion.
>>1287732
Yes. What is the problem here?
>that's hypocrisy
A criminal being sentenced to death after fair trial is quite a bit different from just murdering someone.
>>1287731
If that is the case they are never going to develop to such a state of adultness, it's simply how they will always be.
>Still, why no choice?
Because there's also a societal element involved, as the greater consideration is doing what's best for society would be for the courts to decide.
>>1287737
Imposing your desired behaviour of others ON others is an imposition of their human autonomy.
If they are sane they do not need the conditioning. If they are insane, they need professional help, not death.
>>1287738
>muh resources
Nigger, you live in global fucking capitalism. There is more than enough resources on Earth to keep the current inmates incarcerated let alone in my anarcho-commie utopia.
>>1287685
10 -> 1
>>1287745
Yes. But why waste them?
They're finite anyway even if we have an abundance of them at this present moment.
>>1287754
>killing is different to killing because one scenario is on the opposite side of the law to the other
Yes. And one has a different motive that could be considered more justified.
>>1287415
> Thinks gangs are a result of people being permanently and inherently "inferior" instead of socioeconomic conditioning, stratification of social classes, feedback loops of violence, stigmatization, and hatred, etc,
Thousands of reformed gang members would like a word with you. And no, they're not gonna hurt you.
>>1287743
I suppose I'd have to accept that if I believed we're ultimately conditioned to be the way they are, the choice of living in prison or dying on death row is conditioned, itself.
We'd have a hell of a time trying to say what is deliberate and with agency without it being attached to some aspect of a finite, personal experience.
>>1287776
Why tho? If you've already explained that, can you point me to where?
This thread's gotten a bit hectic, because I think it's just a lot of us bouncing off the pro-death penalty guy.
>>1287786
Why what? Why is choosing to kill someone bad?
Because you are choosing for someone else, an imposition on their autonomy.
>not just kicking people out of country and revoking their citizenship
>not having Trump Walls™ around the entire country to seal it off so once they are out they won't get back in
Why does the state get to own peoples bodies and deprive them of their freedom because they broke rules they never agreed to? Just kick them the fuck out of your community it's not hard. What do you do when someone acts like a dipshit in a club? You kick them out and don't let them back in.
>>1287789
With the context that this person has committed atrocities, and all that it may imply that we have talked about so far.
Such as environmental conditioning, to what extent are said choices a result of that?
To the extent of genetic determination, how able or unable is this person to make good choices?
and etc...
What I'm saying, to expand, is why -always-?
>>1287795
>Why does the state get to own peoples bodies
because they're the strongest you retard
>>1287795
Works for Singapore, if I understand Singapore. But can it work for a country as big as the US?
>>1287803
>>>r/stalinism
>>1287745
>Imposing your desired behaviour of others ON others is an imposition of their human autonomy.
Conditioning someone to behave a certain way does not imply imposing the desired behavior on them.
>If they are sane they do not need the conditioning.
Sane people are every bit capable of committing evil deeds as the insane unless you have some definition of sanity that I'm not aware of,
We should to bring back shit like the pillory, at least for less serious crimes. Shit like theft/possession/etc that might get you a few years in prison.
Rather than spending years feeding these people in prison just publically humiliate them for a month and make them confront the community they wronged. Make them miserable for a brief period, then let them go about their life afterwards. Repeat offenses win harsher punishments.
I think that beats throwing them in prison for a few years and possibly making them unemployable once they're out.
>>1287795
I like you. The idea of an exclusion zone is desirable, and I subscribed to it for a long time, but then the people outside of your society are forced to deal with them. There is no difference between people across borders, and you are basically shirking responsibility.
>>1287800
The definition of 'atrocities that deserve death' is debatable, so why draw the line somewhere when it isn't clear? You run the risk of being wrong.
Environment: Well, the lack of resources in poor communities makes people more inclined to be unethical in an attempt to survive, or in an attempt to have a semi decent amount of resources. Also culture. Black on white crime is abnormally large because of economic reasons but also culture. Glorifying violence in rap is not the same as depicting it (e.g in video games.)
Genetics: I don't know how related genetics are to all mental health problems, but we only need to consider mental health. A person without normal empathy is mentally ill. A person who kills indiscriminately is mentally ill. Etc.
>>1287803
fuck off
>>1287813
How is conditioning someone not imposing?
Evil is insanity desu senpai.
>>1287815
People actually police each other a lot more than they're given credit for, without the need for institution. So I see what you're getting at
But I wonder if mob mentality and one-uppmanship means that somebody could bring a hammer in their sleeve if the dude was bad enough.
And what kind of effects would this really have on a person? Could it damage them in some undesired way?
I agree though that at least in the U.S. we don't have enough ex-con rights.
Also, holy shit, america's situation with prison inmates not being able to vote, how can anyone defend that? Someone being imprisoned by a system they have no democratic rights in...
>>1287776
>If you have the choice to kill someone, or "waste" resources on "needlessly prolonging life", and you choose to kill them, then you are morally and ethically bankrupt.
That's not the way I see it. In this instance the resources are more valuable than that person's continued existence.
>`>ever thinking killing can be justified
Killing can quite often be justified. But I should have guessed you are a pacifist weenie.
>>1287830
You can also use US prisoners as slaves.
The US """""""justice"""""" system is nothing short of fucked up.
>>1287283
Yes, but it is how psychopathy works.
>>1287833
No, there is a large surplus of resources in the world. The current geopolitical system leads to inefficient distribution.
>>1287825
It'd be humiliating, perhaps even traumatic, but when talking about "damaging them" I don't see how a month being displayed "this guy broke the law, he fucked your community, tell him what an asshole he is" is necessarily worse than a couple of years penned into a prison with other criminals to be reminded every day you're human scum, then being let out with a record that you need to show everyone to inform them you're human scum. I think that sort of thing is just as likely to 'damage' someone.
At least a brief period being pilloried or whipped or whatever is short and relatively undemanding on resources (but should last long enough for it to sink in) then the criminal can carry on with his life. Just because you're not inflicting immediate pain on someone by incarcerating them doesn't mean it's more humane than just making their life really shitty for a brief period so they can get a good understanding that there are unpleasant consequences for their actions.
Prison as a punishment is ineffective. Prison as a reform system is debatably effective. But in general we already know that people respond to conditioning, and getting a clear and unpleasant feedback for your behavior is enough without dragging it out over the course of years and years, wasting that person's life, the state's resources, and ultimately just leaving them in a society filled with criminals for a few years before letting them loose on wider society again.
>>1287823
>How is conditioning someone not imposing?
You are conditioned by everything around you. By your environment, by other people, by the laws of physics.
The pain you feel when you prick your finger on a thorn conditions you to be more careful around thorned plants. The smell of rotting meat conditions you not to eat it. Of course, you can still go head and eat the rotting mean or run right into a thornbush, which you couldn't do if those behavior you've been conditioned for were imposed on you.
>Evil is insanity desu senpai.
Under this definition of insanity you'd be correct that sane people don't need to be conditioned, but it's not the commonly accepted definition of insanity.
>>1287685
KAHAMA BLOWN THE FUCK OUT
>>1287823
>people outside of your society...
This is actually where the meme about Cuba releasing their convicts into America might apply.
>you run the risk of being wrong.
I think I have that sentiment too. It's horrifying to think about being wrongfully on death-row.
>rap music and culture
Isn't this a sort of passive, cultural conditioning? Maybe not direct and governmental, but still.
>genetics
Me neither desu, but I know that a working brain has the capacity to observe and regulate itself, whereas one that doesn't may not. Take autists and their behavioral issues, for example. Just food for thought.
And while I'm not
>>1287813
>how is genetic conditioning someone not imposing?
Well, my line of thinking is that it's a cycle of people imposing on each other. Every action that is observed can be described to impose -some- notion to a person who's paying attention. I think it's simply how we attribute meaning to things that drives this. But I'm talking out of my ass, here.
>evil is insanity
Now that's just unfair to the insane
>>1287837
Psychopaths can function and lead normal lives though. They can meet societal standards. Anything less than this acceptance is magical thinking, that they're evil because they don't have the internal wherewithall to intuit empathy. Listen to some Psycho/sociopaths talk about shit on blogs so you can at least get a feel for what they like to project. Some are perfectly capable of at least stating that cooperation is beneficial. But their brain chemistry makes it difficult for them to learn and apply this in a meaningful way.
>>1287870
Isn't therapy deliberate conditioning?
I think the difference is whether or not one party consents.
>>1287838
I know there's a massive surplus.
However I'm also saying that this surplus isn't going to last so it's irresponsible to go
>Welp, good for now
And then expend resources recklessly.
>>1287871
Yeah I know rap and so on aren't the biggest problems, but I have an intense dislike of it
>capacity to observe itself
I understand where you are coming from
Also, all insanity is not evil, but all evil is insanity.
>>1287879
That's an interesting point anon, I think my grievance may very well be about consent.
>>1287883
Killing someone to save resources that will be used to keep others alive is the most ironic thing I've ever heard.
>>1287887
Agreed, it isn't a fix all solution, but I think it works for crimes that aren't super serious.
Also, repeat offenses should earn harsher punishments. If someone doesn't mind a month's pillory so he thinks it's worth the crime, the consequence should be more severe the next time. Perhaps incarceration (as a means for reform, not punishment) is suitable in the scenario of a repeat offender who clearly didn't learn from the briefer punishment.
As for murder and more serious crimes, I don't know a good answer, I don't think something like a month being pilloried/whipped/whatever is enough for that sort of crime. The death sentence certainly makes sure they'll not repeat offend, but I don't think the death sentence is ethically valid especially in the case of potential false convictions.
>>1287870
>Okay, and how is conditioning not imposing?
What is imposed by conditioning?
>Deliberate conditioning is a horrible act. You are unable to control nondeliberate conditioning.
How is it a horrible thing when done by humans but not when done by nature? Horrible events are horrible regardless of whether they happen by nature or by human action. This is true for the loss of life, for the loss of property, for experiencing bodily harm, etc.
If someone falls unconscious because someone hit them on the head, it is terrible. If someone is knocked unconscious because he falls and bumps his head on a log it is also terrible. What makes conditioning by nature fine but conditioning by people not? And if neither is fine, then it is evil to give birth as it exposes new life to the terribe state of being perpetually conditioned.
Punishment and vengeance are inherent in human nature. Nobody needs to think up some autistic justification for them to appease liberal cowards, because they are self evidently just.
>>1287940
>being asked to give reasons
>gives the self evident meme
Are you trying to be edgy or are you just 13?
>>1287934
>Desired behaviour.
Wrong. Feeling sick after eating rotten meat conditions you to not eat rotten meat again but it doesn't actually prevent you from doing it or from wanting to do it.
> natural coersion is bad too
So it's wrong that your body makes you experience pain when you touch a hot stove to condition you into not harming yourself by touching hot stoves?
>>1287956
>but it doesn't actually prevent you from doing it or from wanting to do it.
What? That's exactly what happens. You eat something, it makes you sick, then you don't want to do it again, which prevents you from doing it again.
>>1287947
I don't have to "justify" wanting to eat food, wanting to have sex, wanting to improve my lot in life, or wanting to punish those who do wrong. Basic human desires do not need to be approved by cowardly false intellectuals.
How do liberals live with being so afraid of everything?
>>1287956
Intended conditioning causes desired behaviour which may be wrong.
Unintended conditioning causes evolutionarily desired traits.
Is that consistent?
>>1287934
It can't be the most, mutually beneficial behavior?
Is there a form of utilitarianism that includes a clause that its benefit must be mutual in the most lateral and wide-spread sense?
>>1287964
But when we deliberately create institutions(of a scope that would be difficult to get universal consent from) that produce a contrivance of these negative feelings, is that right?
>>1287964
You can still want to eat rotten meat again under the right circumstances, if your will is strong enough or if you're insane.
>>1287968
>Intended conditioning causes desired behaviour which may be wrong.
>Unintended conditioning causes evolutionarily desired traits.
So then not that the act of conditioning is inherently wrong, but rather conditioning for "wrong" behaviors, as I said several posts ago.
>>1287737
>If the desired effect of the conditioning is to make them better people and if the methods used to condition them are not themselves immoral, I see nothing wrong with the conditioning.
>>1287977
That's a very exceptional circumstance and you know it, and you can apply that "if your will is strong enough or you're insane" to literally any circumstance.
Everybody gettin iso-cubed!
>>1287980
>Yes you do if it affects others
actually answers my second >>
If that helps. The first is just crap, I'm tired. Good thread. Thank you all for the ideas I wouldn't have had on my own.
>>1287990
Conditioning behaviours that may be wrong, such as trying to autistically succeed in a corporate society, or to not pirate music. Conditioning will happen but 'desired' conditioning is still bad.
>>1288021
No worries mate, cya :^)
>Humans survive because of the ability to adapt and cooperate in groups
>someone does not adapt and damadges members of the group
>you remove him forever
Find a flaw
>>1287290
So what's this ((())) meme I've been seeing lately
>>1288045
>damadge
flaw found
Also, removing him is not fixing the problem.
Also, other groups have to deal with him and we are back to where we started.
>>1288053
A half-assed attempt to manipulate social conditioning to be anti-jooz by highlighting them and effectively separating them as an "other." Many jooz are not openly jooish, though that's more a personal choice.
>>1286868
I can understand it if it's the only way to keep people safe, but in a developed country with the infrastructure to handle putting dangerous people in prison I don't see any excuse.
>>1287768
And tens of thousands of unreformed ones would like a word with you. And yes, they are going to kill you
>>1287661
>monotheistic morality
Polytheists kill their criminals too anon.
>>1287661
>people aren't animals
>>1288055
>other groups have to deal with him
Not if he is dead..
In berlin there are now arab clans that can do as they please because the judges admit openly they fear for the lifes of their children should they jail them.
At that point it should be military deathsquad time.
>>1287661
People respond to rewards and punishments, deal with it.
>>1287661
So you think that a child raised with no reward/punishment stimuli should develope into a good person by default and not an egoistic savage?
>>1287713
Why should we waste money on a person who has not only harmed his community, but cannot be rehabilitated?
It is merciful to put down a mad dog
>>1287713
Just because you deny it doesn't make it nonexistent, anon
>>1287776
Opinion.
From my point of view, wasting finite resources in a futile measure makes you morally and ethnically bankrupt
>>1288084
I was referring to reward/punishment.
>>1288091
They shouldn't be conditioned as them.
>>1288092
Nice solution, Himmler.
>>1288096
Nice solution, Goebells.
>>1288103
They won't develop into an evil person at least.
>>1288116
Because they are human, and deserving of respect.
>>1288135
Why? Sounds like making an excuse to kill someone if you ask me.
>>1287980
All actions affect others.
Wanting to improve my lot in life will necessitate someone going down. Wanting to eat food necessitates that someone will eat less or just not eat at all
>>1288163
>They shouldn't be conditioned as them.
Humans are by nature animals, society conditions them into something they aren't.
>Because they are human, and deserving of respect
They lost that right when they harmed another human and deprived him of respect. After that act they are at the whims of society.
>Why? Sounds like making an excuse to kill someone if you ask me.
Removing a dysfunctional part that refuses to be fixed is not wrong.
Also
>hurr I'll call them Nazis
OK cucк
>>1287768
The pic you posted makes it seem like he was never a danger to others in the first place. It isn't a reformation story.
>>1288163
>himmler
I take no shame in that.
I want the law to be respected because it is the brute that protects me from other factions who'd like to make their own selfserving laws.
If it is made unfunctional, primal violence is needed to make a point, lest you have El Salvador/Mexico.
>they wont develope into an evil person
How can you know?
Where does evil come from then?
Its not like there was some outsider who once stepped upon the first human populations and brought them the definition of punishment and reward.
>>1288045
>someone does not adapt and damadges members of the group
>you remove him forever
What, one time? Nobody would reach adulthood, certainly not old age.
>>1288166
Yes, so all actions should be ethical.
>>1288197
>implying that you can lose rights
>>1288211
Take a moment to look at what you've written. How on Earth can you defend brute protection?
Also, evil is a social construct. Murder is either situations such as muggings gone wrong, or mental health issues. Sane people are not 'evil', but 'evil' people are insane.
>>1288273
>evil is a social construct
>how can you hold an ethical position different from my own?
dude
quit it
>>1288281
How about giving a proper counterargument?
>>1287415
OP lives in the first-world, he and most people here have no idea what it is to live in a third-world country, they still think that these kind of people can be good people but they had their chance. Recently in my country some lowlife thief killed a young student who was devoting his life to what he loved, he was recognized by the NASA and was working on some STEM shit I don't remember now, he was doing something productive to improve the world, but these people have no other interest for other people's lives, they are incapable of thinking beyond themselves.Not that it matters anyway because here police and judges don't give a shit so let them have their condescendet moral debates while the rest of the world goes to shit.
>>1288290
Counter-argument to what?
I'm not that anon but you say "how on earth can you defend brute protection", "evil is a social construct", "evil people are insane". You don't have a truly cohesive perspective it seems.
If evil is a social construct, then you shouldn't expect your own morality/ethics to be self-evident or obvious to others. The other anon might've just been socialized differently from you, making your positions equally valid (or meaningless) from the perspective of an independent observer.
If evil is a social construct, and evil people are insane, then only insane people go against social mores. Say then, if society agreed that summary execution of criminals was good and opposition to that practice was evil, would you be evil/insane?
I'm just trying to figure you out.
>>1287897
>Killing someone to save resources that will be used to keep others alive is the most ironic thing I've ever heard.
The lives of some are more important than the lives of some others.
Your entire argument hinges on the premise that all human life has equal value no matter what they've done. Which is flagrantly retarded.
>>1288304
Nice appeal to emotion in an attempt to convince us that people are inherently bad.
>>1288323
It might not be self evident, but it is correct to not kill anyone for committing muh crimes.
Opposition to execution is not evil, even if society defined execution of criminals as good, because you can be both or neither good and bad morally.
>>1286868
>muh bad people should be punished
Yeah, it's the government's job to punish citizens who break the law
>muh insatiable appetite for bloodshed
No point or argument, just shitposting
>muh adults are children and should be deterred by punishment
I don't know what kind of fairy tale world you live in where turning 18 makes everyone adhere to laws because they should.
>muh morality
Killing innocent people is wrong.
>muh autistic need to respect law and order
Obeying laws counts as autism?
>>1286868
Because we have practically cheated nature, we have to enforce our own selection
You people always paint yourself as advanced and humane. But your ideas are nothing new, they are they same sets of beliefs that keep killing off stable civilizations. Ironically, your bleeding heart that prevents you from killing people ends up causing massive unrest which kills and disrupts many more lives than any punitive system ever would.
But hey, take the intellectually weak side and argue against the things which are seen, and ignore the things which are not seen.
>>1286868
well, the penal justice should be enforced as a method of revenge but like it's written of justice
some nations think that most people getting caught after commiting a crime should be able to repay what they've "broken" to society - and they will do it by turning themselves in reeducated citizen with a job, that pays taxes and contributes to social security (at least it's how most european countries apply their law)
the us, on the other hand think it's better to punish people so they don't do it again - which in most of the cases fail miserably since all they get in the end is resent, bitterness and new tricks for their new carrer: being a criminal.
but still, death penalty should be applied in extreme cases where the person in consideration gave up is human rights entirely by becoming a sub-human therefore he can't reedem himself/be reintroduced in society/be punished so all it's left is to remove this broken thing from the world once and for all
[cont.]
>>1288338
How so? How convenient that your system benefits you.
>>1288343
[.cont]
>link related:
http://www.historyandheadlines.com/10-gruesome-crimes-make-squirm/
tell me that most of those crimes didn't deserve the death penalty - not as revenge/punishment but because you can't make anything out of those people except putting them in a cage and wait for them to die; which in my opinion is pretty stupid since you're wasting http://www.historyandheadlines.com/10-gruesome-crimes-make-squirm/
>>1288068
so you would keep someone like the Boston bomber alive for what reason?
>>1288343
I can say i whole heartedly agree with you Anon
>>1288340
Of course morals are determined by one's experiences, that's why most "white people" (not racist, just mean the ones that live in the first world) are always so politically correct but always fail to solve real problems, look at Hillary for example
>>1288345
Yes. My system benefits people like me who aren't criminals that could realistically be given the death penalty, and doesn't benefit serial killers, rapists and so forth.
What a horrible system that is.
>>1288360
Hillary is solving problems.
It just so happens that the problems she's solving are those of her financiers rather than anyone else.
>>1288367
I'd rather not be "solved."
>>1286868
You forgot the argument that some people are not worth keeping alive. I'd really like to see you or someone address that.
>>1288340
>It might not be self evident, but it is correct to not kill anyone for committing muh crimes.
Again, that's you. You asked "how on earth can you defend brute protection". Clearly, anon felt his position was correct, same as you feel your position is correct. What grounds do you have for claiming your position is more or less correct than his?
>Opposition to execution is not evil, even if society defined execution of criminals as good, because you can be both or neither good and bad morally.
That doesn't follow. If society defined opposition to execution as evil, and evil was defined by society, opposition to execution would be evil and that would be it. Logically, at least one of your statements must've been wrong or you are missing something major in your argument.
>>1287121
100 years ago was 1916, anon
pretty sure the movement to abolish the death penalty is a good bit older than that
I support the death penalty in self-defense, as in killing someone in self-defense.
>>1288341
Why follow the law?
Nope, an appropriate comparison.
>implying you aren't in the fairy tale
Killing guilty people is wrong.
Yes.
>>1288342
Autism: the post. Also, [citation needed] for those socioeconomic predictions, bro.
>>1288343
So your whole argument revolves around humans becoming subhuman through acts. No. There is no place for fascism here, son.
>>1288361
Again, how convenient for you. Selfish is probably a more apt description desu senpai. The title 'criminal' is only defined by the laws that exist in a certain region. What says that the laws in your particular region are correct when the country next door disagrees?
>>1288390
Define who those are, and we'll see.
>>1288395
Moral subjectivity isn't the point. The point is that killing somebody in any circumstance equates to removing their autonomy and possible future rehabilitation.
No, you said society defined execution as good, not that the converse is also true. That's where the logical misstep in your post was.
>>1288410
That isn't the death penalty.
>>1288418
>That isn't the death penalty.
How is it not?
>>1288438
Because it isn't a state enforcing somebody's death, it is an independent person killing somebody who is trying to kill them. They are forced to kill them or die. The state isn't.
>>1288418
>The point is that killing somebody in any circumstance equates to removing their autonomy and possible future rehabilitation.
And it's your point that those matters outweight the risk and costs of allowing dangerous individuals to live. It's not a position I'd care to oppose, but you don't seem have solid ground for it - not any more than the other anon whose position you shot down with "Take a moment to look at what you've written. How on Earth can you defend brute protection?"
>No, you said society defined execution as good, not that the converse is also true. That's where the logical misstep in your post was.
I said (>>1288323):
>Say then, if society agreed that summary execution of criminals was good and opposition to that practice was evil, would you be evil/insane?
>opposition to that practice was evil
You misconstrued my argument. If it was an honest mistake, if you simply missed that bit, I'd like you to answer with this new information in mind.
>>1288418
>So your whole argument revolves around humans becoming subhuman through acts.No.There is no place for fascism here,son.
well,i'm not a fascist by any means, if you want to put me in a shelf i would be more appropriately put in left part of it.
but that doesn't change my idea that all people are born equal, but if some willingly decide to comit atrocious acts against other people and mankind itself they automatically give away their rights as human and should be processed as trash.
i'm not talking about simple murder which should be the worst you can do to other people which in my opinion can be forgiven depending of the reason, but murdering,raping, torturing with no reason other than maliciously puting in practice their wildest and darkest fantasies and depravities
to me no one has the right to take another men's life, but it's ok to destroy things that have long lost any traces of humanity
a simple real life example: isis scum - would it be "fair" to wipe them all out?
>>1288454
No, because you don't know that someone who is attacking you is doing so with the intent to kill, but that's irrelevant because the right to self-defense extends beyond the scope of that intention.
If the State sentences someone to death for murdering you, they are literally only doing what you failed to do yourself.
>>1288418
>Define who those are, and we'll see.
Well the easy definition is people who are very dangerous and can't be reformed.
>>1288478
That presumes the deceased would want to kill their attacker. That's true in the majority of cases, but not all, and we can't very well ask the deceased what they'd like done.
>>1288487
>That presumes the deceased would want to kill their attacker.
No, it presumes that anyone who is attacked will use whatever force necessary to stop a threat, including killing someone.
>>1288455
If you don't oppose it then surely you see some ground for it.
If I opposed execution with your definition, society, then society would consider me evil, but I wouldn't be 'evil' because it is just what society defines. The point is that good and evil are arbitrary labels and society attempts to define laws on their definition of them. The fact that laws differ from country to country and time to time leads me to distrust them, and be skeptical of following them dogmatically.
>>1288477
No, rights don't have conditions, otherwise they would be conditions. Cold blooded murderer torturer rapists are clearly mentally ill. There is no "evilness" in them, just insanity.
>no one has the right to take another men's life
>advocates death penalty
kek
With ISIS soldiers, if you have one captured, no need to kill him. If you are in a warzone against them, then it's a different dilemma.
>>1288478
Assume they are intending to kill them. Then it's self defense. Then assume otherwise. Then it's an accident.
The state doesn't need to intervene on my behalf, especially when the perp is captured.
>>1288482
Define those. What makes them unreformable?
>>1288498
>If you don't oppose it then surely you see some ground for it.
My feelings. That is all. I don't even feel that strongly - I'm the kind of man that could pull the lever. The other anon probably has the same excuse deep down. What of you? Did your Law come down from the evens in a beam of holy light? What makes you so convict that your position is the Truth.
>If I opposed execution with your definition, society, then society would consider me evil, but I wouldn't be 'evil' because it is just what society defines. The point is that good and evil are arbitrary labels and society attempts to define laws on their definition of them. The fact that laws differ from country to country and time to time leads me to distrust them, and be skeptical of following them dogmatically.
Ohoh, your notion that laws and moral judgements are arbitrary is a bit short-sighted. Killing dangerous offenders is a practice that turned up over and over again through time and space. Because for most of History, keeping a dangerous person alive was too risky or too costly - starvation wasn't something that could only happen in a far-away land, like it seems to us fortunate folks. The sort of laws that pop up most often tend to make very practical sense.
>>1288527
You're gonna have to make that first point more understandable.
As for your second,
>shown supporting material to the view you don't hold
>automatically labelled as cherry picking
>>1288533
>evens
*heavens
>>1288533
Why do you keep capitalising words that don't need it? Anywho, myself maintaining that I'm in the right isn't silly. Every person believes their opinions are right.
Yes, that is the reason that killers were killed in the past, but if we don't need to then we shouldn't.
>>1288573
Law and Truth are capitalized there because, for the sake of the argument, I took a stance that there was something like a divinely-backed, universal, objective morality - like in God, Lord and the Word, capitalization marks it's special, supreme status.
>Yes, that is the reason that killers were killed in the past, but if we don't need to then we shouldn't.
But we can and it could maybe make things simpler, quicker, less risky, or whatever. We aren't debating the necessity of the act are we?
Hope the thread is still up tomorrow.
>>1288418
>What says that the laws in your particular region are correct when the country next door disagrees?
The fact that I do not want to get raped or murdered, thus I would rather it is illegal to rape or murder.
If the people next door are fine with that then that's their porblem.
>>1288589
Ah I see what you mean. But I don't think law etc. is special or supreme. My "death penalty is bad" sentiment is opposite to the "death penalty is good" opinion, of which people seem to be so fanatically sure.
Killing someone because it's simpler, quicker, etc. is plain wrong, surely?
>>1288602
Rapes and murders happen regardless. Most rapists are repeat offenders and most murderers will kill again if it isn't socioeconomically motivated. You don't get to impose death penalties on me or anyone else, friend.
I'll check on it if I remember. Thanks for the posts lads.
>>1288489
Either way, the assumption doesn't always hold true, and even if it was, I'd rather not have dead people make decisions for us.
>>1288614
>Most rapists are repeat offenders and most murderers will kill again if it isn't socioeconomically motivated
Exactly, which is why they should get the death penalty.
>>1288498
>What makes them unreformable?
- lack of respect or care for societal order
- lack of a conscience, however you want to define that
- lack of desire to be reformed
any of those, probably
>>1287137
You'd still have to be pretty sick in the head to willingly send someone to their death
>>1286868
One necessary aspect of an argument is providing counter-argument
>>1286868
>muh every life matters
>>1288768
No, it only implies some kind of protection of society from a repeat offense. You can do this without killing. Why must you people always result to killing?
>>1288781
1: Lack of respect or care just means unreformed not unreformable.
2: Lack of conscience or empathy is psychopathy and a mental health issue. Not a moral issue.
3: Lack of desire to be reformed stems from living too long in case 1 or being in case 2.
>>1289064
How doesn't it? Why do you not show respect for something that shares life with you?
>>1288537
When said supporting material is merely one result the opposite of the norm, yes, it is cherry picking, don't be daft anon.
>>1286868
How about death penalty for everybody cuz I hate everything?
What you gonna do about it, smart ass?
>>1290501
Be that as it may, those problems can't always be fixed, and again the criminal may not want them fixed. They may in fact actively want to stay the way they are and resist any efforts to change them. Some such people are very dangerous to not just the public but inmates and guards.
>>1291220
And why does that give you the right to kill them?
>>1291302
I didn't say it does. I'm not taking a stand on either side of the issue really (I have my leanings but I'm not 100% sure where I want to stand), I just think this is one of the more valid arguments to be had on it and I never see anyone discussing.
I want to know:
1. What value does such a person have to society?
2. How does that value compare to what it costs to support them?
3. What do that value judgment and that value comparison suggest we do?
4. Why does such a person have such a value?
>>1291652
1: Irrelevant.
2: See 1.
3: If it says anything it certainly doesn't say kill.
4: A person has value regardless of crime.
>>1291722
1. I beg to differ, and it seems so do you
2. same
3. What? The value you want provide should tell me something?
4. I'm not disputing that. I thought you said that was irrelevant anyway?
I want to know how the value of a person who is dangerous and cannot be reformed compares to the value of saving the money, food, water, time, effort, and resources required to make sure that person is alive an healthy for all of their natural life.
>>1291943
>The value you won't provide
come on fingers, get it together
Death Penalty doesn't solve anything really.
>>1291943
It doesn't need to compare, it isn't a utilitarian argument it's a humanitarian one
>>1287552
Brazilianon never said a single thing about genetics, buddy.
>>1292173
Well we're getting somewhere.
Why shouldn't it be both? Why shouldn't every element and approach be considered? Ethical, psychological, economic, everything?
Do you know how much it costs to feed someone for 50 years? Can we really not weigh that against feelings just because they're feelings?
>autism
I have feelings too, I think life is precious, even, but I'm not sure I'd say *all* life is precious. It's definitely not all *equally* precious, IMHO.
>>1291981
But on the other hand it's been proven a rehabilitative approach is the best approach to dealing with crime.
You have to take a proactive approach to crime as well as a rehabilitative system to full get it right. Using jail as a solely just a timeout zone where you do nothing ends up being ineffective at best and at worst turning people into hardened criminals.
