1. Post #161

    June 2016
    706 Posts
    Ah, the good ol' residents of facepunch sitting on high horse about death row.

    If you ask me, people who take countless lives without good justification (read as: within the limits of law, such as self defense) should literally rot in jail by locking up the person and depriving him of food and water so he dies of starvation and dehydration.

    When you take life of others willingly in the same fashion Dylann Roof did, you forfeit your right to human conditions.

  2. Post #162
    BlackMageMari's Avatar
    July 2016
    3,591 Posts
    The reason why I think capital punishment is bad is the idea that we should have the power to determine whether someone should live or die based on their actions.

    But at the same time that's a very, very morally grey zone especially when it comes to a mass murder. It's not an easy question to answer from that point of view.

    However, capital punishment and executions do not seem to work from the point of view of preventing crimes. They, obviously, also don't rehabilitate the person who undergoes the punishment.

    It's not something I feel I'm qualified to really answer, but since it is banned here for years and has never really come up, it's not something that matters for me.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Chrome Ireland Show Events Starred Starred x 2 (list)

  3. Post #163

    June 2016
    706 Posts
    Evidently not.
    If you have conflicting opinions that doesn't make you dysfunctional.

  4. Post #164
    Gold Member
    Ganerumo's Avatar
    September 2011
    25,643 Posts
    Also if any of you paid attention to the criteria I gave regarding the death sentence you'd quickly notice that Dylann Roof's own sentencing does not even fall under the right conditions.

    I'm just using this as a platform to try and get people to discuss further about their own motivations or the reasons for their own standpoint and so far it's been kind of an egregious failure because of the amount of defensive, snide nonsense that came my way and how little I got in the realm of proper responses that aren't fallacies or circular thinking.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Chrome France Show Events Starred Starred x 1 (list)

  5. Post #165
    Gold Member
    Stopper's Avatar
    July 2009
    7,412 Posts
    Actually answer the question then instead of dodging it if it's so easy.


    The point of the question is to bring up the fact that our moral compass is established by the society we live in, not by some kind of universal rule.

    It's the result of living in a Judeo-Christian society that has built itself around the concept for thousands of years (ten commandments, you shall not kill, etc). Societies that existed either prior or outside of this specific framework are known to have had a different, sometimes more lax stance on killing.

    Killing someone isn't "good" in our society, because we've spent more than two thousand years establishing it wasn't. However, killing someone as some form of punishment for a crime is, has always been, and will likely always be a grey area, because it not being an outright "good thing" doesn't make it "bad" by default.



    See, this pretty much proves my point. A Manichean way of thinking only entrenches you deeper into a childish perception of the world where the whole of humanity can be categorized in either "good" or "bad". Those notions can only really be applied in context and are almost always going to cause problems when applied as absolutes.
    No, the point of the question is to make you appear like you have a moral high ground by questioning everyone else's moral compass, instead of arguing against their specific beliefs (like being against the death penalty). In fact, to be precise, I'd call what you're doing belittling - you're trying to make everyone else's argument appear childish. You're the one who put the line at good and bad with your idiotic, loaded question.
    The default state of humans is not wanting someone else's death, so why is the burden of proof on the people wanting to preserve this state? That's why I'm not answering.

    The moral compass of the society is the individual's moral compass, by definition. That's what a moral compass is! Killing someone in our society is not just "bad", it's deplorable and punishable to the full extent of the law. I draw the line at state sanctioned murder, you don't.

    Edited:

    In this case, it removes a murderer from the world and ensures that the murderer in question won't have to sit around in a cell forever. As I've said before, I don't know where I stand on this, but I actually think that's an interesting question and these rebuttals are bad, and that's interesting to me.
    Only the first bit of that statement's important. Being behind bars in a maximum security prison is for all intents and purposes exactly the same as the person being executed, as far as the general public is concerned. So why take is a step further and fulfil the need for revenge, when the objectives of ensuring the public's safety and punishing the criminal are both accomplished?

  6. Post #166
    Gold Member
    Ganerumo's Avatar
    September 2011
    25,643 Posts
    No, the point of the question is to make you appear like you have a moral high ground by questioning everyone else's moral compass, instead of arguing against their specific beliefs (like being against the death penalty). In fact, to be precise, I'd call what you're doing belittling - you're trying to make everyone else's argument appear childish. You're the one who put the line at good and bad with your idiotic, loaded question.
    The default state of humans is not wanting someone else's death, so why is the burden of proof on the people wanting to preserve this state? That's why I'm not answering.

    The moral compass of the society is the individual's moral compass, by definition. That's what a moral compass is! Killing someone in our society is not just "bad", it's deplorable and punishable to the full extent of the law. I draw the line at state sanctioned murder, you don't.
    Care to actually elaborate/bring proof on that ?

    What exactly is the "default state of humans" ?

  7. Post #167
    Gold Member
    Sherow_Xx's Avatar
    July 2005
    2,056 Posts
    No, the point of the question is to make you appear like you have a moral high ground by questioning everyone else's moral compass, instead of arguing against their specific beliefs (like being against the death penalty). In fact, to be precise, I'd call what you're doing belittling - you're trying to make everyone else's argument appear childish. You're the one who put the line at good and bad with your idiotic, loaded question.
    The default state of humans is not wanting someone else's death, so why is the burden of proof on the people wanting to preserve this state? That's why I'm not answering.

    The moral compass of the society is the individual's moral compass, by definition. That's what a moral compass is! Killing someone in our society is not just "bad", it's deplorable and punishable to the full extent of the law. I draw the line at state sanctioned murder, you don't.
    What do you feel about the idea that being locked in prison forever could potentially be worse? I mean, your argument in your last line is to equate execution with murder, such that an individual doing it for any reason is equal to the state doing it for specific reasons. Wouldn't that also apply to kidnapping and trapping people?

  8. Post #168
    Gold Member
    Ganerumo's Avatar
    September 2011
    25,643 Posts
    It's important to ask these questions because it forces you to think outside of your comfort zone and question your own ideals and standpoints.

    What do you feel about the idea that being locked in prison forever could potentially be worse? I mean, your argument in your last line is to equate execution with murder, such that an individual doing it for any reason is equal to the state doing it for specific reasons. Wouldn't that also apply to kidnapping and trapping people?
    I've raised that issue several times wherein there are cases where keeping someone incarcerated would be more inhumane than killing them, but it's usually been dodged or ignored to some extent.

  9. Post #169
    Gold Member
    Stopper's Avatar
    July 2009
    7,412 Posts
    Care to actually elaborate/bring proof on that ?

    What exactly is the "default state of humans" ?
    Because we don't require other humans for sustenance.................

  10. Post #170
    Gold Member
    Ganerumo's Avatar
    September 2011
    25,643 Posts
    Because we don't require other humans for sustenance.................
    Neither do monkeys and apes and lions and they still kill the shit out of each other for non-food related reasons.

  11. Post #171
    Gold Member
    Stopper's Avatar
    July 2009
    7,412 Posts
    What do you feel about the idea that being locked in prison forever could potentially be worse? I mean, your argument in your last line is to equate execution with murder, such that an individual doing it for any reason is equal to the state doing it for specific reasons. Wouldn't that also apply to kidnapping and trapping people?
    Because locking someone up for life satisfies the requirement for public safety. Executing someone is taking it an unnecessary step further.

  12. Post #172
    Gold Member
    Ganerumo's Avatar
    September 2011
    25,643 Posts
    Because locking someone up for life satisfies the requirement for public safety. Executing someone is taking it an unnecessary step further.
    What if it doesn't anymore ?
    What if it's inhumane for the person you incarcerate ?

  13. Post #173
    Gold Member
    Clavus's Avatar
    September 2009
    8,317 Posts
    The thing with the death penalty for me is: I don't care if this guy gets the death penalty or life in prison. Same difference for society.

    I do care about the fact that miscarriages of justice exist and there's no way to correct for them when a person's dead. That's why I'd like to see the death penalty gone everywhere.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Chrome Netherlands Show Events Starred Starred x 5 (list)

  14. Post #174
    Gold Member
    Sherow_Xx's Avatar
    July 2005
    2,056 Posts
    So why take is a step further and fulfil the need for revenge, when the objectives of ensuring the public's safety and punishing the criminal are both accomplished?
    No punishment should ever come from a desire for revenge, so I agree with this. I think the situation in which I would consider supporting it would be when you know that the prisoner is going to have to be kept in some terrible high-security part of a terrible prison with no chance to ever have another human experience in his life, at that point I feel unsure which treatment I think is the most inhumane.

    Because locking someone up for life satisfies the requirement for public safety. Executing someone is taking it an unnecessary step further.
    Maybe I just have a far too terrible mental image of the inside of an American prison, but my issue is that I can't decide which one is the step further, and which one is the step back.

  15. Post #175
    Gold Member
    Stopper's Avatar
    July 2009
    7,412 Posts
    No punishment should ever come from a desire for revenge, so I agree with this. I think the situation in which I would consider supporting it would be when you know that the prisoner is going to have to be kept in some terrible high-security part of a terrible prison with no chance to ever have another human experience in his life, at that point I feel unsure which treatment I think is the most inhumane.



    Maybe I just have a far too terrible mental image of the inside of an American prison, but my issue is that I can't decide which one is the step further, and which one is the step back.
    If it helps, imagine a Scandinavian prison instead of an American one. Do you agree with what I'm saying then?

    The deplorable conditions in some prisons are a different, no less important topic, but not the one at hand.

    Edited:

    Also if any of you paid attention to the criteria I gave regarding the death sentence you'd quickly notice that Dylann Roof's own sentencing does not even fall under the right conditions.

    I'm just using this as a platform to try and get people to discuss further about their own motivations or the reasons for their own standpoint and so far it's been kind of an egregious failure because of the amount of defensive, snide nonsense that came my way and how little I got in the realm of proper responses that aren't fallacies or circular thinking.
    It's important to ask these questions because it forces you to think outside of your comfort zone and question your own ideals and standpoints.



    I've raised that issue several times wherein there are cases where keeping someone incarcerated would be more inhumane than killing them, but it's usually been dodged or ignored to some extent.
    Oh give me a break. You're just JAQ-ing off. You're doing the moral highground thing again. You've already accepted in your mind that you are unequivocally correct, so why waste time arguing?

    Edited:

    Neither do monkeys and apes and lions and they still kill the shit out of each other for non-food related reasons.
    Should we revert back to the law of the jungle then?

    Edited:

    What if it doesn't anymore ?
    What if it's inhumane for the person you incarcerate ?
    What is that hypothetical? A terrible earthquake splits a prison in half and releases all the deadly, deranged murders? We're pretty damn good at keeping people inside prisons, if you haven't noticed.

    The requirement for public safety trumps that. That's literally the whole point of prison.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Chrome Bulgaria Show Events Starred Starred x 1 (list)

  16. Post #176
    Gold Member
    Sherow_Xx's Avatar
    July 2005
    2,056 Posts
    If it helps, imagine a Scandinavian prison instead of an American one. Do you agree with what I'm saying then?
    Absolutely, yes. But I do think that's an important factor to this discussion. If a prisoner can't be provided with opportunities to live some kind of life on the inside, is it really humane to keep them for the rest of their lives? Perhaps ideally the death penalty should be abolished, but nobody should attempt to stop a prisoner with a life sentence from committing suicide.

  17. Post #177
    Gold Member
    Ganerumo's Avatar
    September 2011
    25,643 Posts
    If it helps, imagine a Scandinavian prison instead of an American one. Do you agree with what I'm saying then?

    The deplorable conditions in some prisons are a different, no less important topic, but not the one at hand.
    Funny you should mention the Scandinavian model when Anders Breivik is currently undergoing another legal procedure after a ruling by Oslo stating that keeping Breivik in isolation was violating his human rights.

    He opened the case with a nazi salute by the way. Even Norwegian prisons are having difficulties keeping a mass murderer around without tip-toeing with the definition of inhumane, and only for 21 years at a time rather than a life sentence.

    There is a point where you must question the practical feasibility of keeping individuals have killed this many people and therefore have a lot of enemies in prison without resorting to inhumane treatment, for instance by isolating a social creature such as a human being.

    Edited:

    Oh give me a break. You're just JAQ-ing off. You're doing the moral highground thing again. You've already accepted in your mind that you are unequivocally correct, so why waste time arguing?
    I'm always open to new perceptions of a same issue considering five to ten years ago I was fervently against the death penalty and I actually changed my mind over time and now I'm more willing to see the use of it in certain extreme situations.

    Edited:

    What is that hypothetical? A terrible earthquake splits a prison in half and releases all the deadly, deranged murders? We're pretty damn good at keeping people inside prisons, if you haven't noticed.

    The requirement for public safety trumps that. That's literally the whole point of prison.
    Hardly hypothetical when there's people out there who have been a notable pain in the ass to keep in prison. Someone like Bronson but also a mass murderer would be a fucking nightmare to keep in jail without directly endangering public safety, including the safety of the employees at the prison and of the other prisoners (who still have rights).
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Chrome France Show Events Starred Starred x 2 (list)

  18. Post #178
    Gold Member
    The bird Man's Avatar
    September 2011
    4,404 Posts
    I may be a bit extreme, but I prefer the Bapu way.

  19. Post #179
    Viper_'s Avatar
    January 2006
    970 Posts
    But now he doesn't get Bubba's dick.

  20. Post #180
    Gold Member
    Sunday_Roast's Avatar
    November 2007
    3,409 Posts
    alright cool i will: why does someone being sick justify killing them

    Edited:



    killing somebody is never a good course of action. not ever. i don't care if they're a nazi and killed 100 babies. there is no justification for killing a person for their crimes.
    Moral absolutism is hilarious.

    Life is not so sacred. Not every life is worth embracing.
    Take this guy Dylann Roof as an example.

    A guy not really worth all this legal battle when a cheap hammer for the nearest hardware store would do.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Chrome Finland Show Events Starred Starred x 1 (list)

  21. Post #181
    Gold Member
    Gum100's Avatar
    July 2007
    265 Posts
    From a purely pragmatic point of view, I'm of the opinion that a human being is always more useful alive than dead. Would the net gain for society not be greater if death row inmates were instead put towards labor/experimentation? Obviously you can argue that's unethical, but why is it more-so unethical than execution?

  22. Post #182
    Gold Member
    Stopper's Avatar
    July 2009
    7,412 Posts
    From a purely pragmatic point of view, I'm of the opinion that a human being is always more useful alive than dead. Would the net gain for society not be greater if death row inmates were instead put towards labor/experimentation? Obviously you can argue that's unethical, but why is it more-so unethical than execution?
    I'm at a loss for words.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Chrome Bulgaria Show Events Starred Starred x 1 (list)

  23. Post #183
    Gold Member
    Gum100's Avatar
    July 2007
    265 Posts
    I'm at a loss for words.
    With respect, can you go into more detail?
    To clarify, my point is meant specifically as an argument against the death penalty, rather than an endorsement of anything else, assuming I'm understanding your objection.

  24. Post #184
    Gold Member
    Stopper's Avatar
    July 2009
    7,412 Posts
    With respect, can you go into more detail?
    To clarify, my point is meant specifically as an argument against the death penalty, rather than an endorsement of anything else, assuming I'm understanding your objection.
    To clarify, you're not for medically experimenting on prisoners, correct? Because that would be... Not cool.

    Ignoring that, the reason why it's more unethical than straight up execution is that medical experimentation can often have unintended, painful, dangerous and deadly side effects. The word "torture" comes to mind. So in many ways, executing people is better than torturing them, I guess? Where would you draw a line? What would you do with the prisoners after you've concluded your "research"? Because remember, you need control groups and repeatability, so you can't use the same person for different research. Do we just discard them as medical waste? Is any of this okay?

  25. Post #185
    Gold Member
    Gum100's Avatar
    July 2007
    265 Posts
    To clarify, you're not for medically experimenting on prisoners, correct? Because that would be... Not cool.

    Ignoring that, the reason why it's more unethical than straight up execution is that medical experimentation can often have unintended, painful, dangerous and deadly side effects. The word "torture" comes to mind. So in many ways, executing people is better than torturing them, I guess? Where would you draw a line? What would you do with the prisoners after you've concluded your "research"? Because remember, you need control groups and repeatability, so you can't use the same person for different research. Do we just discard them as medical waste? Is any of this okay?
    Well, in a best case scenario, I'd like to think it would be done with both the prisoners consent, and an ethical review of the intended experimentation beforehand. It's not exactly a black and white issue. But my core point boils down the idea of the death penalty being especially pointless in light of alternatives.
    While we're at it, I believe I've said this in a previous thread, but there's evidence that, at the very least in some cases, the US's most common method of execution could certainly be considered cruel and unusual torture.

    Realistically, I think serving a life sentence, (with possibly the option for euthanasia, as people in the thread previously mentioned) is the most suitable compromise.

  26. Post #186
    give her the dick
    Tarver's Avatar
    July 2012
    539 Posts
    Even someone like Dylann Roof should be spared according to FP,just because its 'inhumane', wow you guys really are pushovers.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Android Chrome Show Events Starred Starred x 1 (list)

  27. Post #187
    Arctic-Zone's Avatar
    May 2010
    1,347 Posts
    Even someone like Dylann Roof should be spared according to FP,just because its 'inhumane', wow you guys really are pushovers.
    I'd rather have him alive and in anguish than for him to get the easy way out.

  28. Post #188
    Blazedol's Avatar
    March 2013
    3,293 Posts
    Well it's obviously not the best course of action considering how many European countries don't even have the death penalty and have a much lower crime rate.
    Our criminal justice system is shit, and this is just another example of that. We're a society that glorifies violence and revenge and that shit shouldn't seep into our legal system.
    oh i agree with that, it's just that saying putting him to death makes us no better than him is a little over dramatic.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Chrome United States Show Events Starred Starred x 2 (list)

  29. Post #189
    Why so Sirius?
    SIRIUS's Avatar
    April 2009
    3,099 Posts
    Even someone like Dylann Roof should be spared according to FP,just because its 'inhumane', wow you guys really are pushovers.
    No, because prison

  30. Post #190
    Gold Member
    Robber's Avatar
    January 2006
    6,709 Posts
    it's done, get over it. also it's what the victims want
    I'm sorry, but I don't think the victims are exactly the most unbiased people to ask.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Chrome Austria Show Events Starred Starred x 1 (list)

  31. Post #191
    Why so Sirius?
    SIRIUS's Avatar
    April 2009
    3,099 Posts
    since when is "what the victims want" the most important thing?

  32. Post #192
    LTJGPliskin's Avatar
    September 2013
    6,051 Posts
    oh i agree with that, it's just that saying putting him to death makes us no better than him is a little over dramatic.
    Okay, I get where you're coming from.
    But still, I just don't think it's morally right to put people to death, even in cases like this.
    These people belong in prison. The only reason people think they don't is because we put so many low level offenders in our prisons that it just doesn't seem like enough.

  33. Post #193
    Speedhax's Avatar
    June 2007
    521 Posts
    I'd rather him live a long time and hopefully eventually realize that what he did was either wrong or not worth throwing his life away for. Sentenced to death, he can probably die thinking he did a good thing like Timothy McVeigh. Killing him is not a punishment, I'd say it's more of a release then anything else. If he spends his entire life in prison, he might realize that these things he cared about so much don't seem as important.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows Vista Chrome Canada Show Events Starred Starred x 2 (list)

  34. Post #194
    Tobylol's Avatar
    July 2009
    296 Posts
    Even someone like Dylann Roof should be spared according to FP,just because its 'inhumane', wow you guys really are pushovers.
    This is really a good illustration of how a lot of pro-death people think regarding capital punishment. People who disagree with death sentences are apparently pushovers for not agreeing that any state entity should be able to dictate over an individuals right to exist. It seems to me that if you're even within that realm of rhetoric, it's clear that you are the one letting your emotions steer over common sense. I'm not really arguing for or against the death penalty here, it's just that this "arrr the bad man should fuckin die and everyone who disagrees is a weak pushover"" is so common it's frightening.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Chrome United Kingdom Show Events Starred Starred x 5 (list)

  35. Post #195
    Gold Member
    carcarcargo's Avatar
    October 2007
    16,264 Posts
    This is really a good illustration of how a lot of pro-death people think regarding capital punishment. People who disagree with death sentences are apparently pushovers for not agreeing that any state entity should be able to dictate over an individuals right to exist. It seems to me that if you're even within that realm of rhetoric, it's clear that you are the one letting your emotions steer over common sense. I'm not really arguing for or against the death penalty here, it's just that this "arrr the bad man should fuckin die and everyone who disagrees is a weak pushover"" is so common it's frightening.
    There are valid arguments against the death penalty, but "he's a human bean!" isn't one of them. That is just as silly, emotional and as much of an example of ridiculous black and white thinking as the revenge argument.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Chrome United Kingdom Show Events Starred Starred x 3 (list)

  36. Post #196
    Gold Member
    Sherow_Xx's Avatar
    July 2005
    2,056 Posts
    "arrr the bad man should fuckin die and everyone who disagrees is a weak pushover"" is so common it's frightening.
    In my experience, there are just as many people going "arrr the man is bad we must make him suffer in a cell forever and not let him escape by death", and I agree that that mentality is completely harmful.

  37. Post #197
    Tobylol's Avatar
    July 2009
    296 Posts
    There are valid arguments against the death penalty, but "he's a human bean!" isn't one of them. That is just as silly, emotional and an example of ridiculous black and white thinking as the revenge argument.
    I don't know if I would agree that they are on the same level. "He's a human bean!" is obviously not saying much but encompasses the point pretty well, which is that we as a society have no right to decide whether a human life should be forcefully ended, disregarding our established laws and ethics. Especially in the case of choosing between a life sentence and the death penalty, which bear basically the same results in practice (disregarding the emotional aspect) except that we don't have to kill any more people.

    You don't have to be an apologist to consider our right to not get executed by the government to be a fundamental base for a modern society regardless of circumstance.

    In my experience, there are just as many people going "arrr the man is bad we must make him suffer in a cell forever and not let him escape by death", and I agree that that mentality is completely harmful.
    Yeah, that and also "hehe hope he gets ass raped by a blackie ;)" is so fucking shitty and everyone who thinks like this is a major fuck.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Chrome United Kingdom Show Events Starred Starred x 1 (list)

  38. Post #198
    Gold Member
    carcarcargo's Avatar
    October 2007
    16,264 Posts
    I don't know if I would agree that they are on the same level. "He's a human bean!" is obviously not saying much but encompasses the point pretty well, which is that we as a society have no right to decide whether a human life should be forcefully ended, disregarding our established laws and ethics. Especially in the case of choosing between a life sentence and the death penalty, which bear basically the same results in practice (disregarding the emotional aspect) except that we don't have to kill any more people.

    You don't have to be an apologist to consider our right to not get executed by the government to be a pretty fundamental base for a modern society, regardless of circumstance.
    But we already do that in terms of self defence laws, with the military and with the police. There's a reason we have different degrees of murder and man slaughter because it is at the end of the day the motive that defines whether the killing was wrong and how wrong we consider it. To take a moral absolute that ALL killing is bad is just silly, there's very clearly defined times when it isn't.

    Yes a lovely perfect universe where nobody was ever killed ever would be nice, however we don't live in that universe so it's pointless to act as though we do.

  39. Post #199
    Gold Member
    hexpunK's Avatar
    August 2008
    19,128 Posts
    In my experience, there are just as many people going "arrr the man is bad we must make him suffer in a cell forever and not let him escape by death", and I agree that that mentality is completely harmful.
    "He'll suffer in his cell" is a pretty shitty argument. It still doesn't solve the problem of retributive punishment at all.

    My main desires from abolishing the death penalty are the opportunities to learn more about the individuals that commit the crimes (and save some bloody money because death row isn't cheap to run). We might not be able to "fix" them, but we may be able to find out what caused them to become what they are, and perhaps find indicators for future perps.

    Along with my previously mentioned point on creating exceptions to laws just to satisfy some lust for revenge. You'll eventually get someone caught up in it that shouldn't have been.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Firefox United Kingdom Show Events Starred Starred x 6 (list)

  40. Post #200
    Tobylol's Avatar
    July 2009
    296 Posts
    But we already do that in terms of self defence laws, with the military and with the police. There's a reason we have different degrees of murder and man slaughter because it is at the end of the day the motive that defines whether the killing was wrong and how wrong we consider it. To take a moral absolute that ALL killing is bad is just silly, there's very clearly defined times when it isn't.

    Yes a lovely perfect universe where nobody was ever killed ever would be nice, however we don't live in that universe so it's pointless to act as though we do.
    Could argue that those reasons are a necessity, where as in this case it is not. The fact is that a large majority of the developed world has gotten rid of the death penalty, and is getting on just fine. I agree it's pointless to act as if things are perfect, but shouldn't we strive to be as good as possible.