The Death Sentence

Originally Posted by DarKnite92

I think the death penalty is only justified when you have someone who won't stop killing even in jail without pushing them into an inhumane situation.

And yet you oppose the death penalty even though that's pretty much the exact condition under which I advocate it.

Unless if they're giving them a supply of methamphetamines to make them happy, then that's wrong, which they obviously aren't.

You can inject nutrients into the bloodstream, y'know. You don't have to eat it to be able to get sustenance from something. Think of all those people who are on a drip while they're in a coma. It's practically the same thing.

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

So you agree with taking away one's liberty when it's justified. Is it not also fair to say that you can take away one's life when it's justified?

Well, the answer to that is self-evident. It's always fine to do something if that action is justified.

The question here is what's a proper justification.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Well, the answer to that is self-evident. It's always fine to do something if that action is justified.

That's how I feel, which is why it bothers me when people argue that the government has no right to take your life away from you, when they're perfectly fine with them kidnapping you.

The question here is what's a proper justification.

I believe I've outlined that in most of my posts in this thread. Dangerous threat, to the point where he's a danger even to the other inmates, or a person who will never leave prison even if he's left alive. I honestly don't think mistakes come into it, because mistakes happen when it comes to kidnapping you which aren't as easily rectified by saying "I'm sorry" and giving them a large sum of cash.

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

And yet you oppose the death penalty even though that's pretty much the exact condition under which I advocate it.

Well, I think if that person chooses to live in those inhumane circumstances instead of dying, but also has the option to change his mind later on.

You can inject nutrients into the bloodstream, y'know. You don't have to eat it to be able to get sustenance from something. Think of all those people who are on a drip while they're in a coma. It's practically the same thing.

I'm not questioning that they do it, I'm questioning the action's morality.

Originally Posted by DarKnite92

Well, I think if that person chooses to live in those inhumane circumstances instead of dying, but also has the option to change his mind later on.

They're the guilty party here, and they persist in being a threat even after they're incarcerated. They are wasting our money in the process as well. There is no benefit to keeping them alive, in fact, there is a DETRIMENT in keeping them alive.

Also, why does their choice matter? They had the choice of not committing that serious crime as well, I'll remind you.

I'm not questioning that they do it, I'm questioning the action's morality.

If he could commit suicide, that would be the easy way out. If you commit a crime, the state will punish you. If you had a say in that punishment, it wouldn't be a very good punishment would it?

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

They're the guilty party here, and they persist in being a threat even after they're incarcerated. They are wasting our money in the process as well. There is no benefit to keeping them alive, in fact, there is a DETRIMENT in keeping them alive.

Also, why does their choice matter? They had the choice of not committing that serious crime as well, I'll remind you.

True, and I must now actually agree with you, that someone who will use any chance they can get to get out and kill people and can't be rehabilitated is undeserving of life, but I'd be against it in any other case (even if its an ex-serial killer who has been rehabilitated).

I wholeheartedly support the death penalty for specific crimes pertaining to murder, rape, etc.

The idea of simply imprisoning a person of such offenses, rather than executing them is idiotic. Keeping them alive is a waste of finances in part of the general public.

Originally Posted by DarKnite92

True, and I must now actually agree with you, that someone who will use any chance they can get to get out and kill people and can't be rehabilitated is undeserving of life, but I'd be against it in any other case (even if its an ex-serial killer who has been rehabilitated).

You can't prove rehabilitation, and rehabilitation is useless if you're never going to leave prison.

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

You can't prove rehabilitation, and rehabilitation is useless if you're never going to leave prison.

For the safety of other inmates. It's impossible to prove, yes, but very common in serial killers once they're sentenced to prison. For example, there was one (can't remember his name) who ended up becoming a painter and ten years ago or so actually had an art show of his paintings.

Originally Posted by DarKnite92

For the safety of other inmates. It's impossible to prove, yes, but very common in serial killers once they're sentenced to prison. For example, there was one (can't remember his name) who ended up becoming a painter and ten years ago or so actually had an art show of his paintings.

Still, he's using up public funds by being alive. There's no reason to keep him alive if he's never coming out.

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

Still, he's using up public funds by being alive. There's no reason to keep him alive if he's never coming out.

So, in that sense, then it is best to use the death sentence for people who have multiple sentences that would make it they could never get out?

I used to be against the death sentence, but lately my views have changed. Murderers and rapists are the ones who deserve to die. Bloody scum.

Originally Posted by Axel Anvil

So, in that sense, then it is best to use the death sentence for people who have multiple sentences that would make it they could never get out?

That is exactly the case. They contribute nothing, they in fact drain from the national budget, and innocent or guilty they're never coming out.

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

Still, he's using up public funds by being alive. There's no reason to keep him alive if he's never coming out.

I don't personally have much of a problem with that, but, he could work to fund his existence.

Originally Posted by DarKnite92

I don't personally have much of a problem with that, but, he could work to fund his existence.

He could, but he would never make up for the cost of his continued existence as long as he's still in prison. There's nothing you could do in prison that would make up for £30,000 a year.