|
|
Post by beej76 on Apr 28, 2005 10:54:56 GMT -6
Here's a good argument for you. The death penalty is a solid economic institution. Because of the death penalty, we are able to employ all sorts of lawyers, judges, and web developers who make cool sites like this.
We need more info before sharing our greatness. What level of school is this for, and what type of class. For instance, you want to write a much different paper for a Criminology course than an English course.
|
|
|
|
Post by beej76 on Apr 28, 2005 12:29:28 GMT -6
Oh, I'm well aware of that... This is Bachelor level...so I'm not just going to comment on pro-arguments...That's just a small piece in the puzzle... Currently I'm writing about the new bill against juvenile executions...I've finished subjects on the Furman and the Gregg decisions, about capital punishment in the American colonies, about racial bias...just to name a few... My next subject will be on people's attitudes toward the DP...which explains my interest in you, the pros, arguments. One of the most used arguments in favour of the death penalty is the fact that it serves as a deterrent. - Are you really convinced that the fear of punishment makes people less likely to commit crime? Hmm...I'm interested in hearing more about your view on the DP being a solid economic institution... Sorry - I'm an anti, and I was being sarcastic. I can't give you much in terms of arguments for the DP. I can help the other way around! I wouldn't push for the deterrance thing - not if your prof knows anything about it. Too many studies show no deterrance at all, or actually the other way around (more crime). I think for the most part, the American public is apathetic towards the DP, which keeps it around. There's enough crazy cases out there to keep people generally in favor of it. If you really want some good thoughts, do a search on posts by Red. If you ask him directly, he's a lawyer, and he'll bill you $250 an hour. I'd do some searches. |
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Apr 28, 2005 13:11:13 GMT -6
Louiza states, "One of the most used arguments in favour of the death penalty is the fact that it serves as a deterrent."
actually if you do stick around and read some posts you'll see that pro's aren't the ones pushing deterence, it's the anti's. and they use it to say that DP doesn't deter others, and they say it with a straight face as if they really believe that detering others is the sole purpose of DP.
deterence value is best described at the head of this web sight and I cannot improve on that.
what you will see, if you stick around is that DP certainly deters the convict in question from re-offending. and I'm talking execution here not DR.
I don't know what you plan to write about the anti side but you can sum up the pro side pretty quick by simply writing that in all of your research you have found NOBODY who was hurt or killed by an executed convict.
anything more complicated than that is just smoke and mirrors.
[/quote]
|
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Apr 28, 2005 14:08:53 GMT -6
Just read the details of the crimes DR inmates have committed. It should be self-explanatory. I am a reformed anti. I always opposed the DP. Then I took the time ti really think about it, and I realized my old belief system was wrong. Now I celebrate true justice, which involves killing the most depraved killers.
|
|
|
|
Post by beej76 on Apr 28, 2005 14:42:19 GMT -6
Louiza states, "One of the most used arguments in favour of the death penalty is the fact that it serves as a deterrent." actually if you do stick around and read some posts you'll see that pro's aren't the ones pushing deterence, it's the anti's. and they use it to say that DP doesn't deter others, and they say it with a straight face as if they really believe that detering others is the sole purpose of DP. deterence value is best described at the head of this web sight and I cannot improve on that. what you will see, if you stick around is that DP certainly deters the convict in question from re-offending. and I'm talking execution here not DR. I don't know what you plan to write about the anti side but you can sum up the pro side pretty quick by simply writing that in all of your research you have found NOBODY who was hurt or killed by an executed convict. anything more complicated than that is just smoke and mirrors. [/quote] I don't think you understand deterrance. |
|
|
|
Post by beej76 on Apr 28, 2005 14:43:15 GMT -6
Just read the details of the crimes DR inmates have committed. It should be self-explanatory. I am a reformed anti. I always opposed the DP. Then I took the time ti really think about it, and I realized my old belief system was wrong. Now I celebrate true justice, which involves killing the most depraved killers. Come on Agaveman - it's not that your old belief system was wrong - you used to have it based on logic, and now after reading some of the cases, your system is based on emotion. Just admit it! |
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Apr 28, 2005 14:49:39 GMT -6
Come on Agaveman - it's not that your old belief system was wrong - you used to have it based on logic, and now after reading some of the cases, your system is based on emotion. Just admit it! Alright friend, I admit it. But your system is based on emotion too. Everyone's is. It is impossible to argue ethics in terms of pure logic. logic an help, but there are certain ethical principles that one just 'feels'. I mean, how can you logically argue that murder and rape are wrong without first accepting certain emotional concepts. |
|
|
|
Post by snowy111 on Apr 28, 2005 15:09:20 GMT -6
Hey people, I'm currently writing an examination paper on Capital Punishment in the U.S., so I need some arguments from those in favour of the death penalty... If you're interested, please write your arguments in this thread before the end of May (2005)... Thank you. Best regards, Louiza Well the best pro argument I can give you is the one I always give. Once a murderer is dead they can never murder again!  |
|
|
|
Post by Benty on Apr 28, 2005 17:12:30 GMT -6
Hey people, I'm currently writing an examination paper on Capital Punishment in the U.S., so I need some arguments from those in favour of the death penalty... If you're interested, please write your arguments in this thread before the end of May (2005)... Thank you. Best regards, Louiza HERE IS YOUR COMPLETE TERM PAPER!!  www.yesdeathpenalty.com/argument_1.htmIf your professor doesn't give you an "A" he/she is a flaming liberal and you need to drop that course and transfer to another college immediately.... |
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 28, 2005 19:24:46 GMT -6
One of the most used arguments in favour of the death penalty is the fact that it serves as a deterrent. Most-used? Who's still using that? I'm a rabid pro and never believed capital punishment deters murder. The whole point of executing murderers is that nothing else does, either. |
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 28, 2005 19:28:16 GMT -6
Alright friend, I admit it. But your system is based on emotion too. Everyone's is. It is impossible to argue ethics in terms of pure logic. logic an help, but there are certain ethical principles that one just 'feels'. I mean, how can you logically argue that murder and rape are wrong without first accepting certain emotional concepts. Logical arguments are constructed with syllogisms, or some use a geometric, more modern approach. It is rather easy to prove that rape and murder are wrong. All one has to do is define premises that are true. |
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Apr 28, 2005 19:31:30 GMT -6
Logical arguments are constructed with syllogisms, or some use a geometric, more modern approach. It is rather easy to prove that rape and murder are wrong. All one has to do is define premises that are true. At some point you have to affirm certain premises that would have to be based on 'feeling'. I don't see how you could do it otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Apr 28, 2005 19:32:33 GMT -6
Logical arguments are constructed with syllogisms, or some use a geometric, more modern approach. It is rather easy to prove that rape and murder are wrong. All one has to do is define premises that are true. how do you logically define an ETHICAL premise as true? |
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 28, 2005 19:43:04 GMT -6
how do you logically define an ETHICAL premise as true? You start with moral absolutes, like the universal admonition against rape and murder. Of course, to a moral relativist, murder isn't always wrong. Neither is rape. It's always society's fault. By definition, however, you can't reason with these people. |
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Apr 28, 2005 21:12:59 GMT -6
Hey people, I'm currently writing an examination paper on Capital Punishment in the U.S., so I need some arguments from those in favour of the death penalty... If you're interested, please write your arguments in this thread before the end of May (2005)... Thank you. Best regards, Louiza The Death Penaly is an effective deterrent; it prevents the offender from reoffending, PERIOD! |
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Apr 28, 2005 22:40:47 GMT -6
You start with moral absolutes, like the universal admonition against rape and murder. Of course, to a moral relativist, murder isn't always wrong. Neither is rape. It's always society's fault. By definition, however, you can't reason with these people. You're assuming that there is a Universal truth that is accessible and not at all tainted by the subjective. Could you define it for me? |
|
|
|
Post by sally104 on Apr 29, 2005 7:06:38 GMT -6
I think the most powerful argument is that it is an appropriate punishment for murder. ANy other argument is secondary. Perhaps you need to get a hold of the following
1 the legal definition of murder, and note the keywords in the definition
2. get a hold of a few accounts of murder (where the offenders have gone to death row), and try to undersatnd the selfishness of these people
|
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Apr 29, 2005 7:17:04 GMT -6
In all fairness, I have been trawling these site for pro arguments and never yet found much!
|
|
|
|
Post by beej76 on Apr 29, 2005 7:29:02 GMT -6
In all fairness, I have been trawling these site for pro arguments and never yet found much! I agree! I think the most concrete answer I've received is that it gives society a "warm fuzzy". Other than that - the biggest answer seems to be, "well, we can, and they are really stinky people, so let's do it". |
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Apr 29, 2005 9:01:51 GMT -6
Sarcasm notwithstanding, please realize that this web developer is not "employed" in this endeavour and that I work solely as a volunteer. I must be nuts since there apparently are so many financial resources out there created by the existance of the death penalty....why should judges and prosecutors (all state employees mind you) have it all? The money is on the other side, and you know it. Here's a good argument for you. The death penalty is a solid economic institution. Because of the death penalty, we are able to employ all sorts of lawyers, judges, and web developers who make cool sites like this. We need more info before sharing our greatness. What level of school is this for, and what type of class. For instance, you want to write a much different paper for a Criminology course than an English course. |
|
|
|
Post by beej76 on Apr 29, 2005 9:29:38 GMT -6
Sarcasm notwithstanding, please realize that this web developer is not "employed" in this endeavour and that I work solely as a volunteer. I must be nuts since there apparently are so many financial resources out there created by the existance of the death penalty....why should judges and prosecutors (all state employees mind you) have it all? The money is on the other side, and you know it. There has to be some financial benefit to somebody on this site. By the way, you should be paid - you do a good job! Sorry Louiza for some of the treatment, even from myself - I'm an anti, so while I'm willing to help you with anything I can - I'm not exactly sure I have information you are looking for. I stand by the thought though that if you do a search under the posts of Red, he's done some nice summations of the issue from a legal perspective. That might help. |
|
|
|
Post by Benty on Apr 29, 2005 12:37:00 GMT -6
In all fairness, I have been trawling these site for pro arguments and never yet found much! That's like asking a murderer to help you look for the murder weapon....you dolt |
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 29, 2005 14:16:15 GMT -6
You're assuming that there is a Universal truth that is accessible and not at all tainted by the subjective. Could you define it for me? There is a universal admonition against murder, correct? You can argue about what truth is, but there is an instictive need to circumscribe human conduct within acceptable limits. What is and what isn't murder is subjective, of course, but every culture attempts to define it for itself. Murder is, and always was, wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by sally104 on Apr 30, 2005 7:18:17 GMT -6
Its not about the warm and fuzzies.
1. Death penalty for murder should make people think twice about committing it
(It sometimes doesnt - but look at how those who commit murder try and plan to evade detection. Planning to evade detection shows that they have knowledge of the consequences of murder)
2. Justice. What can we do for a murder victim. (Note I am talking about the deceased without any consequence for their family). We cannot bring them back to life. A valuable human life was extinguished by the DELIBERATE AND SELFISH ACTIONS OF ANOTHER. There is a thought process saying that we need to make a statement of how valuable this persons lifes by extinguishing the life of their killer. Now I can hear all the way down here the ANTI-DP rebuke, that it is hypocritical to show killing is wrong by killing. Well the ANTI-DP people don't distinguish between the killer who had decided on his own or with other individuals to extinguish a life (or act in a manner which shows a malicious disregard for human life) of a person who has NOTHING WRONG TO THEM, and often is in the wrong place at the wrong time, to a deliberate decision of society to extinguish the life of someone who has done something terribly wrong, after putting the facts to a jury and sentence being handed down. Not all killing is wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Apr 30, 2005 11:26:42 GMT -6
That's like asking a murderer to help you look for the murder weapon....you dolt Benty
========================================
I dont think argument between us is what Louisa is looking for benty so I will refrain from responding to your personal insult, savfe to say it shows defensiveness on your part, and we can trade that elsewhere, provided you dont go whining to the moderator?
|
|
|
|
Post by PaPageno on May 4, 2005 14:44:15 GMT -6
The page which was shown by Barty PRO DP, is the best Pro-DP site I have ever seen (exept of this, of course^^) I need some arguments for a debatte(?) in our classroom, in which the boys are pro and the girls are against DP, if you know more arguments...post them remember: the english of german people, like me, is bad  |
|
|
|
Post by sally104 on May 4, 2005 21:35:00 GMT -6
The page which was shown by Barty PRO DP, is the best Pro-DP site I have ever seen (exept of this, of course^^) I need some arguments for a debatte(?) in our classroom, in which the boys are pro and the girls are against DP, if you know more arguments...post them If you want some more attention to this link, post it as a seperate threat. It would also be nice if you specified what side you are arguing remember: the english of german people, like me, is bad |
|
|
|
Post by Guest on May 19, 2005 20:09:36 GMT -6
The best method to argue the anti-death penalty morons is "what if". What if you had a little hirl, say the age of 8, and she was your world, your life, your everything. Then one day she never came home. Later that week she was found dead, raped and brutally murdered. What if, what if you knew you could never look into those laughing blue eyes that always knew how to make you smile again. Just because some pervert took her away and raped her. Raped her, he tore off her clothes and shoved his *deleted* is to her while she screamed "Sto!". And then he killed her. Maybe with his own two hands, maybe with a gun. He killed her. What if, it's not a question of revenge. It's a question of preventing. You are preventing him from ever having the chance to take someone else's only love away. Life imprisonment? Ha! Half the people sentenced to that ger off in ten years for good behavior or something absurd like that. Sure, you may never be able to put yourself directly in that place but remember two things: YOU could have prevented it from happening again, once a killer, always a killer. The drive will always be inside of you....
|
|
|
|
Post by SkyLoom on May 26, 2005 12:07:54 GMT -6
Alright friend, I admit it. But your system is based on emotion too. Everyone's is. It is impossible to argue ethics in terms of pure logic. logic an help, but there are certain ethical principles that one just 'feels'. I mean, how can you logically argue that murder and rape are wrong without first accepting certain emotional concepts. You can argue that murder and rape are wrong because you wouldn't want them happening to you. The Golden Rule argument, you can call it. By the same token, you wouldn't want execution to happen to you either, would you? |
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on May 26, 2005 12:18:53 GMT -6
You can argue that murder and rape are wrong because you wouldn't want them happening to you. The Golden Rule argument, you can call it. By the same token, you wouldn't want execution to happen to you either, would you? As a murderer, I would expect it, the logic being: do to the state that which I'd want done to myself. Since I killed a citizen of the state, the state may be logically expected to kill me in return. |
|
