[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 30 KB, 290x372, 1188262335466.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1609993 No.1609993 [Reply] [Original]

From a pragmatic stand point there is nothing wrong with capital punishment. It is considerably cheaper to kill some one after a few years of prison time then to keep them alive for a life time. It also frees up space in prisons.

>> No.1609999

>>1609993
You're right OP, good job. Go be a politician; i'd vote for you.

See how sad it is to be a good politician? Either way, I applaud you.

>> No.1610000

I don't understand why people are so callus when it comes to killing innocent unborn babies, and then they become pussies when it comes to executing worthless scum who deserve it.

>> No.1610005

Since peoples point of view and opinion changes over time and the body renews itself constantly replacing old cells with new ones, the longer you wait after a crime has been committed the less and less responsible the person who's previous iterations committed it is for the crime.

Therefore the only just thing is to execute someone as soon as possible after the crime has been committed. In cases where there is absolutely no doubt this is just. In cases where there is doubt and a traditional trial/appeal process is required this is unjust, since by the time a real verdict can be obtained the person who committed the crime no longer exists and you are holding an innocent man.

Therefore instantaneous execution is fine but holding people for execution is monstrous.

>> No.1610028

>>1610005
>implying that the mind and body are one in the same.

>> No.1610053

>>1610000

killing an unconscious, unborn clump of cells vs. killing a living, thinking, conscious being that unfortunately rolled a bad combination of genes + environment that caused him to make a few mistakes in his life?

>this is what christians actually believe

>> No.1610088

>>1610053
>conscious
There is the problem. He made a conscious decision to commit an act like murder. He knew what he was doing. He had a choice and he made a bad decision. There are a lot people who grew up in a bad environment and did not kill anyone. If it is genetic then he should have been aborted before he had the chance to grow up and kill someone.

>> No.1610093

Personally I believe that violent criminals should kept alive for use as guinea pigs in /sci/entific experiments and/or slave labor.

>> No.1610101

>>1609993

you're actually wrong. it costs an exorbitant amount of money to pursue the death penalty in a criminal trial. it's often actually cheaper to imprison someone for life than it is to kill them.

>> No.1610106

>>1610005
This is the single-stupidest argument I've ever read on 4-chan.

thispostgavemecancer.jpg

>> No.1610112

>>1610000
An unborn baby is less alive than a plant. You don't think twice picking a weed, you shouldn't think much at all to abort a 2-5 week fetus.

A living being on the other hand, may take some further consideration. Although I support both abortions and capital punishment. But I think now you see why people can be for one and against the other.

>> No.1610114

>>1610053
The criminal is also a clump of cells. Both are conscious. The only difference is that one may have a positive contribution to society and the other one has already harmed it and will continue harming it.

>> No.1610116

>>1610112
A baby is just as alive as you are you fucking retard.

>> No.1610122

>>1610106
you just cant handle the truth, that you are not you, but a number of iterations of yourself equal to the frame rate of the universe divided into your life span.

>> No.1610126

>>1610112
>You don't think twice picking a weed

speak for yourself, murderer

>> No.1610128

>>1610116
so is a cockroach

>> No.1610130

>>1610116
A fetus (not a baby) cannot survive outside of its mother's womb. It is not a complete organism, and therefore is arguably less alive than you, me, or a plant.

>>1610114
>fetus
>conscious
wat

>> No.1610138

>>1610130
What are you smoking? The ability to live outside the womb has nothing to do with something being a complete organism.

"Viability" is a purely political threshold with zero scientific significance.

>> No.1610140

I believe that anything nonviolent should be met with fines, not jailtime, along with mandatory counseling for all infractions/crimes.

violent criminals can be used for free labor. when you break the law, you no longer own yourself, and the state owns you. 2nd offenses will be met with execution, and distribution of dead criminal's body parts for people who need it.

^Fucking flawless, amirite?

>> No.1610141

Actually sir, it costs somewhere in the bounds of 37 million dollars to enact capital punishment.

>> No.1610144

>>1610130
All fetuses are conscious. By the time it is a fetus it has a brain which is processing information and reacting to stimuli

>> No.1610147

>>1610141
I could do it for the cost of a bullet.

>> No.1610151

>>1610140
the part where you assume the law is the measure of right and wrong is a problem

>> No.1610152

>>1610140
I like the cut of your jib, sailor.

Except not all non-violent crime should be let off that easy.

>> No.1610154

>>1610144
they are not conscious enough to have understanding, therefore it is not necessarily bad to abort them. not nearly as bad as giving birth to one and being forced to give it up for adoption

>> No.1610159

>>1610151
I agree 100% there is no black and white 100% of the time, but for the sake of the argument, for the 90% of the time it is, I think it's a good way to go about it.

>> No.1610163

>>1610138
>The ability to live outside the womb has nothing to do with something being a complete organism.
I have trouble imagining a baby born without lungs, or a heart, or a stomach, or kidneys, etc, living outside the womb. I don't know what YOU'RE smoking, but missing any one of these would determine incompleteness. A baby needs to develop every system before it is COMPLETE and can survive outside.

I can't believe I needed to explain that to you.

>"Viability" is a purely political threshold with zero scientific significance.

I think there's a great deal of significance in determining whether or not a baby can survive once delivered.

>> No.1610173

>>1610152
definitely. though I can't think of much else to make it more harsh except for heavier fines. community service I suppose.

>> No.1610180

>>1610144
>>1610144

The brain does not begin to develop until the third week. For a number of weeks it isn't any more conscious than an insect.

Also, response to stimuli does not imply any kind of consciousness. 1) Plants respond to stimuli 2)reflexes are responses to stimuli

There are of course other examples of non-conscious responses to stimuli in nature.

>> No.1610189

>>1610163
>I think there's a great deal of significance in determining whether or not a baby can survive once delivered.

The problem with that is as medical technology changes the point at which a baby could survive will also change. And what when we take a sperm and an egg and make something that was never inside a womb?

>> No.1610202

>>1610189
When I read viability, I consider the term to imply self sustainability, given that food and water are provided. If a baby cannot live without machinery, it is not viable. This includes fetuses grown in test tubes.

>> No.1610207

>>1610202
But a 1 year old can not live with out someone to feed it.

>> No.1610211

>>1610180
3 weeks from conception is not a fetus. Still an embryo.

>> No.1610215

>>1610207
No one on 4chan can survive without someone to feed them.

Almost no one can live without the support of society. Just maybe Bear Grills, and those guys from Dual Survival.

>> No.1610221

>>1610215
well societies support includes not only food but also medicine

>> No.1610223

As you said, OP, it's cheaper to kill someone than to keep them in jail for life. If you've already determined that a person is unfixable, for lack of a better word, why keep them around? Rapists, psychopaths and the like cannot be reformed, so there's no point in trying. In sum, I don't care if a convict gets executed, as long as you get the right motherfucker.

I also don't care if someone aborts. Innocent precious baby or lowly clump of cells, no one has the right to be in someone else's body without their permission.

tl;dr: I don't see what's the big deal with killing someone when necessary. If life is precious and untouchable all the time, then justifing self-defense and defense of others is bullshit. If it's not, then let's stop being pussies about it.

>> No.1610224

>>1609993
the court system is (highly) fallible
you can't unkill the dead
no amount of money is worth a single dead innocent
if killing is wrong, then it's wrong, period.

>> No.1610228

>>1610207
Yes, but the organism can process food, filter toxins, consume oxygen, etc. This is the most basic level of viability. Searching for and obtaining food is another tier, which does not need to be considered when discussing abortion.

>>1610211
semantics

>> No.1610229

>I have trouble imagining a baby born without lungs, or a heart, or a stomach, or kidneys, etc, living outside the womb.
A fetus has all those organs. I don't know what your point is.

>I think there's a great deal of significance in determining whether or not a baby can survive once delivered.
The only significance in that is in determining whether it's a good idea to induce labor. As a guide for if it's ethical to kill it, it's just illogical.

>> No.1610234

>>1610228
Your misunderstanding of
>semantics
is causing you to make incorrect statements.

>> No.1610238

>>1609993
Efficiency or morality?

Yeah, fuck morals.

"Rapture.

A city where the artist would not fear the censor,
where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality,
where the great would not be constrained by the small."

>> No.1610247

>>1610228
It's an illustration to show that the logic "if someone is dependent enough it's ethical to kill them", is not logical or based on any kind of reason.

>> No.1610253

>>1610228
why not? sounds like you are just picking an arbitrary criteria. I do not see the logic in saying that support structure A is alright but support structure B means its not viable yet. You can either say it can use all of societies support structures, in which case its viable up to the point that there is absolutely no way we can make it continue growing and forming into a baby, or none, in which case it is not viable unless it can survive totally on its own.

The moment that something becomes a person must be defined based on a moment relative to the creature itself, not the degree of support it requires from society.

>> No.1610254

>>1610138
then disconnect the fetus from its mother and let carry on it's ordinary routine
its a complete human being, after all, and like any complete human being it has no right to be inside another person without their consent

>> No.1610259
File: 20 KB, 340x196, bioshock infinite.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1610259

>>1610238
Fuck rapture, Columbia in the House!

>> No.1610263

>>1610229
My point is that the organs are not yet COMPLETE, and cannot function as intended, thereby eliminating the fetus' "ability to live outside the womb."

Again spelling it out for you, you seem to have trouble with simple things as this, if the baby is not COMPLETE, whether it is completely missing an organ, or an organ has not fully developed, indicating INCOMPLETENESS, the baby cannot live outside of the womb.

So when you said
>The ability to live outside the womb has nothing to do with something being a complete organism.

You showed me you were a complete idiot, because completeness has EVERYTHING to do with living outside of the womb.

>> No.1610269

>>1610254
Its only in there that long because thus far its been safe to hang out inside mom for a while. Some creatures dump their young much earlier.

Its not fair to let a species evolve in such a way that its young stay in the womb a certain amount of time, and then say that no sorry if you decided to be a chicken you would have been out of the womb super early but since you wanted to be a human you don't count yet.

>> No.1610272

>>1610263
No human is "COMPLETE" until the prefrontal cortex finishes developing at around age 25.

"COMPLETENESS" has absolutely nothing to do with the morality of killing someone.

>> No.1610279

>>1610254
Also, exposure of newborns should be legalized.

>> No.1610288

>>1610272
yes, it does
I don't care about killing bugs or germs
you shouldn't care about killing the human equivalent thereof
damn thing won't even object to its death: it doesn't even care. it cannot.

>> No.1610295

>>1610093
Fuck the death penalty, I like this plan xD. That is of course assuming that the person in question is beyond repair. Perhaps the real problem lies in our ability to determine whether a person is truly guilty or not. I suppose the number of offenses could be a good way. First offense could be set up or bad luck; second could be VERY bad luck; perhaps fucking up three times would be the threshold? Difficult to say...

>> No.1610299
File: 25 KB, 400x369, spartan-warriors-5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1610299

>>1610279
Shit just got Sparta.

>> No.1610300

>>1610253
>I do not see the logic in saying that support structure A is alright but support structure B

This is not what I am saying. We see people as individuals, and similarly I am examining the baby as a single system. Assuming conditions outside of the system are ideal(there is food and water), can the system, the single baby or a grown man, survive? If machines must penetrate the system and support its internal functions, the system by itself is not viable.

If I am not making sense, I apologize, I am very tired.

>> No.1610319

>>1610272
We are trying to determine at which point a fetus becomes "someone"

You'll agree that a 21 year old man is more complete than a 10 year old boy, when the scale of completeness is sexual maturity.

If instead the scale is based on independent survivability, a 4 week old fetus is less complete than a 21 week old fetus.

Now if we correlate this completeness with the ability to feel pain, think, experience emotion, etc, suddenly completeness has everything to do with killing someone, as you either have qualms about both killing insects AND embryos, or neither, don't you think?

>> No.1610347

Looks like I win this one! Suck it, fags.

agnostics - 2132124324532
christfags - 0

>> No.1610370

>>1610319
No, that still makes no sense. Neither completeness nor independent survivability have anything to do with the morality of killing someone.

If they did, it would be more moral, even if just a TINY bit more moral, to kill a 20-year-old than a 30-year-old. And it would be more moral to kill a physicist than a soldier with survivalist training.

>> No.1610375

>>1610370
>ability to feel pain, think, experience emotion, etc
>ABILITY TO FEEL PAIN, THINK, EXPERIENCE EMOTION

A fetus before 24 weeks doesn't even have a consciousness. It has less of a functioning brain than an insect. It's essentially a meaty plant. There is nothing morally wrong with "killing" it.

>> No.1610379

>>1610370
> No, that still makes no sense. Neither completeness nor independent survivability have anything to do with the morality of killing someone.

> If they did, it would be more moral, even if just a TINY bit more moral, to kill a 20-year-old than a 30-year-old. And it would be more moral to kill a physicist than a soldier with survivalist training.

You completely missed the point. But don't worry about it, I'm going to bed.

>> No.1610381

>>1610295
Fuck that. One offense should be all it takes. The law exists for the good of society. If you rape or murder someone, society shouldn't waste another nanosecond on your ass. There's no reason to give you another chance, just to endanger society.

You can never by 100% sure of guilt; you can only do your due diligence and due process, and require solid evidence. If you do that, only a small number of innocent will die; a price well worth it to clean society of the scum.

>> No.1610384

>>1610375
That's just.... completely wrong. You're very ignorant.

>> No.1610389

>>1610375
>There is nothing morally wrong with "killing" it.

because morals are absolute right?

don't get me wrong I'm all for abortions but there is no such thing as "morally right" that isn't secretly just popular opinion.

>> No.1610394

ALRIGHT. A bunch of you pro-lifers are fucking retarded you know that? And to be fair, so are a lot of the pro-choice people.

A fetus doesn't develop it's brain for a LOOOONG time. Go read some bio textbooks or something.

Even in the later stages, a fetus still wouldn't be technically councious. It doesn't know that it's alive. It might be able to form a slight thought pattern, but nothing more complicated then a simple worm. It doesn't know what breathing is, eating, drinking, survival is, it, at the VERY MOST, just knows that it is.

It's the woman's choice anyways, so fuck both of your arguments.

On topic: Death penalty is a no. Enforced labour is a yes. It costs millions more to legally kill somebody then it does to give them a shovel and tell them that they're working in a mine for the rest of their life.

"But what about them escaping?"

put a dog collar around them. And by dog collar I mean a giant circle of metal. Put a remotely controlled taser on said dog collar. Have a guard watch from a safe distance (10-15 feet) with controller for said taser. If prisoner starts to go apeshit, he loses all muscle controll.

>> No.1610403

>>1610381
You really cannot justify taking another person's life in that sense.

If a man shot a person in a fit of rage, it would seem that he would be having a few psychological issues. Wouldn't it be better then to throw him into therapy and teach him a lesson for good?

Or are you going to kill him off and say, "It was for the greater good."

>> No.1610405

>>1610384
And making fun of me instead of arguing why I'm "ignorant" just shows your own.

>>1610389
I didn't say it was morally right, and of course morals are subjective, but the "abortion = immoral" crowd hasn't a leg to stand on. Might as well say that walking with a silly walk is immoral or something, as both are just as inconsequential.

>> No.1610407

>>1610403
No, it's better to kill him. Therapy may not work to protect society from more of his violent outbursts. It's not fair to society to put them at that risk. The fault lies with the man who did it. He should pay the price.

>> No.1610409

Riddle me this, conservative christfags.

What if a pregnant woman committed a major crime? Death penalty? But you'd kill the fetus as well. What now?

>> No.1610415

>>1610407
EVERYONE is a casket just ready to blow like that man was. Everyone will murder if given the right set of triggers.

I'm all for the death penalty, but not for fuck-tarded situations like you're suggesting.

>> No.1610419

>>1610394
>A fetus doesn't develop it's brain for a LOOOONG time.
When a fetus becomes a fetus rather than an embryo, it already has a brain. Go read some bio textbooks or something.

>Even in the later stages, a fetus still wouldn't be technically councious.
>at the VERY MOST, just knows that it is.
Unconscious, but it knows that it is?

>It's the woman's choice anyways, so fuck both of your arguments.
No, it's society's choice who's choice it is. Fuck your womens' lib.

>> No.1610423

>>1610415
Everyone is by no means even remotely equal in the kind of stimulus that will drive them to murder. Some people do not have enough control over their violent tendencies to function in a civil society.

If you're afraid of losing control... you best deal with it somehow or pay the price.

>> No.1610424

>>1610409
Not much of a riddle. Let her give birth first.

>> No.1610427

You now realize morality is just popular opinion.

No such thing as absolute morality, sound like the words of an idiot.

>> No.1610428

>>1610423
Where the fuck did I imply "equally likely"?

L2ReadingComprehension.

Everyone, given the right set of triggers, will snap. Period.

>> No.1610429

>>1610419
Picture yourself a female, and you getting raped. Then society forces you to have the child?

I'm sure that sounds nice right? Moronic idiot.

>> No.1610432

>>1610407
You're being very paranoid about this whole situation.

I... I just don't..

>> No.1610433

>>1610424
But then who would take care of the child? I thought you conservative guys value family a lot.

>> No.1610434

>>1610419
It has what will become a brain, but it is essentially non-functioning.

It isn't unconscious up until 24 weeks-ish, because even unconscious people have some sub-conscious working in the background. They have nothing. No emotions. No sensations. Nothing. Can't feel pain. Can't feel anything. They are a meaty plant at best.

>> No.1610436

>This world thread

BAWWWWWWWWWW LIFE IS WORTH A LOT!!!!!!

Tell that to reality. Animals and Humans die everyday. Either violently or naturally. Life is worth nothing, especially if you contribute nothing to society.

>> No.1610438

>>1610433
That's the thing. People that are against abortions don't give a shit about kids after they're born, they just want to fill as many spots here as possible without regard for those that are already here.

>> No.1610443

Life is only worth something, when you actively contribute to society.

You do not contribute in most prisons, nor do you contribute anything when in the womb. Get over your retarded morality, it is just popular opinion.

Reality is what we live in. Not Idealism.

>> No.1610446

>>1610423
>you best deal with it somehow or pay the price
>you best deal with it

Therapy isn't a way to deal with it? You're saying as if that man was some apathetic demon from hell that would have no chance of turning back at all. Given that situation; maybe you can justify killing him.

>> No.1610453

>>1610436

I'm a vegetarian :3

>> No.1610455

Well damn, I never thought /sci/ was such a retarded board spouting morality and the like.

We live in reality, not some strange form of ideological idiocy. Sorry if reality is not up to your standards of right and wrong, but fucking Deal with it. You sound like spoiled brats.

>> No.1610460

>>1610453
WHY DO YOU KEEP KILLING THOSE PLANTS!!! WHY ARE YOU KILLING THEM AND EATING THEM! PLANTS ARE LIFE TOO AND YOU KEEP KILLING IT!! EVIL FUCK!

>> No.1610465

>>1610453
DUDE, WHEAT IS MURDER. THOSE PLANTS HAVE FAMILIES TOO. ALSO, YOU EAT BABY CARROTS? THOSE ARE LIKE FETUSES.

>> No.1610466

>>1610460
>>1610453

Plant life is nowhere near on the same level as animal life, nor does it have anywhere near as advanced a consciousness as animals do, that is, if it has a consciousness at all

I know you aren't seriously asking, but damn, I get that a lot from people

>> No.1610468

>>1610446
Therapy is part of psychology, which is at best a pseudo-science when put to shrinks. Shrinks are retarded idiots who try to prove their sense of reality is superior to someone else's.

Morality is popular opinion, it is not the ultimate "right." Too think so would make you a self-righteous bigot who thinks only in absolutes.

>> No.1610469

>>1610455
and you guys are fucking arguing about abortions. I thought science was about facts. not the subjective bullshit you are trying to force on people. It is you who needs to go fuck yourself.

>> No.1610473

>>1610466
IT IS MURDER STILL!!! PLANTS ARE LIFE YOU FUCKING EVIL BASTARD! JUST BECAUSE IT CAN'T THINK DOESNT MAKE IT NOT ALIVE YOU SHITTY EVIL MURDERER! DIEEEE!

>> No.1610475

>>1610468
Same goes for you, compadre.

>> No.1610479

>>1610468
>>1610468
Fucking this.

Whoever thinks "specialists" like shrinks are experts in the mind, are idiots.

It would be like me talking to people and saying, YOUR VIEWS ARE BULLSHIT AND YOU SHOULD STOP THINKING THEM! REPENT HEATHEN!

Forcing your views on others is tantamount to that. Popular opinion has no basis in logic, nor does it have basis in science. If everyone thinks the earth is flat, is it flat? Perhaps in that society, but not in reality.

>> No.1610481

>>1610475
I do not actively force my views on others, and call them evil or deranged when they don't listen. Therapists subscribe drugs to people, and help pharmacies make boatloads of cash from it.

Those drugs are a farce.

>> No.1610499

Why do people think they are entitled to anything, least of all life? You live because society feeds you, society dresses you, and society protects you.

If you do not contribute to society, what should you live and leach of society. Human rights are fantasies and guidelines.

The only reason why someone would deserves to live, is if they actively contribute to society, either from ideas or work.

>> No.1610507

>>1610481

I see your point. But i do not believe that you can justify killing a person. I believe in morality. I think that there are better ways to handle that situation. But this morality vs reality bullshit has to stop. Start talking about science. Actually talk about facts. What you think is about as subjective as my views.

>> No.1610520

>>1610481
>I do not actively force my views on others, and call them evil or deranged when they don't listen.
Then you have no place in 4chan.

>> No.1610521

>>1610507
Science is about physical reality though. It does not rely on morality to work, so why should science require morality? All science is, is a collection of theoretical facts, that can be disproven and made better.

>> No.1610535

>>1610521
You wouldn't have said it right. but society is not a science. so I really don't know why we even went into that discussion.

>> No.1610553

>>1610535
I meant better. whoops

>> No.1610563

>>1610535
Agreed, science isn't society. Society needs rule to work on, but I dislike when people claim moral superiority and say their views are the best.

Morality shouldn't have much say in how science is governed at all, the only things that should have voice in science is other facts. Absolutes such as evil and good, do more harm then benevolent acts. Regardless, I digress, but the upper portion of this thread was talking about morality and was getting derailed.

In terms of capital punishment. It would be far cheaper to simply put a bullet in someone's head rather than pay for them to live. It may seem morally incorrect, but some who doesn't contribute to society is not subjectively useless, he is realistically and factually useless. Life in prison, is one of the most useless punishments in the world, I don't see why it exists...

I understand if jail for 5-10 years, but if you are in there for life, what do you have to live for? Makes no sense, I'd commit suicide.

>> No.1610590
File: 773 KB, 1261x1580, Interdimension Invasion.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1610590

>> No.1610617

>>1610563
I can agree with this. When people are put in prison for life, they just drain resources from society. The person in prison sees no reason for living as well.

Why live, when the only thing you can look forward to is prison, than death. Seems extremely pointless.

>> No.1610619

>>1609993

I am a Atheist and I am pro-life and anti-death penalty, everyone has the right to live. If you guys were real /sci/entist, then you would know there is a reason for everything, a serial killer kills because he has mental issues, which can be fixed with /sci/ence!

>> No.1610633

>>1610563
True, life in prison is a useless punishment. but putting a bullet in their head immediately would be ignoring their potential. There HAS to be something that they can do to pay their debt.

>> No.1610635

>>1610563
Seems like we really need to do something about life in prison. Would there be a better solution?

>> No.1610639

>>1610619
>capitalizes atheist
WTF? Do you capitalize theist too?

>> No.1610645

>>1610635
Nothing but death really. Or you can do endless forced labor, but that wouldn't go along with "human rights."

>> No.1610649

>>1610619
You sound like a real faggot. What if I decided to rape you and torture you for fun, I can obviously be fixed with SCIENCE :D!

Sweet, I'll get right on that. If I get caught, I'll say. Well fix me with SCIENCE!

>> No.1610651

>>1610639

That's all you got out of that? I support rehabilitation.

>> No.1610654

>>1610619
Again this has nothing to do with science. It doesn't matter what it is that is fucked up in his brain that makes him a killer. Until we have some magic fix (probably never), he prevents a risk to society no matter what is done with him, short of killing him. It is not a scientific question but a value question. If you value the individual over the society, try to help him at the risk to society. If you value society over the individual, put a bullet in his brain.

I value society over the individual.

>> No.1610658

>>1610649

But you wouldn't, because your not a twisted fuck, but if you were, it could probably be attributed to you being raped by your father you nigger.

>> No.1610659

spending ones life in prison is not someone wants to do, if that be their sentence, you might as well kill them now instead of creating a lose-lose situation

>> No.1610660

>>1609993

True, but the average appeal process for death row takes 10 years and costs twice as much as housing the inmate for life.

>> No.1610663

>>1610658
>but if you were, it could probably be attributed to you being raped by your father you nigger.
Who the fuck cares what it's attributed to? Poor you. Complain to Satan when you meet him.

>> No.1610675

>>1610663

Just gtfo you asspie, just think if it was you on death row.

>> No.1610697

>>1610675
If I had killed someone!? I would know I belonged there! I'm not going to go blaming someone else for my actions. Even if someone else fucked me up, it doesn't change the fact that I'm fucked up.

Fuck, even if I were wrongly convicted, I would accept that wrongful convictions are's part of the price to pay for a decent society.

>> No.1610709

Fucking capital punishment always degrades into an abortion debate.

Execution should be reserved for the most violent offenders, serial killers, serial rapists, child abductors/molesters and terrorists like Timothy McVeigh.

Abortion should never, ever be performed in my opinion. But I am not arrogant enough to think I have the right to make the decision for anyone else. Also I am not stupid enough to think it would stop even if it was prohibited.

>> No.1610720
File: 48 KB, 540x463, 1277173059501.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1610720

>>1610697

>Fuck, even if I were wrongly convicted, I would accept that wrongful convictions are's part of the price to pay for a decent society.

Are you god damn retarded? or the guy in my pic?

>> No.1610733

>>1610697

Yeah I am sure you would just sit there on death row thinking, well I am just gonna take one for the team.

>> No.1610743

>>1610697

>Fuck, even if I were wrongly convicted, I would accept that wrongful convictions are's part of the price to pay for a decent society.

You idiot, that would be the exact opposite of justice, the killer is still in society and a innocent person is killed for nothing.

>> No.1610751

>>1609993

How long do you really think that would work before people start getting set up to get the death penalty for standing against politicians or just getting in the way of rich, powerful people?

>> No.1610763

>>1610720
>>1610733
>>1610743
I've thought about it a lot. I would absolutely take one for the team. It's impossible to have a perfect conviction record... keeping murderers and rapists off the streets but absolutely zero bad convictions. The society I'd want to live in is one that doesn't give you a second change if you murder or rape. I would happily pay the price of taking the small risk of getting wrongly convicted. And if wrongly convicted I would suck it up like a man.

>> No.1610771

No, I don't agree with capital punishment.

Because we'd run out of people to kill.

>> No.1610775

>>1610763

The stupidity, it burns. How old are you? 12?

>> No.1610780

>>1610775
I'm 40, you pansy-ass hippie.

>> No.1610789

>>1610780

Is your life really that meaningless that you would willingly be executed for the life of a murderer?

Enjoy your neckbeard.

>> No.1610816

>>1610789
My life is very meaningful, but I don't expect it to last forever. All our lives will be over sooner or later. Sometimes people are called upon to sacrifice their lives for the greater good. It's not because lives are meaningless, but because the greater good is meaningful.

Also, I have no neckbeard. I have a closely trimmed and professional-looking full beard.

>> No.1610821

>>1609993
And yet it still somehow costs more due to extra security.

I say ice em for life. If it turns out they were innocent, no harm done. If you need soldiers to fight giant space bugs you have a warehouse full of recruits you can thaw and resocialize immediately.

>> No.1610827

Why not do what every science fiction does and use prisoners as marines?

>> No.1610830
File: 19 KB, 273x270, 1279663377690.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1610830

>>1610816

BUT THAT ISN'T THE GREATER GOOD! A murderer is still loose and you were killed for nothing!

>> No.1610846

>>1610830
A system that eliminates the murderers as efficiently as possible IS the greater good. It's not practically possible to achieve anything close to the ideal and at the same time guarantee no false convictions.

>> No.1610847
File: 42 KB, 800x600, 633843813416251630-ForTheGreaterGood[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1610847

the greater good...

>> No.1610851

>>1610827
>Why not do what every science fiction does and use prisoners as marines?

>>1610821
>I say ice em for life. If it turns out they were innocent, no harm done. If you need soldiers to fight giant space bugs you have a warehouse full of recruits you can thaw and resocialize immediately.

-_-

>> No.1610856

>>1610846

The end doesn't justify the means, asshole.

>> No.1610889

>>1610856
There's nothing wrong with the end or the means, asshole.