Is It Moral To Allow Someone To Be Killed?

[Damocles]

[Then you ignore the possibility of the innocent being killed by other means during incarceration?]

There is a difference between the possibility of being killed while incarcerated, with the CERTAINTY of being killed, via a Death Penalty. You are flirting with Equivocation.

I am not, there is an assurance that if innocents are sent into incarceration some of them will be murdered while there. Just as much of an assurance that some innocents would die because of a death sentence.

You are, in fact, assigning a too early end to an innocent life, just as much as you would be with the death penalty. Just because you won't know it doesn't take away that it will happen, I can assure you that it will. There is no way to avoid it.

 

[gonzojournals]

[It isn't revenge, it is removing people from society that would endanger society. You are still scoring positive points, because the number of innocents that are killed unintentionally is smaller than the number of innocents that would be affected by those that earn the death penalty.]


It is Death Penalty vs Life in Prison, not Death Penalty vs LETTING THEM Go

Life in prison is costly. Your next argument is going to be that the death penalty is more costly-- I agree--- the system should be streamlined to cut down on cost.

 

[Agnosticus_Caesar]

[Any innocent that is incarcerated is far more at risk for a violent end than any other person in society. Why is it okay to risk ending their life? Is it because you pretend that you didn't cause it?]

There are such things as necessary steps to achieve a goal, and unnecessary steps. it is necessary to remove criminals from society, to protect said society. Killing them is NOT necessary.

 

[gonzojournals]

[Any innocent that is incarcerated is far more at risk for a violent end than any other person in society. Why is it okay to risk ending their life? Is it because you pretend that you didn't cause it?]

There are such things as necessary steps to achieve a goal, and unnecessary steps. it is necessary to remove criminals from society, to protect said society. Killing them is NOT necessary.

Why should our money go to housing someone that all can agree is completely unnecessary and harmful to society? Why not kill the bugger and be done with it?

 

[Agnosticus_Caesar]

[Life in prison is costly. Your next argument is going to be that the death penalty is more costly-- I agree--- the system should be streamlined to cut down on cost.]


...And the Rapid-Fire Bullshit begins. You move on to the next comment when your previous comment is challenged. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Damocles]

[Any innocent that is incarcerated is far more at risk for a violent end than any other person in society. Why is it okay to risk ending their life? Is it because you pretend that you didn't cause it?]

There are such things as necessary steps to achieve a goal, and unnecessary steps. it is necessary to remove criminals from society, to protect said society. Killing them is NOT necessary.

That depends on what the goal is. To permanently remove somebody from human society there is no other way than to kill them. Prison is also a part of human society.

 

[Agnosticus_Caesar]

The Death Penalty UNNECESSARILY risks the lives of innocents, while incarceration NECESSARILY risks the freedom of innocents.

 

[Damocles]

The Death Penalty UNNECESSARILY risks the lives of innocents, while incarceration NECESSARILY risks the freedom of innocents.

However, incarceration unnecessarily risks the lives of innocents. This is the portion you continue to attempt to manipulate out of the discussion. You are pulling the same thing you accuse another of.

 

[gonzojournals]

[Life in prison is costly. Your next argument is going to be that the death penalty is more costly-- I agree--- the system should be streamlined to cut down on cost.]


...And the Rapid-Fire Bullshit begins. You move on to the next comment when your previous comment is challenged. Thanks for proving my point.

Because this isn't collegiate debate class, buddy. This is a fucking forum, and I answered your question and moved on.

 

[Agnosticus_Caesar]

Do you honestly believe that there is a greater likelihood of a truly guilty person escaping, and killing again, then there is that an innocent will be found guilty?

 

[uscitizen]

Inaction would be immoral if your action could stop the death of an innocent.

so tose who did not move to stop Bush from invading iraq are Immoral ?
And the ones of us who tried were Unamerican.....

My conclusion is that most Americans are immoral.
the moral ones of us really are not Americans.

 

[gonzojournals]

The Death Penalty UNNECESSARILY risks the lives of innocents, while incarceration NECESSARILY risks the freedom of innocents.

And unnecessarily risks my tax dollars. I think that the occasional innocent death is well worth the price of riding society of these bastards.

 

[Agnosticus_Caesar]

[Because this isn't collegiate debate class, buddy. This is a fucking forum, and I answered your question and moved on.]

Your Appeal To Ridicule is pathetic, as is your lie about "answering my question".

 

[Damocles]

Do you honestly believe that there is a greater likelihood of a truly guilty person escaping, and killing again, then there is that an innocent will be found guilty?

I honestly believe that there is just as great a guarantee that innocents will die because of incarceration as there is that innocents will die because of the death penalty. And I believe that ignoring that and saying "It isn't the same thing!" is rubbish. Society's action put them there, they willingly risked the lives of others knowing that there will be innocents put into harms way.

 

[gonzojournals]

so tose who did not move to stop Bush from invading iraq are Immoral ?

I c wut u did thar.


No, that is the not the same thing--- innocent deaths in war are a reality of warfare--- trying to prevent collateral damage only ensures more deaths for the side that chooses to ignore the reality of war--- that it is terrible. Something being terrible, however, does not necessarily mean that it should never be done.

 

[Agnosticus_Caesar]

[However, incarceration unnecessarily risks the lives of innocents. This is the portion you continue to attempt to manipulate out of the discussion. You are pulling the same thing you accuse another of.]

There is a NEED to incarcerate, as a means of removing threats to society. Even WITH the possibility that said convict, guilty or innocent MAY be killed in prison.

There is NOT a need to execute.

 

[gonzojournals]

[Because this isn't collegiate debate class, buddy. This is a fucking forum, and I answered your question and moved on.]

Your Appeal To Ridicule is pathetic, as is your lie about "answering my question".

What lie? If I didn't answer it, repost what I did not answer and I will be sure to send something your way. If you are simply complaining that I didn't answer the way you wanted me to, then that is your own problem.

 

[Damocles]

so tose who did not move to stop Bush from invading iraq are Immoral ?
And the ones of us who tried were Unamerican.....

My conclusion is that most Americans are immoral.
the moral ones of us really are not Americans.

It would also be immoral to not attempt to protect the lives of yourself and family. The belief that there was a threat would not make such an action immoral of itself. War is not always immoral.

 

[uscitizen]

I c wut u did thar.


No, that is the not the same thing--- innocent deaths in war are a reality of warfare--- trying to prevent collateral damage only ensures more deaths for the side that chooses to ignore the reality of war--- that it is terrible. Something being terrible, however, does not necessarily mean that it should never be done.

A war based on lies. A country invaded for no reason. Many innocents killed.

 

[Damocles]

[However, incarceration unnecessarily risks the lives of innocents. This is the portion you continue to attempt to manipulate out of the discussion. You are pulling the same thing you accuse another of.]

There is a NEED to incarcerate, as a means of removing threats to society. Even WITH the possibility that said convict, guilty or innocent MAY be killed in prison.

There is NOT a need to execute.

We can change the way that we incarcerate to ensure the safety of all involved. It would be at a cost. It is not necessary to put them in harms way in order to incarcerate them.

Now you are playing cost/benefit analysis, you are again entering the same domain you ridiculed another for entering. By sending them to incarceration as it currently is you are sentencing some innocents to death, period. Even without the death penalty.