Is It Moral To Allow Someone To Be Killed?

Your argument amounts to "If we can't do it perfectly, why do it at all?", while mine states "Since CP isn't necessary to accomplish the goal, and it DOES kill innocents, it should be done away with"
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
[
Hence the reality that if we ever convict anybody who is innocent, which we do, then some innocents will be killed because of those convictions. Such an argument lends itself to simply removing prisons entirely.]

Reductio Ad Absurdum only works when you have the same circumstances. CP is not necessary to protect the public, while incarceration IS.

You willfully ignore that fact.
Click to expand...
I don't ignore it. I simply state the reality that if in one instance it is "morally wrong" to allow an innocent to die through inaction, it would be the same in every case. Reductio ad absurdam certainly works in this instance. Your argument would definitely work in both cases regardless.

If "to protect society" it is okay to let innocents die, then your entire argument is full of fail.
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
Your argument amounts to "If we can't do it perfectly, why do it at all?", while mine states "Since CP isn't necessary to accomplish the goal, and it DOES kill innocents, it should be done away with"
Click to expand...
No, that isn't my argument at all. My argument in this thread is, "If it is morally wrong to allow an innocent to die through inaction, and we are assured that some innocents will die through incarceration... Just as we are that innocents will die through the death penalty, then continuing incarceration in its current form would be "immoral" according to that argument."

I am very clear, I am speaking to your argument, not my own.
 
No, it's not moral for me to allow someone to be killed, however people have different morals based on their beliefs. With the death penalty, I have changed my views over time. I don't think it's right to kill anyone, plus I personally think life in prison is a harsher sentence. I agree that our justice system has it's problems which is another good point against the death penalty. I don't think people really follow the "It's better to let 99 guilty men free than one innocent man go to jail". I tend to agree, as common sense says the 99 guilty men would likely harm more than one "innocent" individual. It seems all to easy to convict someone these days...
 
Thank goodness for the newer DNA testing, that is showing us the errors of some of these convictions. Of course we need prisions, but we fill them up with non violent people that committed small or victimless crimes also. It is absolutly horrible for a innocent person to be incarcerated, or a violent person, not fit for civil society to be let go. But I agree with Zuzubar---I do not agree with copral punishment, because I don't have a lot of faith in the intelligence of our population for a jury, judges that enforce the laws that they choose to inforce, and innocent people who have been on death row for years, are now being found innocent by DNA testing.

DNA testing is a great step in the right direction, and only makes the best judicial system in the world--a little better.
 
theMAJORITY said:
Thank goodness for the newer DNA testing, that is showing us the errors of some of these convictions. Of course we need prisions, but we fill them up with non violent people that committed small or victimless crimes also. It is absolutly horrible for a innocent person to be incarcerated, or a violent person, not fit for civil society to be let go. But I agree with Zuzubar---I do not agree with copral punishment, because I don't have a lot of faith in the intelligence of our population for a jury, judges that enforce the laws that they choose to inforce, and innocent people who have been on death row for years, are now being found innocent by DNA testing.

DNA testing is a great step in the right direction, and only makes the best judicial system in the world--a little better.
Click to expand...

Why do you think you have the best judicial system in the world?
 
Damocles said:
No, that isn't my argument at all. My argument in this thread is, "If it is morally wrong to allow an innocent to die through inaction, and we are assured that some innocents will die through incarceration... Just as we are that innocents will die through the death penalty, then continuing incarceration in its current form would be "immoral" according to that argument."

I am very clear, I am speaking to your argument, not my own.
Click to expand...
This is very true. The difference is this, if you convict an innocent person of a crime and then evidence later arrises that he was innocent and you have murdered him, you can't bring him back, if he has managed, as MOST prisoners do, to survive incarceration, then you can at least release him. And the truth is, those convicted of capital murder typically get NO general population time. They are typically, in most states, on 23 hour lockdown with one hour for exersize. As for them remaining in prison, most murderers are not the of the premeditated kind. Most commit one form or another of manslaughter. Murderers represent one of the lowest percentages of recedivism.
 
Socrtease said:
This is very true. The difference is this, if you convict an innocent person of a crime and then evidence later arrises that he was innocent and you have murdered him, you can't bring him back, if he has managed, as MOST prisoners do, to survive incarceration, then you can at least release him. And the truth is, those convicted of capital murder typically get NO general population time. They are typically, in most states, on 23 hour lockdown with one hour for exersize. As for them remaining in prison, most murderers are not the of the premeditated kind. Most commit one form or another of manslaughter. Murderers represent one of the lowest percentages of recedivism.
Click to expand...
Supermax is far from typical, most murderers are within the regular population.

The reality is, we send them to prison, they come out stronger and better criminals with more connections. Innocents that are sent there often will become what they were not before they went there.

Those convicted of Capital Murder and sentenced to death are treated this way. I'd prefer that they all would be. But even so, those who are sent to prison are at a very high risk to be murdered. Much higher than the regular population.
 
Damocles said:
Supermax is far from typical, most murderers are within the regular population.

The reality is, we send them to prison, they come out stronger and better criminals with more connections. Innocents that are sent there often will become what they were not before they went there.

Those convicted of Capital Murder and sentenced to death are treated this way. I'd prefer that they all would be. But even so, those who are sent to prison are at a very high risk to be murdered. Much higher than the regular population.
Click to expand...

Capital murder isn't usually an organized crime unless your talking about murder for hire. I can't see someone becoming "better" at murder by being in prison. Innocent people don't usually become so bitter that they become criminals themselves after being in prison. Most habitual offenders usually simply lack a concious, and that's why whenever they get out of prison they do it again. A drug dealer, for instance, may get training at becoming a better drug dealer in prison, but an innocent person isn't going to be turned into a criminal.

As for the idiotic, disgusting, barbaric incapacitation argument you seem to throw as the solution to everything, Damo, I really can't see any harm in letting those prisoners out after a substantial period of time on life license. They aren't going to do anything at 65.
 
Watermark said:
Capital murder isn't usually an organized crime unless your talking about murder for hire. I can't see someone becoming "better" at murder by being in prison. Innocent people don't usually become so bitter that they become criminals themselves after being in prison. Most habitual offenders usually simply lack a concious, and that's why whenever they get out of prison they do it again. A drug dealer, for instance, may get training at becoming a better drug dealer in prison, but an innocent person isn't going to be turned into a criminal.

As for the idiotic, disgusting, barbaric incapacitation argument you seem to throw as the solution to everything, Damo, I really can't see any harm in letting those prisoners out after a substantial period of time on life license. They aren't going to do anything at 65.
Click to expand...
You have no empirical evidence of the status of innocents after they leave prison. The reality is that there must be far more than we know about. And I wasn't speaking of "getting better at murder" I said that they are stronger and better criminals who are better connected.

Often people enter prison totally unconnected and leave connected and as better criminals. It's almost like a graduation from higher learning.

And as for "the barbaric" thing I recommend for those who commit barbarism. It's too silly that you care so much about them and so little about those they victimized. I don't think that they should ever be allowed out, to breed, to continue in society. And if you don't think somebody who is 65 can breed... All you need to do is look at Letterman. What they took from others is too large to give it back to them.
 
"And as for "the barbaric" thing I recommend for those who commit barbarism. It's too silly that you care so much about them and so little about those they victimized. I don't think that they should ever be allowed out, to breed, to continue in society. And if you don't think somebody who is 65 can breed... All you need to do is look at Letterman. What they took from others is too large to give it back to them."

You're disgusting. You're no better than the Arabs who cut off hands.
 
And YOU'RE A FUCKING IDIOT.

Hurting someone more does not me you care more about their victim. It just means your more of a fucking sociopath.
 
Last edited:
You're no better than Hitler. Disgusting barbarian. The founders would have spat on your disgusting barbaric ass. You're a disgrace to the human race.
 
You see, you disgusting little cockroach, you don't have anywhere near the sympathy or understanding about anything or anybody that I do. You don't care about the victims, all you want to do is hurt people, and you love it. The victims are an excuse for you to get your barbaric frills. You murder via proxy, and you hide behind your excuse that you don't believe in a literal death penalty. You just believe in slow torture because of your sadistic, disgusting nature.
 
Watermark said:
"And as for "the barbaric" thing I recommend for those who commit barbarism. It's too silly that you care so much about them and so little about those they victimized. I don't think that they should ever be allowed out, to breed, to continue in society. And if you don't think somebody who is 65 can breed... All you need to do is look at Letterman. What they took from others is too large to give it back to them."

You're disgusting. You're no better than the Arabs who cut off hands.
Click to expand...
Rubbish. Total garbage. You are unfeeling, monstrous really... blah, blah. You can continue to accuse me of some of the worst barbarism but all it makes you look like is an emoting teen full of EMO unrealism, and bereft of any pragmatism or empathy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top