Jai a murderers' life isn't worth that of a baby. A baby is a clean slate he can become anything a scientist, a teacher, a medical doctor, an engineer an economist etc. However a murderer is mentally unstable and a danger to society. Heres a question for you. You must choose one person to save or else both will die who will you save a murderer or a baby? Another same scenario a pedophile who has raped 5 children and killed 1 or a doctor? Another same scenario a thief with no skills or goals in life or a well educated teenager who aspires to become a mathematician?

Edited 2/10/2016 02:53:20

1) The guardian says 4 percent of defendants sentenced to die are innocent. That's not acceptable and it's probably underrated.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/28/death-penalty-study-4-percent-defendants-innocent

Well, first, this is just in America. Second, I said the death penalty *should* not be used lightly; I think it is used too much today, and should definitely be way more rarely used.

3)Guns don't, but medicine used to kill do.

I think medicines should be abolished - we're not trying to make it as nice and painless as possible for the person that's going to die.

A Seattle University study examining the costs of the death penalty in Washington found that each death penalty case cost an average of $1 million more than a similar case where the death penalty was not sought ($3.07 million, versus $2.01 million).

This is ambiguous about specific costs; I think shooting somebody will really be cheaper. But even so, I support greatly lowering the rate (in my country, 0.3 per million).

In a world were there's so many violence already, the state shouldn't participate on it.

Well, I believe the only time the death punishment should be used is to lower violence on the whole. And I believe that, for most things, the punishment should be the anti of the misdeed.

+1 xpapy

You must choose one person to save or else both will die

Don't you think that's an unrealistic hypothetical? Is anyone really ever in that situation?

Sorry, but I just don't see all lives as equal. Innocents take precedence over criminals. I see murderers and rapists as lower than animals. I suppose we can't agree with that mindset difference however.

I understand. It comes from my faith you see. Hinduism teaches that even a small cricket is worth saving. Life to me is the most amazing thing ever, so I cannot deny life to someone. That is not my job and in my opinion its not the Government's job either (its not constitutionally stated its their job anyway). Also I worry that soon enough the government will decide in mass who is deserving of life and death, for that is exactly what we are doing in the case of an abortion. But this difference of opinion is good!! That' why we should give more power to the states, so Texas and Alaska can have the death penalty if they so choose and New Jersey and Virginia can outlaw it. That is why a state centered system of government is useful!!

But, Jai, America isn't a Hindu majority...

Dude please don't patronize. I like you, but please don't talk down.

Yes I know fully well about the South China Sea territorial disputes, but the issue at stake is are those islands worth a possible military engagement with China over. This is the same china who manufacturers all our goods. This is the same China who is critical for the US in order to weaken North Korea and exert pressure on Kim Jong Un. We can't treat every foreign country with power as an enemy combatant. I don't want US lives lost defending a couple of islands for the Filipinos and Japanese because they feel threatened by a rising superpower on their border.

Also let's get some perspective: "In 2014, US military spending reached $571 billion, a huge distance ahead of second placed China's $129.4 billion."

Why can't we spend (let's say) $400 billion instead of $571 billion. We would still be spending near 4x that of China. China cannot defeat us militarily and they know that. There is no justifiable reason for spending so much on defense spending. The only net result is that it weakens our civil liberties as citizens (see Patriot Act and NSA spying) and puts more power in the hands of the Industrial-Military Complex. The neoconservatives in the Republican Party have hijacked the GOP in my opinion...which is why I'm quitting the party if Jeb, Rubio, Kasich, or Christie get the nomination.

1). If you don't want me to patronize me, pls don't go and patronize Xpapy.

2). We have a co-defensive pact with Japan. IF China decided to declare war on Japan, then we would have an obligation to help them.

3). I find it ironic you don't think a Russian-Chinese-Iranian-North Korean coalition could defeat the U.S. and allies; if a war was to start, the U.S. would have a sudden massive loss of goods. Literally, electronics shelves would be empty in a few weeks. A spoiled and pampered generation like we've had would freak out.

And no one is going to launch a nuke- Mutually assured destruction is where that ends, and NOBODY will go that far.

4). This is partly why I want a War hawk to win the election. If China were to force all the other nations out of the Spratly Islands, would Obama get involved? I don't think so!

regardless of its plausibility you must answer. Or else you'll look like a fool who isn't firm in his beliefs.

But, Jai, America isn't a Hindu majority...

But I think even from a Christian perspective there is a strong case against the death penalty. We cannot act like Gods on earth is a central message of the Christian doctrine, and trying to give eternal punishment to sinners is not in the jurisdiction of humans. That job and role can only be done by the Father in Heaven.

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse... Repay no one evil for evil... do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I Will repay," says the Lord." Rom. 12:14, 17, 19

We have a co-defensive pact with Japan. IF China decided to declare war on Japan, then we would have an obligation to help them.

That co-defensive pact is from post WWII. Its time to update our alliance system. Countries like Japan, Germany, UK, and South Korea are a free rider on our huge military spending. They need to take more of a role in their own defense. Why do we have to protect the world and be the police for the world? They have more than enough money to do it themselves...we should let them. A multipolar world is a safer world.

If China were to force all the other nations out of the Spratly Islands, would Obama get involved?

I think he would to be fair. Obama is an interventionist like Bush.

The reality is that capital punition doesn't reduce overall crimerate it is not an effective deterrent. An effective one is just to enforce laws that already exist and get murderers. If you kill every murderer, but you only catch one out of three murderers, they'll say, yea I have a shot at it.

Also, most serial murderers and disturbed enough people to make atrocities huge enough for us wanting them to be killed don't give a shit about dying or not. Executing them is too easy.

For the stats of either death penalty saves or not lives, just cross countries who allow the death penalty to be sentenced and the crime-rate on them.






As you can see, the countries with the smaller murder rate owtlaw the death penalty while those who still have it, have worst ones. The death penalty doesn't save lives.
=> That's a general case, some countries do not apply to this rule (ex: Japan), but this is really more of a cultural thing.

Edited 2/10/2016 03:28:33

"soon enough the government will decide in mass who is deserving of life and death"
Nice! Humanity really need this or else it will destroy itself. There need to be human selection because of the lack of natural selection. I hope this really will be reality soon enough.

That co-defensive pact is from post WWII. Its time to update our alliance system. Countries like Japan, Germany, UK, and South Korea are a free rider on our huge military spending. They need to take more of a role in their own defense. Why do we have to protect the world and be the police for the world? They have more than enough money to do it themselves...we should let them. A multipolar world is a safer world.

XD

South Korea has one of the largest militaries in the world; their percentage of people in the military is higher than ours.

Japan and Germany have a decently large military as well (if you want to know what a small military is, look at Costa Rica)

Also, most serial murderers and disturbed enough people to make atrocities huge enough for us wanting them to be killed don't give a shit about dying or not. Executing them is too easy.

Like someone else said, I don't really want revenge. If you want, maybe torture them a little in the same way they tortured someone, but otherwise, no.

For the stats of either death penalty saves or not lives, just cross countries who allow the death penalty to be sentenced and the crime-rate on them. As you can see, the countries with the smaller murder rate owtlaw the death penalty while those who still have it, have worst ones. The death penalty doesn't save lives.

Corelation does not imply causation.

^^^

In this case, Team Guns, the nations you named that still impose the death penalty all also are poor nations with poorly equipped and trained police... hm...

South Korea has one of the largest militaries in the world; their percentage of people in the military is higher than ours.

Maybe but I just haven't been convinced by the argument that we need to spend around 600 billion in defense spending. All the wars that we may face in the next 2 decades we're self created because we thought we needed to engage in regime change and spread democracy to every country on the globe. Americans rejected imperialism once before and I think soon enough we will reject it again.

Edited 2/10/2016 03:49:50

1). Its not a maybe; South Korea has one of the largest armies in the worlds, and its still only a bit above 1/2 the size of North Koreas.

And not all American wars are self created. And here's another problem- just because you started a war doesn't mean you created it.

A pound of prevention is worth two poinds of cure- and a carpet bombed Iran is better than a nuked USA.

Team there are too many factors at play to determine whether or not the death penalty has an effect on the crime rate.

jai you have ignored my hypothetical. So you must not be firm in your belief that all life is equal either that or you won't answer because you would allow 2 people to die instead of 1.

Sorry there was too much to respond to. Of course I would choose (if I was given no absolute choice), the innocent one. But again this question is silly because its an impractical hypothetical.

so you don't value all human life the same when it comes to brass tacks.

@King Jofferey maybe it also means that most developped countries don't do stupid things like keeping the death penalty. Maybe cause it doesn't fuc*ing work ^^.


And remember, if Germany does something, you should follow it (unless when it invades poland, then don't please).

Edited 2/10/2016 04:23:54

so you don't value all human life the same when it comes to brass tacks.

No its not. You said I can't save both so obviously I would have to pick.

The question was really quite silly. You may as well have asked me if I would save a baby or a dog. If I save the dog I would probably be jailed for negligent manslaughter. If I save the baby I just let a dog be killed. These types of questions are stupid because they're asymmetrical and unlikely to exist. Its a lose-lose no matter what.

I may as well have asked you: would you kill a fetus if you were told it may kill someone when it turns 18. Its a stupid question because its not a guarantee that he/she will kill someone. Its a stupid hypothetical and we shouldn't use them in argumentation.

Edited 2/10/2016 04:33:47