Who killed Mr. Boddy in the study and with what?: the great debate topic™®

[Red Spy]

Not dangerous if they are in a prison cell.

You know people get murdered in prison all the time, right?

but one is a human

I see no difference

[Ad Bot]

[The Resonte!]

why kill them? that just wastes a potential work source

ok i'm done thinking like a dictator

[Rally]

Yeah, for especially heinous crimes imo. And if you release someone from prison under some airy fairy "everybody can change xDD" meme then you should be held partially responsible if they repeat offend.

[Nonnel]

It's not about 'what's right' anymore. Hemorrhaging federal funds on convicts who cannot be rehabilitated simply because it's not "right" to put them down despite them being a complete threat to society as whole is simply handicapped. Why is that not right, yet it's totally okay to force them to live in such an awful environment like the prisons they're incarcerated in for life?

doesn't it cost more to euthanize them than to keep them in jail for life?

They are still responsible for their actions. If I'm in a warzone and some jihad is about to shoot me, I'm not going to sit there and try to talk to him about how its his misguided ideology making him shoot me. I'm going to shoot first.

I should note that the poll refers specifically to US (or insert-your-country-here) citizens and POWs, not combatants.

I see no difference

humans are intelligent beings. dogs are not. the ability to think is why we hold humans as more important than dogs.

[The Resonte!]

doesn't it cost more to euthanize them than to keep them in jail for life?

for the massive legal whatnots so i've heard

[Perry]

They are still responsible for their actions. If I'm in a warzone and some jihad is about to shoot me, I'm not going to sit there and try to talk to him about how its his misguided ideology making him shoot me. I'm going to shoot first.

This is a topic about the death penalty, not self defense or warzones. Obviously if you're about to be shot by someone you have the right to preserve your life where required. I'm talking about an institution that allows an unarmed human being to be executed for any reason.

It's not about 'what's right' anymore. Hemorrhaging federal funds on convicts who cannot be rehabilitated simply because it's not "right" to put them down despite them being a complete threat to society as whole is simply handicapped. Why is that not right, yet it's totally okay to force them to live in such an awful environment like the prisons they're incarcerated in for life?

It's barbaric to slap a price tag on human life at all. Incarceration does cost money, but depriving someone of life is wrong on every level. Even if it does save you a million dollars a year to execute one prisoner, it's just immoral. Taking a life intentionally is never justified

[Red Spy]

humans are intelligent beings. dogs are not. the ability to think is why we hold humans as more important than dogs.

Yet some humans commit horrible acts, which puts them in the same category as a rabid dog in my eyes

but depriving someone of life is wrong on every level.

What if they're like

A serial killer

[Perry]

Yet some humans commit horrible acts, which puts them in the same category as a rabid dog in my eyes

Yet the death penalty is murder, through and through. Death has no bias or discrimination. If you murder the nicest person on earth, it's still just as much murder as if you were to kill osama bin laden

You see people who commit atrocities as rabid dogs, but if you were to be the executioner, you'd be just as much of a rabid dog as them.

What if they're like

A serial killer

How does killing them solve a problem? They were born the same way you were born, they are human, they have emotions, share love, hate, all of the typical signs of humanity. What makes anyone qualified to say they should die? How can you distinguish the executioner from the executed if both commit murder?

Morals are normally based on opinion, but the inalienable rights of humans are not up for debate. Ending someone's life is murder, regardless of what that person did.

[IkeTheGeneric]

It's barbaric to slap a price tag on human life at all. Incarceration does cost money, but depriving someone of life is wrong on every level. Even if it does save you a million dollars a year to execute one prisoner, it's just immoral. Taking a life intentionally is never justified

I'm still not seeing a viable argument against the death penalty beyond "It's wrong though!!!" I don't give a forget about morality. Morality is an outdated and irrelevant old-world measurement.

[NotBomberguy]

yes and no

[Perry]

I'm still not seeing a viable argument against the death penalty beyond "It's wrong though!!!" I don't give a forget about morality. Morality is an outdated and irrelevant old-world measurement.

But then what qualifies someone to say who deserves to die? The issue is that every person has a different opinion on what warrants life and death, and leaving it up to a jury of 12 people and a judge is not enough.

Either way, if you don't give a forget about morals and are willing to kill a criminal, you are no different than the criminal in question.

[Red Spy]

How does killing them solve a problem?

The same way throwing away garbage solves a problem

They were born the same way you were born, they are human, they have emotions, share love, hate, all of the typical signs of humanity. What makes anyone qualified to say they should die? How can you distinguish the executioner from the executed if both commit murder?

Morals are normally based on opinion, but the inalienable rights of humans are not up for debate. Ending someone's life is murder, regardless of what that person did.

"Sure, they murdered a bunch of people, BUT THEY'RE A HUMAN TOO"

[Alternat¡ve]

I don't give a forget about morality. Morality is an outdated and irrelevant old-world measurement.

while you mortal fools squabbled over morality.. i studied the blade..

[Perry]

"Sure, they murdered a bunch of people, BUT THEY'RE A HUMAN TOO"

Think of it like this. I give you a gun, and put a person in front of you. The person murdered someone else for an unspecified reason. I leave it to you to shoot them.

What makes them worthy of death, and then, if you are to shoot them, what makes you worthy of life? What would make you qualified to judge them in the first place? What if you have some bias against them because they are, say, a different race, gender or person?

Humans cannot be the judge of another human's life. It's wrong, and if you really have no morals then ideologically you are no different from the criminal on death row.

[Insert Name Here²]

How does killing them solve a problem?

It prevents them from killing or severely harming any more people while incarcerated, and it also removes the risk of them escaping to go out and kill again.

By the way, when it comes to criminals, simple "muh morals, they're people toooo!!!!!!!" never solves stuff. Strutting around with that attitude just enables their behavior because if everyone had that attitude, no action would be brought against them. Sorry path, but your "morals" don't work here. Go try somewhere else.