Hey guys, just wondering what everyone's view of the death penalty is.
Well, no, not just the death penalty, the whole judicial system in general.
Lol, this spanned from an interesting conversation about the control society has over us and the fact also that humans love change, even if it harms their protection.

Hm, s'pose I should give my slant...
In my opinion, no-one should have the right to control another person.
This affects the judicial system also; laws preventing humans to do as they wish because it might unsettle others slightly, and the general control society has over everything we do and even think.
But then we have the problem of what to do with a person that is harming or potentially at risk of haming another, yes intervention would have to come into it.
Hm, but rotting away in a cell for the rest of their lives?
Their life being ended for them?
Bringing me back to the death penalty...
Hm, any thoughts welcome:)

You guys might be interesting my other post too is s'pose, it's kinda more on change, why and how we have come about it.


Tags: change, control, death, decision, harming, judicial, murder, penalty, prison, society, More…system

Views: 23

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

In your discussion title, you used an unnecessary contraction. It should be "your" instead of "you're."

Oh, and I don't think the death penalty is appropriate under any circumstance.
Ha ha, thanks, i'm terrible with spelling:P
Hmmm I agree that nobody has the right to control another person. I also personally believe that only God has the right to take life away. However, the death penatly is necessary in today's society. As bad and immoral as it may seem, it is a necessary evil. If we keep sending everyone who kills and does horrible crimes to jail, the jails will fill up, and jail gangs will grow. Also, it seems that incarceration makes criminals smarter. They get new ties and contacts, have access to telephone and internet, and can learn a trade and even earn a college degree. Not to mention the enormous cost of feeding, clothing, and caring for the prisoners. That all comes out of our wallets. There are also some people so evil, that they deseve nothing short of death. While many people argue that death is quick, and that a lifetime in prison or torture would be a better punishment, there is something about knowing that you will die that breaks the mind. That fear is the punishment. Also, it allows those who have suffered under the criminals to finally let go and go on with thier lives. If someone killed your entire family and friends in front of you, slowly, then raped you and shot you, i'm sure you wouldn't rest easily until they were dead. Now that may a mega-extreme of the scale, but it gets the general point across. Society just isn't ready to accept not having the death penatly, and it probably will never be, just because of the necessity that spawned the death penalty in the first place. Sorry if that was a little deep lol


Criminals don't walk up to the nearest legal gun store! They get their guns from the black market! If you illegalize guns/make guns difficult to get, EVERYONE will get them off the black market. And then you'll have the same problem as with drugs.
It's interesting how you simultaneously call for a repeal of laws against victimless crimes and request stricter gun control. Possession of firearms strikes me as a comparably victimless crime and produces the same black market problems as the laws that you rightly desire repealed. Also, it seems as though the "militia" based interpretation of the Second Amendment to which gun control proponents subscribe would give the government an even worse monopoly on force than it already has, which is clearly undesirable.
That' what I was thinking, hmm, must've mis-understood your original comment.
How about the people who possess firearms for self-defense?

Also, just as with drugs, do you seriously think firearms are going to be difficult to acquire if you make them illegal? If anything, it will just make the black market bigger.
You also have to take hunting into consideration. Many people where I live really on hunting for food in the winters. It is a tradition for them, a way of life. It also helps to keep the deer population in check. Since there are no natural predators, we need hunters to kill off deer to keep the population in check. I know people who have grown up with firearms. Who have shot things when they were 5 years old. If you understand a gun and know how to use it carefully, then it isn't any more dangerous than a kitchen knife.
Those victimless crimes aren't victimless. Many of today's prostitutes have been forced into their positions by human trafficking, pimps, kidnapping, blackmail, etc. Some would be killed otherwise. And sometimes the prositutes injury/kill/harm their "clients" in some way, or vice versa. Lot of victims there.

Drug dealers cause junkies to ruin their lives. They're constantly looking for more people to sell to. And yes, these people do intially have a choice. But in the end, they're victims.

Please don't try to write those crimes off as victimless. Besides, a crime is still a crime. Drug dealers deserve jailtime just as much as murderers.

FYI, gun control laws would help kids from taking Daddy's gun and accidentally shooting themselves while playing, but you wouldn't see much of a difference in crime rates. There's a million ways to murder someone without a gun.
So, legalizing prostitution should get rid of the pimps, as the government would control the legal market, and people would stop flocking to the illegal market.

Drug dealers cause junkies to ruin their lives. Note that this implies addiction, which is possible only with hard drugs like cocaine and heroin. Thus, the people who smoke weed or take LSD are not ruining their lives. Also, decriminalizing drugs will make the black market irrelevant, and when people buy from legal institutions, a tighter control over the market is possible. Because adults would reduce their patronization of drug dealers, the black market would be severely hurt, the prevalence of drug dealers would be reduced, and teenagers would have a much harder time getting hold of these drugs. Decriminalization would also separate the institutions that sell these drugs, so that the person who goes to buy non-addictive marijuana will not be tempted to also buy some cocaine or heroin.

I agree with what you said about gun control.

You name victims of these phenomena, but you fail to account for how much of this is due to the black market nature of the product rather than any inherent property of the product. On the matter of drugs, you act in abject denial of the clearly sensible dictum of JS Mill known as the harm principle, which effectively established the standard for discerning if a crime is victimless.

"The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

Why do you dispute the validity of this principle, or if you don't, how does your position coexist with it?

Besides, a crime is still a crime. Drug dealers deserve jailtime just as much as murderers.

No, no, no, no, no, no, that is WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I repeat, blatantly unjust and sickeningly conciliatory towards tyranny. Being written into law does not make a restriction upon freedom legitimate. As Noam Chomsky said, "Any structure of authority and domination has to justify itself." Worthiness of punishment is not dependent upon the whims of leaders, but rather the rights of people. To say otherwise is to invite the horrendous laws that continue to outrage human rights activists across the globe.
"Why do you dispute the validity of this principle, or if you don't, how does your position coexist with it?"

This principle is only valid if the effects of following it is better than they are if we don't follow it. In the case of Heroin, Cocaine and Amphetamine I don't think it does. Those three drugs breaks pepole. They break enough pepole, and those pepole are too miserable to justify the possitive effects that these drugs bring.

The more pepole you prevent from using these drugs the better. How you are to do so is another matter.


Youtube Links!

Here are some YT links to channels related to Nerdfighteria and educational content!

*Can you think of any more? Pass along any suggestions to an Admin who will then add it to this list should it fit!

© 2015   Created by Hank Green.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service