1,574,700 prisoners in the U.S at 30,000$ a piece is 47,241,000,000..... if we cut the cost of each prisoner to 11,770$ 18,534,219,000.... that is a 28706781000.... assuming we gave away half the Federal poverty line we could supply 2,438,978 U.S families with 11,770$ a year...... or give 2,438,978 students 11,770$ toward their education every year.....

And who will command the 100 richest people to give that money away? nobody has that power. Add currency? #inflation. Government funds @corruption @debt & @nevergonnahappenbitch

Or let most of them go, and then tax the richest billionaire and feed the poor, all without killing anyone.

Morals are subjective. Have you heard the phrase 'good christian morals'??? that's because christian morals are ethical codes based on beliefs. Morals are subjective, and thus any argument based on them cannot be FACT.

Nobody has that power? Nonsense. We ourselves have that power.

so basically take a man who has succeeded in life, force him to commoners and feed everyone.

that argument is Equality vs Competition with 'opportunity' as constant

Thucy no we don't we really don't. we can't rally behind a single cause. Radicals, idiots, those in power, lazy, weak and all others leave little power in today's modern proletariat

a bolshevikesque revolution is impossible in America today

Morals are not subjective. They are based on the universal intuition of the golden rule - what we would find unacceptable to ourselves, we must not do to others. The right to life cannot be abridged. The equality of human beings in the moral sphere is factual. Any attempt to cheapen one person's life or elevate another's is immoral. This equality stems from the quality of consciousness - back to the Golden Rule again. You have to love your neighbor as yourself because they exist in the same way that you do.

NO NO NO NO NO WE HAD THIS THREAD: UNIVERSAL MORALS HAVE NEVER BEEN PROVEN NOR DEFINED

Who said anything about the Bolsheviks. I'm talking about feeding the poor.

Just as nothing can be proven or defined. I'm unimpressed

and love thy neighbor is Christian #sub-fucking-jective

yes, by taking from the rich. and i said bolshevikesque

The "power" of money is a charade. Money is a social construction, and it's power and very existence can fall away at the drop of a hat.

No, love thy neighbor is universal. The fact that it is found is Christianity is not surprising but it is not unique to it

Yall are some dark, depressing folks lol. Stop lusting for violent revenge and serving greedy overlords and questioning the existence of right and wrong... itll do you some good. Good night

by claiming one thing is truly correct, you are wrong. You can be right from a perspective, but true objectivity is unattainable. That is why asserting that capital punishment is evil is not a fact.

money is everything, especially when you don't have any. We as a majority of the whole of society have put power in it, and thus it rules all.

love thy neighbor is not universal. It's simply not. not 100% of people agree with it, and if even 1 does not agree with it then another perspective arises and it is not universal. once again, you're too liberal with your terminology

You Say:

"Yall are some dark, depressing folks lol. Stop lusting for violent revenge and serving greedy overlords and questioning the existence of right and wrong... itll do you some good. Good night"

I Read:

"Subjective statement followed by idiotic use of phrase 'lol', misuse of term 'revenge' and frankly the word 'violent' too, tries to degrade us to the 'sheeple' level for an ineffective use of higher authority, then finishes by telling us to have a closed mind, promising it is better, (which is ironic because that statement is sheepleesque)"

I respect your opinion, but not your assertion. Until you recognize the POSSIBILITY of an alternate 'truth' then your are close minded, and it is how persecution happened in old religions. They asserted things with absolute will and belief.

It's a translation error to say, "Thou shall not kill," when it's "Thou shall not murder." The Bible lists plenty of instances when it is acceptable to kill from war as a major example.

"Morals are not subjective. "

What a load of absolute bull Thucy. I understand why Krellin cannot stand you, the self righteousness you are spewing in this thread is enough to make me sick.

"Yall are some dark, depressing folks lol. Stop lusting for violent revenge and serving greedy overlords and questioning the existence of right and wrong... itll do you some good. Good night"

Rather weak job of creating a straw-man of all who oppose you. Quite closed minded of you. People always have a reason for what they do, and it always makes sense to them. If you don't understand that, or worse don't care then you're way behind in life...also explains why you're not that good of a player.

I have made my view clear before than objectivity and subjectivity are one. So I have no qualms stating that a human conscience is an objective morality. You fear the result of a closed mind, yet the morality of which is speak itself precludes a closed mind; it is predicated on love and understanding for any person, whoever they may be. Go ahead and academically accuse me of a closed mind if you want, but I am the one trying to spare the life of a mass murderer while it is you all who are baying for blood.

And I know that people have reasons for what they do - just as Tsarnaev had his own reasons for getting mixed up in terrorism.

In the pro-violence camp, pro-revenge camp, your reason for wanting an execution is clear: simple vengeance. I have yet to hear a moral argument in favor of this. People with morals they are proud of usually do not openly advocate for vengeance. It is widely understood to be an empty and destructive force.

Of course I understand the desire for vengeance. It is based on our ape biology. Humans have a built in desire for reciprocity. When a stranger offers you some help, we feel a need to repay him, or else we feel guilt and fear taking something for nothing. In the same way, when someone cheats us or insults us, we feel bubbling up within us a rage which demands we get back at them.

The evolutionary reason for this reciprocity is clear - it is a proto-morality, an animalian morality, which was the first stirring of the construction of a society with us. Without this first reciprocity in our species' past, we would have struggled to build an ultra social society of strangers. Reciprocity can be seen in diplomacy even, where the general rule is, everyone starts out friendly but cautious, and when someone helps them, they generally help them back; when someone turns on them, you turn on them too and try to make them regret it. This is how reciprocity can help regulate behavior.

So how does that fit into the death penalty? Reciprocal logic - ape logic - says, a man who spills the blood of man shall have his own blood spilled by man.

The only way this can be justified is as a deterrent. Yet we know now in 2015 that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent - especially not in the case of terrorism (most of us know that our efforts at violent retaliation have only bred more terrorists).

This is the dark side of reciprocity, the bitter, barbaric downward spiral of violence that we see in Israel and a host of other violent places, including the USA.

So if we know it is not an effective deterrent but still want it, what is our moral justification? Revenge for its own sake. And how do you justify that? Anyone who has ever exacted their revenge knows that mere seconds after you finally finish the job, you feel dirty and empty. The catharsis is short lived. You look at your friend's bloody nose and crying face, or in this case the lifeless body on the table, and feel nothing. Certainly you feel deep down that no wrong was righted.

So what's the point then?

Do you all sanction revenge for its own sake? How can you?

If you 'Love thy neighbor' then you should not kill a murderer. But the murderer did not follow the same rule: he broke the rule. (This is assuming it is a heinous act of murder, premeditated, and unjustified)

So how do we treat people who break the rules? Locking people up, not only having to take care of them, but feed them, pay for them, give them clothes and a bed and even education?

Prison is too nice on some horrible people. If Prison were truly fair, a life sentence in jail is simply a death penalty with waiting. Nowadays murderers can live, no, thrive on the backs of the people they wronged. A life sentence is simply a death penalty for people who are too afraid to do the act. How is that any better?

+1 JamesYanik

They're not being punished at all if their life in prison is better than their life out of it

He'll be alive, but he won't be living.

"They're not being punished at all if their life in prison is better than their life out of it".

That's an exaggeration that is so commonly put forward but it's lazy and untrue.

You have no absolute way to judge if someone's life is better or worse outside of prison. You are unable to encompass, in that line of thinking, how removing someone's access to worldly freedoms really affects them. And where are all the people rushing to be in prison if life is so much better in a lockup?

No, it's a weak, unfounded argument to claim that "prison is better than life out of it".

@JamesYanik:

As has already been explained to you in this thread: you can either have a justice system that is universally-applied, fair, clear and consistent or you have a system that is based on emotions, mob rule and revenge.

I would not agree that...money and cost...should be used as a reason to compromise the way we universally and fairly apply our justice system.