@JamesYanik
Also, you quoted Gandhi in your first post in this thread, "an eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind", and then completely misapplied Gandhi's philosophy. Gandhi was not advocating "an eye for an eye", he was desperate to prevent it. No more bloodshed, no more excuses.

@wjessop
I know, I was simply refuting his point. Don't worry, I'm not an absolute fool

@Thucy
The fact that this man is allowed to be conscious, to enjoy the pleasures of life (even in the American prisons), to be able to talk to his family members, even behind bars. That is something the people who died in Boston will never enjoy, and their families will never get that chance either.

That man should either be thrown in a prison for life (that I described earlier, the French one), or executed. Both are a death penalty of sorts, one just lets him suffer less. The only reason why I would wish someone to stay (for life) in such horrible conditions, is if the people they killed had also suffered, by torture or such

Killing him will not bring those dead people back. I can't believe I have to tell you that. Killing him snuffs out one more human life, it does not build anything, does not construct anything, cannot in any sense be construed as a positive thing - death is inherently negative. The right to life is inherent. No kangaroo court can take it away.

So, I take it then that you are openly endorsing revenge for its own sake. I think I need not show further that you are on a par with a murderer.

What do you think motivates people like the Tsarnaevs and the bin Ladens of the world in the first place?

I know killing him doesn't bring those who are dead back, but it achieves parity. And how dare you compare me to Bin Laden, a man who orchestrated the murder of 3000 innocent men. I condemn him for such actions, and would never do something so horrible.

And yet you would take the life of your brother if you deemed him "guilty". This is what bin Laden did.

On par with a murderer, by letting him walk free you claim strength, but I see none in you. Revenge has such horrible connotations, yet those have been developed over time. I choose to say 'retribution' for it has a much better implied meaning to fit my point.

If we do not sentence him to death, and he lives his days out in Prison, writes a memoir, sees his families on occasional visits, even the simple appeal of being ALIVE is enough for others to try to follow in his footsteps.

'when you dig a grave for your enemy, make sure to dig one for yourself'
this is construed in two different ways:
1. if someone murders another, he digs himself a grave. He deserves to die
2. if you execute a murderer, then you deserve to die.

in all truth, Tsarnaev is denying rule one, yet, we are trying to apply the second. the man should kill himself for what he did, no not place that responsibility on others, but since he didn't, someone must do so for equality, for fairness.

If my brother killed someone completely unjustified, I would see him killed. But he is a good man, and I hope that situation never arises. But the second you end a life without cause, yours is forfeit.

the idea behind capital punishment is sound, yet in application many find it horrendous. "between the conception and creation, falls a shadow" I understand all this. but death is a dark area, and you must face such controversy to fix it.

"without cause"...

There's the slippery slope.

JK that branches off entirely, we are focusing on whether or not capital punishment is right at all, not to what extent it should be applied.

"the idea behind capital punishment is sound"

That's as absolutist as Thucydides has been accused of being.

The idea is not sound.

perhaps I will comment more on this thread, but I have my beliefs and you have yours Thucy. I'm find calling an armistice, but if you have any last points to thrown in I'll let you get off with the last blow. I like debating, but I also like doing well on tests, and this has taken up quite a bit of my time.

wjessop the LOGIC is sound: punishment fits crime. responsible for actions, symmetry of justice. But then you poke in the needles and you start to have doubts. Logic and life coincide on thin boundaries

How can you justify ending a life "with cause" by the power of the state when trial by jury is only mostly accurate and not 100% accurate? That's the slippery slope.

Judgment =/= truth.

Behind prison walls, criminals should see that the world can get on just fine without them. With that torment, they would WISH they could die. Taking away their torment is letting them off too easy. Execution is too lax a sentence for a murderer. Life without the possibility if parole is the way to go. Further, the prison system should be aimed at rehabilitation to better society. Execution does not have this effect, as you can't rehabilitate a dead person.

@JK, I only condone the death of people who are 100% likely of being guilty. Tsarnaev is, and that is what we're debating. CP in America is mostly troubled because our justice system is shit, but I don't believe the foundations are philosphically errored.

@TrPrado,

if I kill someone and there death is instant, mine should be too.

if they were to torture someone, then a life sentence if justified.


People are misunderstanding me: the system should be changed so that the Death Penalty is nicer than a life sentence.

turns out i'm not done discussing. darn it

It already is. Have you seen the appeal system?

Prado, some prisoners get jobs, education, social connections, all from inside Prison. Europe has better systems, they are not so nice, and not so swayed by the public.

institutionalization #Shawshank

Prison becomes your home

ooh! new quote:

"live by the sword, die by the sword" if you act in violence and murder, you deserve the same.

That is in a warrior's lifestyle. Don't give them the gratification of martyrdom.

eh, that one was a stretch i'll admit, but I do believe capital punishment is fair.

That quote from Jesus is not a command, it is an observation. Violent people get caught up in violence. This is why I don't own a gun.

Those who killed another deserve a fate worse than death.

Do we rely on hell being that fate? I am an atheist, and I believe murder victims are cheated out of time, and will never have anything more. The USA government can't rely on the statement 'it's all fine, he's going to hell anyways' for justice. They must act impartially to belief systems, and insure that people are able to live their observed lives to the greatest extent.

"The USA government can't rely on the statement 'it's all fine, he's going to hell anyways' for justice." It's almost like you're arguing my point for me. Besides, they don't. The government is a secular entity.