Spirit, are you saying that you oppose capital punnishment because the driminal should be torchured rather than killed?
hermes,
I’m sorry for taking the example of your child regarding capital punishment. No matter how significant the issue or serious, that was a very bad example, I realize that now even though you never criticised me for that. I am deeply sorry for that, please forgive me.
As for execution, if a justice system ever executed my child whom I made, I raised, I cared for and I looked after and loved, baby, I would not mourn the loss of my child but I would make this justice system mourn it for THE REST OF THEIR LIFE.
I dunno where you got this from that I don’t read books, so please don’t cook up nonsense just to make people look small. Not that I believe in, “reading maketh a full man” but the irony is that I probably read not pages but whole databases. And for you to remark without any justification that I don’t read, where did that come from? I had a valid basis in criticising what people learn under philosophy at Universities given the basic definition of philosophy which is - going after knowledge, any kind and not studying philosophers. You have a problem understanding logic, fine, but don’t try to put those down who don’t, ok?
Moreover, considering the kind of response I get from you in every thread now, I will not correspond with you anymore in the future!
that would be so lovely.
I suppose I support any kind of killing. What is instead my concern is that a criminal would allow himself to be captured knowing that he would be put to death.
It would be a good idea to carry a gun with oneself at all times, so that in the event of being captured by the “law” and certainly put to death, one could quickly take his own life and spare himself the suffering.
I am new to the world of philosophy (I’m taking my first class this quarter). I absolutely love it. Never have I been so challenged to justify my beliefs. Anyway, the reason I am posting this request is as follows:
I am preparing to take part in a philosophical debate, in which I have been chosen to argue for the existance of CAPITOL PUNISHMENT. Unfortunately, I am having a tough time finding valid supports for the death penalty. (I feel that it would be beneficial to try the “free will” argument, but have yet to see a way to prove that people are not JUST a product of environment and heredity…) If any of you could possibly give me some ideas, or even some opinions, about how I might tackle this one, I would really appreciate it. Thanks!
It’s a good exercise to argue the other side. It will prepare you for the times when you don’t have a side, which will be more and more often as you go.
Anyway, the best argument I’ve heard for the death peanlty is to try to challange the impossibility of a crime so henious that it would deserve such a strong punishment.
For instance, if your going to give life imprisonment for a man who kills his wife for emotional reasons- which seems reasonable. Can you really hand out the same punshiment to a man who makes a rational decision to gun down a subway car full of Japanesse Schoolgirls Holding Kittens (JSHK for short its usefull to have quick access to the most innocent and chibi thing in the word) with rubber bullets until they all finnially die, because he has decided that the world has too many Hedons? It seems this second criminal needs something more. Something like the ultimate censure from his fellow man.
Of course, this is also a good stratigy when given a difficult position to argue make it as small as possible. They will likely have arguments about the death penalty being racist or otherwise missapplied. You can simply come out and agree, but that it should be resevered for these truly extrodinary criminals where the evidence is extreemly explicit.
Hope that helps.
In debate (if I remember correctly) your side would be the negative… you would look to counter or minimize the affirmative’s claims for change.
Here are some figures… always need figures for a debate.
make the Socratic argument: By living in this society, one agrees to live by society’s rules. Thus is the rule calls for capital punishment for certain offenses, it is a necessary forfeit of life in accordance with society’s rules. If a society truly did not want such a thing like capital punishment, there would be no capital punishment in that society, etc.
You could also argue that…
It is more cruel to confine someone in a tiny cage for their entire life. You could dig up some statistics on prison rape, and point out the odds of a person confined for X years will eventually be raped, beaten, etc. thus faced with an individual who cannot be rehabilitated back into society, keeping them in prison is akin to a life of torture.
you could also argue that
there is a greater good, and that can only be reached with all individuals living in harmony with each other. Any person who disrupts this by taking another life prevents man from reaching the greater good, so, as to prevent the chance of this happening again with that particular individual, and to discourage other individuals from considering murder in the future… the price for murder must be paid with the culprit’s life. Anything less will only allow further misery into the world…
Personally, i don’t buy any of them, but those are the most reasonable ones I have heard/read.
I would like to thank you for your propmt replies! Both will help more than either of you can know! Now I have something to run with. Thanks again. 
Hi niki welcome to the ILP community!
You could argue the case from an economic perspective and say that the state cannot support all serious repeat offenders and that since they are never going to reform and will instead scrape off the state in prison for the rest of their lives it is better financially to just execute them. This perhaps only applies to a certain group of criminals but I guess the debate is about any type of capital punishment.
Good luck in your debate
- ben
Here, I’ll resolve it for you right here! We are 50% environment and 50% heredity generally speaking. And free will is a product of this environment and heredity. It is NOT something that drops from the sky my dear. Now, because of genes it is possible that the person is so bad or good that the environment will have a negligent effect upon him and so cannot change him, that’s how we have psychopaths and very good guys. Don’t believe that people are not born good or born bad or you would have to say that genes don’t matter. To the extent the persons are born very bad or born average but see a bad environment, they’ll be more prone towards crime.
By the way if you’re for Capital Punishment, I hope you lose 'cause I’m totally against it and I KNOW it is not justified for the criminal’s family. Sorry!
As of yet, I cannot solidly PROVE either the existence of absence of “free will.” And, just for the record, I was never under the impression that it “dropped from the sky.” With reguards to the Capitol Punishment debate, I personally support it (as far as I have been able to understand and study it), and if nothing else, I find it to be a challenge to support it philosophically. -niki
as life is the most valuable thing a human posesses, taking it is nothing humans can judge, life is far too much worth to leave the decision over it into the hands of fallible, corruptable creatures such as… indeed, humans
next, i see no reason to kill…
willem
I gotcha! So you agree that free will does not drop from the sky? Good! Now, since we are free to think and free to act and we can only do that regarding who we are and what we are and the circumstances surrounding us, therefore, based on that we make a decision, it could be wrong or right. But we are free to make it. Now, if this freedom wasn’t there then life would mean nothing, so free will has to be there. However, life is also fated because whatever your free will decides, the consequences have to follow. Right? So, life is fated and yet we have free will too, or in essence, in the long run which includes re-birth, life is fair for all. Ok?
You say for capital punishment, “I find it to be a challenge to support it philosophically.” What do you think death is? A joke to you? How can you take it so lightly?
Wow!!! What a hell lot of discussions. Now, for a change the reality is that a man named Dhanajoy is going to be hanged in India for raping and murdering a 14 year old. His mercy petition has been rejected by the President of India (read the Home Ministry, Government of India). Now, his way to the gallows has been cleared and in the days ahead we can see another man been executed.
Ok, wait a minute. Allow me to clear this up. I am a beginning philosophy student. I asked you all for some opinions that would help me in a debate in which I must philosophically support capitol punishment. (thanks to those who responded) That having been said… I am still struggling to decide what I believe and why. The statement about finding it to “be a challenge to support it philosophically” was strictly related to a college course. (I meant that I find the assignment difficult, as I cannot readily support nor challenge the existence of capitol punishment so far)
I have not, and do not take the death of anyone or anything lightly.
Basically, I am still searching, and have yet to find an answer.
Struggle is good, it leads to conclusions and so soon you should come to one regarding capital punishment being justified or not. I know in your debate you were supposed to support capital punishment but you didn’t post any of your own views here regarding whether you would support it or not personally. As such I’m given to believing that you just want others to brainstorm ideas for you but from your own you won’t list any valid arguments. I wonder what kind of struggle is that where there are no personal ideas in your head? Or why don’t you list them here?
I realize that I have yet to make my own arguments clear. So, I will now attempt to do so. First of all, I find that I do support the use of capital punishment (when conclusive evidence, etc. proves guilt). My philosophical reasoning behind this takes a number of different forms.
I believe that, when crimes such as cold-blooded murder are commited by a member of society, they lose their rights as a “member” of that society. My reasoning for this goes back to the idea that, by living in society, we agree to follow basic underlying moral rules (Socrates). This social contract includes “thou shalt not kill.” It is my opinion that, once an individual has broken such a rule, they are no longer protected by it.
Furthermore, I find it to be our duty (as continuing members of society) to present some form of punishment for actions that are damaging to society. please note, I do not believe that the death penalty should be PROMOTED, but allowed as an option.
At this point, some who oppose my view would argue that no one is justified in limiting someone’s “right to life.” However, just as I am not truly “justified” to decide if someone should face the death penalty, neither was the murder justified to kill an innocent victim. As Immanual Kant discussed in his work about “the Categorical Imperitive’” we should act only isn such a way that we would want our actions to become universal laws. But… he goes onto say that, at times, we must act in ways that we do not necessarily agree with, simply because it MUST be done, not because we WANT to. (I do not wish to determine weather someone should live or die, but it seems that we have a duty to society which requires us to respond).
As far as the issue of “an eye for an eye,” it seems logical that “punishment must be inflicted in a measure that equalizes the offense.”
Another factor in this issue ties back into the free will debate. In order to support capital punishment, I must believe that humans are not simply products of environment and heredity. On this subject, I find that Tibor Machan put it best when he wrote “free will may not be something that we can see directly, but what best explains what we do see in human life.” Also, taking a concept from Sartre, “man is nothing else but what he makes of himself.” I believe (thus far) that man is responsible for his actions, and should be treated accordingly.
Ok, after that session of rambling, I must add a disclaimer: I am still working out my theory, and I am open to discussion, so long as it is rational and does not become a personal attack upon myself. I say this only because I am aware that many in this forum are far more fluent in the understanding of philosophy, while I am still learning. Please be patient with my ignorance…
-Niki
Does anyone have the right to take another human life? I dont know ask the murderer on death roll. He seemed to think so. I used to be pretty torn on the subject, thinking that it is an effecient way to dispose of peop0le who can no longer belong to our society, yet also feeling for what little part of humanity is left inside of them and the fear they must experience. Sure they put themselves there, but I couldnt help but feel sorry for them.
I think Capital Punishment should be reserved for murderers/rapists who have proven themselves to be incapable of existing in our society and only pose a danger to it. There is a worry about innocent people slipping through the system, but in my opinion anyone who should be on Death Roll are the kind of people who are easily able to be traced as sociopaths. Not to say that a person who killed just once is neccessarily able to exist within society either, but that he/she can exist within some boundaries of social activity and perhaps can be of some use to society while in prison.
Capital punishment is a subject that is very important to me because my Uncle is now on it. Does he deserve it? Most definitly…did i love him and still do? Yes. What he did was so extreme…he deserved the Death Penalty initially but only recieved life in prison. But during a prison break between he and a couple other people he killed a prison security guard and several cops. Then re sentenced to the Death Penalty.
It’s pretty difficult to think of my Uncle commiting these acts because he never seemed the type to do so. But he did and openly admits it. Once in a letter he wrote to my dad he asked if my dad thinks he should be executed and my dad told him yes. My Uncle then responded and said he agreed.
Pretty much if you demonstrate that you have reached the end of your humanity and no longer have anything to gain or to give to society beyond pain and misery, it’s time to clean the gene pool and just remove that element.
We should allow criminals to easily and conveniently commit suicide in a painless manner. I would gladly pay tax dollars for this very purpose. This is much better than state mandated executions.
Admittedly I skipped over much of the irrelevant squabble in this thread, so I ask you to have some understanding if this question has been discussed previously.
Marshall, what is your idea of a criminal? I ask because I usually associate the word ‘criminal’ in relation to state-founded laws. Hence, to ask a criminal to commit suicide would be to ask someone who engaged in an act against the state to willingly die for the state. Off the top of my head I cannot recall an example of this, but if a state achieves this consistently, that would be a feat.