• @jensens because if everyone took the law into their own hands that would be Anarchy, hell, so to avoid that there should be no exceptions but a system put in place where you yourself can even sue the judge(that's how it is in the states).


  • @jensens this is a harder topic. I began talking about the death penalty being justified or nit and now I'm at whatever this is


  • @thestrangest dont you like a hard topic? i think is the death penalty fair is a pretty hard topic too.
    In belgium you can not sue a judge. a judge can not be prosecuted for mistakes or misjudgemen. there are other things you can do but i dont have the words for it in english.


  • @jensens no it's just that I'm a philosophy geek, this started off more philosophical and now it is more political and judicial so i have 0 experience with dis. The amount of time a person should serve is hard to approximate...

    well then you should then try to change your gouvernment, protest or something like that in that case


  • @thestrangest with that reasoning there is nobody that should speak with you because there is nobody that is actually a philosopher. I know it sounds mad or something but I don't know how to make so it doesn't sound like I am attacking you. I do need to say you are actually good a philosophy


  • @jensens said in Do you believe the death penalty is fair?:

    @thestrangest with that reasoning there is nobody that should speak with you because there is nobody that is actually a philosopher.

    Philosophy is something everybody does everyday at some point or another, but only people who intensively study how to philosophize are called philosophers. The point is that everybody can philosophize therefore everyone can debate with me. What are people with degrees in philosophy called?... Philosophers, I found a guy with a bachelor's degree in philosophy(A.K.A. technically a philosopher) once on this site but that doesn't mean he has the right to debate me but someone else doesn't

    I know it sounds mad or something but I don't know how to make so it doesn't sound like I am attacking you. I do need to say you are actually good at philosophy

    Thanks I guess


  • I support the death penalty. If someone takes time to plan to kill someone else then the killer is too dangerous to keep alive. The only alternative I can think of is offer this person a job as an assassin and send them off to another country and reek havoc, but that seems like more senseless killing. So I stick with my original point, yes I support the ending of the life of a dangerous killer.


  • @jacob55 said in Do you believe the death penalty is fair?:

    I support the death penalty. If someone takes time to plan to kill someone else then the killer is too dangerous to keep alive. The only alternative I can think of is offer this person a job as an assassin and send them off to another country and reek havoc, but that seems like more senseless killing. So I stick with my original point, yes I support the ending of the life of a dangerous killer.

    I'd just copy paste my original argument but I'd like to just point out that it's kind of like the possibility of keeping the people alive, in jail, without killing them, just flew over your head. Ok here is my previous explanation for why the death penalty is inhumane:

    @thestrangest said in Do you believe the death penalty is fair?:

    @thestrangest said in Do you believe the death penalty is fair?:

    @layla I believe the death penalty is inhumane

    That is a video on the perspectives on the topic

    I'll quote someone then continue

    "From a determinist perspective, consequentialism is a logically preferable theory. Any form of retributivism relies on the concept of free will, because if a person had no choice not to perform an action then they can't really be held accountable, and therefore do not deserve any punishment. So I would argue that we have to adopt a consequentialist stance if we are to implement a system of punishment because the justifications of encouraging rehabilitation and deterring future crimes withstand negation of the idea that the criminal is to blame." Therefore the death penalty doesn't make sense, you can prevent any further crime of being committed by a certain murderer without killing him, just keep him in prison and then if he is deemed rehabilitated then let him go. It's that simple, any other actions would be immoral, it is causing unnecessary suffering and causing unnecessary suffering IS the definition of evil to a secularist, it is inhumane.


  • @thestrangest So in essence, there is no true justice?


  • @jacob55 said in Do you believe the death penalty is fair?:

    @thestrangest So in essence, there is no true justice?

    there is no objective morality nor justice therefore it depends on what you base your justice system on, i explained why it should be consequentialist and in a determinist consequentialist world view what i said is totally fine


  • @thestrangest Understood


  • -delete-


  • @layla No. Capital punishment procedures are often even costlier than the life sentence, convicts often sit on death row for years, if not decades and there is no statistical evidence that the death penalty decreases crime rates. I suggest a less punitive approach in favor of a utilitarian one. Life imprisonment with humane and decent living conditions. The Nordic coundries are doing it and it's working wonders. Sure, you have people whom are dangerous for society and oughta be removed from the general population, but going through all the bureaucratic trouble to put a criminal to death or to give him harsh living conditions as retribution is just petty. It will never make up for what has been done. Nothing ever will.


  • Should depend on the crime of the person..I guess..😕


  • Kill them if their rapists and murderers. No point leaving them in the cell & then figuring out their going to escape & continue doing their thing with a vengeance


  • @h0lly said in Do you believe the death penalty is fair?:

    Kill them if their rapists and murderers. No point leaving them in the cell & then figuring out their going to escape & continue doing their thing with a vengeance

    So your argument is that you should kill them because if you put them in prison they might escape. Why not kill all people in prison then?


  • @nyu said in Do you believe the death penalty is fair?:

    Should depend on the crime of the person..I guess..😕

    I don't think a death penalty is ever justified


  • It depends on many things. Their crime, their mental state, their country's eco-political conditions, and many such things.

    Non-capital Punishments can be more torturous in some cases. Some people spend years in Isolation, which imo is more torturous that giving them a swift and peaceful end. It would also be worse in their mental state. Some people would want to a swift end and that's the reason the prison suicide rates are high and rising (Btw a large percentage of them happen after some sort of mental health service).

    To put it shortly, Capital punishment is something very hard to justify but still, many view it as some sort of necessity so it's hard to remove it outright in many places. Their justification and necessity would also depend on one's morality too (Just throwing that out).


  • @sir-devil so you aren't taking sides, ok


  • death penalty is actually a mercy killing..people who r sentenced for capital punishments are extreme criminals...people like those should be killed inch by inch...not in one go