Wow, Jai, you really haven't checked the news recently have you?

Google "spratly islands dispute".

Dude please don't patronize. I like you, but please don't talk down.

Yes I know fully well about the South China Sea territorial disputes, but the issue at stake is are those islands worth a possible military engagement with China over. This is the same china who manufacturers all our goods. This is the same China who is critical for the US in order to weaken North Korea and exert pressure on Kim Jong Un. We can't treat every foreign country with power as an enemy combatant. I don't want US lives lost defending a couple of islands for the Filipinos and Japanese because they feel threatened by a rising superpower on their border.

Also let's get some perspective: "In 2014, US military spending reached $571 billion, a huge distance ahead of second placed China's $129.4 billion."

Why can't we spend (let's say) $400 billion instead of $571 billion. We would still be spending near 4x that of China. China cannot defeat us militarily and they know that. There is no justifiable reason for spending so much on defense spending. The only net result is that it weakens our civil liberties as citizens (see Patriot Act and NSA spying) and puts more power in the hands of the Industrial-Military Complex. The neoconservatives in the Republican Party have hijacked the GOP in my opinion...which is why I'm quitting the party if Jeb, Rubio, Kasich, or Christie get the nomination.

1) The justice makes mistakes.
2) Killing a murderer doesn't reduce the crimerate in a significant way (it is proved).
3) Executions sometimes fail.
4) Not all murderers deserve to die.
5) Death penalty costs more then lifetime imprisonement.
6) Killing murderers has the sole purpose of revenge, and that is unnaceptable.
7) It is wrong for the state to kill people.

1). unavoidable, but necessary
2). Stats please. Also, please tell me you are just as likely to do something if you know you will die.
3). Not a firing squad. It's all this p***y shit lethal injections that make it unreliable
4). Yes, they do. Even if they didn't, it would be a deterrent and save future innocents lives.
5). Not a firing squad. It's all this p***y shit lethal injections that make it costly
6). The purpose is not revenge. The purpose is to act as a deterrent. If you know you will be flayed alive if you beat your wife, are you gonna beat her? It's all about deterring.
7). Says who? When you take a life, you forfeit your's

"ISIS terrorists deserve to die, but innocent civilians don't just because they live in the same area."
War is hell. People die. They don't deserve it, but it happens. Deal with it. As I have said before, brutality saves lives by ending it quickly and deterring future combatants. It's like the death penalty; if you know we slowly burn captured ISIS fighters alive, are you gonna join ISIS?

"We occupy a moral high ground by showing mercy."
That mercy is indirectly killing people. For every murderer you save, you enable another to kill without a deterrent. You place the lives of criminals above those of innocents. Where is the morality in that. Again, if you know you will forfeit your life if you murder someone, are you gonna murder them? You claim the moral high ground, but it is an illusion.

"1) The guardian says 4 percent of defendants sentenced to die are innocent. That's not acceptable and it's probably underrated."
Why do the lives of those innocents take precedence over the lives of those killed due to lack of a deterrent? Hypocrisy at its finest.

"7) In a world were there's so many violence already, the state shouldn't participate on it."
Maybe there is so much violence because criminals don't fear punishment. If it helps to prevent a murder of an innocent, killing a murderer seems reasonable.

Edited 2/10/2016 02:39:10

Or, if you know you'll get your d*** chopped off if you rape, are you going to rape?

exactly

indeed General

Oh, and the high cost per case is because they can plead that shit for so long. If we just had the one f*cking trial and then took them out front (so would-be killers are deterred) and shot them, it would cost a hell of a lot less.

"6) Putting someone in prison is a way to punish people, thus making them learn and think. Killing them is just a barbaric way to get rid of someone. You lose the learn and think aspects. Plus, for some people just getting killed is a too easy way to escape from your debt towards society. Just make them work in prison to make them pay."
It isn't really to punish them. It's to act as a deterrent. People prefer forced labor to death. Therefore, we must use death so they are deterred.

Edited 2/10/2016 02:42:41

Well not only that general but people on death row get better accommodations.

That mercy is indirectly killing people. For every murderer you save, you enable another to kill without a deterrent. You place the lives of criminals above those of innocents. Where is the morality in that. Again, if you know you will forfeit your life if you murder someone, are you gonna murder them? You claim the moral high ground, but it is an illusion.

That's an interesting point. Let's consider it:

1) Crimes of passion - these are in the heat of the moment and people aren't acting rationally or thinking about what the law says. Most likely these murders will continue despite death penalty usage.

2) Child Rape - these people are sexual deviants who feel evil urges to do these things. They are mentally ill in all likelihood and I don't see how a death penalty law will stop them. Criminals inherently think they can get away with bad things, so no law will destroy their hubris.

3) Premeditated Murder - may actually work to solve this one but I don't know if there is a statistical way to prove it.

Also we're not putting the lives of innocents below those of criminals. We're making them equal. And that's what the point is. Republicans fight hard to stop abortion because we think a fetus is equal in its value of life as a full born baby. The same way we must value an equality of life elsewhere.

No, because life isn't equal, Jai.

Every intelligent person should have the US or them mentality.

Sorry, but I just don't see all lives as equal. Innocents take precedence over criminals. I see murderers and rapists as lower than animals. I suppose we can't agree with that mindset difference however.

Jai a murderers' life isn't worth that of a baby. A baby is a clean slate he can become anything a scientist, a teacher, a medical doctor, an engineer an economist etc. However a murderer is mentally unstable and a danger to society. Heres a question for you. You must choose one person to save or else both will die who will you save a murderer or a baby? Another same scenario a pedophile who has raped 5 children and killed 1 or a doctor? Another same scenario a thief with no skills or goals in life or a well educated teenager who aspires to become a mathematician?

Edited 2/10/2016 02:53:20

1) The guardian says 4 percent of defendants sentenced to die are innocent. That's not acceptable and it's probably underrated.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/28/death-penalty-study-4-percent-defendants-innocent

Well, first, this is just in America. Second, I said the death penalty *should* not be used lightly; I think it is used too much today, and should definitely be way more rarely used.

3)Guns don't, but medicine used to kill do.

I think medicines should be abolished - we're not trying to make it as nice and painless as possible for the person that's going to die.

A Seattle University study examining the costs of the death penalty in Washington found that each death penalty case cost an average of $1 million more than a similar case where the death penalty was not sought ($3.07 million, versus $2.01 million).

This is ambiguous about specific costs; I think shooting somebody will really be cheaper. But even so, I support greatly lowering the rate (in my country, 0.3 per million).

In a world were there's so many violence already, the state shouldn't participate on it.

Well, I believe the only time the death punishment should be used is to lower violence on the whole. And I believe that, for most things, the punishment should be the anti of the misdeed.

+1 xpapy

You must choose one person to save or else both will die

Don't you think that's an unrealistic hypothetical? Is anyone really ever in that situation?

Sorry, but I just don't see all lives as equal. Innocents take precedence over criminals. I see murderers and rapists as lower than animals. I suppose we can't agree with that mindset difference however.

I understand. It comes from my faith you see. Hinduism teaches that even a small cricket is worth saving. Life to me is the most amazing thing ever, so I cannot deny life to someone. That is not my job and in my opinion its not the Government's job either (its not constitutionally stated its their job anyway). Also I worry that soon enough the government will decide in mass who is deserving of life and death, for that is exactly what we are doing in the case of an abortion. But this difference of opinion is good!! That' why we should give more power to the states, so Texas and Alaska can have the death penalty if they so choose and New Jersey and Virginia can outlaw it. That is why a state centered system of government is useful!!

But, Jai, America isn't a Hindu majority...

Dude please don't patronize. I like you, but please don't talk down.

Yes I know fully well about the South China Sea territorial disputes, but the issue at stake is are those islands worth a possible military engagement with China over. This is the same china who manufacturers all our goods. This is the same China who is critical for the US in order to weaken North Korea and exert pressure on Kim Jong Un. We can't treat every foreign country with power as an enemy combatant. I don't want US lives lost defending a couple of islands for the Filipinos and Japanese because they feel threatened by a rising superpower on their border.

Also let's get some perspective: "In 2014, US military spending reached $571 billion, a huge distance ahead of second placed China's $129.4 billion."

Why can't we spend (let's say) $400 billion instead of $571 billion. We would still be spending near 4x that of China. China cannot defeat us militarily and they know that. There is no justifiable reason for spending so much on defense spending. The only net result is that it weakens our civil liberties as citizens (see Patriot Act and NSA spying) and puts more power in the hands of the Industrial-Military Complex. The neoconservatives in the Republican Party have hijacked the GOP in my opinion...which is why I'm quitting the party if Jeb, Rubio, Kasich, or Christie get the nomination.

1). If you don't want me to patronize me, pls don't go and patronize Xpapy.

2). We have a co-defensive pact with Japan. IF China decided to declare war on Japan, then we would have an obligation to help them.

3). I find it ironic you don't think a Russian-Chinese-Iranian-North Korean coalition could defeat the U.S. and allies; if a war was to start, the U.S. would have a sudden massive loss of goods. Literally, electronics shelves would be empty in a few weeks. A spoiled and pampered generation like we've had would freak out.

And no one is going to launch a nuke- Mutually assured destruction is where that ends, and NOBODY will go that far.

4). This is partly why I want a War hawk to win the election. If China were to force all the other nations out of the Spratly Islands, would Obama get involved? I don't think so!

regardless of its plausibility you must answer. Or else you'll look like a fool who isn't firm in his beliefs.

But, Jai, America isn't a Hindu majority...

But I think even from a Christian perspective there is a strong case against the death penalty. We cannot act like Gods on earth is a central message of the Christian doctrine, and trying to give eternal punishment to sinners is not in the jurisdiction of humans. That job and role can only be done by the Father in Heaven.

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse... Repay no one evil for evil... do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I Will repay," says the Lord." Rom. 12:14, 17, 19

We have a co-defensive pact with Japan. IF China decided to declare war on Japan, then we would have an obligation to help them.

That co-defensive pact is from post WWII. Its time to update our alliance system. Countries like Japan, Germany, UK, and South Korea are a free rider on our huge military spending. They need to take more of a role in their own defense. Why do we have to protect the world and be the police for the world? They have more than enough money to do it themselves...we should let them. A multipolar world is a safer world.

If China were to force all the other nations out of the Spratly Islands, would Obama get involved?

I think he would to be fair. Obama is an interventionist like Bush.

The reality is that capital punition doesn't reduce overall crimerate it is not an effective deterrent. An effective one is just to enforce laws that already exist and get murderers. If you kill every murderer, but you only catch one out of three murderers, they'll say, yea I have a shot at it.

Also, most serial murderers and disturbed enough people to make atrocities huge enough for us wanting them to be killed don't give a shit about dying or not. Executing them is too easy.

For the stats of either death penalty saves or not lives, just cross countries who allow the death penalty to be sentenced and the crime-rate on them.






As you can see, the countries with the smaller murder rate owtlaw the death penalty while those who still have it, have worst ones. The death penalty doesn't save lives.
=> That's a general case, some countries do not apply to this rule (ex: Japan), but this is really more of a cultural thing.

Edited 2/10/2016 03:28:33

"soon enough the government will decide in mass who is deserving of life and death"
Nice! Humanity really need this or else it will destroy itself. There need to be human selection because of the lack of natural selection. I hope this really will be reality soon enough.

That co-defensive pact is from post WWII. Its time to update our alliance system. Countries like Japan, Germany, UK, and South Korea are a free rider on our huge military spending. They need to take more of a role in their own defense. Why do we have to protect the world and be the police for the world? They have more than enough money to do it themselves...we should let them. A multipolar world is a safer world.

XD

South Korea has one of the largest militaries in the world; their percentage of people in the military is higher than ours.

Japan and Germany have a decently large military as well (if you want to know what a small military is, look at Costa Rica)