Final Death Row Statements

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

This is moral subjectivism which precludes the possibility of passing any moral judgment on psychopaths for their behaviour because, well, hey, it felt right to them. Try again.

You're comparing me and most of Canada to a psychopath, that's not how come to conclusions.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by Iginla

Even if it costs one billion dollars to jail an inmate, I wouldn't want the death penalty. Words can not describe how against the death penalty I am. It actually makes me sick that people even defend it let alone a country as advanced as the United States still uses it.

The whole it costs more argument has nothing to do with my feelings towards the death penalty.

Yet you went on record in your former incarnation, and said point blank, and I am not embellishing, "All drug addicts deserve to die." It actually makes ME sick someone can hold such an ignorant attitude.

You have some pretty messed up ideals.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

You're comparing me and most of Canada to a psychopath, that's not how come to conclusions.

How did you manage to get that from my post. My point is that if the justification is "things are wrong if they feel wrong", how can you say that a psychopath is wrong to kill when it feels right to him?

If, by referring to yourself and the majority of Canadians, you're saying "things are wrong when society at large generally feels they're wrong", that's normative ethical relativism. If that's the case, I guess in certain societies human sacrifice was perfectly morally acceptable because that felt like the thing to do. In certain societies it must be morally right to stone a woman to death for adultery. In a lot of societies, slavery was totally morally acceptable. None of these societies can be said to be more or less moral than ours, since it's just about what the majority of people therein felt okay with - in order to say that our values are better than a society that felt its moral imperative was to exterminate the jews, there must be some outside standard by which to judge other than "it feels wrong" or "it feels right". So, there's no possibility of moral progress - since it felt right to the Romans to feed Christians to lions, we're in no position to judge simply because it feels wrong to us, and we're no better than they were.

Try again.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

How did you manage to get that from my post. My point is that if the justification is "things are wrong if they feel wrong", how can you say that a psychopath is wrong to kill when it feels right to him?

If, by referring to yourself and the majority of Canadians, you're saying "things are wrong when society at large generally feels they're wrong", that's normative ethical relativism. If that's the case, I guess in certain societies human sacrifice was perfectly morally acceptable because that felt like the thing to do. In certain societies it must be morally right to stone a woman to death for adultery. In a lot of societies, slavery was totally morally acceptable. None of these societies can be said to be more or less moral than ours, since it's just about what the majority of people therein felt okay with - in order to say that our values are better than a society that felt its moral imperative was to exterminate the jews, there must be some outside standard by which to judge other than "it feels wrong" or "it feels right". So, there's no possibility of moral progress - since it felt right to the Romans to feed Christians to lions, we're in no position to judge simply because it feels wrong to us, and we're no better than they were.

Try again.

AR_six, you need to get in touch with your own personal moral compass, and it shouldn't be compared with someone who is insane or who did insane things.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

AR_six, you need to get in touch with your own personal moral compass, and it shouldn't be compared with someone who is insane or who did insane things.

We are not talking about the insane. The insane are found not guilty by reason of insanity and placed in mental health hospitals. You really think a guy who knowingly rapes and kills somebody has the right to life? Why? What good can they possibly offer to society?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

We are not talking about the insane. The insane are found not guilty by reason of insanity and placed in mental health hospitals. You really think a guy who knowingly rapes and kills somebody has the right to life? Why? What good can they possibly offer to society?

Ar was talking about psychopaths.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Ar was talking about psychopaths.

Psychopaths are not insane though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Psychopaths are not insane though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

Yeah, I understand that but in Ar's example

how can you say that a psychopath is wrong to kill when it feels right to him?

they are not dealing with the same moral code as the rest of us so to use them as an argument that their feelings are just as valid as the rest of us, is wrong.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by pylon

Yet you went on record in your former incarnation, and said point blank, and I am not embellishing, "All drug addicts deserve to die." It actually makes ME sick someone can hold such an ignorant attitude.

You have some pretty messed up ideals.

Holy crap, really?

[Azure]

Surprised? Don't be. Puckluck makes hypocritical statements all the time.

[Rudee]

I think people on death row should be used in the film making industry for real authentic movie stunts with may or may not involve actual death.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Azure

Surprised? Don't be. Puckluck makes hypocritical statements all the time.

Confused. Is Puckluck ...Iginla?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by T@T

Confused. Is Puckluck ...Iginla?

Yep.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

AR_six, you need to get in touch with your own personal moral compass, and it shouldn't be compared with someone who is insane or who did insane things.

Yes. It should. I want to be able to compare it to someone who is insane and say that that insane person who did insane things is morally wrong, his actions and beliefs are morally worse than mine. Unless you have some well-expressed reason for saying that your moral compass is better or worse than theirs (or anyone's), you can't.

I don't think you're grasping what I'm saying here. When you say "it feels wrong to me to do X", why should that matter? Say you say capital punishment feels morally wrong to you and Steve says it feels right to him. Why are you right and why is Steve wrong?

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

they are not dealing with the same moral code as the rest of us so to use them as an argument that their feelings are just as valid as the rest of us, is wrong.

Who the hell is the "rest of us"? Some people are going to disagree with you in some circumstances about what the right thing to do is. If you went to Texas, you'd find a lot of people who disagree with you on capital punishment feeling "wrong". How do we resolve that? Are we just going to take a majority vote? Because if so, please re-read the following:

If, by referring to yourself and the majority of Canadians, you're saying "things are wrong when society at large generally feels they're wrong", that's normative ethical relativism. If that's the case, I guess in certain societies human sacrifice was perfectly morally acceptable because that felt like the thing to do. In certain societies it must be morally right to stone a woman to death for adultery. In a lot of societies, slavery was totally morally acceptable. None of these societies can be said to be more or less moral than ours, since it's just about what the majority of people therein felt okay with - in order to say that our values are better than a society that felt its moral imperative was to exterminate the jews, there must be some outside standard by which to judge other than "it feels wrong" or "it feels right". So, there's no possibility of moral progress - since it felt right to the Romans to feed Christians to lions, we're in no position to judge simply because it feels wrong to us, and we're no better than they were.

I don't think you're fully grasping the issue here. I'm not arguing that a psychopath's moral views are as valid as the rest of ours. I'm pointing out to you that your way of looking at moral issues logically results in that conclusion. In other words, YOU are arguing that a psychopath's moral views are just as valid as the rest of ours.

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

What is wrong with me? You think that guy should have the right to live out his life with a tv, a gym to his disposal, and three square meals a day? I bet you would change your tune if you had an 8 year old daughter he had raped and murdered.

I think that jailhouse privileges and capital punishment are two separate arguments to be honest.

Support or condemn capital punishment I think 99% of us would agree that prisoners should lead a tougher life in the big house.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

I think that jailhouse privileges and capital punishment are two separate arguments to be honest.

Support or condemn capital punishment I think 99% of us would agree that prisoners should lead a tougher life in the big house.

There is actually a real belief that in the US there is 'institutionalized rape' - the guards allow the use of rape to occur to manage the ongoings within the prison.

Although I am clearly an idiot since I support capital punishment, what does everyone think about the conditions within the prison? What are the moral implications surrounding prison rape, or simply jail conditions? Is simply locking someone up for years and years in such an environment not unethical? I certainly did not study any form of philosophy, but I would imagine this subject has certainly had much debate.

Although I support capital punishment, I do not think rape should be tolerated, but the experience of jail should be one of either rehabilitation (can the person improve before release?) or simply removing them from society (either lock up forever or execution). If they are removed from society, how far should we go to make the stay enjoyable versus terrible? Is simple punishment even reasonable?

There are many documentaries on prison rape, here is the simple wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_..._United_States

[valo403]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I can't believe you fall for that crap, they don't execute you any more unless the evidence clearly shows you are the guilty party. Prison's are jam packed with "innocent" people and they will claim that right up to the day they die no matter how guilty they are. Probably many of them have been claiming it for so long they have themselves convinced they actually are innocent. I think if the DNA is there and the evidence is concrete then capital punishment is the way to go. None of this paying taxes out of our asses so we can house and feed some piece of crap like Michael Rafferty and give him a right to life. Screw him, he has forfeited his right to life imo.

You have to be really, really, really, really stupid to believe this.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I can't believe you fall for that crap, they don't execute you any more unless the evidence clearly shows you are the guilty party.

• In the last 30 years 132 inmates on death row were freed because of new evidence
• Since 1989 no less than 10 convicts were cleared after execution
• Troy Davis executed just last year was quite likely innocent.

It's complete crap to think that people can't be wrongfully charged and convicted of brutal crimes. Bad cops planting evidence,witnesses being told what they saw,prosecutors wanting a conviction no matter what...etc.

DNA analysis is a great tool to get people out of jail but put into the wrong hands it can convict you of a crime you didn't do as well.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

Who the hell is the "rest of us"? Some people are going to disagree with you in some circumstances about what the right thing to do is. If you went to Texas, you'd find a lot of people who disagree with you on capital punishment feeling "wrong". How do we resolve that? Are we just going to take a majority vote? Because if so, please re-read the following:

I don't think you're fully grasping the issue here. I'm not arguing that a psychopath's moral views are as valid as the rest of ours. I'm pointing out to you that your way of looking at moral issues logically results in that conclusion. In other words, YOU are arguing that a psychopath's moral views are just as valid as the rest of ours.

I think we live in different worlds. I try to follow the golden rule because I feel it is right. You can have a philosophical discussion with someone else, I don't believe in philosophy.