At 8/19/08 02:42 AM, jew193 wrote:
At 8/19/08 02:20 AM, Fremen wrote:
Well, the idea is that they are wasting resources. Why feed prisoners when you can use that food for citizens that contribute to society? That's what I mean.Ok, but then my argument works as well. If more money is saved by putting someone in prison for life instead of getting the death penalty, then the money saved could be used for more useful things, like alternative energy research and such.
I'm saying that PHILOSOPHICALLY, if there was a death penalty, it would have to be different than the ones in the US today. If there was an efficient way, or no appeals system, it would be MORALLY JUSTIFIED to kill someone. Saving resources is just icing on the cake.
Did you read my post? We are not discussing practicality, economics, law, or anything else like that. Philosophy does not deal in pragmatics.
All of their resources, like guards, doctors, therapists, they can all be minimized if the death penalty is allowed and that would be good for society.But the fact that the death penalty costs more makes that a moot point.
..ugh...read above. We are not arguing for the death penalty or not. We are arguing if it is JUSTIFIED from a philosophical perspective.
1) Living isn't something that someone can lose the "right" to. Since then, I think civil rights and things like that won't be the same if we start using phrases like that.Ok, so if they are to be cut off, how would that be different from leaving them stranded on an island, left to fend for themselves? (yes I realize that this would be marked in the unusual category, but for argument's sake)
2) Everyone DESERVES to live. That is why they are here on this earth. I'm simply saying that if the person is dead weight to society, then they can be cut off. Talking about rights and what people deserve is too subjective and emotional. I'd like to take a more objective view on this kind of thing.
It wouldn't be. And that's what I'm saying. Prisoners now only take from society and give nothing. That is what I mean by cut-off. If you want to strand them on an island, then by all means go ahead, it would have the same effect as the death penalty.
The reason I brought up that point was to point out that the death penalty reduces stress on a society, not only economically, but criminally too. Criminals would be scared of dying and not only that, but people would feel safer in general. And if there is one thing I learned in AP US History this helps the economy so much. The way people feel is the way that the Economy will go.
Also, since I feel like bringing this up, since the US constitution forbids "cruel and unusual punishment" how can we determine that death by injection is neither cruel or unusual? Obviously somebody can't try it and then inform other's it the injection hurts. So... (I;m not choosing a side here, just bringing it up)
Well, that is the clause that forbids torture or some "interrogation" techniques. The diction used might seem a bit off since we have slightly different terms today, but when they say cruel or unusual, they don't mean death. Surely many prisoners died in the unreformed prison system of Early America. Prisons back then were basically hell holes with no funding and almost no burden on society, much different than the prisons today.