The Official Religious/Political Debate Thread (country, Tool, effect, member)

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

Haha, just because I believe in one President doesn't make me a Republican. I don't wanna get this whole thread off topic, but there have been many times I've gone against him, such as his first selection for the Supreme Court, who you said roughly you thought she was intelligent, etc when I said it was a bad choice on his side and no way she would get through (what happened?). Obviously the way I was raised and such have affected my political views, but in all times I try to step back look at the situation and make a intellectual choice based off my own feelings. You saying "I expected that...." is the same as me going "I expected you to say no to it since you're such a liberal".

On to the death penalty, I do think it's complete **** for someone to kill another person and then let them be able to sit in a jail for the rest of his life having his living area, food, etc, paid for by all the taxpayers while he does nothing. Honestly I've got an "eye for an eye" mentallity when it comes to murdering someone. There is no equal punishment for someone killing someone, so the only think logical is to do the same thing back to them. But I do believe it is extreme to have the death penalty applied to drug trafficing cases.

I'm pretty much an eye for an eye person as well, but I stiil think the death penalty for drug trafficking is fair because sooner or later that sh*t will probably end up killing someone.

[jibber]

Originally Posted by cheeseman

I'm pretty much an eye for an eye person as well, but I stiil think the death penalty for drug trafficking is fair because sooner or later that sh*t will probably end up killing someone.

"sooner or later that sh*t wll probably end up killing someone"? that's the most rediculous thing i've ever heard. why dont you take it a step further. a 17 year old kid caught dealing weed to a few kids in his high school. statistics say it's quite possible that he'll end up dealing harder drugs, which by your logic, means he'll likely end up killing someone down the line. hey, why dont we just kill off all convicted drug dealers, no matter the drug in question on the amount, just to save ourselves the possibility that it could get worse. You can't sentence someone to death because they MIGHT kill someone later on down the road. I do disagree with the death penalty, but there are times when i almost want to rethink my stance. the parole system is a f*cking joke, in canada as well as in the united states. in some cases, a rapist has gotten a sentence of 25 years to life in prison. There should be no or in a situation like rape or murder. you rape someone, or you kill someone, you rot in prison until you die, end of story. you should be given just enough food and medical attention to keep you healthy, but no extras whatsoever.

[IamAlejo]

Originally Posted by adidasss

that's very naive, church and religion, christianity in particular, have a lot to do with how your country is run. from the death penalty to abortion and gay marriages. and the Church is very much separated from the state here in Sibiria ( a synonim for the-middle-of-nowhere ). i know you'd like to believe that america is superdeveloped as far as human rights are concerned, but recent events aswell as some a bit more in the past say otherwise. the death penalty being one of the more clearer signs of your backwardness.....

It's not naive at all, if the law intertwines Church and State (even though it may be there) it DOES make that law unconstitutional here.

And how can it be "backwardness" if it isn't anything new. If anything it would be called staying the same. You'd realize that our country has been much slower with dealing out death penalties because of people holding out for DNA testing, etc.

And please quit pretending like you know what I think. You look like a tool every time you say "I know you think this" or "I knew you would say that". You really don't. Thanks.

[IamAlejo]

Originally Posted by right-track

My opinion varies depending on the crime, as to whether or not the death penalty is an appropriate punishment.

Drug trafficking - no.
Murder - no.
Terrorism - no.
Child killers - yes.

However, to execute 10 child killers would never compensate for taking the life of one innocent man.
Even with DNA a guilty verdict has proved to be a wrong verdict.

What's the difference in a person killing a child and a person killing an adult? How do you put a limitation on what a "child" is? You're basically saying that a child's life is more valuable than an adult? This one doesn't make sense to me.

[jibber]

Originally Posted by EDGE

If you're going to have someone in prison for the rest of their life, what's the point in having them alive? If theire going to kill someone and be put in jail for that, wouldn't you agree that it's not equivilant to being put into jail for stealing? Or think about this; One man killed one other man. One other man killed 10 other men. Without the death penalty as an option, they would both, most likely be put into prison for the rest of their lives, as if the man who killed 10 men did the same/something very similar to the other man who only killed one man.

yes, a person who killed one person should be punished in the exact same way as someone who killed many. There should be no distinction when it comes to taking the life of another human being. Are you saying that by killing "only one man", that person maybe just made a mistake, and we should just tell ourselves, well he only killed one person, everyone slips up. f*ck n., we don't need the death penatly to perpetrate murderers more effectively, what we need is a legal system that doesnt have the option fo parole for some crimes, such as murder or rape. I don't care if that person's "learned the error of his ways" and wants to be integrated back into the world to become a productive member of society. You commit a crime of that magnitude, the automatic sentence should be life in prison, no ifs ands or buts.

[IamAlejo]

Originally Posted by jibber

yes, a person who killed one person should be punished in the exact same way as someone who killed many. There should be no distinction when it comes to taking the life of another human being. Are you saying that by killing "only one man", that person maybe just made a mistake, and we should just tell ourselves, well he only killed one person, everyone slips up. f*ck n., we don't need the death penatly to perpetrate murderers more effectively, what we need is a legal system that doesnt have the option fo parole for some crimes, such as murder or rape. I don't care if that person's "learned the error of his ways" and wants to be integrated back into the world to become a productive member of society. You commit a crime of that magnitude, the automatic sentence should be life in prison, no ifs ands or buts.

That's basically how the distinction is now. A man who murders someone now can get as little as 20 years (even fewer if there are circumstances). Multiple murderers are either put to death or in states that don't have the death penalty than they are put to life without parole.

[Merkaba]

Originally Posted by jibber

yes, a person who killed one person should be punished in the exact same way as someone who killed many. There should be no distinction when it comes to taking the life of another human being. Are you saying that by killing "only one man", that person maybe just made a mistake, and we should just tell ourselves, well he only killed one person, everyone slips up. f*ck n., we don't need the death penatly to perpetrate murderers more effectively, what we need is a legal system that doesnt have the option fo parole for some crimes, such as murder or rape. I don't care if that person's "learned the error of his ways" and wants to be integrated back into the world to become a productive member of society. You commit a crime of that magnitude, the automatic sentence should be life in prison, no ifs ands or buts.

Thats a good point. The murderer should only be allowed to be set free when his victim comes back to life. Fair trade. But it won't happen, so the person should swallow what he deals. I always wondered why we have such weak legal systems and then have such extremist legal systems.

Over here about a month back a guy beat a truck driver with a hammer. The truckie didn't die but was pretty banged up. All he got was 5 years. And it was said he did it because he was emotionally upset and the truck driver had apparently tried to run him off the road earlier on. No matter how upset you are, you shouldn't be able to bash a guy with a hammer and only recieve 5 years. The driver could have died, and the sentence would have only gone up another five years. It's pathetic how the system allows people to have second chances while the dead can't come back to life.

[adidasss]

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

It's not naive at all, if the law intertwines Church and State (even though it may be there) it DOES make that law unconstitutional here.

And how can it be "backwardness" if it isn't anything new. If anything it would be called staying the same. You'd realize that our country has been much slower with dealing out death penalties because of people holding out for DNA testing, etc.

And please quit pretending like you know what I think. You look like a tool every time you say "I know you think this" or "I knew you would say that". You really don't. Thanks.

what the fuck?! first of all , i was speaking of the various lobbies that make or brake the laws in your country and those lobbies are very much of the christian variety. second, it can be called backwardness if the rest of the world ( or should i say Europe, which has always lead the way and aparently it always will as far as human rights are concerned ) has moved on and declared the death penalty to be inhumane and barbaric. thirdly, i have every right to say " i knew you were gonna say that " because i really did know, and i wouldn't have the need to say that if your views and thoughts weren't so goddamn conservatively predictable!

Originally Posted by jibber

yes, a person who killed one person should be punished in the exact same way as someone who killed many. There should be no distinction when it comes to taking the life of another human being. Are you saying that by killing "only one man", that person maybe just made a mistake, and we should just tell ourselves, well he only killed one person, everyone slips up. f*ck n., we don't need the death penatly to perpetrate murderers more effectively, what we need is a legal system that doesnt have the option fo parole for some crimes, such as murder or rape. I don't care if that person's "learned the error of his ways" and wants to be integrated back into the world to become a productive member of society. You commit a crime of that magnitude, the automatic sentence should be life in prison, no ifs ands or buts.

i don't think that's a good viewpoint. i am of the opinion that sometimes there are extenuating circumstances, and if a person commited murder ( and i by no means equate murder with rape, which to me is a far lesser crime, serious yes, but not to be put in the same basket as murder ) in the heat of passion, he should have the posibility to repent and after having served his debt to society, to go free and try to live a normal life....studies have shown that very few people recommit murder after having served their full sentance.....

[jibber]

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

That's basically how the distinction is now. A man who murders someone now can get as little as 20 years (even fewer if there are circumstances). Multiple murderers are either put to death or in states that don't have the death penalty than they are put to life without parole.

thats what the problem is. instead of having a death penalty, we need to reform the parole system so it's not such a f*cking joke. and i'm talking about canada as well as the US, even though we dont have the death penalty, the parole system is just as bad, if not worse, over here than it is there.

[IamAlejo]

Originally Posted by adidasss

what the fuck?! first of all , i was speaking of the various lobbies that make or brake the laws in your country and those lobbies are very much of the christian variety. second, it can be called backwardness if the rest of the world ( or should i say Europe, which has always lead the way and aparently it always will as far as human rights are concerned ) has moved on and declared the death penalty to be inhumane and barbaric. thirdly, i have every right to say " i knew you were gonna say that " because i really did know, and i wouldn't have the need to say that if your views and thoughts weren't so goddamn conservatively predictable!

In my country there has been multiple Supreme Court decisions that have continued to seperate the Church from the State. The Supreme Court...aka the supreme law of the land.

And no, not really. Honestly they aren't predictable because they don't just follow the same party every time. It just makes you look like a tool to try and take a cheap shot in a thread that has little to do with different politcal parties and just our opinion on a topic.