No way! Innocent bystanders would be harmed!

Death Penalty is ok as long as Beckham is going to shoot Ok that was terrible!

Edited by Burseg at 04:45 on July, 09th 2004

Just wanted to make sure this thread doesn't stand out as an epitome of my stupidity - there's enough evidence of that already

I had no clue.

Just for the record: Everything I said in this thread of course isn't my opinion. I just figured that there wouldn't be anyone arguing in favour of death penalty, so I decided to spice the discussion up a little

Not if you just kill them.

In fact, several "RAF members" were killed by the German police. The threat was not only a feeling, it was real. --> http://www.rafinfo.de/opfer.php

There is a police law in most German states that allows the killing of people by a so called "final rescue shot" ("finaler Rettungsschuss").


Actually the money is spent for egoistic and not for humanistic reasons. If the society did nothing (spend no money), the personal danger would be even higher. It's in the "lawful people's" interest to minimize their danger. In the end, spending money on criminals is cheaper than doing nothing.

RAF: Actually, it did happen that representatives of the German government (policemen) offensively threatened the lives of members of the RAF. One of these 'terrorists' was hunted down and executed in the early 90s in Bad Kleinen for example.

Exiling criminals: Reading just your first paragraph, I was going to ask 'where to', since sending criminals to another country hardly seems fair Then I read further - this is indeed the stuff bad, bad movies are made of. Seriously: forcing all kinds of criminals together in one place (prison) is already the worst thing to do right now, your idea would take this to even higher extremes.

Rehabilitation: That's, again, the same as mentioned before: Why should the money of lawful, good people be spent on chaotic, evil people? Why should people who broke rules (laws) get extra attention/care while normal people are screwed? That hardly seems fair to me.

On the RAF-bit: that is not what I meant. There is a difference between feeling threathened and being threathened. I meant that if someone attacks you physicly and directly (maybe with the aid of some weapons or whatever) with the intent to kill you, it is your basic right to defend yourself and if this results in you killing the aggressor, in my opinion you've done no wrong and shouldn't feel a tad remorse for his loss of life.

I doubt very much that the german government ever actually attacked the RAF (except in WW2 but that's a different RAF anyway so not really relevant) so the RAF had no right to go after the government-representatives. In my opinion, if any representative killed and RAF-member in a battle where the terrorist attacked the rep, he was fully within his right to do so.

The only subjective part is the "intent to kill" which you can never be 100% sure of but you generally get a pretty good bearing on that. If they are shooting at you, it ain't 'cause they wan't to come around for tea But in my book this is a right that solely plays on an individual level.

A state should never ever take a human life as we invented the state and who's to say we got it right? (I'm actually pretty sure we got it really wrong, democracy just doesn't work but neither do any of the current alternatives except one but it has some inherent flaws too which cannot be solved easily so democracy is the lesser of all evils state-wise). The only thing the state may do is set up a bunch of rules (laws) and demand that anyone who wants to be part of this state adheres to them and thusly benefits from whatever pro's the state might have. If someone chooses not to be part of this state (like Creo said, by breaking the rules) he also loses any benefits previously given to him (social welfare, healthcare, ...) and if the state finds that this person is too much of a problem ('cause he goes around killing a bunch of people for instance) they should exile him. If he then later shows remorse over his actions and wishes to become a part of the state again, then the state could give him a rehabilitation-program in a specialised centre in case he needs medical/psychological help and in the case that he is perfectly fine, he can pay his debt to society by doing community-service (under strict controll off course, else he could just go on another murdering rampage). Imprisonment as it is now only creates more and thougher criminals in my opinion.

I know banishment isn't easy to enforce 'cause you can hardly guard every square inch of border your country has to prevent em getting back in. Maybe it should become a global project to create an island in the middle of some ocean somewhere where we could send all our convicts (after they've been nuetered (sp?) to prevent them from breeding, after all, any children which they might produce would be stuck there too whilst they never did anything wrong) to live in the wild with other outside aid. Nato should impose a strict no-fly zone above it to prevent third parties from contacting and helping the convicts. And in case any of em want to rehabilitate, they can contact the drop-off ship which comes around about once a month or so. Off course, any attempt to leave the island should be intercepted and put back. I know all this sounds a lot like a bad movie but that is the fairest thing to do imo. That way you do not restrict any of their basic rights (namely to live and to move about freely) and society is nolonger burdened by their dissident behaviour...

Here's another point: If someone committed murder for example, the relatives and acquaintaces of the victim have to have adaequate revenge as compensation. Only executing the murderer can provide that.

The difference is that most societies consider life to be more important than freedom. I agree with that, because life is a precondition for physical freedom.

Edit:

That's true, but if someone was innocent in prison for 30 years, you can't reverse that either...

Edited by Tapuak at 15:42 on June, 24th 2004

there is another good reason to abolish it-it's kinda irreversible!

The rule itself doesn't become invalid because someone breaks it, and that's exactly my point. How is decent society supposed to deal with people who don't accept the rules otherwise? Locking them away? That's taking away their basic rights (freedom), too. Where's the difference?

Well, if one person breaks a rule, the rule doesn't become generally invalid because of that. As long as the people of the society are convinced that life is the highest value, the rule will persist, and it will apply to the one who broke the rule, too.

Sure: There are rules set by decent society; e.g. you shouldn't steal. If someone consciously decides to ignore and break these rules, he/she apparantely thinks they're not valid for him/her. If the restrictions (not stealing, not killing,...) aren't valid for someone, though, why should the rights (not being killed) be?

Good morning!


Hmmm... Could you clarify that with an example?

All life is basically equal, of course, but as soon as someone put him- or herself outside of this rule, he/she shouldn't complain if the proper and legitimate authorities react accordingly.

That only applies if you make a difference between the "qualities" of life. As no one can objectively judge which life is "better" or "worse", there is no life that is more valuable than others.

Once you officially define what a "good" life is, it will result in the stigmatization and, in the worst case, killing of the people who don't fulfill the standards of a "good" life. ("lebensunwertes Leben")

I'm against the death penalty, but I can imagine an extreme case, in which the criminal being left alive only puts new victims at risk, for instance a serial killer that managed to escape from prison three times already and started killing again every single time. But even then, however "evil" that person may be, he/she's still human.

If the money to preserve this kind of life would be spent on different things, it might save more worthy life, so there is still no contradiction there.

Edited by Mr Creosote at 20:41 on June, 22nd 2004