A topic of interest that always elicits PC answers in public.

Is it really wrong to kill bad people?

You mean, like, capitol punishment? I say, no. I mean, what lesson will they learn if you kill them? No, I say we should torture them instead. Learn them to regret their actions.

But only as an alternative to capitol punishment.

EDIT: I mean, yes, I do find it wrong.

IMO, no.

yes its a person still. If you actually worship christ then its wrong as hell to kill anyone period. I know there are certain circumstances that prevents you to uphold that but killing a bad person is still wrong.

No... and for a simple reason. They are a danger to themselves and others. If a person is convicted, it's because they need to be delt with before something horrible happens.

I wouldn't want to be the judge who didn't sentance a man who turns around and slaughters innocent people.

But, I do however, disagree with the form of euthanization outside of lethal injection... seeing as it's just like passing out before a major surgery. Litterally no pain at all.

And just for argument's sake, I dissagree with Agent on the whole "If you actually worship christ then its wrong as hell to kill anyone period" thing. If that is honestly true, then there would be no acceptions. Law in the Bible does not have accptions or alterations. So those "certain circumstances" you talk about would be meer excuses to justify your killing... IF you think that it's 100% "wrong as hell". Reguardless if that killing is fighting for your country and whatnot.

Besides, it's in the Bible to uphold the laws of the land (and the law's of the Lord). And seeing as capital punishment has been around since before the time of Christ... you can't say that we've made alterations since then. In fact, euthanization has become more humane since then.

Death doesn't give them a chance to turn around, though. It's "you made a mistake, too bad, you're doomed". I'm not saying they should be released on peroll or something. Yes, I know some people think we shouldn't be wasting money on people who are spending life in prision, but I still think it'd be better if we tortured them. Teach them a lesson they'll never forget. If they wind up learning a lesson, good. If they still are the type of person who will turn around and do something like that again despite how horrid their punishment was, well they're stuck in prison, anyway.

Dude... torture would make some people all the more bitter. And besides, I think it's more wrong to continuously tourture someone than to painlessly euthanize them. A side note would be less money on the tax payer's expense... and while I hate to throw money into a topic of life and death, it's just the way the world works. Sad, but true.

Besides, who would determine if a convict was tourtured enough to be let back into society... it would be retarded to torture them only for them to stay in prison the rest of their life.

First of all, what do you mean by "bad" and more importantly, how do you KNOW they are bad? (I emphasize the word "KNOW" again and again and again).

Having said that, if say you somehow KNOW someone actually committed a crime, and you want to eliminate the possibility of the crime from reoccurring, one EFFECTIVE way is to KILL the criminal.

But if you kill the criminal, then there is no REASON to torture him/her because you will be eliminating the threat.

If you still decide to TORTURE him/her then you are obviously motivated by feelings of pleasure in seeing someone SUFFER.

Some might properly call this unnecessary extra step of invoking suffering as “BADâ€

I was under the assumption that bad = convicted murder felons and such.

Not all people who are convicted are guilty of that crime.

And I'm sure you are the one to prove that, right?

Besides, my guess is that the majority of wrongly accused cases are minor.

Bo, was the extra emphisis in every sentence really neccessary?

Does it need to be necessary for it to be useful?

Yes, it is wrong, and no, it's not wrong.

Like Bo said, it all depends on what you define by 'bad' and how can you prove that someone did what in your concept would classify them as 'bad'.

And the, only then, you have to wonder whether you'll kill the person or not.

Capital punishment is morally wrong, as all killing is morally wrong, but absolutly necissary. Other than the reasons already stated, it is a burden on a society to care for someone who is undeserving of that care.
You could argue that deciding who deserves care is opinoinative and you would be right. That is why we elect people into such positions to represent ourselves and to make these decisions. "Bad People" are costing taxpayers time, money and space. Space is such an issue that many lawers are able to get convicted murderers lightened sentences and even paroll.
This happened in my family. My aunt and her 11 year old daughter were abducted, raped and killed. The man responsible got only 30 years prison so long as he also pleads guilty to two seperate rapes. My aunts 8 year old son and 5 month old baby have no mother and no sister. And the guilty will be freed.

Capital Punishment is not NECESSARY. Now maybe there is no reason NOT to have capital punishment, but that alone by default does not make it automatically 'absolutely necessary.'

Many people can’t stomach the idea of paying for ‘bad’ people to go on living especially when the victims are dead. OK, fine. But the burden of paying for these people to live, although reprehensible to many, is still an OPTION. Therefore capital punishment is not “necessaryâ€

The economics is more important for society. Our taxes go into that sort of thing. The more people you have stay in prison for a longer period of time, you have to do something right? Money doesn't appear out of nowhere, thus taxes can be bumped slightly. You don't get "donations" for prisons, you know. Eventually it'll be an economic strain on many people (a lot of middle classers in the United States). From an economic standpoint, it's a better idea for execution in the more severe cases (serial killing, for example).

I think CP should be based on the severity of the crime, and how often it has occurred if the person had not been caught before. If it's petty sh*t like stealing, then jail time is it, really. If they're running a terrorist op, then yeah, get rid of them. It's a matter of weighing the severity of the crime. I'm not too in favor or killing people, but when it becomes a societal problem, then it is necessary, IMO.

As for guilt or innocence, forensic evidence isn't always obtained and whoever is convicted (if there is enough probable cause or whatever) will be in jail unless proven otherwise. The enforcement of the law is not always correct, but it does it's job.

Bah, "having to pay for them living in prison" is a dumb reason for capitol punishment. If I have to pay a little bit of tax to keep that murderer in prison for life without chance of peroll, it's worth it. Yes, flat-out killing him is just as effective and cheaper, but I still stand by the idea that it doesn't give the guy enough of a chance to come to regret what he's done.

@Kratos Aurion
Your opinion that it is 'necessary' is not supported by your comments. You make the argument why it is unduly burdensome and unfair not to have captial punishment, but not why you absoultely have no other alternative than to have captial punishment, which is actully what the word 'necessary' means.

The reason that this is scrutiny of the word ‘necessary’ is significant is better exemplified by the post that I respond to above yours by in5ult080t.

The post I quoted said that it was 'morally wrong' to kill.

If someone has the opinion that it is 'morally wrong' to kill, then the only justification to actually do it is to maintain that it is 'necessary." I want to argue that many individuals do not get to enjoy this luxury.

Instead, they need to confront that either they support (from their point of view) something that is morally wrong (capital punishment) even when there are actual (albeit unfavorable) alternatives,

or

recognize that in actuality they are unwilling to support it (capital punishment).



@Draygone
Don’t you see that your goal to get this guy to feel regret is fueled and justified by the same type of negative emotion common to criminals who do the very harm that you are so much against based on their negative emotions? In other words both of you and the criminal are responding naturally but the criminal is commiting criminal acts (while you are not) because either the criminal does not have a support system or belief system to counter this natural aggression or lack of empathy and/or because these negative emotions have been reinforced in this criminal as a good thing so much to the point that he thinks his/her treatment of others is just fine.

BO you are scrutinizing a word that we use and back by facts that we personally feel are strong enough to use that word. I think its too much a distraction and off topic.
But I may be speaking for people out of turn and for that I appologize.
I don't care about the word as much as the message and I think my message was clear.
It is not wrong in MY opinion to enforce capital punishment.