30 replies to this topic

[abolitionist]

There are many more critical legal choices which cause death. Please feel free to discuss them below as well as your reasoning for poll choice selections.

[Shannon Vyff]

There are too many errors with the death penalty right now, people being killed who are innocent--I'm more for rehabilitation, or letting the person work a period of time, anyway.

Of course, I think Cryonics should be the societal norm, instead of embalming, or cremation, and adequately supported.

I also feel that police have the ability to use non-lethal weapons that can completely knock a person out, now. If these weapons could be developed and used in all cases, such as when a hostage is being held and normally a sniper would be called in--then the deaths caused by police would be drastically reduced.

[Cyberbrain]

How can anyone say no to all three and consider themselves pro-choice or an immortalist?

[niner]

How can anyone say no to all three and consider themselves pro-choice or an immortalist?

How can anyone be pro death penalty in the modern world?

I don't think we can afford to give everyone free cryonics. Maybe in a future when we are a lot richer...

Police should use non-lethal weaponry assuming they can defend themselves with it. I see little technological reason why this couldn't work. One problem with it is they would use it more often than a lethal weapon, and might end up injuring or killing someone with it.

[lunarsolarpower]

Provided studies showing a better safety record, I'd like to see police using shooting nets over tasers.

Just imagine "Don't net me bro!"

Here you can buy your own

Also as a warning, don't do a quick edit when you've embedded a video clip - it will get erased from your post.

Edited by lunarsolarpower, 23 March 2008 - 09:56 AM.

[abolitionist]

For those that don't think that cryonic preservation should be a guaranteed option for all who wish it - what criteria should be used to determine who qualifies? I think a better question would have been - "should we work towards providing cryonic preservation for all who wish it?"

In what cases should police use lethal force?

Given that 5-10% of all convictions are factually innocent - how do we justify the death penalty - as a deterrent?

Edited by abolitionist, 23 March 2008 - 10:29 AM.

[forever freedom]

1 - Should we eliminate the death penalty?

I think that instead of death penalty, the person should be sentenced to life in prison. And, a crucial thing is that all prisons should be self sufficient, that is, the expenses of each inmate should be covered by the value created in his work inside the prison.



2 - Should cryonic preservation be guaranteed for all who wish it?

Ideally yes. But i voted no basing myself in the fact that it's currently impossible to do so. It would bankrupt an entire country. But in the future, if it was economically viable, i would think that yes, it should be guaranteed to all citizens.



3 - Should police only use non-lethal weaponry?

Definitely not. At least not here in Brazil. Being killed in action is, i think, one of the biggest fears of criminals, one that should make them think twice before doing crime. Here, minor criminals barely stay in prison because it's overcrowded. They are locked up and soon released, if their crime is "minor" (not killing or not stealing major quantities of money or other valuable stuff) they will soon be released.

Alone police officers, even in police's clothes and armed, get robbed sometimes, usually when walking on the street. It really happens. Things are really ugly, and the fear of being shot by a drugged robber is very real among the population. Someone here should organize an extermination team and wipe out the criminals. And i'm definitely sure they would become idols among the population. With non lethal weapons only for the police, things would get soooo out of control here (not that they aren't already) that i would do dare to imagine the picture.

[Grimm]

No, no, and no.

[cyborgdreamer]

I voted yes to all three. It's bad enough that society can't (yet?) prevent all involuntary deaths: it shouldn't be allowed to cause any. However, I might make an exception if there were significant evidence that lethal weapons and the death penalty prevented more deaths than they cause. Though, even then, we should continue looking for better solutions.

[bacopa]

I voted no on all three

[Grimm]

Thought I should add some reasoning besides just no.

1. The Death Penalty can be a deterrence, some people deserve it, gets rid of scum bags once and for all.
2. Too expensive. I'm not paying my tax money so we can freeze a bunch of sick people.
3. The deterrence factor of police goes way down without guns. It would make police officer's jobs more dangerous, and more dangerous for everyday people.

[JediMasterLucia]

I voted 'yes' on all three

There are too many errors with the death penalty right now, people being killed who are innocent--I'm more for rehabilitation, or letting the person work a period of time, anyway.

that's why I am against the death penalty

yes, cryonics should be available for everyone who wants it.

It's bad enough that society can't (yet?) prevent all involuntary deaths: it shouldn't be allowed to cause any. However, I might make an exception if there were significant evidence that lethal weapons and the death penalty prevented more deaths than they cause. Though, even then, we should continue looking for better solutions.

I agree

[abolitionist]

1 - Should we eliminate the death penalty?

I think that instead of death penalty, the person should be sentenced to life in prison. And, a crucial thing is that all prisons should be self sufficient, that is, the expenses of each inmate should be covered by the value created in his work inside the prison.

2 - Should cryonic preservation be guaranteed for all who wish it?

Ideally yes. But i voted no basing myself in the fact that it's currently impossible to do so. It would bankrupt an entire country. But in the future, if it was economically viable, i would think that yes, it should be guaranteed to all citizens.

3 - Should police only use non-lethal weaponry?

Definitely not. At least not here in Brazil. Being killed in action is, i think, one of the biggest fears of criminals, one that should make them think twice before doing crime. Here, minor criminals barely stay in prison because it's overcrowded. They are locked up and soon released, if their crime is "minor" (not killing or not stealing major quantities of money or other valuable stuff) they will soon be released.

Alone police officers, even in police's clothes and armed, get robbed sometimes, usually when walking on the street. It really happens. Things are really ugly, and the fear of being shot by a drugged robber is very real among the population. Someone here should organize an extermination team and wipe out the criminals. And i'm definitely sure they would become idols among the population. With non lethal weapons only for the police, things would get soooo out of control here (not that they aren't already) that i would do dare to imagine the picture.

1. I agree that we should focus on rehabilitation and getting some use out of criminals rather than killing them - it's better for everyone.

2. That's true it would bankrupt us - I think we should work towards that goal. Fortunately many bioluddites want to die off anyways ;-)

3. Yes ineffective non-lethal weaponry would be a mistake - I do think we can find better methods than using lethal force. Killing is a waste and not really a good deterent - escalates violence. We can put criminals to good use and rehabilitate them using them as examples.

It's not that criminals are proven to have worse genes and that killing them off would be good for the gene pool - society is responsible for creating them (both through sloppy breeding laws and through bad environmental factors). To kill off people we create is bad for morale and reinforces religious thinking.

Edited by abolitionist, 28 March 2008 - 01:12 AM.

[forever freedom]

1 - Should we eliminate the death penalty?

I think that instead of death penalty, the person should be sentenced to life in prison. And, a crucial thing is that all prisons should be self sufficient, that is, the expenses of each inmate should be covered by the value created in his work inside the prison.

2 - Should cryonic preservation be guaranteed for all who wish it?

Ideally yes. But i voted no basing myself in the fact that it's currently impossible to do so. It would bankrupt an entire country. But in the future, if it was economically viable, i would think that yes, it should be guaranteed to all citizens.

3 - Should police only use non-lethal weaponry?

Definitely not. At least not here in Brazil. Being killed in action is, i think, one of the biggest fears of criminals, one that should make them think twice before doing crime. Here, minor criminals barely stay in prison because it's overcrowded. They are locked up and soon released, if their crime is "minor" (not killing or not stealing major quantities of money or other valuable stuff) they will soon be released.

Alone police officers, even in police's clothes and armed, get robbed sometimes, usually when walking on the street. It really happens. Things are really ugly, and the fear of being shot by a drugged robber is very real among the population. Someone here should organize an extermination team and wipe out the criminals. And i'm definitely sure they would become idols among the population. With non lethal weapons only for the police, things would get soooo out of control here (not that they aren't already) that i would do dare to imagine the picture.

1. I agree that we should focus on rehabilitation and getting some use out of criminals rather than killing them - it's better for everyone.

2. That's true it would bankrupt us - I think we should work towards that goal. Fortunately many bioluddites want to die off anyways ;-)

3. Yes ineffective non-lethal weaponry would be a mistake - I do think we can find better methods than using lethal force. Killing is a waste and not really a good deterent - escalates violence. We can put criminals to good use and rehabilitate them using them as examples.

It's not that criminals are proven to have worse genes and that killing them off would be good for the gene pool - society is responsible for creating them (both through sloppy breeding laws and through bad environmental factors). To kill off people we create is bad for morale and reinforces religious thinking.

You're probably right, but still, exterminating criminals would alleviate my anger a bit Maybe the ones who robbed me (i've already been robbed twice one of these times with a gun pointed at me) would get exterminated too and that would be nice.

[abolitionist]

1 - Should we eliminate the death penalty?

I think that instead of death penalty, the person should be sentenced to life in prison. And, a crucial thing is that all prisons should be self sufficient, that is, the expenses of each inmate should be covered by the value created in his work inside the prison.

2 - Should cryonic preservation be guaranteed for all who wish it?

Ideally yes. But i voted no basing myself in the fact that it's currently impossible to do so. It would bankrupt an entire country. But in the future, if it was economically viable, i would think that yes, it should be guaranteed to all citizens.

3 - Should police only use non-lethal weaponry?

Definitely not. At least not here in Brazil. Being killed in action is, i think, one of the biggest fears of criminals, one that should make them think twice before doing crime. Here, minor criminals barely stay in prison because it's overcrowded. They are locked up and soon released, if their crime is "minor" (not killing or not stealing major quantities of money or other valuable stuff) they will soon be released.

Alone police officers, even in police's clothes and armed, get robbed sometimes, usually when walking on the street. It really happens. Things are really ugly, and the fear of being shot by a drugged robber is very real among the population. Someone here should organize an extermination team and wipe out the criminals. And i'm definitely sure they would become idols among the population. With non lethal weapons only for the police, things would get soooo out of control here (not that they aren't already) that i would do dare to imagine the picture.

1. I agree that we should focus on rehabilitation and getting some use out of criminals rather than killing them - it's better for everyone.

2. That's true it would bankrupt us - I think we should work towards that goal. Fortunately many bioluddites want to die off anyways ;-)

3. Yes ineffective non-lethal weaponry would be a mistake - I do think we can find better methods than using lethal force. Killing is a waste and not really a good deterent - escalates violence. We can put criminals to good use and rehabilitate them using them as examples.

It's not that criminals are proven to have worse genes and that killing them off would be good for the gene pool - society is responsible for creating them (both through sloppy breeding laws and through bad environmental factors). To kill off people we create is bad for morale and reinforces religious thinking.

You're probably right, but still, exterminating criminals would alleviate my anger a bit Maybe the ones who robbed me (i've already been robbed twice one of these times with a gun pointed at me) would get exterminated too and that would be nice.

I can understand the anger, I've been mugged before and there is satisfaction is seeing someone held accountable and punished for something wrong done to one's self - to bring back a sense of personal power against random threats. I think imprisonment and having to go through the legal system is a huge punishment though and would rather see these people rehabilitated and doing good things than dead.

[abolitionist]

According to the 8th Amendment cruel and unusual punishment is forbidden. Is the death penalty cruel?

Cruel punishment is the act of inflicting needless pain or suffering for personal gratification - as oppossed to providing a punishment that is instructive - aimed at rehabilitation and learning.

Death teaches no one and doesn't address the root cause of crime - capital punishment is conducted to provide a sense of power to those who have been hurt by the defendant.

Capital punishment does not deter crime.

-----------

Do we feel better by killing people, more secure?

Shouldn't we be ashamed for having to kill people that we create genetically and societally?

[Grimm]

According to the 8th Amendment cruel and unusual punishment is forbidden. Is the death penalty cruel?

Cruel punishment is the act of inflicting needless pain or suffering for personal gratification - as oppossed to providing a punishment that is instructive - aimed at rehabilitation and learning.

Death teaches no one and doesn't address the root cause of crime - capital punishment is conducted to provide a sense of power to those who have been hurt by the defendant.

Capital punishment does not deter crime.

-----------

Do we feel better by killing people, more secure?

Shouldn't we be ashamed for having to kill people that we create genetically and societally?

No.

It is the ultimate punishment, and the only reason it does not deter crime is because it is used too infrequently and takes too long to carry out. It removes threats to society once and for all.

[abolitionist]

According to the 8th Amendment cruel and unusual punishment is forbidden. Is the death penalty cruel?

Cruel punishment is the act of inflicting needless pain or suffering for personal gratification - as oppossed to providing a punishment that is instructive - aimed at rehabilitation and learning.

Death teaches no one and doesn't address the root cause of crime - capital punishment is conducted to provide a sense of power to those who have been hurt by the defendant.

Capital punishment does not deter crime.

-----------

Do we feel better by killing people, more secure?

Shouldn't we be ashamed for having to kill people that we create genetically and societally?

No.

It is the ultimate punishment, and the only reason it does not deter crime is because it is used too infrequently and takes too long to carry out. It removes threats to society once and for all.

I haven't seen any studies whereby we've tried to determine if more frequent and speedy capital punishment would deter crime - got a link?

I wish we would remove threats to society once and for all - but that would be eugenics 8) - not capital punishment.

Edited by abolitionist, 19 April 2008 - 07:09 AM.

[jhowardall]

I would have no problem with capital punishment if we had some way of being 100% sure of a person's guilt and that their crime was a conscious choice. However, we all know that the system is imperfect and executing even a single innocent person is an absolutely astounding injustice and affront to the most general sense of ethics held by every rational person. A person who supports the death penalty absolutely must agree that they think it is ok to execute an innocent person every now and then. And if they do, I think that just eliminates them from the argument because they admit to having no regard for the value of lives of others. And if they disagree with the premise of that question, then they must believe that the courts never make mistakes and innocent people never get convicted, and I think there is a mountain of examples to show the folly of that argument.

I'm probably on the wrong forum, I just found this and it has good health advice, but I'm not too interested in immortality. If it is possible it's some way, way off idea and it's a waste of a limited lifetime to worry about the fact that it ends, which, you aren't even going to know about when it happens. It's our job to get out of the way eventually so the next generation can have their fun. If you're frozen your still dead, how do you know that 5 years afterwards the government that gave you free freezing doesn't get voted out and the next one kills the program and thaws you out and sticks you in the ground where you should have been to begin with? If you want to get frozen, save your money and hope you picked the freezing outfit that isn't going to go out of business within the next.... Oh I guess however long it takes to thaw you back out like Austin Powers.

And yes of course cops should have the ability to use lethal force. If someone makes the choice to go out and put other people at the risk of serious harm, it is not just justified, but it is the duty of responding authorities to take whatever steps necessary to stop them, and unfortunately often the only way to do that is by killing them. What do the cops in the UK do after an armed robbery? Oh they have to call the firearms unit and maybe they're a long way off and by the time they get there the criminals are gone because someone added another layer to the response to appease the emotional citizenry that is spooked by guns. Saying that you favour police not having access to lethal force is saying that you want to give criminals free reign to go about their business because as long as they are armed nobody can stop them.

[.fonclea.]

1 - Should we eliminate the death penalty?Yes and no. It depends on the reasons. A member of my family reported me how different a same sentence can change a prisoneer or not at all. Those who are really sorry and the other who could spend a life time in prison and are still convinced to be right. See also the medical causes ect...

I am happy not to have a death penality in my contry but some days i think we have now the technology to prove the guilltness or not.

2 - Should cryonic preservation be guaranteed for all who wish it?Yes and no. "vouloir n'est pas pouvoir". You wish to be cryonised because you think there will be a better futur. YOUR futur is not necessarily THE futur. That futur is not necessarilly good for you.
A psycological preparation is obvously necessary but would it be enough ?

3 - Should police only use non-lethal weaponry?No, depending on the mission and the place of work of course . The police is unfortunatly well equipped and physically prepared but for the rest.... ZERO.

Edited by .fonclea., 20 June 2009 - 11:25 PM.

[Cyberbrain]

Ideally they all deserve yes. Number three is an iffy one though, but I'd like to see a world without lethal weapons.

The death penalty should be eliminated, period. Most countries in Europe have already eliminated it. The US remains like the last country in the modern world that executes people. Just last month a person in Texas I think was falsely executed.

Ideally cryonics should be guaranteed to all, but whose going to provide it?

The future however will be a radically different place and I have no idea we'll sentence cyborgs and criminally oriented AI. Is 20 or even 100 years enough for a criminal who is immortal, do we keep him forever in prison? Will we get to a point where we'll just reprogram those who have been bad?

Edited by Cyberbrain, 17 October 2009 - 11:46 PM.

[VictorBjoerk]

1. Should we eliminate the death penalty?

There are from two sides, When someone has killed another human being (as opposed to having eg raped them etc) they have eliminated them from existence forever,and should they really get away with such a terrible thing with a couple of decades in a prison? where they also get good food,gym membership,possibilties to study etc? do we value human life if we let people get away with extinguishing another human life? IMO I consider 20 years or so in a prison to be nothing compared to the severity of killing another human being.

On the other hand death penalty is very primitive and medieval indeed and an authority should not be allowed to doom who should be alive and who shouldn't. There are always innocent people who get executed as well, and the existence of a death penalty feeds acceptance for death. History has shown that it does not solve any problems.
Therefore I am without doubt as an immortalist very much against the death penalty.

2. Yes! Cryonics should be guaranteed to all definitely. Every town should have it's own facility to freeze down people who right now are dying unnecessarily because sufficient resources aren't given projects like eg SENS among other things. I think the best way to measure how civilized a society is would be to measure it's ability to prevent death.

3. This is obvious, police should only use non-lethal weapons, there are many good weapons that can be used to prevent crime/punish offenders without any killing.

[eternaltraveler]

there are many good weapons that can be used to prevent crime/punish offenders without any killing.

name one

[brokenportal]

name one

public humiliation

[eternaltraveler]

name one

public humiliation

yes, I'm sure that if police just laughed at someone pointing a gun at them that would work.

my statement was in reference to

police should only use non-lethal weapons

Edited by eternaltraveler, 06 November 2009 - 02:51 AM.

[brokenportal]

yes, I'm sure that if police just laughed at someone pointing a gun at them that would work.

Your right, that probably wouldnt work. To be clear, I dont recommend that.

Edited by brokenportal, 06 November 2009 - 02:56 AM.

[valkyrie_ice]

Death penalty should be conditional. Was it accidental, was it motivated by temporary irrationality, was it fully planned out, how many people died etc.

There are killers for whom removal permanently is desirable for the continued good of the species. Multiple serial killers, mass murderers, etc. These cases are extreme, and these people cannot be placed into the same category as the guy who went crazy and shot his wife when he caught her in bed with another lover. One deserves rehabilitation, education, and is probably capable of reclamation into society. The other is incapable of contributing and unlikely to ever become a valuable member of society.

Preserve his DNA if you must for future analysis, but do away with the person. Otherwise it is little more than feeding a malignant growth on society.

Valuing Humanity means recognizing that the good of Humanity sometimes requires removal of cancers and malignant tumors. Each case must be individually examined, and all measures of cure attempted, but knowing the difference between when repair is possible and when it is not must be acknowledged.

[brokenportal]

Nah, of course other non lethal forces would work. Public humilation deters, you dont have to laugh at the guy with the gun to get the next guy to not have the gun. And also, in this specific example, you can use say, a projectile taser gun for instance.

[27GV]

In regards to point 3, in Australia the vast majority of people who end up dead after the use of lethal force by police have a) not actually committed an offense and b) are mentally ill. The problem isn't the weapon, it's lack of training for when it should be used - if the weapon is non-lethal there is less of a chance of a very bad outcome. Everyone has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a just and open trial.

The police won't use lethal force against a known criminal without shutting down the entire area and call in a specially trained team. In something like a bank robbery it is causes way way more risk to the public to have an armed confrontation during the commission of the robbery if the officers involved are relatively inexperienced on-the-street ones. I think they shifted away from that after several bystanders were killed about 30 years ago when the police went in all guns blazing.

[Putz]

Of course, I think Cryonics should be the societal norm, instead of embalming, or cremation, and adequately supported.

I agree, but the guarantee should come about by marketplace efficiency and competition, not government mandate.