1. Your religious stance

1. Atheist
2. Whatever is cheapest and most efficient long-term without sacrificing our principles
3. The punishment should be(in some regard) proportional to the crime, but at the same time the state is not infallible, and capital punishment should only be used in cases where there is no ambiguity for a prisoner's crimes. I'm talking Jeffrey Dahmer, finding-bodies-in-the-crawl-space, level of certainty. If it comes to a point where your entire life is dependent on the state's punishment, you live or die by it's desire for you to. Ideally the state would pick the cheapest and most efficient choice.
And again, the state isn't 100% right, it fucks up a lot. So it's probably best for it to not be used in the event that the government fucks up and kills an innocent man.

>Atheist
>Principals
Pick one.

Is a life sentence more ethical than capital punishment?

>Christian AKA White people who LARP as poor jews because muh Israel
>Christianity only shills for Israel because the Jews tricked us, its not like Christians have always defended jews off and on more than any other religious group ever

topkek

>1. Your religious stance.
Thelema.

>2. Your opinion on capital punishment.
I'm uncomfortable with it; I don't reject it outright, but generally think it does nothing more than make courts and victim families feel better, which is a thing, but you're constantly hearing things like "closure is nice but it doesn't mean Mongo didn't rape little Timmy to death". Hints and tones of 's reason too.

I'd LIKE to see some actual attempts at rehabilitation in the CJ system, and better understandings of standards of proof.

>1. Your religious stance.
none
>2. Your opinion on capital punishment.
only in the most super extreme cases
>3. Your reasons for #2.
i dont believe a society where you can do literally anything and be safe in the knowledge that the state will protect your life is a truly civilized society

>athiest
>agnostic
>i don't care

Eternal proof that this place is reddit incarnate.

No. Prison is designated suffering and life sentence versus execution is the difference between torture then murder and murder.

>philosophy board will be heavily religious
Sure, bud

1. Theist - I believe in god but theres something about organized religion that I cannot believe in or follow.
2. Pro
3. Let me cite Saudi Arabia, a place with an extremely low crime rate; one of the main reasons behind their very low crime rate is because their punishments are swift and effective. Thieves lose a hand, murderers die.

this

/r/thedonald pls

I pick both buddy

>Veeky Forums philisophical

Of this board was philisophical they would;ve read Spinoza by now. Athiesm is the least logical belief system in the modern world. Athiests are the idiots of a religion who suddenly think they are too smart for the beliefs they never really understood or believed in.

reddit pls

also

>pls

can you make yourself any more obvious?

Islam.
Pro.
I don't want my tax dollars being spent on sheltering, feeding and taking care of a murderer.

1. Atheist
2. It's based, just as long as only people I don't like are getting executed. I think it should be extended to political enemies like Muslims and Communists too.
3. I don't need one

1. Christian
2. applies to subversives especially
3. Communists existing

>Atheist
>Pro Death penalty anti life in prison w/o the possibility of parole
>I think that a society should be able to defend itself. That being said I think that life in prison is fucking stupid, if someone is too dangerous/has done something so heinous that their release is unacceptable then they should be killed. If this is not the case then we should try to rehabilitate them and make them productive again.

>1. Atheist/Jungian
>2. Against it
>3. There is always the possibility that somone has been wrongly convicted, and the death penalty is just generally an unsightly thing for a civilized society.

Veeky Forums has always been primarily irreligious

How can you be Catholic and pro-death penalty? The Church vocally opposes it.

>Whatever is cheapest and most efficient
You completely disregarded the only important part of the question that is "Should death even be a punishment?"

>Assuming I'm Christian

Atheist.
Against.
Executed people have been found innocent after the fact, any justice system that would send innocents to death is a shit justice system.

1.Agnostic Atheist
2. pro with conditions
3. only the worst of the worst, the completely irredeemable people who will never be rehabilitated deserve it, and only then for being a drain on the system.

>Atheists are stupid
Why do studies show that a higher IQ correlates with increased chance of being irreligious?

>Least logical belief system
Can you logically explain why you adhere to your specific religion, rather than the millions of other religions that have existed? What makes your's exclusively and objectively true?

Throughout most of history the RCC supported the death penalty. Just because a few moderns don't doesn't mean the entire church isn't able to support it.

That's the big question of life, user. But most people see dying as a bad thing/something that should be avoided for as long as possible
So if there's something so heinous that taking away your freedom for your entire life (prison) isn't severe enough the only thing left to take IS your life

law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/about.aspx
It says there are 2018 US exonerations today, which is comparatively low to the number of people who have served a life sentence.

1.don't follow religion 2.conditionaly pro 3.dead people don't rape and murder--too often a life sentence isn't, some bleeding heart lets them out and they commit more

cognitive relativism
don't care
people will do what they want and justify it how they want. it's always been this way and always will be.

1.Catholic
2. Only insofar as it can defend society. I can't find it supportable in the current west.
3. Charity and support of the common good.

>common good

>Why do studies show that a higher IQ correlates with increased chance of being irreligious?

Because most atheists are white.

>Can you logically explain why you adhere to your specific religion, rather than the millions of other religions that have existed? What makes your's exclusively and objectively true?

Because i went through my athiest phase and it wasn't some bitch's athiest phase which involved shitting out Richard Dawkins quotes, i wanted to be a legitimate heretic who rebelled against all Abrahamic belief systems and belief as a whole, which most atheists can never understand. In fact most athiests are just Christians who don't go to church.

Actually thats true. Eventually you had the Christcucks and the assorted XYZ /x/ fags come in, but the point was just bantz about people being newfags.

Deal with it, Son.

>Why do studies show that a higher IQ correlates with increased chance of being irreligious?

Because anti-religion rhetoric and pro-naturalism are common things for people in ingest in school. It's an aspect of how they are educated, not of education itself.

>i wanted to be a legitimate heretic who rebelled against all Abrahamic belief systems and belief as a whole, which most atheists can never understand

You also didn't answer the good user's question, only Ad Hominem and pic related.

Why then has education moved away from religion?

The 30 Years War and the secularization in response to it. General Enlightenment bullshit.

1. Anglican
2. Against

3. Some people are wrongly imprisoned and if we kill them there is no chance to undue a wrong. More important, even killers and rapists should spend their lives reflecting on their crimes and hopefully they will one day realize the error in their ways. That doesn't mean that they deserve to be released if they do realize their crimes, a lifetime punishment is still warranted. Finally, only God should have the power to take away life, not the state.

Go ahead and call me a cuck.

You have no idea how edgy I really was desu, but i did not use any ad hominem. Ad hominems are a specific kind of logical fallacy where when someone presents evidence you refute their evidence with an a priori assumption of their character as though this were logical evidence. he asked me a personal question (not one based on evidence) as to why I no longer consider myself an athiest and gave him a logical asnwer.

Underneath this answer you should've been able to see the subtext that the nature of theology is always subject to change, therefore religion changes amongst people once peolpe begin to understand that the spiritual world is an objective fact subject to debate but no denial. of course with the average IQ of this place I was probably expecting too much from that subtext.

1. Atheist but culturally Jewish
2. Killing prisoners is a great way to empty the prison systems, reduce recidivism rates and make society safer. Most of the violent criminals in prison would be better off dead.
3. I'm against it in application because society is fairly safe anyway, and every modern application has been unscientifically bungled, every time. The guy who coined the three-chemical Lethal Injection(tm) technique disavowed it and the govt bureaucrats using it as "complete idiots"!

I think the highest likelihood of success would be from competing, private execution entities rather than public ones, with stock in the idea of efficiency and painlessness, rather than expense and bloodlessness. All the most efficient ways to die are bloody, all the most expensive and agonizing (choking, hanging, suffocating, poisoning) that we've used in the modern era are bloodless.

>Why then has education moved away from religion?

Because of the current zietgeist within academia geared towards populist thoughtand reform from a sole populist basis.

1)Ex-Muslim, currently Deist.
2)Support
3)"All good deeds are done under the shadow of a sword" - Muhammad

>Atheist
>For
Because why keep them alive after its proven that they rape or kill people if they are let out they would continue crimes

>culturally Jewish

Althought I'd agree with you that the only real way to reduce recidivism rates once you begin to undertsand the nature of anti-social offenders is execution,

>Jewish

Your religion inherently doesn't care about the pragmatism or humanity of people unless they are fellow jews. Judaism is insanely tribalistic, so if you are culturally jewish you would share these tribalistic virtues as well. Do jewish offenders receive the same punishment as non-jewish offenders?

>differentiating between bloodless and bloody demises for the scum of humanity

why bother giving these people a bloodless death when most themselves didn't care about inflicting bloodless deaths upon others?

Prod
Pro
Send 'em all to God and let him sort 'em out

>it wasn't some bitch's athiest phase which involved shitting out Richard Dawkins quotes

You made an a priori assumpton about other Athiests.

Christian
Pro
CCC says it's ok

I suppose it would be anecdotal because that is my experience with atheists - heavily pro pop-science, further to the left as a general rule, or generally marxist in nature - although I;ve had experience with more right wing athiests who are essentially just Christians despite them not knowing it. Its not a priori - just anecdotial because i don't know what the exact statistics are except that athiests heavily vote in favor of left wing parties.

That said the contemporary athiest is not willing to expel Natural Law or other Christian derived modalities of morals from their belief system.

>What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground. And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand.

- from the story of Cain and Abel

Unless the Catholic Church has a definition of "brother" it wants to share with us.

>Catholics

been anathema for centuries

1. Catholic
2. Outdated and barbaric
3. Thou Shall Not Kill
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm#2267
usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/death-penalty-capital-punishment/catholic-campaign-to-end-the-use-of-the-death-penalty.cfm

>If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor
It's almost as if recidivism among violent offenders is high and thus death should be the proper recourse

1. Christian (Lutheran)
2. No
3. Our penal system here in America largely functions as a repository for societies undesirables rather than a system which truly attempts to rehabilitate the individual. Getting rid of the the death penalty won't solve the problem but it will be a step in the right direction. (That's not to say Joe Bob who committed double homicide should get out one day, he's in for life)

Or we could save money and lock the up for life. This comes with the added bonuses of
>them finding God, repenting, and saving their souls
>if they are innocent, there's hope they will be freed

>save money
>lock them up for life
Pick one and only one. You can get a rope for a few bucks or a bullet for a twenty cents. That's a hell of a lot less expensive than room, board and healthcare for however many decades.

>Or we could save money and lock the up for life

Nigger have you just not looked up how expensive it is to keep them in prison? Sure in the States i actually costs more to keep people on Death Row, which i why these people need to be killed sooner instead if have the extended intermittent pre-execution period.

>Pick one and only one. You can get a rope for a few bucks or a bullet for a twenty cents

We don't have lynch mobs anymore. The death penalty come with a metric fuckton of appeals and legal costs.

Because of people like you. We don't even need lynch mobs anyways. Just get a fucking hangman or a firing squad.

>Lets assume people are guilty until proven executed

Living in the 3rd world outside of America must be hell.

>atheist
>against, mostly
>expensive, kills people who were unjustly prosecuted. However, should be an opt-in option for criminals with life sentences, if you'd prefer death to prison.

Catholic

Anti-, at least in practice

I'm not opposed to the notion that some crimes merit death, but I don't think the state is fit to make the judgment over something so serious.

>let's assume people are innocent that have been convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt by a jury their peers

>beyond a shadow of a doubt

NOTHING is ever shown beyond a shadow of a doubt outside of mathematics.

I dunno man. You proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're a fucking autist so that tosses your whole theory out the window.

What about formal logics.
Or philosophical first principles, such as non-contradiction.

Sure those are in the same epistemological ground as mathematical intuitions

1. No religious beliefs
2. If you're proven to be a mass murderer/rapist/traitor etc., you should be killed.
3. It's easier and cheaper than a lifetime of prison meals and such, and if you're a lunatic that can't function in society, you should be killed
Why does this belong in Thai board, exactly?

>lets assume people are guilty until proven innocent

Yes pretty much the world is overpopulated anyway.

>person is shown on gas station cameras to have shot the cashier
>also shows him dropping the gun, which has his bloody fingerprints on it
>he looks into the camera and states his name, address, blood type, and social security number
>admits to the crime and provides a mountain of evidence supporting this theory
Fuck off, Descartes.

Any logic of value has already been annex by mathematics. All that's left for philosophy is muh feels and postmodernism.

There is no objective vindication of logic and by extension math. Science isn't objective vindication either. Also, we don't know beyond a shadow of a doubt that what we perceive is even real, so you must treat crime with the same objectivity as everything else.

Has that ever happened?

Because the opposite, i.e., innocent people being convicted has happened thousands of times.

No, I don't think Jews should get preferential treatment from non-Jews. I don't think my relation to Judaism is relevant.
>why bother giving these people a bloodless death
It is categorically imperative to be as efficient, fast, and painless as possible in the process of an execution. The aim is to kill, not to inflict pain. If you wanted to inflict pain you can torture them.

If I was a hideous criminal beyond any hope of help, restitution or rehabilitation, I'd at least prefer to be put out of my misery quickly and cleanly.

>>person is shown on gas station cameras to have shot the cashier
Jews faked it.
>>also shows him dropping the gun, which has his bloody fingerprints on it
Jews planted it.
>>he looks into the camera and states his name, address, blood type, and social security number
What's more likely: someone that dumb or the Jews framing someone?
>>admits to the crime and provides a mountain of evidence supporting this theory
Jews are threatening his family, friends, beloved pets, etc

You see, there is a shadow of a doubt after all. It's not a reasonable doubt but /pol/ will believe it.

No you wouldn't

2018 times in the United States for death row and life inmates to be exact. Not exactly a high amount, considering.

1. Unable to have faith
2. Necessary
3. There is no redemption for crimes like genocide, treason and murder, people need to know there is a line that should not be crossed.

1. Non-religious
2. Not complimentary with modern society
3. The fundamental purpose of justice should be to protect people. Considering that there is no way to definitively prevent innocents from being executed, it is both an economical and ethical farce. If there were a way to guarantee that no innocents could be executed (which is unachievable), I would support it for certain cases. Money would be better spent preventing people from reaching the point of non-return, through community outreach programs and funding for social cohesiveness.

You think that if I was an 85 IQ giganigga I'd rather be cooked alive or choked with cyanide than put to sleep instantly? Something that even animals can differentiate between? Are you slow?

>. There is no redemption for crimes like genocide, treason and murder, people need to know there is a line that should not be crossed
not in the bible

>It is categorically imperative to be as efficient, fast, and painless as possible in the process of an execution. The aim is to kill, not to inflict pain. If you wanted to inflict pain you can torture them.

Why care?

>no i don't think jews should get preferential treatment

Ever had a neighbor be accused of some serious shit, then get convicted? What about a family member?

>I'd prefer

You are not some psychopathic serial killer. Psychopaths or the people who populate prisons do not live on the emotinal spectrum you or I do, they chose to murder people in a bloody and gruesome way and they deserve no sympathy.

>I'd at least prefer to be put out of my misery quickly and cleanly

I misread. Assumed you meant you would want to be killed rather than not be killed.

Atheist
Anti, except in extreme conditions involving political prisoners and POWs
Capital punishment is a waste of resources, it'd be much better to put criminals to work

If you're doing something, it's correct to do it the way its nature demands of it.
Also just FYI "psychopathy" has nothing to do with subjective pain-aversion. Animals, and the profoundly developmentally disabled still prefer not-pain to pain, to say the least of people with a charitable 11% reduction in orbitofrontal grey matter volume.

1. Nonreligious, Agnostic Atheist
2. Capital punishment seems attractive, but is inherently wrong due to our ability to verify information.
3. 4% of executed prisoners were later proven to be innocent, a margin much too high. (The FBI made up a forensic method, "follicle matching", in order to convict people for decades.

>none
>pro
>people who commit violent crime without good reason or rape should be killed. ie man kills man because he was rooting his wife=no death penelty. Nigger kills man because he feels like it=death penelty

>nature demands of it.

define the way nature demands of it faggot, and tell me in what way Darwinism and Natural law isn't Christian.

>psychopathy has nothing to do with pain aversion
>people with a severe lack in empathy have no difference in their ability to inflict pain on others

Yeah its about time you killed yourself isn't it?

1. Christian
2. Against
3. It creates a precedent that humans can put other humans to death, which means that they will decide the conditions for it, which humans are notoriously bad at. This degrades the value of human life, which, in my opinion, is the highest value