Draugnar your conversation has been full of inconsistencies.

You say that civilisation began with the American and French revolutions, but you don’t believe in their principle of natural rights which I was defending. You say that murder of those guilty of homosexuality and witchcraft were barbaric practises condemned by the world, but so is the execution of blacks like Ray Jasper; it’s only a subsection of the southern United States that believes otherwise. You want an internal revolution, but nothing you say is revolutionary. In principle your philosophy is that of Edmund Burke while mine is of Thomas Paine. You are the Old World and I am the New.

You say that the will of the people can oppose tyranny, but that scenario I described was exactly the scenario in Britain before the Iraq war. You say that Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden and Hitler were murderers although they were never tried as per your test. On the contrary George Bush/Patton are not murderers, presumably because you believe in their cause more.

You talk about the gene pool with no logical basis. I can provide extensive years of research that genes do not cause murders. You talk about the rights of a freshly fertilised egg but not of the potential child-futures whose parents happen to be a convict. You would deny them life based on a prejudiced perversion of Social Darwinism. What can I say other than to finish off by saying that you are a bitter man, past your prime preaching death, and I as a member of a new generation, will not participate and will actively oppose your bloodthirsty conservatism through every medium I can possibly find.

Look, I'm done arguing with you. You have twisted every single thing I said and are being intellectually dishonest. conversation over and I'm muting the thread now.

Man i wish I could +1 myself

"I also want to know seen as you have a economic value attached to life, what it is... Please give me estimates to the nearest $1000"
I think you don't understand how economics works.

Let me put it this way, hypothetically (remember I oppose capital punishment because I Think this hypothetical is wrong) if the state kills 200 murders every year, and a study showed that if we abolished capital punishment then 500 additional murders would happen every year, under utilitarian ethics capital punishment is perfectly moral, as killing 200 people would save the lives of an additional 500 people.

The same thing applies to dollar values. If we could end all crime for 10 million dollars a year, a majority of people would probably support such a policy, however if it would cost 10 trillion dollars, a majority of people would oppose such a policy.

Capital punishment is merely a criminal justice policy, as the goal of the state is to protect the people, when analysing the effects of capital punishment, one has to analyse the economic costs of such a policy.

*kills 200 murderers

Capital punishment is not merely a policy, as it involves the extinguishing of human lives. Policy affects people, CP kills them.

If we could save a trillion dollars a year by murdering 5 innocent people, in your opinion it would be worth it? See my moral system says otherwise.

This is not entirely hypothetical - there are profits to be generated through execution, and through demonising a certain segment of society to unite the majority.

"I'd rather see that person put to death and not tortured with the knowledge they will never be free again."

Why don't you let them have a life sentence with the POSSIBILITY* of parole (key word, if you can't tell, being possibility), attempt to rehab them, and if a psychiatric evaluation conducted by multiple federally licensed doctors doesn't clear them at the time of their earliest possible parole date, keep them in prison until the next time, and then do it again, and again? If you truly believe in rehabilitation, you should believe that people will change over a 20 year prison sentence - the person that goes in isn't going to be the person that goes out - and that there's always a slimmer of hope even in the worst cases. If it doesn't work out, they'll be in prison for the rest of their lives, but at least you didn't kill them, you gave them a chance.

But would you agree with my statement that if it could be proven that capital punishment saves lives you would support it?