Capital Punishment

[Tamayo]

I was wondering why there wasn't a capital punishment thread here with all of the controversy being discussed. So what's your take on it? For, against, or neither? Personally I'm straddling the fence with capital punishment.



On my social and economic side:

It's hard for me to justify allowing society's worst criminals to be pampered and maintained in modern-day prisons on the tax payer's dollar. Those who make a conscious decision to kill or rape know the consequences of their actions, and should be dealt with quickly and efficiently. Not only that, but maintaining a prison that is filling up can be insanely costly in terms of hiring enough staff, preparing enough food, and having supplies for everyone such as clothing, bedding, etc. That's not even counting all of the services that prisoners have available to them like counseling and schooling. It disgusts me that committing the ultimate crime is something that is "rewarded" with a life that doesn't require work or responsibility, especially since it's only made possible by the people who have been made victim by those very criminals.


On my moral and somewhat philosophical side, however:

It's hard for me to justify the government "playing the role of God", and being able to choose to take someone's life from them. I know that court cases involving inmates on death row are considered incredibly carefully (to a huge fault, really), but it's still a wonder whether or not the ultimate punishment is just revenge or not.

My main issue against the death penalty is that it won't bring a victim back to life. If you kill a serial killer, his victims won't come back, and their deaths won't be any less tragic/unnecessary. Their families aren't going to have the void of their lost loved one filled; it's just bitter all throughout. I know that no crime can be undone, but at times the death penalty seems way too vengeful to me. The whole idea of punishment in itself is to better the person being punished by making them remorseful for what they've done, or at the very least, to make them understand that they've inflicted pain/suffering/inconvenience on someone. It entails some degree of rehabilitation. Sometimes I have a really hard time seeing the point in taking someone's life in the name of "punishment" as I've described it.

In any case that I can imagine, I'm against revenge of all kinds. The goal of revenge isn't to make the world a better place or make the transgressors better people, it's to satisfy the hatred that people have for one another, and while taking a murderer out of society has it's benefits, revenge is a bit immature and impulsive. A world with less revenge is a world with a lot less crime, hatred and sadness altogether.


\\\


I can't fault people -- especially hurting families -- for wishing the death penalty on those who have taken a loved one from them, but at the same time, I can also agree with people who are wholeheartedly against it on many levels. To be honest, if I was able to choose the way it worked, I would abolish the death penalty, but I would have criminals forced to work for their debt to society. I'd simply prefer for fewer people to have died, whether it's as a result of murders or the death penalty. When capital punishment shows up on ballots, I vote to repeal it, but only because I'm given two choices -- I can't say that I absolutely favor one side or the other.

 

[ewww]

Tamayo, what would You say about that case :

Va. inmate executed for killing 2 fellow prisoners | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

I do not think that killing a killer for justice is a bad thing, but ... in usa, for example, people could wait for execution for many years, and that is very inhumane. Or, what is good in killing criminals with mental disabilites, which is also took place in states.
Definitely, rules should be changed.

 

[Tamayo]

Tamayo, what would You say about that case :

Va. inmate executed for killing 2 fellow prisoners | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

What do you mean -- Are you asking if I think that the death penalty was necessary in this case?

I do not think that killing a killer for justice is a bad thing, but ... in usa, for example, people could wait for execution for many years, and that is very inhumane.

I'm actually really happy you brought this up, since this was something I didn't mention in the original post. I think that the laws concerning both sides of the death penalty are utterly stupid. Although I'm ultimately undecided about where I stand on capital punishment, I think it's horrible that it's possible for someone to be put on death row, but not executed. Wrong or not, if a state deems that someone should die, then they need to follow through with it. Among the ridiculous costs to actually execute someone, the cost of all of the court cases and processes leading up to it are laughably stupid. Our court systems are outdated and inefficient.

On the other hand, I think it's utterly ridiculous that prisons pamper regular inmates the way that they do. Hell, it's such an easy life that homeless people will commit crimes only so that they'll be put into jail and then they'll be taken care of. I think that being a convicted felon should be accompanied with grave consequences, depending on the level of their crime, of course. Prisoners should be forced to work for the government to pay off at least a small amount of the money it costs to house them.

People can try and compare that sort of treatment to Nazi deathcamps all they like -- there is nothing unjust about having felons do work here and there in society so that responsible, law-abiding citizens don't have to.

Or, what is good in killing criminals with mental disabilites, which is also took place in states.
Definitely, rules should be changed.

This is something that needs to be looked at pretty carefully. To be honest, I'm not too sure what I'd have done to the mentally ill. What I can say, though, is that people exploit our legal system by claiming insanity to have their sentences/punishments lightened, and it disgusts me immensely. No one, and I mean absolutely no one should be allowed to exploit our laws the way that they do.

This is something that would require a lot of law reform though. The fact that the Constitution and our laws can have multiple meanings based on the person interpreting it must be changed. This in itself is why our country is so sue-happy.

 

[Mike Cash]

I was wondering why there wasn't a capital punishment thread here with all of the controversy being discussed.

Did you bother to look for one?

 

[Tamayo]

Did you www.jref.com+capital+punishment&oq=site:www.jref.com+capital+punishment&gs_l=serp.3...291970.303652.0.304203.45.44.1.0.0.1.395.5276.26j12j4j2.44.0.les%3Bcqn%2Cfixedpos%3Dfalse%2Cboost_normal%3D40%2Cboost_high%3D40%2Ccconf%3D1-2%2Cmin_length%3D2%2Crate_low%3D0-035%2Crate_high%3D0-035%2Csecond_pass%3Dfalse%2Cignore_bad_origquery%3Dtrue%2Conetoken%3Dfalse..0.0...1c.1.-5SX_Xz-gHY&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41524429,d.dGI&fp=56f83a8b569d44bb&biw=1366&bih=636]bother to look for one[/url]?

O_______o


I did, but nothing that came up was entirely relevant. I only found a few threads on the topic, and none of them directly asked for explicit positions or reasons.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

This is something that would require a lot of law reform though.

Forget about the law for a second. Ask yourself who has the skills to work within in such a comprehensive system, and make such a system work and work fairly? Who has both the brains and dedication required? Precious, precious few people. It does not matter how perfect you make a system, the people in it will screw it up every time. So many people in the criminal justice system are in it for the money, the power trip over other humans, or both. There are more corrupt cops, prison guards, and companies with criminal justice system related contracts than we will probably ever really know.

The corruptablity and fallibility of human beings is a big reason why I am solidly against the death penalty. Some "mistakes" are not mistakes at all, but done on purpose, things like withholding evidence or deciding not to do your utmost to defend a person because of race. Other mistakes are the result of sheer stupidity and illogic, two things I have noted that my fellow human beings excel at.

Truly the only reason anyone needs to be against the death penalty is the simpe fact that mistakes and "mistakes" happen and once someone is executed you can't make any sort of restitution. One such mistake is TOTALLY unforgivable as the means of making up for it have been lost forever.

I might feel differently if we lacked the infrastructure to permanently house the most dangerous and unreformable offenders, but, we don't. We can protect society without execution.



Then, as you so intelligently got into Tamayo, and biggest reason for giving you a "like", is that when you get into the nuts and bolts of "what is punishment?", "what is justice?" and "what is revenge?" you can only conclude that the death penalty is not punishment, and not justice but is in fact revenge. There is also an element of "sending a message", something no human life should be stolen to do.

Anyway, the death penalty cannot be considered as punishment because the point of punishment is to elicit good behavior in the future. Death eliminates that future, so by definition, it cannot be punishment.

And back to the sending of a message, it may send one intended message of "this is what we do to serious criminals", but it also sends the unintended message of "revenge is the same as justice and its good enough to be legal", which is pure poppycock.

And I don't even want to talk about money. Its tasteless. Putting a value on human life and refusing to exceed that in cost is sick and yet another bad message. Besides, the real reason why we have to pay so much in America is not because its just naturally expensive, its also a large part to do with America being something of a POLICE STATE. There are WAAAAAY more people in jail in America than there should be, considering the crimes they have committed. America has gone WAAAAY overboard on crime and punishment, and some certain contractors love it and encourage it and I am sure, lobby for it, as it makes them rich. Consider all the money those people make off of marijuana being illegal. They don't want it legalized because it means profit, and to hell with the well being of the nation.

But yes, prison conditions should be more spartan, not to save money, but because its PRISON. But it should not be barbaric.

But things like internet use should definitely be allowed. It allows people to learn and to think, and those are VITAL to becoming a decent human being, among other things. Plus, its relatively cheap. And a prison guard's life would be a lot easier if every inmate was an internet addict. And why not? If a lifer's life is reduced to that it should be satisfaction for anybody. If someone killed any of my loved ones, I would want them alive with a limited life. You only die once, but you can regret a million times.

I must also add that in absence of the DP, life should mean life.

And also, yes indeed, inmates should work. I suggest farming their own food.

 

[Macrobiotic]

All crimes should result in capital punishment administered immediately without trial. Kind of like a scene from "The Pianist". Tax cheaters, rapists, thieves etc... Kill them all. Don't humiliate them, don't make a public show of it, just sweep them away swiftly and efficiently in order to keep society clean. I am opposed to all forms of sadism as I view it as a trait of subhumans. Sadism is characteristic of the current modern society and the capital punishment used in for example the US today is a sadistic display of human small mindedness and perversion rather than an effective way to cleanse society of the unfit (the criminals).

The kind of society I want is the kind where a group of uniformed guards just storm into the office of a local politician or businessman and by decree of the highest command execute him on spot for embezzlement or treason. This is the most clean society where human filth is the most effectively disposed of.
A more "realistic" vision would be how China cleansed Hong Kong of the mafia filth. I used to support the chinese legal system until they switched to poison injection and organ removal rather than the virtuous beauty which is the headshot.

 

[ewww]

What do you mean -- Are you asking if I think that the death penalty was necessary in this case?

Exactly, just want to know what do You think here. That is very contraversal case, apparently there are many layers to appeal to, and the result is three deaths. He spend 6 years in a jail waiting for his execution - that is inhumane. He killed 2 inmates - that is inhumane. Imediate execution after killing second inmate raises many question: did he really screw up american jurisdictional system? did they killed them just to eliminate another problem without solving it? apparently he had mental contion, did they try to to fix him before start discussing? etc. etc. etc.

Prisoners should be forced to work for the government to pay off at least a small amount of the money it costs to house them.

That is highly inhumane and dangerous. I think that it is more humane to kill everybody imediately after crime is commited, does not mean what kind of crime it was

What I can say, though, is that people exploit our legal system by claiming insanity to have their sentences/punishments lightened, and it disgusts me immensely. No one, and I mean absolutely no one should be allowed to exploit our laws the way that they do.

Just answer one simple question: If there are 999 men were exploiting legal system, and 1 were not, is it humane to kill that last one with these 999?

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I think there is only one class of criminal that should receive the death penalty:

Supporters of the death penalty.

This debate will end permanently.

Have a nice day folks!

 

[ewww]

I think there is only one class of criminal that should receive the death penalty:

Yeah, no flu shot for Mark

 

[nahadef]

If a single person is unjustly executed, then every voter and taxpayer is a murderer.
There is zero chance that the death penalty is just. It will not exist in the future, unless we hit another dark ages.

 

[Hezam]

I'm not going to tell my opinion, But if someone killed one of your family the first thing that you would want is " Kill him " even if you are against death penalty.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I'm not going to tell my opinion, But if someone killed one of your family the first thing that you would want is " Kill him " even if you are against death penalty.

Does raw emotion have anything to do with this debate?

Some people are pretty vocal about wanting to kill people for the way they drive you know. How often are the words "I want to kill him!" uttered in the world every day? Its a common expression in American English. That means you cannot be sure who really means it and who doesn't, but I am sure many do and would if they could.

Emotion gives hints to truth a lot of times, but its not a decent guide at all.

But if someone killed one of my loved ones, my first thought would be to torture them mercilessly, not kill them. Might lose control in the process and accidentally kill them though. I have no doubt that a lot of people beaten to death in vengeance were killed accidentally actually, or at least, not beaten with that intention in mind.

 

[BrianLewis]

My main issue against the death penalty is that it won't bring a victim back to life. If you kill a serial killer, his victims won't come back, and their deaths won't be any less tragic/unnecessary. Their families aren't going to have the void of their lost loved one filled; it's just bitter all throughout. I know that no crime can be undone, but at times the death penalty seems way too vengeful to me. The whole idea of punishment in itself is to better the person being punished by making them remorseful for what they've done, or at the very least, to make them understand that they've inflicted pain/suffering/inconvenience on someone. It entails some degree of rehabilitation. Sometimes I have a really hard time seeing the point in taking someone's life in the name of "punishment" as I've described it.

You can only rehabilitate to a certain point. Some crimes are so heinous that the person forfeits their right to live (knowing fully well that their crime was punishable by death), and become an example for others not to follow. How can you, let alone criminals, respect any system that gives free food, a bed, recreational activity and entertainment to those that commit murder and rape? It's true that the victims will not come back, but one thing is sure, once you kill the murderer, he will never commit another murder. We have an obligation to society to remove people that have already proven that they can harm people in that matter, not doing so only creates more victims. It really has nothing to do with vengeance, or revenge; it's about following through on an obligation to society. Why have such a bleeding heart when they knew full well what the punishment was and still decided to victimize another human being?

When it comes to saying that it is too costly, that does not mean that the punishment is wrong, it simply means that our justice system is bloated and in need of reform.

Forget about the law for a second. Ask yourself who has the skills to work within in such a comprehensive system, and make such a system work and work fairly? Who has both the brains and dedication required? Precious, precious few people. It does not matter how perfect you make a system, the people in it will screw it up every time. So many people in the criminal justice system are in it for the money, the power trip over other humans, or both. There are more corrupt cops, prison guards, and companies with criminal justice system related contracts than we will probably ever really know.

I don't see society ever making any progress if everyone thought like that. Your making far too many assumptions about other people, while putting yourself on a pedestal of superior intellect. For shame! There are plenty of wise individuals out there that are capable of making sound judgments. If you always consider yourself a know-it-all then you are not likely to ever notice even if you meet one.

Truly the only reason anyone needs to be against the death penalty is the simpe fact that mistakes and "mistakes" happen and once someone is executed you can't make any sort of restitution. One such mistake is TOTALLY unforgivable as the means of making up for it have been lost forever.

Car accidents kill people. Should we not drive? People are wrongly convicted of crimes, but should we get rid of our justice system? That's the exact reason it takes years and so much money to execute someone. That doesn't mean that they should not be executed.

nyway, the death penalty cannot be considered as punishment because the point of punishment is to elicit good behavior in the future. Death eliminates that future, so by definition, it cannot be punishment.

When you make up your own definitions, I suppose you would agree with yourself quite often. "The infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense" is a real life definition. Death fits into that quite nicely.

The kind of society I want is the kind where a group of uniformed guards just storm into the office of a local politician or businessman and by decree of the highest command execute him on spot for embezzlement or treason. This is the most clean society where human filth is the most effectively disposed of.
A more "realistic" vision would be how China cleansed Hong Kong of the mafia filth. I used to support the chinese legal system until they switched to poison injection and organ removal rather than the virtuous beauty which is the headshot.

That's a dictatorship, not a justice system. Thanks for the chuckles.

If a single person is unjustly executed, then every voter and taxpayer is a murderer.
There is zero chance that the death penalty is just. It will not exist in the future, unless we hit another dark ages.

There are several different types of killing that you don't seem to be aware of. Manslaughter, accidental death, 1st and 2nd degree murder, neglect, etc.. You can't just pile them up into the same pile and call them the same because the motivation and circumstance surrounding the event matter more than the outcome itself.

I'm not going to tell my opinion, But if someone killed one of your family the first thing that you would want is " Kill him " even if you are against death penalty.

I would be happy to hear you opinion. I see so much pop culture here that I think your input would be the only thing original to come out of this thread.

 

[Tamayo]

Exactly, just want to know what do You think here. That is very contraversal case, apparently there are many layers to appeal to, and the result is three deaths. He spend 6 years in a jail waiting for his execution - that is inhumane.

Our judicial system needs to be more decisive, no matter what controversy hides behind it. Stepping back from morality and philosophy entirely, I think it's terrible that a government body will convict someone and sentence them to death, and never do it. The government needs to follow through with it's laws and processes if it expects the people under it to do the same.

did they killed them just to eliminate another problem without solving it?

Well, as I understand it, they had to sentence him to death since the degree to which a crime is committed changes the sentence. For example, the difference between manslaughter and preemptive murder can mean the difference between a few years in jail or life/even death sentences. Looking at the case objectively, I'd think that this is just a case where he got off lightly with a life sentence, but had to be sentenced to the ultimate punishment because he not only continued, but made a conscious decision to do so.

And even taking a step back from that process, it only makes sense to have sentenced him to death when you think about it. If they hadn't, who knows how many more would have had to die unnecessarily?

That is highly inhumane and dangerous. I think that it is more humane to kill everybody imediately after crime is commited, does not mean what kind of crime it was

First, I think you need to tell me what you mean by "inhumane". After all, forcing criminals to work can be considered "punishment" as I explained it earlier since they will have to live their lives not only suffering for the conscious decisions they made, but reflecting on why their actions were wrong. Not only that, but again, if you look at it from a political point of view, it makes sense to have criminals work so that they're not a complete dead-weight to society.

To be honest, if you really wanted a completely fair system, then exiling prisoners to a place where they'll have no positive or negative financial/political/social influence on society would really be the only choice. Having criminals work to tip the scale of their debts to society is far more humane than taking their lives.

Just answer one simple question: If there are 999 men were exploiting legal system, and 1 were not, is it humane to kill that last one with these 999?

Well, of course I could never condone killing innocent people -- At the same time, however, I also can't condone people being wrongly sentenced to punishments as simple as paying off a speeding ticket or paying some fine.

Our judicial systems have never been infallible, and I don't think they ever will be. No matter what sort of measures we take, we can never know with absolute certainty that there are no innocents being punished, or criminals being let off. Like I said, it's horrible to think that there are people out there who have to pay for other people's actions with their lives, but in situations like this, you have to simply pick the lesser of the two evils. I could never say that it's okay for someone to receive a punishment they didn't deserve, but justice will never be absolute on either side, so we shouldn't let that influence the way we handle criminals. I don't want to trade justice for the masses away just because there's the slight chance that 1 in 1,000 will be unjustly punished.

To answer your question: If the death penalty in this case is considered to be the just way to handle criminals, then I think we should proceed as such. Let me flip the question a bit, and it might make a tiny bit more sense from my perspective: "If there are 999 people who speed on the highway and get tickets for it, but one of them is actually innocent, is it still okay to fine the whole 999?"

If a single person is unjustly executed, then every voter and taxpayer is a murderer.
There is zero chance that the death penalty is just. It will not exist in the future, unless we hit another dark ages.

That's an extreme statement, and a bit off topic, I think. There are plenty of people here who disagree with the death penalty, but they can't dictate there their tax dollars go. Tax-payers are as murderous as people who buy goods that are imported from countries that essentially reap their crop with slaves. On top of that, regular tax payers have absolutely no direct hand in deciding whether someone deserves the death penalty or not (except juries, of course), so how could you make that claim?

By your definition, the only way for a regular citizen here not to be a "murderer" is to mass-migrate to different countries, and that'll never happen.

I'm not going to tell my opinion, But if someone killed one of your family the first thing that you would want is " Kill him " even if you are against death penalty.

I'm not entirely sure about that one, although I did mention above that I can't criticize families who want "justice" to be done upon murderers. I actually have a friend who's older sister was murdered during the night one room over from her. The whole ordeal ruined her. Losing her sister was devastating, but beyond that having to review over and over, all of the details of what she heard, saw, and felt to the police afterward.. I really have a heavy heart for her.

Amazingly, when we talked about it about a year later, she said that she never felt angry toward the murderer himself. She always said "Everyone has to go sometime, and it can't always be calm and in your sleep."

Although she's always had a pretty peaceful, Buddhist-like outlook on life, I don't really think it takes spiritual/religious enlightenment to keep calm and accept your losses -- I think it's just a matter of maturity and keeping your emotions and impulses from driving you to bad decisions. This is something that I've been trying to learn to do more and more for the past year or so, and while I can't say for certain how I'd feel in her position, I do know that it's a lot easier to accept reality than to think that crying or revenge will change it.

---------- Post added at 18:04 ---------- Previous post was at 17:51 ----------

Sorry for the double-post, but I didn't see this in time.

You can only rehabilitate to a certain point. Some crimes are so heinous that the person forfeits their right to live (knowing fully well that their crime was punishable by death), and become an example for others not to follow. How can you, let alone criminals, respect any system that gives free food, a bed, recreational activity and entertainment to those that commit murder and rape? It's true that the victims will not come back, but one thing is sure, once you kill the murderer, he will never commit another murder. We have an obligation to society to remove people that have already proven that they can harm people in that matter, not doing so only creates more victims. It really has nothing to do with vengeance, or revenge; it's about following through on an obligation to society. Why have such a bleeding heart when they knew full well what the punishment was and still decided to victimize another human being?

I agree with you, probably more than you think, but both sides of my opinion in this issue contradict one another on a few different levels. You've basically outlined the reasons why I'd support it, if I did wholly.

My problem with this, though, is that you can efficiently "remove" the threat from society by throwing a criminal into prison where he'll rot alone. Obviously it isn't always done correctly (see: ewww's link), but you can accomplish your obligation to society by confining them, and even making them work menial jobs with the right amount of reform in the system.

It's the discrepancies like this that keep me from being dedicated to one side of this issue.

When it comes to saying that it is too costly, that does not mean that the punishment is wrong, it simply means that our justice system is bloated and in need of reform.

Couldn't agree more. There are too many people who won't just come right up and say it for fear of looking "heartless", but it's absolutely true.

When you make up your own definitions, I suppose you would agree with yourself quite often. "The infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense" is a real life definition. Death fits into that quite nicely.

Here's where I disagree a bit. We'll really have to dig down and get to the root of meaning behind both "punishment" and "revenge", but far too often I see the two confused, and replaced with one another.

 

[BrianLewis]

My problem with this, though, is that you can efficiently "remove" the threat from society by throwing a criminal into prison where he'll rot alone. Obviously it isn't always done correctly (see: ewww's link), but you can accomplish your obligation to society by confining them, and even making them work menial jobs with the right amount of reform in the system.

When the soon to be criminal considers killing or raping someone do you think they are deterred more by knowing that they would die, or knowing that they would be fed for life, housed and have access to a community and TV? For many people, life in a cell is quite similar to their outside life, only they can only leave their cell at prearranged times.

Here's where I disagree a bit. We'll really have to dig down and get to the root of meaning behind both "punishment" and "revenge", but far too often I see the two confused, and replaced with one another.

OK, then saying you agree with my argument above, would it not be required for our justice system to follow through on the sentence? I don't see any emotional connotation in following through on one's obligations. It's the media that stresses the vengeance aspect of the punishment because they want crying family members on their broadcast.

 

[Tamayo]

When the soon to be criminal considers killing or raping someone do you think they are deterred more by knowing that they would die, or knowing that they would be fed for life, housed and have access to a community and TV?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this -- Are you saying that the government should follow through with it's justice in all cases, or are you saying that a life sentence isn't enough?

If the former is true, then I agree 100 percent. If the latter is true, then I've just got to point out that people will murder others regardless of the punishment they'll receive in return. The death penalty hasn't been outlawed, and I would think that that alone should serve as sufficient evidence that murderers are indifferent to the consequences of their actions, regardless of how grave they are.

For many people, life in a cell is quite similar to their outside life, only they can only leave their cell at prearranged times.

This is something I deeply wish to see reformed. Punishment should entail suffering, not just the "timeout" that our government is essentially letting all of the criminals off with. As I mentioned, there are a lot of homeless people who will do what it takes to be thrown into prison because they know they'll have an easier life than what they had before. Three (scheduled) meals a day, plumbing, bedding, warmth, recreational time, access to schooling and counseling, and none of it must be worked for. Our tax dollars are being thrown away to fund criminals "bettering themselves" during their time in prison instead of using it law-abiding citizens. The fact that a prisoner can get a free degree during his or her sentence while people on the outside are crushed by student loans, along with all of the other responsibilities of life is vile. I don't think that we should totally repeal the way that prison life is, but our government sure needs to get it's priorities straight. Our system isn't nearly as intuitive as it needs to be.

People who break the law forfeit their Constitutional rights, and I think we need to stop bending over backwards to make it easier for people who intentionally put innocent men, women and children in danger.

OK, then saying you agree with my argument above, would it not be required for our justice system to follow through on the sentence? I don't see any emotional connotation in following through on one's obligations. It's the media that stresses the vengeance aspect of the punishment because they want crying family members on their broadcast.

Yes, I agree that our government should employ it's laws in as much of a timely manner as it expects us to, whether those laws entail a life sentence in jail, or the death penalty. The only thing in question here for me is whether death should be a part of those laws.

Like I said, I lean a bit toward being against the death penalty, but rules are rules. Whether a government's laws are morally correct or not, they still need to follow through with enforcing them.

For example -- (I don't intend to get too deep into this, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but) I suppose I could use an extreme example like China's laws concerning multiple children. I read a few articles where the government there forced women to have abortions when they went ahead and had more kids. While I deeply disagree with the moral substance of their laws on the matter, I still think that the woman brought it on herself by breaking it in the first place. Does that make sense?

 

[Mark of Zorro]

When the soon to be criminal considers killing or raping someone do you think they are deterred more by knowing that they would die, or knowing that they would be fed for life, housed and have access to a community and TV? For many people, life in a cell is quite similar to their outside life, only they can only leave their cell at prearranged times.

Is rape a crime punishible the the DP????

I think which is worse is too subjective to determine. Some people would rather be executed than be stuck for life in prison. In fact, some people kill themselves to avoid the fate.

But who cares? Making examples of people is a FUGGIN SICK practice. If you cannot focus on fair punishment but instead tinker with ideas of scaring people straight via killing people to make a statement, I would say you just lost the justice debate utterly.

 

[SevenStarsHK2N]

The main problem with execution from a moral point of view is:

One person is killing another - this is not in a combat situation - this is in a situation where - in the present - one man is tied up - they are no threat to anyone at that time as they are restrained - they are unarmed - another person then kills this unarmed helpless person - with money being the primary in not sole motivator for doing so.

to be in favor of execution - is to say that sometimes it's ok to kill a man who is tied up, unarmed.

There was a brilliant documentary years ago in the UK.

It was about execution in america - but not the angle you expect.

The entire documentary was about the effect that executions have on the executioners.

The result is bad. Nearly all become alcoholics and or struggle with depression. some even going as far as suicide, due to the depression and guilt, which came about as a direct result of having to kill someone who is tied to a table, begging for his life and proclaiming his innocence.

State sanctioned execution - does little to benefit the state - and much to harm it.

Japan has executions - and they are the worst and scariest type in the civilized world.

1. you can be sentenced to death (and people do) by magistrates!!
2. you are not actually given a date when you will die - every night you go to sleep thinking it could be your last night alive, it could be years till you are actually hung.

Death is pointless - and i find it deeply bizarre that it seems to have such a strong hold in American states with a strong conservative christian demographic.

 

[Hezam]

Does raw emotion have anything to do with this debate?

Some people are pretty vocal about wanting to kill people for the way they drive you know. How often are the words "I want to kill him!" uttered in the world every day? Its a common expression in American English. That means you cannot be sure who really means it and who doesn't, but I am sure many do and would if they could.

Emotion gives hints to truth a lot of times, but its not a decent guide at all.

But if someone killed one of my loved ones, my first thought would be to torture them mercilessly, not kill them. Might lose control in the process and accidentally kill them though. I have no doubt that a lot of people beaten to death in vengeance were killed accidentally actually, or at least, not beaten with that intention in mind.

You are right about this, But we need to define " Justice " before we make any judgment.

 

[dudleysharp]

The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
Dudley Sharp

The death penalty has a foundation in justice and it spares more innocent lives.

Anti death penalty arguments are either false or the pro death penalty arguments are stronger.

The majority populations of all countries, likely, support the death penalty for some crimes (1).

Why? Justice.

THE DEATH PENALTY: SAVING MORE INNOCENT LIVES

Of all endeavors that put innocents at risk, is there one with a better record of sparing innocent lives than the US death penalty? Unlikely.

1) The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives
ProDPinNC: The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives

2) Innocents More At Risk Without Death Penalty
ProDPinNC: Innocents More At Risk Without Death Penalty

3) LIFE: MUCH PREFERRED OVER EXECUTION
99.7% of murderers tell us "Give me life, not execution"
ProDPinNC: LIFE: MUCH PREFERRED OVER EXECUTION

MORAL FOUNDATIONS: DEATH PENALTY PT. 1

1) Immanuel Kant: "If an offender has committed murder, he must die. In this case, no possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most miserable life, so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is judicially put to death.". "A society that is not willing to demand a life of somebody who has taken somebody else's life is simply immoral."

2) Pope Pius XII; "When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live." 9/14/52.

3) Theodore Roosevelt: " . . . among the very rare occasions when anything governmental or official caused me to lose sleep were times when I had to listen to some poor mother making a plea for a criminal so wicked, so utterly brutal and depraved, that it would have been a crime on my part to remit his punishment.".

4) John Murray: "Nothing shows the moral bankruptcy of a people or of a generation more than disregard for the sanctity of human life." "... it is this same atrophy of moral fiber that appears in the plea for the abolition of the death penalty." "It is the sanctity of life that validates the death penalty for the crime of murder. It is the sense of this sanctity that constrains the demand for the infliction of this penalty. The deeper our regard for life the firmer will be our hold upon the penal sanction which the violation of that sanctity merit." (Page 122 of Principles of Conduct).

5) John Locke: "A criminal who, having renounced reason... hath, by the unjust violence and slaughter he hath committed upon one, declared war against all mankind, and therefore may be destroyed as a lion or tyger, one of those wild savage beasts with whom men can have no society nor security." And upon this is grounded the great law of Nature, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." Second Treatise of Civil Government.

6) Billy Graham: "God will not tolerate sin. He condemns it and demands payment for it. God could not remain a righteous God and compromise with sin. His holiness and His justice demand the death penalty." ( "The Power of the Cross," published in the Apr. 2007 issue of Decision magazine ).

7) Jean-Jacques Rousseau: "In killing the criminal, we destroy not so much a citizen as an enemy. The trial and judgments are proofs that he has broken the Social Contract, and so is no longer a member of the State." (The Social Contract).

8) Saint (& Pope) Pius V: "The just use of (executions), far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this (Fifth) Commandment which prohibits murder." "The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent" (1566).

"Killing Equals Killing: The Amoral Confusion of Death Penalty Opponents"
Death Penalty Articles: Murder and execution - Very distinct moral differences. New Mexico

"The Death Penalty: Neither Hatred nor Revenge"
Death Penalty Articles: The Death Penalty: Neither Hatred nor Revenge

"Moral/ethical Death Penalty Support: Christian and secular Scholars"
ProDPinNC: Death Penalty Support: Modern Catholic Scholars

"The Death Penalty: Not a Human Rights Violation"
Death Penalty Articles: The Death Penalty: Not a Human Rights Violation


1) US Death Penalty Support at 80%; World Support Remains High
ProDPinNC: US Death Penalty Support at 80%: World Support Remains High

Much more, upon request. [email protected]

 

[dudleysharp]

Innocents more at risk without death penalty

snip The corruptablity and fallibility of human beings is a big reason why I am solidly against the death penalty.

At least in the US, innocents are more protected with th death penalty.

More innocents will die without the death penalty.

THE DEATH PENALTY: SAVING MORE INNOCENT LIVES

Of all endeavors that put innocents at risk, is there one with a better record of sparing innocent lives than the US death penalty? Unlikely.

1) The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives
ProDPinNC: The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives

2) Innocents More At Risk Without Death Penalty
ProDPinNC: Innocents More At Risk Without Death Penalty

3) LIFE: MUCH PREFERRED OVER EXECUTION
99.7% of murderers tell us "Give me life, not execution"
ProDPinNC: LIFE: MUCH PREFERRED OVER EXECUTION

 

[BrianLewis]

People who break the law forfeit their Constitutional rights, and I think we need to stop bending over backwards to make it easier for people who intentionally put innocent men, women and children in danger.

I can't agree more. It seems like those in charge of prisons consider the micro more important than the macro. What I mean is, if they give them TVs, a grocery store, and social interaction, they fight less. However, the whole point of reforming them is lost to comfort and job security.

But who cares? Making examples of people is a FUGGIN SICK practice. If you cannot focus on fair punishment but instead tinker with ideas of scaring people straight via killing people to make a statement, I would say you just lost the justice debate utterly.

People that have already broken the law with full knowledge of the consequences. They still get justice, while publicising that the government follows through on it's laws. We aren't rounding up innocent people here to make examples of. Do you know the difference between innocent and guilty people? If not, the level of this debate might be beyond your understanding.

Is rape a crime punishable the the DP????

It is in my political views. However, I respect my nation's stance and follow it.

One person is killing another - this is not in a combat situation - this is in a situation where - in the present - one man is tied up - they are no threat to anyone at that time as they are restrained - they are unarmed - another person then kills this unarmed helpless person - with money being the primary in not sole motivator for doing so.

A person that has proven that they don't care about the law and have killed and would kill again provided similar circumstances. I consider that justifiable. It's the law's job to prevent crimes as much as it is to punish them. That aside, I don't see why you would mock someone for getting paid to do a job. I have a great deal of respect for someone that would accept such a serious role in society. Do they not deserve to feed their family because of it? Would it be better to find volunteers that do it because they enjoy it?

I am sure all of you can agree with me on one thing: Once they are dead, they will never kill again.

Death is pointless - and i find it deeply bizarre that it seems to have such a strong hold in American states with a strong conservative christian demographic.

Conservative stance has always been pro execution. Probably because conservatives read the Bible. Liberals are usually against executions, and like to make up their own rules.

All of you guys that make statements about the one being executed being poor and helpless, groveling and depressed, your ignoring, or forgetting, the fact that that person was tried and found guilty of a heinous and brutal crime. That sort of crime cannot be allowed to happen again by that same person. You need to realize that the tears are for himself, and not for his victim.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

I'm undecided. Some criminals (e.g., Osama bin Laden) deserve execution. Yet, I've seen too many miscarriages in our system of justice to trust the idea of irrevocable decisions.

"to be in favor of execution - is to say that sometimes it's ok to kill a man who is tied up, unarmed."

Execution isn't a sporting contest, it's supposed to be about justice. Studies have shown that deterrence is a poor argument, but satisfying the sense of justice for the victim's family and society is a valid policy justification.

"The entire documentary was about the effect that executions have on the executioners."

There are enough sociopaths already in law enforcement and prison staff who could perform executions and not miss a wink of sleep. Yes, this statement is at least half-facetious, though based on reality.

"Death is pointless - and i find it deeply bizarre that it seems to have such a strong hold in American states with a strong conservative christian demographic."

Then you don't know much about the Christian Bible. And I don't mean just the Old Testament. The central event of the New Testament was the execution of Jesus by one of the most prolonged and horrible means ever devised -- and somehow this was supposed to be a good thing for mankind.

God created humans in His own image, i.e., giving them God's own propensity for violence. When humans give in to this God-instilled bent, God is jealous and declares they have sinned. So He knocks up a human woman and decrees that His son (who is actually God himself) shall be bloodily executed to atone for the sins of humans. Or was God really paying for His own sin in creating a violent species? The whole story has confused me since age 15.

As history shows, the convoluted and unfathomable logic of Christianity can be used to justify any sort of violence against fellow humans. Almost any other example would better support your point.

 

[Macrobiotic]

American execution is a vulgar spectacle mostly intended so that the moralizing, (not rarely) obese, middle-class consumers can have their "revenge" on the scum whose criminal actions was a result of their backwards society and its unhealthy values to begin with.

If they wanted to kill fast they would use Hydrogen Cyanid (not sure this is the english name) rather than Potassium Cyanid. The former was the poison used by the elite of the Third Reich during the mass suicide waves towards the end. It kills in seconds just from contact with the tongue. The latter may or may not kill even when injected into the bloodstream and is deliberately chosen to cause agony. I may have confused the names of these substances in english.

The firing squads of China, the short and effective trials as well as the almost immediate execution is a role model. China has maybe the worlds best legal system in some aspects. Light years more efficient and civilized than the US.

America is the country where lard-*** police officers are equipped with stun guns to be used against people who "talk back against them". Also an example of the sadism, perversion etc of that country. To call their rape prisons a means to "reform" criminals is absolute nonsense. It's just another form of the good old american sadism.
I prefer China any day of the week if forced to chose between China and the USA. At least they torture for a political purpose, not for the purpose of the sadistic pleasure of the middle-class.

If I wanted to cause someone agony I would have them hung with piano strings and would make absolutely no effort to hide the purpose of this was to give them a horrible death. In the US however, the gas chambers and poison injections, the relatives of the victims watching etc is all set up in a perverse way and justified behind the typical disgusting consumerist christian "I had a chocolate cake with X number of cancer related substances and will die of heart attack at age 65, but before that I will take my kids to Disney Land and give them Macaroni and Cheese. Let's hope no school killer gets them before that happens" morals.

Death penalty, yes. American-style death penalty, no thanks.