Death Penalty

Remove all ads!

I don't think this is possible. Even if it would be possible, society would not be responsible for persecution.
Society is only responsible to persecute violation of it's own laws. Forcefully ending the life of a person is forbidden in most, if not all of them.

But imagine a society in which killing someone is not against the institutionalised law. Then people would have to take (percieved) justice into their own hands and take revenge on a murderer. But that would be natural law.

So, by executing people who murdered someone, society enacts natural law, but only as subsitute for people who would take revenge. Which is a heavy contradiction, because the state leaves its own rules behind.


@Shoshino, let's say you had to decide if a convicted murderes dies. You could set the injection or power up the chair. It's your decision, backed by laws. You kill someone.

Wouldn't you be a murderer, too? You essentially take away someones right to live.


Death penalty is barbaric, because you cannot take away human rights!

 

But the point is, they already took away someone's right to life, and they deserve the same! I know "an eye for an eye" doesn't always apply, but with murderers, it does. Jail doesn't teach them a lesson. Death teaches them, and everyone else, that the punishment for death is death.

 

@ AMaster
Sorry for the lapse in reply. Elaborating on the appeal system. When I say next to everything is appealed I mean it. Apparently every court case has some part of the law that was not followed to the exact letter. Apparently heaps of people think they got an unfair trial. Fact is they're just taking one last stab at freedom and the taxpayer is the one who gets the bill.

More often than not even if an appeal succeeds they go BACK to trial with a new jury/judge and the process starts again. In that trial they're found guilty, guess what? They appeal THAT one too.

Someone who has already proven that they're not up to the responsibilities of being given that right.

There's too much about 'his rights' and such. People forget about responsibilities. Your rights are based on the fact that you uphold everyone elses' rights, that is your responsibility. Someone who fails to do that should get equal treatment as an example as to WHY we have these rights and responsibilities in place. The crimeunishment ratio for murder is seriously lop-sided. I could go on a killing spree at a pre-school and my punishment would be life imprisonment. While in prison I could assault and/or kill other prisoners/guards and what would they do about it? Lock me up for longer? I've already got life. Where is the incentive to stop killing?

Life imprisonment is like a gentle slap on the wrist for murder.

 

But the victim has been deprived of that right, therefore letting the criminal live means that he then has more rights.

I say give him his "Martyrdom"--then tell the terrorists that he died in the most degrading manner possible. But then again, I believe that his afterlife will be dramatically different than what was promised...

Exactly the point. Cull the herd, eliminate a danger to the good members of society, call it what you will, just string the bastards up.

Another excellent point. We put a lot of effort into killing them in the most painless, non intrusive manner available.

Yeah, but we can't have them all. Actually you have made a good point. Anyone remember Jeffry Dalmer? Would a lethal injection be less painful than what happenned to him?

An excellent justification. I'm not saying it's always the best cource of action, but it should be available...

 

I've been staying out of this one. I've seen several things bandied about that I thought would have been corrected which haven't thus far. For starters, there was an assertion made that prisoners get a better standard of living than other americans. This is completely untrue. The closeness in which prisoners live within their own cells, even under the best scenarios, would actually not be legal outside of prison. Examples of prisoners having the "height of luxury tend to be either greatly exaggerated or (unfortunately, quite often) completely made up. (Most) Prisons don't have cable TV in the cells, and the many other creature comforts prisons are often accused of having. Sure, a prison might have Cable TV, but it's usually in a "community room" and access to it is somewhat limited. It's been stated that prisoners do not work. While sometimes true, this is more often not the case. That telemarketer calling you from AT&T or the guy that made your liscense plate is often a prisoner, for example.

It was also stated that we aren't wrongly convicting people because of improvements in forensics and genetic testing. This is also completely untrue since it is completely possible to convict someone without the murder weapon and without any genetic evidence. You can convict on strong circumstancial evidence, which will not necessarily be disproiven by studying genetic evidence.

People will always be wrongfully convicted. The question, then, to adress is whether we want to occasionally be wrongfully punishing the innocent or sparing the guilty. I don't think anyone is ever going to come to an agreement about whether or not the state has the right to put prisoners to death....so I don't even think that should be the central question of the Death Penalty debate. Most people, I think, would agree that it is better to occasionally spare the guilty than it is to punish the innocent. Given the staggering number of cases we have found in which innocents were put to death (and the strong likelyhood that what we have found is only the tip of the iceberg), it's fair to state that if the death penalty continues, we will continue to put innocents to death.

 

the reason society is becoming as weak and lawless as it has is because of these little moral problems people have - lots of it leads back to religion. society needs strong leaders who are prepared to do what has to be done, under the strong monarchs england was the most powerful force on the planet, under the emperors rome and china were impervious - its when population took control and society quibbled over morals that these great powers fell.

you have to do what you have to do, i dont care about the murderer, to me he's nothing, he's less then human hes as important as a bug under my feet, is squishing a bug murder? nope, killing a dangerous animal isnt either.

think of all the money which could go to schools, hospitals or police if the prison system were overhauled, manditory death penalty for heinous crimes - next day execution, 1 bullet in the head.
perfect.

 

And you could get sent to death row for no other reason than having the wrong color on your face, based on a bogus eyewitness report and a lazy jury.

Oh wait, that happens already.

 

Then scrap juries. Why does the ultimate decision in a court of law come down to those who are least qualified to answer it? To keep things democratic? Please! How about we conduct surgery the same way? Take 12 random people and they vote on the best course of action. I mean, the situations are very similar, someone's life/wellbeing is in their hands.

 

You're wrong here Drew. Military members live under these conditions on a regular basis (especially enlisted personnel in the Navy). In fact, prisoner have MORE space than our men and women serving in the Navy and Marine Corps assigned to ships. If you start counting the conditions Marines and Soldiers live in the field, the prisoner's live a pretty easy life. Hell, they even get visits every week -- a Navy ship pulls out and the sailors don't see their families for six months.

My father is this type of bleeding heart, but I would rather punish a few innocents to keep more of the criminals off the streets -- we are talking about really hard core criminals here. Most of the "innocents" you are talking about are also hard core criminals who have been wrongly convicted -- not much a down side there to me.

 

The conditions that sailors live under aren't legal outside of the Navy and Marine Corps (and other seafaring work, except that they can only be kept under those conditions while at sea while sailors often live on the ship even when it is in port, though this trend is actually changing).....and they are chosen willingly. You've just brought up the exception that proves the rule.

How is it that pointing out the obvious makes me a bleeding heart? I never said I thought that this implies that the Death penalty should be discontinued. (Although I am stating it now in the interest of disclosing my bias.) Handy labels like "bleeding heart" are just convenient ways to avoid listening to dissenting opinions. You don't have to agree with me, but common decency would suggest taking my words at face value rather than labeling me in an effort to more easily discount my words.

What are you talking about? Are you saying that only "hardened criminals" get wrongfully convicted? Do you have any statistics to support this? I'll humor you, though. Let's pretend you are right. Would the "fact" that most people who are wrongly convicted of capitol crimes are already "hardened criminals" actually justify the wrongful imprisonment and execution? I say no......and my reason is simple. Considering that most of these "hardened criminals" have likely already paid their debt to society, it seems to me that you are using another one of those handy labels to avoid actually looking at the issue. An ex-criminal who has been released from prison is just that.....an ex-criminal. He should be treated as such until he gives society a reason to think otherwise. We (society) have an equal duty to protect ex-criminals that we do to protect those who have never been convicted or caught. His life holds as much inherent value as yours or mine.

 

This issue is actually very simple, and it doesn't need a moral debate except in the hypothetical.

The death penalty costs significantly more than Life without Parol, and it usually takes between 15-20 years to get about. Life without Parol, on the other hand, costs less, is more torturing, in my opinion, and odds aren't bad they'll take care of themselves for you (suicide). In the modern court system, unless I'm mistaken, the death penalty is used more as a threat and a bargaining chip than a genuinely sought punishment.

In the hypothetical situation that we could prove 100%, without any doubt that the person was guilty, and thereby bypass all the appeals and such, and execute the person within a matter of weeks of the convicion, then I'm all for it. Neither the creation of life nor the destruction of life is the absolute realm of God, not unless you concider everything the absolute realm of God. In fact, even doing things we can't control the outcome of isn't the absolute realm of God. We do things all the time we can't control the outcome of. In fact, by chaos theory, every time you breathe, you could be sentencing thousands in China 25 years from now to a terrible death.

The only power God has that He hasn't in any way given man any chance to achieve on our own (as far as we know) is the ability to create or destroy absolutely. You cannot create anything out of nothing, nor can you turn anything into nothing.

@Ab:
Actually, the juries just determine the veracity of the claims, whether or not the person actually did it, they don't determine sentencing. In that respect, the majority of Americans are equally suitable (I like to think).

 

No problem with that, here, since that hypothetical has never happened and never will. There is always some doubt somewhere. If, on the other hand, you said 99.9%, I'd have to disagree with you.

The Catholic Church is likely to disagree with you on this one.

 

A fundamental part we disagree on is that I put NO value on the lives of rapists, murderers, child molesters and drug dealers. I believe the punishment for these crimes should be extreme and expedient. As such, your arguements are quite moot -- you value the life of what I would consider less than pond scum. That's fine -- you can continue to pay to keep them alive, I don't want to and will oppose any legislation which puts value on their lives.

When you use absolutes in your arguement it becomes quite easy to blow holes in the arguement. Exceptions do not prove a rule -- they show inadequacies in the rule as presented. I do not believe any prisoner should be ever given more comfort than even the most junior of our nation's protectors. The living conditions of our park rangers is also quite substandard in many places still.

 

T2 bruno: Many sailors are actually released from the navy due to claustrophobia.....or even just being too tall. If you want to use such standards for prisoners, than you are going to have to let the tall ones, the bed wetters, and the claustrophobic ones go.....or give them special treatment. Sailors choose their lifestyle. They have one huge thing that prisoners don't have. Freedom.

Regarding the value of the lives of ex-criminals......I take it, then, that you feel that it is 100% impossible to rehabilitate a criminal?

 

You use absolutes again and assumptions -- these are weak debate tactics.

One of the major flaws in our legal system is the lack of an effective rehabilitation system. Our prisons are about punishment. Period. To think there is an effective rehabilitation program for prisoners is simply naive (many prisoners reform, but that is something THEY do -- and those individuals deserve great credit for rehabilitating in a system that nearly discourages such action).

I have long believed our prison system should have dual capacity of rehabilitation and punishment. Many offenders would gain from an effective rehabilitation program -- especially one held away from the hardened criminals who either do not want to be rehabilitated or cannot be. Repeat offenders or those whose crimes show significant callous attitude to others (such as the crimes I specifically mentioned previously) should simply be punished -- and the punishment should be extreme.

 

T2: Using an absolute to point out an absurdity is not quite the same thing. You used an absolute when you stated that prisoners should not be treated better than sailors. I used an absolute to point out that your absolute wasn't correct. You are playing semantics and avoiding the issue again.

 

Strange, I thought there were two paragraphs after the first sentence. I am fairly certain I addressed the issue in those....

It appears you are the one avoiding the issue.

 

I wasn't responding to those two paragraphs. I was responding to this. I don't disagree with the other two paragraphs, so I didn't respond to them. My only disagreement lies in how one should define "extreme". "Not responding" isn't the same thing as "avoiding the issue". Sometimes it indicates agreement.

 

what about those people who's standard of living is so low that they commit a crime to get put in prison? should their plan for a better life be allowed because they killed someone? (and dont tell me it doesnt happen because i know someone personally who committed a hit and run attack to get put in jail.

wrong, when you sign up for any millitary outfit you have a period of minimum service, normally 4 years, 6 if they provide you with necessary education. the only way you can leave in this time is if they discharge you. if you dont like it, then its tuff you made your 1 choice (in much the same way as a crook does when they commit their crime), the added bonus in the forces is that you have to go and fight too... hows that for a sentence?

 

When I proudly served in the United States Navy, I did so by choice......with my eyes wide open. Regarding people who are so poor they commit crimes to get into prison.......give me an example. I want the name of a person who did that. If this happens all the time you should be able to give me a name, date, year, the crime committed, and the prison he/she served his/her time. If you can't provide a name then I'm going to write off this and any other such assertion as nothing more than a cheap rhetorical tactic which isn't even remotely based in reality.