Amfliflier wrote:Well this needs to be viewed from both sides. If someone killed a family member that you were close to, would you want the death penalty? Most likely yes. But if someone, lets say a close family member, killed someone, would you want the death penalty for them? Most likely no. I'm neutral really, because it depends on if my close family member was the killer or the victim...
Amfliflier wrote:No, I'm just saying that different people will have different views on whether or not the death sentence should be enforced.I'm still neutral, just bringing up a point.
Confictura wrote:We also have to look at the cost of having a death penalty versus the cost of not having one.We can:Spend thousands a year feeding people in prison FOR LIFE.Or, we can pay for the price of a single bullet.Hmm?
We also have to look at the cost of having a death penalty versus the cost of not having one.We can:Spend thousands a year feeding people in prison FOR LIFE.Or, we can pay for the price of a single bullet.
Kamas wrote:Just because I'm rather bored:The (uncorrupted) law is not subjective, ever. It is a set line that when crossed, punishment will be faced. Determining who deserves to be killed is left to the judgement of individuals who have lives, and by being a person who has experienced things, there is immediate bias. So, if there is to be a death sentence, by no means shall it be to kill off the "sickos" who "deserve" to die for their actions.
People who kill, rape, torture, the whole shebang, are disgusting in my opinion. There is absolutely no justifiable reason to kill another human being, ever. Life is something we do not understand, so, we do not touch it.The very same applies to a murdered victim, a teenage girl or boy you perhaps knew or heard of. But this also applies to the creepy person who smiles in court when on murder trail.
The system of executing criminals, has to do with the age-old tradition of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. This, in older times, or even if you look at sibling fights, or everyday fights. I hit you, because you hit me, but then the person you hit wants their revenge and it creates a cycle of escalating violence. Now, executing is slightly more effective because the person who would try to hit back is now dead. But will it bring back the dead victim, or take away the hurt another victim might be suffering from. Will it give you satisfaction? Honestly, hopefully not, because being pleased, or relived at the death of another being at someone else's hands is comparably disgusting. I remember when I used to fight bitterly with my brother, my mother would always tell me to not lower myself to his level when he came looking for a fight.
All that personal voicing aside. If you do consider it, capital punishment is the epitome of hypocrisy. Murdering a murderer. Violating the Universal Declaration of human rights (that states the right to life) as well as constitutional guarantees to the protection of rights and laws because a person did so themselves.Resorting to the barbaric natures that were used at the beginnings of penology, (alongside slavery, branding and other punishments used at the time) that this person resorted to when murdering their victim.
AuroraOrodel wrote:What? I'm lost here. Who is supposed to judge the accused, then? I don't follow your progression.
All of this may be true, but it's also entirely dependent on how you define your community, how you define who is a person, and how you define what rights that person has. As a general society, we agree that killing someone is wrong. Taboo. Against our way of things. However, murderers have willingly broken this taboo in full knowledge of its wrongness in the eyes of the community. Depending on the community, that can mean the murderer's rights are forfeit.
Actually, it has to do with keeping dangerous idiots out of your population. In days past, if Bob down the street killed someone and it was judged by the community to have been murder (as in not self defense or for other provocation considered reasonable by said community) he'd be hanged, not as punishment to him, but as a protection to the community. If it was really "eye for an eye", the family of the victim would be allowed to kill someone important to the killer. As for being glad the killer is dead...there's probably more people who would be glad for that than you would expect.
Perhaps I'm barbaric, but it's my belief that criminals lose some of their rights. Isn't that the whole basis on which prison is built? That you commit a crime, you lose some of your rights?
The Universal Declaration of Human rights is lovely, but it doesn't get followed, even in democracies. Rights are always qualified by something. Everyone has a right to life, why not a right to kill? Couldn't it be said that a killer was just exercising his/her right to kill?
The general assembly proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
We value life, and when that life is taken without our consent, we are upset. It's that simple. (That's the difference between murder and war. One gets a rubber stamp of social approval, and another doesn't.) Murder is the taking of a life without provocation or (understandable) reason, while killing is the taking of a life with provocation or reason. For example, going on a cross-nation trip and kidnapping and poisoning a person in every town you stop in according to your own internal logic system is murder. Shooting the thief who just broke into your house and is threatening your family is killing. One is punished while the other is commended.
Rights are for members of a society, not outcasts, and breaking the rules of the society makes one an outcast. I don't agree with the death penalty for everything, not for most things actually, but I will always believe that sometimes, the crazy nutter who chopped up 12 kids and kept their eyeballs in his pillowcase over a period of 10 years just needs to be ended.
I think more people approve of the notion of just plain killing the bad guys than will admit it. Why are vigilante heroes so popular? We enjoy seeing characters get revenge for the murders of their families by horribly slaughtering everyone that stands between them and the murderer. It's satisfying on some level.
Here's a question: Say we have a murderer of a particularly depraved variety who has committed the crime beyond any shadow of a doubt, and if ever given parole/escapes, will commit the heinous crimes again. They have been convicted of it. Everyone is in agreement, there would be no use for an appeal. Brace yourselves, this may sound harsh: What's the use in keeping them around? To make ourselves feel better, like we took a moral high ground? We put down beloved family dogs for nipping our neighbors when startled, and yet we will fight tooth and nail to keep someone alive who is far more dangerous, just because they're homo sapiens? What's the difference between killing an animal who poses a threat to the community and killing a human who poses a (more serious) threat to the community?
Kamas wrote:It doesn't work with the law. We can't determine this, it's a subjective set line, which is not how the law works.
"how you define what rights that person has", these are already defined for us in constitutional papers that democracy are based on. These papers are where freedom and right of life, equality, to have a home and make yourself a living is made legal. Laws are built around these rights, to protect them. The ONLY times rights can be taken away, is in time of war. Or by sending a person to jail. "define who is a person", this too, is defined for us in law. A person is legally defined as a living human being with basic rights to life, liberty, equality before the law and everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. There are no exceptions to who is and is not a person."define your community", I don't see what this has to do with determining whether someone who broke the law has to do with the community. A community cannot determine what is to be done with a murderer in their community, because ever community is different. We aren't living in the middle ages.
I'm an optimist and would hope that those seeking revenge through the legal death of the murderer who killed someone in their family would have some moral soundness and not be happy at the circumstances they find themselves in. But hey, I could be wrong.
And in fact it is "an eye for an eye", they take a life, we take one back. What if they kill someone without friends, or family? What would you do then, in the way you stated. This revenge thing is far more simpler then who they kill, it's a life for a life, and since you only have one to offer and it would be their own.If there was no shadow of a doubt he was guilty, he would face a judge and jury and be sent to jail, therefore removing the threat from the community, for the rest of his miserable life.
There is a difference between jail and execution is one they do not touch basic rights, the other they do.In jail, you're removed your right to vote (in almost all the states in the United States) and your right to mobility.You still have the liberty to talk, associate, face fair trial and stay alive.Execution takes away all the above.
Nonsense. Without the Declaration, someone could attack you, persecute you for talking to them. They could decide that they don't like you, therefore depriving you of your home. You couldn't state your opinion freely in a community if someone decided you were wrong.
The U.D.H.R is the set standard for civilized society. It's disregarded in democracy? Absolutely not. The laws we are under the scrutiny of uses this document as well as many like it for the basis of the justice system. Why is killing a taboo? Because every person has the right to life. Thus a law is made to protect that, where if you kill you face punishment. It's not something you can shake off so easily and say we don't care about it anyways.
As for the right to kill another human being, there is no right, therefore no basis they can stand on saying it was their right to kill this person. So this doesn't hold up anywhere. Laws have a basis, the only right to kill is with a hunter's license and with birds, and other animals.
Actually, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be commended. The laws to self defense are extremely strict. I don't think war has a place in this part of your rebuttal, but, war itself is under the ranks of "justified killing". (Which is a whole different pond to delve into).
The law does not look at members of society, and outcasts. Everyone is a person and has the right to be considered such in trail. The issue with not agreeing with all cases goes back to what I said at the beginning of my post. You can't determine who dies and who is sick enough to die. Where is the line drawn between these sickos who chopped children and a simple one time murderer?
Society looks at animals differently then they would a human. Our culture makes it so. You can't compare an animal to a person in the eye of the law. (I feel terribly redundant.)
If someone, without a shadow of a doubt committed a murder, they'll get life. And chances are, if it is seen that they'll commit the crime again. They WILL NOT be released again. This threat to the community you continuously bring up is non-existant when they're in jail, just as it would be if they were dead. Why reduce ourselves to the repulsive hypocrisy of execution when we can remain on this high moral ground as you say with the same outcome.
Kamas wrote:Capital Punishment is unconstitutional, inefficient, and remains in my mind, the epitome of hypocrisy. But, it's not an issue that can be resolved from the opinion of outsiders. It up to the people living within a place with capital punishment to determine if they wish to keep it or not. The death sentence itself is an age-old argument.
The questions you can ask yourself is say, is execution by state just as immoral as the killing of a private citizen? Does it deter from crimes to be committed? Does it punish criminals for their actions?
In my opinion, the hypocrisy that is the death sentence should A. Be abolished B. The mindset of this law to be applied to all other forms of justice.You murder a murderer. Alright, sure. So therefore you would steal x amount from a thief, beat up a abuser, rape a rapist, burn down the home of an arsonist. Then it's fair, you've done back to them as they have to society. So to remove a dangerous individual from society through their death, by giving them a taste of their own medicine. What would you do with the rapist, the arsonist, the abuser once they've had theirs? Send them back into society, when you have no doubt they'll commit the crime again? Course not. You put them in jail.
Does jail not remove a threat from society? Is the purpose of law rehabilitation rather then destruction?
Murder is a mortal sin, the taking of a life is never ever justifiable. But, if you get down to the nitty-gritty, isn't the doctor that administers the poison into a criminal's veins, or the person who pulls the switch for the electrical chair, just as much of a murderer? Murderers kill for their own justified reasons, which in all cases are false. But then those people involved in the death of this criminal, their justifiable reason is justice? Getting rid of a threat?
Aurora, you may say it is removing a threat from society. Yes. It is. As that person will never come back to harm another being. But is that justifiable? Isn't it the same if someone in a community went out with a hand gun and shot another person and claimed they were a threat to their family so it had to be done. They'll still go to jail, they'll still be murderers themselves despite this same reasoning. The killing of anyone is wrong, irrelevant of their reasoning or whether it's done by a person or a person working for the state.
Not only this but the methods we use are known to go wrong. Becoming inhumane very quickly. Jimmy Lee Gray (1983) was put to death in the gas chamber. Eight minutes later, the gas was not killing him and Gray was still alive banging his head against a steel pipe. Joseph Tafero, the electric chair, he remained alive for six minutes and as flames began shooting out of his head.John Wayne Gacy was still alive for 18 minutes after he was given a lethal injection. Potassium chloride is inserted with three times the medical dosage. The process is difficult and a ridiculous amount of things could and have gone wrong. Even administering the drug too quickly stops the heart before the brain stops working, leading to seizure like reaction for several minutes and immense burning pain before the inmate subdues.
And that leads to the point that, what in the world do we do if they're innocent?In the past 4 years, 17 people that were on death row were exonerated due to DNA evidence. Combined these people spent a combined 207 years in prison out of which 187 of them were on death row. And if you think about it, only 29 people were executed in 2010. These are people that were cleared before their sentence, who knows how many innocent men and women have been executed for crimes they haven't committed. What do you do then, how can you give them back their life, how can you take away the hurt you gave the families in the death of their loved one, how can you cure the emotional distress they endured in all the trails and the money they paid. What do you do then? Say oops and continue as is?
Capital punishment is ineffective. 29 people in 2010 were executed in the United States. As of 2008, 3,263 criminals were awaiting execution in the United States.It's complex, expensive (far more so then life in jail.), and time-consuming appeals procedures mandated in some jurisdictions. The condemned spend years before the execution actually happens, the longest serving recently executed inmate served 33 years on death row before being executed in 2008. Not only that, a quarter of the deaths that occur on death row are from natural causes. So make them wait to be killed, but they die in the waiting line? Why pay more when they could just rot until they died in regular, less expensive prison?
Death row itself violates just as many constitutional agreements as the criminal themselves did. Not only through the taking away of a person's (despite their actions) right to life. But sitting in a cell, awaiting your death is a form of mental cruelty and torture on a basis. Torture is in violation of many constitutional agreements, as well as the U.D.H.R you regard so causally. The mental illness that often inflicts those waiting on death row is called the death row phenomena which can then grow into death row syndrome. Inflicting further mental pressure on these criminals is in itself unconstitutional and the process could lead to claims of insanity, which is very possible, to which death row will be rendered even more useless. Because they drove all the wackos conscience of their actions crazy, therefore in law have to send them to jail.
(from 2009)In the capital case, Thompson v. McNeil, No. 08-7369, two justices said the delay in executing William L. Thompson, convicted of a participating in the gruesome torture and murder of a woman in 1976, warranted attention from the court.Justice John Paul Stevens, who has been increasingly vocal about his discomfort with the death penalty generally, said that Mr. Thompson’s confinement in “especially severe conditions” and two near-death experiences as executions were stayed at the last minute were dehumanizing.“Executing defendants after such long delays is unacceptably cruel,” Justice Stevens wrote.Justice Breyer added that Mr. Thompson’s accomplice may have been more culpable but did not receive the death penalty. At a resentencing hearing, a jury that heard evidence on this point recommended, 7 to 5, that Mr. Thompson be sentenced to death.Justice Clarence Thomas disagreed with his two colleagues. Justice Thomas set out the details of the crime in vivid detail and said that Mr. Thompson, who had twice pleaded guilty, was the source of the delays and so should not be their beneficiary.“It is the crime — and not the punishment imposed by the jury or the delay in petitioner’s execution — that was ‘unacceptably cruel,’ ” Justice Thomas wrote.
76,434 Literary Works • 383,869 Reviews