Still believe in the death Penalty?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

He paid the ultimate penalty. There is no higher one society can give. Yes even if he had only killed one man his life wouldn't be full compensation. An innocent life for a guilty one isn't totally fair either but, he paid all he had. That's better than the alternatives which are less.

I guess we have different ideas of "compensation".

He killed two people and paid nothing back. He's dead. He is buried in the ground. He didn't compensate anybody and nobody was paid back. Nobody was satisfied. He didn't pay for the privelege of killing those people.

The way you talk about it, it's like some sort of morbid barter system. Almost "you kill them, we kill you, everybody's happy", only it doesn't work like that. It works like "you kill them, we kill you, nobody is happy, but at least we killed you".

[driveway]

The ultimate reason I oppose the death penalty, and I've said it before and I'll say it again - probably in every death penalty thread we ever have, dancing fatas be damned - is that it allows for the rationalisation of murder.

I used to be pro-death penalty. I thought that certain crimes deserved it, that it was an earned punishment, a just one, and it made economic sense. Then I had this concept explained to me and it really clicked.

All situations in which one human, or group of humans, takes a life is murder - be it in a fit of rage, for religious reasons, as punishment for a crime, in self-defense or in war. Admitedly, within these categories there are shades of murder. However, I feel that it is imperative as a society that we set the bar for acceptable homicide as low as absolutely possible.

If we accept that in certain circumstances we can take a persons life in cold blood, which is what the death penalty is, then we raise the bar above zero. If the bar is not set at zero, if there is any possible gray area, then there is room for individual interpretation about what is and is not acceptable murder. This should not be allowed to happen.

For example: A confessed brutal killer, who would be executed by the state, goes free because their confession is inadmissable in a court of law. Is it justifiable for a private citizen to take this persons life? If it is justifiable for the state, which in a democracy represents the will of private citizens, why not?

This example can be carried further. If the death penalty is legal in a democratic nation, it is one act of legislation away from being applicable to crimes other than murder. From there it's possible - in a democracy - for the scale to slide further and further. We have seen, within this past century, that humans, people who are exactly the same as you and me in every way that matters, have an almost infinite capacity for cruelty.

What concerns me is the moral and philosophical principles behind capital punishment. When one considers that in every single belief system, ethical framework or moral convention that humans have ever created, murder has been a taboo, it seems strange that it's even a question. Since we all seem to be able to agree that the taking of lives is a bad idea, why can't one of the most advanced, free, democratic, and civilized societies that have ever existed at least make the attempt to live up to its own standards?

Humanity advances itself in several key ways, among these are technological development, political organisation and moral action. We can't allow ourselves the easy outs, we have to be demanding of ourselves if we are to have any claim to being moral entities.

This is why I am so very grateful that I live in a nation that has gotten rid of capital punishment.

[Flames_Gimp]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

What about a drunk driver? He kills someone or a whole family. He knew what the possible consequences where when he decided to drive drunk. Is his life forfeit?

yes.. F him.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by driveway

The ultimate reason I oppose the death penalty, and I've said it before and I'll say it again - probably in every death penalty thread we ever have, dancing fatas be damned - is that it allows for the rationalisation of murder.

I used to be pro-death penalty. I thought that certain crimes deserved it, that it was an earned punishment, a just one, and it made economic sense. Then I had this concept explained to me and it really clicked.

All situations in which one human, or group of humans, takes a life is murder - be it in a fit of rage, for religious reasons, as punishment for a crime, in self-defense or in war. Admitedly, within these categories there are shades of murder. However, I feel that it is imperative as a society that we set the bar for acceptable homicide as low as absolutely possible.

If we accept that in certain circumstances we can take a persons life in cold blood, which is what the death penalty is, then we raise the bar above zero. If the bar is not set at zero, if there is any possible gray area, then there is room for individual interpretation about what is and is not acceptable murder. This should not be allowed to happen.

For example: A confessed brutal killer, who would be executed by the state, goes free because their confession is inadmissable in a court of law. Is it justifiable for a private citizen to take this persons life? If it is justifiable for the state, which in a democracy represents the will of private citizens, why not?

This example can be carried further. If the death penalty is legal in a democratic nation, it is one act of legislation away from being applicable to crimes other than murder. From there it's possible - in a democracy - for the scale to slide further and further. We have seen, within this past century, that humans, people who are exactly the same as you and me in every way that matters, have an almost infinite capacity for cruelty.

What concerns me is the moral and philosophical principles behind capital punishment. When one considers that in every single belief system, ethical framework or moral convention that humans have ever created, murder has been a taboo, it seems strange that it's even a question. Since we all seem to be able to agree that the taking of lives is a bad idea, why can't one of the most advanced, free, democratic, and civilized societies that have ever existed at least make the attempt to live up to its own standards?

Humanity advances itself in several key ways, among these are technological development, political organisation and moral action. We can't allow ourselves the easy outs, we have to be demanding of ourselves if we are to have any claim to being moral entities.

This is why I am so very grateful that I live in a nation that has gotten rid of capital punishment.

Give this man a positive rep. Good post, very thoughtful.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

yes.. F him.

K, so now we have capital punishment for murder and criminal negligence.

How about someone speeding at 150 km per hour, loses control of the vehicle and kills another family of 5. He was fully sober and aware that driving so fast could result in such outcomes.

Death Penalty?

[EddyBeers]

The biggest reason that I am against the death penalty is purely selfish, and that is that the chances of me being murdered in a state with the death penalty double compared with a state without the death penalty. Given my desire to keep on living, this is a disturbing stat.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/092200-01.htm

"A state-by-state analysis found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 percent to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty."

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by driveway

The ultimate reason I oppose the death penalty, and I've said it before and I'll say it again - probably in every death penalty thread we ever have, dancing fatas be damned - is that it allows for the rationalisation of murder.

I used to be pro-death penalty. I thought that certain crimes deserved it, that it was an earned punishment, a just one, and it made economic sense. Then I had this concept explained to me and it really clicked.

All situations in which one human, or group of humans, takes a life is murder - be it in a fit of rage, for religious reasons, as punishment for a crime, in self-defense or in war. Admitedly, within these categories there are shades of murder. However, I feel that it is imperative as a society that we set the bar for acceptable homicide as low as absolutely possible.

If we accept that in certain circumstances we can take a persons life in cold blood, which is what the death penalty is, then we raise the bar above zero. If the bar is not set at zero, if there is any possible gray area, then there is room for individual interpretation about what is and is not acceptable murder. This should not be allowed to happen.

For example: A confessed brutal killer, who would be executed by the state, goes free because their confession is inadmissable in a court of law. Is it justifiable for a private citizen to take this persons life? If it is justifiable for the state, which in a democracy represents the will of private citizens, why not?

This example can be carried further. If the death penalty is legal in a democratic nation, it is one act of legislation away from being applicable to crimes other than murder. From there it's possible - in a democracy - for the scale to slide further and further. We have seen, within this past century, that humans, people who are exactly the same as you and me in every way that matters, have an almost infinite capacity for cruelty.

What concerns me is the moral and philosophical principles behind capital punishment. When one considers that in every single belief system, ethical framework or moral convention that humans have ever created, murder has been a taboo, it seems strange that it's even a question. Since we all seem to be able to agree that the taking of lives is a bad idea, why can't one of the most advanced, free, democratic, and civilized societies that have ever existed at least make the attempt to live up to its own standards?

Humanity advances itself in several key ways, among these are technological development, political organisation and moral action. We can't allow ourselves the easy outs, we have to be demanding of ourselves if we are to have any claim to being moral entities.

This is why I am so very grateful that I live in a nation that has gotten rid of capital punishment.

This would make interesting fodder for a thread on abortion...

I have to agree with those taking a position against capital punishment. Blood on the hands of a state, in a democracy at least, is blood on the hands of its citizenry. I kinda like my hands blood-free, thank you very much. I also don't believe the death penalty has any real deterrent effect (well, general deterrent effect anyway) and I question how much better a family member sleeps knowing the person that killed their loved one was strapped down to a bed and killed.

I don't feel better living in a world where it's okay to kill people when there are alternative ways of ensuring they don't cause any further harm. Of course, there's a natural visceral reaction to murder that naturally begets murder, but I don't like the idea of sanitizing it and sanctioning it in an attempt to legitimize it.

What a ramble.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by joe_mullen

unfortunately, studies show that something along the lines of 10% of death penalties are performed on innocent people...not surprising in a system that relies on human judgement, not to mention has been shown to be racist and prejudiced against people of lower socioeconomic status.

interesting ... link or source?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

This would make interesting fodder for a thread on abortion...

I have to agree with those taking a position against capital punishment. Blood on the hands of a state, in a democracy at least, is blood on the hands of its citizenry. I kinda like my hands blood-free, thank you very much. I also don't believe the death penalty has any real deterrent effect (well, general deterrent effect anyway) and I question how much better a family member sleeps knowing the person that killed their loved one was strapped down to a bed and killed.

I don't feel better living in a world where it's okay to kill people when there are alternative ways of ensuring they don't cause any further harm. Of course, there's a natural visceral reaction to murder that naturally begets murder, but I don't like the idea of sanitizing it and sanctioning it in an attempt to legitimize it.

What a ramble.

Its all going to be individual for different people and I am sure there are lots of examples going both ways...but I would think this one is fairly common.

Brooks Douglass, who authored Oklahoma's right-to-view bill sixteen years after his parents were murdered, stated "It is not retaliation or retribution that I seek in witnessing the execution of the man who killed my parents. It is closure. Closure on an era of my life which I never chose to enter. Closure of years of anger and hate."

Others have found viewing the execution of their loved ones didn't think it was harsh enough.

He died an extremely lot easier than my daughter did.....He got a spiritual advisor, the choice of a last meal. I wish I'd had a last chance to be with my daughter," commented Elizabeth Harvey after witnessing Robert Lee Willie's electrocution. After realizing the execution did not eliminate his suffering or frustration, Vernon Harvey later commented to Willie's spiritual advisor, "Know what they should've done with Willie?.....They should've strapped him in that chair, counted to ten, then at the count of nine taken him out of the chair and let him sit in his cell for a day or two and then strapped him in the chair again."

Obviously emotions are extremely high in such cases, but I think many would agree that IF it brings closure to the family, it is an appropriate punishment in such cases.

Just as effective I can see where being able to forgive the convicted is a major pat of the endless healing process.

"how could we stand as murder victims, in our pain and sorrow, and give it to someone else's family as well?"

Again..individual decisions either way and understandable either way.

[joe_mullen]

http://www.truthinjustice.org/68percent.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/...in204759.shtml

[Dan02]

I am on the fence,

I am against the death penalty on the basis that it is better to not execute 100 guilty murders then execute them all to find out 1 was innocent later on.

But if a member of my family was the victim i'm not gonna lie i'd probably want to through the switch myself.

[joe_mullen]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

interesting ... link or source?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/...in204759.shtml
http://www.truthinjustice.org/68percent.htm

[Azure]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

The biggest reason that I am against the death penalty is purely selfish, and that is that the chances of me being murdered in a state with the death penalty double compared with a state without the death penalty. Given my desire to keep on living, this is a disturbing stat.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/092200-01.htm

"A state-by-state analysis found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 percent to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty."

Probably like that because the death penalty really isn't a deterrent.

[Daradon]

Even ignoring the fact that many innocent people are put to death, one has to remember that a death penalty is not a deterant for crime.

Crimes of passion will still be committed, while on the other end of the scale, often mass murderers take solace in the fact they will be put to death.

I think life in prison is tougher than death. And it beats out those moral issues too. The only thing against it is, us taxpayers have to pay for that person. But I would argue that is the smallest of all relevant arguments. Not many people are in for life or the death penalty where equivalent.

Is death penalty easier? Oh yeah. Is it better, does it help society? There is no proof that it does.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Obviously emotions are extremely high in such cases, but I think many would agree that IF it brings closure to the family, it is an appropriate punishment in such cases.

What exactly is "closure"? It's like a Dr. Phil word.

The crime that happened is never going to go away for the victim's family. It is never going to be closed. They aren't going to have closure. They aren't going to feel like everything is hunky-dory after the criminal gets strapped to the gurney and poisoned. It may provide some satisfaction that the guy is dead, but it doesn't settle the deal and it never will.

The implication of "closure", as I see it, means that once this "justice" is meted out that the family of the victim will be able to go on with their lives, happy that justice, in the form of a dead convict, has been served. Like a trade-off. "Yeah, that guy killed my buddy but now he's dead too, so I have closure".

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

What exactly is "closure"? It's like a Dr. Phil word.

The crime that happened is never going to go away for the victim's family. It is never going to be closed. They aren't going to have closure. They aren't going to feel like everything is hunky-dory after the criminal gets strapped to the gurney and poisoned. It may provide some satisfaction that the guy is dead, but it doesn't settle the deal and it never will.

The implication of "closure", as I see it, means that once this "justice" is meted out that the family of the victim will be able to go on with their lives, happy that justice, in the form of a dead convict, has been served. Like a trade-off. "Yeah, that guy killed my buddy but now he's dead too, so I have closure".

Well thankfully I have never had to go through it to be able to give an answer on that one way or another.

Clearly though, many have including the example i cited above....I guess one would have to suffer such a brutal occurance to understand what they mean by it.

Brooks Douglass, who authored Oklahoma's right-to-view bill sixteen years after his parents were murdered, stated "It is not retaliation or retribution that I seek in witnessing the execution of the man who killed my parents. It is closure. Closure on an era of my life which I never chose to enter. Closure of years of anger and hate."

[mykalberta]

As soon as you break the laws of society, you are then no longer subject to the same sympathy as a normal citizen. If he killed people in a state that has capital punishment and a jury found him guilty with malice, then he has to accept the punishment of the state.

Its not complicated, and yes I believe in capital punishment.

[fatso]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

As soon as you break the laws of society, you are then no longer subject to the same sympathy as a normal citizen. If he killed people in a state that has capital punishment and a jury found him guilty with malice, then he has to accept the punishment of the state.

Its not complicated, and yes I believe in capital punishment.

It's interesting that the pro-capital punishment crowd keeps re-iterating "it's not complicated", "It's simple", etc...

Seems to me justice and social order are pretty complicated. That is to say nothing of irrevocably putting to death an individual, regardless of what they've done.

So, I wonder which came first: the pro-capital punishment crowd's simplistic view of legal order or their presumption that killing someone is an inherently simple act.

[Flames_Gimp]

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/...e79938&k=30530

i wish the guy that did this would be fed slowly through a wood chipper

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

As soon as you break the laws of society, you are then no longer subject to the same sympathy as a normal citizen. If he killed people in a state that has capital punishment and a jury found him guilty with malice, then he has to accept the punishment of the state.

Its not complicated, and yes I believe in capital punishment.

It is not as simple as saying "you committed a crime in a state that you knew what the punishment was so live with the consequences" which is the death penalty. Tell me, do you someone who smuggles drugs on certain countries deserves the death penalty? How about repeat offenders of non-violent crimes such as theft, do they deserve the death penalty like has been reported in China?

Just because a government has past a law does not make the law the proper, moral, final decision. There are many bad laws.

But by your arguement there are no bad laws and you agree with everyone of them.