Do you believe in the death penalty?

[suncowiam]

Yes.

People that kills illegally forfeits their own lives.

There are legal cases of homicide:
A non-criminal homicide ruling, usually committed in self-defense or in defense of another, exists under United States law. A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, manslaughter or murder.

 

[suncowiam]

Concerning the revenge argument...

Every punishment the state enforces on a crime is technically revenge. Hurt or harm does not always have to be physical.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The death penalty solves nothing, it doesn't bring the dead back to life, and it only results in more death. We need to move beyond this "eye for an eye" nonsense that does nothing to actually address criminal behavior.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The death penalty solves nothing, it doesn't bring the dead back to life, and it only results in more death. We need to move beyond this "eye for an eye" nonsense that does nothing to actually address criminal behavior.

<---- What she said.

 

[sayak83]

Do you?

A very restricted yes. There are some people (like Hitler and Stalin for example, or Attila if you look at hostory) who possess to great a power and fanatical following to be contained and are an existential threat to civilization. Some countries where law and order is too weak to contain powerful mob or crime leaders (frequent prison break out or ruling from within prison) may also have a justification that the situation is that of war, not crime.

Otherwise no.

 

[siti]

Concerning the revenge argument...

Every punishment the state enforces on a crime is technically revenge. Hurt or harm does not always have to be physical.

Yes - if its punitive its probably revenge - at best it is making the criminal see the error of his ways without necessarily doing anything to fix them. If the response to crime is reparative, restorative or corrective, there may still be a (significant) cost to the perpetrator and, perhaps a more positive outcome for victims and 'society'. In the case of murder though, as somebody pointed out, you can't bring the dead back - so there is no chance reparation or restoration - only, perhaps, correction. But punishment (that fits the crime) still doesn't work - two wrongs just don't make a right. That's not mushy liberalism (I hasten to point out before someone says it is) - its just a hard fact!

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, I do. Keeping people who have committed heinous crimes in life imprisonment is costly and does not make any sense.

 

[suncowiam]

Yes - if its punitive its probably revenge - at best it is making the criminal see the error of his ways without necessarily doing anything to fix them. If the response to crime is reparative, restorative or corrective, there may still be a (significant) cost to the perpetrator and, perhaps a more positive outcome for victims and 'society'. In the case of murder though, as somebody pointed out, you can't bring the dead back - so there is no chance reparation or restoration - only, perhaps, correction. But punishment (that fits the crime) still doesn't work - two wrongs just don't make a right. That's not mushy liberalism (I hasten to point out before someone says it is) - its just a hard fact!

We all understand that we can bring back life. We also can't bring back time. One can make the same argument with imprisonment...

But like my earlier post mentioned, there are cases of justified homicide. I don't see a difference with capital punishment. I don't see it as wrong so therefore it does right a wrong.

[Edited]
Let me just add the concept of context. We must always consider the context of an action before concluding its moral value. To assume that all forms of, say, lying or stealing is wrong can be misleading. There are a few cases where it can be justified. So to reiterate myself, homicide can also be justified.

 

[Father Heathen]

The death penalty turns justice into murder.

Does that make fines theft?

 

[psychoslice]

Very much so. None of this lethal injection crap, either. Just take 'em "out back" and put a bullet in their heads. Done.

I can understand that but why bring ourselves down to their level ?.

 

[Father Heathen]

I oppose the death penalty solely due to the risk, regardless of how slim it may be, of an innocent person being falsely convicted.
With life imprisonment, you can at least release and compensate them. With execution, you can't resurrect the exonerated.

Wrongful execution - Wikipedia

 

[Father Heathen]

I can understand that but why bring ourselves down to their level ?.

Surely you're not equating the life of a guilty criminal to that of their innocent victim, are you?

 

[psychoslice]

Surely you're not equating the life of a guilty criminal to that of their innocent victim, are you?

You don't understand, you only want revenge, could you yourself kill those people and sleep well at night ?.

 

[siti]

We all understand that we can bring back life. We also can't bring back time. One can make the same argument with imprisonment...

I was referring to the life of the victim - killing the murderer cannot be reparative, restorative or corrective - only punitive and vengeful - perhaps protective in the most extreme cases (serial killers, terrorists etc.)...which I guess is what you mean by comparing capital punishment with justifiable homicide. I can see there might be an argument there. But the problem is, how, in the cold, reasoning circumstances of a court room with the (potential future) killer already safely behind bars - and presumably convicted with a reasonable degree of certainty of crimes already committed - can we justify the use of fatal force as a protection? You'd never get away with that if, in vengeful indignation, you shot someone who had been trying to rob you but had already been overpowered, disarmed and incapacitated - under those circumstances the 'real and present' threat is already past and using fatal force would not be considered a 'reasonable' or 'justifiable' act. Morally, how is it any different with the death penalty?

 

[Father Heathen]

You don't understand, you only want revenge, could you yourself kill those people and sleep well at night ?.

Personally? It would depend on what they did, how they did it, and why they did it. But I'm not the system that judges and sentences. My point was punishing a guilty criminal in a way thats proportionate to their crime is not the same as victimizing an innocent person. That's like claiming fining someone for stealing money "brings you down to their level" for doing the same thing (taking money).

 

[psychoslice]

Personally? It would depend on what they did, how they did it, and why they did it. But I'm not the system that judges and sentences. My point was punishing a guilty criminal in a way that proportionate to their crime is not the same as victimizing an innocent person. That's like claiming fining someone for stealing money "brings you down to their level" for doing the same thing (taking money).

A lame excuse, its tells a lot about you and your compassion towards humans, be glad that you were not born that way.

 

[suncowiam]

I was referring to the life of the victim - killing the murderer cannot be reparative, restorative or corrective - only punitive and vengeful - perhaps protective in the most extreme cases (serial killers, terrorists etc.)...which I guess is what you mean by comparing capital punishment with justifiable homicide. I can see there might be an argument there. But the problem is, how, in the cold, reasoning circumstances of a court room with the (potential future) killer already safely behind bars - and presumably convicted with a reasonable degree of certainty of crimes already committed - can we justify the use of fatal force as a protection? You'd never get away with that if, in vengeful indignation, you shot someone who had been trying to rob you but had already been overpowered, disarmed and incapacitated - under those circumstances the 'real and present' threat is already past and using fatal force would not be considered a 'reasonable' or 'justifiable' act. Morally, how is it any different with the death penalty?

Not sure if anyone brought this up but I will now add the topic of resources. In an ideal world with unlimited resources I would agree with you. We would have the time, energy and resources to restore murderers. But we don't live in such a world. I would argue that we can better use the same resources that sustained a murderer in prison to help those that are more deserving. Maybe an example is to support the families of the murdered victims with the opportunity cost of imprisoning the murderer.

As callous as I sound speaking of economy around murders and homicides, it's a cold reality that I think deserves a discussion.

 

[Father Heathen]

A lame excuse,

Excuse for what?

its tells a lot about you and your compassion towards humans,

I did say that I oppose the death penalty. I just think it's a bit silly to compare the criminal's plight to that of their victim's.

be glad that you were not born that way.

Born what way?

 

[psychoslice]

Excuse for what?



I did say that I oppose the death penalty. I just think it's a bit silly to compare the criminal's plight to that of their victim's.


Born what way?

Yes you are lucky to be born that way, if you weren't you would probably be going for the death penalty, yes you are certainly lucky.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Does that make fines theft?

And a baseball looks just like a tractor.