Is the death penalty right?

[capthowdy]

that is exactly what I was thinking when I read that

 

[Ardent Listener]

Eeep, I'm sorry to ask this but I'm honestly not sure. It's hard to tell without a voice or facial expression, but are you being serious or sarcastic?

That is the beauty of these boards dear one. Our messages can be taken as one wishes.

But to answer your question. :banghead3 Is my reply.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

But to answer your question. :banghead3 Is my reply.

Ahhh... An icon that I am most familar with. Here, have some frubals! (Not to veer off topic, but it sounds like you might enjoy the "Discworld" series. The attitudes in the approaches that you mentioned tend to get discussed a lot, heehee!)

 

[Apotheosis]

I suppose the part where I said I am in favor of making sure the criminal was responsible for his crime before he/she was put to death was overlooked. The fact is, there are many things the government can do to ensure there are no wrongfull executions.

 

[Crystallas]

I have utmost respect for your reply Feathers. But they are the same arguments that I hear over and over. I dont disagree, If all of those changes are made, or can be successfully made, then I would agree completely with you. My view changes when variables change. You are right, goverment priorities need to be changed. But its hard to change them and fund those changes. I could only wish for more people who voted to make things better the way you are laying them out.

Seyorni... you blew me away with some of those one liners. I like them a lot, and I wish I could frubal you for each one of them.

Not trying to contradict my morals and current society. I am so with you guys who are against the death penalty moraly. But as I said, unless we fix so many other problems with laws and legislature, I cant see myself taking the persons crimes so lightly infavor of supporting the safety of the good part of humanity.

 

[YamiB.]

I accidentaly voted yes.

I'm against the death penalty for two reasons. One until they invent an actual lie detector or something it is impossible to be sure that the persosn is guilty. The second reason is that I feel no human is fit to judge if another human deserves to die.

 

[Apotheosis]

YamiB-So then you dont believe murder is wrong?

 

[chariot of fire]

i will say yes to death penalty as a major law in the land..to put a stop on proliferation of evildoers, murderers and child molesters. once a person commits such crime, he / she automatically chooses death to come upon himself, we do not choose it for them, they choose it for themselves... life owed requires life to repay.

 

[michel]

I voted yes --- Scripture commands it.

 

[nonobjective]

No.

This may hint to my naiveté, and it is certainly out of fashion these days to say this, but i know every life to be of value. We should protect and preserve that life even with the most despicable of men.

Of course, I am not decrying death resulting from self defense or unfortunate but necessary death within war... just to avoid the ever-so-shocking-and-full-of-disdain "you wouldn't kill Hitler?!" allegation.

Invest in the process of investigating, prosecuting, incarcerating and rehabilitating...

 

[CaptainXeroid]

Years ago, I would have said "Kill 'em all...let God sort 'em out." These days, I am not so sure.

The death penalty removes the possibility that a criminal can be rehabilitated.
There are some criminals that cannot be rehabilitated.
People are not God...we make mistakes.
A murderer's victims don't get a second chance or anything else...except a funeral.
Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, and Timothy Mc Veigh will never murder another soul.
It is unlikely Charles Manson will either.

I'm still on the fence, but here's a tip for those of you against the death penalty who want to sway people. Focus on people who were wrongly convicted. Other arguments are not going to have much of an effect, and I offer this as someone who has spent 15 years dismissing them. Criminals are evil people who have committed terrible crimes, and trying to mitigate the heinous nature of what they did just makes people in favor of the death penalty feel more strongly about it.

 

[YamiB.]

YamiB-So then you dont believe murder is wrong?

I think there are a few cases were killing somebody is right. Self-defense, stopping a genocide, and fighting for your rebellion after other means of attaining it fail there might be a couple more I would accept, but that's all that comes to mind right now. Other than that no I don't think killing another person is right. I also don't think that the goverment should lower itself to the level of the murders.

 

[michel]

I have been tempted to say "Hang 'em high" - but I don't think I would have really believed that to be just.

To be in favour of the death penalty, I think one ought to consider "Would I be prepared to be the executioner ?" - If you cannot honestly say 'yes' to that, well, think on...........

 

[Apotheosis]

I am prepared to be the executioner if I am allowed to take certain steps to avoid wrongful death.

YamiB- You said you dont believe that there is any case in which a man can judge another man to death. And then you said there are some cases, so which is it? Would you give the death penealty to Hitler? Stalin?

 

[Fluffy]

I have been tempted to say "Hang 'em high" - but I don't think I would have really believed that to be just.

thats exactly how I feel

 

[YamiB.]

I am prepared to be the executioner if I am allowed to take certain steps to avoid wrongful death.

YamiB- You said you dont believe that there is any case in which a man can judge another man to death. And then you said there are some cases, so which is it? Would you give the death penealty to Hitler? Stalin?

I said I don't think that humans are fit to judge if somebody should die. I do think that sometimes it is nessecary for defense to kill when all other means are gone, for example defending your life, the life of others, and your freedom. For example if a police killing a criminal on the scene will save the lifes of the people it would be acceptable. When you have the people imprisoned they're no longer a threat so there is no reason to kill them. I would not support giving the death penalty to Hitler or Stalin even though they were two of the most horrible people in history.

 

[BUDDY]

"Executing a murderer is the only way to adequately express our horror at the taking of an innocent life. Nothing else suffices...A murderer sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole can still laugh, learn, and love, listen to music and read, form friendships, and do the thousand and one things (mundane and sublime) forever foreclosed to his victims." - Don Feder

I think that the death penalty is the right thing for society to do.

1) The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution expressly contemplates the death penalty in America.
2) Executions permanently remove from society extremely dangerous criminals. I want these evildoers removed from our world and I want to eliminate any risk of them communicating with or having any influence on the rest of society.
3) Ample legal safeguards protect the innocent from execution. Before amorderer can be executed, he must be indicted by a grand jury, and then tried, convicted, and sentenced to death by a jury overseen by a judge. Then, several years of appeals follow, allowinglawyers to investigate and reinvestigate every fact of the case.
4) 15,000 people are murdered every year in the U.S and they each deserve to have their killer brought to justice.
5) The death penalty is not "cruel" and "unusual", it is punishment that fits the crime.
6) Who cares if the death penalty deters future crimes? If is deters future crime, that's great, but if it doesn't, all we have done is removed murderers from society.

 

[Fluffy]

1) The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution expressly contemplates the death penalty in America.

Whilst I will attempt to refrain from expressing my continuing frustration with the use of this argument, I still totally disagree with it. I'm going to get a piece of paper and write on it "All geese must be painted purple every Friday". Then, in support of my argument, colourfully titled "White geese are an afront to nature", I will use said piece of paper since it clearly contemplates something which I believe to be correct even though it does nothing to back its assertion up.

2) Executions permanently remove from society extremely dangerous criminals. I want these evildoers removed from our world and I want to eliminate any risk of them communicating with or having any influence on the rest of society.

Life imprisonment also permanently removes extremely dangerous criminals from society. So does rehabilitation. And on the plus side, nobody further has to die and we get another healthy individual to contribute to society.

3) Ample legal safeguards protect the innocent from execution. Before amorderer can be executed, he must be indicted by a grand jury, and then tried, convicted, and sentenced to death by a jury overseen by a judge. Then, several years of appeals follow, allowinglawyers to investigate and reinvestigate every fact of the case.

All of which costs huge amounts of money meaning that states would actually save money if they dropped the death penalty.

4) 15,000 people are murdered every year in the U.S and they each deserve to have their killer brought to justice.

Yup I agree with that. To suggest that justice=death penalty from this point is to jump to a conclusion, however.

5) The death penalty is not "cruel" and "unusual", it is punishment that fits the crime.

Whether it is cruel or unusual is irrelevant. It is the fact that it is intended as a punishment which strikes it out as a failure before it has even begun.

6) Who cares if the death penalty deters future crimes? If is deters future crime, that's great, but if it doesn't, all we have done is removed murderers from society.

Yup I agree with that. However, see point 2.

 

[BUDDY]

Whilst I will attempt to refrain from expressing my continuing frustration with the use of this argument, I still totally disagree with it. I'm going to get a piece of paper and write on it "All geese must be painted purple every Friday". Then, in support of my argument, colourfully titled "White geese are an afront to nature", I will use said piece of paper since it clearly contemplates something which I believe to be correct even though it does nothing to back its assertion up.

The U.S. Constitution specifically refers to the death penalty in the Fifth Ammendment, which mentions a "capital crime" and the deprication of "life". And except for about four years in the 1970s, the Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly upheld the authority of the government to execute murderers. I know that this has little, if any, bearing on your particular argument, not being in the U.S., but here it is a keypoint of argument between the two sides and that is why I mention it. In conjunction with that, it is suggested that the death penalty is "cruel and unusual". I don't think so. What I believe is truly cruel and unusual, is the suggestion that somehow the murderer's life is more valuable than the victim's. After all, death by lethal injection looks pretty good next to someof the ways which murderers kill their victims-such as the eleven-year-old girl who was recently kidnapped, raped, and strangled to death in Florida.

Life imprisonment also permanently removes extremely dangerous criminals from society. So does rehabilitation. And on the plus side, nobody further has to die and we get another healthy individual to contribute to society.

Obviously life imprisonment is no where near as adequate a punishment as the death penalty. If life behind bars is equivalent to death, why do so many criminals agree to plead guilty in exchange for the prosecution not seeking the death penalty? I could care less if comeone is rehabilitated for committing a violent, heinous, and bruttal murder. They deserve the death penalty for the deprivation of life that they took from someone else, and we as a society have every right to deprive them of that life.

All of which costs huge amounts of money meaning that states would actually save money if they dropped the death penalty.

Since when is moral obligation put aside for financial well being? If it is right, it is right, no matter what the cost. And I do not believe that it costs more money to sentence someone to death. Everyone appeals a sentance, regardless of how severe that sentence may be.

To suggest that justice=death penalty from this point is to jump to a conclusion, however.

PRetty simple answer really...let the punishment fit the crime. What other punishment best fits the heinous crime of murder, than the death penalty. In my opinion, there isn't one.

Whether it is cruel or unusual is irrelevant. It is the fact that it is intended as a punishment which strikes it out as a failure before it has even begun.

Sorry, I don't quite understand your point here, maybe you could elaborate for me?

 

[Fluffy]

The U.S. Constitution specifically refers to the death penalty in the Fifth Ammendment, which mentions a "capital crime" and the deprication of "life". And except for about four years in the 1970s, the Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly upheld the authority of the government to execute murderers.

Okay but now we are just creating assertions within assertions, backing each of them up upon each other and presenting it as if it were fact. I pose that such an argument is not credible whether one lives in the US or not.

In conjunction with that, it is suggested that the death penalty is "cruel and unusual". I don't think so.

I do not think so either. But only because I do not believe that there is enough common ground in a given society to establish a coherent definition of "cruel" or "unusual" which, when applied to all situations, leaves everybody in a state of agreement.

What I believe is truly cruel and unusual, is the suggestion that somehow the murderer's life is more valuable than the victim's.

This would be an example of what I was trying to say in my last paragraph. If you could somehow justify why this was cruel and unusual, then we would have a workable definition that everybody who followed logic could agree with. I do not believe that you can, however.

After all, death by lethal injection looks pretty good next to someof the ways which murderers kill their victims-such as the eleven-year-old girl who was recently kidnapped, raped, and strangled to death in Florida.

It does indeed. However, simply because an argument appeals to my inherent biases does not mean that it is valid. If it is concievable that a person might look at the situation and prefer to be kidnapped, raped and strangled over being given the lethal injection, and such a thing is concievable, then your argument is water in a sieve. This is because neither position, in the abscence of other factors as in this case, has more merit than the other side.

Obviously life imprisonment is no where near as adequate a punishment as the death penalty. If life behind bars is equivalent to death, why do so many criminals agree to plead guilty in exchange for the prosecution not seeking the death penalty?

Adequate for what? As a method for causing suffering? No it is not as adequate. However, there are far more adequate methods of causing suffering so why not use one of them over the lethal injection?

I could care less if comeone is rehabilitated for committing a violent, heinous, and bruttal murder. They deserve the death penalty for the deprivation of life that they took from someone else, and we as a society have every right to deprive them of that life.

Fair enough but you specifically argued that the death penalty is great because it removes the threat of the criminal. I argued that both life imprisonment and rehabilitation does this as well.

However, it does not follow logically to say that depriving another of life is deserving of the death penalty. For example, why is the depriver not deserving of cuddles and cookies instead? Or, for that matter, why are they not deserving of life imprisonment?

Since when is moral obligation put aside for financial well being? If it is right, it is right, no matter what the cost. And I do not believe that it costs more money to sentence someone to death. Everyone appeals a sentance, regardless of how severe that sentence may be.

No I quite agree with you here. However, in the abscence of other discerning factors, an abscence which remains so far in this debate, and if we both agree that spending less money is better than spending more money, surely finance could be used as a method of choosing one system over another?

However, to my best of knowledge, your belief that it costs less to put a person to death, under the current system, is false.

PRetty simple answer really...let the punishment fit the crime. What other punishment best fits the heinous crime of murder, than the death penalty. In my opinion, there isn't one.

In what way does the killing of a murderer 'fit' the crime of murder? You may reply that it is obvious. My retort is that the only way in which they fit is that they are similar. At which point, you would be required to show why doing similar things is better than doing unsimilar thing. Or even a justification for why a punishment should fit the crime would be good.

Sorry, I don't quite understand your point here, maybe you could elaborate for me?

I can elaborate by asking you a question, what do you think should be the intention behind the legal system with regards to criminals? I pose that it should be to prevent reoffense and rehabilitate them. The only reason I hold this position is because I am unaware of a position that holds better merit.