The death penalty. Are you against it or for it?

[Aupmanyav]

There are some humans, however, that are so damaged as to be unrecoverable. And they will pose a danger to everyone else for as long as they remain alive. And these few, I believe, should be executed for the benefit of all. They are the serial killers, the mass killers, the terrorist/racist/ideological killers, and those who kill their guards in incarceration.

Some people become habituated to killing. Gangsters, serial killers as you mention. Should then we experiment with the security of the society? I would not take a chance with the Indian population of some 1390 million. These people should be punished with death.

 

[ChristineM]

What if there's DNA, finger prints, witnesses, video, they have the murder weapon, they are caught in the act?

Fine but it is not always the case that such evidence is available, the decision for capital punishment can made by a judge (or judges) based on the opinion of the jury.

I didn't vote because i am mostly against it but a small part of me considers some crimes so heinous that capital punishment is a requirement.

 

[exchemist]

If a dog, bear, lion, croc, etc attack or kill a human, its not locked in a zoo in cages, its killed, its euthanized. Those animals were/are only doing what is natural to them.

Why should we not do the same to humans?

Because (i) human beings can be reformed, (ii) usually a human killer will not develop a "taste" for killing and do it repeatedly and (Iii) we risk killing the wrong person and then have no means of putting things right.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If a dog, bear, lion, croc, etc attack or kill a human, its not locked in a zoo in cages, its killed, its euthanized. Those animals were/are only doing what is natural to them.

Why should we not do the same to humans?

Non premeditated murder is instinctual. Murder planned, put into law, argued the best way to kill, and benefits thereof, dogs don't do this.

I've never heard an animal put to death unless he was in constant danger to others. Even then I haven't heard it before.

I don't agree with murder but instinctual killing is justified, ethically I don't agree with premeditated. Legal or not is irrelevant.

-

Interesting. Your Earth people glorify organized violence for forty centuries, but you imprison those who employ it privately." - Spock to McCoy

Dr. McCoy: And, of course, your people found an answer?

Mr. Spock: We disposed of emotion, Doctor. Where there is no emotion, there is no motive for violence.”

— Spock, Star Trek, Season 1: Dagger of the Mind

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Capital punishment is not murder, murder is taking the life of an innocent person who did nothing to deserve being killed.

Murder is premeditated killing.

It talks nothing about the morality of the action. If a murderer kills another murderer it's still murder. Innocence doesn't matter. The US law has no favorites. Humans do.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Because (i) human beings can be reformed, (ii) usually a human killer will not develop a "taste" for killing and do it repeatedly and (Iii) we risk killing the wrong person and then have no means of putting things right.

If you don't kill the wrong person, is CP ethically justified?

I notice people against it use "if they are innocent" not about the murderer as a human being.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Because our police/justice system get it wrong so many times and we kill an innocent person.
Because we are compassionate beings and revenge is not a good reason

If they weren't innocent, would it be ethically justified?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

My issue is... Those against death penalty, do you judge a person's right to live by whether he's innocent?

To me, if you kill someone who actually dyd the crime and kill someone even though they have not is still by intent premeditated killing. If one is truly against CP, why support one and not the other?

 

[SalixIncendium]

If a dog, bear, lion, croc, etc attack or kill a human, its not locked in a zoo in cages, its killed, its euthanized. Those animals were/are only doing what is natural to them.

Why should we not do the same to humans?

This shouldn't even be done to other animals.

 

[exchemist]

If you don't kill the wrong person, is CP ethically justified?

I notice people against it use "if they are innocent" not about the murderer as a human being.

I have given three reasons against it, not just one.

 

[MikeF]

What if there's DNA, finger prints, witnesses, video, they have the murder weapon, they are caught in the act?

So, for you, the death penalty would only apply if these very specific set of criteria applied to the case?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I have given three reasons against it, not just one.

My question still stands unless one cancels out the other.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What if someone is falsely convicted of capital murder?

And this happens far more often than most people realize. In Canada alone, just under the letter "M," there were Donald Marshall, Jr., David Milgaard, Guy Paul Morin. Other famous reversals include Robert Baltovich, James Driskell, Anothony Hanemaayer, Ivan Henry, Rejean Hinse, Will Nepoose, Romeo Phillion, Thomas Sophoonow, Steven Truscott (I knew the author of the book "The Trial of Steven Truscott").

And the U.S. has a harsher justice system than Canada does, so how many do you suppose have been killed, or are rotting on death row, who were and are completely innocent? Since 1989, the United States has used DNA testing to exonerate 225 innocent people after they have spent years in captivity. At least 123 people have been exonerated from death row since the 1970s.

Just think if they had all been executed. What sort of compensation would the state have made in all our names to their families, once their innocence had been posthumously established?

 

[Stevicus]

If a dog, bear, lion, croc, etc attack or kill a human, its not locked in a zoo in cages, its killed, its euthanized. Those animals were/are only doing what is natural to them.

Why should we not do the same to humans?

There might be some rare, extraordinary circumstances which would warrant the death penalty (such as war crimes or crimes against humanity). But in most cases, probably not.

On the other hand, if a defendant consents to capital punishment, maybe that can be an option. If they'd rather die than face a lifetime in prison, then maybe that can be allowed.

Another possibility is that those on death row can be given a suicide option at any time. I've always considered it rather absurd that some people call that "cheating the hangman," as if they consider capital punishment to be nothing more than a game. As if they feel some emotional satisfaction at killing the convict themselves.

 

[exchemist]

My question still stands unless one cancels out the other.

The other reasons remains valid, even if you are 100% sure of the guilt of the person. So no, it is not ethically justified, even then, in my view.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And this happens far more often than most people realize. In Canada alone, just under the letter "M," there were Donald Marshall, Jr., David Milgaard, Guy Paul Morin. Other famous reversals include Robert Baltovich, James Driskell, Anothony Hanemaayer, Ivan Henry, Rejean Hinse, Will Nepoose, Romeo Phillion, Thomas Sophoonow, Steven Truscott (I knew the author of the book "The Trial of Steven Truscott").

And the U.S. has a harsher justice system than Canada does, so how many do you suppose have been killed, or are rotting on death row, who were and are completely innocent? Since 1989, the United States has used DNA testing to exonerate 225 innocent people after they have spent years in captivity. At least 123 people have been exonerated from death row since the 1970s.

Just think if they had all been executed. What sort of compensation would the state have made in all our names to their families, once their innocence had been posthumously established?

Out of curiousity, put yourself in the place of an innocent person being prepped for execution for a crime that he did not commit. As the doctor began the drip into that big needle in your arm, would you wonder, "why has God forsaken me?"

 

[Altfish]

If they weren't innocent, would it be ethically justified?

Personally, I don't think so.
One measure I make of a country's development is, "Do they still have the death penalty?" If the answer is Yes, then they are less developed than other countries.

 

[We Never Know]

Didn't you post a thread on this a while ago?

I believe the death penalty is sometimes appropriate for murder one if there is no question as to guilt and the crime was heinous. I refuse to go down the road, "what if" he/she was not guilty after all? I am referring to cases where there is no question as to the guilt of the perpetrator.

Yes I did post something similar.
The reason is.... 17 years ago a couple I know, their 10 year old daughter was kidnapped, molested and raped for 2 days before being killed. The 39 year old, with two other prior molestation convictions received life in prison w/o parole. Meaning we have to pay(with our tax dollars) to house, feed, clothe, provide medical, provide dental, etc take care of him until he dies even if that's 40+ years.
In my opinion there is no justice in that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I refuse to go down the road, "what if" he/she was not guilty after all?

So you refuse to deal with the ethics of the actual death penalty.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The other reasons remains valid, even if you are 100% sure of the guilt of the person. So no, it is not ethically justified, even then, in my view.

The first two I understood, but the last weakens the other two objections.

The " If " is what I'm referring to.

What if the person repeatedly killed, could not be reformed, and was guilty, should they die?

When I read people are against CP, there are usually exceptions to the rule. Why is that?