The Value of Life

[metis]

What to do with a person opening fire into a crowd, waiting for him to finish his job then taking him to jail or immediately putting end to his life at the spot ?

What does that have to do with the issue of whether we should have the death penalty?

 

[FearGod]

What does that have to do with the issue of whether we should have the death penalty?

It is about the right to take one's life.

 

[metis]

It is about the right to take one's life.

Self-defense is not the same as capital punishment as long as there are jails and prisons available.

 

[arthra]

Here's a couple of notions I've thought about regarding.. capital punishment.

Capital punishment can serve as a deterrence to murdering people...

Why should society provide for someone the rest of their lives..See that they are fed, housed and have proper medical care..(conjugal visits?) when they themselves had no regard for their victims?

Facing the punishment in this world for what they've done may mitigate what they'll face in the hereafter for their behaviours.

 

[metis]

Here's a couple of notions I've thought about regarding.. capital punishment.

Capital punishment can serve as a deterrence to murdering people...

Why should society provide for someone the rest of their lives..See that they are fed, housed and have proper medical care..(conjugal visits?) when they themselves had no regard for their victims?

Facing the punishment in this world for what they've done may mitigate what they'll face in the hereafter for their behaviours.

Capital punishment is not an overall deterrent to homicide as has been statistically shown.

Secondly, on the average here in the States, executing a murderer is more costly than life in prison.

Thirdly, it is built on a faulty premise that people cannot change.

Fourthly, it is unnecessary since an alternative, which many states have, is life in prison/no parole.

Fifth, a great many homicides are "crimes of passion" whereas there often are complicating factors. For example, many years ago a man tried to abduct our youngest daughter, and I went out looking for him, and if I had found him I was angry enough to have killed him. Yes, I would be wrong in doing as such, but...

Sixth, genome testing has clearly shown that some on death row were wrongly convicted, and it's one thing if a person was wrongfully detained but another if they're already dead.

 

[arthra]

Metis,

Thanks for your post...

I think you'll agree this is a debatable subject whether capital punishment is a deterrent or not..

As to costs of the death penalty ... Utah uses firing squads... More costly than life imprisonment? Most likely not.

People can change.. I have no such premise.

The alternative to capital punishment is there.. Juries and courts decide the punishment;

We have to leave it up to a court whether your actions in defending your daughter were justified;

If genome testing is conclusive then those on death row can have their sentences commuted..

 

[columbus]

As to costs of the death penalty ... Utah uses firing squads... More costly than life im

What makes the death penalty so expensive is not the actual killing.
It is providing honest justice before hand. Making sure that we know what happened and why is a hugely complicated undertaking. That is because we humans have such limited perceptions and such a tendency to believe things that are convenient, even when they're wrong.
Tom

 

[metis]

Metis,

Thanks for your post...

I think you'll agree this is a debatable subject whether capital punishment is a deterrent or not..

As to costs of the death penalty ... Utah uses firing squads... More costly than life imprisonment? Most likely not.

People can change.. I have no such premise.

The alternative to capital punishment is there.. Juries and courts decide the punishment;

We have to leave it up to a court whether your actions in defending your daughter were justified;

If genome testing is conclusive then those on death row can have their sentences commuted..

And thanks for your response.

It is not debatable that c.p. deters homicides as there's been many studies to indicate that it doesn't You might consider Googling that.

It is not the cost of electricity, the drugs used, or the bullets that where most cost is-- it's the automatic appeals process to try and make sure the wrong person doesn't get executed. Unfortunately, we have seen way too many cases whereas that didn't prevent the execution or planned execution of an innocent person.

You don't have an understanding that people can change, is that what you're saying above? Your wording is confusing.
Courts can have wrongly convicted many a "criminal" over the years. I don't know if this figure is still the FBI estimate, but they in the past have said that they estimate that roughly one in ten are wrongly convicted.

Genome testing isn't always possible as often there's no d.n.a. on the victim from the killer to test.

If you had a son or daughter who was convicted of first-degree murder, and you felt or know that (s)he was innocent, would you say it's fine that (s)he be executed? Would you say "Ya, might as well execute my son/daughter because the jury has decided".

To me, life is too important to take such chances, plus people can change. I don't know if you're a Christian or not, but didn't Jesus tell the crowd who want to stone a harlot "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"? Can you in reality actually picture Jesus telling the executioner "Go for it, as (s)he deserves it!". I can't.

 

[RabbiO]

I don't know if you're a Christian or not,.................

All those years with friend arthra on another forum that will remain nameless and all his posts here and you don't recall that he is Baha'i?

He is probably too kind to rub it in, but you know me..... You do know me, don't you? (The rabbi smiled to himself. The new year had just begun and he already had something to repent of next year!)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Why not ?

It is us who concede to others the 'right' to live. That's why 'rights' exist. Why can't we then take away this concession ?

Im just relooking at comments made for a thread that isnt realy death penalty related. When I read this statement out of context, "the statement" sounds borderline criminal. Kind of like when some criminals on death row who felt the Same that they had the right to take another life too. Do you think that just because it is legal and under authorities that statement differs from a criminal saying the Exact Same Thing? What differientates that type of thinking from a criminal who takes the life one one person "years after planing" because that victim killed his friend? Would it be worthy for the criminal to kill other criminals he doesnt know since that victim killed someone else? Should he get a gold metal?

Or is it because he is titled "criminal" and not "correctional officer" that (edit) doesn't befall on him as it does the law in regards to "planned killing."?

What drives the thought to kill in Both the innoncent and the guilty to think of taking another human being's life is right?

Is there a difference?

It doesnt have to do with the death penalty (guys) but the value of life. Period.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Life has no value is just a number your putting on it yourself.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Life has no value is just a number your putting on it yourself.

I'd say life has value because we put tend to put personal or adopted beliefs to our lives so we can live better, have a better outlook in life, and see life worth living. If there is no value to which one places for him or herself (not a number), why live? Why would criminals want to kill another person if life meant nothing? Odviously, the criminal put some value (good or bad) into life to motivate him or her to kill it. Likewise, the opposite. We put value (good or bad) into our life to motivate ourselves (and maybe others) to live it.

If life had no value, then female animals would not nuture their cubs. Why procreate if we believe we are nothing. Why even raise a family if our beliefs about other people are just as trash we throw on the street.

I can write a whole book on this. Then again, it would make me sick.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

I'd say life has value because we put tend to put personal or adopted beliefs to our lives so we can live better, have a better outlook in life, and see life worth living. If there is no value to which one places for him or herself (not a number), why live? Why would criminals want to kill another person if life meant nothing? Odviously, the criminal put some value (good or bad) into life to motivate him or her to kill it. Likewise, the opposite. We put value (good or bad) into our life to motivate ourselves (and maybe others) to live it.

If life had no value, then female animals would not nuture their cubs. Why procreate if we believe we are nothing. Why even raise a family if our beliefs about other people are just as trash we throw on the street.

I can write a whole book on this. Then again, it would make me sick.

So your saying "im Carlita and im worth it". Kewl
The value you refer to imho can be defined as no more than your moments of glory.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

So your saying "im Carlita and im worth it". Kewl
The value you refer to imho can be defined as no more than your moments of glory.

That's part of it. That, and all the mess I have gone through. I am worth it. I value my life. I just got a position in helping others who have the same conditions as me value theirs. If they decided to murder thousands of people, I wouldn't send them to the chair if I had the authority to. If it was a dream would, I'd help them. That's what people do, help. Killing kind of does the opposite.

Ethically, rather than legaly, that's just me. When someone says "if they killed someone else why dont we have the right to kill them?"

We don't. If I'd think of one person who has a less than 1 percent right to take a person's life, it would be a family member--not strangers. (Thinking of assisted death). I disagree with that too; but, at least with that, I understand both sides.

With this, this floors me, honestly.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

That's part of it. That, and all the mess I have gone through. I am worth it. I value my life. I just got a position in helping others who have the same conditions as me value theirs. If they decided to murder thousands of people, I wouldn't send them to the chair if I had the authority to. If it was a dream would, I'd help them. That's what people do, help. Killing kind of does the opposite.

Ethically, rather than legaly, that's just me. When someone says "if they killed someone else why dont we have the right to kill them?"

We don't. If I'd think of one person who has a less than 1 percent right to take a person's life, it would be a family member--not strangers. (Thinking of assisted death). I disagree with that too; but, at least with that, I understand both sides.

With this, this floors me, honestly.

To be honest im not to worried about the fate of cold blooded killers

 

[arthra]

It is not debatable that c.p. deters homicides as there's been many studies to indicate that it doesn't You might consider Googling that.

Thanks for your response Metis.. Yes googled I did and found the following:

"Aggregating over all of our estimates, it is entirely unclear even whether the preponderance of evidence suggests that the death penalty causes more or less murder."

and

"the committee recommends that these studies not be used to inform deliberations requiring judgments about the effect of the death penalty on homicide. Consequently, claims that research demonstrates that capital punishment decreases or increases the homicide rate by a specified amount or has no effect on the homicide rate should not influence policy judgments about capital punishment." (emphasis added)

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/discussion-recent-deterrence-studies

So the stats are not as much a guide as you seem to suggest...It's debatable.

I think your original point was

executing a murderer is more costly than life in prison.

That too can vary... Yes appeals can be expensive. There was an article on the cost of life without parole a few years ago from my area:

http://www.mountain-news.com/news/crime_log/article_4f1e45f8-5630-11e0-93da-001cc4c002e0.html

There may well bea need for reform in the Judicial system and each state has there own issues...

 

[Koldo]

Im just relooking at comments made for a thread that isnt realy death penalty related. When I read this statement out of context, "the statement" sounds borderline criminal. Kind of like when some criminals on death row who felt the Same that they had the right to take another life too. Do you think that just because it is legal and under authorities that statement differs from a criminal saying the Exact Same Thing? What differientates that type of thinking from a criminal who takes the life one one person "years after planing" because that victim killed his friend? Would it be worthy for the criminal to kill other criminals he doesnt know since that victim killed someone else? Should he get a gold metal?

Or is it because he is titled "criminal" and not "correctional officer" that (edit) doesn't befall on him as it does the law in regards to "planned killing."?

What drives the thought to kill in Both the innoncent and the guilty to think of taking another human being's life is right?

Is there a difference?

It doesnt have to do with the death penalty (guys) but the value of life. Period.

I don't see any wrongdoing ( morally ) in someone killing a ( intentional ) murder. The problem in doing justice with your own hands is that you don't give a fair trial to the individual. In essence, you are much more likely to kill the wrong person. That's why, out of pragmatism, this is better left to the government.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't see any wrongdoing ( morally ) in someone killing a ( intentional ) murder. The problem in doing justice with your own hands is that you don't give a fair trial to the individual. In essence, you are much more likely to kill the wrong person. That's why, out of pragmatism, this is better left to the government.

Eh. We disagree. If a criminal killed another criminal for breaking the law, would his actions be justifed under law given the law would have done the same thing if needed? Outside of legal rights, ethically, what is the difference between the judge (and so forth) deciding who should die and a criminal deciding whether a person should die under his own hands because that future victim killed a bunch of children and one of which was his?

I honestly do not see how the law can soften up who should die and who shoudn't (in planed death). If murderers can die by the chair, why not people who pull the cord? Just becuase the government laws protect their actions doesn't make their actions "good" just justified.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Mr. Spock: Interesting. You Earth people glorify organized violence for 40 centuries, but you imprison those who employ it privately.

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. ~Dagger of the Mind (Original Star Trek)

 

[David M]

As to costs of the death penalty ... Utah uses firing squads... More costly than life imprisonment? Most likely not.

It is absolutely more expensive to execute someone in the US than to imprison them for life. Figures from the Utah Legislative Fiscal Analyst's Office show it costs Utah an additional $1.6 million per inmate from trial to execution compared to life-without-parole cases

You have to take in to account the cost of the review and appeals process which is mandatory to avoid executing innocent people (which doesn't work). There is the additional "cost" of further clogging up the legal system.