The Death Penalty

[devonin]

Re: The Death Penalty

At what point do you say 'Justice must prevail. The death penalty must be executed'?

I feel the Death penalty is unjust, and you've done absolutely nothing to make me think otherwise. Since I deny that "justice" and "executions" can ever both be present, there is no point at which I think the death penalty -must- be carried out. Trying to show single cases where you're sure anyone would agree that the death penalty is justified isn't going to convince anybody who is simply opposed to the whole process of taking the life of another person for any reason.

[1961casey]

Re: The Death Penalty

Therefore, Devonin, your position on the death penalty is not based on logic or critical thinking but on a belief that taking the life of another person is wrong. If that is the case then your position in indefensible. You have not demonstrated why the death penalty is not just. You have been asked several times to defend your position but have only reiterated your belief.

Let's try this from a different angle: Life is invaluable and must be protected. Justice demands punishment equivalent to the crime. What statement are you making when a person who has committed several murders is not equitably punished? Let me answer that for you: The lives of the victims are not important enough that we would consider any and all options because to do so would be to go against your personal beliefs. Compensation is out of the question, because the victim is no longer there to receive it. Apologies? Useless! Jail time? Ha! He still has the right to food, clothing, shelter and medical care and his own life and his right to vote, and the right to privacy!

Do you recall the hue and cry when a convicted murderer is killed by his own jail mates? Why aren't these same people raising a bigger stink over the death of the victims? It should always be about the victims. How can we have confidence in a justice system that seems to do more to protect the rights of the killer than those of the victims, even after the killer has been convicted.

If a man were to be convicted for a single murder, I would personally be concerned about the possibility of making a mistake, but that is not the situation I'm talking about. I am talking about a situation where the killer has shown no remorse, not once but several times. Where is the equitable justice? As I have said before, sometimes even a death sentence is not equitable justice.

If the death penalty can never be just, please explain why. And this time do not use your beliefs as an explanation.

[Necros140606]

Re: The Death Penalty

death penality isn't just because the extermination of the criminal is the easier way out- a few seconds and it's all over. if, instead, this person is forced to work for the rest of his/her life it'll not only bring a benefit to many people, but it will also be a fair punishment; or you think taking away the rest of that person's life isn't enogh? the "an eye for an eye" criteria is something that has no meaning in the 21st century. it's something unreasonable and barbaric. i'm bothered sbout people still thinking it's a good way to prevent criminality, while statistics show no perceivable difference compared to countries in which the death penailty has been abolished.

[devonin]

Re: The Death Penalty

Let's try this from a different angle: Life is invaluable and must be protected. Justice demands punishment equivalent to the crime.

If these are your premises, then the death penalty is only remotely defensible if we further assume at least one of these things about you:

1/ You've concluded that murderers cease to be people
2/ Your desire to protect life is selective
3/ You don't understand that equivalent doesn't have to mean identical

If one of those three things is also representative of your reasoning, then I can see how you could support the death penalty. But an execution violates your first premise, that -life- is invaluable and -must- be protected. Killing someone fails to protect their life.

You have been asked several times to defend your position but have only reiterated your belief.

My Belief eh? And what exactly are statements like "Life is valuable and must be protected" or "Justice demands punishment equivalent to the crime"? I'll tell you what those are Casey, those are beliefs. All you've done to "support" your view that executions are A-ok is say that it is your -belief- that it is okay, and you've done no better of a job "proving" your view without explaining that it is what you believe than anyone else in this thread.

Let's try this then.

Premise: Life is valuable and should be protected always
Following Premise: It is therefore wrong to kill another person because doing so violates the above premise

Premise: Criminals should be punished for their crimes
Premise: The worse the crime, the worse the punishment
Premise: Murder is one of the worst crimes there is because it violates the principle that live is valuable
Following Premise: Murderers should therefore recieve the worst punishments

Here is where you and I differ. You seem to be saying 'Well, since murder is the worst crime there is, because life is so valuable and worthy of protection, it seems only just that the worst punishment we can hand out is death, since again, the taking of someone's life is the worst thing ever, so if you do it, all you deserve is the worst thing ever'

My issue with this is two-fold. One: If all life is valuable and worth protecting, then all life is valuable and worth protecting, you can't just decide to withdraw that protection because you are personally upset and affronted at what someone has done. Two: I deny that an execution is necessarily the worst possible punishment that can be meted out to a criminal. I would suggest that life in prison in squalid conditions just sufficient to maintain life constitutes a much more severe punishment as one would have decades to reflect on the consequences of taking a life, years in which they are barely able to survive, before eventually dying -anyway- of more natural causes.

[1961casey]

Re: The Death Penalty

Devonin,

Thank you for your reply.

You first stated a list of assumptions that I may have made. The third one being that 'equivalent doesn't mean identical.' I think you may be right, but even a life in squalid prison conditions it is still difficult to understand as to how it can be equivalent to murder. On the other hand, with the way you describe such a sentence, it just might be more than equivalent. Of course there is no way in the world that such a sentence could be delivered in light of all the rights the prisoners have now, which brings us back to the death penalty being the most efficient method of justice.

You state:
"If all life is valuable and worth protecting, then all life is valuable and worth protecting, you can't just decide to withdraw that protection because you are personally upset and affronted at what someone has done." You are right, which is why such a decision must be left to a dispassionate justice system. And you are entitled to protection for as long as you operated within the boundries of the law. Step outside of those boundries and protection no longer applies. That is what the court is for: to determine your crime and whether you are still entitled to all your rights and protections without being upset or affronted.

[devonin]

Re: The Death Penalty

Of course there is no way in the world that such a sentence could be delivered in light of all the rights the prisoners have now, which brings us back to the death penalty being the most efficient method of justice.

This is a very true statement, but I would suggest that the way to deal with the issue would be to call for a reevaluation of the quality of life given to maximum security prisoners guilty of major criminal offenses, and whether giving them such a high standard is the right decision in light of the offenses of which they are guilty.

I'd argue that as it currently stands, the prison system is failing in both the arenas of punishment and deterrance. I'm not familiar enough with the numbers to speak to its ablity to rehabilitate, being the third purpose of the justice system. Could you grant that a reevaluation of the ways in which the system punishes and uses that punishment to deter, might obviate the need for the death penalty as the "only way to really punish someone"?

And you are entitled to protection for as long as you operated within the boundries of the law. Step outside of those boundries and protection no longer applies.

I'm not sure I trust the objectivity of the justice system far enough to grant it a unilateral power to declare that someone's human rights no longer apply.

[1961casey]

Re: The Death Penalty

Devonin,

I think you touched on the main problem: the justice system as we have it today seems to be ineffective in the purposes it was set out to achieve. If the correction system could effectively punish, deter, and rehabilitate then yes, I would agree that a death penalty would not be necessary.

By the way, for the record, the justice system, by definition, takes away a persons rights whenever a sentence is handed down. For example, a criminal no longer has the freedom of association, he is in jail. Therefore, the justice system has the responsibility of curtailing a criminal's right and it is unilateral.

[rzr]

Re: The Death Penalty

The problem is there will not be a perfect system. Too many opinions differentiate. Everyone will disagree. I support the death penalty. Some others don't. If we add it into the system there's a disagreement. No matter what someone will be unhappy. And what happens to the people that are unhappy? They rebel. So, if the people that don't agree with the system are the ones we give what they want, they win. But, that makes what we want not happen. Therefore, based on my logic (which is starting to get odd), the current people who are satisfied would be dissatisfied.

Tl;dr: There's no way to perfect what we have. The best we can hope for is technological advancements that perfect evidence in regards to prosecution. Then, the only argument will be against the morality of the death penalty.

[tha Guardians]

Re: The Death Penalty

You all have fun debating the smaller, more trivial issues of the death penalty, while I delete+repost my earlier post:

Laws, rules and Earthly consequences are set for our actions daily, but is it a law if it contradicts free will? Is living a 'right' or 'privilege' that should be determined by others with the same status but a different role than ourselves? What religious person or organized government would take it upon themselves to end a person's life? Isn't that supposed to be a respectable power of God (for those of you who believe)? But even so, should people still have the free will to end another's life?

This debate is a conundrum. It simply comes down to individual belief and morality.

[Konradz]

Re: The Death Penalty

If you think it is wrong to kill someone, i don't see how it is right for you to kill the killer. The death penalty does the same crime the criminal did. Nobody has the right to take away a man's life, not even justice.
The people who say that 'if he did it, he deserves it too' seem to be coming from an older time. This isn't jungle and justice ≠ revenge.

And no, I didn't read through the 10 pages, sorry. Just overlook this if I'm repeating something older please.

[1961casey]

Re: The Death Penalty

"Laws, rules and Earthly consequences are set for our actions daily, but is it a law if it contradicts free will? Is living a 'right' or 'privilege' that should be determined by others with the same status but a different role than ourselves? What religious person or organized government would take it upon themselves to end a person's life? Isn't that supposed to be a respectable power of God (for those of you who believe)? But even so, should people still have the free will to end another's life?

This debate is a conundrum. It simply comes down to individual belief and morality."

The point is: does any individual have the right to arbitrarily terminate someone else's life. The answer is obviously 'no', because each of us have the right to our own life. It is the law the determines this to be so, and it is the law that decrees the punishment for taking that right away from someone else. As I have stated previously, punishment for a crime must be left with a dispassionate justice system that determines the guilt or innocence of a person and the appropriate punishment for that crime. It is never about any people exacting revenge on someone else. Please do not let someone's free will be an argument in this discussion since it is a systematic result we are talking about and not any one individual's or group's right or free will.

[tha Guardians]

Re: The Death Penalty

What I was covering, in a roundabout way, was how morality and judgment are the only true factors in this debate. Law means nothing here, because some believe in this law or government, and some believe in another.

The Death Penalty is unnecessary, however I stand for it. I personally believe that only with 100% (and I mean 100%) proof for an evil action should a person be executed. I believe in the Death Penalty as a solace to a family that was broken by someone with nothing left to live for. I also support the Death Penalty if it will save innocent lives.

Entirely, it's just a matter of opinion.

[devonin]

Re: The Death Penalty

I believe in the Death Penalty as a solace to a family that was broken by someone with nothing left to live for. I also support the Death Penalty if it will save innocent lives.

Entirely, it's just a matter of opinion.

Well in these cases it is also a matter of somehow having infallible knowledge of the future. How else could you possibly make the case that killing someone -will- make the family feel better, or -will- save the lives of innocent people? At best you can get to "I -think- it will do these things" but you can't get the 100% (and you mean 100%) proof you're demanding earlier in your statement.

[tha Guardians]

Re: The Death Penalty

I'm saying under the circumstances I would consider it alright.
Even if we couldn't know if it would make the family feel better or save innocent lives, I think better safe then sorry. It would seem as if the person would be better off dead anyway. I know the moment I kill someone, that's the moment my life is over. I see no more reason to live.

As far as the 100% proof goes.. if I can't have full evidence, then I might as well have no evidence.

I'm sure some of views may be a bit twisted, but that's just how I feel on the issue.
I don't believe innocent people should die, and I don't think murderers would be missed.

[rzr]

Re: The Death Penalty

I'm saying under the circumstances I would consider it alright.
Even if we couldn't know if it would make the family feel better or save innocent lives, I think better safe then sorry. It would seem as if the person would be better off dead anyway. I know the moment I kill someone, that's the moment my life is over. I see no more reason to live.

As far as the 100% proof goes.. if I can't have full evidence, then I might as well have no evidence.

I'm sure some of views may be a bit twisted, but that's just how I feel on the issue.
I don't believe innocent people should die, and I don't think murderers would be missed.

Why would it matter what the family thought? I mean, it sucks for them, yes. But, think about the family of the person who was murdered.