How about one of the 48 victims family members? Or is that too Old Testament?
I just believe that some crimes are so heinous and the perpetrators such human filth that to let them live out their lives in prison is an insult to the survivors. We put killer dogs to sleep too…
Compassion. Its much more compassionate to kill someone than lock him away for life. Jail is a form of cruel and unusual punishment.[/quote]
Ok. What’s the point of giving someone a life sentence?[/quote]
er, I don’t get it. I don’t believe there is a “point” to the death penalty, but clearly there is a point to life sentences: seperating the people who have proven they are unfit to live with the rest of society from the rest of us.[/quote]
So you believe anyone who’s gotten a life sentence is completely incorrigible?
Nah, some of the non violent potheads with life sentences can probably be rehabilitated, dude…
I nominate this for the best post in this thread. Short, concise, yet beautifully wise.
9.8/10
Compassion. Its much more compassionate to kill someone than lock him away for life. Jail is a form of cruel and unusual punishment.[/quote]
Ok. What’s the point of giving someone a life sentence?[/quote]
er, I don’t get it. I don’t believe there is a “point” to the death penalty, but clearly there is a point to life sentences: seperating the people who have proven they are unfit to live with the rest of society from the rest of us.[/quote]
So you believe anyone who’s gotten a life sentence is completely incorrigible?[/quote]
Hardly. But just because you can’t always be right, shouldn’t mean you can never impose a big penalty.
I don’t see how it hurts to keep people apart from society if they break the laws. How long is a completely separate issue from whether to impose a death sentence.
I may not understand how life sentences are dealt with, but I imagine if you’re alive you can always appeal. At the very least, if DNA evidence proving your innocence appears after the sentence, at least you’re alive to collect on the law suit.
I nominate this for the best post in this thread. Short, concise, yet beautifully wise.
9.8/10[/quote]
Please. That’s a David Carradine quote from a Kung Fu episode.
I nominate this for the best post in this thread. Short, concise, yet beautifully wise.
9.8/10[/quote]
Please. That’s a David Carradine quote from a Kung Fu episode.[/quote]
I wish. I doubt my wisdom approaches that of David Carradine (or his scriptwriter) :)
I nominate this for the best post in this thread. Short, concise, yet beautifully wise.
9.8/10[/quote]
Please. That’s a David Carradine quote from a Kung Fu episode.[/quote]
I wish. I doubt my wisdom approaches that of David Carradine (or his scriptwriter) :)[/quote]
Yeah, yeah. When you can walk on the rice paper without ripping it, then come see me.
I nominate this for the best post in this thread. Short, concise, yet beautifully wise.
9.8/10[/quote]
Please. That’s a David Carradine quote from a Kung Fu episode.[/quote]
Hmph. It was wonderfully appropriate. Philistine.
I have no moral issue with the death penalty. If someone has committed a first degree murder, I see no real moral objection to executing them. The state, as an entity, can have powers that extend beyond that of an ordinary citizen, such as in the case of war. In the case of someone who has committed atrocities, I believe they have given up their right to live, especially if they are aware of the possible consequences.
However, there is a big problem with the death penalty, namely that our justice system is adminstered by humans which are inherently falliable. The fact is that there is no possible redress for executing an innocent individual is an unsurmountable obstacle to morally applying the death penalty.
If there ever comes a time in which we can know the truth perfectly without any possible error, than the death penalty could be ethically carried out, but in the present and the forseeable future, it seems to me that there cannot be a fair and just application of the death penalty.
You seem to forget that “the state” is made up by people, of people, for people, and it is people who are supposed to carry out these extraordinary powers. There is no nameless, faceless, emotionless entity. There is always an executioner, who is every bit as human as the victim. The moral issue is that killing people is wrong, that you are doing it on someone elses mandate does not make it less wrong.
However, there is a big problem with the death penalty, namely that our justice system is adminstered by humans which are inherently falliable. The fact is that there is no possible redress for executing an innocent individual is an unsurmountable obstacle to morally applying the death penalty.
If there ever comes a time in which we can know the truth perfectly without any possible error, than the death penalty could be ethically carried out, but in the present and the forseeable future, it seems to me that there cannot be a fair and just application of the death penalty.
You see no ethical problem whatsoever with killing people?
The government is given the power to kill by the mandate of its own citizens. The executioner, when acting as the agent of the state, IS the state. Surely you must agree that in some circumstances, killing is not only morally allowable, but morally required. For example, if you are acting in self-defense, the act of killing is not neccesarily immoral. If you are serving as an agent of the state in a war, then killing is also permissable. I would certainly argue that killing the guards of a concentration camp in order to liberate its occupants falls into the catagory of “required”.
It can also be argued that the state’s need to protect its citizens is greater than the state’s need to protect the rights of someone who has murdered another, especially when the possiblity of the death penalty is known
previous to the crime. Utilitarianism and social contract theory both could support this view.
I certainly do not claim to have perfect moral reasoning, but then again, no one can seriously claim that. But it seems obvious to me that there are many circumstances when killing a person is morally acceptable.
The fact of the matter here is that we will argue to a stalemate; there are great arguments for or against state-sanctioned killing.
It remains that I am not convinced that there is no possible way for killing another human to be ethical, but still oppose the death penalty for the reasons I stated above.
Compassion. Its much more compassionate to kill someone than lock him away for life. Jail is a form of cruel and unusual punishment.[/quote]
Ok. What’s the point of giving someone a life sentence?[/quote]
er, I don’t get it. I don’t believe there is a “point” to the death penalty, but clearly there is a point to life sentences: seperating the people who have proven they are unfit to live with the rest of society from the rest of us.[/quote]
So you believe anyone who’s gotten a life sentence is completely incorrigible?[/quote]
Hardly. But just because you can’t always be right, shouldn’t mean you can never impose a big penalty.
I don’t see how it hurts to keep people apart from society if they break the laws. How long is a completely separate issue from whether to impose a death sentence.
I may not understand how life sentences are dealt with, but I imagine if you’re alive you can always appeal. At the very least, if DNA evidence proving your innocence appears after the sentence, at least you’re alive to collect on the law suit.[/quote]
I didn’t ask whether they were innocent; I’m wondering what you’re trying to accomplish with a life sentence. You said it was “seperating the people who have proven they are unfit to live with the rest of society from the rest of us.” That sounds like “those who get life sentences are totally unfit for society.” This does beg the question of why we have non-life sentences; do people suddenly become fit to live with society after 30 years on certain kind of murders? What’s the reasoning here?
The government is given the power to kill by the mandate of its own citizens. The executioner, when acting as the agent of the state, IS the state.
An agent of the state is not the state, it is an independent person carrying out a task on behalf of the state, which in turn means that he is carrying out a task handed to him by a likewise independent person of sufficient authority, but never in this long chain of causation is there such a thing as a complete takeover of the physical body of a person by the entity we call “state”. People are responsible for their own actions, individually.
It can also be argued that the state’s need to protect its citizens is greater than the state’s need to protect the rights of someone who has murdered another, especially when the possiblity of the death penalty is known
previous to the crime. Utilitarianism and social contract theory both could support this view.
And this is accomplished how exactly? The death penalty’s status as a deterrent to crime is highly debatable, and the death of an already imprisoned person will not affect the security of society in general in any measurable way.
I certainly do not claim to have perfect moral reasoning, but then again, no one can seriously claim that. But it seems obvious to me that there are many circumstances when killing a person is morally acceptable.
The fact of the matter here is that we will argue to a stalemate; there are great arguments for or against state-sanctioned killing.
It remains that I am not convinced that there is no possible way for killing another human to be ethical, but still oppose the death penalty for the reasons I stated above.
There are times when killing is morally acceptable, but in the case of the death penalty we are talking about the pre-meditated murder of a completely defenseless person whose death will achieve nothing.
Premeditated murder? Check
Completely defenseless person? Check
Whose death will achieve nothing? Not so clear cut
I feel the death penalty is justified in extreme cases, but only when the evidence is iron clad (as in the case discussed here). It is sometimes the only appropriate, just punishment. That’s a worthwhile achievement.
Premeditated murder? Check
Completely defenseless person? Check
Whose death will achieve nothing? Not so clear cut
I feel the death penalty is justified in extreme cases, but only when the evidence is iron clad (as in the case discussed here). It is sometimes the only appropriate, just punishment. That’s a worthwhile achievement.[/quote]
Justice? Vengeance more likely. And I don’t think vengeance is something worthwile to strive for.
Blanket statement. Someone breaks into my house and I have to kill them to defend my family, not a damn thing wrong with that.
I’m not against executing certain criminals if it can be guaranteed that the process to determine that criminal’s guilt and deserving of capital punishment is flawless. Because we are taking that person’s life, there cannot be room for error.
Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s possible, at least not in the near future. So I end up against the death penalty.
And even in cases where it’s painfully obvious, you can’t make exceptions. It has to be one system that works flawlessly for me to be pro-death penalty.
We’ll have to disagree on that. I think that the death penalty can be just without being any more vengeful than life imprisonment.
Blanket statement. Someone breaks into my house and I have to kill them to defend my family, not a damn thing wrong with that.[/quote]
I agree that my wording is inprecise, and that is a mistake. Some killing is justified, as I have already said. Self-defense is included. But killing for the sake of killing is not.