Capital Punishment: Is it right?

[Southtown]

I'd rather not have this discussion go on a talk about Morality, a whole thread could go on about that with in excess of 100 posts it would be that interesting, but this discussion is about Capital Punishment.

Right, I'll make a fast point. And thanks for your excellent answer.

 

My point is who decides what is right and what is wrong? Does the phrase "rules of right conduct" (5) refer to national legislation, or what? In other words, when you say something is immoral, whose set of standards are you referring to?

[LJP07]

My point is who decides what is right and what is wrong? Does the phrase "rules of right conduct" (5) refer to national legislation, or what? In other words, when you say something is immoral, whose set of standards are you referring to?

 

I believe the general consensus on morality is that it's what is generally accepted by the human race and society. Morality has many meanings but that's the most engaging one, therefore it's not moral to kill, but right to punish ie. Imprison.

[HydrogenBond]

The death penality seems harsh because the extended time element and the legal illusions makes people forget the orignal atrocity. For example, if someone enterred your home and attacked your family killing someone, and you were able to kill them in the self defense of the rest of your family, this is the death penalty in real time. Nobody would expect you to worry so much about the rights and feelings of the criminal as too allow the rest of your family and you to be butchered. This would be seen as a righteous kill.

 

If instead, you only wound him and he excapes only to get caught, the prolonged process will change the way many in society view the criminal. The legal defense is going to create the illusion of a good guy having a bad day. People will feel sorry for him, who has been well coached for court, saying death is now to strict.

 

True justice would make the penalty equal to the offense plus 20%. If you rape and then beat someone to death, the penalty should be something a similar but 20% more brutal. The death penality, as we currently have, is actually quite humane compared to what is due.

 

The best arguments against the merciful death penalty, is sometimes innocent people are charged. The way around this are CIA style drug interrogations. The idea is by-pass the legal illusion arena and get to the truth as quickly as possible. If I was wrongly acused I would feel a high tech way to the truth would me a chance to prove myself against the mistakes made by the injustice system. If I was guilty I would prefer the magic tricks of lawyers. I would hope my lawyer can make me look like an alter boy so I could excape the justice due. I would also hope that I he will recruit the liberals so they will demonstrate for me. If all goes well, I will get VIP treatment at the big house.

[LJP07]

The death penality seems harsh because the extended time element and the legal illusions makes people forget the orignal atrocity. For example, if someone enterred your home and attacked your family killing someone, and you were able to kill them in the self defense of the rest of your family, this is the death penalty in real time. Nobody would expect you to worry so much about the rights and feelings of the criminal as too allow the rest of your family and you to be butchered. This would be seen as a righteous kill.

 

I don't think it's allowable to suggest that the Death Penalty is the same as self-defense.

 

The Death Penalty is the willfully, lawfully killing of a person with trial.

Self-Defense is the response to an action without trial.

 

So I don't think that comparison is eligible for argument.

 

" This would be seen as a righteous kill "

 

I think at the time of response, you don't think of intentionally killing someone, you intend to off-track the criminal and try to defend yourself. When you state righteous kill, it sounds like it was intentional, which is in fact wrong in modern society.

[pgrmdave]

There is no "clear and present" danger presented by a criminal behind bars. There is no 'self-defence' justification for the death penalty.

[HydrogenBond]

It comes down to New Testament versus Old Testament justice. In the Old Testament justice was an eye for an eye. In the New Testament, Jesus taught turn the other cheek. The death penalty is more merciful than Old Testament eye for and eye. While life imprisonment is more harsh than New testament, turn the other cheek.

 

I agree that killing is wrong. Both the first illegal kill and the second legal kill. But in both cases someone else does the killing. Both the murderer and the executioner might like their jobs. In a different time and place the roles could be reversed. So have mercy on the executionor.

 

A good compromise may be let the victims left behind make that decision since they are the ones that need closure the most. I would be happy if they chose either mercy or ole time justice; whatever brings them out of their grief back to the land of the living.

[Qfwfq]

I was responding to the assertion that anyone who supports Capital Punishment is themselves a murderer. I support Capital Punishment, but I am not a murderer.

I did not mean that, sorry, I only meant that saying it's the law doesn't prove that it's right. It isn't right in countries where it isn't the law.

 

Why not demonstrate alternatives that are more moral, and more protective, and hold them up as viable replacements, instead of attacking those who support the current system as being inherently evil.

There have been many examples of criminals that changed their ways and did worthy things, this includes some that had been graced with life terms instead of death penalty. The trouble nowadays is with overcrowded prisons and no will to improve things, but this isn't a justification. It's worthy to note that most criminals have become so because things led them up to it. People aren't just born bad, there's an old saying: Give your dog a bad name and then hang it.

[sebbysteiny]

There have been many examples of criminals that changed their ways and did worthy things, this includes some that had been graced with life terms instead of death penalty. The trouble nowadays is with overcrowded prisons and no will to improve things, but this isn't a justification. It's worthy to note that most criminals have become so because things led them up to it. People aren't just born bad, there's an old saying: Give your dog a bad name and then hang it.

 

All these points are taken into consideration by the American judge when deciding to award a death penalty. The existance of people awarded the life sentence who go on to do great things just proves the current system works.

[Mercedes Benzene]

I believe that that capital punishment is absoultely fine.

In my opinion, the penalty for murder should be death.

If that was a universal rule in the U.S., think about how murder rates would decrease!

I think it could be a very successful deterrent.

[Freddy]

All these points are taken into consideration by the American judge when deciding to award a death penalty. The existance of people awarded the life sentence who go on to do great things just proves the current system works.

 

I believe that most states that allow the death penalty have the jury decide whether the death penalty will be given unless a jury trial is wavied for a bench trial.

[sebbysteiny]

I believe that most states that allow the death penalty have the jury decide whether the death penalty will be given.

Quite right. But judge, jury, or whatever, all litigating circumstances including the ones Qfwfq was trying to suggest showed the death penalty was unfair are considered when deciding whether or not the death penalty is suitable.

[Boerseun]

[slightly off topic]

If we were to go the whole Old Testament "eye-for-an-eye" route, and we want to be consistent, we should keep in mind that the Old Testament gives clear instructions for "asylum cities" to be provided in the same bit where the "eye-for-an-eye" penalty is described.

How it works, if I kill you in city A, I can run to city B and apply for asylum. If the penalty for my crime in city A is death, then city B aren't allowed to extradite me - and the guys from city A aren't allowed to invade city B to capture me. I have to stay in city B 'till the high priest of that city dies. Then I am free to go.

[/slightly off topic]

So if the religious conservatives insist on Capital Punishment as stated in the Old Testament, just remind them of the "Asylum City" oddity. How to get past those instructions? Would a killer in New York then be able to run to Boston, where he'll get asylum? Or can the religious folks pick and choose bits in the bible that suit them and ignore other bits? And if their interpretation of the bible is indeed so selective, then how do they get past the final lines of Revelation, which says that this whole book is the Whole Truth, not to be tampered with? I think that they're full of $#!T, to say the least.

 

An "eye-for-an-eye" is no solution, unless you want to feed the populace's innate stone-age thirst for revenge and blood. Killing an individual is not for the greater good. Removing him from society might be, but that does not imply killing him. We're better than this. We shouldn't lower ourselves to the killer's level.

[Qfwfq]

All these points are taken into consideration by the American judge when deciding to award a death penalty. The existance of people awarded the life sentence who go on to do great things just proves the current system works.

You've got the cart before the horse. Unless your judges have some kind of a crystal ball, how do they know whether or not the person will do something worthy after the sentence has been decided.

 

My point simply went missed, as usual. :)

[Freddy]

You've got the cart before the horse. Unless your judges have some kind of a crystal ball, how do they know whether or not the person will do something worthy after the sentence has been decided.

 

My point simply went missed, as usual. :)

 

Again the Supreme Court of the US decided that the jury that convicted the murderer will decide the death penalty. Judges have no say except in rulings and instructions to the jury. It is ordinary citizens who decide the murderer's fate.

[sebbysteiny]

You've got the cart before the horse. Unless your judges have some kind of a crystal ball, how do they know whether or not the person will do something worthy after the sentence has been decided.

 

My point simply went missed, as usual.

 

What point? If a murderer has promise to reform, the Jury will make the decision. But I'm not convinced at all that a convicted murderer has an absolute right to 'do something worthy'?

[Oriana]

It just strikes me as an outdated form of punishment. "Eye for an Eye" doesnt necessarily have to mean a violent act for a violent act does it?

 

It also bothers me that people tend to think capital punishment is good to have around because its too expensive to keep criminals (In prison for instance) I'm not sure anyone has the right to decide whether this persons life, which could still go on to do good things, has to die for budgetary issues. Or any issue for that matter.

 

Anyway, those are just unimportant individual views (and seeing as how I'm very new here, I'm not sure if those are frowned upon being posted or not) So please pardon my ranting. :)

[C1ay]

It just strikes me as an outdated form of punishment.

Yes. There was a time when future gunslingers could witness the consequences of choosing a life of murder. Today's future killers, like gang members, get zero effect from the hidden death sentences carried out in modern times. It has lost all of it's deterrent effect and it costs 10s, 100s or even 1000s fold compared to keeping them locked up and fed....