Death Penalty, the endless question

Message boards : Politics : Death Penalty, the endless question
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Hev
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Jun 05
Posts: 1118
Credit: 598,303
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1155720 - Posted: 24 Sep 2011, 19:59:43 UTC - in response to Message 1155635.  
Last modified: 24 Sep 2011, 20:01:04 UTC

The whole world can not agree about the death penalty, so I doubt we have much chance here.

I think you'll find that the world is moving away from the death penalty.

Amnesty International has a list of countries that retain the death penalty for ordinary crimes

"Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Botswana, Chad, China, Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, Cuba, Dominica, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nigeria, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Taiwan, Thailand, Trinidad And Tobago, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United States Of America, Vietnam, Yemen, Zimbabwe."

From wikipedia World death penalty map
ID: 1155720 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1155732 - Posted: 24 Sep 2011, 20:32:57 UTC - in response to Message 1155660.  

They are human

That pesky number one.
1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others and lack of the capacity for empathy.


Is a thing that is incapable of feeling empathy towards another, human? Is this not one of the requisites for being human?

Now it is time to ask a question. If Hitler had been captured alive, should he have been given a life sentence?

ID: 1155732 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1155743 - Posted: 24 Sep 2011, 21:05:53 UTC - in response to Message 1155713.  



Death To The Monsters. Quickly.

Dull

If you're gonna go that route and wanna try to make it more of a deterrent...
I suggest public, televised execution.
By something graphic. Like, maybe, drawing and quartering.


The data supporting the notion that death penalty has a deterrent effect is slim at best:

since capital-eligible homicides remain stable over time while the rate of other homicides declines. This also is true when we isolate county-level trends in Texas, the state that has carried out more than one third of all executions in the United States since [the re-introduction of the death penalty in the US]. This is the opposite of what would be predicted from economic theories of death penalty deterrence.


Page 279 of this source. It strikes me as a somewhat perverse argument to suggest that the death penalty has a deterrent effect when rates decline for homicide categories where the penalty is not an option, while rates remain stable for homicide categories where the penalty is an option.

In 1975 a paper by Isaac Ehrlich that perfomed an analysis of murder rates and the death penalty was published in the American Economic Review. This paper was widely publicized and was noted in the Supreme Court's judgment reintroducing the death penalty. Some readers may remember the paper's conclusion that "an additional execution per year over the period in question may have resulted, on average, in 7 or 8 fewer murders" (page 414).

Ehrlich's analysis was based on a data set from 1933 to 1969. The same analysis performed on a subset of the data (the subset being the exclusion of data from 1963 onwards), shows no correlation between executions and murders (page 2 of this source). It strikes me as perverse to suggest that the deterrent effect of the death penalty started on January 1st 1963.

It seems to the advocates of the death penalty its deterrent effect appears to be self evident. Based on the above, I am not convinced they have a good case.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1155743 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1155748 - Posted: 24 Sep 2011, 21:15:00 UTC - in response to Message 1155732.  
Last modified: 24 Sep 2011, 21:23:44 UTC

They are human

That pesky number one.
1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others and lack of the capacity for empathy.


Is a thing that is incapable of feeling empathy towards another, human? Is this not one of the requisites for being human?


I prefer to go with a dictionary definition on this one and say that a human is anyone who belongs to the race of homo sapien.

If you suggest that any being incapable of feeling empathy isn't human, then how should we classify anyone with specific forms Asperger's? Less than human?

Now it is time to ask a question. If Hitler had been captured alive, should he have been given a life sentence?


Yes. I'll even state that Osama Bin Laden should have been given a life sentence as well.
ID: 1155748 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1155750 - Posted: 24 Sep 2011, 21:16:52 UTC - in response to Message 1155732.  
Last modified: 24 Sep 2011, 21:22:51 UTC

They are human

That pesky number one.
1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others and lack of the capacity for empathy.


Is a thing that is incapable of feeling empathy towards another, human? Is this not one of the requisites for being human?


It would seem odd to think so, as the word did not exist in the English language before 1909. If it were fundamental of the human condition I would have thought it would have a much older pedigree. To the best of my knowledge the word "human" is generally used to refer to members of our species, this definition depends solely on biology rather than high order mental functions.

Now it is time to ask a question. If Hitler had been captured alive, should he have been given a life sentence?


For the advocates of the deterrent effect of the death penalty (and I'm not suggesting this is your position), Hitler seems a very odd candidate to use as an example. I have to ask what purpose is served in your example in executing Hitler?
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1155750 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1155751 - Posted: 24 Sep 2011, 21:17:50 UTC - in response to Message 1155702.  

Death To The Monsters. Quickly.


Its easy to feel that way when you've already stated that when you look into a mirror, you see the most ugliest person in the world, suggesting that you certainly don't have much love and respect for yourself, so certainly we couldn't expect you to love and respect something you don't understand.

Locking someone up and throwing away the key is far more humane than putting someone to death because you or others feel they have no redeemable qualities and can never possibly be useful to society.
ID: 1155751 · Report as offensive
Terror Australis
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1817
Credit: 262,693,308
RAC: 44
Australia
Message 1155845 - Posted: 25 Sep 2011, 3:43:03 UTC

I don't think of the death penalty as a deterent. To me its the "punishment fitting the crime".

I only advocate it for particularly horrific crimes such as the one I referred to earlier.

To me, people who commit such crimes have abrogated all their rights as a human. If a person wants their "rights", they have to respect the rights of others.

T.A.
ID: 1155845 · Report as offensive
BarryAZ

Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 16,982,517
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1155860 - Posted: 25 Sep 2011, 5:47:09 UTC

I wonder why 'small/no' governement Tea Party Republicans are so gung ho on capital punishment (or law enforcement in general).
ID: 1155860 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1155865 - Posted: 25 Sep 2011, 6:02:11 UTC - in response to Message 1155860.  

I wonder why 'small/no' governement Tea Party Republicans are so gung ho on capital punishment (or law enforcement in general).

Wild guess, they believe in personal responsibility. With responsibility comes consequences.

ID: 1155865 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1155866 - Posted: 25 Sep 2011, 6:05:55 UTC - in response to Message 1155750.  

[quote]Now it is time to ask a question. If Hitler had been captured alive, should he have been given a life sentence?


For the advocates of the deterrent effect of the death penalty (and I'm not suggesting this is your position), Hitler seems a very odd candidate to use as an example. I have to ask what purpose is served in your example in executing Hitler?

Bobby, don't put words in my mouth. Never did I say execute Hitler. Stop being a troll.

ID: 1155866 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1156053 - Posted: 25 Sep 2011, 18:53:52 UTC - in response to Message 1155866.  

[quote]Now it is time to ask a question. If Hitler had been captured alive, should he have been given a life sentence?


For the advocates of the deterrent effect of the death penalty (and I'm not suggesting this is your position), Hitler seems a very odd candidate to use as an example. I have to ask what purpose is served in your example in executing Hitler?

Bobby, don't put words in my mouth. Never did I say execute Hitler. Stop being a troll.


I didn't say you did, I asked a similar question to yours. If not a life sentence or the death penalty, we are left with something less than a life sentence. Are you saying that you would be an advocate of a less than life sentence had Hitler been captured alive? Please note, I am not saying you would be an advocate of any of the three. For those that are not supporters of the death penalty on principle, the answer to your original Hitler question is surely not in any doubt, and the same is true for supporters of the death penalty. So what is the point of your question? To establish how inclusive people's principles are?

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1156053 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1156059 - Posted: 25 Sep 2011, 19:05:52 UTC - in response to Message 1155845.  

I don't think of the death penalty as a deterent. To me its the "punishment fitting the crime".

I only advocate it for particularly horrific crimes such as the one I referred to earlier.

To me, people who commit such crimes have abrogated all their rights as a human. If a person wants their "rights", they have to respect the rights of others.

T.A.


And how would you address the concern that some may be put to death erroneously? What makes one crime particularly horrific compared to another?
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1156059 · Report as offensive
Profile MOMMY: He is MAKING ME Read His Posts Thoughts and Prayers. GOoD Thoughts and GOoD Prayers. HATERWORLD Vs THOUGHTs and PRAYERs World. It Is a BATTLE ROYALE. Nobody LOVEs Me. Everybody HATEs Me. Why Don't I Go Eat Worms. Tasty Treats are Wormy Meat. Yes
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 02
Posts: 6895
Credit: 6,588,977
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1156085 - Posted: 25 Sep 2011, 21:11:47 UTC

Its easy to feel that way when you've already stated that when you look into a mirror, you see the most ugliest person in the world, suggesting that you certainly don't have much love and respect for yourself, so certainly we couldn't expect you to love and respect something you don't understand.

I am sure there are ugly people who are as you describe above.

And there are those who are not.

I understand one thing. Murder certain people and the murderer will not have to wait for Judge, Jury, and The Sentence.

Their Kin/Posse/Clan/Whathaveyou will see to it, The Sentence, will be carried out before The Law gets near them.

For Most of Us, We Hope The Law will be on Our Side and Swiftly do to them, what they have Done to Us.

The World will Not Turn to Favor letting them Die in Prison.

Think about Them. In Prison. Murderers. Laughing, Eating, Smoking, Watching The Box, Reading, Getting Great Health Care, etc., Living and Enjoying-Something.

The Dead they Killed. Ash or Rotting Flesh, or Cryoed. Dead. Enjoying-Nothing.

Dull

ID: 1156085 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1156101 - Posted: 25 Sep 2011, 22:21:18 UTC - in response to Message 1156085.  

I understand one thing. Murder certain people and the murderer will not have to wait for Judge, Jury, and The Sentence.

Their Kin/Posse/Clan/Whathaveyou will see to it, The Sentence, will be carried out before The Law gets near them.

For Most of Us, We Hope The Law will be on Our Side and Swiftly do to them, what they have Done to Us.


What you are talking about is the same philosophy of "an eye for an eye", which is the basis for human emotion, and is no way to run a lawful justice system.

The World will Not Turn to Favor letting them Die in Prison.

Think about Them. In Prison. Murderers. Laughing, Eating, Smoking, Watching The Box, Reading, Getting Great Health Care, etc., Living and Enjoying-Something.

The Dead they Killed. Ash or Rotting Flesh, or Cryoed. Dead. Enjoying-Nothing.

Dull


I do think about them. No outside contact. Fear of being murdered by their cellmates. Unable to have a family. Unable to live as a free human. Unable to hold a job, use their income as spending power. Unable to vote and have a say in their future.

These are the things people should be deprived of when being punished.

I could care less if they can eat, smoke, laugh, read, watch TV. I don't know about the "great" health care. And I'd seriously doubt that they are enjoying anything... and if they do, so long as they are away from the rest of society, I don't care.
ID: 1156101 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1156103 - Posted: 25 Sep 2011, 22:25:47 UTC - in response to Message 1155845.  

I don't think of the death penalty as a deterent. To me its the "punishment fitting the crime".

I only advocate it for particularly horrific crimes such as the one I referred to earlier.

To me, people who commit such crimes have abrogated all their rights as a human. If a person wants their "rights", they have to respect the rights of others.

T.A.


Again, "punishment that fits the crime" is the basis for human emotion and is no way to run a lawful justice system.

I'm fine if you want to take away all the rights and freedoms afforded to most under their respective national laws and lock them up away from society, missing out on the things I mentioned in my reply to Darwin/Wormy/Dull.

I just don't see how killing them is going to bring justice.

...and as Bobby said, what happens when our science is good enough to where we can prove we killed an innocent man through the death penalty? Is the loss of even one innocent life really worth it to have "justice"?
ID: 1156103 · Report as offensive
Terror Australis
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1817
Credit: 262,693,308
RAC: 44
Australia
Message 1156158 - Posted: 26 Sep 2011, 1:09:29 UTC - in response to Message 1156103.  
Last modified: 26 Sep 2011, 1:14:57 UTC

I don't think of the death penalty as a deterent. To me its the "punishment fitting the crime".

I only advocate it for particularly horrific crimes such as the one I referred to earlier.

To me, people who commit such crimes have abrogated all their rights as a human. If a person wants their "rights", they have to respect the rights of others.

T.A.


Again, "punishment that fits the crime" is the basis for human emotion and is no way to run a lawful justice system.

I'm fine if you want to take away all the rights and freedoms afforded to most under their respective national laws and lock them up away from society, missing out on the things I mentioned in my reply to Darwin/Wormy/Dull.

I just don't see how killing them is going to bring justice.

...and as Bobby said, what happens when our science is good enough to where we can prove we killed an innocent man through the death penalty? Is the loss of even one innocent life really worth it to have "justice"?

"Justice" is the perpetrator being brought to trial and found guilty then being given an appropriate penalty. In some cases this will be capital punishment. e.g. Troy Davis should NOT have been executed, the Anita Cobby murderers should have been.

Some people do better in jail than they do on the "outside". Inside they become a "kingpin" where as on the outside they had no status. As for the threat of being assaulted on the inside, the "lifers" are usually the ones doing the assaulting, probably because they have no fear of the consequences. If you are a "lifer" and you assault/murder someone in jail, what further punishment can be applied?

I would like your comments on my last paragraph.

T.A.

PS - I know I will not change your mind on this (and am not trying to) but that does not prevent me debating you on the subject.

Edited for clarity
ID: 1156158 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1156176 - Posted: 26 Sep 2011, 3:16:53 UTC - in response to Message 1156158.  
Last modified: 26 Sep 2011, 3:40:25 UTC

"Justice" is the perpetrator being brought to trial and found guilty then being given an appropriate penalty. In some cases this will be capital punishment. e.g. Troy Davis should NOT have been executed, the Anita Cobby murderers should have been.


There are some people that are very upset that the Casey Anthony trial didn't go the full distance and believe she should have been given the death penalty. The problem is we are fed information from the media and have no access to any factual data - and most of us wouldn't know how to interpret the data even if we did have access to it.

But it seems we have a slight disagreement in how justice should be applied. I've taken the time to answer your questions directly, yet you haven't answered mine:

What happens on the day we find out we sent an innocent man to his death? Are you OK with the killing of even a single innocence in your thirst for "justice"?

And what of the capital punishment paradox? If we define murder as the killing of innocence, and the punishment for murder is the death penalty, why should we not put to death every supporter of the death penalty in accordance with our own justice system once we discover that we have killed an innocent human?

Killing is just too irreversible for such an imperfect society that tends to value "swift justice" like our own.

Some people do better in jail than they do on the "outside". Inside they become a "kingpin" where as on the outside they had no status. As for the threat of being assaulted on the inside, the "lifers" are usually the ones doing the assaulting, probably because they have no fear of the consequences. If you are a "lifer" and you assault/murder someone in jail, what further punishment can be applied?


Solitary confinement. If they show no remorse, no interest in their own development to become a useful member of society, and they are indeed uncaring about their status as a "lifer", then lock them up in a cell alone where they cannot make "kingpin" status and cannot hurt other inmates.

PS - I know I will not change your mind on this (and am not trying to) but that does not prevent me debating you on the subject.


I'm not sure why people feel the need to state things like this, as this should go without saying. However, I do believe that truly open-minded individuals can change their minds through open intellectual discourse where the stronger ideal survives. After all, that is the point, isn't it? It shouldn't be two people blathering opinions. It should be a search for the strongest ideas to advance us in our evolution. Our intellect is what puts us at the top of the evolutionary food chain on this planet, our penchant for debate is an extension of our evolutionary process.

Though we don't have to become angry with one another even if we don't change the viewpoint of our debate opponent. Civility is key. ;-)
ID: 1156176 · Report as offensive
Terror Australis
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1817
Credit: 262,693,308
RAC: 44
Australia
Message 1156271 - Posted: 26 Sep 2011, 13:45:34 UTC - in response to Message 1156176.  
Last modified: 26 Sep 2011, 13:53:55 UTC

Hi Ozz
Without quoting your entire post.
As I said before Capital Punishment should be reserved for the most heinous of crimes. Crimes of passion or a single "quick" kill should be excluded. Everybody has the capacity to take a life, the only difference between us is the amount of provocation required.

In order to prevent an innocent person from being executed there must be strict guidelines on the quality of the evidence. Instead of being proved beyond reasonable doubt, the evidence must prove it beyond any doubt. Such evidence could include Video footage, testimony from multiple eyewitnesses (preferably with no connection to each other), a confession that is verified by the rest of the evidence and so on.

At this time, for imposing a death sentence, I would exclude DNA evidence unless it's there in quantity. One hair or a cigarette butt, from either the suspect or the victim, is not enough to execute a person on. Nor is testimony that merely places them in the vicinity of the crime. The proof must be totally incontrovertible.

It's interesting how opinions vary, to me, long term solitary confinement is akin to torture and is a more "cruel and unusual" punishment than execution. While I support capital punishment in certain circumstances, I am totally against torture. (Although I did like Jessie Ventura's comment that if you gave him Dick Cheney and a waterboard he'd have the man confessing to the Sharon Tate murders within an hour)

I do not seek "swift justice", I believe in "true" justice, where, whether you like the term or not, "the punishment fits the crime" and this judgement needs to be made carefully.

I used to think that the criminal should be executed in the same manner they used to kill their victim, till I realised that, in the type of crime I support CP for, this reduces the executioner to the same level as the murderer and the only person the state would be able to find to carry out such a sentence would be a fellow psychopath.

Re Casey Anthony. I had to look it up as the case did not make the news here but it seems to me it was a textbook case of trial by jury. Whether she murdered her daughter or not I don't pretend know, but it looks like the jury, who had heard all the evidence, decided there was not enough to convict her "beyond reasonable doubt" and, voted according to the oath they took when they were sworn in.


As for the disclaimer, I agree with everything you said. It's just that some people take disagreement with their ideas way too personally.

T.A.

edit:
To me, people who commit such crimes have abrogated all their rights as a human. If a person wants their "rights", they have to respect the rights of others.

You didn't comment on this, I'd appreciate your thoughts.
ID: 1156271 · Report as offensive
Terror Australis
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1817
Credit: 262,693,308
RAC: 44
Australia
Message 1156275 - Posted: 26 Sep 2011, 14:16:14 UTC - in response to Message 1156272.  

Everybody has the capacity to take a life, the only difference between us is the amount of provocation required.


This would include being under the influence of drugs or alcohol?

Alcohol and most drugs only reduce the amount of provocation required and then only for some. There are people who can be totally "off their face" yet still not kill while others can do so sober and without a thought.

The only substances I would allow this to be used as a mitigating factor would be the strong hallucinogenics such as LSD or PCP as people under the influence of these are totally divorced from reality and not "aware" in the normal sense of the word. It's akin to insanity.

But then, they knew the effects of the substance when they took it.......
ID: 1156275 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1156276 - Posted: 26 Sep 2011, 14:17:21 UTC - in response to Message 1156271.  
Last modified: 26 Sep 2011, 15:05:46 UTC

As I said before Capital Punishment should be reserved for the most heinous of crimes. Crimes of passion or a single "quick" kill should be excluded. Everybody has the capacity to take a life, the only difference between us is the amount of provocation required.

In order to prevent an innocent person from being executed there must be strict guidelines on the quality of the evidence. Instead of being proved beyond reasonable doubt, the evidence must prove it beyond any doubt. Such evidence could include Video footage, testimony from multiple eyewitnesses (preferably with no connection to each other), a confession that is verified by the rest of the evidence and so on.


The problem is there's too much human involvement. Mistakes are made. A prosecutor that doesn't win cases won't be a prosecutor for long. Video footage can be manipulated. Eyewitness testimony is considered the worst of scientific evidence. A confession can be coerced.

I'm not trying to just argue the details of your stipulations. I'm trying to point out the realities of exactly what you are asking for.

For review I submit to you the trial of Alan Gell. It had several eyewitness reports, sloppy prosecution, swift justice, and no DNA evidence.

It's interesting how opinions vary, to me, long term solitary confinement is akin to torture and is a more "cruel and unusual" punishment than execution. While I support capital punishment in certain circumstances, I am totally against torture.


So you value human contact as an important part of life, and lack of human contact is akin to torture, so its better to kill them? I think keeping them alive is far more humane than simply disposing of their life.

I do not seek "swift justice", I believe in "true" justice, where, whether you like the term or not, "the punishment fits the crime" and this judgement needs to be made carefully.


I never said I didn't like the term (or phrase), its just that I disagree with your proffered solution or application of punishment. I do not believe any sane human being should be given the power to decide if another human being is to live or die as a form of punishment (hopefully it goes without saying that this excludes wartime). The fact that we wish to give certain people the ability to choose to decide whether someone is to live or die makes us no better than the convict.


But in all this, you never actually answered my question. You said that you are only for the death penalty under certain circumstances. My question was how would you feel or what are your thoughts after it is discovered that we have sent an innocent human to their death? [Edit] Do you think the ends still justify the means if even a single innocent life is destroyed in this pursuit of justice?

To me, people who commit such crimes have abrogated all their rights as a human. If a person wants their "rights", they have to respect the rights of others.

You didn't comment on this, I'd appreciate your thoughts.


Actually I did comment on this, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I disagree that someone who has committed heinous acts have abrogated all rights as a human. To be human is a result of biology, not action.

A statement I could agree with would be "People who commit heinous acts of inhumanity have abrogated all freedoms as afforded by their respective laws. If a person wants their freedoms, they have to respect the rights and freedoms of others".
ID: 1156276 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Death Penalty, the endless question


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.