Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even though many animals have communities, only human beings have civilizations. We have made a set of mutual agreements that are completely unique in the animal kingdom. Some of these are very basic agreements, such as "do not kill," others are more nuanced, such as "do not litter," but they are what separate us from the rest of the animals.
By violating the most basic tenets of these mutual agreements, a person basically removes themselves from civilization and joins the animals that civilization keeps at bay. When a tiger jumps over the zoo wall and starts biting people, although we acknowledge that the tiger's behaviors are not its fault, we still just shoot the tiger. Similarly, while many capital offenders have had extremely challenging experiences, their offenses are not tolerated by civilization and they must be put down.
For me, it always comes back to the belief that a governing body must hold itself to a higher standard. I don't agree with eye for an eye punishment for moral reasons. But I also don't agree with it because its not a deterrent to other criminals. The death penalty is a form of blood lust.
Potato, potahto. State sanctioned cessation of life is hypocritical.
Why? We go to war when attacked. And your reasoning is no different than me claiming that its hypocritical to forcibly detain someone who forcibly detained someone like your loved ones.
Why does it take 22 years to conclude all of this? I'm really sick of hearing in the news every 5 months about some sentence upheld or followed through regarding a crime from the early 90s. We need much quicker resolutions for justice in this country.
For me, it always comes back to the belief that a governing body must hold itself to a higher standard. I don't agree with eye for an eye punishment for moral reasons. But I also don't agree with it because its not a deterrent to other criminals. The death penalty is a form of blood lust.
It doesn't matter if the death penalty deters other criminals. While some offenders are in fact deterred by the presence of the death penalty, the fact that they are so deterred is not necessarily a compelling reason, in and of itself, to retain the DP as a punishment alternative.
The death penalty is, however, a 100% deterrent to the offender to whom it is applied. (See the preceding testimony of Theodore Bundy for proof.)
Some will say that the state can incapacitate the same offender by life in prison, and in theory, that is true.
However, those who are familiar with history realize full well that governments come in two varieties: 1) those that have fallen, and 2) those that will.
Every government instituted by mortal men either has ended, or will end, at some point. There has never been any exception to this ironclad law of societal evolution, nor will there ever be.
When governments fall, they often lose the ability to imprison or otherwise restrain their felon population, whose members are then free to roam the countryside, visiting their sick depredations on innocent members of society the fallen government was originally instituted to protect.
That is why government, the creation, instrumentality and temporal subset of this larger concept we call "society," must have the option to do away with felons who have demonstrated, by their sociopathic behavior, that they pose an unacceptable risk to society in that they may outlive the government charged with the responsibility of restraining them.
While we might agree that the absolute number of felons for whom the death penalty should be reserved is far smaller than the number who actually receive such sentences, the requirements of a civil society dictate that government should nonetheless have such a penalty as an option.
Because someday, the government, as currently constituted, will be gone, and with it, its ability to imprison its felons. But society (in one form or another) will still exist, and its members at that time will deserve protection from sociopaths no less than those who are its members today.
That is an interesting article. I do agree that anti-death penalty advocates have to be more educated on the prison system as a whole and learn how it all works.
Personally, I am against life in prison save for the most heinous acts of violence. But if I had to choose between DP and life in prison, I'd choose life in prison.
Why? We go to war when attacked. And your reasoning is no different than me claiming that its hypocritical to forcibly detain someone who forcibly detained someone like your loved ones.
We go to war for a lot of reasons. If we are actually being attacked, then yes, we must kill to survive. But many of our wars have zero to do with defense. And I did say self defense is in a different category than the death penalty.
It doesn't matter if the death penalty deters other criminals. While some offenders are in fact deterred by the presence of the death penalty, the fact that they are so deterred is not necessarily a compelling reason, in and of itself, to retain the DP as a punishment alternative.
The death penalty is, however, a 100% deterrent to the offender to whom it is applied. (See the preceding testimony of Theodore Bundy for proof.)
Some will say that the state can incapacitate the same offender by life in prison, and in theory, that is true.
However, those who are familiar with history realize full well that governments come in two varieties: 1) those that have fallen, and 2) those that will.
Every government instituted by mortal men either has ended, or will end, at some point. There has never been any exception to this ironclad law of societal evolution, nor will there ever be.
When governments fall, they often lose the ability to imprison or otherwise restrain their felon population, whose members are then free to roam the countryside, visiting their sick depredations on innocent members of society the fallen government was originally instituted to protect.
That is why government, the creation, instrumentality and temporal subset of this larger concept we call "society," must have the option to do away with felons who have demonstrated, by their sociopathic behavior, that they pose an unacceptable risk to society in that they may outlive the government charged with the responsibility of restraining them.
While we might agree that the absolute number of felons for whom the death penalty should be reserved is far smaller than the number who actually receive such sentences, the requirements of a civil society dictate that government should nonetheless have such a penalty as an option.
Because someday, the government, as currently constituted, will be gone, and with it, its ability to imprison its felons. But society (in one form or another) will still exist, and its members at that time will deserve protection from sociopaths no less than those who are its members today.
But I still come back to the question of the innocent people.
Even with a confession of guilt and supposed evidence, I can not in good conscience support a practice that allows a government to put down its' citizens.
The worst of the worst should be given life in prison IMO. Death is an easy way out. If it was my loved one who died at the hands of one of these criminals, I'd want them to be alive to contemplate exactly what they've done and atone for it. You can't do that when you're dead.
Beyond the worst of the worst, I think our sentencing guidelines, laws, police procedures, etc. need a total overhaul. We have WAY too many people in prison for stupid things and those people are not a threat to society.
Beyond that...we need a better pathway for inmates to re-enter society and become a productive citizen. There are too many laws and rules that make it difficult if not impossible for someone who was in the prison system to put that life behind them.
Looking at all of this as a whole will reduce the amount of people in prison, reduce recidivism and protect society while increasing the number of productive workers and citizens in society.
We are talking about the death penalty administered by a government. Two totally different things.
Well if it will make you feel better we can let the family and friends of the victim administer the death, That way the Government won't have to do it.
For me, it always comes back to the belief that a governing body must hold itself to a higher standard. I don't agree with eye for an eye punishment for moral reasons. But I also don't agree with it because its not a deterrent to other criminals. The death penalty is a form of blood lust.
I am confused, you also posted the following when a poster mentioned Dylann Roof
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magritte25
I hope he gets life in prison. That's a true punishment.
To me, Putting people in prison for life is, horrible torture. If we're not going to rehabilitate our prisoners, it seems better, from both a moral and a utilitarian point of view to inflict capital punishment. That is just my opinion, and my opinion regarding torture and true punishment might be a little different from yours. (Not saying you are wrong here)
I assume that no one would argue that a policeman in the line of duty should not be able to shoot an armed gunman, or that killing in self-defense should not be allowed. The death penalty, at least when applied to murderers who are deemed incapable of rehabilitation, is merely a form of generalized self-defense.
Retributivists believe that “the criminal deserves to be punished and deserves to be punished in proportion to the gravity of his or her crime, whether or not the victim or anyone else desires it” (Pojman 57). So, under this reasoning, if a person committed a murder, that person’s punishment should be death.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
