We should execute people the old fashioned way (Alabama, violent crime, abortion)
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.
Oddly while liberals are more likely to oppose the death penalty, it seems like it's conservative Christian groups that are most active in opposing it. Most liberals don't seem particularly concerned or invested in ending it, seeing other issues as more important.
I am for the DP only when there is no doubt, not beyond a reasonable doubt. Many people have died at the hands of the state only later to be found that most likely they were innocent.
Isn't that a bit contradictory since the jury is already asked to decide beyond "reasonable doubt" ? So these innocent persons were actually and effectively sentenced and executed according to the terms of your conditions.
Or do you mean some kind of superior comitee should be able to cancel a popular jury's decision ?
I'm against the death penalty for many philosophical reasons but I'll just give you two practical reasons.
- Innocent people are executed.
- The death penalty is NOT a deterrent. There are many stats to prove this, plus do you really think that criminals act thinking they will get caught? If they did, they wouldn't commit the crime in the first place, death penalty or not. In some "three-strikes law" states, it can even encourage the "no witness left behind" type of decisions.
As a conclusion, I will add that prisons are also loaded with people with very serious mental issues. Psychiatric judicial wards for them would be more efficient and more humane, in my opinion. But society often wants revenge more than it wants justice.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,300 posts, read 54,222,946 times
Reputation: 40623
Quote:
Originally Posted by personne
- Innocent people are executed.
- The death penalty is NOT a deterrent. There are many stats to prove this, plus do you really think that criminals act thinking they will get caught? If they did, they wouldn't commit the crime in the first place, death penalty or not. In some "three-strikes law" states, it can even encourage the "no witness left behind" type of decisions.
Laws are obviously not a deterrent either. Your point?
Laws are obviously not a deterrent either. Your point?
Exactly. So what is death penalty except governmental-organized barbarious revenge? Shouldn't society be morally above those they condemn, ie as in "do not kill" ?
Edited to add : laws do act as deterrent most of the time. They just don't with violent crimes a lot of the time.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,300 posts, read 54,222,946 times
Reputation: 40623
Quote:
Originally Posted by personne
Exactly. So what is death penalty except governmental-organized barbarious revenge? Shouldn't society be morally above those they condemn, ie as in "do not kill" ?
Just what is barbarous about letting the punishment fit the crime? And since when does 'society' cling to "do not kill" as if it's somehow meaningful?
Quote:
Originally Posted by personne
Edited to add : laws do act as deterrent most of the time. They just don't with violent crimes a lot of the time.
I've never claimed execution was a deterrent, only that I have no problem with the punishment fitting the crime.
I do not care if I personally witnessed the crime, no government should ever be empowered with the authority to execute one of its own citizens. It has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of guilt or innocence, and absolutely everything to do with trust.
No government can be trusted. That is not skepticism, but merely fact. Even the founding fathers did not trust the very government they were creating, which is why they included all those "checks and balances." If the founders did not trust the government they created, why should we?
A "life sentence" means 7 years in prison before becoming eligible for parole. Because of parole we have to have two different "life sentences:" 1) Life; or 2) Life without parole. As long as parole exists, there can never be "Truth In Sentencing." There should also be no "time off for 'good' behavior," or half-way houses. If someone is convicted and sentenced to a specific time in prison, they serve every day of that sentence behind bars.
I am glad your OPINION is NOT enforced.
There are times when there is absolutely NO question about the guilt of the person.
There was acase in Kansas ,I think, where a town heard of a gang of bank robbers were headed to the town.
The towspeople set up a trap. When the bank robbers committed their robbery the townspeople called them out to them to surrender. They didn't. Instead they started firing. The townspeople "let 'em have it".
They put the bodies on display on Main St. There hasn't been an attempted bank robbery since.
In MY opinion, if in the act of committing a crime someone loses their life, you should forfeit yours.
Do it enough time and the word gets out and those thinking about committing a crime MIGHT think twice if they know they could lose theirs.
We had a case a few years back where a State Trooper stopped a car for speeding. When he approached the car the driver shot him dead.
The Governor didn't have the decency to ask for the death penalty. How do you think that made the rest of the State troopers feel?
But, I think it it is enforced, it should be done cheaply, quickly, and as humanely and painlessly as possible. Thus I support the abolition of lethal injection and the electric chair in favor of the good, old-fashioned bullet.
If I were to be executed, I would choose the firing squad myself.
"as humanely and painlessly as possible.' You have to be kidding me.
Have you ever read of some of the things that have been done to innocent people? raped over and over, ortured, burnt, the extreme cruelty on children,etc.
When the criminal cares about "quickly and as human as possible', then we can talk.
like they say,'if you can't take it, don't dish it out".
Just what is barbarous about letting the punishment fit the crime? And since when does 'society' cling to "do not kill" as if it's meaningful?
What is barbarious is to decide and plan the killing of a human being for reasons of revenge under pretense of doing good to society when the same being could be taken away from it as easily. So don't kill in cold blood and in a premeditated way if you prefer. That leaves out self-defense, certain cases of euthanasia and maybe very few wars (which I'm certainly not sure about, but then that's another govermental thing. A French philosopher once defined war as "Old men deciding upon financial reasons to kill off their young sons", a bit blunt, and not entirely true, but there is much into that, I think.)
The punishment will never fit the crime. And if you believe in conscience and/or in god, how is that worse than letting them rot in jail and spend the rest of their life regretting what they did (or regret being caught) and re-live that scenario every day? Or, should that reasoning be coherent, why not advocate life-long physical torture ? Which I'm sure some people here would think a good idea, seeing what kind of posts I have read on numerous threads. I don't think that is the case as far as you're concerned if it needs to be mentionned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell
I've never claimed execution was a deterrent, only that I have no problem with the punishment fitting the crime.
Strangely, it's like you believe in death penalty to "fit the crime" because it's abhorrent to you to take away a human life so it should be punished the most definitive way possible. I don't believe in death penalty exactly for the same reason. It is abhorrent to take a human life. Especially when you pretend to do it for the good of society.
I don't wish to make you change your mind at all, it's not the way it happens anyway and I have no desire to be a mind controller. But I also wish to express what I think are good reasons for NOT supporting the death penalty. Thanks for your civility.
What do you make of people executed when it was proved later they were innocent ?
Isn't that a bit contradictory since the jury is already asked to decide beyond "reasonable doubt" ? So these innocent persons were actually and effectively sentenced and executed according to the terms of your conditions.
Or do you mean some kind of superior comitee should be able to cancel a popular jury's decision ?
I'm against the death penalty for many philosophical reasons but I'll just give you two practical reasons.
- Innocent people are executed.
- The death penalty is NOT a deterrent. There are many stats to prove this, plus do you really think that criminals act thinking they will get caught? If they did, they wouldn't commit the crime in the first place, death penalty or not. In some "three-strikes law" states, it can even encourage the "no witness left behind" type of decisions.
As a conclusion, I will add that prisons are also loaded with people with very serious mental issues. Psychiatric judicial wards for them would be more efficient and more humane, in my opinion. But society often wants revenge more than it wants justice.
"The death penalty is NOT a deterrent.' Only because it is NOT used enough.
look at states like MD. it has the death penalty on the books, and when was the last time it was used.?
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.