Is there a crime that would make the death penalty justifiable?

:rolleyes:I just lost my replay
will try later:detective:

If I could read your post and comprehend what I read, I would respond with something more. What did I say that wasn't true?

- Minimal.

I wanted to defend system; realize it's worse in US I think U from

Capital crimes we don't have; exception the Army of course.

Lots of crimes involving (public) capital though

Sorry to get of on a bad start,

Pepijn Sweep:whoa-dude:

I am actually an Australian - no capital punishment here nowadays. I am not defending capital punishment, but I do not see the argument of "the court could potentially get it wrong" as a sufficient excuse not to have capital punishment - we may as well not sanction anyone as the court could have potentially handed out many other incorrect sentences to other people. The only argument in favour of such reasoning is, "We can acquit people if we find the sentence to be unjust" - reversible. However, I posit that sticking someone innocent in a cell, and all the unpleasant things that occur in prison, is inhumane just like killing an innocent person. To what degree is one more or less humane as a miscarriage of justice is the question. There are always going to be errors, and unjust sentences will always occur somewhere down the track - whatever the punishment.

And my apologies I was a tad rude in response, I did not really understand your post and I am in a glum mood :-(

Where do you live? If you don't mind me asking.

- Minimal.

Revenge is not a justification, although it may be an excuse. But capital punishment is not justified by revenge. It is usually justified by: a. deterrence, and b. justice.

The line between justice and revenge is incredibly blurry. I have always believed in an eye for an eye. All premediated attempts at murder or murder should be punished by death.

Do you trust the system enough and are you prepared to carry out the sentence? put the noose about their neck while listening to their cries for mercy and their mothers comfort. Weigh them and adjust their weight by the length of their fall. Put a sack over their face so they dont see their eyes drop upon their cheeks or see your misjudgement and watch as their tongue pushes forward, blue and swollen, as they gasp for air. Will you grapple with your conscious as another is found to be the murderer, not he. Can you agree to agree with the death penalty and not face the consequences?

While he asked for mercy I would tell him he gave none. While his mother cried I would tell her that he/she (meaning her child) was a murderer and that supercedes her maternal emotions. I would rather use a gun because it would take less time out of my day and be cheaper. If our society is unable to enact just acts then we are sick society that is completely selfish. The victim never says its too harsh just people who know the sick basterd who killed and 3rd parties who dont give a ****.

Look if I was certain of the justice and the crime deserved their death, then I would rejoice in his cries, shooting would be too easy..BUT you have not answered my questions, have you?

Sorry, as far as trusting the system no I do not. I HATE the american system (where I am) Justice is bought and bargained here like a cheap prostitute. I do support death for parameters I said above however.

So who chooses? me, you or the state? Im not squeamish but Im damned if the state will kill in my name and not be just. You cant say I believe we have imperfect system and then condone the death penalty. If you do, you are party to that injustice.

Your penal system is corrupt from every angle , it is legal slavery. Your citizen becomes legal tender, a source of cheap labour, a marketable commodity. Justice is the last thing your system admires.

Saying the death penalty is just and that the system is unjust are completely different. I would say yes the system doesnt admire justice because murderers are hardly ever excecuted. There are some cases when it is obvious even with a system as corrupt as ours. Juries in america decide on the DP. I trust that more then a judge but knowing how educated and self deluded most people here are I still dont like it.
As far as saying I cant condone the DP with a corrupt system actually I can. They are exclusive.

So is this an academic agreement or a matter of yes we should have DP even though the system is unjust? I cant really understand what your saying.

Ya im not editing today. sorry. I will clarify for ya.
I think that the DP would be a step in reducing the inepitude of the system as long its juries deciding. When the system becomes better (if it does) i would advocate it being universal regardless of what the judge or jury thinks.

The line between justice and revenge is incredibly blurry. I have always believed in an eye for an eye. All premediated attempts at murder or murder should be punished by death.

An eye for an eye makes the world go blind". Ghandi

I agree with you in the sense that it is scary to see murderers going on parole; for you to assume a blanket statement is very tricky. In that, there are circumstances where even that is not reasonable.

Well from what ghandi said he seemed more like an utilitarian than someone who cared about justice. Utilitarianism's biggest flaw is something's utility, or ability to produce good can only be evaluated in the past. A system of morality is completely useless if it has no way of telling someone what future decisions are moral. So i don't really care what ghandi said in regards to an eye for an eye.

But ya I know I think that DP is just, but knowing how to implement it is tricky.

Utilitarianism is also used in economics and it is the equivalant to *value*. In a capitalist based system things are hardly done for good but *rather* to feed demand.

I suppose that social policy should exist so that, like Bentham said, happiness can be spread to the greatest number of people. The problem with this is that it is too vague - and not used anymore. Utilitarianism falls entiredly short of addressing how the death penalty will also give much more power to the establishment. In the United States to be a step away from the death penalty due lousy forensic work is not a better option.

The idea behind Ghandi is that you can't have black and white law because many will be *wrongfully* killed. Ideally that wouldn't be the case but realistically it already happens.

Another thing to mention other than the blanket idea of DP; is that the prison *industry* yes industry is something which many have a lot of money in. All the prisons in California and Texas are privatized please explain that one to me.

Another point of reference for a model that employs the death penalty is the state of Texas. It would be very difficult to argue the revolutionary effects of the death penalty in Texas. More have been wrongfully killed in that state than all of othe United States combined.