Death Penalty Opponents, This Is Who You Champion

Linkat wrote:

I am curious of those who support the death penalty - how many teach their children that two wrongs don't make a right? For example, if your child has their lunch money stolen, do you suggest that they in turn steal something from that other child? If you believe that it is o-k for child to respond in kind when a wrong is committed to them, then I understand (don't agree, but understand). However, your child may have issues with the law later on.

Isn't the death penalty a similar situation, but magnified? If you kill my brother, then it is o-k for me to kill you.

Do you consider it theft when a teacher takes back the money from the little thief who stole the lunch money from the child, and returns it to its rightful owner? Would you consider that to be a wrong .... or do you see a distinction between what the thief did versus what the teacher did, even though both involved taking money from someone?

0 Replies

Well, the difference would be:

You can give the money back. You can't give a life back, even with taking another life.

Therefore it could be argued that no justice is done, just 'rightful' revenge.

0 Replies

OE, I wasn't intending to correlate taking money from a thief with taking his life. Only highlighting that when you take money from a thief, it is not necessarily a theft, just because it involves the taking of money. The point being that taking the life of a capital murderer may not be murder just because it involves the death of a human being, which is what Linkat was insinuating with the premise of his example.

0 Replies

No, Ticomaya. I do not, but you are giving back money that belongs to the other child. When you execute some one you are giving back the victim's life. You are simply taking another life. That would be like saying o-k he stole from you, going ahead and steal something from him in return.

0 Replies

O-K with semantics Tic, then just replace kill with murder.

0 Replies

Linkat wrote:

O-K with semantics Tic, then just replace kill with murder.

The killing of a human being is a homicide, but might not be murder. Murder is a crime, and homicide is a necessary element of murder, but is not in and of itself a crime. Justifiable homicide is not murder.

That is an important distinction, and one that seems to elude many who are opposed to the death penalty, and the anti-war crowd for that matter, who do not recognize any differences between the "why" of the killing of human beings. For to them, death is death. Unless of course we're talking about a baby in a mother's womb, but that's a topic for a different thread.

Recognizing that distinction only begs the question of whether it is justified to kill a capital murderer. It is my opinion that retributive considerations govern the punishment of criminals, and the principle of proportionality between punishment and offense supportes the death penalty in certain circumstances. Capital murderers ought to be punished as they deserve -- that is the essence of justice: treating a person according to how they act.

Quote:

The ultimate justification of any punishment is not that it is a deterrent, but that it is the emphatic denunciation by the community of a crime: and from this point of view, there are some murders which, in the present state of public opinion, demand the most emphatic denunciation of all, namely the death penalty. -- Lord Denning

0 Replies

Tic - that is why I changed my wording to kill from murder. I will clarify - is it right or wrong to intentionally kill another human being?

As far as abortion (which I am not a proponent of), the argument for it has to do with when human life begins. You are insinuating that a baby in a mother's womb is human life and that is the debatable subject.

I also agree that capital murderers ought to be punished as they deserve -- putting them in prison for life does essentially take their freedom away which is what they did when they murdered another. And in this way you punish without being a killer yourself. I truly believe that you should not kill a human.

0 Replies

Linkat wrote:

Tic - that is why I changed my wording to kill from murder. I will clarify - is it right or wrong to intentionally kill another human being?

The answer to that question depends on the circumstances, consistent with my previous post.

But I find it interesting that many - and I'm not lumping you in with this generalization - who would criticize me for being a "black or white" type of person, wish to assert an absolute on this matter.

Linkat wrote:

As far as abortion (which I am not a proponent of), the argument for it has to do with when human life begins. You are insinuating that a baby in a mother's womb is human life and that is the debatable subject.

I acknowledge a key question is when does life begin?". I do not claim to know the answer to that question, but when that question is asked of abortion supporters, they generally can't give a satisfactory answer, or they admit they don't know. I'm not trying to derail this thread with a lengthy abortion argument, but I believe that to maintain that "you should not kill a human" as it regards the death penalty, and then insist that a baby in a womb is not a human but merely a fetus, ignores the real possibility that the baby is indeed alive, and a human, and is thus being murdered by the abortionist. If that is the case, the abortion carries out a death sentence -- and the baby is obviously innocent, whereas the capital murderer is not.

0 Replies

This is driving me nuts, everytime is see it in the lists of new posts . . .

DEATH PENALTY OPPONENTS, THIS IS WHOM YOU CHAMPION

Whom, Whom, Whom, Whom . . .

There, i feel better now . . .

0 Replies

Linkat wrote:

Tic - that is why I changed my wording to kill from murder. I will clarify - is it right or wrong to intentionally kill another human being?

As far as abortion (which I am not a proponent of), the argument for it has to do with when human life begins. You are insinuating that a baby in a mother's womb is human life and that is the debatable subject.

I also agree that capital murderers ought to be punished as they deserve -- putting them in prison for life does essentially take their freedom away which is what they did when they murdered another. And in this way you punish without being a killer yourself. I truly believe that you should not kill a human.

This sounds like a great idea.
Are you willing to have a maximum security prison built in your neighborhood?

0 Replies

I haven't read this entire thread, but the last several pages are interesting.

I think the death penalty imposed as vengeance is wrong. I think the death penalty included as a consequence for specific actions is appropriate. There are some crimes so cruel, so viscious, so unconscionable by anybody's standards that the only reasonable punishment is death. Lusatian cited one of these when the thread was started.

It is said the death penalty is no deterrant, but I think that is because it is used so infrequently and then only after many years or decades of review and stays and appeals. I can see a bad person not worrying about it much. Even if he is caught, he knows he is in no imminent danger of the ultimate penalty. He has time and all kinds of hope for the law to change, for his attorney to get him off on a technicality, or for a benevolent governor to commute the sentence. (That happened in New Mexico when Tony Anaya commuted sentences for seven men on death row.)

But I think the way to look at it is that the law must be enforced and the only way that can be done is to impose consequences for breaking it.

So, jaywalking carries a $10.00 fine.
Speeding a $50 fine.
Shoplifting - minor misdemeanor - fine and maybe minimal jail time.
The penalties increase with the severity of the infraction.
And I think there is nothing wrong for the ultimate penalty to be death. Imposing it is not taking vengeance, but it enforces the penalty prescribed by law for committing the most grievous crimes.

Not having a death penalty gives the man in life imprisonment nothing to lose. He can be as murderous and/or viscious as he chooses to guards or other inmates with full knowledge that there is nothing more they can do to him as a consequence. And there is a danger that a benevolent governor will 'take pity' on him and use poor judgment as Governor Dukakis did in Massachusetts in the case of Willie Horton. There are other cases.

I do think the death penalty should not be imposed except with the most absolute certainty of the guilt of the person accused.

0 Replies

I used to have views on the death penalty similar to Foxfyre's, particularly in light of the fact my older brother was murdered. I no longer subscribe to such killing, so long as strong laws for life without parol exist. Why is it so emotionally satisfying to pro death people to have the offender die? It does not change the disposition of the situation at all. The damage is still done, the effect of removing the person from society is no different. The only thing that changes with the execution of a prisoner is, the proponents get off to seeing another one die.

0 Replies

Vengeance, what may I ask is wrong with vengeance?

Is there a passage in the bible "vengeance is mine says the lord" or something to that effect. Well, if it's good enough for him it should certainly be good enough for me.
In truth there is no other reason for the imposition of the death penalty than punishment and vengeance.
I keep hearing from those who oppose capital punishment that a lifetime in jail is worse punishment. If that were so why would those on death row work so had to have it set aside? Inorder to spend their remaining years in a jail cell? Are they opting for additional punishment?
I keep hearing from those who oppose it that a lifetime in jail is worse punishment. If that were so why would those on death row work so had to have it set aside inorder to spend their remaining years in a jail cell. Are they opting for additional punishment.

0 Replies

I don't say life without parole is a worse punishment. I would accept life in prison over death in a hole anytime. I just don't see that killing criminals advances justice.

0 Replies

Edgar
Does it advance justice? NO. Is it justice? Yes.

0 Replies

Is it necessary for any save visceral purposes? I think not.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Vengeance, what may I ask is wrong with vengeance?

Is there a passage in the bible "vengeance is mine says the lord" or something to that effect. Well, if it's good enough for him it should certainly be good enough for me.

funny, au...

of course, what it actually means is vengeance should be left up to god... if you go for that kind of thing...

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Blatham: I would imagine the statistics would show an overwhelming percentage of males are sent to prison and death row, as compared to females. If so, are we to conclude that the system unfairly discriminates against the male population?

Or ... (if I was President of Harvard I might risk my employment by suggesting the following, but ... ) is there a slight chance that males commit more crimes and capital murders than females, and because of that, there are more of them in prison and death row?

You'll recall that the US Supreme Court, in 72, declared Georgia's death penalty unconstitutional because of racism.

0 Replies

Quote:

There are some crimes so cruel, so viscious, so unconscionable by anybody's standards that the only reasonable punishment is death.

Reasonable? What is the reasoning? It will re-establish the 'balance' of things?

Quote:

It is said the death penalty is no deterrant, but I think that is because it is used so infrequently and then only after many years or decades of review and stays and appeals.

By all means, do not investigate the studies done on this question (there are MANY from MANY nations).

0 Replies

Death Penalty Opponents, This Is Who You Champion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know