Capital Punishment --- For or Against?

echi wrote:

real life wrote:

As long as you rely on humans to work in law enforcement, human errors will be made, however.

That's cold, man.

Cold? Me?

I'm telling you the truth. You can't handle the truth.

Police kill innocent people all the time by accident.

We don't call for an abolition of police forces. We recognize that a mistake was made and work on correcting it.

real life wrote:

Police kill innocent people all the time by accident.

By accident. Right, but they thought they had a good reason to shoot, most of the time. What's the reason for taking the life of a person who poses no threat to anyone? Why must we do this?

echi wrote:

real life wrote:

Police kill innocent people all the time by accident.

By accident. Right, but they thought they had a good reason to shoot, most of the time. What's the reason for taking the life of a person who poses no threat to anyone? Why must we do this?

Retributive considerations govern the punishment of all criminals, and the principle of proportionality between punishment and offense support the death penalty under certain circumstances. The essence of justice is treating a person according to how they act.


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 Alfred Denning

au1929 wrote:

For those of you who argue against CP based upon the possibility of executing an innocent person. What than is your argument when guilt is beyond a shadow of a doubt?

I gave a list several pages ago. One example rehabilitation.

Not much sense to argue further. The ones that want blood will never budge.

Steve 41oo wrote:

au1929 wrote:

For those of you who argue against CP based upon the possibility of executing an innocent person. What than is your argument when guilt is beyond a shadow of a doubt?

I gave a list several pages ago. One example rehabilitation.

When a way is found to revive the victim I might go along with rehabilitation.

Steve 41oo wrote:

au1929 wrote:

For those of you who argue against CP based upon the possibility of executing an innocent person. What than is your argument when guilt is beyond a shadow of a doubt?

I gave a list several pages ago. One example rehabilitation.

When a way is found to revive the victim I might go along with rehabilitation.

When the state sees fit to allow capital punishment it sends the message that cold-blooded killing is morally acceptable and, in some cases, might be the only appropriate response. You will not encourage less violence with such policies.

echi wrote:

When the state sees fit to allow capital punishment it sends the message that cold-blooded killing is morally acceptable and, in some cases, might be the only appropriate response. You will not encourage less violence with such policies.

In what manner do you contend capital punishment constitutes "cold-blooded killing"?

On the contrary, it sends the message that certain crimes are so heinous that an appropriate meting of justice includes the forfeiting of the life of the perpetrator.

The victim? As soon as you commit to finding revenge you are the victim.

au1929 wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:

au1929 wrote:

For those of you who argue against CP based upon the possibility of executing an innocent person. What than is your argument when guilt is beyond a shadow of a doubt?

I gave a list several pages ago. One example rehabilitation.

When a way is found to revive the victim I might go along with rehabilitation.

The victim? As soon as you commit to finding revenge you are the victim.

It's really pretty simple. Do you want to live in a society that rejects killing, or don't you? If you do then you must at some point understand that more killing will not lead to less killing, even if it is sanctioned by the state. When the state sees fit to allow capital punishment it sends the message that cold-blooded killing is morally acceptable and, in some cases, might be the only appropriate response. You will not encourage less violence with such policies.

echi wrote:

The victim? As soon as you commit to finding revenge you are the victim.

That's a very simplistic way of looking at this. Are not the lives of the masses more important than the life of one man, especially if he is a sadistic, psychopathic murderer?

Someone like Jeffrey Dahmer, who has virtually no redeeming value to society, should be put to death in order that he not kill again.

Clifford Olson, who raped and murdered 10 children, should have been put to death. And there are so many more.

I am talking about sick, psychopathic, mentally twisted, unrepentant murders who have no respect or value for life whatsoeve... who kill people for absolutely no reason. Those are the people who should be put to death. There is no rehabilitation for mental cases. They are a menace to everyone they come in contact with.

Given the varied responses & opinions - perhaps a couple of reasonable questions at this point would be:

If against CP:

1) What detailed method [if any] of "rehabilitation" would work for the most heinous?

2) Should cost of housing/feeding, etc. of the most heinous be a consideration?

3) Utilize Jeffrey Dahmer and his situation - and explain your thoughts on an appropriate sentence.

Echi, I am not talking about revenge. It is for the safety of all that he is being put to death. Why should the guards be at risk for someone who cares nothing for a human life? We will always disagree on this. I don't think Dahmer's life is worth diddly squat.