au, As someone that believes in CP, I understand people that do not believe in it. It's really not a matter of having conflict in their own minds. They do not believe in "an eye for an eye." I also believe, more people are shifting away from CP as a penalty for any crime. Maybe, some day, I may change my views on CP too!
You should CI! I've no other argument that hasn't been already stated but pursuing a revenge is only gratuitous violence.
It has been proved that the CP is not a deterrent for criminals.
Francis, I know that truism that CP doesn't deter crime. I've never been in a situation where a loved one was killed by violence/crime, so I'm not in a position to speak from experience. However, I know from reading that those who have been affected by those crimes have spoken on both sides of this issue; some for revenge, and some for forgiveness.
I would tend to lean with both sides.
My answer was forthright. I made it pretty plain how I feel about the death penalty.
Francis wrote:You should CI! I've no other argument that hasn't been already stated but pursuing a revenge is only gratuitous violence.
It has been proved that the CP is not a deterrent for criminals.
One can hardly say it better.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Francis wrote:You should CI! I've no other argument that hasn't been already stated but pursuing a revenge is only gratuitous violence.
It has been proved that the CP is not a deterrent for criminals.
One can hardly say it better.
Indeed by a Frenchman and German in English. Respect you guys.
(round of applause for all a2kers who talk sense in their non native tongue...and McTag
) well maybe not McTag, he's a manc now.
Speaking as one who has had a brother murdered, I do not reject the death penalty as an act of forgiveness. I have not forgiven the killer. But, common sense telles me that the death penalty is not the answer. If they had executed my brother's murderer, I would feel no remorse. But, I would not condemn him to death, nevertheless. I have stated my reasoning in an earlier post.
The amount of punishment ought to be commensurate with the severity of the offense. The death penalty ought to be used sparingly and imposed only upon the worst of the worst offenders, meaning, those offenders who commit especially atrocious murders.
Lib - That kind of specious argument doesn't add to the debate, being oxymoronic in itself.
If "the amount of punishment ought to be commensurate with the severity of the offense" then any murder should be punished with the death penalty.
You say otherwise in your next paragraph...
Libcoesque, Yours' seem to be a rational answer, but not all offenders and offenses are the same and responded in similar ways by all peoples.
There are good arguments on both sides.
Francis wrote:Lib - That kind of specious argument doesn't add to the debate, being oxymoronic in itself.
If "the amount of punishment ought to be commensurate with the severity of the offense" then any murder should be punished with the death penalty.
You say otherwise in your next paragraph...
But, I didn't argue for "an eye for an eye" or "a death for a death."
We should be able to agree that some homicides are far more atrocious than other homicides. How do we determine which murderers get life in prison and which murderers get death? The choice should not be arbitrary. The death penalty, as the most severe punishment, should be reserved for offenders who commit especially atrocious murders.
Lib, More states are outlawing the death penalty. Some day, that may become the national policy.
cicerone imposter wrote:Lib, More states are outlawing the death penalty. Some day, that may become the national policy.
As states should because juries fail to use restraint and impose the death penalty far too often.
I am fortunate enough to live in a country where there is no capital punishment. Crime has not shot up as a result, quite the opposite.
Our most recent mass murderer, Martin Bryant, (killed 35 people) is constantly monitored to ensure that the easy escape (death) is denied him.
For me to kill him would be wrong (to me). It's premeditated killing, in cold blood. It would make me no better than he, possibly worse, since I don't have an IQ of 66.
EorI, I believe that those with developmental disabilities are exempted from the death penalty in many states.
How high an IQ do you need to qualify for the death penalty?
(Am I the only one who finds this question absurd?)
Another reason to abolish the death penalty is the effect it has on the finding of a verdict. A jury should be focussed on determining guilt from innocence without being distracted by the potentially disastrous irreversible consequences of the death penalty.
In other words, the existence of the death penalty shifts the boundary of what constitutes "reasonable doubt"
EorI, Many states are abolishing the death penalty. That many death penalty states made exemptions for the developmentally disabled in only one "progress" made by our court/legal system of some states. We must still abide by the laws of our land no matter how ridiculous we may find them to be until such time they are completely changed.
It takes the majority to make changes in such laws. Everybody's perception of what is right or wrong cannot be forced down people's throat just because some individuals "believe" differently. It will take time, but what has transpired in many states can give you hope.
Francis wrote:
It has been proved that the CP is not a deterrent for criminals.
Nonsense.
No criminal who has been executed has committed additional crimes.
It's a 100% deterrent.
cicerone, and I think the state of California should have abolished the death penalty long ago. I frankly cannot believe that we're on one hand the most progressive state, economically leading, have a majority of liberals living
here and still cannot abolish CP. Why wasn't it ever put on the ballot?
real life wrote:Francis wrote:
It has been proved that the CP is not a deterrent for criminals.
Nonsense.
No criminal who has been executed has committed additional crimes.
It's a 100% deterrent.
What a stupid answer is that? CP is NOT a deterrent for others to
commit crimes. The criminal behind bars doesn't need a deterrent -
he's already incarcerated.
