Reply
Mon 30 Apr, 2007 07:21 pm
So what do you think? Is it okay for the government to legally kill someone?
My opinion: NO. Not just because of ethical reasons, but also because countries with the lowest punishments are also the ones with the lowest crime rates, which tells me that capital punishment is actually useless.
Maybe this ought to be posted under Philosophy & Debate.
Legally, capital punishment is legal everywhere that it is legal.
Morally, I think the law is a little slow to catch up with "right and wrong".
Heck, it's even slow to catch up with what's "effective and useful".
For our government to kill 100,000 Iraqi civilians is just ... what it is.
We did it because we could and nothing stopped us. The jungle grows
wherever it can, regardless of how moral or useful it is.
I think it's okay for the government to do outrageous, immoral
things because no other behavior is possible from it.
Is it morally okay for a rattlesnake to bite something? Or for an amoral,
power-hungry organization to perform amoral, power-hungry actions?
If the government behaves like organized crime, I say it's just following it's
actual nature. The same applies when it randomly behaves like a philanthropist.
I'd vote against capital punishment myself, because the claimed "goals"
and results are not clear to me. But I don't expect a government to
represent my concerns unless I put some big money where my mouth is.
I don't feel sorry for the executed, if I know beyond a doubt the executed is guilty of a sufficiently heinous crime. Problem is, there are far too many innocents convicted by our system, and DNA testing does not figure in most cases. Therefore, I do not support any death penalty. The convicted can be kept out of society forever, behind bars, if the means are in place to do so. Therefore, no danger to the public; no need of executions anyway.
Although I believe in the sanctity of life some murders deserve to die.
As generl rule I am opposed to the death pnalty. But I might make exceptions for Hitler, Mussolini, AIdi Amin, George W Bush etc.
NickFun wrote:As generl rule I am opposed to the death pnalty. But I might make exceptions for Hitler, Mussolini, AIdi Amin, George W Bush etc.
You can put yourself at the top of the list.
Australia doesn't have the death penalty, so it's a fairly mute discussion for us. We can't interfere with the justice system of another country. I wouldn't vote to re-introduce the death penalty here, but I don't waste much sympathy on those who knowingly commit capital crimes in countries that have capital punishment.
RexRed wrote:Although I believe in the sanctity of life some murders deserve to die.
That's like saying that you believe in the sanctity of private property, but you don't mind stealing every once in a while.
I'm okay with the death penalty.
My beef is that there's too many appeals that last for years and it's inefficient and expensive out of the taxpayers pocket just like everything else government on any level is involved in.
To borrow a line from BPB that resonates with me --
Capital punishment is murder by the state. Some murders bother me less than others. Personally, I was rather satisfied with the outcome in the Jeffrey Dahmer case. Wisconsin does not have a death penalty. The inmate population saw to it anyway.
which of that was my line? because I certainly agree with it. I think capital punishment IS murder by the state but I'm not bothered by it. When you play you pay.
joefromchicago wrote:RexRed wrote:Although I believe in the sanctity of life some murders deserve to die.
That's like saying that you believe in the sanctity of private property, but you don't mind stealing every once in a while.
Not quite, it is like saying I don't believe in stealing but those who steal deserve to be stolen from...
A taste of their own medicine...
Capital punishment for heinous crimes is as far as I am concerned a proper response.
If you can't do the time don't do the crime.
In theory I'd support the idea of executing people like Charles Manson in which there was no doubt whatsoever, and the guy is a continual threat to society should he ever escape or otherwise get loose.
At this stage of the game however knowing what I do about the basic systems of justice in America, I cannot support the death penalty. You're basically talking about giving Mike Nifong and others like him a license to legally kill people.
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:which of that was my line? because I certainly agree with it. I think capital punishment IS murder by the state but I'm not bothered by it. When you play you pay.
Everything up to the "Personally" part.
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:... I believe that taking another person's life is murder. Period. In the case of certain people I don't have a problem with it happening though, and that's a character fault and between me and God. So in that respect I don't "support" the death penalty and I hope I'm never put in ther position to murder another human, but I have no feelings if someone I find deserving of the death penalty gets it.
Because I am subject to the same weaknesses and difficulties in living up to my own
"high " standards as everyone else though, I think that for instance, the pedophiles who molest and damage and sometimes kill children, should be executed immediately. Not in a torturous vengeful way, just get 'em out of here. A 3 cent bullet to the brain. do not pass go do not collect 200.00.
Let's face it folks, we're all a bundle of contradictions and our best hope is not to be placed in a situation that requires us to put ourselves to the test. I'd like to think I would show the wisdom and fairness of Solomon, but I'm just an average dick truth be known, so who knows?
HERE
That first part stuck with me and I've used it in a number of threads on the death penalty ~ always giving credit for it to you.
RexRed wrote:Not quite, it is like saying I don't believe in stealing but those who steal deserve to be stolen from...
A taste of their own medicine...
Are you suggesting that we adopt the
lex talionis? Seriously?
gungasnake wrote:In theory I'd support the idea of executing people like Charles Manson in which there was no doubt whatsoever, and the guy is a continual threat to society should he ever escape or otherwise get loose.
At this stage of the game however knowing what I do about the basic systems of justice in America, I cannot support the death penalty. You're basically talking about giving Mike Nifong and others like him a license to legally kill people.
Damn! I never thought I would agree with ole Gunga about anything at all. There must be a fly in the ointment somewhere.
The entire legal/justice system in America right now is a shambles.
At a bare minimum, we need two things:
We need to bag the entire "adversarial" system of justice along with the job of DA and move to some sort of a system such as you see in France in which nobody has any sort of a cash or career incentive to put people in prison, and in which the sole common incentive of all parties involved is to determine what the **** actually happened.
We need to bag the insane "War on Drugs(TM)". This is one of the four or five big issues I have with republicans in general. My own preference would be to legalize anything no worse than booze, provide addicts with highly addictive stuff at cost, and keep Jeckyl/Htyde formulae like PCP totally illegal; nonetheless simply legalizing it all would be better than what we're doing now.
The council of American mayors is correct in its claims that something like 70% of urban crime in America would evaporate with the end of the war on drugs.
edgarblythe wrote:
Damn! I never thought I would agree with ole Gunga about anything at all. There must be a fly in the ointment somewhere.
Me too. I think I'm scared. The post just above makes even more sense. I think having the DA elected is a BAD idea.
The job of DA should not exist. It involves gigantic powers and vanishingly near zilch in the way of anything resembling accountability; in other words it's a magnet for psychopaths.
The worst such case that there's ever been since the end of real honest to God witchcraft trials however many years ago that was, has been Janet Reno. Try doing google searches on 'janet reno' and any or all of 'grant snowden', 'bobby fijnje', 'frank fuster', and/or 'ileana flores'.
The one poor sorry sob (Fuster) is still rotting in a Flori-duh prison this day for imaginary crimes and, in fact, for crimes for which most peoples' imaginations would not even suffice.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace