Death Penalty (in a bubble)

Would you ever allow the death penalty?

  • Total voters
    35
Blood is blood no matter who's it is.

There can be no doubt in my mind that there are people who deserve to die.

However, from a juror's standpoint thats not a decision I feel it's my place to make.
 
ashura said:
For some. For others, death is the easy way out. It's very subjective.
Click to expand...
It's not that subjective. The only case I know of where someone condemned to execution forgoed all appeals was the first person executed after the death penalty was reinstated in the seventies. He just wanted to be first. I can't remember his name.

There may be a few other such cases, but the vast majority of people prefer life, even in prison, to death.
 
James R said:
And in the real world, where guilt is seldom 100% certain, I can see lots of reasons not to have it.
Click to expand...

I agree with this which is why I'm against the death penalty in the real world.

But I don't understand why it's so hard to look at the death penalty as meant by this thread. I'm just looking for personal opinions as to why people think death would ever be a suitable punishment for a crime (or why they think death is never a suitable punishment). Like you, I can understand why certain societies might choose to have the death penalty, or why they would choose not to have it. But I'm interested in what you personally feel about death as a punishment.

I wasn't able to get that bit of info with all the extra implications of cost and guilt that were attached to your post.
 
takethewarhome said:
Blood is blood no matter who's it is.

There can be no doubt in my mind that there are people who deserve to die.

However, from a juror's standpoint thats not a decision I feel it's my place to make.
Click to expand...

So, you would say you're against the death penalty because you don't feel any human has the right to take the life of another human, no matter the circumstance? (for the sake of the discussion, let's leave war out of the picture)
 
madanthonywayne said:
It's not that subjective. The only case I know of where someone condemned to execution forgoed all appeals was the first person executed after the death penalty was reinstated in the seventies. He just wanted to be first. I can't remember his name.

There may be a few other such cases, but the vast majority of people prefer life, even in prison, to death.
Click to expand...

I meant subjective to everyone, not just to the prisoners. For example, the relatives of one murder victim might prefer the death penalty while the relatives of another murder victim might prefer the murderer to rot in jail for the rest of his life.
 
ashura said:
Indulge me

However an execution is carried out it degrades the executioner and, in turn, the society of which he is a member.
It also means that we are stooping to perform the type of action for which we are executing someone else. And we are doing so in cold blood

It boils down to a question of standards.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
madanthonywayne said:
It's not that subjective. The only case I know of where someone condemned to execution forgoed all appeals was the first person executed after the death penalty was reinstated in the seventies. He just wanted to be first. I can't remember his name.

There may be a few other such cases, but the vast majority of people prefer life, even in prison, to death.
Click to expand...

For me, faced with a choice between a swift death or being anally raped on a regular basis for the rest of life, with no possibility og parole (and dealing with prison gang politics to avoid being beaten on top of that), death sounds appealing. Being electrocuted or suffocated to death would be bad though...so I'd prfer the gas chamber, hanging or a firing squad.

That said, on death row you don't have that stuff. I'd think that if you had to be in prison, the ideal would be to be on death row, where you're relatively safe, for as long as possible.
 
ashura said:
So, you would say you're against the death penalty because you don't feel any human has the right to take the life of another human, no matter the circumstance? (for the sake of the discussion, let's leave war out of the picture)
Click to expand...

I'd say that if they deserve to die I cannot be the one to say.
It's not a choice I'm comfortable making.
 
I can't imagen a single situation where I would gain any pleasure knowing that someone who done me or a other wrong is sentenced to sit a couple of years in a cell to be killed at the end of it's sentence. Yust knowing that he's getting punished and can never harm again is good enough for me. The entire ID that the state has reviewed your exictence and has concluded that your unfit for live to be executed and the end of the litte nice letters of the document where no one will be held responsible for the murder.
Death penalties remind me to much of NASI shit.

This doesn't mean that I don't understand pasion murders (non of those Turkish macho shit like you had sex with my sister and didn't marry her)
 
It is wrong to ask someone as a part of their job, (even if very willing- Judges, Wardens,etc.) to kill or hurt someone.
It offends more than the original offense itself.
 
iceaura: As I mentioned to Pandaemoni, the government and it's power is really irrelevant to the discussion.
Click to expand...
Not if you are talking about capital punishment, as opposed to vengeance killing or some other personal death-dealing.

The very essence of the evil of capital punishment is that it is done by a government, in cold blood, as a formal legal procedure for which there are no consequences to any of the people involved, to one of its citizens. None of the justifications that rest on the crime committed, or the character/guilt of the criminal, are relevant to a moral or ethical evaluation of whether a government should be allowed to kill its citizens.

Governments have no standing to make decisions about who deserves to be killed. Morally, ethically, they are in about the same position as hired assassins.

And from a practical point of view, no government can be trusted with that kind of power.
 
Athelwulf said:
I'm surprised no one's addressed this (or did I miss it?), but: What is your reasoning?
Click to expand...
Is the idea that the punishment should fit the crime a novel one to you? It's one of the oldest theories of law.

Just as it is offensive when a record company manages to impose a $250,000 fine on a girl for downloading five songs, it is offensive when a murderer gets off with an eight year sentence.

Why? The magnitude of the punishment should, as closely as possible, equal the magnitude of the crime.

When someone takes a iife, or worse, multiple lives; they have commited the ultimate crime. They can never repay that which they have taken. The only way the scales of justice can come close to balancing is for them to lose their own lives.

Murderers should be killed. Every breath they take is an affront to justice. Every meal they enjoy that their victim doesn't get to enjoy just puts things that much further out of balance.
 
madanth said:
Is the idea that the punishment should fit the crime a novel one to you? It's one of the oldest theories of law.
Click to expand...
It's also one of the first theories of law to be condemned by the wise and the prophets.

Because it is impossible, in the first place. "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord" is an observation of fact.

And because governments should not be allowed to make such judgments, or treat their citizens as criminals treat their victims, in the second.

madanth said:
Murderers should be killed. Every breath they take is an affront to justice
Click to expand...
Then justice has already been affronted hundreds of thousands of times, before the government gets a chance to do its own killing. It's too late.
 
iceaura said:
And because governments should not be allowed to make such judgments, or treat their citizens as criminals treat their victims, in the second.
Click to expand...
Please. The best definition of government I've read is the body that holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence within a given geographic area.

What happens if you don't pay your taxes? Men with guns come and throw you in jail. If you resist, they'll kill you.

Yet you consider it beyond the pale for that same government to execute a convicted murderer?
 
madanth said:
What happens if you don't pay your taxes? Men with guns come and throw you in jail. If you resist, they'll kill you.

Yet you consider it beyond the pale for that same government to execute a convicted murderer?
Click to expand...
If the convicted murderer, a suspected tax evader, or anyone else, is trying to kill a government agent, that agent can kill them in self defense.

And that agent will be personally accountable for the decision.

Executions are not at all the same situation, morally.
 
madanthonywayne said:
What happens if you don't pay your taxes? Men with guns come and throw you in jail. If you resist, they'll kill you.


Here in the UK if we fail to pay our taxes, men with guns do not come to throw us into jail.

Too many guns in the US ? I think so.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top