Death Penalty

[Revenant]

The death penalty seems just a need to satsify the mobs urge for blood, or rather, a result of the anger the mob feels. I can understand pain and the anger it produces, but I fail to see how the death penalty actually relieves pain, and especially for those who lost someone close.

One girl, raped, was of course deeply hurt, she was angry, and wished to murder the man that had done this to her. But the guy had committed suicide two days after, and she was still hurt and angry. Angry enough to want to kill. To me, this seems to illustrate that the death penalty brings no relief to those who were deeply hurt.

The death penalty also doesn't seem to do anything to deter other murders. The person who kills in hot-blood isn't thinking far in the future. A man who finds his woman with another probably isn't thinking at all rationally, and are under the complete control of their current emotions. The cold-blooded killer simply feels that he must be more careeful.

As always, justice is just a way to protect people's rights to happiness, and that to me still includes the criminals conditions for happiness. Their freedoms might have to be severely limited for the safety of others, but ending their life will do nothing to protect the conditions for other people's happiness.

Lastly, how do we know that they could've made another choice? I believe that if free will exists, it is most definitely very limited. To add to that, are people who having grown up in hard conditions, end up being sociopathic. Is it actually their fault that they lack empathy? In another case, a tumor was found pressing against the frontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for inhibiting. So this man over time was losing control over his anger, ended up shooting three people, and then himself. The tumor wasn't discovered until autopsy.

There's so much we don't know that at least I think we shouldn't even be seriously suggesting the death penalty.

 

[Hideki_Matsui_Beast]

I'm totally against it. Period.

The government is doing the same thing as the killer. Premeditated murder. That makes them no better than the one getting put to death, in my eyes. Besides, it's no punishment. A lifetime in solitary is much harder for someone to deal with than simply being put to sleep.

Besides, the risk is too great that you're killing someone who isn't really guilty. At least it's getting better now with DNA testing and all. Just think of all the people who have been freed from death row over their innocence proven via DNA. What if those people had been killed? It's just awful to even think about it. And think about the innocent who have died before there was any DNA tests.

The only time I justify killing someone is in self-defense. When you or someone you love's life is being threatened. Even then, I think it's better to inflict some non-fatal blow to stop someone, if at all possible.

I just value life too much. I think it's horrible to even consider killing another human, no matter what they've done.

I agree completely.

 

[Morfos]

oops accidentaly pushed for, i'm against.

It's just inhumane and a lot of other things. I rather people turn them into slave labor.

Same here.

 

[Kinsao]

I'm totally against the death penalty.

 

[Lacan]

If an innocent is executed, shall we require death penalty for the judge and jury ?

 

[Lacan]

double post sorry

 

[anjusan]

Perhaps in the future scientist will perfect the cryogenic process and prisoners can be stored at a minimal cost to society... until then...

 

[Sensuikan San]

I can see why you think that. But, what is to stop people wanting "revenge" because of that person's death. Say that your son, brother, husband, father, mother, or other close family member committed a terrible crime, would you feel that their life should end? Or, (as I think) would you rather see them doing labor every day just so they can live in the worst place imaginable?

How about this then, if you killed the murderer, would he ever have a chance to feel remorse, to think to himself, "What in GOD'S NAME made me do that, I could be livin the good life, have a family. But no, now I'm stuck in this S*** hole for the rest of my life."

Death shows mercy, in my opinion, to those who wish to die. If a murderer knows he's going to die as soon as he kills someone, he doesn't have to worry about regret or remorse. He knows the game is over as soon as he's caught. If he escapes the law, then he's free. If he gets detained, the game ends.

With the death penalty, these people can't lose. And what would you rather play, a game you where you can't lose, or one where you probably will?

No, no.

You see, your argument to my way of thinking, actually presupposes a need for revenge and/or punishment!

I'm not interested in that at all. I just want to get rid of garbage that has done harm! I'm not interested in wether or not a murderer or any other miscreant worthy of my death-dealing attention :liplick: suffers or feels victimised in any way (if I did - I wouldn't propose the death penalty ... but all kinds of Mediaeval torture or something!).

I just want them ..... gone!

As for victims using the death penalty as "revenge" (which I agree, should not be the case. Especially if you've arrested the wrong guy!) ... then I would merely argue that victims' families do not sit on the bench ... and do not pass sentence; the courts do.

As I've stressed in each of my posts - I have no intention of running around "knocking everybody off" at the drop of a hat because they haven't paid their parking tickets! It would be an extreme measure reserved for absolutely confirmed, no brainer, no doubt convictions ... in cases of particular obscenity.

... but then ....! Into the trash can!

Perhaps you would see a lot less people executed under this philosophy than you do now! (I believe that annually, the state of Texas executes more people than any other Nation on earth! Several of these folks ultimately turn out to be innocent!)



ジョン

 

[Sensuikan San]

Perhaps in the future scientist will perfect the cryogenic process and prisoners can be stored at a minimal cost to society... until then...

Ooooh! Deary me!

Sorry Anjusan ... but, really, isn't that an even more barbaric answer than execution?

I can only suppose that it would allow one to say "I haven't actually terminated someone's life!" .... just put 'em into a permanent coma and chucked 'em into a freezer for ..... a coupla hundred years ... ? :frown:

A great conscience preserver I agree ... but .... uugh...!

?W????

 

[anjusan]

Well, I agree my thought was a bit simplistic... and it certainly wouldn't alleviate the court costs of trying to find out his/her guilt or innocence...

 

[Mike Cash]

Usenet recycle from July 2001:

The whole idea of socially sanctioned killing ought to have some tinge
of revenge/vengeance to it. Why? To maintain the basic humanity of the
society doing the killing, that's why. Seems a contradiction, doesn't
it?

I'd rather think that we as humans succumbed to the temptations of one
of our basic weaknesses and failings, the desire for vengeance, and
sanctioned killing than to think that we had removed that and replaced
it with cold, clinical, reasoned justification for engaging in the
ultimate means of removing an undesirable from our midst.

To me, there's no humanity in executing someone humanely.

Don't misunderstand me. I don't say we should let the pendulum swing
the other way and go back to drawing and quartering people or boiling
counterfeiters in oil. There's no humanity in tortuous executions
either. Hanging seems as near a reasonable middle ground as we are
likely to find. That being said, I do think Japan should change all
sorts of procedural things about the way it carries it out. Number one
would be to give up the short-drop-and-strangle-'em method and go with
the snap-the-neck method with drop distances calculated on body
weight. Number two would be to have set execution dates. There may be
exceptions, but it is hard to imagine anyone deserving the living hell
of spending decades in prison under sentence of death never knowing
when the boots tramping down the hall are coming to bring him
lunch...or to drag him to the gallows. Again, not for his humanity,
but for ours.

_break_

Why wouldn't I sympathize with the poor souls carrying out the
execution? Based on what I have read of what performing that task has
wrought on some of them and their families, I wouldn't wish it on my
worst enemy.

Perhaps you didn't catch that I was using the word "humanity" with a
different-than-normal meaning? I meant that lying someone down on a
gurney and injecting death-inducing chemicals into their pre-sedated
worthless hides is too devoid of the human passions which demanded his
death to begin with. Lethal injection is what you have done to a
beloved pet, amid tears and regrets. Done to humans, it is just an
effort to divorce ourselves as much as possible from rage, anger,
vengeance...the "flip side" of our humanity...the side we'd rather
pretend we don't have.

We lie the person down and inject them instead of placing a muzzle
next to their heads and pulling the trigger for precisely the opposite
reason we do the same to Fido when arthritis and infirmity overtake
him. We choose the same method of performing a task which is inspired
by opposite motives and emotions.

I agree with you in principle. I can accept that for the commission of
certain crimes against society one's life is forfeit. Notice that my
sole concern/objection is in the practicalities of having the guy die
without having to make someone else kill him.

 

[Index]

Welcome back mikecash, couldn't stay away?

 

[Kinsao]

Nice to see you here again, Mikecash! :cheer:

Anyway, the reason why I'm against the death penalty is because it is paradoxical (not sure if that's the right word). You have this 'moral' standard that says 'it's wrong to kill someone' - and then... someone who commits murder... as punishment they are condemned to death? That doesn't make sense to me. If killing someone is wrong, then it's wrong whoever does it. To say otherwise is making like certain people have more of a right than otherwise to judge who should live and who should die, and I think that's very suspect indeed, to put it mildly.

No, let's make 'life' imprisonment be for life, in cases of murder and for highly dangerous criminals, that way we are not being hypocrites, there is also the chance to reprieve the wrongly-convicted guy, and... actually you could say death is a more merciful punishment, in fact, if someone had killed someone I loved, I would get more sense of 'revenge' to think of them suffering than to think they were happily dead - I would rather be the one dead. :buuh:

 

[Index]

Well Kinsao, it is a double standard-the state has the right to determine when to take a life, but individuals don't.

 

[Gaijin 06]

You have this 'moral' standard that says 'it's wrong to kill someone' - and then... someone who commits murder... as punishment they are condemned to death? That doesn't make sense to me. If killing someone is wrong, then it's wrong whoever does it. To say otherwise is making like certain people have more of a right than otherwise to judge who should live and who should die, and I think that's very suspect indeed, to put it mildly.

I am undecided on the death penalty. I don't think the arguments above are particularly valid though. In our society, we are bound by the laws of the land and be will punished if we break them.

The state has plenty of powers that indivduals don't, and that we would find morally wrong if an indivdual did them, such as

locking people up
extracting money from them (taxes)
requiring them to perform certain duties (jury service etc)
taking children away from their parents

These are all powers the state has but would be morally wrong if we as indivudals excercised. So I don't think you can use this argument against capital punishment.

There may be other reasons, personally I think the burden of proof is a powerful argument given terminating someones life is pretty terminal and doesn't give us the chance to correct any micarriages of justice down the line.

Comes down to numbers at the end - I'd be happy to see 99.99% as a accurate conviction rate... then is 99.9% good enough? 99%? 95%? Hard to know where to draw the line.

 

[Kinsao]

The 'state' is made up of individuals. In the end it's a collective of individual people who come together to make a judgement on whether someone is going to live or die. And it's one individual who has the burden of administering the injection or working the trap door.

locking people up
extracting money from them (taxes)
requiring them to perform certain duties (jury service etc)
taking children away from their parents

These - like punishments for crimes, including the death penalty as punishment - are all things done by the state/collective for the (alleged) reason of the good of society as a whole and the majority of individuals within it (locking someone up because they are a danger to others, taking a child away from its parents because its parents are harming it, taking taxes in order to fund services for the state population...) The death penalty indeed falls under that argument, because of course it would be unthinkable to allow a dangerous criminal their freedom, whether now or even 30 or 40 years down the line. But what does the death penalty provide in the way of benefit to other individuals in society that can't be provided by a life imprisonment? The whole thing is to protect people. Keeping someone in prison stops them from going out and killing or harming anyone again. Period.

I just feel that once you start to think of the 'state' as an entity separate from individuals, with its own powers, that becomes dangerous. I recognise that for practical reasons there are certain things in governance that have to be undertaken by a collective in order to work at all, but I still remain deeply uneasy about too much state control, and it pays to be very wary of the things that they already do control, even such things as jury service, the power of imprisonment, 'care' of children... and of course, taxes! :souka:

 

[Mike Cash]

Welcome back mikecash, couldn't stay away?

Never said I was going to.

 

[kirei_na_me]

Yes! Mikecash!

 

[kirei_na_me]

If an innocent is executed, shall we require death penalty for the judge and jury ?

Excellent question.

 

[Anchyyy]

Totally against it. I'm glad here in Europe we have permanently done away with it.

Yeah that's really great. Even tho i'm against also, i sometimes think all this serial killers and men who raped women deserve death in some way. They destroyed someones live, someone died because of them. Anyway, prison for the rest of the life is an good idea too, as long as they don't excape.

If an innocent is executed, shall we require death penalty for the judge and jury ?

That's why i'm against. You can't always be 100% sure you got the right person!