I'm against the death penalty. Look what happened to Jesus

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by KRev

For those of us who have an inkling about what the EYE FOR AN EYE command's original context is, my post makes more sense.

The original purpose of the Hebraic verse is to, in modern terms, make the punishment fit the crime.

Thus the question is begged: Who determines which punishment(s) fit which crime(s)?

Exactly...I mean as I was trying to point out...if one shows NO mercy, we kill people who, as DR points out, might repent and prove useful to society...

Imagine a teenager with psychological disorders who kills his/her family in a rage...sure they MIGHT get off with insanity, or with a "Heat of passion" defence, which is a form of diminished responsibility in some US states...but those defences are NOTORIOUSLY hard to actually get past a jury, especially if the crime is REALLY bloody and horrific...so this person...with problems...gets convicted of 1st degree murder. The publicity is such that the DA HAS to go for the Death Penalty as the sentence (under some state statutes 1st degree does not necessarily mean capital punishment)...and this is accepted. Now this person, while on Death Row, gets therapy and takes meds, and gets better...they're potentially capable of contributing to society, especially given their youth...do we show mercy?

If you answer yes...we apply it unevenly...so that the punishment does not fit the crime...if another kid does the SAME crime but doesn't repent, their crime is the same yet they'd get a stronger punishment.

However when someone repents and we continue with the death penalty anyway, we must ask ourselves if the punishment is any longer proportionate...sure it's proportionate to the crime, but is it proportionate to the danger that person poses to society? If they've repented, GENUINELY...then we risk killing someone who we no longer NEED to...and we risk thus being inhumane and cruel...after all the punishment is supposed to fit the CRIMINAL as well as the CRIME.

And that, in jurisprudential terms, is why the Death Penalty IS untenable. Oh..and even if one argues that the punishment need not fit the criminal...the US constitution, incidentally, under the 8th amendment requires no punishment be excessive or cruel. As such if we show NO mercy the death penalty becomes unconstitutional...as well as inhumane. In fact the death penalty IS unconstitutional, since if it mercy's shown it's not being applied equally and there is discrimination in the system...

Heck US Supreme Court Justices have struggled with this over the years...so it's hardly a simple cut and dry issue of "an eye for an eye".

Originally Posted by alby

The chance for rehabilitation should be given to those who have committed nonviolent, petty crimes. I don't have any sympathy for murderers, rapists, child molesters, etc. -- including white-collar criminals who steal millions of dollars. I wouldn't shed any tears if they were used as crash test dummies.

Then you don't respect human life...and then there is no argument for punishing murderers at all...so we should make murder legal...see the spiral? A human life is sacred, that's why we have laws against murder...as such to deprive someone of their life with no sympathy makes you as bad as a murderer, to be blunt...the phrase "depraved indifference" mean anything to you?

Not all murderers, rapists etc are the same...and yes, some can rehabilitate...and in some cases even the victims, or the victims families can forgive the wrongdoer...it DOES happen...and I'm amazed when I read it does...and I always thought the legal system should uphold such noble beliefs when we're too...well...human...to do otherwise.

Originally Posted by Spire

This is one of those things I don't dwell on. I'm not against the death penalty, that's my opinion, I don't see why I should try to prove it to anyone. If someone raped and murdered my little sister, I'd want them to be executed, assuming I didn't get to him first. I would never settle for having the bastard live in prison for the rest of his life.

Hey mate, I'd feel the same way...heck I HAVE felt the same way...because someone VERY close to me WAS raped...but in a way I'm glad that there were things in place to stop me doing something that would destroy ME...because I would be a killer...and I would be no better than the guy I killed...and THAT'S my point. The point of legal redress is we're supposed to take the moral high ground...that's the only reason we have the bloody right to judge the criminals in the first place...if we take the moral high ground we have to act noble and moral...and thus if we believe the death of a human being is a wrong, we do not replace it with another, if we believe the torture of a human being is wrong, we do not replace it with another, because YES, that shows the SAME disdain for the humanity of the person as they showed for their victim...and we're supposed to be better than them.

Surely the point of the justice system is to insulate us from our baser desires?

[alby]

Originally Posted by Spire

I'd use prisoners to clear abandoned mine fields.

That's hilarious.

[Keira lover]

That stupid 8th amendment argument has been used by the left so many times, not to mention, but courts have ruled against that argument time and again. Prisons are not for rehabilitation, but for punishment. Justice means getting what you deserve. If you killed someone, you get a needle. Ask a murder victims family. It sickens me to see holyer-than-thou anti-death penalty nuts holding signs outside an execution of some guy who raped, tortured and murdered a mother of 3 or some kid protesting about how wrong it is that this prick is going to die a painless death. U know what's wrong, that this son of a bitch is still breathing the same air he took from his victim(s). What's unjust is that his death is painless. What this fucker deserve is to be tortured to death. He doesn't deserve to be on this Earth. he deserves to be burned alive, but the 8th doesn't allow that, so the next best thing is to execute the asshole.

[Leonie]

Again, what is wrong with you?

If we kill those who killed, shouldn't we then be killed? Since justice is carried out for society as a whole, are we not all killers then?

The awful number of times we convict the wrong man is another argument. Imagine you were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Imagine your lawyer was hopeless. Imagine the jury didn't like you, because you were so nervous you couldn't show them who you really are. Imagine you were convicted of having raped, tortured and killed a girl. Imagine you didn't do it, but were given the death penalty anyway. Now let's try to justify THAT to your family afterwards.

Did your ancestors live in Salem, by any chance?

There is just no excuse.

[Porcelain_Doll]

Heh, Evil Elle indeed...remind me not to get on your bad side.

I actually thought about bumping this thread (kudos to Haz for starting it, truly) since we've been discussing this in Philosophy class; at home (because of all the Palestinian-Israeli conflict) and such. I also handed in a five-page essay on why I'm against it.

Now, I love to argue. I argue until I'm blue in the face. Seeing as Keira lover and I have completely opposite views, I would probably gladly turn this into a bloody battle.

But I can't be arsed for two reasons.

1) I don't have the time, I have to go to my grandparents'.
2) I don't argue with violent, blood thirsty potential criminals that are willing to lower themselves to the level of those they so ardently condemn. I don't argue with idiots.

[summer_dreams.]

I think it all depends on the scale of the crime.
mass murders deserve it.
but to me I think having to live the rest of their lives in jail would be more of a punishment than just killing them.

[hasselbrad]

I am pro-death.
I refer to executions as retro-active abortions.
99.99% of these people are fetuses we missed in the womb. Let's just call them retro-active and be done with it.
As for the statistics on wrongful prosecution, I chalk it up to bad luck. The same kind of bad luck that causes wind shear. There's always going to be a few unfortunate souls who slip through the cracks, but with DNA evidence, I think most mistakes can be cleaned up. That said, "being in the wrong place at the wrong time" has always struck me as a bit of a weak argument.
If someone shoots the 7-11 clerk in the face and then forces the gun into your hand in the parking lot...that's "being in the wrong place at the wrong time."
If on the other hand, you are driving the car that you and your scumbag friends are riding around in whilst robbing 7-11s, and said weapon gets dropped between the seats and the cops find it and pin the murder on you, well, you sort of had it coming.
My daughter is roughly the same age as Jessica Lunsford was when she was kidnapped, raped and left to die in a shallow grave behind the trailer John Evander Couey was staying in. I say "left to die", because when they found her body wrapped inside a trash bag, it was apparent that she had tried to claw her way out of the bag.
I would volunteer for the duty of putting Couey out of his misery...along with the repugnant pieces of shit who harbored him, knowing he was a pedophile...with whatever means the State of Florida would allow.
Electric chair.
Lethal injection.
Firing squad.
Noose.
Claw hammer.
Bare hands.
Whatever.

[Keira lover]

Originally Posted by Sarah

I'm against it! 100%. For a number of reasons, it WOULD NOT deter people from commiting murder, as most murder's aren't planned, they're heat of the moment and plus you can't always get the right person. So thats it. Keeping it simple.

Can't wait to read the loooong, complicated essays people will write about this.
EDIT:

P.S: I like The Life Of David Gale. That film makes a damn good point. Texas sucks, (when we're talking about the Death Penalty)

The death penalty only applies, in most jurisdictions in the US,too 1st degree murder, including cop killers, torture killers, murders during a commmision of a crime, and murder for hire. Depending on the jurisdiction, there may be more applications. So, the odds of a death penalty crime being not planned are rare, except cop killigns, and if u are willing to kill a cop, you don't deserve to live.

Leonie, you are rationalizing to much. justice is defined as equal punishment for your crime as you did. something equivalent to what u did.

And, my ancestors come from Ireland and Germany and France.

[Porcelain_Doll]

I was going to say something....but I'll hold my tongue. Just to see what happens for a change.

[duckula]

Studies have shown that it has zero effect as a deterrent so let's scratch that. My main issue with the whole thing is that the act of killing a person is so egregious and final that I do not believe it is ever an appropriate punishment. Killing is only morally defensible when it is in defence of the life of another (see war and whatnot). Judicially sanctioned murder just isn't my bag.

[hasselbrad]

Originally Posted by duckula

Studies have shown that it has zero effect as a deterrent so let's scratch that. My main issue with the whole thing is that the act of killing a person is so egregious and final that I do not believe it is ever an appropriate punishment. Killing is only morally defensible when it is in defence of the life of another (see war and whatnot). Judicially sanctioned murder just isn't my bag.

Studies...schmudies...it's 100% effective as a deterrent.
The guy in strapped to the chair/stretcher is 100% less likely to kill another person.

[Ranman]

Originally Posted by hasselbrad

Studies...schmudies...it's 100% effective as a deterrent.
The guy in strapped to the chair/stretcher is 100% less likely to kill another person.

Keeping him locked up for the rest of his life has the same effect. And If ever proven innocent a travesty has been prevented.

[Porcelain_Doll]

Originally Posted by duckula

Studies have shown that it has zero effect as a deterrent so let's scratch that. My main issue with the whole thing is that the act of killing a person is so egregious and final that I do not believe it is ever an appropriate punishment. Killing is only morally defensible when it is in defence of the life of another (see war and whatnot). Judicially sanctioned murder just isn't my bag.

I agree entirely.
If you see death as a type of freedom, you're literally setting people free. You're letting them go, while many do not deserve to be. Criminals should be reminded each day of what they have done.
Take for instance war criminals. Most had (and have) high ranks, paying jobs, families and reputations. To take all that from a man, to strip him from his life and leave him defenseless, alone with his thoughts; is really much more
hurtful. Is there anything more horrible to remain in a 2x2 m3 cell for the rest of your life? For me, that is one of the worst punishments.

Besides, when killing someone, i.e a terrorist, there's the danger that he'll be seen as a martyr; someone who died for his beliefs. Hence, his followers will try to avenge him, which cannot bring anything good.

I repeat, some people do not deserve death. I believe firmly in the eye for an eye. I know it's primitive and vicious. But then again so is killing another innocent human being.
When we kill for having killed, we stoop down to their level and become nothing better.

[hasselbrad]

Originally Posted by Ranman

Keeping him locked up for the rest of his life has the same effect. And If ever proven innocent a travesty has been prevented.

Except very few, if any get a true "life" sentence.
In the state of Florida, as of 2005, the average served sentence for murder/manslaughter was 9.4 years. Granted, that's got manslaughter mixed in, but that means on average, taking another human being's life will cost you a decade. And that's in a state with the death penalty who I think only comes second to Texas in number of executions.
The problem with the system is that the sentence rarely fits the crime.

[Foeni]

As brad says, life rarely means life. What if a murderer gets out and kills again? What do you think will happen if he somehow manages to escape from prison? I think society has a responsibility when it comes to protecting the lifes of innocent people.
Example, a man from Denmark was convicted for having having killed his mom and cut her to pieces in USA. He gets out, moves back to Denmark. Shortly after he's sentenced for having killed a single mom and her two sons. Their remains have never been found, apparently they have been cut to pieces. What do you think this man will do if he ever manages to get out of prison somehow? I say you're not convicted of four killings like that if you haven't done it. The chances of being innocently convicted are slim. Put a needle in his arm. Not as revenge, but to prevent him from ever killing again.

On the topic of the sentence not fitting the crime - Denmark is a paradis for sex criminals and people who just likes to beat people up. Rape a girl and you'll be out after 2-3 months. Often being in custody for as long means no real prison time. Violence is a bit longer.

[Ranman]

If the Judge says life without parole, you never get out here

[Foeni]

There's no such option here. You can be sentenced to something with psychiatry and won't get out until some judge finds it safe. But with the judges we have, I don't belive that they'll stay till they day. Some dude killed 4 cops and yet got out. I think he served 33 years or so.

[hasselbrad]

Originally Posted by Ranman

If the Judge says life without parole, you never get out here

Same here.
But, that's a rare sentence.

[Ranman]

Can we send all our crazy people there?

[Hazzle]

Ok, Keira Lover? You may want to think before you attack my points as "being used by the left so many times" what with me being a Libertarian bordering on conservative and hating lefty liberals with a vengeance. However when it comes to the death penalty they're correct. Ducky has rightly said studies show it doesn't work as a deterrent. He's also right to say that killing someone should only be justified when its used to save a life. Some may argue that killing a murderer/rapist etc MAY save a life (and they'd be right) but "may" is not the same as "will".

Ultimately I go back to my initial point. The 8th Amendment. If you actually knew squat about US jurisprudence you'd know that courts have NOT "ruled against" 8th Amendment arguments and HAVE in fact held that CERTAIN death penalty statutes HAVE contravened the 8th Amendment. This has lead to many of those being redrafted. However in an infamous case in Georgia the statute was first struck down for being too ambiguous, setting arbitrary mitigating factors to be considered, then the re-draft was struck down for not having any mitigating factors and not allowing mercy to be shown.

Justice is not "doing to the criminal what they did". If that were the case we'd steal from thieves and sell drugs to drug dealers. I think if we did the latter we'd have a lot more drug dealers. Justice is consistently applying equivalent punishments to equivalent crimes, yet by the very mouths of the many Supreme Court justices to have ruled on this over the years, that is impossible to do with the death penalty. Death is final, it is absolute, to apply it in a manner that is NOT cruel we need to allow for mercy on a case-by-case basis, but justice does not allow for that (as it would be inconsistent and arbitrary). Either the Death Penalty is illegal or unconstitional, take your pick.

Brad: Life without parole is a rare sentence and yet the Death Penalty is not, and yet that doesn't strike you as a little fucked up? Replace current Death Penalty statutes with a mandatory "Life without parole" sentence for the same crimes and I'm as happy as a pig in proverbial. Murder for hire, cop-killing etc, should all be punished by mandatory life without parole. At least that way if there are any errors that can later be corrected the person is still alive to be released, as opposed to saying "Ooops, sorry we killed that guy, despite him being innocent, but at least we got some bad guys too!" Death is too final a punishment to chalk up mistakes to "bad luck".