Does Law Have a Right to Put Someone to Death ?

[species5478]

@species5478

I can follow your point to a certain degree.

Yet I find there is a difference between defendeing your self by killing the opponent, and a death penalthy.

I see a death penalty as a revenge, since killing the convict, does NOT bring back the victims he/she has killed.

However defendeing your self, and ending up killing the opponent, keeps YOU alive, and kills the one who started

the break in/fighting.

No one is to bring back, you are still alive, he who started, new what he was doing. He payed the price.

Now as I already mentioned in the start, had HE killed YOU, there is no need to kill him too.

What good does it bring, other than revenge?

 

Yes. I think we've pinpointed our main difference of opinion, because I don't view the death penalty as an act of revenge. It's atonement. Not to mention, it's a good preventitive measure against further killings. Now I'm not a monster, mind you. I believe the death penalty should only be employed in the most extreme situations. The purpose isn't to resurrect the dead, but to punish the killer in the same manner in which he treated his victim. To me, there is no difference between killing someone for self-defense, or execution. The result is the same. A person has died.

 

And to say it's alright to kill in one instance, but not in another is wrong, and a shifting opinion; whereas death by self defence, or the death penalty, is right, and an unchangable absolute. Either it's alright to kill under certain conditions, or not in any. There isn't a middle ground.

 

And to those who quote verses using the universe as an example of how we should live consider this...the universe, and this world, is a hostile place. Every single lifeform on our planet, is at odds with it's own kind, or another form of life. From human, to bacteria, we live in the midst of constant violence. Life is an arena of conflict, and the world is our stage. The universe is no different. Stars explode, galaxies engulf one another, and black holes swallow anything within range. If we follow the example of the universe, or "nature", then only the strong should surive and we'd kill old, sick, handicapped, and mentally disabled people, instead of caring for them. We oppose nature, by trying to infuse that mysterious manmade trait called, "justice", into the viens of reality.

 

Yes, Ghandi said; "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

but...

"Justice is blind."

[darkprodigy4u]

Yes, Ghandi said; "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

but...

"Justice is blind."

 

Wow, I agree with that completely. Peace and love and forgiveness and tree-hugging and all that sounds nice in all, but it's kind of like pure Marxism; it would only work in a perfect, nonviolent, nongreedy, nonvengeful society. We do not life in perfect society, nobody (or species does). When it comes down to it, it's about taking responsibility for your own actions. I think a man who has brutally murdered a man, and then comes to realize he's made himself into a monster, and that what he's done is a horrible thing, should be imprisoned for a very very very long time, not put to death. In my opinion (and that's all I can really offer, as it's hard to change someone's mind) it's the unremorseful muderer who deserves to die. Someone who does not acknowledge that what they have done is a heinous crime, and that he has hurt more than the intended victim, who shows no respect for human life, these people, I say, should die. It's the principle of justice.

 

If you let him go, because you feel that lowering yourself to his level and doing to him exactly what he did to some other poor fellow, you aren't doing justice to the victim, and the family of the victim, because you're basically like "eh, whatever. S**t happens", and then the real criminals are the people behind the glass wall in the black uniforms with the badges, and the ones sitting in big chairs behind big desks with big robes on and a mallet in their hand.

 

As for Ghandi, and Jesus, they're talking about passive resistance. The purpose of passive resistance is to make the criminals realize what they're doing is wrong, and in turn, stop their behavior. If you turn your cheek and let him hit the other, and your attacker realize that what he's doing is wrong, you've accomplished your mission of passive resistance. Problem is, this only works for people who have consciences. Stalin let somewhere between 4.5 and 7 million Ukrainians starve because they tried to passively resist him. Hitler simply killed those who opposed him. You see the point? If you let him hit the other cheek, you might just end up dead. This is why I support self-defence, and respecting yourself enough to do so. But I would only resort to killing a man if it was either me or him; i.e., either I kill him, or he kills me, and I respect myself enough to atleast try to defend my life.

 

In the case where, if I actually lost, and ended up dead, I'd want my killer to pay severely. I'd want him dead, and I think it's only fair.

[AncientSpaceAeon]

That is maybe what Ghandi could see when he spoke the famous words:

 

"An eye for an eye makes the world blind".

 

 

As for Ghandi, and Jesus, they're talking about passive resistance. The purpose of passive resistance is to make the criminals realize what they're doing is wrong, and in turn, stop their behavior. If you turn your cheek and let him hit the other, and your attacker realize that what he's doing is wrong, you've accomplished your mission of passive resistance.

Great words, I need to use that for my book. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: *three thumbs up*

[darkprodigy4u]

@Ancient Aeon

 

What I meant, was yeah, Passive Resistance is nice when it works. Ghandi did great things for India and Jesus inspired a worldwide spiritual revoultion. But if it doesn't, in the case where your aggressor does not have a soul, and therefore doesn't realize what he's doing is a bad thing, yeah, you might just end up dead if you LET him hurt you. Unfortunately we do not live in a world where everybody realizes their evils, or live in one where everybody forgives everybody. We live in a violent world, where the evil people think their evil is only a by-product of their ambition, and not the root of the problem. I support defusing a situaution; stopping violence in its tracks. Passive Resistance throws off the agressor, because it is NOT normally what we as humans would do. If a person hit another person, and that person reacted with pure instict, it would probably turn into a fight to the death, or atleast one decides it's not really worth it. When someone hits a person, and that person reacts with passive resistance, they will probably just take the punch, lie and the ground, get back up, and ask if his attacker would like another shot. The problem is, this only works with people who have a soul, conscience, moral firmament, whatever you want to call it. Someone who doesn't, will probably be like "Alright, Hell yeah!" *thonk* and you end up on the ground with more damage than before.

[rebalious]

@Ancient Aeon

 

What I meant, was yeah, Passive Resistance is nice when it works. Ghandi did great things for India and Jesus inspired a worldwide spiritual revoultion. But if it doesn't, in the case where your aggressor does not have a soul, and therefore doesn't realize what he's doing is a bad thing, yeah, you might just end up dead if you LET him hurt you. Unfortunately we do not live in a world where everybody realizes their evils, or live in one where everybody forgives everybody. We live in a violent world, where the evil people think their evil is only a by-product of their ambition, and not the root of the problem. I support defusing a situaution; stopping violence in its tracks. Passive Resistance throws off the agressor, because it is NOT normally what we as humans would do. If a person hit another person, and that person reacted with pure instict, it would probably turn into a fight to the death, or atleast one decides it's not really worth it. When someone hits a person, and that person reacts with passive resistance, they will probably just take the punch, lie and the ground, get back up, and ask if his attacker would like another shot. The problem is, this only works with people who have a soul, conscience, moral firmament, whatever you want to call it. Someone who doesn't, will probably be like "Alright, Hell yeah!" *thonk* and you end up on the ground with more damage than before.

 

I agree, however I'm not suggesting we stand still like a statue while some is killing/raping your friends/family, in such a case I could fully understand why you would kill them. Just suggesting that we don't kill them once we have them in custody, would you really give them a quick way out? Also may want to stop using Jesus as an example, people get touchy about such things, stick with Ghandi.

 

Ironically some people have been spurred on by the death penalty when they see it as a better alternative to life in a cell. To me this sort of skews the "preventitive measure" argument.

[darkprodigy4u]

It is in this case that I think that a life sentence is a more severe punishment than swift death, so I agree. It really all depends on the situation, which is why there's a justice system, and why jurors have to come to a unianimous decision to convict someone. I know I may sound like I'm contradicting myself, but one has the right to change his mind, and adjust his perspective, yes?

 

I know religious debates are banned, and I wasn't using Jesus as a religious figure, but as a purely historical one (as in the case of Ghandi). One can talk about Confucious without going into Confucionism, am I right? Besides, Jesus was not the butt of my argument, my views on the death penalty were. But I'm not going to say anything about it further, if that's what's best for this debate, and I believe it is.

[AncientSpaceAeon]

I believe in these days, more people want death rather than long boring painful life sentence.

[Balagor]

I believe in these days, more people want death rather than long boring painful life sentence.

 

So we should make it up to the convict?

"What do you prefer? 60 years with no TV, or the chair?"

[darkprodigy4u]

Only if we like giving convicts what they want..... that's why 60 years without tv would be a worse punishment

[AncientSpaceAeon]

The main reason why people serve their sentence so they could change.

 

But now considering the advancing of technologies, when the criminals go out they couldn't do simple crimes anymore. The goverment's tech is too superior.

 

Example :

- Track each criminal down because of the implanted chip.

- Stop criminals from doing their job because most places have a security camera and a turret (maybe not so soon).

- I think the first reason is bad enough.