Is it wrong to issue a death penalty?

[Surenas]

I believe it is wrong to put someone on death row for numerous reasons. One of the main problems with the death penalty is that sometimes, innocent people end up there due to false evidence, or lack of it. I also believe that forcing someone to live is worse than death. The reason for that being is that death is a quick escape, but living means they have to live with what they've done for the rest of their lives. That alone is more punishing than the death sentence.

 

I'd like to add that no state that still possesses the instuments of sanctioned murder is immune to state rampage with mass executions. States that don't perform this instrument anymore have the problem that they have to change their laws to the opposite first to hang their sons on the alley trees with a plate at the breast stating "people's betrayer". Enough time to emigrate. In reality these states are not only more human / civilized against their citizens but likewise against their former arch enemies, their neighbors. One might say that the absence of capital punishment is one of the prerequisites at home of an interstate peace that is not based upon strategy and tactics, temporary necessities and short term advantages. A win-win situation with the possible expectation of a world at peace one day in the remote future.

[Rasana]

In my opinion, yes, I believe it is very immoral to execute human beings based on their actions. Many countries, if not the majority, do issue death penalties, but is there really any point in doing this? Not matter how much you try to cover it up- with painless posion or whatever method they do - it's still killing a living, breathing entity that has loved, cried, and suffered itself. A human is still a human, so why kill one that has done the same injustice (or something just as bad) and just lock them up like everyone else? Why be considered a crimminal yourself when life in prison or a long sentence can equal the deed, and as a result, apply IMO, the real, appropiate punishment?

 

 

An eye for eye, and tooth for a tooth, has always what I lived with. If I can forgive what has been done, then I forgive, and forget about the former.

 

However, there are some things, so heinous, so abominable, so evil, that your whole, "love everyone because they are human" clause just doesn't wash with me.

 

So that guy that chopped people up, froze them in his freezer, and cooked them up on weekends, should be forgiven because he is an "entity that has loved, cried, and suffered itself". He should continue to live?

 

So the guy that recently went through Iowa last week (where I live), and randomly stopped at gas stations, demanded money, and when they fully complied, shot them dead anyway for giggles, should be forgiven? Even after he was lead into court laughing and giggling, and when asked what he was laughing about, and why he did it, he responded with, "because I can. Because you all are funny." So you are saying such a evil person should be allowed to live on our taxpayer dollars? Meaning, the very families he ruined (one of the people he killed was a mother of eight), are paying for his well being?? You think this is right? You think your family would like to be paying for your killer's well being?

 

I will not get into religious arguments here. But I'm very well assured and safe in my own thoughts that evil needs to be wiped from this earth. Yes, I would volunteer to end it. While some things can be argued and debated over what is evil, there are some instances which have no room for debate.

[Keanumoreira]

In my opinion, yes, I believe it is very immoral to execute human beings based on their actions. Many countries, if not the majority, do issue death penalties, but is there really any point in doing this? Not matter how much you try to cover it up- with painless posion or whatever method they do - it's still killing a living, breathing entity that has loved, cried, and suffered itself. A human is still a human, so why kill one that has done the same injustice (or something just as bad) and just lock them up like everyone else? Why be considered a crimminal yourself when life in prison or a long sentence can equal the deed, and as a result, apply IMO, the real, appropiate punishment?

 

 

An eye for eye, and tooth for a tooth, has always what I lived with. If I can forgive what has been done, then I forgive, and forget about the former.

 

However, there are some things, so heinous, so abominable, so evil, that your whole, "love everyone because they are human" clause just doesn't wash with me.

 

So that guy that chopped people up, froze them in his freezer, and cooked them up on weekends, should be forgiven because he is an "entity that has loved, cried, and suffered itself". He should continue to live?

 

So the guy that recently went through Iowa last week (where I live), and randomly stopped at gas stations, demanded money, and when they fully complied, shot them dead anyway for giggles, should be forgiven? Even after he was lead into court laughing and giggling, and when asked what he was laughing about, and why he did it, he responded with, "because I can. Because you all are funny." So you are saying such a evil person should be allowed to live on our taxpayer dollars? Meaning, the very families he ruined (one of the people he killed was a mother of eight), are paying for his well being?? You think this is right? You think your family would like to be paying for your killer's well being?

 

I will not get into religious arguments here. But I'm very well assured and safe in my own thoughts that evil needs to be wiped from this earth. Yes, I would volunteer to end it. While some things can be argued and debated over what is evil, there are some instances which have no room for debate.

 

M'kay, first of all, did I ever say they were to be forgiven? No, I did not, find one point in any of my writings where I said that. I said that they deserved life imprisonment, I'm sure that isn't forgiveness.

 

Second, I would appreciate it if you would use a better tone instead of acting so hostile. Just because you don't agree doesn't give you the right to step all over me. It's a topic on people's opinions, and I want to know those opinions, not get yelled over it.

[Surenas]

Religion as such offers no arguments for the murder of man, though religious interpretation of the holy scriptures does.

So what the inquisition and infallible papal edicts are for the one are the Hadith and the shariah for the others (to mentions just two religious factions), though both fundaments of faith to justify the murder of man are built on the quicksand of much later interpretation of the original scriptures, often they are mere grafted additions of religious power pulled out of the hat of the Church Fathers or the beard of the prophet, if you prefer that.

 

Fortunately religious debates are banned here. So please avoid religious innuendos to justify death penalty - they are not even worth a free nuka cola. Selah.

[Vagrant0]

In my opinion, yes, I believe it is very immoral to execute human beings based on their actions. Many countries, if not the majority, do issue death penalties, but is there really any point in doing this? Not matter how much you try to cover it up- with painless posion or whatever method they do - it's still killing a living, breathing entity that has loved, cried, and suffered itself. A human is still a human, so why kill one that has done the same injustice (or something just as bad) and just lock them up like everyone else? Why be considered a crimminal yourself when life in prison or a long sentence can equal the deed, and as a result, apply IMO, the real, appropiate punishment?

Just because someone is of the human race does not mean they are not inhuman in terms of conduct and morality. Would you try to suggest that a father who willingly beats his wife to death and burns his children while they sleep (by dumping gasoline on them and lighting a match) is someone who is "human"? If so, what does that say about the whole of humanity? The death penalty exists to separate those cases of individuals who are beyond living redemption from those who are not guilty of horrible and mortal crimes. If anything, I believe the death penalty should be expanded to include proven rapists (no prior contact, signs of forced sex), convicted child molesters (ones who cause actual harm to a real child), and those who are convicted of a violent crime involving "hard" (any of the stuff that will really f*** you up) narcotics. Essentially, any of those guilty without a doubt of serious crimes against others, who pose no benefit to society, and are involved with conditions which cannot be treated or cured.

[brokenergy]

I'll finish this in just a paragraph then be on my way. I don't believe in the death penalty, I don't believe that our laws are too "soft", I don't believe that revenge will solve anything, I don't believe that we should sentence someone to death just because they broke the law. Granted that they are people who should have been killed but what does this make us? Why should we kill the culprit just because they must? I feel that it sets double standards and not to mention cause more tension in delicate cases. Besides killing them is the cheaters way out, I would rather have them suffer in prisons for the rest of their lives than to kill them. So in the end, I might be idealistic in some of my views but I won't let my morals falter just because someone did something wrong and they die for it. We should all take the high road rather than yell for death, after all we are the ones who say that murder is wrong. What's the difference from killing a man or sentencing a man to death? Revenge should never take over as justice.

[LadyMilla]

Just because someone is of the human race does not mean they are not inhuman in terms of conduct and morality. Would you try to suggest that a father who willingly beats his wife to death and burns his children while they sleep (by dumping gasoline on them and lighting a match) is someone who is "human"? If so, what does that say about the whole of humanity? The death penalty exists to separate those cases of individuals who are beyond living redemption from those who are not guilty of horrible and mortal crimes. If anything, I believe the death penalty should be expanded to include proven rapists (no prior contact, signs of forced sex), convicted child molesters (ones who cause actual harm to a real child), and those who are convicted of a violent crime involving "hard" (any of the stuff that will really f*** you up) narcotics. Essentially, any of those guilty without a doubt of serious crimes against others, who pose no benefit to society, and are involved with conditions which cannot be treated or cured.

 

The problem lies in the fact that, as I wrote, the "proof beyond reasonable doubt" is a fallacy. How many times did it happen that the police arrested the husband as the 'obvious suspect' and worked actively to prove his guilt, ignoring evidence that would lead to a more complex and prolonged investigation because there were pressures from politicians to show the efficiency of law enforcement before elections. Who is to judge that 'somebody is beyond redemption'? Would you use a statistical approach, and the innocents who are convicted and murdered by the state are... well... 'collateral damage'? Even the fabled DNA test is not an infallible proof, there were cases in my country when, due to negligence of the laboratory staff, the suspect's sample came into contact with the samples taken at the crime scene. Result = guilty.

 

And what's the next step in this proposed 'extension of the death penalty'? People with serious mental illnesses, who are currently locked up for life, too dangerous to be ever allowed to leave, and do not pose any benefit to the society? Why not execute them as well, saving the taxpayers from paying for their lifelong sustenance?

[Jagermh]

And what's the next step in this proposed 'extension of the death penalty'? People with serious mental illnesses, who are currently locked up for life, too dangerous to be ever allowed to leave, and do not pose any benefit to the society? Why not execute them as well, saving the taxpayers from paying for their lifelong sustenance?

 

That seems unethical but it actualy is ethical but we couldn't do that because if someone was corrupt they could say anyone was a danger to society and kill anyone

[LadyMilla]

We couldn't do that because if someone was corrupt they could say anyone was a danger to society and kill anyone

 

Precisely. I do not trust a mostly uncontrollable caste of law-book-thumpers, many of whom sit in legislative bodies or serve as politicians and fabricate a never-ending stream of laws, statues and regulations that flow into a pool of knowledge that is mostly not comprehensible for the laymen. When the punishment for sharing a song on the Internet is more harsh than the punishment for reckless driving that could actually kill someone, or when situations like this may happen:

 

"You will get a nasty letter from a lawyer demanding that you take it down and pay $3000 or they will take you to court where you will be sued for $50,000. The lawyer doesn't care if it has a totally different mesh he just wants you to pay up. He knows that if you call another lawyer you will be quoted a minimum of $5000 to defend you - It's cheaper to pay. Yes, it is abuse of the legal system, " (Original post here.)

 

Then let me just say, I would not trust the legal system to decide about anybody's life.

[TheCalliton]

to kill is to give up your right to life, since you do not respect life

to prevent a person from doing more of murder, we must remove them

though death is merciful, life is risky

 

So soldiers should be put to death?

Maybe you want to rephrase.

they unwillingly kill, and though i support our military, i do not support their actions