Death sentence : an eye for an eye

[HeyYou]

It is pretty simple. Is there a practical reason for killing them or not?

 

They certainly won't re-offend, and one could debate about saving taxpayer money.... I have seen too many arguments for both sides on that..... one side says "but they spend millions of taxpayer dollars on appeals", Ok, that is probably true, but, it's not like the guys that get life DON'T do the same thing....... I think the biggest problem there is, you can get a retrial/appeal for the stupidest reasons. If the prosecution lawyer farts in the courtroom, that's cause for an appeal.

 

The lawyers are the ones that make the money. Not to mention some of the convicts file appeals simply because they CAN, not that they really expect a different outcome. Yeah, the legal system here leaves quite a bit to be desired....... but, its what we got to work with...... I don't see it changing any time soon, and if it DOES change, it will most likely revert to frontier justice, because the american people got seriously tired of their government bending them over, without benefit of lubricant, and tossed them ALL out on their collective ears.

[dazzerfong]

It is pretty simple. Is there a practical reason for killing them or not?

 

They certainly won't re-offend, and one could debate about saving taxpayer money.... I have seen too many arguments for both sides on that..... one side says "but they spend millions of taxpayer dollars on appeals", Ok, that is probably true, but, it's not like the guys that get life DON'T do the same thing....... I think the biggest problem there is, you can get a retrial/appeal for the stupidest reasons. If the prosecution lawyer farts in the courtroom, that's cause for an appeal.

 

The lawyers are the ones that make the money. Not to mention some of the convicts file appeals simply because they CAN, not that they really expect a different outcome. Yeah, the legal system here leaves quite a bit to be desired....... but, its what we got to work with...... I don't see it changing any time soon, and if it DOES change, it will most likely revert to frontier justice, because the american people got seriously tired of their government bending them over, without benefit of lubricant, and tossed them ALL out on their collective ears.

 

Who says they won't?

[saadus]

Morals ARE emotional. You can't have morals without emotion. Morals dictate what is right and wrong. Right and wrong are the basis of justice.

 

Without emotion, we will be dictated by logic, which can lead to horrific conclusions. Read a Modest Proposal, perhaps the best of any satire work. It solved every problem, without emotion. Technically, it was correct. However, our emotion, our morals, told us it was wrong. That it shouldn't be done, even when logically it should.

[marharth]

I think it would help everyone if we started using empathy instead of being ruled by moral codes.

 

I will change what I previously said to say that law shouldn't be affected by negative emotions.

[HeyYou]

It is pretty simple. Is there a practical reason for killing them or not?

 

They certainly won't re-offend, and one could debate about saving taxpayer money.... I have seen too many arguments for both sides on that..... one side says "but they spend millions of taxpayer dollars on appeals", Ok, that is probably true, but, it's not like the guys that get life DON'T do the same thing....... I think the biggest problem there is, you can get a retrial/appeal for the stupidest reasons. If the prosecution lawyer farts in the courtroom, that's cause for an appeal.

 

The lawyers are the ones that make the money. Not to mention some of the convicts file appeals simply because they CAN, not that they really expect a different outcome. Yeah, the legal system here leaves quite a bit to be desired....... but, its what we got to work with...... I don't see it changing any time soon, and if it DOES change, it will most likely revert to frontier justice, because the american people got seriously tired of their government bending them over, without benefit of lubricant, and tossed them ALL out on their collective ears.

 

Who says they won't?

 

If they are dead, they are no longer any kind of threat.

[Keanumoreira]

What I don't understand is how humanity can be so heartless and cruel to begin with. Listen to yourselves. You're supporting the death penalty because you feel that is the right thing to do? Whoever told you that killing people is the best solution to all of your problems? It's called mercy, something we seldom use. And sure, someone is going to say "why should they be allowed to live for what they did to so and so"? It's called forgiveness, it's called being the bigger man and stepping away. Killing someone for killing someone is just like beating a child when you could have resolved it in a less violent manner. Not only is it not humane, but you're becoming the same monster you're trying to destroy. Murder is murder, even if it's called "justice", even if it's called "the right thing to do". People use to do the right thing by drowning people because they thought they were witches, hanging people just because their beliefs conflicted with theirs, and after all, as they claim, "we were only doing what was fair". It's murder, no matter how you sugarcoat it. Edited April 22, 2012 by Keanumoreira

[Aurielius]

What I don't understand is how humanity can be so heartless and cruel to begin with. Listen to yourselves. You're supporting the death penalty because you feel that is the right thing to do? Whoever told you that killing people is the best solution to all of your problems? It's called mercy, something we seldom use. And sure, someone is going to say "why should they be allowed to live for what they did to so and so"? It's called forgiveness, it's called being the bigger man and stepping away. Killing someone for killing someone is just like beating a child when you could have resolved it in a less violent manner. Not only is it not humane, but you're becoming the same monster you're trying to destroy. Murder is murder, even if it's called "justice", even if it's called "the right thing to do". People use to do the right thing by drowning people because they thought they were witches, hanging people just because their beliefs conflicted with theirs, and after all, as they claim, "we were only doing what was fair". It's murder, no matter how you sugarcoat it.

@keanu

Justice has nothing to do with being the 'bigger man', mercy has it's applications but there is also something called EVIL which has no pity, no remorse and no conscience. I understand and applaud your sense of idealism but with a wider world experience you inevitably will see that not all altruism has a place in all things. Lets take this away from the theoretical and use real world examples such as Charles Mansion who brutally had seven people slaughtered including Sharorn Tate who while pregnant pleaded for her unborn child's life to no avail. This is someone that you feel the benefits of mercy should be extended to? He was sentenced to death but the great state of California abolished the death penalty while his appeal process was still slowly moving up the court system. A prime example in my opinion of a waste of usable oxygen.

[SoulofChrysamere]

I'm with Keanumoreira here. Man is naturally bloodthirsty, whether you want to admit it or not. If a person is wronged, the basest natural human response is to desire vengeance on that person. Time and again, it's proven that vengeance doesn't solve anything. It doesn't stop the pain. It doesn't replace what is lost. It doesn't make anybody's life better. All it does is intensify the pain and complicate the lives of all of those involved. When someone is put to death for murdering someone else, how are they executed? Strapped to a gurney awaiting that shot, strapped into that electric chair awaiting that shock, tied to a pole awaiting the firing squad's barrage, etc.. Murder is defined as the execution of a person that is absolutely no threat to you. How would you describe the executionee in those situations? It's a misguided effort at closure and a power trip above all else. Man likes to think that he has progressed so far in all the years he's been around, but in this day and age, we're no less cruel and hypocritical than we were thousands of years ago.

 

I have a personal experience, whose handling I attribute to my ardent Christian faith.

 

About a year ago, my grandfather died via a heart failure induced by food poisoning, which came from some ill-prepared meat that we purchased from a local grocery store. I could have gotten angry at the store workers...I could have gotten angry at the workers from where the meat came...I could have gotten angry at my own grandmother and mother, who bought the stuff. I was certainly tempted to. I didn't, though. I acted like a man and forgave the everyone. As my dad says, "Life is what happens when you're planning something else." If everyone would get over their injuries, whether they be physical or mental, the world wouldn't be the cesspool of sin that it is today.

[HeyYou]

I'm with Keanumoreira here. Man is naturally bloodthirsty, whether you want to admit it or not. If a person is wronged, the basest natural human response is to desire vengeance on that person. Time and again, it's proven that vengeance doesn't solve anything. It doesn't stop the pain. It doesn't replace what is lost. It doesn't make anybody's life better. All it does is intensify the pain and complicate the lives of all of those involved. When someone is put to death for murdering someone else, how are they executed? Strapped to a gurney awaiting that shot, strapped into that electric chair awaiting that shock, tied to a pole awaiting the firing squad's barrage, etc.. Murder is defined as the execution of a person that is absolutely no threat to you. How would you describe the executionee in those situations? It's a misguided effort at closure and a power trip above all else. Man likes to think that he has progressed so far in all the years he's been around, but in this day and age, we're no less cruel and hypocritical than we were thousands of years ago.

 

I have a personal experience, whose handling I attribute to my ardent Christian faith.

 

About a year ago, my grandfather died via a heart failure induced by food poisoning, which came from some ill-prepared meat that we purchased from a local grocery store. I could have gotten angry at the store workers...I could have gotten angry at the workers from where the meat came...I could have gotten angry at my own grandmother and mother, who bought the stuff. I was certainly tempted to. I didn't, though. I acted like a man and forgave the everyone. As my dad says, "Life is what happens when you're planning something else." If everyone would get over their injuries, whether they be physical or mental, the world wouldn't be the cesspool of sin that it is today.

 

I don't know about you, but, if someone killed one of my loved ones, I would happily sit at their execution, and eat popcorn. It WOULD make MY life better, knowing that the SOB that did this, will NEVER do it again to someone else. Vengeance? Sure, call it whatever you like, I still call it JUSTICE.

 

Why should some lowlife scumbag that killed one of my loved ones get three squares a day, a warm place to sleep, etc.... at MY expense, while my loved one is worm food? I don't have ANY mercy for murderers. None, zero. I don't turn the other cheek. Whack his happy arse dead. Put a smile on my face, and spare someone else the pain of having one of THEIR loved ones forcibly removed from them.

[dazzerfong]

Keanuumoreira:

 

I'm naturally a realist (thanks to my upbringing). I'm not a hopeful idealist, who sees himself as 'bigger than others'. Keanuumoreira, the issue is not so much for ethical reasons, but for pragmatism. You can claim to be the 'bigger man', and walk away, but we're not talking about minor forgiving, we're talking about serial killers here. Saying to yourself 'I can be the bigger man' is one thing, actually experiencing a tragedy and then repeating it for real is another story.

 

However, you say it's murder, no matter what. Yep, it is. We're killing to reciprocate, which is a (in some countries) a perfectly legal excuse. Doesn't change the fact that it happens, and should happen.

 

@ marharth:

 

Empathy doesn't work well: after all, you never experienced it, how are you supposed to understand how they feel?

 

@ HeyYou:

 

True.........I must have mis-read your statement: apologies.

 

@ SoulofChrysamere:

 

That's very noble of you, but if it was someone who was very young, would it be the same? When people are old, it's simply a matter of time most of the time, hence when my grandparents die, I didn't view it only as sad (it was), but necessary. However, the time one of my schoolmates died of a brain tumour, that was much harder to deal with, in that you weren't expecting it.

 

However, I don't agree with 'murder is defined as the execution of a person that is absolutely no threat to you': they are when they escape or released.

 

Of course, in the end, vengeance does nothing. How would killing someone bring someone back? It doesn't. But, in the mean time, we're preventing potential murders (although now I'm straying into Minority Report grounds now.....)

 

@ saddus:

 

I have read 'A Modest Proposal' by Jonathan Swift in the past, however, there were several problems:

 

1. Continue doing that, and your labour force goes down.

2. Human skin is not very suitable for bags because of its unappealing characteristics.

3. Human cannibalism leads to a lot of problems (mad cow disease was spread because of this).

Edited April 22, 2012 by dazzerfong