- Joined
- Jun 10, 2011
- Messages
- 9,218
- Reaction score
- 5,860
- Location
- St. Louis MO
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
I used to be very pro-capital punishment. Lately though, I've been moving away from that position somewhat. In theory, I accept that the death penalty can be an appropriate punishment. If a mentally healthy person willfully takes the life of another, I see that as forfeiting their own right to life. However, in our practice I'm not sure I can support it. There is at the very least controversy over whether or not the cost of the capital case outweighs that of life in prison, with actual statistics being very hard to come by. There is also the trouble of exonerated death row inmates and wrongful executions. In my opinion the difference in punishment between death and life in prison is not worth the chance of wrongful execution, which seems to be significant. There is also the question of whether the death penalty is equally applied among everyone. Lastly, although I'm not sure I agree with this, some people have argued that the death penalty is not an equal response to murder, because death row inmates must spend years waiting and knowing that they are going to die. It is suggested this is a torture exceeding that which the convicted gave his or her victims. I think this is the weakest argument of them, but it may have some merit. In a perfect world where a 100% guilty person was immediately put to death, with the whole thing costing less than life in prison, I could easily support that, but in our real world I'm not sure anymore that capital punishment is practical.
But I'm curious about how the people on DP feel about it. Especially to see if there are significant groups of people among those who oppose the death penalty who support the idea in theory, but not in reality and those who simply oppose the idea in principle.
I don't support the death penalty except in the most extreme of extreme cases, I feel the risk of being wrong and the added cost of death penalty court preceeding aren't worth it 99% of the time.
Also, the death penalty doesn't deter crime.
Everyone thinkts it should be for the most extreme of extreme cases, even those that are pro death penatly, the question is what is extreme.
I oppose it 100% in every case.
I used to be very pro-capital punishment. Lately though, I've been moving away from that position somewhat. In theory, I accept that the death penalty can be an appropriate punishment. If a mentally healthy person willfully takes the life of another, I see that as forfeiting their own right to life. However, in our practice I'm not sure I can support it. There is at the very least controversy over whether or not the cost of the capital case outweighs that of life in prison, with actual statistics being very hard to come by. There is also the trouble of exonerated death row inmates and wrongful executions. In my opinion the difference in punishment between death and life in prison is not worth the chance of wrongful execution, which seems to be significant. There is also the question of whether the death penalty is equally applied among everyone. Lastly, although I'm not sure I agree with this, some people have argued that the death penalty is not an equal response to murder, because death row inmates must spend years waiting and knowing that they are going to die. It is suggested this is a torture exceeding that which the convicted gave his or her victims. I think this is the weakest argument of them, but it may have some merit. In a perfect world where a 100% guilty person was immediately put to death, with the whole thing costing less than life in prison, I could easily support that, but in our real world I'm not sure anymore that capital punishment is practical.
But I'm curious about how the people on DP feel about it. Especially to see if there are significant groups of people among those who oppose the death penalty who support the idea in theory, but not in reality and those who simply oppose the idea in principle.
The argument that it is not equally applied to all people is invalid - that some who may deserve the death penalty do not get it is not an argument against giving it to others that do, any more than the fact that some murderers do not get caught invalidates the law against murder.
Similarly, the waiting period and cost arguments are invalid - they are not a function of the death penalty itself, but rather of a backed up judicial system and government penal bureaucracy.
The idea that the death penalty does not deter crime I find mostly invalid - the death penalty is not structured in such a way as to deter crime. Deterring crime requires that a punishment be swift, sure, and public. The death penalty as it is currently structured is none of these things. It could be, which means that the lack of deterrence falls (as does the cost and time period) on workings of the government, not the death penalty itself.
Like you, I was formerly strongly death penalty, and am since moving away from it.
The strongest arguments I find in favor is that it could theoretically be restructured to provide deterence to crime in a manner that is not cost-prohibitive nor lengthy, and that victims and their families deserve closure. There are people who deserve to die, and there are killings that are not wrong.
The strongest arguments I find against is that we are all sinners, and deserve more than we probably get, and are in desperate need of a chance at redemption. If one who hates his brother is a murderer, do not all murderers need the same forgiveness and redemption that those who have hated a brother have access to? It is hard to find pity for some people. But that is precisely what I am called by Christ to do (He's got you coming and going, that guy does) - love even your enemy, He says. The other argument I find compelling is the one you mention - that while the process is infallible, the execution of it is final; it is a putting of total power into a fallible structure when doing so is not necessary (as it can often be in self-defense, crime fighting, or war).
I used to be very pro-capital punishment. Lately though, ....
But I'm curious about how the people on DP feel about it. Especially to see if there are significant groups of people among those who oppose the death penalty who support the idea in theory, but not in reality and those who simply oppose the idea in principle.
In theory, I accept that the death penalty can be an appropriate punishment. If a mentally healthy person willfully takes the life of another, I see that as forfeiting their own right to life.
I used to be very pro-capital punishment. Lately though, I've been moving away from that position somewhat.If a mentally healthy person willfully takes the life of another, I see that as forfeiting their own right to life. However, in our practice I'm not sure I can support it. There is at the very least controversy over whether or not the cost of the capital case outweighs that of life in prison, with actual statistics being very hard to come by. There is also the trouble of exonerated death row inmates and wrongful executions. In my opinion the difference in punishment between death and life in prison is not worth the chance of wrongful execution, which seems to be significant. There is also the question of whether the death penalty is equally applied among everyone. Lastly, although I'm not sure I agree with this, some people have argued that the death penalty is not an equal response to murder, because death row inmates must spend years waiting and knowing that they are going to die. It is suggested this is a torture exceeding that which the convicted gave his or her victims. I think this is the weakest argument of them, but it may have some merit. In a perfect world where a 100% guilty person was immediately put to death, with the whole thing costing less than life in prison, I could easily support that, but in our real world I'm not sure anymore that capital punishment is practical.In theory, I accept that the death penalty can be an appropriate punishment.
But I'm curious about how the people on DP feel about it. Especially to see if there are significant groups of people among those who oppose the death penalty who support the idea in theory, but not in reality and those who simply oppose the idea in principle.
The argument that it is not equally applied to all people is invalid - that some who may deserve the death penalty do not get it is not an argument against giving it to others that do, any more than the fact that some murderers do not get caught invalidates the law against murder.
Similarly, the waiting period and cost arguments are invalid - they are not a function of the death penalty itself, but rather of a backed up judicial system and government penal bureaucracy.
The idea that the death penalty does not deter crime I find mostly invalid - the death penalty is not structured in such a way as to deter crime. Deterring crime requires that a punishment be swift, sure, and public. The death penalty as it is currently structured is none of these things. It could be, which means that the lack of deterrence falls (as does the cost and time period) on workings of the government, not the death penalty itself.
Like you, I was formerly strongly death penalty, and am since moving away from it.
The strongest arguments I find in favor is that it could theoretically be restructured to provide deterence to crime in a manner that is not cost-prohibitive nor lengthy, and that victims and their families deserve closure. There are people who deserve to die, and there are killings that are not wrong.
The strongest arguments I find against is that we are all sinners, and deserve more than we probably get, and are in desperate need of a chance at redemption. If one who hates his brother is a murderer, do not all murderers need the same forgiveness and redemption that those who have hated a brother have access to? It is hard to find pity for some people. But that is precisely what I am called by Christ to do (He's got you coming and going, that guy does) - love even your enemy, He says. The other argument I find compelling is the one you mention - that while the process is infallible, the execution of it is final; it is a putting of total power into a fallible structure when doing so is not necessary (as it can often be in self-defense, crime fighting, or war).
I would assume that when he spoke about inequality he was talking about injustices about the asking for the death penalty itself when it comes to race, area of the country and financial realities of defendants. Also, some police investigations are way more capable than others. That capability can be because the police kept an open mind when investigating and not trying to convict the suspect they have by ignoring other evidence that does not fit their investigation. In other cases a confession is obtained by the police due to plea bargaining with other suspects who can make their own part smaller and enlarge the part of the other suspect. Then there are jailhouse snitches who get a lower punishment etc. for "testifying" on what a suspect supposedly will have said.
In a perfect world the police would still investigate the case vigorously after that confession to make sure that the right person is indicted and not one of the other co-defendants was the true criminal but sadly I have a sneaky suspicion that this may not happen.
Sometimes the police beat the confession out of a suspect or force him to make a statement even though it is not the truth just because they will then will no longer be interrogated aggressively by the police.
Sometimes the police beat out that confession, have a suspect eyewitness account and then do no further work and just go for the conviction. It is sad but true but not all police forces/offices competently perform their duties.
I can't really say that I am totally against cp. It is costly and there are mistakes made. It does not seem to be a rational choice. Also I would very much prefer living in a state without cp. You never know.
Having said that if voters want cp it is their choice. I will live elsewhere.
You don't even have to physically commit a murder in Texas to receive CP
I mean for example MAJ Hassan, who shot all those people at Ft. Hood, or Sergeant Bales that killed 16 Afghan civilians. I would execute these two because their crime brings shame on the entire US military and United States in addition to the high body count, but if a man breaks into a house and ends up killing the guy living there I wouldn't support the death penalty simply because of costs. To go through the trails and appeals to put someone, and keep someone, on death row costs far more money than it would to just lock them up forever.
I used to be very pro-capital punishment. Lately though, I've been moving away from that position somewhat. In theory, I accept that the death penalty can be an appropriate punishment. If a mentally healthy person willfully takes the life of another, I see that as forfeiting their own right to life. However, in our practice I'm not sure I can support it. There is at the very least controversy over whether or not the cost of the capital case outweighs that of life in prison, with actual statistics being very hard to come by. There is also the trouble of exonerated death row inmates and wrongful executions. In my opinion the difference in punishment between death and life in prison is not worth the chance of wrongful execution, which seems to be significant. There is also the question of whether the death penalty is equally applied among everyone. Lastly, although I'm not sure I agree with this, some people have argued that the death penalty is not an equal response to murder, because death row inmates must spend years waiting and knowing that they are going to die. It is suggested this is a torture exceeding that which the convicted gave his or her victims. I think this is the weakest argument of them, but it may have some merit. In a perfect world where a 100% guilty person was immediately put to death, with the whole thing costing less than life in prison, I could easily support that, but in our real world I'm not sure anymore that capital punishment is practical.
But I'm curious about how the people on DP feel about it. Especially to see if there are significant groups of people among those who oppose the death penalty who support the idea in theory, but not in reality and those who simply oppose the idea in principle.
Why does the "honor" of civil institutions count as more important than a persons life? Why does that matter at all?
Not least because people will make life/death judgements in the future based off of that measure. It sounds Hobbesian, to be true, but it is true.
The goal of the justice system is to protect society ... Not to Punish sins. No one has the right to take a life, and no one has the right to judge whether or not someone has a right to live, the point is to make sure society is protected.
the goal of the justice system must be protecting the society by establishing some rules to deter potential criminals from committing crime and prevent the criminals from commiting the same crime more than once .murder is not punished by law because it is a sin .
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?