What 45 year old was executed for drug charges? Have a link?
THIS analogy is WHACK! No one gets executed for stealing.
Don't worry, when we're forced to join the "Global Community", we'll be forced by folks such as yourself to give up our wonderful death penalty so the monsters have a chance of getting out of prison to kill again. Until then, we're alot safer with it.
The necessity of the death penalty law is what we are debating in of itself. Imprisoning someone or killing them are two entirely different things.
I never argued against punishing criminals for the crimes they committed... please cite where I said that, otherwise it's time to move on.
I am emphasizing my disagreement with the death penalty as a form of punishment.
It's not a double standard to suggest that no one should be executed.
Except other crimes don't involve people being killed by the State.
If a person's life is at stake but they cannot afford acceptable legal counsel, and the majority of people on death row come from a poor background, then there is systemic bias taking place.
If the death penalty were uniform, a rich man and a poor man would both suffer the same fate.
Are you seriously suggesting that someone who only has a public defender provided to them is going to stand the same chance of a lesser sentence than someone who can afford a good lawyer? Wow...
The person isn't committing suicide last time I checked, the State is killing him. Therefore the State is responsible for the family's woes.
This is a bogus argument since the system applies capital punishment inconsistently,
so there is no way to know for sure if you will be killed or not. This is why the death penalty does not serve as an effective deterrent in the U.S.
Maybe in your ideal world it does, but in reality the death of anyone causes suffering to all those who know them and love them.
Why is the criminal's family selfish for not wanting their loved one to die?
The criminal is still a human being with human ties.
Prove it.
Provide evidence for the bolded assertion.
I agree that the number of executions a year is small compared to how many criminals are actually in jail in the U.S., but the cost of the legal proceedings and the executions themselves far outweighs simple incarceration. (Please see my previous post for evidence.)
I'm not interested in whether or not you think the effect is small. You haven't been in the position to know your loved one is going to be killed in a pre-meditated fashion. That is torturous.
Sorry, but it's not beside the point just because you say it is.
It's not that it's beside the point, it's that you aren't understanding the point. Take suicide as an example. It's a person killing oneself. If a person ends up taking their own life then it's because they lacked support, were perhaps isolated in their thoughts, and they ended up carrying out an act in response to an impulse. Not enough people know the warning signs of depression. The same could be said of murderers... how often do people ignore others who are clearly displaying disturbing behaviour? How many people walk on and decide to not get involved?
So then why doesn't every murder deserve an execution?
How do you decide if the punishment is "equal to the crime"?
Hmmm... I never really said that the person lacks free will, I was talking about contributing factors.
And how is killing them without even a chance at rehabilitation going to do any damage control?
You claim that most murderers can't be rehabilitated. I agree, because they are given a death sentence instead! Some people on death row sit there for 15-20 years doing nothing whatsoever, while the State wastes time and money to satisfy the revenge impulse of people like you.
In that time, the person could have been taught to live a better life and understand the gravity of what they did.
but the system causing a family suffering in order to try and provide "justice" to another family that is suffering.
When did I ever say that there should be no justice system or that criminals don't deserve punishment?
In this case, an eye for an eye and the law are the same thing, which is unfortunate.
Id like to know the thoughts of judges who know they sentanced an innocent man to death.
Probably similar to judges who know they sentenced an innocent man to prison? Oh wait, judges don't actually find anyone guilty, that's juries. :roll:
When your child steals a cookie, do you execute him and then just go have another child? No, you give him a consequence he can learn from. Your analogy is flawed.
I've provided enough logical evidence to debunk your claim that I'm only making emotional appeals.
I come from a country that, long ago, realized the impracticality and illogical nature of the death penalty.
A society that wishes to harbour humanitarian ideals cannot kill its own people, no matter what.
A person who has done something horrible deserves to be put away, and society doesn't have the right to decide who deserves to live and who deserves to die. Those are my values.
The death penalty is a consequence that serves no purpose in the United States.
It's been debunked as a deterrent.
It's been debunked as a financially efficient method to deal with criminals.
It's been debunked as a form of justice that brings relief to the people left behind (especially the criminal's family).
It's not even applied uniformly, since two people committing the same crime could get two difference sentences based on a number of factors.
The only thing left to look at is its use as a revenge tactic...
That can never be decided objectively since it's a subjective issue, and no person in society is wise enough to know who deserves to die and who doesn't. At least, that is what I believe and what my country believes
And that's it in a nutshell.:roll:
That is twice now that people make that claim and can't back it... Scucca and now Orius
Guess I won that debate... the guy bailed with his opinion fast enough.
That is twice now that people make that claim and can't back it... Scucca and now Orius
If we had a swift death penalty our country probably would not hit the recession we are in or the depression we will probably see.
All the money misdirected ito support an anti-life, human monster, could be in circulation still driving our economy.
The death penalty should be in place for it to basically be a "given" that if you commit first degree murder you are also committing suicide.
Then let's see what happens to the crime rates...
by saving millions you expect to offset TrillionsIf we had a swift death penalty our country probably would not hit the recession we are in or the depression we will probably see.
All the money misdirected ito support an anti-life, human monster, could be in circulation still driving our economy.
The death penalty should be in place for it to basically be a "given" that if you commit first degree murder you are also committing suicide.
Then let's see what happens to the crime rates...
State Sanctioned Homicide cheapens life for all people. CP states notoriously have higher murder rates than non CP states. There is an inherent cruelty to sticking someone in a bathroom & saying we'll come back in x years & end you life "Humanely" with witnesses. Don't go anywhere. Not to mention that death is the end of punishment. What Timothy McVeigh called suicide by cop. Spending the rest of one's life locked in a bathroom is punishment, but also allowing for the rare new evidence that leads to an exoneration. Before it's too late.Hello there people,
Just a thought here: in many developed regions we see the abolishment of capital punishment as a penalty for any crime. However, there still exists countries that do still exercise the death penalty system (approximately 90 countries) with 38 out of 50 states in the U.S. still endorsing the death penalty.
A major element of the argument will be the value of life: the side that supports capital punishment may argue that abolishing it results in the devaluation of respect for human life as the punishment is not proportionate and as such, does not reflect the significance of the crime. Also, the fact that the punishment is congruent to the crime proves that the system reflects the objective of the judiciary system: to deter.
The side that opposes capital punishment may argue that in the simplest of terms, execution is state-seanctioned killing - how different will taking the life of a killer be than taking the life of an innocent if the main objective is to preserve human life in general? Moreover, who is the judiciary system to have the right to take away one's right to life - the most fundamental of all rights? We all know how prejudice clouds judgement, especially in the fragile glass sheet that is today's society. Social bias makes secularity impossible, making the system unequal and as such, impossible to implement capital punishment in.
So what do you think? Should the use capital punishment be supported or opposed?
-Alex
State imposed Homicide is not a deterant, in fact people who live in CP states seem to have a more exaggerated distain for human life as reflected in the states murder rate.I sure that kind of reasoning can be applied to life sentences, fines, parole and other forms of punishment not just the death penalty. Some victims and their loved ones want scum to rot behind bars for their rest of their life.
Hello there people,
Just a thought here: in many developed regions we see the abolishment of capital punishment as a penalty for any crime. However, there still exists countries that do still exercise the death penalty system (approximately 90 countries) with 38 out of 50 states in the U.S. still endorsing the death penalty.
A major element of the argument will be the value of life: the side that supports capital punishment may argue that abolishing it results in the devaluation of respect for human life as the punishment is not proportionate and as such, does not reflect the significance of the crime. Also, the fact that the punishment is congruent to the crime proves that the system reflects the objective of the judiciary system: to deter.
The side that opposes capital punishment may argue that in the simplest of terms, execution is state-seanctioned killing - how different will taking the life of a killer be than taking the life of an innocent if the main objective is to preserve human life in general? Moreover, who is the judiciary system to have the right to take away one's right to life - the most fundamental of all rights? We all know how prejudice clouds judgement, especially in the fragile glass sheet that is today's society. Social bias makes secularity impossible, making the system unequal and as such, impossible to implement capital punishment in.
So what do you think? Should the use capital punishment be supported or opposed?
-Alex
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?