The Ethics of Capital Punishment

[Sky Dancer]

An eye for an eye. Right or wrong?

I say it is wrong.

All human life is sacred. Society has a moral obligation to protect human life, not take it. The death penalty harms society by cheapening the value of life. Allowing the state to inflict death on certain of its citizens legitimizes the taking of life. The death of anyone, even a convicted killer, diminishes us all. Society has a duty to end this practice which causes such harm, yet produces little in the way of benefits.

 

[del]

is this gonna be another whiny thread about that rabid animal that you insist has some kind of talent, the value of which exceeds the life of the guard he conspired to kill in cold blood, and for which he subsequently received the death penalty?

fuck him.

 

[martybegan]

For some crimes there has to be more punishment than just spending the rest of your life behind walls, with free room and board, as well as medical care.

In exchange for removing the death penalty I propose two alternative punishments:

1. Total solitary: No human contact. you can have books, you can have some TV, but your food enters through a slot, and if you need to be taken out of your cell, you are rendered unconsious so you dont remember seeing anyone. You get to live and die alone.

2. You have to break a 200 lb rock, using a small rock hammer. After you are done, you get to put it back together using crazy glue. Once done, you get a new rock. Repeat ad nauseum. No work, no food. In this scenario you at least get human contact, as long as you keep breaking/fixing the rock.

In both cases a noose is made availible if the inmate wants to check out early.

This would be reserved for those cases deemed potential death penalty cases only. 1st degree murder, etc.

 

[JoeB131]

An eye for an eye. Right or wrong?

I say it is wrong.

All human life is sacred. Society has a moral obligation to protect human life, not take it. The death penalty harms society by cheapening the value of life. Allowing the state to inflict death on certain of its citizens legitimizes the taking of life. The death of anyone, even a convicted killer, diminishes us all. Society has a duty to end this practice which causes such harm, yet produces little in the way of benefits.

I disagree. I think there are some crimes, so offenses, that are just so horrible, that just locking them up can't express society's outrage adequately.

Take Charlie Manson (Please!) He murdered 8 people in an attempt to trigger a race war which he thought would result in him being left in charge after millions had died. And something to do with Beatles' music. One can only imagine the level of drugs you have to take where that becomes a logical thought process, but he went there.

When he got the Death Penalty, he told the prosecutor, "YOu are only sending me back where I came from", because he had spent most of his life in prisons. But the prosecutors had the satisfaction of knowing he was going to be executed.

Until some soft-headed people decided to commute his sentence.

So now he's in his 70's, he gets fan mail from other sickos, he got to torture the families of his victims by making them show up at his parole hearings.

My other favorite. Richard Speck. Killed 8 nurses, sentenced to death. Commuted. Got to appear at parole hearings until he died of a heart attack. After his death, a video appeared where he was having sex with his cellmate, smoking dope and saying "If they knew what a good time I was having in prison, they'd let me out."

NOw, I'll agree, our system has flaws. Public defenders should get the same resources prosecutors get with investigators and researchers. Prosecutors and cops who break the rules to get wrongful convictions should be dealt with, harshly.

But as long as we have Gacy and Dahmner and Speck and Manson and Bundy, we need a death penalty.

 

[lizzie]

An eye for an eye. Right or wrong?

I say it is wrong.

All human life is sacred. Society has a moral obligation to protect human life, not take it. The death penalty harms society by cheapening the value of life. Allowing the state to inflict death on certain of its citizens legitimizes the taking of life. The death of anyone, even a convicted killer, diminishes us all. Society has a duty to end this practice which causes such harm, yet produces little in the way of benefits.

It is beneficial to rid society of murderers.

 

[Defiant1]

An eye for an eye. Right or wrong?

I say it is wrong.

All human life is sacred. Society has a moral obligation to protect human life, not take it. The death penalty harms society by cheapening the value of life. Allowing the state to inflict death on certain of its citizens legitimizes the taking of life. The death of anyone, even a convicted killer, diminishes us all. Society has a duty to end this practice which causes such harm, yet produces little in the way of benefits.

Bull. They need to televise executions.

 

[Iridescence]

An eye for an eye. Right or wrong?

I say it is wrong.

All human life is sacred. Society has a moral obligation to protect human life, not take it. The death penalty harms society by cheapening the value of life. Allowing the state to inflict death on certain of its citizens legitimizes the taking of life. The death of anyone, even a convicted killer, diminishes us all. Society has a duty to end this practice which causes such harm, yet produces little in the way of benefits.

Capital Punishment is not about "an eye for and eye".... or, not more about that, rather, than it is about self- judgement and cleansing the land... It is, sadly, sometimes more ethical to put someone to death than to have society suffer for their existence... We no longer have the prison island... and our current mainstream seems incapable of handling stressful days behind the wheel of their vehicle... Are we punishing individuals for successfully becoming what we have greatly influenced, if not aided and abetted? Most likely.

 

[Wiseacre]

It's about justice. Not vengeance, not prevention, not deterrence, nothing else but justice. Those who deliberately take life should surrender their own.

 

[Avatar4321]

Im for capital punishment. Sometimes the only way to pay for a crime is through the shedding of your own blood. In fact, my complaint isnt that we dont have capital punishment, but that there arent more crimes that qualify in our system.

For example, Robbery used to be a capital crime. For very obvious reasons when you realize someone who robs, say your cattle from you, when you need that cattle to provide for yourself and your family ends up giving your family a death sentence. Rape is another one that should be capital in some circumstances

Of course, that means more work for me. Which is the on really bad part of this moral question.

Mercy cannot rob justice.

 

[Amelia]

I'm opposed to capital punishment. No matter whether it would be ethical if carried out ideally, it is moot because it is not carried out ideally. Rich people can save themselves from it and too many people have been exonerated of the crimes which put them on death row. How many haven't been exonerated who should have been? To some it doesn't matter. To me it does.

I'm opposed to solitary confinement. Driving a person out of his mind is inhumane.


Secure, austere prisons ... that I would find acceptable. I know that a lot of liberals would find austerity inhumane, so I don't know the right solution.



And that's where this lay person sits on the subject of crime and punishment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It’s one of the very few issues best left to the states to decide.

The Court has signed off on it decades ago, as long as those convicted are allowed a comprehensive appellate process, there are no legal grounds to oppose it.

 

[Tank]

Society has a duty to end this practice which causes such harm, yet produces little in the way of benefits.

There are victims/children that deserve to sleep easier.

 

[syrenn]

An eye for an eye. Right or wrong?

I say it is wrong.

All human life is sacred. Society has a moral obligation to protect human life, not take it. The death penalty harms society by cheapening the value of life. Allowing the state to inflict death on certain of its citizens legitimizes the taking of life. The death of anyone, even a convicted killer, diminishes us all. Society has a duty to end this practice which causes such harm, yet produces little in the way of benefits.

I agree, all human life is sacred.


however...

If you take a life or are involved in taking a life or commit some horrible crime..... you fortifier all rights to your life. If the taking of life is just fine and dandy... be prepared to have that very same visited upon you.

Its called getting as good as you gave.

Eye for eye.... you better believe it.

Killing every person on death row would not diminish me one bit. Hand me the plunger and ill push the drugs.

 

[zzzz]

There is a place for capitol punishment. If we had captured Osama Bin Laden would you have wanted him executed? I think though it should be reserved for the very worst crimes such as mass murders. If you include other crimes the possibility of killing innocent people becomes more realistic and as the state kills more and more people pretty soon it becomes to easy to kill people for other ideals and ideas. History is littered with examples where the state becomes bloodthirsty and turns on the people. Oh, people say it could never happen here but are you really that sure?

 

[Tank]

All human life is sacred.

 

[mskafka]

For some crimes there has to be more punishment than just spending the rest of your life behind walls, with free room and board, as well as medical care.

In exchange for removing the death penalty I propose two alternative punishments:

1. Total solitary: No human contact. you can have books, you can have some TV, but your food enters through a slot, and if you need to be taken out of your cell, you are rendered unconsious so you dont remember seeing anyone. You get to live and die alone.

2. You have to break a 200 lb rock, using a small rock hammer. After you are done, you get to put it back together using crazy glue. Once done, you get a new rock. Repeat ad nauseum. No work, no food. In this scenario you at least get human contact, as long as you keep breaking/fixing the rock.

In both cases a noose is made availible if the inmate wants to check out early.

This would be reserved for those cases deemed potential death penalty cases only. 1st degree murder, etc.

Good one. There are times when I flip/flop about what I believe in, concerning capital punishment.

1. If you are a child rapist; you are a practice subject for medical students. They get to remove your appendix, gallbladder, etc... Experimental drugs are tried on you.
2. Mandatory sterilization, by whatever means.

1. If you are a child murderer, again, you are a practice subject for medical students. They get to do elective surgeries on you.

2. Experimental drugs-for treatment of infectious diseases that you've contracted from in vitro to in vivo.

3. Experimental vaccinations.

4. Penile implants...and so on.



Now I'm not talking about people whom we aren't sure about. I'm talking about these sick bastards who admit to raping, and then beheading a child.

I kind of feel the same way about torturing and killing animals, but that's another thread.

Medieval? Yes, in a way.

Hussein's hanging was shocking, and it felt inherently wrong....until, again, seeing the videos of the Kurds that he allegedly gassed.

So torn on the subject, but most of us would be ready to watch the one who'd tortured and killed our loved ones, fry in the electric chair.

 

[Photonic]

The idea of protection of life ends at birth.

 

[JoeB131]

Im for capital punishment. Sometimes the only way to pay for a crime is through the shedding of your own blood. In fact, my complaint isnt that we dont have capital punishment, but that there arent more crimes that qualify in our system.

For example, Robbery used to be a capital crime. For very obvious reasons when you realize someone who robs, say your cattle from you, when you need that cattle to provide for yourself and your family ends up giving your family a death sentence. Rape is another one that should be capital in some circumstances

Of course, that means more work for me. Which is the on really bad part of this moral question.

Mercy cannot rob justice.

Ahhhhh, Blood Atonement.

And you wonder why I think Mormons are crazy.

 

[Iridescence]

See... this is the thing... there are levels of insanity in which we genuinely need as a civilization, or so it seems for the balance in which we have at this point. The most horrid of crimes do make sense but only once human emotion has become numbed or dumbed down. If we do not find a way as a WORLD to stop producing such minded individuals (highly unlikely) then we are pretty much doomed to having our psyches being numbed and dumbed by what will also most likely come as our own doings, accordingly.

I don't know... honestly. As a mother, I know I would kill to rescue my children... As a wife, I know I would also risk my own life for his... Yet, on the outside of the most natural of emotions... there are potentially detrimental forces I'd have to couple with in order to be most effective in both roles. It isn't so complex that I, personally, don't understand it, it is just too complex to give my levels of understanding to others.

Many individuals go on death row, in case it goes masked as something else, for attention. They have been 'nobody' for so long and they take on the crimes they've captured by other means than actual guilt. Many psychotics are phenomenal observers and will take in every bit of detail... without having to be told certain facts... and take the wrap.

DNA testing and such is very important... and yet it also is flawed. Sometimes there is more in finding 'the system' at fault than there is in crediting/discrediting a presumed assailant.

 

[lizzie]

I'm opposed to solitary confinement. Driving a person out of his mind is inhumane.

Murdering and raping is inhumane as well. I don't know how many prisons you have been in and around for any significant amount of time. They are oftentimes little more than zoos that provide housing for humans, as those humans act like animals. You would probably be shocked at the degenerate behavior of some of them.

Another point to consider is that those who commit heinous crimes are already "out of their minds". If they were rational and functioning by normal societal standards, they wouldn't be commiting heinous crimes in the first place.