the death penalty

Paul David wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Though it is great to continue to think about it and debate it as you can learn from the debate and opinions change.

agreed. there was a point in my life where I supported it.

If you don't question your beliefs/opinions on a regular basis, you become stagnant.

I use to be far more "gung-ho" in relation to the topic. It easier to see all the gray as opposed to black and white as you get older if you are continuing to question yourself. If you don't, the black becomes blacker and the white becomes whiter.

While I still support the death penalty is some cases, it certainly isn't a top priority of mine or one that I would be willing to actually stand up and defend. On the other hand, I certainly wouldn't be fighting for the right of a known murder to be imprisoned as opposed to the death penalty. It's an important issue though that you should be willing to stand up for so I gotta figure it out.

cincybearcat wrote:

Paul David wrote:

the discussion can get heated and emotional because I for one don't know how you or others could seem so utterly apathetic towards the beauty of life.

This is an interesting comment. I think both sides could say the same thing.

One side just thinks there is no reason ever to have state sponsored killing, so they are trying to protect life.

The other side thinks that if you take someone's life away you prove you are dangerous and could easily do it again and they are protecting life.

It is an interesting debate and emotion certain comes into play. I also would say that, the emotional part is part of the problem as it is part of why some people (myself included) have supported the death penalty. It's tough to have any different opinion if you put yourself in the shoes of an individual that has had their family (wife, husband, kids, etc) slaughtered by a callous murderer.

It is still tough for me to say I want no death penalty. In a case where it is obvious who did what and it is such a terrible crime, it's tough for me not to think that the death penalty is the correct form of punishment. I don't want anyone to be at risk (general public, prison guards, other inmates, etc) just to keep a murderer alive in a cell. Those are the cases where I still find myself supporting the death penalty. Though it is great to continue to think about it and debate it as you can learn from the debate and opinions change.

That's about the most measured pro-death penalty post I've seen so far, and it's a welcome relief from the usual rage. I disagree with your stance, cincy, but I think if this is the kind of tone we could debate in we'd get a lot further.

The two points I agree with 100% are these - "the emotional part is part of the problem as it is part of why some people... have supported the death penalty." and "it is great to continue to think about it and debate it as you can learn from the debate and opinions change."

cincybearcat wrote:

redrock wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

It's tough to have any different opinion if you put yourself in the shoes of an individual that has had their family (wife, husband, kids, etc) slaughtered by a callous murderer.

In a previous thread about the death penalty, there was a poster who was in that situation. He was still against the death penalty. I don't think he was unique in his way of thinking.

An eye for an eye.. a life for a life - says it all. Vengeance, not punishment. Doesn't bring the dead person back to life. Doesn't really bring closure - that comes from within.

I get it, I also think your 1 person means little as I am sure there are plenty of others in that position that woudl seek the death penalty.

What I did was provide a concrete example of a person in that situation. One real person that had a discussion on this board and not any one of us in this thread blowing hot air in trying to 'put ourselves in the shoes of....'. If one doesn't agree to the death penalty on social & moral grounds, I don't think that changes when one is faced with such tragic circumstances. If one sees state sanctioned murder as a tool for vengeance, well then of course one will seek the death penalty.

as i stated before on like page 83 or 84, even the most self righteous of us all should be able to admit that capital punishment is murder, and murder is wrong. so why commit another sin in response to the original one?

to me it is morally and ethically wrong, and none of you sick people that glorify it and get off on it and write poetry about it are going to change my opinion. and that is the last i am going to say about it.

I wonder if some of these people get into a car accident that isn't their fault, and then turn their car back on, back up, and ram the other car back, because that is what's just and right?

Paul David wrote:

I wonder if some of these people get into a car accident that isn't their fault, and then turn their car back on, back up, and ram the other car back, because that is what's just and right?

accident being the key word.......thus, does not apply.

lukin2006 wrote:

Assuming that the death penalty was abolished completely in the US, how do yo guarantee the public the most dangerous never get out. It's obvious from another post that dangerous people have been released or escaped. Would you build a super max in a remote area? 24 hour lock down? Then the other question is when does an obvious dangerous person give up his rights.

if the US can establish a maximum security facilty like Guantanamo to house prisoners who have never been charged and never been given a trial, one would assume that they could build something similar in the good old USA to house convicted murderers. yeah?

this should go without saying, but leaving out the torture, sexual degradation and other revolting acts would be nice too.

ok.

thanks.

lukin2006 wrote:

Assuming that the death penalty was abolished completely in the US, how do yo guarantee the public the most dangerous never get out. It's obvious from another post that dangerous people have been released or escaped. Would you build a super max in a remote area? 24 hour lock down? Then the other question is when does an obvious dangerous person give up his rights.

An answer to your first question might be to look to the rest of the world. Over 70% of countries in the world have abolished the death penalty, including all industrialised nations, except the US and Japan, so there is a huge wealth of precedents to be had.

The answer to your second is: he doesn't. That is the whole point of rights - everyone is entitled to them, by the merit of being human - and no one has the right to take them away, even if they have violated someone else's rights. No one is entitled to make the subjective judgment that someone has "forfeited" their rights. To do so totally undermines the very notion of rights. The only point where your rights are tempered is where they interact incompatibly with other people's rights. So you have the right to free expression, but only so much in that in excercising that right you aren't violating someone else's right to freedom from oppression, or discrimination etc. Or in this case, a person has the right to freedom, but only insomuch that his freedom doesn't violate other people's right to freedom from persecution, or their right to life.

By the way, before anyone says it, it is not legitimate to then say a prisoner has a right to life only insofar as he hasn't violated someone else's right to life, as that would be retrospective. Nor on the basis that "he might kill again" because that is purely speculative.

TriumphantAngel wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Assuming that the death penalty was abolished completely in the US, how do yo guarantee the public the most dangerous never get out. It's obvious from another post that dangerous people have been released or escaped. Would you build a super max in a remote area? 24 hour lock down? Then the other question is when does an obvious dangerous person give up his rights.

if the US can establish a maximum security facilty like Guantanamo to house prisoners who have never been charged and never been given a trial, one would assume that they could build something similar in the good old USA to house convicted murderers. yeah?

this should go without saying, but leaving out the torture, sexual degradation and other revolting acts would be nice too.

ok.

thanks.

So...can we put them in a cell and not let them out ever? Have a small hole for food...have a toilet and a sink to wash...and never open the door (unless the cell needs maintenance, in which case they are brought immediately to another cell)? No TV, no other prisoners, no freedom to roam, no outside time, no exercise equipment? Is that cruel and unusual punishment? Oh, and no suicide watch either. Don't kill them, but certainly don't care if they do it to themselves.

I could easily abandon my support of the death penalty if the risk to others was eliminated through the situation I described above.

ed243421 wrote:

chad and on the edge
please do not change your views on this subject
i will never understand why they take the side of a murderer
and that's fine
but i won't change my mind
there is nothing that the anti-dp folk can say that would make me think otherwise
i do not need to change their views
i have mine

thank you