Do you believe in capital punishment?

[Poetic Stone 1,040]

I personally am against capital punishment, I don't believe we have the right to take someones life even for a crime they have commited. We have no right to judge someone else in that aspect.

[Shark Woona 169]

I'm with you on that. It's kinda sad really.

[Snow Frostflame 3,567]

I'm the exact opposite... if someone causes a such a crime I think opposed to being painless executed with a toxin they should be given a public execution with a firing squad....

[Kothen 279]

I'm the exact opposite... if someone causes a such a crime I think opposed to being painless executed with a toxin they should be given a public execution with a firing squad....

 I agree. My belief is that we are all equal. but if you do something like kill an incoccent person or such. You are a monster who needs to be killed. Preferably in the most painful way possible. I agree with firing squad, cheap, easy, and clean.

[Sony 106]

im against capital punishment because it wrong to kill another even if a criminal murder someone,they need to be sent to life in prison

[Starshine 16,330]

Why not? If someone has the audacity to end someone else's life, they have forfeited their right to remain alive, that's what I believe

[Ziggy + Angel + Rain 11,298]

I have mixed feelings about it.  There are some "people" who commit crimes so utterly heinous and repellent that I would have little or no trouble personally condemning them to die.  I prefer not to think of such things.  I generally prefer not to even visit that lingering part of myself.  At the same time...  Might it not be worse to imprison someone for the rest of their life?  Punish them for years and years?  Better yet, perhaps the bastard might even develop a conscience.  And then suffer all the more.

 

I know, dark thoughts. x3  Willfully abandoning as of this sentence.

[ConcorDisparate 385]

Honestly, the capital punishment seemed fine to me before some philosophy lessons.

I'll try to translate some words but these are philosophical concepts, so it may not work.

Keep in mind that this is only a thesis, not the Truth, you can adhere or not( I don't adhere to any viewpoints about most subjects, but that does not mean I can't explain a thesis that someone could be interested in and follow )

 

A human is defined by two things :

   One is called "[...]"(can't find a proper translation), this basically defines you by your acts. You are what you do of what one did of you. Which means that, even if you are the kindest man in the world, even you you only think about joy and entertainment, friends, if you commited atrocities, you are an atrocity. You are what you do. Also, origins matter, even you are born in [put a country name here] in a rich family, you won't be the same than if you were born in [put a country name from Africa] in a big family with close to nothing to survive(One can argue that the last one will live a better life, etc... That's not the point here). In the end, you are what you did of what your parents/origin did of you.

   The second one is called "Transcendence", basically the faculty to surpass what you are. We are not defined once and for all, we can evolve and become better(or worse).

Everyone has the duty to change if he does not act morally. He can because he must.

 

Which lead to this Sartres thesis : We have a moral duty :

-To take into account the one's faculty to transcend .

-We can't give up on one's humanity.

 

However, we CAN judge someone, we have the right to suspend this transcendance while we judge, because judging isn't decisive, judging means showing one that he has the duty not to ever be like he was before, to transcend.

You are what you do, but you are not reducible to what you've done.

 

Do you see where this leads ? It leads to an issue with the capital punishment. Because when you decide to kill someone for his acts, you don't take into account his faculty to transcend, you "thingify"(no idea if this works in English) him, you don't consider him like a human anymore. You only consider him for what he's done while not considering what he can be. Which could mean that the capital punishment is wrong.

 

I think this is an interesting viewpoint, what do you think about this ?

Edited February 26, 2015 by ConcorDisparate

[Guest]

I don't believe in capital punishment, mainly because it lacks in deterrence, value of human life and that it is completely useless. Killing a murderer does not bring his victim back to life. It achieves nothing but the death of still another person.

 

Who gave you the right to play God?

Edited February 26, 2015 by Guest

[rarity1 461]

It certainly would save a lot of money to just kill them all and it's certainly a lot painless when compared to a life sentence.  Why not?

[MysticShine 529]

Hammurabi's Code for me. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life. So yes, I support Capital Punishment.

[Roughshod 719]

It's easy for me. No, I don't believe in capital punishment. I do not believe it is justified either on practical or ethical grounds.
 

 

For starters, it's been shown repeatedly that capital punishment does not deter crime in any measurable way.The crime for which the death penalty is most commonly issued is First degree murder, often accompanied with aggravating factors such as previous violent offences committed or the use of torture.

 

"The threat of execution at some future date is unlikely to enter the minds of those acting under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, those who are in the grip of fear or rage, those who are panicking while committing another crime (such as a robbery), or those who suffer from mental illness or mental retardation and do not fully understand the gravity of their crime." 

 

Source: http://www.amnestyusa.org

 

Expert opinion and statistics seem to suggest that there is not positive correlation between capital punishment and crime prevention. In fact, the studies seem to suggest the opposite; areas which enforce capital punishment often have higher rates of crime applicable to the sentence. edf

 

 

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/files/DeterrenceStudy2009.pdf

 

 

 

Now is capital punishment a moral standpoint? This is a highly debatable matter no doubt, but I'll list some arguments I think make a good case why it is not as justifed as many seem to think.

 

1. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), in an Apr. 9, 2007 website section titled "The Death Penalty: Questions and Answers," offered the following: 

 

"It [capital punishment] is immoral in principle, and unfair and discriminatory in practice [...] No one deserves to die. When the government metes out vengeance disguised as justice, it becomes complicit with killers in devaluing human life and human dignity. In civilized society, we reject the principle of literally doing to criminals what they do to their victims: The penalty for rape cannot be rape, or for arson, the burning down of the arsonist's house. We should not, therefore, punish the murderer with death... Capital punishment is a barbaric remnant of uncivilized society.

 

 

2. Bryan Stevenson, JD, Professor of Law at New York University School of Law and Founder-Executive Director of the Equal Justice Initiative, in his article "Close to Death: Reflections on Race and Capital Punishment in America," from Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment? The Experts on Both Sides Make Their Best Case (2004), wrote:

 

"Ultimately, the moral question surrounding capital punishment in America has less to do with whether those convicted of violent crime deserve to die than with whether state and federal governments deserve to kill those whom it has imprisoned.

The legacy of racial apartheid, racial bias, and ethnic discrimination is unavoidably evident in the administration of capital punishment in America. Death sentences are imposed in a criminal justice system that treats you better if you are rich and guilty than if you are poor and innocent.

Embracing a certain quotient of racial bias and discrimination against the poor is an inexorable aspect of supporting capital punishment. This is an immoral condition that makes rejecting the death penalty on moral grounds not only defensible but necessary for those who refuse to accept unequal or unjust administration of punishment."

 

 

3. George Ryan, Governor of Illinois, in a speech given Jan. 11, 2003 at Northwestern University College of Law, stated:

 

"Because our three year study has found only more questions about the fairness of the sentencing; because of the spectacular failure to reform the system; because we have seen justice delayed for countless death row inmates with potentially meritorious claims; because the Illinois death penalty system is arbitrary and capricious - and therefore immoral - I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death...

Because of all of these reasons today I am commuting the sentences of all death row inmates. This is a blanket commutation."

 

Source: http://deathpenalty.procon.org

[DATA EXPUNGED 324]

Capital Punishment is the only true justice. Besides, why should we as tax payers have to pay for the comfort of murderers and repeat offenders? 

[Mesme Rize 15,681]

No, i don't. The Death penalty is first of all wrong and is secondly not a tool to scare off murderers.

 

Why is it that Germany, a country that has no death penalty, has a lower murder rate, then a country like the US?

[Denim&Venöm 16,604]

I do believe in capital punishment. Why? Because it's more humane than life in prison. Western society does not forgive. You can serve your sentence, but society will always see you as a criminal. You will be passed up on jobs, loans & services. It's damn near impossible to readjust to life on the outside after serving a few years, let alone decades. With such a combination of factors, it's hard to stay out of the criminal lifestyle, as it's the only one you can access just to survive. 

 

And do prisons really fix things? We still have crimes being committed, so they aren't deterring criminal actions, and we have repeat offenders, so the system itself isn't correcting the problems. 

 

Prison is hell. Life in prison is the worst punishment we can give. Even if it's the type of life sentence that lasts a few decades, there's still all the problems that i just mentioned. But literal life sentence, being trapped with no way out, surrounded by monsters going through the same thing as you, inflicting their will upon you, becoming just as horrific to stand your ground against them? What is the point of living then? Why continue on in that hell?

 

Placing someone into the jail system for the rest of their days will not undue their crimes. It will only waste resources and pout someone though pointless suffering. And they won't be reformed into a contributing member of society. Society has deemed them to dangerous to be free. So why keep them around? Why not be more humane than the criminal? Why not end their suffering? 

 

I know that I would rather die than go to prison. Cause I doubt that I'll be the same person coming back out. 

[Venomous 18,814]

It depends on what the person did.

[Lisa 5,552]

I'm the exact opposite... if someone causes a such a crime I think opposed to being painless executed with a toxin they should be given a public execution with a firing squad....

 

Are you kidding me? I'm going to assume you didn't realise that you just typed that. What is the point of it being public?

__________

 

Capital punishment isn't right in my eyes. I don't believe we should be able to decide who lives, and who does not. It's just doesn't sound humane.

 

And this thread really opens my eyes on how sadistic people can really think.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Flitter

[ConcorDisparate 385]

 

 

Capital punishment isn't right in my eyes. I don't believe we should be able to decide who lives, and who does not. It's just doesn't sound humane.

 

Well, honestly, nothing ever sounded more human .

[Lisa 5,552]

Well, honestly, nothing ever sounded more human .

 

Yeah, that's true I guess. But what I mean is, a person. An individual. Not just some animal or sub-ordinate.

[gone~ 614]

I (once again) have a more controversial view on things. ^^;;

 

I am against capital punishment in the way that it's done in the US (or by any government for that matter). However, I am not absolutely against capital punishment. I think that law has a lot to do with economics, and capital punishment is no exception. Laws should be based upon efficiency, taking into account things such as damages, costs, incentives, and deterrence. Perhaps in an efficient law system capital punishment would actually be found to be ineffective and bad, but I am not against the possibility of it being a good thing.

 

That being said, I personally despise violence and killing, I just believe society would function better with efficient laws. ^^;

 

(link to the basis of my thoughts: http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Laws_Order_draft/laws_order_ch_15.htm)

[Invincible 2,090]

I think that there is some justification in removing a dangerous individual from existence as capital punishment.

 

An individual proven to be a complete monster, with no regards to any human morals, then human morals shouldn't apply to them. Such individuals, if kept locked away, are a money sink; you can't release them because of the constant danger they pose to society, even if they are under constant watch. The process of incarceration costs money, and therefore a waste of good will and human resources for a lost cause. 

 

In such certain conditions, i think executing a dangerous inmate is a perfectly justified decision. Note that in some cases, for murderers and rapists for instance, the humane execution they get is much less painful than what they would have inflicted upon potential victims.

[ConcorDisparate 385]

An individual proven to be a complete monster, with no regards to any human morals, then human morals shouldn't apply to them.

 

That was a debate about the nazi trials in Israel.

 

You know, the Evil is something we can't really understand. To us, just like you said, evil people are monsters.

But the point is, monsters are by definition something we can't explain, even if the word meaning changed a little bit, that's what a monster is. Something we can't explain.

 

And when you judge someone that eradicated thousands of people, it's much easier to say that "he's done that because he's a monster", it's easier to say that he's not human and that we can kill him.

 

But some people worked on this, I'll just give some names and you do what you want with them : Hannah Arendt, Milgram's experiment. Recent experiments about the Milgram thesis showed that the big majority of people are capable of killing someone without even wanting it. It would take long to explain it here, but if you are interested in this, you can read about the milgram experiment, knowing that recent experiments showed it can be even worse now("Jeu de la Mort", it's French, but you may find translations).

Everybody can do atrocities when they are told to do so(and gradually brought into doing it) by an entity they consider to be trusted/[...](looking for a word here...an entity that you consider as to be trusted and that you think can't be wrong): TV, Science.., and it requires the strongest of minds and values to be able to fight against such an entity.

 

Some people are insane, and unfortunately, we can't do much but trying to heal them. But they're not all monsters, and killing them because one thinks they are is just blind judging.

 

Capital punishment isn't necessarily wrong, but it needs to be studied deepier than simply thinking "they are monsters and they should die".

Edited February 27, 2015 by ConcorDisparate

[Invincible 2,090]

@@ConcorDisparate, Just because you can't explain it doesn't mean you can't deal with the problem it poses. I think i should have added that if you could indicate which people are beyond help then it's an entirely viable solution. Execution on a whim isn't justified, it's paranoia. But i believe that, execution when you can prove that this individual can and will inflict pain on others he comes in contact with regardless of the quality of therapy or consultation they receive on the other hand, is.

 

I'm uncertain whether it could truly apply to what you've described in the second paragraph; as you said, it requires strong, stable minds to avoid brainwashing. Evidently, the rise of the Nazi party proves you can drive masses to do horrible things. Even nowadays these concepts can be seen in ISIS.

 

If you cannot consider capital punishment as viable, then surely you must have some alternatives to consider, and are equipped to render such alternatives when required.

[Sipenda 66]

I’m very much for it. I’ve seen horrible things in my life.

 

My first experience was while I was at Ft. Hood, TX my Squad leader took his daughter to day care, he got a call about 10 that morning that he needed to come to the emergency room. His Baby sitter had smashed his 3 Yo daughter’s head into the coffee table repeatedly for crying, and subsequently died as a result. (the baby sitter was executed 2 years ago)

 

My second experience was in Iraq where a fellow solder decided he didn’t like us non-Muslim’s invading Iraq and proceeded to start tossing grenades into a tent where people were sleeping and. He then opened fire on the soldiers that started running out of the tent after surviving the grenades.  Lost  a friend that day.  Akbar was executed 3 years ago.   To this day I wish that it had be a Pay Per View event.

 

Yes there are very bad people in this world locking them in a cage gets them out of the way but does nothing to fix the problem, euthanasia fixes the problem..

[Pastel 7,627]

One of the stupidest things ever.

I'm totally against it, no matter what the crime is, taking someone's life is always the worst thing to do, and is a crime itself.