| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Is the death penatly a just law? |
| Yes |
|
50% |
[ 10 ] |
| No |
|
50% |
[ 10 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 20 |
|
| Author |
Message |
redraiderdude187
The Madcap Laugher
Joined: 19 Jan 2007
Posts: 1152
Local time: 7:54 AM
Location: Houston, Texas
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 11:50 am Post subject: Death Penalty: Just or Unjust? |
  |
|
What do you think? This is a paper that I had to do in my English class, and I thought it would be interesting to share.
While most may think that the death penalty delivers justice in the surest manner, the law remains as an inhumane remnant of a more barbaric era, and reflects poorly not only on our government, but on the permissiveness of our population en bloc. While many may argue, “If one kills another, then doesn’t he/she deserve to die in the first place?”; even though this seems as a coherent thought pattern on the surface, but the overall logic of the statement is flawed. (Counter-Argument) For instance, if a person stole from another, would the government serve justice correctly if they stole from the thief? The obvious answer in this situation is “no.” Therefore if the same logic applied comprehensively, then how does one justify the death penalty? (Syllogism) The American justice system does not function in this manner and never has; America does not rely on Levitical law to validate our own, therefore “an eye for an eye” does not apply in this situation. America does not cut off a thief’s hand; America does not sexually assault those who sexually assault others, and America does not assault those who assault others. (Anaphora) The very premises of these punishments seem laughable, yet the logic behind the death penalty is one and the same. Others may argue that certain grievous crimes deserve the death penalty, but if a person commits a crime or crimes so grievous such as serial murder, are they not to some level, psychotically insane? Therefore, how can our government put a person to death who does not think sanely? Does this person not deserve to be committed to some sort of mental sanatorium? As one may see, the entire argument for this case of the death penalty relies on humans’ ability to show compassion to their fellow man, and the entire process of the death penalty completely suspends the ability for humans to show compassion to each other.
In the past several years, America has continued to assert itself as the foremost nation in civilization, humanity, and politics, yet how can we make this assertion if we remain as one of the only developed nations to keep the death penalty in law. Some may not know this, but every single country in Western Europe has abolished the death penalty along with every country in Latin America besides Guatemala and even Islamic countries such as Turkey and Turkmenistan have abolished the death penalty, yet forty-eight states in the union still use the death penalty as punishment. I think the fact that such poor, undeveloped nations in Central America have done away with this uncivilized, barbaric act, yet the USA still actively uses it in most cases of 1st Degree Murder.(Antithesis) So, if America deems itself the trendsetter in civilization and morals, how can we rationalize using basically state-sponsored killing? These actions do not exemplify a civilized and cultured nation.
The death penalty also leaves no room for the innocence of a defendant; for instance, if a jury convicts someone of murder and the person is given the death penalty, they have only a limited period of time for the appeals process, thus hindering the person’s right to trial. A very sufficient case could be made for this being a complete violation of one’s Constitutional rights. Imagine yourself being complete innocent of a crime, and a judge sentences you to death for a murder you did not commit. How would you feel? Would you feel as if you had been humanely treated by your government? On the other hand, if a judge sentenced you to life in prison, you know you would have a very good chance to prove your innocence in a different trial under an appeal.
Concluding, the outdated barbarism of the death penalty has become completely obsolete in the modern world we live in, and America as a whole should follow every other moderately advanced nation, and abolish this terrible act.
_________________
Above the hive, beyond the lynch mob, where two and two always make four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
Specus_Meretricis
Peddler of Bombast
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 2754
Local time: 8:54 AM
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No. Because if just one innocent person has died on death row (and I have no doubt there has been, considering how many have been freed over DNA evidence), then everything our justice system is suppose to stand for is a sham.
More than anything, I would love to see child-killing monsters suffer and die, but I cannot come to terms with how we sentence anyone to death.
Stop locking up ever guy with a bag of weed in his trunk and make room for these "special" cases to be housed for life. No parole, no visitations, no society. That almost seems more cruel than killing them, and very justified.
_________________
Fuck you bitch!!! I told you the asparagus is in the freezer! - William Shatner
What do you call someone that doesn't laugh at asparagus jokes? A human being. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kmisho
Stochastic
Joined: 05 Dec 2005
Posts: 4603
Local time: 10:54 PM
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Specus_Meretricis wrote: | No. Because if just one innocent person has died on death row (and I have no doubt there has been, considering how many have been freed over DNA evidence), then everything our justice system is suppose to stand for is a sham.
More than anything, I would love to see child-killing monsters suffer and die, but I cannot come to terms with how we sentence anyone to death.
Stop locking up ever guy with a bag of weed in his trunk and make room for these "special" cases to be housed for life. No parole, no visitations, no society. That almost seems more cruel than killing them, and very justified. |
Even if I had nothing against the death penalty per se, I would have grave doubts about our ability to implement it. I am unable to come up with a way to think of the death penalty as anything but revenge. And at one time I was pretty close to this. I had a reason to actually think about it, not just as an armchair exercize in ethical reasoning.
As far as serial killers, I think a more interesting answer than the moral one about them being mentally deranged is that mass killers of any kind are an extreme aberration and they should be studied. MRI's don't work very well on dead people.
_________________
K Michau
Now this religion happens to prevail/Until by that one it is overthrown/Because men dare not live with men alone/But always with another fairy tale.
al-Ma'arri, Syrian Poet, died 1057
You deny the existence of 999 alleged Gods. I merely deny one more - yours.
John MacKinnon Robertson, "Godism" 1896
"Never is a long time." Robert Fripp, 1998
Poetry, Art, Music |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Citizen X
Forum Plebian
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 185
Local time: 7:55 AM
Location: Indiana
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:53 pm Post subject: Re: Death Penalty: Just or Unjust? |
|
|
| redraiderdude187 wrote: | | What do you think? |
I am 100% in favor of the death penalty, but not in its current legislative form.
| redraiderdude187 wrote: | | While most may think that the death penalty delivers justice in the surest manner, the law remains as an inhumane remnant of a more barbaric era, and reflects poorly not only on our government, but on the permissiveness of our population en bloc. While many may argue, “If one kills another, then doesn’t he/she deserve to die in the first place?”; even though this seems as a coherent thought pattern on the surface, but the overall logic of the statement is flawed. (Counter-Argument) For instance, if a person stole from another, would the government serve justice correctly if they stole from the thief? The obvious answer in this situation is “no.” Therefore if the same logic applied comprehensively, then how does one justify the death penalty? |
Poor counter argument. Stealing one's "things" is much different than taking one's life. Food, cars, money, jewelry, things, all may be replaced. Life may not be replaced. Life is lost in many different ways, but when one feels obliged to take another's life, and the evidence suggests that the act was pre-meditated, was self gratifying, and was not provoked, what right should that individual have to continue their existence? I do not believe that killing someone automatically makes you a candidate for the death penalty, and I do not believe that an individual found guilty of murder based solely on circumstantial evidence should be put to death. But I do believe that individuals such as Dahmer and Gacy, in which there is practically 0 doubt that they committed the crime, should be put to death immediately after being found guilty in a court of law.
| redraiderdude187 wrote: | | Others may argue that certain grievous crimes deserve the death penalty, but if a person commits a crime or crimes so grievous such as serial murder, are they not to some level, psychotically insane? Therefore, how can our government put a person to death who does not think sanely? Does this person not deserve to be committed to some sort of mental sanatorium? As one may see, the entire argument for this case of the death penalty relies on humans’ ability to show compassion to their fellow man, and the entire process of the death penalty completely suspends the ability for humans to show compassion to each other. |
Do you give respect to every individual you meet, or does someone have to earn your respect? I'm not trying to say that everyone does not deserve a little compassion, but to a certain degree, compassion should also be earned. I have compassion for all of those starving kids that I used to see on TV. I have compassion for individuals brought up in poverty that have such a difficult time just putting food on their table and a roof over their head. In fact, I have compassion for most every living thing on this planet (except mosquitos). But when an individual turns violent, again, depending on the circumstances behind their violence (which is why we have a court of law), I begin to lose my compassion.
| redraiderdude187 wrote: | | So, if America deems itself the trendsetter in civilization and morals, how can we rationalize using basically state-sponsored killing? These actions do not exemplify a civilized and cultured nation. |
I disagree. Putting individuals to death, such as Dahmer and Gacy, does 2 things: first, it removes an individual from existence that was a danger to society; and second, it humanely removes this individual from existence as opposed to barbaricly keeping them behind bars for their entire life, which in many cases is decades. Personally, if I was ever found guilty of murder, I would much rather be put to death than to live a long life behind bars. The latter, in my opinion, is much more barbaric.
| redraiderdude187 wrote: | | The death penalty also leaves no room for the innocence of a defendant; for instance, if a jury convicts someone of murder and the person is given the death penalty, they have only a limited period of time for the appeals process, thus hindering the person’s right to trial. A very sufficient case could be made for this being a complete violation of one’s Constitutional rights. Imagine yourself being complete innocent of a crime, and a judge sentences you to death for a murder you did not commit. How would you feel? Would you feel as if you had been humanely treated by your government? On the other hand, if a judge sentenced you to life in prison, you know you would have a very good chance to prove your innocence in a different trial under an appeal. |
This is the real argument, which is why I disagree with the death penalty in its current state. I believe the law should be "updated" so as to refute certain circumstances from being punishable by death.
Last year, my cousin was put to death in Indiana. He had broken into an 82 year old womans house to get some money. When he realized she was there, he knocked her down, and stomped her to death. He then caught the house on fire and fled the scene. He later completely confessed to this crime, although he always suggested that there was someone with him at the time. He had very little remorse for this crime for nearly a decade. It wasn't until he found Jesus that he suddenly had remorse for stomping this poor woman to death.
I have compassion for the woman he killed. I have compassion for her family. I have compassion for my uncle and aunt who had to live with the fact that their son killed a woman so brutally, and that they had to relive this horrible moment everytime the anniversiary of the death reappeared and the newspaper wrote about the killing again. I have compassion for my other cousins who had to live with the fact that their brother killed a woman so brutally. Do I have compassion for my cousin who did the killing? It took time, but yes, I do have compassion for him. But I still strongly believe that he deserved the death penalty. No honest, hard working, individual deserves to have their life taken from them in such a brutal manner. An individual such as my cousin, deserved to be completely removed from society for the rest of his life, and hold the opinion that once he committed such a heinous act, he forfeited his right to live.
_________________
He flexed his muscles to keep his flock of sheep in line
He made a virus that would kill off all the swine
His perfect kingdom of killing, suffering and pain
Demands devotion, atrocities done in his name |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Friend
thinking
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 796
Local time: 10:55 PM
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The death penalty is a waste of funding over pointless revenge. Instead of being killed off, people on death row should be subjects for scientific study, not only in a preventative psychological sense to find what leads one to such action, but also in a medical research sense where they become candidates for studies that result in medical knowledge that goes back to help the society these criminals hurt with their actions. Some studies the scientific community cannot embark on, because it's unethical to test human candidates. Testing death penalty candidates instead I think would be a win/win ethical situation for all parties involved. Even something as simple as organ transplantation to people who need them would be many orders better that what is currently done. Simply charring, or poisoning the body serves no purpose other than that of simple-minded self-serving wasteful pride, and that's not considering the money wasted on maintaining these criminals until the day they are killed.
Last edited by Friend on Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:27 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sjc
P.I.T.A.
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 1603
Local time: 8:55 AM
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The death penalty has never been an affective deterrent to others, in fact from what I've seen it is more of an incentive to murder. If you have nothing to lose than take as many with you as possible. A long prison sentence is much more of a real deterrent.
_________________
America is not worth the effort anymore. RIP. It was suicide. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moloth
Coin Operated Boy
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 23060
Local time: 7:55 AM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
perhaps the Death penalty is not meant to be purely a deterrent. perhaps its also used to remove, permanently, those in society who are beyond rehabilitation and leaving them alive is only risking the lives of the innocent.
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
www.Moloth.com
Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sjc
P.I.T.A.
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 1603
Local time: 8:55 AM
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Friend wrote: | | The death penalty is a waste of funding over pointless revenge. Instead of being killed off, people on death row should subjects for scientific study, not only in a preventative psychological sense to find what leads one to such action, but also in a medical research sense where they become candidates for studies that result in medical knowledge that goes back to help the society these criminals hurt with their actions. Some studies the scientific community cannot embark on, because it's unethical to test human candidates. Testing death penalty candidates instead I think would be a win/win ethical situation for all parties involved. Even something as simple as organ transplantation to people who need them would be many orders better that what is currently done. Simply charring, or poisoning the body serves no purpose other than that of simple-minded self-serving wasteful pride, and that's not considering the money wasted on maintaining these criminals until the day they are killed. |
Is that what you believe, Dr. Mengele?
_________________
America is not worth the effort anymore. RIP. It was suicide. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sjc
P.I.T.A.
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 1603
Local time: 8:55 AM
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Moloth wrote: | | perhaps the Death penalty is not meant to be purely a deterrent. perhaps its also used to remove, permanently, those in society who are beyond rehabilitation and leaving them alive is only risking the lives of the innocent. |
Well, has the murder rate gone down more in the places that have it than in the places that don't?
The death penalty certainly can't serve as a punishment since one has to be alive to be punished. Besides, I think that the death penalty is letting the murderer off too easily. The notion of putting them to death as punishment is actually religious in nature so that they will go before god and be judged and then sent to hell for the "real" punishment.
_________________
America is not worth the effort anymore. RIP. It was suicide.
Last edited by sjc on Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:36 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
not_a_theist
Forum Texan
Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 2040
Local time: 6:55 AM
Location: H-town
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I, like Bill Maher likes to say, am equal opportunity for death.
Pro death penalty, pro choice (for abortion).
| Citizen X wrote: |
Last year, my cousin was put to death in Indiana. He had broken into an 82 year old womans house to get some money. When he realized she was there, he knocked her down, and stomped her to death. He then caught the house on fire and fled the scene. He later completely confessed to this crime, although he always suggested that there was someone with him at the time. He had very little remorse for this crime for nearly a decade. It wasn't until he found Jesus that he suddenly had remorse for stomping this poor woman to death.
I have compassion for the woman he killed. I have compassion for her family. I have compassion for my uncle and aunt who had to live with the fact that their son killed a woman so brutally, and that they had to relive this horrible moment everytime the anniversiary of the death reappeared and the newspaper wrote about the killing again. I have compassion for my other cousins who had to live with the fact that their brother killed a woman so brutally. Do I have compassion for my cousin who did the killing? It took time, but yes, I do have compassion for him. But I still strongly believe that he deserved the death penalty. No honest, hard working, individual deserves to have their life taken from them in such a brutal manner. An individual such as my cousin, deserved to be completely removed from society for the rest of his life, and hold the opinion that once he committed such a heinous act, he forfeited his right to live. |
That is very intellectually honest of you, by not letting personal emotions affect your position on the topic. And although I have not experienced a similiar situation I believe I would have your same sentiments if I ever do.
_________________
A liberal is a conservative who has been arrested. A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sjc
P.I.T.A.
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 1603
Local time: 8:55 AM
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| not_a_theist wrote: | I, like Bill Maher likes to say, am equal opportunity for death.
Pro death penalty, pro choice (for abortion).
| Citizen X wrote: |
Last year, my cousin was put to death in Indiana. He had broken into an 82 year old womans house to get some money. When he realized she was there, he knocked her down, and stomped her to death. He then caught the house on fire and fled the scene. He later completely confessed to this crime, although he always suggested that there was someone with him at the time. He had very little remorse for this crime for nearly a decade. It wasn't until he found Jesus that he suddenly had remorse for stomping this poor woman to death.
I have compassion for the woman he killed. I have compassion for her family. I have compassion for my uncle and aunt who had to live with the fact that their son killed a woman so brutally, and that they had to relive this horrible moment everytime the anniversiary of the death reappeared and the newspaper wrote about the killing again. I have compassion for my other cousins who had to live with the fact that their brother killed a woman so brutally. Do I have compassion for my cousin who did the killing? It took time, but yes, I do have compassion for him. But I still strongly believe that he deserved the death penalty. No honest, hard working, individual deserves to have their life taken from them in such a brutal manner. An individual such as my cousin, deserved to be completely removed from society for the rest of his life, and hold the opinion that once he committed such a heinous act, he forfeited his right to live. |
That is very intellectually honest of you, by not letting personal emotions affect your position on the topic. And although I have not experienced a similiar situation I believe I would have your same sentiments if I ever do. |
Since he "found" Jesus he is forgiven for ALL of his sins and thus gets to go to heaven and not be punished at all. That's the loophole.....
_________________
America is not worth the effort anymore. RIP. It was suicide. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sjc
P.I.T.A.
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 1603
Local time: 8:55 AM
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The last execution in Canada was when an innocent man was hung. After this was found out there was a nation wide vote on whether to keep the death penalty or not. The overwhelming result was to do away with it. That's the power of a democracy over a republic.
_________________
America is not worth the effort anymore. RIP. It was suicide. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Friend
thinking
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 796
Local time: 10:55 PM
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sjc wrote: | | Is that what you believe, Dr. Mengele? |
| Fallacy Files wrote: | The Hitler Card is often combined with other fallacies, for instance, a weak analogy between an opponent and Hitler, or between the opposition political group and the Nazis. A related form of fallacious analogy is that which compares an opposition's actions with the Holocaust. This is a form of the ad Nazium fallacy because it casts the opposition in the role of Nazi. Not only do such arguments assign guilt by association, but the analogy used to link the opposition's actions with the Holocaust may be superficial or question-begging.
The Hitler Card |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sjc
P.I.T.A.
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 1603
Local time: 8:55 AM
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Friend wrote: | | sjc wrote: | | Is that what you believe, Dr. Mengele? |
| Fallacy Files wrote: | The Hitler Card is often combined with other fallacies, for instance, a weak analogy between an opponent and Hitler, or between the opposition political group and the Nazis. A related form of fallacious analogy is that which compares an opposition's actions with the Holocaust. This is a form of the ad Nazium fallacy because it casts the opposition in the role of Nazi. Not only do such arguments assign guilt by association, but the analogy used to link the opposition's actions with the Holocaust may be superficial or question-begging.
The Hitler Card |
|
Who said anything about Hitler or even the Nazis? Mengele was a monster in his own right apart from all of them and is a perfect example of what happens when scientists forget their humanity.
_________________
America is not worth the effort anymore. RIP. It was suicide.
Last edited by sjc on Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:52 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gerard
Old World Shadow
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 3982
Local time: 12:55 PM
Location: Groningen, the Netherlands
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No. It's ultimately an act of cruelty.
Gerard
_________________
The Historical Atlas of Europe
But as man exists in nature, I am not authorized to say that his formation, is above the power of nature.
Paul Henri Thiry Baron d' Holbach, (1723-1789)
Not collecting stamps is my hobby.
Gerard, (1962-*) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
