- Download PDF
74 Answers | Add Yours
I am of the belief that the universe is deterministic, and in a deterministic world man is philosophically absolved of all personal responsibility. I essentially believe that choice is merely an elaborate illusion that is the result of our self-awareness of the mechanism. At the end of the day, we have no control; no choice.
In theory I do agree with the death penalty, but not on the basis that some people deserve to die. Deserve is a construct of our illusion of personal responsibilty. On a purely theoretical level it is logical to remove from a society those that use of it, but do not contribute to it. Why pay money to keep someone in prision indefinitely? However, as soon as theory meets reality this all starts to break down.
Our justice system is not devoid of flaws, and in reality it is quite imporbable to prove with no margin of error that the person in question commited the crime in question. A system in which the guilty are condemened to death needs to be a system that works flawlessly. This is not the case.
A more realistic solution is to finely tune our psychological understanding to the point of the ability to actually rehabilitate, instead of merely incarcirating.
Mmmm, but God's a bit schizophrenic, isn't he? Cos then he says, "Thou shalt not kill", so really it's all a bit confusing. Does God know what he wants?
Besides which, (and this is just a teensy-weensy little nit-picking quibble) Isn't The Justice System supposed to be separate from Religion? What has the phantom dictation of an ancient, desert-nomad's imaginary friend got to do with the modern pursuit of justice? Didn't we all agree in The Constitution that religious guidelines have squit to do with The Law?
Using the Bible to justify the Death Penalty is a bit like using chocolate to cure alcoholism. It doesn't make sense. You cannot pick and choose random phrases from the Bible. It is quoting out of context. It does not take into account whom the writer was addressing and what wrongs were happening.
And, although our government is separate from religion, many laws have their foundation in religion. Do not murder, do not take what is not yours. Maybe I call it religion, maybe you call it social mores. Either way. You cannot dismiss that religion has had an impact on our laws.
I am very much opposed to the death penalty, but not for reasons of it not being just.
First, it's been applied unfairly in our society. Too many innocent people have been on death row and too many of them were people with out adequate representation. Once done, killing a person can not be undone. It has also not been applied fairly across race boundaries.
But more than that, I truly believe it's not harsh enough for some people. I'd much rather that they live their lives in a prison cell with no visitors and a life sentence that means life without parole.
The really good news about more states pushing for life without parole versus the death penalty is that the juries are more likely to convict. Convict lives in terror for the rest of their life or goes crazy in solitaire, society doesn't spend 3 million on appeals and is rid of monster.
An ancient tenet of the criminal justice system was "an eye for an eye". Retribution and "payback" are ingrained into the psyche. Most authorities agree that the death penalty has absolutely no detterent effect on criminality.
Many years ago two lawyers, Sheck and Neufield, started what they call the "Innocence Project". Law students look at cases in which the defendant was sentenced to death, they re-examine these cases and review the evidence and so forth. I can't recall the exact number, but they have basically saved Dozens of convicted felons from death because they proved the suspect was innocent!!!!!
This is my fear... what if we execute someone who is in fact innocent???
It's not a matter of believing in it. Of course, I believe in it because it does happen. What you need to ask is whether I approve of the death penalty. My answer to that is yes. I believe that there are crimes that are so heinous that the persons who committed them deserve to forfeit their lives. Just this week there was a news story about a 4-year-old boy who was on a court-ordered visit with his mother and was beaten to death by his stepfather. The boy had begged his father not to send him to his mother, but the father had no choice. Does that stepfather deserve to live?
Well, it actually depends on the crime and the criminal.. we could not simply propose a solid rule and decide who and who is not excuted... Like many of yoy said, there are people deserve to die and life in preson would not deter some crominal from doing a crime, and if we simply rule the death penalty out there will be more crime. Thios way criminal will think twice before doing their crime...
Do you believe in the death penalty? I personally think it is wrong.
do you belive in the death penalty, I personally think it is wrong
Perhaps the question that should be asked is whether anybody has the right to deprive another human being of their life! Is it any more wrong for someone to willfully and wantonly kill someone than for us to make that person pay for their crime by the death penalty? Would it be right for a murderer to expect to not have to pay for their crime by maybe being deprived of their own life as payment? Isn't it cruel to the surviving members of the deceased to have to watch that person who robbed them of their loved one keep on living? Do I believe in the death penalty? Yes, I do but allow others their own opinions in the matter.
I agree with #4 and disagree with #5. The death penalty, with all its appeals, legal fees, and execution room preparation, is much more expensive than keeping an inmate in prison for life.
Not to mention that the death penalty is immoral. Revenge is an ancient and base notion. It does not breed the ethical, moral, or religious ideals that we claim to uphold in any of our major religions.
It find the death penalty decidedly un-American. Again, it does not promote the democratic ideals and freedoms that we echo in the chambers of our courtroom, Congress, or Houses. It is an inhumane form of torture.
Although I agree with the above individuals who suggest that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I believe the death penalty should be reserved for only the most heinous and horrific of crimes. Unfortunately, there are rare instances when the only way to serve justice is to permanently remove the offender.
In reply to Post 21:
"There has never been any study which could prove the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent, quite the contrary, in fact." I went to a nearby university library to check out this statement. WRONG. There have been many studies which prove the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent. There is one recent study that calls them into question. I gave it a cursory read, and even in that brief review, I found a glaring error in its methodology: it counted all murders whether or not they were premeditated. Deterrence can only work when a person thinks. Deterrence can not affect one who kills in the heat of passion, as when he is drunk and another drunk insults his culture, or his mother, and he reacts without thought.
"The social work done with murderers, psychos, sociopaths and serious criminals suggests that they are not deterred from violent crime by the thought of severe punishment." If the murder committed his murder in a jurisdiction which inflicts a swift and sure death penalty for murder, then it is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer, that he was not deterred by the death penalty: he has been convicted of it; he is in prison for it. I was speaking of all those who are not in prison and cannot be worked with by social workers because they were deterred by the death penalty from committing a murder. Of those who did commit murder, a question must be asked: Did they commit it in a jurisdiction which actually carries out the death penalty, or one which either has it on the books and does not enforce it, or allows appeals running for many years, or enforces it or not much as a lottery drawing? What does not happen cannot be a deterrent. What is only talked about cannot deter.
If only one murder victim can be saved by the death penalty, how can a healthy society let silly, sick, sentimentality condemn that person to death by saving from death the convicted murderer?
As a young boy, I was captivated by a local news story of a murder that occurred in my family’s small town. A man was convicted and sentenced to death.
Approximately, twenty years later the convicted killer is still appealing his death sentence and as a spectator of the news stories it is interesting to see how new arguments about the lack of modern forensic science practices in the initial investigation surface. Essentially, we hear arguments along the lines of this, “If the investigation would have occurred today…”
As forensic science continues to develop this becomes a never-ending argument. The death penalty in this case has been incredibly costly and long. In my opinion, too long. The death penalty should be carried out in a much swifter and efficient nature if it is to continue.
Post 19 misses the point. The death penalty is not given for revenge. The death penalty is given for the protection of society and the preservation of civilization. The person who has already committed murder is relatively unimportant. The people who will commit murder if not presented with a sufficient deterrent are important. So is it important to save the potential victims of these potential murderers. The death penalty is the strongest deterrent that can be given to these potential murderers. Think for a moment what sort of character it would take to be able to commit murder, then realize that the deterrent must be strong.
It is an uncivilized, or a less civilized, government that fails to use this way of protecting its civilization, its society, and its citizens.
It is a sort of sick sentimentality that gives more consideration for the criminal than for the victim. Even if the criminal was an abused child and can act no other way than to commit crimes, he is still a threat to society. It is society and civilization that must be protected, not just the individual victim and much less the individual criminal. There are other potential criminals among the population, that were abused as children, and as a charity to those others, in order to help them resist a life of crime, to protect them from the executioner, the criminal already known to be guilty should be executed so that the example will deter those others.
I think that as long as it is justifiable there is no reason why I need to use my already utra taxed tax dollars to offer a murderer or rapist 3 meals a day, and a roof over their heads.
Like the saying says, the less dogs, the less fleas. And some of these reptiles who kill children or hurt them (for example) need not to be stealing my oxygen here on Planet Earth.
I, too, am agains the death penalty. I think it is an embarrassment that the USA is listed alongside countries such as China and Iran in the list of countries that still use capital punishment.
Facts prove it costs more to execute a prisoner (time on death row, appeals process) than it does to house them for life.
Sure, alive is, in some ways, better than dead, but only if "alive" means truly living. If one thinks that life in prison is better than death, perhaps people should listen to those who've been there. Freedom is just outside the door, a door you can never leave.
I would much rather a criminal sit and rot in jail than be "free" via death.
We’ve answered 324,552 questions. We can answer yours, too.Ask a question