This is always a topic that sparks conversation: the Death Penalty. The ultimate conviction. It's currently legal in many countries all over the world, not to mention in certain states right here in America.
But should it be? Is it really just for any one society to enforce this? Keep in mine that the proper definition of "just" is "anything that gives each their due."
Like many subjects, this is a topic I can see both ways. Now I want to see what you think.
If you don't want to have any sort of debate over this, just say so and I promise I will not do counter-attacks on any of your points. Debating is sort in my nature now. :-/
i'm not really sure,I mean I quess ita okay to be legalized if the person murderd like 30 people or something,like the saying an eye for an eye,you kill someone and then you get killed!All though it should be legalizled,they kind of have a right to say wether you get sentanced to death or not,the jurry i mean,unless you're inicent then I'm not to sure!
__________________
-I'm a techie,and proud of it-
When Every life meet's another life, Something will be born-Qouted by the Shinno Champion Cynthia
[Hmm...to legalize or not to legalize? That is the question...]
[Heh...Okay, all weird remarks aside, I actually have something to say about this topic.]
[When people commit serious crimes that spill the blood of the innocent, (murder, homicide, assassinations), their punishment is severe. A Life Sentence, perhaps...or, as we all know, a chance of getting the Death Penalty.]
[The first thing that comes to the victims' family members' minds is this: REVENGE. Or maybe JUSTICE...or some other virtue, heck, I do not know.]
[Anyway, they want to see the murderer's blood spill. They want to end the pain in their hearts; the pain that their loved one who was killed will never be seen again, and that the man/woman responsible for that pain should have their life cut short as well.]
[Taking the life of any living creature (innocent or not) is wrong; just because your loved one was killed does not make it right to take the life of another, even if they caused your loved one's life to end shortly.]
[When we experience this type of loss, we want the murderer's blood to spill (or splatter, whichever way you look at it), but taking away their life, even though they deserve to not live, makes us no better than the murderer.]
[In our bloodlust to see the death of the murderer, we do not realize that our desire to see the criminal die a horrible, painful death not quite makes us equal to the murderer, but it makes us pretty close to it.]
[This is just my view, though. Not sure if anyone else feels the same about this...]
[Did you even READ what I posted? I stated that it almost makes us as bad as the murderer if we seek bloodlust and revenge.]
[If killing was fine and dandy with everyone, rotting corpses would be all over the place. I am not strictly religious, but I do believe in honor and good deeds.]
[Death Sentence: Ohnoes, dead.]
[Life Sentence: Stuck in prison/jail until dead.]
[I would think Life Sentence is a severe punishment; the criminal is forever shunned by the world around them and they have to live with the fact that blood is still on their hands, even if the fact that they killed an innocent person/creature does not affect them.]
[Death is the easy way out, and the family of the victim gets pleasure in the blood splatter of the murderer...also, they get a sense of justice.]
I do want to make sure you understand my questions are merely supposed to challenge you.
Ok, that can explain why the logic of tooth for a tooth is faulted, but you say the death penalty is the easy way out. So life sentence is harder, so your against the death penalty because its wrong to go down to the murderers level, but you'd prefer we do something WORSE to him.
You say death is the easy way out, and thats wrong, yet your ok with life, which is worse than death.
There would be lots of dead people, but why does that matter? What makes it signifigant?
And why is it bad the family gets pleasure in the blood of the murderer and a sense of justice?
Kenny McCormick wrote:[Death is the easy way out, and the family of the victim gets pleasure in the blood splatter of the murderer.]
Erm, those who get sentenced to death (in America, at least) hardly get their blood splattered. They simply get injected with tranquilizers, get put to sleep, and then are injected with a fatal poison. So yeah, all they do is die in their sleep. It's arguably the best way to go.
Although the main reason why the death penalty is legal in some states in the first place is not because of the "revenge" factor, it's for the safety factor. After all, a criminal certainly can't murder again if they're dead. That's the government's stance on it, anyway.
As it stands right now, Techfan and I pretty much do not have a side to this and Kenny thinks the death penalty is wrong and for that reason probably shouldn't be legalized.
It is now Kenny's job to convince us that the death penalty is, in fact, wrong and shouldn't be used as a just practice.
BUT, theoretically, if I were FOR the death penalty, there are five points I would make.
1.) It's the only way to completely insure that a murderer will never strike again. Indeed, no one could guarantee that a murderer whose life was spared could never potentially kill again.
2.) The death penalty does not devalue human life. A just society cannot sanction the loss of innocent life. For that reason, it already allows its police force to use deadly force when necessary, and to fight in a just war. There are arguably even times when refusal to use deadly force in order protect the lives of innocents would be morally unacceptable. For this reason, it is not enough to say that because state sanctioned killing is wrong that the death penalty is wrong.
If a society chooses not to execute its most dangerous members, it risks these people killing again.
3.) The death penalty is not an inherently discriminatory practice; at least, not to an extent greater than any other form of prosecution.
4.) The death penalty does deter murders. Capital punishment is 100% effective as a deterrent to the criminal being executed; that killer cannot commit any more crimes. As a deterrent to others, it depends on how effectively the death penalty is applied; in the USA where less than 1% of murderers are executed, it is difficult to assess the true effect of deterrence. But for example, a 1985 study done by Stephen K. Layson of the University of North Carolina showed that 1 execution deterred 18 murders Stephen K. Layson, “Homicide and Deterrence: A Reexamination of the United States Time-Series Evidence,” Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 52, No. 1 (1985), pp. 68–89.
5.) The death penalty is much more cost-effective. Opponents of the death penalty prefer to ignore the fact that they themselves are responsible for its high costs, by causing a never-ending succession of appeals. Prisons in many countries are over-crowded and under-funded, and this problem is made worse by life sentences or delayed death sentences for murderers. Why should the taxpayer bear the cost of supporting a murderer for an entire lifetime?
For it: 1)It keeps jail cells free. 2)It makes sure the killers and whatnot never escape to hurt anyone else. 3)Eye for an eye. You steal, get stole from. You rape, you get raped. You kill, you get killed. I fail to see where this makes one as bad as the criminal.
Against it: 1)Is harming another human being NOT cruel and unusual punishment? If an escaped convict rapes a woman, was she NOT cruel and unusually punished for something out of her control- the fact that he'd been locked away with other men? I do consider commiting a crime against someone as such, and this is why I poopoo my own opinion: Why should a bank robber (or worse) live better in a 4X6 square than I do in my entire house? Why shouldn't jails be overcrowded? The (SC) schools are (And I went to the best schools in the upstate, and they were still crowded by 500 people!), so why are they punishing students that are mandated by law to attend when criminals have the right not to do so? Now, cases of mental illness are excused, of course...
__________________
Herr A: We didn't put a Christmas tree up, nothin'. We went to the beach. It was wonderful. BUT... I got in water up to my... crotch area, and when that wave hit ALLLLLLLL my business went running towards my intestinal tract...
(I'll just slip my comment on the bottom here) Its a difficult question,because just like any other legal system the American one can make mistakes and the last thing you wanna do is something that EVERYONE's gonna regret.And there are some one-off 'killers' who arnt actually mindless monsters,some just did it by accident and need something or someone to help them.
But I mean mass killers,cultists and others freako's like that,well there isnt much else to do with them is there except maybe force them to work off their debt,but that would give just as much of a victory wouldnt it? 'I may be working,but you didnt get me!' not to mention a chance to get away.
So I guess its more a question,do you want to be safe or do you wanna be fair? (BUT THAT JUST RAISES FURTHER QUESTIONS!)
__________________
After being hit in the face by mash potatoes"WHAT ARE YOU DOING?!" "Being cute and spontaneous?"
Yes. Legalize it. Though some are innocent, the majority are guilty and deserve to die. Also, this way I won't have to pay taxes to keep a dirty murderer alive and eating as he serves his life sentence in jail.
