Why?
Forked from "22-year-old...": My thoughts on the Death Penalty
- Thread starter USS Triumphant
- Start date
Why?
Because you can let someone serving a life sentence out when he or she is later exonerated. It's happened many times. Pretty hard to un-execute someone though. The burden of certainty needs to be higher.
I dunno, because they robbed someone of those same comforts?
So we should stoop to the same level as them? I don't think so.
Society is protected by life imprisonment. I see no reason that a blind desire for vengeance should make a killer (executioner) of a law-abiding citizen.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
So we should just say, "It's okay that you murdered a family of 5 and then raped their bodies before stuffing them into a wood chipper, we'll just put you away forever and see to all of your needs."
Fuck that shit.
If society has no use for a person, get rid of them. Nothing is served by keeping them around. It's not like other potential serial killers are going to see, "Gee! Society was so nice to that last guy, I think I'm going to change my tune and raise puppies instead!"
And, again, I'm not advocating for the same DP policies we have now, but I am advocating for a DP policy for the worst of the worst. For the monsters.
Fuck that shit.
If society has no use for a person, get rid of them. Nothing is served by keeping them around. It's not like other potential serial killers are going to see, "Gee! Society was so nice to that last guy, I think I'm going to change my tune and raise puppies instead!"
And, again, I'm not advocating for the same DP policies we have now, but I am advocating for a DP policy for the worst of the worst. For the monsters.
DrummerBoy: Vengeance should NEVER be the basis of public policy. And be careful...society may decide it "has no use" for you at some point, too.
There is a logical argument (however strong or weak) for the death penalty. You aren't making it.
There is a logical argument (however strong or weak) for the death penalty. You aren't making it.
I'm doing nothing to harm society so it has no call or position to make a decision re: my worth or to get rid of me.
Nor am I talking about vengeance -which only the victims/survivors can technically get.
I'm talking about "what is right." It's "not right" -in my mind- to allow a murderous monster to continue sucking air after he's destroyed countless lives both directly and indirectly.
Then go there and pull the trigger (or turn the switch, push the syringe's piston, whatever). People have big mouths about Justice and who deserve to survive and who don't. If it's so abhorrent for you to let those "monsters" live, do the job yourself. Let's see if you like being the executioner.
There goes someone calling folks cowards again, without any real knowledge of the person you're speaking to.
Again, not speaking for DrummerBoy: Personally, I wouldn't do it for vengeance, but so long as I believed that the courts were just, if it were my duty to carry out sentence on people, I'd do it politely and respectfully, and have no qualms about it. (Well, few qualms. I am human, more or less.)
You'll recall, however, that I suggested firing squads earlier in the thread. Aside from cost, there was another reason - no single shooter has to know for certain that it was his or her bullet that carried out the will of the state, and thus justice remains impersonal.
Neither would a lifer in prison.
A lifer in prison has already damaged society, his life -as far as I'm concerned- is forefit.
So, society could deem the same about you to, right? Say you were a smoker, and quit. Society could say that you damaged society because of your history of smoking and say your life is forefit as well. You'd accept that decision as well, right?
You're not this dense, stop acting like it.
There's a vast difference between your scenario and a man who's killed several people.
Smoking is not a crime.
When people get a big mouthful about who deserve to live and who deserve to die, especially in big angry rants like Trekker, it's not surprising when they are asked to put their money when their mouth is.There goes someone calling folks cowards again, without any real knowledge of the person you're speaking to.
When people get a big mouthful about who deserve to live and who deserve to die, especially in big angry rants like Trekker, it's not surprising when they are asked to put their money when their mouth is.There goes someone calling folks cowards again, without any real knowledge of the person you're speaking to.
I don't think it's too illogical or unreasonable to say "if you kill a bunch of people in a vicious manner and you are a evil in-human depraved monster you deserve to die."
I mean, they certainly don't deserve to live.
I don't necessarily disagree, but please put "evil in-human depraved monster that deserves to die" into language that can be made into law and that can be applied in a trial.
Logic has nothing to do with it. Life isn't something you deserve or you don't deserve. Life is something that you have or you don't.
I think that you should only take a human life if by doing so you save another. That include legitimate defence, protection of the weak, and defensive war. Once you start thinking you have the power to take a human life at will, for me it's a problem. That's the only rule I consider logical.
I will just quote: "Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."
When people get a big mouthful about who deserve to live and who deserve to die, especially in big angry rants like Trekker, it's not surprising when they are asked to put their money when their mouth is.There goes someone calling folks cowards again, without any real knowledge of the person you're speaking to.
I don't think it's too illogical or unreasonable to say "if you kill a bunch of people in a vicious manner and you are a evil in-human depraved monster you deserve to die."
I mean, they certainly don't deserve to live.
And if we find out 10 years later that he didn't do it? The courts have made murderers of us all.
Not a chance I am willing to take. I'll let 1000 mass-murders live their lives in solitary (where they can hurt no one) before I'll take the chance of killing an innocent man.
I take issue with the concept that anyone "deserves" to die. Who makes that distinction?
Similar threads
