COMMENTS:
yes
Yes. I think the person should have access to decent legal representation, and as many retrials as is reasonable. And they should string it out for years to make sure all the evidence comes out.
Because of the permanence of the sentence it should be a very serious punishment, not to be handed out lightly. But it should remain an option.
No!!! Two wrongs dont make a right. Mureder is murder be that at the hands of a phycho on the streets or the government, there is NO difference!!!
I think some prisoner's should get to choose. Criminals like child molesters who would probably get their asses kicked and raped might prefer to die than endure 50 years of that.
Yes. For those that are actually guilty. There are some who, due to the vile and violent extent of their crimes, should not be allowed to live. I see no purpose what so ever in their existance.
State Murder is still murder, they say a nation is defined by its penal system.
I do believe that life should mean life and there be no possibility of parole.
No. It serves no purpose other than vengeance.
by zig on Sun Dec 11, 05 10:26am
[+]
On this subject,
I badly needed but didn't get, the opportunity to create a custom response.
I was going to qualify a Yes response
tempered by " in clear-cut cases".
Anytime there's some reason for doubt,
such a case might be delayed,postponed.
But for guys caught red-handed,
and/or who CONFESS,
and/or who want to die,
I say we cull the sp., dude.
no
I agree with herzog's position on the matter: the death penalty should be a last resort, as many appeals as possible should be given, and every possibility for clemency made available. However, it should not be removed entirely from the table as a possible punishment, but only for the most heinous crimes.
If done dispassionately and not in the heat of the moment, it serves as a means of retribution by the state and I do think it offers some deterrent value.
Call me cold but I think some people don't deserve to live. Some crimes are so heinous... If a person willingly forfeits their humanity, why treat them differently than the animals we routinely slaughter.
No.
Taking someone elses life is always inexcusable for example: murder, death penalty, dropping bombs on civilians "by accident".
It's strange to think that those, usually right wing, individuals who love to spout on about how "uncivilised" or "barbaric" some cultures, races or religions are seem to be oblivious to the horrendously hypocritical stance they take when advocating the death penalty and other such wonders (yeah! owning a gun sure will help to lower the number of people killed with guns!).
It makes you wonder if these idiots stop to think about anything at all.
Widehead: executing a woman by stoning for being raped is not the same as giving someone a fair and exhaustive trial for killing another person, then giving him the death penalty.
That you try to equate the two just makes you look silly.
And btw, one of the ideas behind firearms is that they'll reduce the rate of murders, not deaths. Killing in selfdefense is not a problem, killing just for the hell of it is. Take two scenarios, A) a person breaks into your house and kills you, and B) a person breaks into a house with the intent to commit murder and is killed by the homeowner. The death rate is the same in both scenarios, so which one is preferable?
I waver. I understand killing a murderer, but 1) it costs more taxpayer money to execute someone than to keep someone in prison for life, and 2) there have been cases in recent history where death-row inmates (and in fact the executed) were found to be innocent. Plus, it doesn't seem to be a deterrent. Also, it punishes the family of the murderer, which has probably suffered enough already. So all in all, I lean toward no. But if we ARE going to use it, we need to find a way to make it a deterrent for others, whether that be making it public or what, and there MUST (I cannot emphasize "must" enough) be DNA evidence that the person is guilty of the murder, along with a clear motive.
I agree with ZIG & minni.
I see where you are coming from Minni, however, one could argue that killing a vile murderer is not wrong.
Herzog: it doesn't matter why someone is being executed or how they meet their end - it is always wrong.
Again, by saying I am equating the death penalty for being raped with that for being a murderer is simply wrong and only serves to cloud the issue.
However "civilised" (or not) a nation is, and for whatever crimes they deem fit to punish with death, they will always be in the wrong when they chose to execute someone.
As for the gun issue, the choices you give are made irrelevant if no one had a gun and if they secured their property better. There is always a more simple, better solution than to owning a gun. And killing someone with it.
ceejjj your sentance says it all, the use of the death penalty also makes the state "vile murderes" as you put it, there really is no difference, murder is murder whoever commits it and I for one am totally against it.
Ah so now why the sentence is put in place is irrelevent, it is only the sentence itself that matters.
So in your opinion arresting someone for speaking out against the government and sending them to jail for 15 years is the same as sentencing someone to 15 years for molesting a child.
Interesting.
To me the process and crime do have some bearing on the deserved punishment. But that's just my opinion.
And as for your gun argument, an ideal scenario would be no crime, but that isn't going to happen. So we should try to make do with the situation as it is, not as we wish it were.
And answer my question, A or B?
"Ah so now why the sentence is put in place is irrelevent, it is only the sentence itself that matters."
I said that if the sentence is death it is always wrong whatever the crime.
"So in your opinion arresting someone for speaking out against the government and sending them to jail for 15 years is the same as sentencing someone to 15 years for molesting a child."
This doesn't bear any relation at all to what I said. Again you simply try to cloud the issue.
The length of time given for a custodial sentence is not the issue we are discussing here and you know it.
My point is that the death penalty is morally wrong and should never be used.
In response to the question, which incidentally is off topic (my fault): B.
Doesn't weaken my agument one bit. As I said there are better, cheaper, easier and more intelligent ways of protecting yourself than by having a firearm in your house. For example: lock your dorrs and windows, buy a security alarm and security lights, buy a dog etc etc etc.
Ok, so you at least can admit that it's better for a murderer to die than an innocent bystander. That's a good first step for you.
Now, why is it ok for someone to kill in self defense in the situation I have outlined? Killing is always wrong, so why are you being inconsistent?
You are such a coniving, manipulative slimeball sometimes, herzog.
"Now, why is it ok for someone to kill in self defense in the situation I have outlined? Killing is always wrong, so why are you being inconsistent?"
by herzog on Dec 13, 2005 7:36am
Your question asked whether I would prefer to be killed by an intruder or would I prefer if I killed the intruder in self-defence.
Of course not being killed is preferable to being killed! Unfortunately that has absolutely nothing to do with this argument at all.
Of course killing is always wrong, even in self-defense, but that doesn't make my sense of self preservation any less strong.
So, in answer to your latest irrelevant and off topic question:
I am not being inconsistent. Killing is always wrong.
Almost all modernized countries have decided to bear the burden of the moral highground, except for Japan, South Korea, U.S.A. The rest are either developing nations (many under military rule) or dictatorships.
Now, some may find it unfair that a murderer can truly pay for his/her crime by spending 25+ years in prison. But to many people in the civilized world, the death penalty is a sign of state vengeance. If the state is capable of killing someone convicted of murder, how can anyone say that convicting a man who is innocent is "the unfortunate but necessary price we have to pay"?
'Of course killing is always wrong, even in self-defense, but that doesn't make my sense of self preservation any less strong.'
So you admit to being a hypocrit. Killing is wrong, in all cases, unless it's your ass on the line.
Wrong again Herzog.
Sure my self preservation would probably mean I would fight for my life, maybe kill my attacker (if I was able) but did I say I was in the right?
Nope, I would well and truly be in the wrong!
Why you feel the need to put words into other peoples mouths is beyond me.
Maybe its because you have no real reply to sensible, well thought out, reasoned arguments.
No on the basis that once carried out there is no allowance for human error. If the person did eventually proove to be innocent what happens ... reanimation?
|
