Are You For or Against The Death Penalty?

by minimus 264 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Gozz

  Listen, someone hurts anyone in my family and of course I'd want to kill them. However, we hand justice over to a judge and jury so that the matter can be handled with some rationality. Just because someone behaves absolutely appallingly doesn't mean that we have to act in the same way. Violence breeds violence. If it's wrong to kill then it's wrong to kill right across the board.
  

  Englishman.

  Does that include killing in self-defence?
  

  Does that including killing terrorists, even before the terrorists begin to kill at all?

  Er, those Bali bombers, for example, why won't the No Death penalty crowd in the West mount a huge campaign to spare them?

  And, er, Saddam Hussein... will you campaign for him not to be executed if the Iraqi courts find him guilty of killing thousands of Iraqis?

  Are there exeptions at all to the rule?

  The insitence of the No Death Penalty crowd that the "principle" be applied to all cases is one of the weakest points in their argument. Their apparent silence when death as punishment is handed to criminals in States other than in the West, brightly highlights their hypocricy.

  The Bali case is a very good pointer to what can become of many No Death Penalty argumentators when they're touched by the evil of wicked crimes:
  
  

  On 30 April 2003 , the first charges related to the Bali bombings were made against Amrozi bin Haji Nurhasyim, known as Amrozi , for allegedly buying the explosives and the van used in the bombings. On 8 August he was found guilty and sentenced to death. Another participant in the bombing, Imam Samudra, was sentenced to death on 10 September . Amrozi's brother, Ali Imron, who had expressed remorse for his part in the bombing, was sentenced to life imprisonment on 18 September . A fourth accused, Mukhlas, was sentenced to death on 1 October . All those convicted have said they will appeal, and none of the death sentences have yet to be carried out.

  The Australian, US, and many other foreign governments expressed satisfaction with the speed and efficiency with which the Indonesian police and courts dealt with the bombing's primary suspects, despite what they characterized as light sentences. All Australian jurisdictions abolished the death penalty more than 30 years ago, but a poll showed that 55% of Australians approved of the death sentences in the Bali cases. The Australian government said it would not ask Indonesia to refrain from using the death penalty.Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Bali_terrorist_bombing

  Very telling, not so?
  .
• 

  PopeOfEruke

  Gozz,

  the Australian government? That bunch of fascists? Of course they support the death penalty- they would bring it back in in a minute if they could.

  I am on the side of No-Death penalty and I don't think Saddam Hussein or ayone should be executed. Life-long prison for sure for him but I don't agree with killing people. That's what made Saddam the monster he is and I won't stoop to his level.

  Pope
• 

  Mary

  Tetrapod said: um, the death penalty is torture. they'll either fry, or choke, or bleed to death. torture, whether you think it so or not.

  Bullshit...........no one in the States hangs people any more-----usually they're given an injection where it just shuts their body down. That's NOT torture.

  also, self deffense is different from formal state sponsored terrorism. if i have to kill someone to save my own life, or my wife's, then i will. and the law has accomodation for that.

  OK, so you would kill someone to prevent them from killing your life or a family members. In other words, you think that killing in certain situations is fair. So you'd kill someone even though they haven't actually murdered you or your family yet. Fair enough. But what if you don't get there in time? Say they kill your wife or children......Seeing as they have now actually killed, are you trying to tell me that you don't think that the person deserves to die?

  How do you rationalize that? You'd kill someone even though they haven't yet committed murder, but you don't think it's right to kill someone who already has committed murder..........
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  
  I used to say that if there was absolute certainty of guilt and the crime horrible enough, yes. An example would be an admitted serial killer.

  Now I ask myself if it was one of my children who was up against a death sentence, how would I feel?

  Could you honestly support the death penalty if it were you own child who would be executed? Of course only parents or grandparents can really answer this question.

  I wish there were a planet we could send all of them to, the 100% convictions, so they could just terrorize each other. But then if wishes were horses....
• 

  Gozz

  Interesting questions, Mary.

  When discussing with the No-Death penalty crowd, it's perhaps intructive to separate the "Killing-is-killing-and-is-bad-and-shouldn't-ever-be-done-no-matter-what-and-how" from the "killing-is-bad-but-can-be-done-in-self-defence" crowd. Sometimes people're confused where they belong. There're variants of those themes too. To be sure, I know people who've claimed they wouldn't kill someone who is determined to kill them or their family. Some of them consider their assertion to be not just a claim; there are others who'll argue that killing is wrong but would readily suspend that view when their loved ones or themselves are in mortal, fatal danger. Some experience a change of heart when they witness or are touched by very wicked acts of violence.

  If it is accepted by some that the individual can kill in self-defence, how is it that they reason that the State couldn't kill in self defence? A vivid example is when a first or second offender kills again. Events like that show how inept the State has become, and how the innocent irreparably suffer when we let a warped sense of "fundamental rights" dictate how to treat those clearly beyond redemption.

  .
• 

  upside/down

  Could you honestly support the death penalty if it were you own child who would be executed?

  If I felt they deserved it... yes. It would tear me apart...but yes.

  the death penalty is torture

  Whoever said "torture" was "wrong"...for those so deserving (religious people seem very predisposed to this concept)... especially when imitating their "loving gawd"...

  I was pretty pacifist...peaceful...let Gawd sort it out...kinda guy...till my children were molested and my wife decided to try out living like a whore for a year...

  Like I asked the bogus JC that asked my how I could have such "violent" views toward the "christian" perpetrators (ie.brothers), I said I was incapable of "turning the other cheek" this time... they said this proved I WASN'T "CHRISTIAN"....(maybe they're right?)

  Either way... I asked them if they walked into their home from work one day and found some "brother" raping their daughter...what would they do RIGHT THEN...they ALL said the dude would be DEAD! Then they accused me of being disrespectful for asking such a stupid analogy...

  I rested my case...and haven't been back to The Cult since...

  I do however... reserve the death penaltly for only the most heinous of criminals... and pedophiles...ARE in that group (no rehab for you).

  u/d (of the hates the bad guys class)
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  Could you honestly support the death penalty if it were you own child who would be executed?

  If I felt they deserved it... yes. It would tear me apart...but yes.

  You can only know this by actually going through it. And what if your child maintained his/her innocence and you were inclined to believe them? Many people on death row are innocent. Even if you saw your child murder someone, you could not know if you could support the death sentence until you actually were up against it. I have eaten my words too many times. I have found the saying, "never say never' is apt in life about many profound things.

  I will say though that I didn't shed a tear for Bundy or Gasey. And that almost instant karma got Jeffrey Dahmer.
• 

  funkyderek

  There are some very questionable arguments being advanced from both sides of this debate:

  undercover said:

  There are plenty of cases where there is no doubt as to the guilt of the murderer. They were caught in the act, they confessed, etc. In those cases, I'm all for the death penalty.
  
  
  There are also plenty of cases where people are convicted on circumstantial evidence and there is no "smoking gun". In those cases, a life sentance would be better.

  I don't understand how you can think it's OK to imprison someone for life when they may not be guilty. The type of punishment shouldn't depend on the level of certainty. If a person is guilty, they should be punished. If they are innocent, they should not. If we are not sure, then we must treat them as innocent, not lock them up for life.

  Englishman said:

  If it's wrong to kill then it's wrong to kill right across the board.

  It's also wrong to imprison people. If I forcibly restrain you and keep you in a room for years, no matter how well I treat you I am still violating your rights. In civilised society, the state has a monopoly on the use of force. I must not imprison you, no matter what you have done to me, but the state has the right to do so, in order to protect the rights of its citizens. It's not at all obvious that this principle cannot be extended to include the death penalty.

  I'm not entirely sure where i stand on this issue. I lean towards the idea that executing someone serves no real purpose; they can then never repent, and we can learn nothing from them. On the other hand, the costs of keeping someone in prison for years is a huge burden on taxpayers. My preferred solution would be to make prisons self-sufficient. Make prisoners work for their food and board - the worse the crime, the longer the hours should be. Let them really repay their debt to society.
• 

  upside/down

  Let's make it ABUNDANTLY clear... I have NO FAITH whatsoever in the US "Legal system" (note: it's NOT a "justice", but rather "legal" system)

  I agree... in theory you gotta have overwhelming "evidence" to convict...in reality...BS!

  And everyone knows it.

  u/d (of the has lost enough to know "the system" doesn't work for many...class)
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  My preferred solution would be to make prisons self-sufficient. Make prisoners work for their food and board - the worse the crime, the longer the hours should be. Let them really repay their debt to society.

  Good idea. Only the longer hours thing, that could hurt innocent people, too. But the concept of making them pay their way is a good one.