Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Beckys_Mom

Capital Punishment - For or against?

171 posts in this topic

This is not a dig at you but the illogic and hypocrisy of many people amazes me They are prepared to keep rapists and killers alive at great cost, but see hundreds of thousands of unborn killed and many more young (and elderly) people die of abuse neglect and disease where far less cost could save them..

Those are separate problems, they don't belong together in the same argument. There is no hypocrisy, who says that those who value life believe it is okay for those things to occur? Life, however, is defined by sentience. When it is proven that a fetus is individuated and sentient/aware the paradigm surrounding abortion will change - that evidence has not arisen it seems.

Also, innocent and guilt do not go to the nature of punishment.

Rather guilt should be correctly established in every case. You quote the innocent convicted, but no one knows how many guilty are aquitted to offend again, or simply to live out their lives without consequence for their crime. If no innocent should be punished then, equally, no guilty should be allowed to go unpunished just to assure this. In my, admittedly rather unusual opinion, it is better to have a few innocents punished, rather than allow many guilty to go free.

It ALL speaks to the endemic corruption of facts which can forever change a person's life. If we as a race had a robust and definable means of establishing the true facts and level of guilt/culpability in each case then we may have matured enough to revisit something like the death penalty. Quite frankly, if we are ever that enlightened as a society in it's process, notwithstanding individual's varying level of intelligence we probably would have moved way beyond the need for the death penalty but that's just my opinion.

I do not believe any innocent ever should be subject to corruption within the machinery of the law - it is a huge flaw and needs to be rectified, otherwise it is Justice that is the epitomy of hypocrisy in society and that is truly sad.

I would maintain this even if I was innocent and charged with a crime, but then I would never commit a crime in the first place and thus would be highly unlikely ever to be considered as a perpetrator of one.. If i did kill another person unlawfully, I would expect to be punished what ever my reasons, and I would prefer death to life imprisonment. It would be fairer on me and on society.

It was mentioned earlier in the thread that the option should be given to the prisoner - life without hope of parole or death if they wish, I think that is workable but it is as far as I am prepared to go within the flawed systems we operate under.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few years ago...maybe a decade...this would have been an easy answer, I would have said a flat "yes, I am for it".

Now, as I get older and hopefully wiser, I am not so sure anymore.

First and foremost...we live in a place where the judicial system and justice in general...is not always right or fair. There are too many "criminals" that have been exalted...too many times when getting a "prosecution" and a "case closed" was all that mattered and if an innocent person took the fall...they did not care.

In light of this, my views slowly began to change. There are some folks out there that I am sure the world would be a better place without...but it is not my place to make that judgement.

I doubt I could sit on a jury and sentence someone to death. In fact, sometimes death is an easy way out for the most heinous offenders. I am not against making the worst of the worst bust rocks with a sledgehammer on a chain gang all day though...extreme acts of violence should be punished accordingly. When we don't place an appropriate penalty on a crime, there is less fear of repercussion. But to some, death is what they are expecting and they should not be given it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not believe any innocent ever should be subject to corruption within the machinery of the law - it is a huge flaw and needs to be rectified, otherwise it is Justice that is the epitomy of hypocrisy in society and that is truly sad.

Sad but true.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few years ago...maybe a decade...this would have been an easy answer, I would have said a flat "yes, I am for it".

Now, as I get older and hopefully wiser, I am not so sure anymore.

First and foremost...we live in a place where the judicial system and justice in general...is not always right or fair. There are too many "criminals" that have been exalted...too many times when getting a "prosecution" and a "case closed" was all that mattered and if an innocent person took the fall...they did not care.

In light of this, my views slowly began to change. There are some folks out there that I am sure the world would be a better place without...but it is not my place to make that judgement.

I doubt I could sit on a jury and sentence someone to death. In fact, sometimes death is an easy way out for the most heinous offenders. I am not against making the worst of the worst bust rocks with a sledgehammer on a chain gang all day though...extreme acts of violence should be punished accordingly. When we don't place an appropriate penalty on a crime, there is less fear of repercussion. But to some, death is what they are expecting and they should not be given it.

Have a look at the perverted farce and kangaroo court that the trial and convictions of the West Memphis Three was. It leaves you with a sour mouth, of throwing up in it. Imagine that anyone can actually be sucked up in a nightmare like this and end up with getting a death sentence on bull**** evidence and a mob-rules kinda pleasing-the-crowd travesty of the rule of law. If you get the chance see the 4 documentaries made over a 16 year period ( Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills, Paradise Lost 2: Revelations , Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory, West of Memphis following this case from the beginning (1993) through the dodging, evasion, obfuscation and political clownery of the judge and the prosecutor as well as the state of Arkansas, to late 2011. 16 years of their life was wasted away in prision on this judicial sham, and it almost costed the life of one of them, condemned to death for this.

This is where a capital punishment can almost end up killing an innocent..

Edited by EllJay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys. A quick reading of this discussion on death penalty gave me the ideia that the foremost spoken argument against it, would be the one that considers the potencially innocent people unfairly killed. My thoughts on this topic are that innocent kills are only a very specific part of the matter.

The existence of justice and therefore the penal system shouldn't be based on brutal punishment or vengeance. When one commits a crime and he's condemned for some years of enclosure, it should be all about regretting and reeintegration on society. This away people pay in some manner for their crimes and could even be again a contibuting member of the society.

If you sentence someone to death, what good can come from that? If that person killed another one, is it fair and racional that you kill her only because it should be "tooth for tooth"?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what good can come from that. well lets see my first thought is that they can't fool the well intended person that is deciding if they should be freed . if freed many if not all will commit criminal offences again and again . Executing them will stop that and save money and space for those who Might be savable. I could be wrong but that is how i see it.

Edited by mysticwerewolf
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys. A quick reading of this discussion on death penalty gave me the ideia that the foremost spoken argument against it, would be the one that considers the potencially innocent people unfairly killed. My thoughts on this topic are that innocent kills are only a very specific part of the matter.

The existence of justice and therefore the penal system shouldn't be based on brutal punishment or vengeance. When one commits a crime and he's condemned for some years of enclosure, it should be all about regretting and reeintegration on society. This away people pay in some manner for their crimes and could even be again a contibuting member of the society.

If you sentence someone to death, what good can come from that? If that person killed another one, is it fair and rational that you kill her only because it should be "tooth for tooth"?

I must be getting old. I just read the statement that I've made bold above and I thought: " You know what? WHY NOT? WHY EFFING NOT?"

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read before the question was asked "Have any of you who are against the death penalty lost a child to murder?"

A follow up question I wonder though is how many of you who support capital punishment would still support it if your child was to be punished in this way?

I cant imagine any parent supporting that punishment on their own child. To do so would take a rather cold heart and a merciless love of the law. So I would assume most would not want this punishment on their own child, so wanting it on someone elses child shows a lack of.. neighborly love.

Edited by Kazahel
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luckily or unluckily as it may be, i don't have kids.and at this stage in my life i never will. However i was raised in a family that told me time and again " If You Eff up your on your own, I'm Not Bailing You Out. if you can't do the time don't do the crime." i still live by that. Some people think they have the right or ability to avoid the punishment, or that they are above punishment, or they just don't care, or whatever.

Edited by mysticwerewolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read before the question was asked "Have any of you who are against the death penalty lost a child to murder?"

A follow up question I wonder though is how many of you who support capital punishment would still support it if your child was to be punished in this way?

I cant imagine any parent supporting that punishment on their own child. To do so would take a rather cold heart and a merciless love of the law. So I would assume most would not want this punishment on their own child, so wanting it on someone elses child shows a lack of.. neighborly love.

I can only speak hypothetically, but my value lines inform me that if a child of mine sold heroin to others, or raped a person or killed someone without just cause, then not only would i expect them to be put to death as the most humane punishment for those crimes,but i would do it myself, if that was the only way to prevent the child doing further harm. And yes i would expect that punishment for any child of mine after proper judicial process,

Why should my child (or I) be treated any differently to how I expect all/others to be treated? This does not apply to children too young to understand cause and effect and consequence, but for any "'adult" children and for many teenagers, there should not be any differentiation from an adult in serious crimes.

Ps i would continue to love and forgive, both my child if they killed, and someone who killed my child; but i would expect justice and punishment to be applied to both, equally.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Against because we can get it wrong. Innocent people have been put to death.

Capital punishment is too absolute for a system that can be so flawed.

Edit: Changed structure.

Edited by Timonthy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should my child (or I) be treated any differently to how I expect all/others to be treated?

I think thats the sad part.

Anyway the words 'Mercy over Murder' popped into my head and so I typed that into google to look for an image and this one stood out.

mercyovermurder.jpg

It gave me a laugh because its kind of in sync with my last lucid dream the other night. (aqua man/post 790)

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=74640&st=780

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think thats the sad part.

Anyway the words 'Mercy over Murder' popped into my head and so I typed that into google to look for an image and this one stood out.

mercyovermurder.jpg

It gave me a laugh because its kind of in sync with my last lucid dream the other night. (aqua man/post 790)

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=74640&st=780

Ah aquaman. Another tortured superhero. Its fascinating how the evolution of american superheroes mirrored the evolution of american pschological condition as indeed does much american science fiction. This applies from the thirties to the present day When americans are certain, so are their heroes. When americans entertain uncertainty, ambivalence and doubt about moral positions, and when they see shades of morality, so do their superheroes. I grew up with the originals of most of these, although superman and The phantom slightly preceded me. I caught up on them all of course, and was lucky enough to share my early teens with all the classic and original characters from marvel and DC. I have a phantom collection going back to the fifties and it is fascinating to observe even his evolution, although his character has remained more constant than most over more than 60 years And the americans really messed around with him as well, in some incarnations.

Ps there is nothing sad about a consistent morality. Morality should be based on value lines which incorporate logic and rational thought. Then they (moral values) should be applied consistently. It is illogical to put a higher value on myself than on another human being and so it would also be illogical to value my childs life more highly than that of another child. Not having children of my own, I work as hard as I can, professionally and personally, to help children around me and around the world live better lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking about it, even though I can imagine crimes where it would seem to be warranted, the reality is that no fail-safe system could be devised and we see executions everywhere where it is not warranted. It needs to be completely abolished.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh? Someone would have to have the power to initiate the process, and then you would in many jurisdictions have hundreds a votes a year. This is better as part of an elected executive's job.

My point was that is exactly what we do do. We have jurisdictions called states. Each state decides if it has the death penalty or not. If it works properly, then the decision is left up to the majority, and if the minority dosnt like it, they can move somewhere where their views are reflected. Freedom is kind if nice that way.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.... and if the minority dosnt like it, they can move somewhere where their views are reflected.

Yeah! Life really is that easy .... not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah! Life really is that easy .... not.

It's not about "easy", but you still are allowed to. No one is stopping you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/case-against-death-penalty

interesting article.

problem with death penalty is you may get an innocent person. There's also no evidence it stops crime. Look at all countries with death penalty, they still have child killers, serial killers etc.

As much as I hate criminals and quite frankly couldn't care less if they threw them out in to the sea.

I don't see the point of death penalty, it's not helping victims. it's not stopping kids being killed or molested, not stopping people getting killed either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.aclu.org/...t-death-penalty

interesting article.

problem with death penalty is you may get an innocent person. There's also no evidence it stops crime. Look at all countries with death penalty, they still have child killers, serial killers etc.

As much as I hate criminals and quite frankly couldn't care less if they threw them out in to the sea.

I don't see the point of death penalty, it's not helping victims. it's not stopping kids being killed or molested, not stopping people getting killed either.

But it is removing a certain "gene pool" from humanity. To me a better way of looking at it is WHY NOT execute certain human beings? I honestly can't find any moral ethical or logical reasons why we should not put to death people who behave in certain ways and do certain things. Individual human right to life is, and always has been, conditional, not absolute. We all have to earn, and continually work to maintain, our right to an existence as a human being, and a member of a society. Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it is removing a certain "gene pool" from humanity. To me a better way of looking at it is WHY NOT execute certain human beings? I honestly can't find any moral ethical or logical reasons why we should not put to death people who behave in certain ways and do certain things. Individual human right to life is, and always has been, conditional, not absolute. We all have to earn, and continually work to maintain, our right to an existence as a human being, and a member of a society.

And what if people get it wrong and execute the wrong person? To me that is reason enough to say "Why not execute certain human beings". We might have it wrong!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what if people get it wrong and execute the wrong person? To me that is reason enough to say "Why not execute certain human beings". We might have it wrong!

. But i said execute people who behave in certain ways. We often know for certain when someone is guilty.

In a separate argument I hold an unusual position. I think it is better to execute some innocent people if it allows us to execute many guilty ones, or to put it another way, the fear of executing an innocent should not prevent us from executing many guilty humans.

I think there are probably thousands of human beings just in australia who should be executed for how they have caused great harm to others from murder to rape to child abuse etc.

Some humans simply do not deserve to live, for perhaps many decades, incarcerated. It is more humane, ethical, logical, and moral to execute them .Even if a person who kills or rapes is completely refomed after 30 years in prison, the damage is done. The dead can not be restored, the rape victim can never be the same again, the abuse victim will never be whole and sound; and so restorative justice cannot be put in place. as it can be for some crimes.

That person must remain in prison for life, even if we know they will never kill or rape again.The sentence is for the life they took. (physically or psychologically and emotionally) Better imo, to humanely execute them than keep them in a prison for all their life (In reality most get out of prison after a couple of decades at most.) I know a man who killed his infant son less than 20 years ago. He is up for release on parole this year, but his son will never regain his life. A young man who killed a family member with a spear gun was sentenced to less than 20 years effective gaol time and will certainly be released before he is 40, but his victim will be dead for ever. There was no dispute about the facts in these cases. Those people did kill the ones they were charged with killing. Not only were there witnesses but they freely admitted to the charges.

My question was, why not execute human beings who do kill innocent people, who abuse children and cause their death, who rape and torture . ie certain types of people, or certain people who do commit these sorts of crimes.

The assumption is that we know they are guilty. To not execute them for fear of executing an innocent is not logical. In those cases where their guilt is not disputed, what are the arguments for not executing them.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it is removing a certain "gene pool" from humanity. To me a better way of looking at it is WHY NOT execute certain human beings? I honestly can't find any moral ethical or logical reasons why we should not put to death people who behave in certain ways and do certain things. Individual human right to life is, and always has been, conditional, not absolute. We all have to earn, and continually work to maintain, our right to an existence as a human being, and a member of a society.

I can think of one

Thou shalt not kill

When did we get the right to decide the moment of another's death exactly? What great wisdom and profound perception have we been given that allows us the certainty that this is a correct means of punishment? Death is irrevocable, there is no repentance, epithany or enlightenment available in the grave. We can claim that a murderer is beyond the capacity to experience those states - but they are only claims, we cannot know, only God knows - I say this because I know you have often claimed that God walks by you as a physical companion, others such as atheists operate on different consistent sets of morals of course and this may not apply to them in the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the state under certain circumstances does have the right to execute someone. A lot here depends on your philosophy of life and of society, and my philosophy is one of compassion, but not total tolerance.

That said, as a practical matter I don't think we should be doing it very often, if at all. It is expensive, prone to error and distortion of justice, prone to becoming a circus and feeding off the public's sometimes unfortunate thirst for blood, and harmful to society in other ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If murderers can be proven 100% guilty then yes put them to death.Letting them keep their life after taking another then feeding them,clothing them,and virtually everything else they can get away with in prison is a burden on tax payers and the loved ones of their victims.Killing them with kindness by allowing all of this we teach others almost no lesson at all.Though not religious i believe in a eye for a eye,or do unto others as they have done unto you.As i said though only for the ones who can be proven without a doubt to have done this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. But i said execute people who behave in certain ways. We often know for certain when someone is guilty.

In a separate argument I hold an unusual position. I think it is better to execute some innocent people if it allows us to execute many guilty ones, or to put it another way, the fear of executing an innocent should not prevent us from executing many guilty humans.

I 100% totally disagree with you. It is not logical to think that executing 1000 people is justifiable if even one of those people are innocent! Your own argument explains my point. I'll quote you, with perhaps just a tiny change of wording here and there:

The dead can not be restored, the rape victim can never be the same again, the abuse victim will never be whole and sound, the unjustly executed can never be brought back; and so restorative justice cannot be put in place. as it can be for some crimes lesser sentences (eg, life imprisonment).

By your own reasoning, some crimes affect other people, and no matter if a person is reformed, the people will never be the same. But unjust executions also affect people, family, friends, loved ones, not to mention the innocent person themselves executed. An unjust execution affects the lives of other innocent people, and no matter that a person is posthumously pardoned, that pardon cannot bring them back to life.

The assumption is that we know they are guilty. To not execute them for fear of executing an innocent is not logical. In those cases where their guilt is not disputed, what are the arguments for not executing them.

There is a very large gap between definitely guilty and "beyond reasonable doubt". Most judicial systems in our world today need only prove things beyond reasonable doubt. How do we decide on a point where a persons' guilt is not disputed? A confession? With a confession it means that Timothy Evans was correctly executed, even though he was innocent (the Evans case was one of the watershed cases that led to the abolition of the Death Penalty in England). Edited by Paranoid Android
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.