It should be supported in both principle and practice.
Yes in principle, but not in practice due to the ambiguity of social bias.
It should be opposed both in principle and practice.
revenge /rɪˈvɛndʒ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-venj] Show IPA Pronunciation
verb, -venged, -veng⋅ing, noun
–verb (used with object) 1. to exact punishment or expiation for a wrong on behalf of, esp. in a resentful or vindictive spirit: He revenged his murdered brother.
2. to take vengeance for; inflict punishment for; avenge: He revenged his brother's murder.
revenge definition | Dictionary.com
Revenge is done out of an emotive response. The DP is not about revenge for me. It is about CONSEQUENCE.
consequence /ˈkɒnsɪˌkwɛns, -kwəns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kon-si-kwens, -kwuhns] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the effect, result, or outcome of something occurring earlier: The accident was the consequence of reckless driving.
2. an act or instance of following something as an effect, result, or outcome.
3. the conclusion reached by a line of reasoning; inference.
4. importance or significance: a matter of no consequence.
5. importance in rank or position; distinction: a man of great consequence in art
CONSEQUENCE definition | Dictionary.com
If my kid eats a cookie before dinner without asking, then they get a time out.
Is that "Revenge"? No... it is a CONSEQUENCE for the action that she undertook.
Perhaps I am just more logical than you? No rip or anything, but I can disassociate myself from an emotive response with regards to this subject. If a man hits my daughter, then I might get angry and go and smash him, that is revenge... sure. It is also a CONSEQUENCE. The two can be independent, and they can be linked... for me, the DP is not linked... it is independent of emotion and revenge. It is about CONSEQUENCE and nothing more.
I am emphasizing my disagreement with the death penalty as a form of punishment. If you cannot even discern that basic fact in what I'm saying, then there is no point in continuing this discussion with you.
If the death penalty were uniform, a rich man and a poor man would both suffer the same fate.
This is a bogus argument since the system applies capital punishment inconsistently, so there is no way to know for sure if you will be killed or not. This is why the death penalty does not serve as an effective deterrent in the U.S.
Careful, your bias is showing.
I agree that the number of executions a year is small compared to how many criminals are actually in jail in the U.S., but the cost of the legal proceedings and the executions themselves far outweighs simple incarceration. (Please see my previous post for evidence.)
Murdering people ruins the lives of others. I'm not interested in whether or not you think the effect is small. You haven't been in the position to know your loved one is going to be killed in a pre-meditated fashion. That is torturous.
That's what I mean when I say execution is a way of throwing away a collective mistake. It's a righteous way to try and make the rest of society feel just in the way they live.
How do you decide if the punishment is "equal to the crime"?
And how is killing them without even a chance at rehabilitation going to do any damage control? You claim that most murderers can't be rehabilitated. I agree, because they are given a death sentence instead! Some people on death row sit there for 15-20 years doing nothing whatsoever, while the State wastes time and money to satisfy the revenge impulse of people like you.
In that time, the person could have been taught to live a better life and understand the gravity of what they did. Instead, people like me pay to have them sit there because people like you want to continue to shovel money into a financial black hole in order to do away with them.
In this case, an eye for an eye and the law are the same thing, which is unfortunate.
For instance, in 1999 two 18 year-old girls were executed in Singapore on drug related charges. The U.S. was among some of the Western nations that condemned the actions, mostly on emotional appeals. So why is it not okay to execute two 18 year-olds, but it's okay to execute a 45 year-old?
The cries coming from the U.S. were reflective of its own double standard.
The death penalty is a consequence that serves no purpose in the United States. It's been debunked as a deterrent. It's been debunked as a financially efficient method to deal with criminals. It's been debunked as a form of justice that brings relief to the people left behind (especially the criminal's family). It's not even applied uniformly, since two people committing the same crime could get two difference sentences based on a number of factors.
The only thing left to look at is its use as a revenge tactic... i.e. if a court feels that a person's actions were "evil" enough, then they should die. That's not justice, it's attempting to repay one deed with something of equal value. That can never be decided objectively since it's a subjective issue, and no person in society is wise enough to know who deserves to die and who doesn't. At least, that is what I believe and what my country believes.
Last edited by Orion; 12-12-08 at 12:18 AM.