It's more than 'we think' he's committed a horrible crime. That's why there is an appeals process in place, hence the exhoribant cost of the death penalty sentence as compared to life imprisonment. A person must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There's more to it than just thinking.
Whether a person is sentenced to life in prison or is sentenced to death - the big difference is the appeals process. And if a person spends twenty years in the pen serving a life sentence or spends that twenty years on death row... I don't really see a difference.
I could understand being against the death penalty for certain heinous crimes if the person sentenced was taken out back immediately following the sentencing and shot without the chance to try to appeal the decision. In the cases of being sentenced to death, it's not immediate and there is the right to appeal.
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice....shame on me.
“I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.
If there's a god, damn it she won't mind.
If there's a god, baby she won't mind.
What, then, would be a fitting punishment? Life in prison? Assuredly, wouldn't that as well be inhumane? Wouldn't it be inhumane to keep them locked within cells like animals?
Don't "support" and "condone" basically mean the same thing? How come there isn't an option for "oppose"?
Anyway, I oppose it because I don't trust the criminal justice system to find the guilty party in every case. I am certain that innocent people are executed. Until we can have a perfect criminal justice system (i.e., never) I have to oppose it for that reason.
I do not oppose it for moral reasons however.
Your post here has absoutely nothing to do with anything. Opposing the death penalty does not mean that I support giving rapists short sentences.
I just don't know what gives anyone the right to commit venegeance. I don't know what gives society the right to punish. Certainly as a Christian I know that I do not have that right. Only God can punish. But also as a liberal I am not sure what confers upon me the right to execute someone for reasons of punishment or vengeance.
The only justification for the death penalty for me is one of deterrence. But the USA and China who apply this punishment, have the highest levels of capital crime. It isn't a deterrent. Getting caught and prosecuted is the deterrent.
In my view child killers are sick. I don't think its right to kill people who are not responsible for their actions. Even if some child killers are just evil, how can we tell? No amount of appeals can determine without doubt. Supporters of capital punishment are happy to kill sick people because they judge them by their own morality and state of mind.
On the basis of liberal ideology we only should have the right to impinge on someone's rights to prevent them impinging on someone else's. So prison is to protect society, not to avenge it. The only philosophical argument that I can think of to justify the death penalty is that it is cheaper and we should not tax people to pay for murderers. I counter that argument by appealing to our preference for civilization over barbarity. Churchill stated that a society could measure its civilization by how it treated its worst and most outcast citizens. Progress has gradually reduced those in the world who are executed, from the days when it was fine and dandy to kill children for stealing a handkerchief, or a perpetrators whole family to the present day when it is really only the USA, China and Iran that kill people for vengeance, the real motivation of a public that still has not fully evolved from the caveman who was their ancestor.
I made the argument that Tim McVeigh, someone who I find hard to empathize with in any way whatsoever or to imagine "sick" even, would have been more suitably dealt with by life imprisonment. It would not only be the Christian way to turn the other cheek as Christ commanded, and treat McVeigh in a completely different way to that he treated his victims, but it would also be a thundering statement of justice and taking the moral high ground to show how different the values of civilized people are from his. Killing simply debases society and diminishes us all.
Last edited by Plato; 01-30-11 at 01:02 AM.
There is a way to gain the whole world. It is to gain the people, and having gained them, one gains the whole world. There is a way to gain the people. Gain their hearts and minds and then you gain them. Mencius
the statistical relationship between gun-ownership and violent crime would bear light here. Where criminals have a higher chance of being blown away by their victim, there are fewer attempts.
“If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.”
- Alexander Hamilton. Spiritual father of #NeverTrump
I voted "condone it" and it was a mistake. I meant to vote "don't condone it" because I don't any longer. I did when I was younger. Now I'm old enough to know that we have executed the innocent. We sometimes can't be sure. So I'm in favor of a life term of hard labor as an alternative to the death penalty. A life time busting rocks is no vacation cruise.
We're not a bunch of savages, and we don't need to kill to get a point across. No person should be deprived of life for their misdeeds, no matter how criminal, but life in captivity should serve as just punishment for any crime.
Haha. Panty Hawk. I would watch that show.