Death Penalty.

Raccoon Love

Raccoon Love

.
MBTI
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
As you may be aware, the Caylee Anthony case is currently going on. The death of this innocent child breaks my heart. I don't understand how can a mother be so heartless and irresponsible, regardless if this was intentional or not. I've noticed we haven't seen a discussion on this since the last thread was closed. This case has made me question my morals, and whether I find it ethical if the death penalty is applicable in any particular case.

So I ask what are your thoughts on this case or on the death penalty in death general and under what circumstances should it be applied if it should even be applied at all.
 
I am unsure that the state has proved their case for Murder 1, beyond a reasonable doubt; that being said, there will be enough evidence sufficient to the other chargers to put her away for a long, long time.

Next question, regarding death penalty; I believe the death penalty should only be an option for serial rapists/killers.
 
To kill a killer makes you a killer too. If you take an eye for an eye the perpetual chain is that the whole world will be blind.
 
Love does whats best for the whole. In light of that, it is not an eye for an eye mentality to rid humanity of a serial offender who cannot be stopped (some of them have actually asked to be "put down"; I would). On a continuum, an eye for and eye mentality would be at an extreme from only putting down the most haenous individual(s) who have a) no God given right to destroy multitudes of victims and their families and b) have no hope for a quality-life themselves.
 
I have no issues with an eye for an eye. As far as I'm concerned it is justice. What bothers me about the death penalty is our ability to make a correct judgement. I think our capabilities in this regard are hopelessly flawed therefore it makes a life sentence a better choice than death. However, that brings up the issue of whether or not a life sentence is more humane than the death penalty especially when you consider that those serving life are often subjected to periods of solitary confinement, which I consider a most grievous form of torture. Maybe we should let the convict choose his own fate but then we are back to that torture issue again.
 
killing is killing is killing no matter how you justify it. our society has not yet figured out how to deal with the dangerous amoung us. . death sentances get commuted as laws change. . it's a mess. . seems like we as a people could do better than we are with this problem. . but the eye for an eye system is a poor one. . and it's really about who has the best lawyer. . the poor end up on death row. . the affluent do not
 
This has become an interesting and convoluted thread...

Here are some addition things to consider from the poster(s) thus far (which could be topics in of themselves):

1) Does the global theory "an eye for an eye" have to be the only standard of measure i.e., is all killing actually equal?

2) Is their equal representation?

3) Is the judicial system flawed, and if so what needs to be changed in order to decrease err?(i.e., DNA linking to multiple killings, and/or confession as minimum criteria.)

4) Is a life sentence truly more humane?

5) Can we actually "do better" as a society i.e., give Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Goebbels a cup of tea and chat things over -persuade them regarding the error of their way. It is madness for sheep to talk peace with a wolf...
 
Last edited:
How can we give the message to the younger generations that killing is wrong, if the law deems it okay in certain circumstances? Why do people resort to violent crime? We need to understand why people did what they did in order to prevent them re offending but also to prevent others from taking the same path.

Also, what if the accused was wrongly convicted, but lost their life over it?

Violent crimes make me feel extremely angry and upset, particularly if the perpertrator shows no remorse but I strongly believe that the death penalty will never be the answer.
 
I think it is never ever right to kill a person.

Why does "the state" have the write to put someone down and I not? Is the state so much more "wise" than me? Can the state play for God????
And who are the people who decide on it. Is the jury qualified to make such a decission? No, they are just people and they have just watched a little play. They have to decide who is speaking the truth but they are biased from the beginning. A lot of jury members go to a trial with the idea "if (s)he is put on trial than (s)he must have done something wrong why would they put him/her on trial?

clearly the tread of death doesn't serve its purpose. Criminal rates much higher in the US than in my country (where there is no death penalty). I'm with LazarusHeart that the only way to do something about criminality is to take out its roots: poverty, abuse, hopelessness, lack of education, racism, discrimination, lack of support... Do something about that and criminality will drop automatically.
Didn't I hear of an old man who committed a crime just to get medical support? So in fact the state is the reason why people HAVE TO commit a crime just to survive. How sad is that!

whoever kills a human being is a murderer. There is no exception

thank god I live in a civil country!!!!
 
kiu said:
I have no issues with an eye for an eye. As far as I'm concerned it is justice. What bothers me about the death penalty is our ability to make a correct judgement. I think our capabilities in this regard are hopelessly flawed therefore it makes a life sentence a better choice than death. However, that brings up the issue of whether or not a life sentence is more humane than the death penalty especially when you consider that those serving life are often subjected to periods of solitary confinement, which I consider a most grievous form of torture. Maybe we should let the convict choose his own fate but then we are back to that torture issue again.
Click to expand...

I'd like to clarify my post.

Eye for an eye. It's fair. If you maliciously take a life then you deserve to lose your life. This is a simple balancing of scales. Who is qualified, if anyone, to judge the case and deliver the sentence is a different issue.

Although, I think the judicial system is flawed this is not my focus. It is our judgement as human beings which is flawed. Our communication is plagued by misunderstandings and this flaw will plague any system we devise.

Morgain said:
thank god I live in a civil country!!!!
Click to expand...

Which country is this? Utopia?
 
  • Like
Reactions: acd
Have you ever heard the saying "an eye for an eye would leave the whole world blind" ?

Criminal trials are an interesting thing. I've read quite a disturbing article about juries and how they are bombarded with information during the trial but are not given any of the transcripts to refer back to. Members of the jury will often rely on faulty decision making processes (as all humans do from time to time) - the article referred to one woman who used her horoscope to help her decide! Not to mention that the more domineering members of the jury group may end up swaying the whole group to their beliefs, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. We don't know what the biases are of jury members, but jury members are not trained, they are just members of the public so many of them will not know how to recognise and question their own biases. Lawyers also tend to be following their own agenda, so facts are represented in a way that suits them. Even if I did believe in "an eye for an eye" I would find it deeply disturbing that this trial process could involve a person's life!
 
I think it is more punishing to keep them imprisoned for life--I don't mean to torture them with solitary confinement or other mistreatment, but to keep them safely locked away. I understand this is expensive, to support a criminal for their entire life.. but maybe we could free up some money by decriminalizing other things and by shortening the sentences of non-violent crimes. I've also read before that to put someone on the death penalty is more costly, as all those appeals add up.

I can see how it would make sense to rid the planet of murderers and rapists, how it can be seen as a way to make the world a safer and more just place. But my principles are that we should not solve our problems by killing people, whether it's the death penalty or war...Plus the chance that innocents can be killed for the crimes.
 
LazarusHeart, this actually happened to my son at age 20. He is now a convicted felon, on Megan's Law for the rest of his life, for a crime he did not commit (juror came forward next day and said jury foreman gave erroneous information that led them to think the age of consent was 18, when it was 16... in addition, after prison, he took a crime specific lie detector test and passed-releasing him from state mandated sex offender therapy); nevertheless, he has this noose around his neck, forever. So I definitely get what could go wrong in a trial and that was with an excellent attorney.

Nonetheless, I believe that serial rapists/killers are my exception to the rule (large and small scale). I do not think they should be put to death for punishment; but rather, what else is there to do with them?- I also believe solitary confinement for a life-time is not fitting because they are mentally ill beyond repair and/or evil (yes I believe there is a difference initially).

Another poster mentioned who has the right to play God? Well, if we are to argue on the premise of "God"; and we are made in God's image-He has laws, natural laws and consequence, natural reciprocity... we in turn, to a lesser degree perfection-wise (as we are not omniscient) have laws and consequence.

Lastly, I LOVED KIU's response: "Which country is this, Utopia?" -exactly what I was thinking...
 
I don't really understand the argument that people being made in God's image makes the death penalty okay. Does the bible say that some people are exempt from God's commandments if they are punishing someone else for breaking a commandment? Does "thou shalt not kill" apply to the murderer but not the law enforcer? Taking away the murderers life will not bring back those whose lives were taken in the beginning and it will not stop others from committing murder.

My partner is Chinese, his country supports the death penalty and so does he. He regularly shows me articles in the chinese newspaper about people who have killed and are getting the death penalty. If the death penalty is supposed to be so effective than why are these crimes still happening?

I feel that it is human nature to want to punish people who murder, particularly if you happen to know the victim. I'll admit that when I first heard about Timothy McVeigh the Oklahoma Bomber, despite being averse to the death penalty even back then as, I initially felt he deserved the death penalty because of his complete lack of remorse. But does the death penalty really solve anything? And for that matter, does locking people up and throwing away the key solve anything?

A few years ago, one prison in my country trialled a system whereby convicted criminals (some of them murderers) participated in the arts, such as drama. Although this method was criticised by many for not being 'punishment' it was in fact hard work for them, and was working on building self-esteem which is often lacking in people who resort to violent crime. I think we need to look beyond 'punishment' to addressing the root causes. As far as I am concerned violence perpetuates violence. The death penalty is a violent option and therefore just keeps the cycle going.
 
"I don't really understand the argument that people being made in God's image makes the death penalty okay. Does the bible say that some people are exempt from God's commandments if they are punishing someone else for breaking a commandment? Does "thou shalt not kill" apply to the murderer but not the law enforcer? Taking away the murderers life will not bring back those whose lives were taken in the beginning and it will not stop others from committing murder."

Firstly, I was answering, attacking (I love to demolish a faulty or weak premise), the other poster(s) rationalization for bringing their subjective God-Concept into play to begin with in saying "are we God"; much like your subjective depiction of God by stating "Does the bible say that some people are exempt from God's commandments if they are punishing someone else for breaking a commandment?" -Have you ever read any of the Old Testament other than the commandments; apparently not, as God was smiting and having His people smite those who were in opposition to God and/or His people! Therefore, the answer is "yes' there were times that "thou shalt not kill" was either put on "hold" or perhaps "kill" means something different when done in protection of the others.

Your next commentary: "Taking away the murderers life will not bring back those whose lives were taken in the beginning and it will not stop others from committing murder." -
Unfortunately, this was not the premise of the discussion in the first place. The discussion was regarding putting to death certain irredeemable members of society (serial rapists/killers); not to punish or stop others, but rather, no better recourse was suggested thus far on what to do with the serial offender. No one suggested a) that this would deter anyone or b) that this would bring back the murdered person (stating the obvious). There is a world of difference between a first time offender and a serial offender. A serial offender is not going to stop...many scenarios were then discussed regarding a life time of confinement (mentally and physically) OR removal from society totally...

Obviously, there are many wonderful alternatives for every other type of offender.

I'm bored. night.
 
LazarusHeart said:
Does the bible say that some people are exempt from God's commandments if they are punishing someone else for breaking a commandment?
Click to expand...

The Holy Bible teaches that all of mankind is deserving of death because they sinned against God so an execution isn't a big deal in that context, imo. Also, in the original language, Hebrew I believe it was, there is a distinction between killing and murder. However, when translated to English the distinction is not preserved. There was also provision for mercy. There were sanctuary cities to which a murderer could retreat. There the murderer would be safe from the pursuit of justice so long as the murderer remained in the limits of the city.
 
Shari said:
"
Firstly, I was answering, attacking (I love to demolish a faulty or weak premise), the other poster(s) rationalization for bringing their subjective God-Concept into play to begin with in saying "are we God"; much like your subjective depiction of God by stating "Does the bible say that some people are exempt from God's commandments if they are punishing someone else for breaking a commandment?" -Have you ever read any of the Old Testament other than the commandments; apparently not, as God was smiting and having His people smite those who were in opposition to God and/or His people! Therefore, the answer is "yes' there were times that "thou shalt not kill" was either put on "hold" or perhaps "kill" means something different when done in protection of the others.
Click to expand...

Truthfully, I have not read much of the bible. My asking if God exempts some from the commandment of "thou shalt not kill" was framed as a question. I am not a christian and brought up the commentary about God in response to the idea that humans being 'made in God's image' gives some the right to determine who lives and who dies.

If we were to go with that argument, why is that authorities are the appropriate people to make that sort of judgement, surely they are human like the rest of us?

Shari said:
Your next commentary: "Taking away the murderers life will not bring back those whose lives were taken in the beginning and it will not stop others from committing murder." -
Unfortunately, this was not the premise of the discussion in the first place. The discussion was regarding putting to death certain irredeemable members of society (serial rapists/killers); not to punish or stop others, but rather, no better recourse was suggested thus far on what to do with the serial offender. No one suggested a) that this would deter anyone or b) that this would bring back the murdered person (stating the obvious). There is a world of difference between a first time offender and a serial offender. A serial offender is not going to stop...many scenarios were then discussed regarding a life time of confinement (mentally and physically) OR removal from society totally...

Obviously, there are many wonderful alternatives for every other type of offender..
Click to expand...

Also, your discussion may have been about serial rapists/killers, but the case that brought this topic up to begin with is not a serial killer but a first time killer. Besides who is it that judges whether or not a serial rapist/killer is irredeemable anyway?
 
Discussions were continuing, obviously, way beyond the initial question- and you answered ...there is a sequential discussion at hand...much like in conversation.

Secondly, you again, answered with something specific from the bible, but now state you have limited knowledge and that it was a question. It was actually much more a series of statement(s) in the guise of question(s).

Lastly, the person's "actions" of not stopping i.e., the word "serial" is what makes him or her irredeemable... who decides this? They are known as "judges" ... just like the Mighty Judge no?! Eventually, one must be accountable for his/her continuous actions; if said actions are so problematic that they forcibly deter a multitude of people from living, it is not inconceivable that we appoint those who will put a stop (permanently) to said offender.
 
Shari said:
Secondly, you again, answered with something specific from the bible, but now state you have limited knowledge and that it was a question. It was actually much more a series of statement(s) in the guise of question(s).

Lastly, the person's "actions" of not stopping i.e., the word "serial" is what makes him or her irredeemable... who decides this? They are known as "judges" ... just like the Mighty Judge no?! Eventually, one must be accountable for his/her continuous actions; if said actions are so problematic that they forcibly deter a multitude of people from living, it is not inconceivable that we appoint those who will put a stop (permanently) to said offender.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by I keep answering with something specific from the bible - are you referring to "thou shalt not kill"? You don't have to have read the bible to know the 10 commandments. Yes as I admitted earlier I have limited knowledge of the bible, because of this and the fact that I am not a christian I would never use anything from the bible as an argument if it was a standalone spiel rather than in response to others using the bible as justification for what I see to be wrongful acts. I am not against the death penalty because God commands that people should not kill, I am against the death penalty because I do not believe in killing, whatever the justification for it might be. It was perhaps a mistake on my part to start talking about God and the bible when I don't have the knowledge to back me up, but as stated before, it was framed as a question, in an attempt to provoke thought about how is it that the bible justifies the death penalty and whether or not this is fair?

Secondly I would be interested to know, what do you think defines a serial killer? Does it take just two murders, or three, or more? What do you think makes people serial killers? Were they born evil? Do they have mental illness?

In my sociology course I have been learning about child abuse and how it can actually damage children's brains whereby the victims of abuse don't learn about empathy and compassion, but learn to protect themselves and their own interests regardless of how it affects others.

I'm not trying to imply that I think that individuals shouldn't take responsibility for their own actions, but there is quite often more involved, including factors that are outside the individuals control.

I can understand your stance, in the cases where an individual does appear "irredeemable" it seems that by allowing them to live is allowing the risk that they will re-offend and of course it takes up an extraordinary amount of resources to keep people in the prison system. My anti-death penalty stance still stands though. I don't see how we can create an ideal society by simply killing off those who engage in violent crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top