the Death Penalty

**Hraesvelg** · 03-01-2009, 07:06 PM

If a state could prove conclusively that a person was guilty of a capital crime, I would be in favor of the death penalty. As it stands, many people are put to death that aren't guilty of the crime they've been convicted. That's intolerable to me. I'd rather some guilty people go free rather than punish an innocent.

Granted, this is fairly idealistic and it's probably impossible since humans are flawed. The most pragmatic approach is to not execute the convicted, but the imprison them. Then, if new evidence surfaces, a new trial can be had.

For more reading, visit The Innocence Project.

Jikanu · 03-01-2009, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by Loveless

It may depend on what that particular individual did to receive such verdict. Give an example of a crime. Would you say that someone who had raped and killed little girls should still be left in solitary confinement? Even if it's evident that this individual believes it wasn't an act of crime and that he had done nothing wrong? Not even a shred of regret.

It's not an eye for an eye in this case I would think. This person had destroyed the lives of many families. The family will be haunted by that and the fact that he still breathes while their little girl had suffered such a horrible fate. Would his life alone be enough to make it up? No, not at all, his death isn't bringing them back but for those families perhaps they will be a little at ease knowing such a monster is no longer here.

but if he rotted away in a cell in a mental assylum, in solitary confinement (because that's deffinitely where that kind of person would belong), melting in his own insanity, never hearing another person's voice, having to stew there with no way out, wouldnt it be a bit more of a just punishment? you're not killing him, and not continuing the cycle of violence, but you're still granting him the punishment he deserves

Originally Posted by Hraesvelg

If a state could prove conclusively that a person was guilty of a capital crime, I would be in favor of the death penalty. As it stands, many people are put to death that aren't guilty of the crime they've been convicted. That's intolerable to me. I'd rather some guilty people go free rather than punish an innocent.

Granted, this is fairly idealistic and it's probably impossible since humans are flawed. The most pragmatic approach is to not execute the convicted, but the imprison them. Then, if new evidence surfaces, a new trial can be had.

For more reading, visit The Innocence Project.

hm... but still, it wouldnt do anything for the loved ones to know he was dead. i mean, there's very little difference between that and a maximum security prison. and if you kill... is it right to kill a killer? i mean, it's better than an innocent, but you shouldnt take anyone else's life unless yours is threatened. i believe it's not for us to decide who lives or dies. as long as there's little to no chance of escape, there's no point in killing him, especially since i read somewhere that it costs more money to find a doctor who will use the lethal injection than to feed the prisoner and stuff... dont know if that's true though.

**Hraesvelg** · 03-01-2009, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by Jikanu

i believe it's not for us to decide who lives or dies.

If not us, and by that I mean we as a society, then who?

Jikanu · 03-01-2009, 07:45 PM

Originally Posted by Hraesvelg

If not us, and by that I mean we as a society, then who?

*shrugs*i believe it would be God's decision, but that gets into religion, which this isnt about. i dont think society should choose to kill. that takes us back to more prehistoric times... more primitive. if we dont have the common sense to stop the killing, how are we any better than apes?

**Hraesvelg** · 03-01-2009, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by Jikanu

*shrugs*i believe it would be God's decision, but that gets into religion, which this isnt about. i dont think society should choose to kill. that takes us back to more prehistoric times... more primitive. if we dont have the common sense to stop the killing, how are we any better than apes?

Aaaand that's where you lost me. It's hard to have rational discourse with someone that holds irrational truths so near and dear.

Here's a little newsflash, we ARE apes.

Jikanu · 03-01-2009, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by Hraesvelg

Aaaand that's where you lost me. It's hard to have rational discourse with someone that holds irrational truths so near and dear.

Here's a little newsflash, we ARE apes.

but is it not the goal of humanity to rise to greater heights and become the best we possibly can? to extend our understanding of the world, and to extend the correctness of our actions? to extend our moral correctness, and try and live the best we possibly can?

Senyx The Soulless one · 03-20-2009, 03:28 PM

Death penalty is legitimate if the person did anything involving taking another life.

A soul for a soul.

If he robbed a bank, Who cares? Obama gonna get joo money anywayz.
If he stole a car? So what? You have insurance,

But seriously, The death penalty IS legit when it comes to murder.
And killing someone that was actually innocent. Nowaiz.

**Ralath** · 03-01-2009, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by Jikanu

*shrugs*i believe it would be God's decision, but that gets into religion, which this isnt about. i dont think society should choose to kill. that takes us back to more prehistoric times... more primitive. if we dont have the common sense to stop the killing, how are we any better than apes?

God's "decision" isn't going to help us.

Sorry.

**Hraesvelg** · 03-01-2009, 08:46 PM

That may be a goal of some humans, and it is laudable, but to say that humanity itself has some sort of ultimate goal is missing the mark. There is no fate, no ultimate end point. We are what we make of it.

If you want to have that goal, boffo. More power to you. My goal might be to have sex with the most women possible, or to acquire the most wealth, or to write the perfect sonata. I think life can be summed up like this: "Your mileage may vary."

Jikanu · 03-01-2009, 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by Hraesvelg

That may be a goal of some humans, and it is laudable, but to say that humanity itself has some sort of ultimate goal is missing the mark. There is no fate, no ultimate end point. We are what we make of it.

If you want to have that goal, boffo. More power to you. My goal might be to have sex with the most women possible, or to acquire the most wealth, or to write the perfect sonata. I think life can be summed up like this: "Your mileage may vary."

good point. but humanity seems to be working together to progress. we always have been, even though it's just for our own good at first glance. for example, no matter your lifestyle, you'll most likely have a job, working to provide some form of service, or thinking to solve a problem. that will cause an advancement of some sort, when the company is working as a whole. that advancement will snowball. for example, do you think the first man to make fire was thinking "if i do this, i'll change the world"? no, he was more likely than not thinking "i wonder what will happen if i rub these sticks together..." Therefore, even if it's unwittingly, we all play a part in some form of advancement, whether it be philosophical, ecological, technological, political, whatever.

Originally Posted by Ralath

God's "decision" isn't going to help us.

Sorry.

what exactly do you mean? your comment doesnt make sense to me. i'm simply saying there's no point in killing the prisoner. the death penalty just ends things. as previously stated by hrae, new evidence comes up all the time. however, there's no way to be 100% sure. plus, as i said before, the death penalty is more expensive than feeding the prisoner. i was simply saying that no human has the right to take that of another, no matter who the person. unless your life, or the life of another is in danger, you shouldn't kill, therefore giving a moral reason to stop it along with the logical one.