For many years, I have been skeptic of people so full of heart who grandly emphasized on abolishing death penalty.
And there was reason enough behind thinking it; justice has been established through blood in the past.
Imagine if one of your relatives or close friend was murdered by a psychopath - wouldn't your wrath and sense of justice boil as to want this psycho's life taken away as well ? How can you stand seeing that human garbage to walk the earth and breathe and live ?
However, my belief in this controversy has been put to a test recently. No blood needs to be spilt in the world, if only we all have conscience enough. War is idiocy itself, with enough reason.
As I was having a walk with my girlfriend, we began to talk about the issue of death penalty. I believed that it was needed, for the reasons given above, and I explained this to her. However, she did not seem to think so, and I failed to convince her. And it is now that I am more inclined to stand against death penalty.
Nobody has the right to take another man's life. Somehow, humans made laws and dared to decide who lived and died - man is playing God. Only God has the right to decide who should live or die.
A psychopath who has killed innocent people must be locked away and imprisonned for life. This is for the safety of others, and God will judge him from thence. We must not think our tax money is spent in an ill-advised way by being spent on feeding and keeping the psychopaths alive. We are paying tax money to contain them and keep them from harming anyone else. This would be included in "social security".
All that man can, must, and has the right to do is have the conscience to stop bloodshed by capturing and containing murderers and people with murderous intent. Judgement is not ours to do, no matter how bitter we feel.
In the end, has anyone really felt satisfaction and been relieved from grief through death penalty ? Wrath and Vengeance creates only destruction .....
Anyone daring to challenge my view on this controversial, but most important issue ?
Nobody has the right to take another man's life. [...] man is playing God. Only God has the right to decide who should live or die.
Your argument hinges largely on a belief in God (and moreover, the same God). Since many people don't believe or believe in a different God/Gods, this isn't sufficient to make any declaration that "because only God has that right, killing is wrong."
I really can only speak from a western North American perspective on the issue. But the death penalty poses serious problems.
First of all cases get overturned. It's very easy to find cases where people who were found guilty of murder and sentenced to death were later found innocent. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?yrail is a reeeeally long but fantastic article about such a case. Death is a permanent punishment and no review will ever be possible.
Second, personally I feel that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment. The right to life is an unalienable right.
I know in the US that often it is cheaper to send someone to prison for life rather than execute them due to legal procedures.
You cite god as an your reasoning, which is fine. But in countries that have seperated church and state there must be secular reasoning for or against the penalty. Luckily there is.
On March 02 2011 15:42 Manifesto7 wrote: A death penalty argument backed by religious conviction. This is going to go well. Your last sentence is pretty provocative too.
"In the end, has anyone really felt satisfaction and been relieved from grief through death penalty?"
Many people who have gone through the process say yes.
I feel like this thread should be locked for the reasons you posted. I can't tell if the OP is baiting or not with his religious bias. Regardless, a topic like this should either be in blogs because it is relating a personal experience or it should have an OP founded on logic, not religion
Ugh, why are you using religion as your basis. I'm not religious. There is no "playing God," and I hate that phrase in itself.
Can't believe you even had the audacity to state that you think people don't find closure through the death penalty, your notions are ridiculous and naiively based upon the assumption we are even religious in the first place.
The ONLY thing that makes me against the death penalty is the fact that our judicial branch isnt perfect, we can and have in the past, executed innocent people.
If it wasnt for the margin of error, i would be for it a thousand times over.. You dont take my family from this earth and deserve to live another day.. You can sit here and say, what gives you the right to decide that? Well what gave him the right to take life?
Religion definitely isnt the common denominator.. in this debate.. We should take it off the table completely imo.
I've always been of the belief that laws are meant to deter crime, not punish criminals.
What good will killing a criminal do? Life in prison is enough to prevent him from doing any more harm. A living human is infinitely more useful than a dead human. Even a criminal can live a productive life in jail.
If the psychopath is gonna be imprisoned for life, it will be in the name of justice, NOT because he is harmful to others. People who have ill mentality to harm other people's life are sent to mental hospitals. I think this one of those "no right answer" questions. Some people feel it is unfair for the murderer to live on while his victim does not even live.
NOTE: I also disagree the that the right to live is some inalienable right. You very well may forfeit your right to life depending on the actions you make. And yes, it's for society to judge, tough shit if you do the wrong shit in the wrong area.
The problem with the death penalty is that it inculcates the idea that killing is endorsed by the state and therefore individuals tend to subconsiously be more inclined to murder. It is no coincidence that the states with the highest crime and murder rates are those that still practice capital punishment. While states that have abolished the death penalty have seen substantial drops in violent and nonviolent crime.
On March 02 2011 15:37 spkim1 wrote: Nobody has the right to take another man's life. Somehow, humans made laws and dared to decide who lived and died - man is playing God. Only God has the right to decide who should live or die
I don't believe that god exists therefore he can't have any such right. If anyone does, it's humanity/society.
A psychopath who has killed innocent people must be locked away and imprisonned for life. This is for the safety of others, and God will judge him from thence. We must not think our tax money is spent in an ill-advised way by being spent on feeding and keeping the psychopaths alive. We are paying tax money to contain them and keep them from harming anyone else. This would be included in "social security".
Personally I'm in favour of the death penalty for murder, why waste all that money for decades on keeping this person alive when you could just solve the problem on day one with a bullet to the head.
All that man can, must, and has the right to do is have the conscience to stop bloodshed by capturing and containing murderers and people with murderous intent. Judgement is not ours to do, no matter how bitter we feel.
This sounds like some kind of minority report type thing, if people commit crimes then they forfeit their rights and the law can deal with them as it sees fit.
In the end, has anyone really felt satisfaction and been relieved from grief through death penalty ? Wrath and Vengeance creates only destruction .....
I'm sure many people throughout history have had plenty satisfaction from avenging the death of a friend/relative etc. and it punishes the party responsible for murder in the first place.
I am not sure what exactly your views are? I agree with you on the issue of death penalty. However, you say that you are against death penalty because it's only God's right to take away another's life? Then I disagree with you as I don't believe in God and I find it hard to believe that there is an afterlife.
If someone killed me, then I don't care about getting revenge because I am already dead.
I don't know if I would get satisfaction or relieved from grieve through the death penalty, as I never was in this circumstance. I don't imagine I would be, but then again I don't know. I imagine it would bring temporary relief like releasing anger. But if the victim wanted revenge and I cared about the victim, then I would whole heartily be willing to see the vengeful act carried out.
I am also intrigued to someone who may have personally experienced this and what their view on death penalty is...
Edit: during the time I wrote this response, there have been several replies. I am delighted that I am not the only atheist in the fox hole. =p
Recently a man in Germany killed and abused a 10 year old. He did it because he liked to have control over someone. His victim was picked randomly. He claimed his boss was being mean to him on the cell phone prior to the incident, not that that would be an excuse, but he also lied there.
I would have no problem if a court decided to get him executed.
A life is a silly thing to waste, and i like your signature because really i used to fear death but not any more. its the most certain thing to ever happen and when u live by fearing death how can u truly live.
but for the death penalty i think it should be aloud just because that life is now wasted and since he used his life to ruin someone elses or more than just one person i think we have the right to choose to let him live or not. if anything god gave us the right to choose to let people live or die. god gave him life and if they dont care how they use and just cause harm then i think its better for the rest humanity to have that one person die.
but it is a very hard thing to argue this side especially if u follow the ten commandments...
I do admit that I am indeed Christian, and that I do believe in the presence of God.
However, that is not my point. Be it God, Buddha, Yahwe, or any other superior presence, it does not matter - Man has no right to judge another man's life or death.
Moreover, unfortunately, many of the laws made by humans have been derived from religious bases. Had we no religion, we would have lived in an environment with brutal violence, where the strongest lived and the weakest died - Survival of the Fittest - The Rule of nature. The reason why we protect and care for the weak not only is generated from our sense of pity, fellowship, loyalty and generosity, but also from religious backgrounds like the Ten Commandments in Christianism. Justice as such is today, in order for our social system to work, it is an essential requirement for us to believe that a superior presence judges for our sins.
Edit: More than 'laws', I wanted to refer to our sense of justice and concept of fairness.
Others are as high as 30k per year as a nation-wide average, varying by state (not including the cost of the person not being active in the workforce) ---this is quite a long PDF
...in 2008 prisons cost our 33 surveyed states an average of about $79 per inmate per day—or almost $29,000 per year.
Edit: OT- Is it better to kill someone to prevent further killings in the future? God wouldn't like any killings to occur, but wouldn't he prefer the lesser of the two evils?
As a prosecutor, I'm opposed to the death penalty for a more practical reason - that the execution of an innocent human being is the inevitable consequence of enacting capital punishment.
However, I have a hard time swallowing the OP's argument. I mean, that sort of ancient, manichean worldview really falls apart when held up against the complexities of a modern-day society and economy.
I just have a really hard time understanding Christianity in general. Either you live and die by the literal word of God i.e. the bible and Jesus's teachings, or you're not really a Christian, you're just picking and choosing what parts you want to believe. The former is entirely unacceptable to me, and the latter seems like blatant hypocrisy, so I just wash my hands of the whole thing and stay in my godless liberal enclave of NYC ;-)
EDIT: Just one point I would like to make - it costs more to execute someone than to feed and clothe them for life because the appeals process, which is designed to reduce the possibility of wrongful convictions, generates enormous court costs.
On March 02 2011 15:49 spkim1 wrote: I do admit that I am indeed Christian, and that I do believe in the presence of God.
However, that is not my point. Be it God, Buddha, Yahwe, or any other superior presence, it does not matter - Man has no right to judge another man's life or death.
Moreover, unfortunately, many of the laws made by humans have been derived from religious bases. Had we no religion, we would have lived in an environment with brutal violence, where the strongest lived and the weakest died - Survival of the Fittest - The Rule of nature. The reason why we protect and care for the weak not only is generated from our sense of pity, fellowship, loyalty and generosity, but also from religious backgrounds like the Ten Commandments in Christianism. Justice as such is today, in order for our social system to work, it is an essential requirement for us to believe that a superior presence judges for our sins.
Edit: More than 'laws', I wanted to refer to our sense of justice and concept of fairness.
And what (as I'm pretty certain is the case) if there IS no "superior presence"?
Your second paragraph is a bit rich considering religion is responsible for, you know, the vast majority of conflict and bloodshed throughout human history.
What if we had an island that had enough natural resources for the murderers and rapists to sustain themselves and we built a big wall around it so you could only get in but never get out.
Would this be morally ok? Removes them from society and as a fitting punishment they must live among themselves.
Personally I'm in favour of the death penalty for murder, why waste all that money for decades on keeping this person alive when you could just solve the problem on day one with a bullet to the head.
On March 02 2011 15:48 Karliath wrote: Play God? So when an ape kills another male ape for coming into his territory, that ape is playing God?
Oh wait I forgot. You guys don't care about animal behavior.
Just thought that id say i like this because if god created all creatures how come humans are the only species that really shows any rituals for god. its just because we wonder how we got here and other animals have more important things to worry about, plus they cant really think anyway
There are many things I would like to say here, but to save myself from hours of frustration over religious debate that never has a conclusion, I will now take my leave.
[QUOTE]On March 02 2011 15:48 jello_biafra wrote: Personally I'm in favour of the death penalty for murder, why waste all that money for decades on keeping this person alive when you could just solve the problem on day one with a bullet to the head. /QUOTE]
But that's the thing, a criminal can pay for his own life. Have the criminal work a job so he can pay for his own living expenses. Simply keep him away from the rest of society.
On March 02 2011 15:52 Brambled wrote: What if we had an island that had enough natural resources for the murderers and rapists to sustain themselves and we built a big wall around it so you could only get in but never get out.
Would this be morally ok? Removes them from society and as a fitting punishment they must live among themselves.
You cannot equate a rapist with a murderer, not even the most debased and vile child rapists. It's simply not possible, and yes, I know some states have tried to do it, but they're absolutely and completely wrong to do so.
If i was, say, a terrible serial killer or something, and i faced one of life in prison or the death penalty, i would prefer the death penalty. i wouldn't want to spend the next 50 years in prison. i would much rather die. but hey, thats just me.
Rational viewpoint is that running jails is a lot of money which could be spend on something more constructive. Jails arent cheap.
On the other hand what god says doesnt matter to me since I'm an aetheist. Even though my angle at it is different from the "does not have right to" goes to "does not make you better than the killer".
I am a against death penalty.
Peace out, not gonna check this thread which is gonna be a religious discussion completely off topic in some pages..
Imagine if one of your relatives or close friend was murdered by a psychopath - wouldn't your wrath and sense of justice boil as to want this psycho's life taken away as well ?
I read this line and it immediately made me think of this spam macro:
Personally I'm in favour of the death penalty for murder, why waste all that money for decades on keeping this person alive when you could just solve the problem on day one with a bullet to the head.
I am an atheist and this is one of the major reasons I am against the death penalty.
Only because of human rights and things, they keep them on death row for years on end and use expensive things like lethal injections. If they did it like China did and just hang/shoot them on the day of their trial then costs would be a hell of a lot lower.
On March 02 2011 15:48 jello_biafra wrote: Personally I'm in favour of the death penalty for murder, why waste all that money for decades on keeping this person alive when you could just solve the problem on day one with a bullet to the head.
But that's the thing, a criminal can pay for his own life. Have the criminal work a job so he can pay for his own living expenses. Simply keep him away from the rest of society.
Only worth it if they're producing significantly more than they're costing IMO, if they're just breaking even then why bother.
And as for a sense of justice and concept of fairness, ideally I think the punishment should fit the crime, you kill then you die, you assault someone you get assaulted, you rob someone you get all your stuff taken and given to the victim etc. with some kind of labour camp as well to replace prisons (cheaper and more effective IMO)
On March 02 2011 15:37 spkim1 wrote: Nobody has the right to take another man's life. Somehow, humans made laws and dared to decide who lived and died - man is playing God. Only God has the right to decide who should live or die.
A psychopath who has killed innocent people must be locked away and imprisonned for life. This is for the safety of others, and God will judge him from thence. We must not think our tax money is spent in an ill-advised way by being spent on feeding and keeping the psychopaths alive. We are paying tax money to contain them and keep them from harming anyone else. This would be included in "social security".
As an Atheist I can safely say that there is no God, and God will not judge a person in the afterlife because there is no afterlife.
You mention psychopaths, but I actually think you mean sociopaths, which are similar yet so extremely different.
A sociopath who has killed innocents, which is the keyword here, innocents, does not deserve to live. He feels no remorse for his actions and therefore deserves the death penalty.
A psychopath however, pertains to mental illness which is something that can be cured in a mental hospital. If a person has murdered someone because of mental illness, they deserve leniency or at the very least psychiatric care, not imprisonment.
A cold-blooded murderer who intentionally kills someone deserves to die in my opinion. Wasting tax payers money to keep someone in prison with the intention of "keeping the public safe from this person" is ridiculous. Them not being alive anymore serves the same purpose and solves the issue of said murderer getting out on parole or escaping from jail.
The prisons are overcrowded anyway and you'd save so much money that's better spent elsewhere on putting them in the ground.
[quote]Imagine if one of your relatives or close friend was murdered by a psychopath - wouldn't your wrath and sense of justice boil as to want this psycho's life taken away as well ?[/quote
Maybe it would, and maybe it wouldn't. Regardless, it would not make capital punishment the smart, rational, ethical disposition of the case.
The people of your respective state or the united states as a whole bring criminal actions, not an individual - your interests are carefully weighed and considered by the prosecution, but they represent the people of the state as a whole, not you personally.
Imagine if one of your relatives or close friend was murdered by a psychopath - wouldn't your wrath and sense of justice boil as to want this psycho's life taken away as well ?
Maybe it would, and maybe it wouldn't. Regardless, it would not make capital punishment the smart, rational, ethical disposition of the case.
The people of your respective state or the united states as a whole bring criminal actions, not an individual - your interests are carefully weighed and considered by the prosecution, but they represent the people of the state as a whole, not you personally.
On March 02 2011 15:48 jello_biafra wrote: Personally I'm in favour of the death penalty for murder, why waste all that money for decades on keeping this person alive when you could just solve the problem on day one with a bullet to the head.
But that's the thing, a criminal can pay for his own life. Have the criminal work a job so he can pay for his own living expenses. Simply keep him away from the rest of society.
Criminals working en masse wouldn't be allowed in the USA since that would 'take jobs away' from non-criminal workers (the job market would indeed suffer for a while, until it recovered by a shift to different sectors); criminals would also have to work ~11 hours a day at minimum wage to pay for their expenses($79/day), the economics of the matter just doesn't work out.
Imagine if one of your relatives or close friend was murdered by a psychopath - wouldn't your wrath and sense of justice boil as to want this psycho's life taken away as well ?
I would want to kill him, but would I actually do it? No. Humans have the gift of humanity. We don't have to resort to murder to solve our problems. Some humans aren't human at all, but that doesn't mean the rest of us should devolve to their level.
On March 02 2011 15:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Really? Can I just move this to blogs before it implodes?
I think that will be for the best. The OP is way too provocative (without merit) and the thread will likely turn into another flame war about religion.
What i gathered from the OP is that you tried to convince your girlfriend of something, she told you that you're wrong, and now you are looking to defend your new values against anyone who'd like to take you on.. Did I sum that up pretty accurately?
My opinion is a pretty simple one: if sentenced to life in prison for murder, put the man to death. My reasoning? They probably deserve it.
I'd also like to point out that your opinion has the common fallacy of including religion as a backing for the belief.
On March 02 2011 15:49 spkim1 wrote: I do admit that I am indeed Christian, and that I do believe in the presence of God.
However, that is not my point. Be it God, Buddha, Yahwe, or any other superior presence, it does not matter - Man has no right to judge another man's life or death.
Moreover, unfortunately, many of the laws made by humans have been derived from religious bases. Had we no religion, we would have lived in an environment with brutal violence, where the strongest lived and the weakest died - Survival of the Fittest - The Rule of nature. The reason why we protect and care for the weak not only is generated from our sense of pity, fellowship, loyalty and generosity, but also from religious backgrounds like the Ten Commandments in Christianism. Justice as such is today, in order for our social system to work, it is an essential requirement for us to believe that a superior presence judges for our sins.
Edit: More than 'laws', I wanted to refer to our sense of justice and concept of fairness.
Here is the flaw in your argument. You take that bolded statement to be true, when it is essentially what we are trying to discuss.
Why does man have no right to judge another man's life or death?
And no, the reason why we care for each other isn't because of god or religion. It is actually quite the opposite. We care about each other precisely because of the survival of the fittest. Making a community is much more favorable for survival rather than being a lone wolf. If anything stopped us from caring about each other, it is religion.
Also wtf, are you just using this thread to preach? You are not allowed to argue because arguing requires arguments, and any argument is invalidated by god, or more technically I like to call Pee and not Pee (P ^ ~P, which we can use to prove anything we want).
I live in the United States, which is supposed to have a secular government. I'm also an atheist, so I don't believe in God.
I don't value a religious argument for pretty much anything... I'd prefer a logical, evidence-based one. Saying things like "Playing God" or "You just gotta have faith" don't sway my opnion at all.
I've heard that as far as the amount of paperwork, man-hours, and other costs go for the death penalty, it costs more than letting a criminal rot in prison for the rest of his life.
I think it might be a better punishment to let someone waste away in jail than give them a quick, easy, painless death. Life in prison is a worse (and therefore more appropriate) punishment than the death penalty, in my opinion, for someone who deserves one of those two sentences.
That being said, I'm not one to say we shouldn't have the death penalty. I'm happy as long as the punishments fit the crime.
This has been argued numerous times on TL and always goes down the same path. Three pages in and this is a mirror of every other thread. Go dig them up if you want to roll around in the argument.
EPT
