A body that was alive and was subject to the environment of culture and society committed a crime. Is the society also responsible to some extent for the evolution of the soul in that body? If so isn't it more productive to spend tax payers money in rehabilitating and creating environment so that he/she realises their fallacy of reasoning to commit a crime?
2006-11-11 00:29:57 · 10 answers · asked by stvenryn 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The purpose of the capital punishment is to eliminate the worst criminals from society. It is meant to be the ultimate penalty and is reserved only for those committing the most heinous crimes of violence and murder.
Each person is given certain rights and responsibilities at birth. It is the individual’s responsibility regardless of circumstance to make the best of life they can. Society in general doesn’t have the resources to rehabilitate even less violent criminals let alone the hardened felons that commit murders monstrous enough to be assigned a death sentence.
The evolution of the soul is a theory not shared by the general population of the United States. Many believe that evil exist and is beyond rehabilitation. It may be that God can redeem these lost souls, but it is obvious that it is beyond modern man’s skill and technology. Society is better served by simply eliminating these convicted murders from all chance of ever repeating their offenses.
2006-11-11 00:53:52 · answer #1 · answered by damdawg 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If all criminals could be rehabilitated then yes by all means use my taxpayers dollars to do so. However, as many studies have shown, there are some criminals particularly the ones who are repeat offenders in child molestation and murder that have over time conditioned themselves to believe what they do is right or even helpful to society. Those particular individuals do not deserve the benefit of my money to eat 3 squares a day , have cable, get mail, marry, etc. I would rather spend my money on the electric bill to have them ride the lightening and give the rest to a homeless person who could better be served by the 3 squares and a roof over their heads.
2006-11-11 09:05:33 · answer #2 · answered by mortgagegirl101 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Punishment for crime is aimed at serving at least one of three purposes, sometimes 2, at some level or another.
1. Protect society by removing the individual from a position where they can commit additional crimes.
2. Provide for the rehabilitation of the criminal to avoid it happening again.
3. Satisfying society's need for revenge.
Rehabilitation has had a very limited success factor.
2006-11-11 08:43:29 · answer #3 · answered by Aggie80 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The general feeling is that people that have committed such an atrocious crime as to be given the death penalty, are not rehabilitate-able. They are severely broken and you can't fix them.
Read up on Charles Manson, the California scum whose sentence was commuted from death to life in prison.
He is still as whacked as he was back in the 70's. And now, is a humongous drain on the taxpayers pocketbooks. He cannot be fixed, nor can most of these nutjobs.
So the concept of "death sentence" would benefit society as a whole, some people are just so damaged that they are not remorseful, nor should they be given the opportunity to suck our resources for the rest of their lives.
2006-11-11 08:43:42 · answer #4 · answered by Gem 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The death penalty is wrong, two wrongs never make a right, however, some crimes are so hideous that there is no rehabilitation possible. If you act like an animal you should have to spend the rest of your life in a cage just like other dangerous animals. But killing a killer is not the answer to society's woe's.
2006-11-11 08:42:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
That is a nice concept, learn from your mistakes and improve yourself, but some people either just don't get it or refuse to get it.
In all honesty, the Death Penalty gives a kind of closure to the family of the victim.
I do not believe it really deters violent crime, except that it does stop the person who is executed from doing any more
2006-11-11 08:56:20 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
A cancer is subject to the environment of the body, but it still must be eliminated to protect the body from death.
In the same way, the theory supporting the death penalty is that society protects itself from death by eliminating those people that seek to destroy it.
2006-11-11 08:42:40 · answer #7 · answered by picopico 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
its not enforcment its literally elminating the chance of a repeat offender.
2006-11-11 08:35:08 · answer #8 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Tried that. Hasn't worked, unfortunately.
2006-11-11 08:36:45 · answer #9 · answered by DAR 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Sometimes bad guys, sometimes good guys.
2006-11-11 08:41:15 · answer #10 · answered by JKT 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋