New classification of crimes punishable by death....opinions..is it moral?

Question

I am opposed to the death penalty in most cases for practical reasons. It's too expensive, it's used in a racially moticated way.

I support the death penalty in cases of sedition/treason. And for military tribunals.

I want to make a new classification of crime...called economic sedition....which would be punishable by death.

My thought pattern is that like treason, economic sedition from people like Kenneth Lay effects people on such a huge scale that it is not normal crime. It isn't just theft.

The impact it has on countless lives, and the economy, should be punishable by execution.

I'm curious to see how people react.

Don't just disagree....explain WHY you disagree.

soulinver....great answer....but there is one distinction I'm trying to make....

I don't have an idea for when it becomes economic sedition instead of just normal theft/fraud.....

but i'm not talking about 100 dollars from a hundred thousand people. I'm talking about thousands of people losing entire pensions. I'm talking about thousands losing their jobs.

I think people have a hard time equating life and money. Money to me is also life. Think about how money impacts life in hospitals. Or schools. Any decision we make involves lives. Is lay directly killing someone with a bullet? No. But how many people have less health care, and thus a shorter life, because of him?

The damage he did just isn't the same as a murderer.

Answer 1

I would disagree. Under this same argument, a person should be put to death for taking, say, one dollar from every American. 300 million dollars is a lot of money, but the amount of pain or suffering to any one party is a paltry sum. I'm currently against the death penalty because the risk of making a mistake is so great, but I do believe that it can only be justified on the basis of affecting an individual. To take another's life is a far more serious and heinous act than to take one dollar from every American, but, admittedly, 300 million dollars out of the economy will cause more suffering than taking a single life (in a strictly utilitarian sense).

You're right in addressing the issue of scale, but I will go ahead and suggest the following.

The punishment for a crime should somehow match the nature of the crime itself, without regard to its extent. It size of the crime should affect the duration/severity of the sentence, but not the nature of the sentence. So, theft may range from a few months imprisonment to may lifetimes, depending on the amount stolen, but it will never be enough to change from imprisonment to the death penalty.

I understand that I havn't really justified this suggestion or my refutation of your idea. I think that the nature of a crime should match the nature of the suffering caused, and the extent of the punishment should match the extent of the crime, but the extent of the crime should not affect the nature of the punishment.

I understand that I havn't justified this. I am suggesting that(and think it is intuitive) someone who steals $100 from one person has committed a more serious offense than stealing $1 from 100 people.

Answer 2

I'm going to respectfully disagree here.

I believe that the punishment should fit the crime. Give these people a taste of justice, not just punishment.

Using your example, Kenneth Lay's assets should have been liquidated, and used to compensate each and every person who got screwed by his actions. Leave him as penniless as he left the people who actually did the work to get him that money (a side benefit is that those people will now have money to spend...which will help the economy recover). Throw his a$$ in prison...not one of those minimum security, country club types either. Prison with a chain gang, so he could (if he was still alive), work for his keep.

Leave the death penalty for those who have willfully taken a human life...just don't let them sit too long.

Answer 3

I am all for the death penalty. With the discovery of the DNA testing now being submittable in court and the tests proving guilty we need to execute more prisoners. the money we as a working community pay to house these people for the rest of their lives we could be concentrating on the kids education that has recently been forgot about.Changing the future starts by erasing all the mistakes of the past.As a several time incarcerated man i must say that if you do the crime you do the time,but what ever happened to an eye for an eye? Society has gotten weak on the scum of the earth.people that commit crimes that even this crooked system finds guilty without a reasonable doubt should meet their maker and atone responsibility for their actions.

Answer 4

This is definitely a different idea. I'm not terribly in favor of the death penalty myself -- only for the fact that its not really a penalty. We spend money giving these people a humane death which basically means they get to fall into a deep sleep, even if they inflicted a totally brutal death on their victim(s). Life in prison, to me, is a better form of punishment. Call me sadistic. :) However, it is strange how we choose to use the death penalty in situations where the offender only affected a few people's lives; while those who commit crimes that effect all of us get by with serving a little time. I don't know that I agree that they should be put to death, but it definitely brings out the irony of the situation.

Answer 5

I support the death penalty. I worked in a prison for 5 years and I've seen how unregretful alot of prisoners are. Some really don't care and have no desire to mend their ways. They like the life of crime. I've gone my entire life without killing, molesting, raping or robbing others so I don't see how hard it is NOT to do those things. That being said, I wouldn't really support the death penalty for your new law. Money grubbers are better left alive. They'll go to prison for years and have all their basic rights taken away. That is a huge punishment for people like that. They're used to buying their way out of things and in the case of prison, you can't always buy your way out of that. Freedom is priceless in my opinion. Plus, they can't take the hit to their ego. They're used to fooling others and the last thing they want is their lies to be exposed. That is pretty devestating to them. They should do hard time in real prison, not Camp Fed or anything. Death is too good for them. They need to live and pay back what they stole and be made to pay back every sent they stole.

Answer 6

Your not ok with the death penalty in most cases cause it is to expensive but you are ok with it in the case of Kenneth Lay. A CEO of a company that did not kill anyone. ?

You support it if it is about sedition and/or treason?

To define sedition: Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state.. SO WE ARE TO NEVER SAY ANY THING AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT FOR FEAR OF DEATH!

To define treason: Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies. AGAIN.... say NOTHING against our country for fear of DEATH!!!

So when do we change the 1st amendment.?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of SPEECH, or of the PRESS; or the RIGHT of the PEOPLE peaceably to ASSEMBLE, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

How should it be worded now.?

"say only what we say is ok to say and make sure its all nice and sweet or you will be put to death. "

We live in a country that we are aloud to say mean things about the government. We live in a country were we are aloud to protest up and down in front of the governement if we do not like them.

I myself do not support the death penelty. I believe we are our brothers keeper, and we are responsibel for each other. Good and bad.

Answer 7

well i remember this Christian woman which would not sell second day anticonceptive pills because she thought that would make her unChristian , she was a pharmacists so she violated the law and was sent to jail for doing so . also there is a catholic town in florida in which a lot of things such as pornography and condoms are forbidden to have by the residents , i believe this has to be against the law , although i am not sure if it actually is . don't forget either the scandals the catholic church is having because they asked their own bishops to not cooperate with the law , so perhaps this could be added to "Christian values thing" . i seen many Christians evangelicals standing up behind their own rapist child molesters .

Answer 8

I don't agree with the death penalty for 'any' crime, so, although I'm sure you have good reasoning behind this..I cannot agree with this either.

Humans shouldn't have the power to kill anyone. We can flaw in our judgement too easily. If someone is meant to die, God can take care of it without needing a human to have to do it.

Blessings and Love,
Sarah

Answer 9

i think that ANY violent criminal should be put to death.

murderers and rapists, and any drug dealer selling anything harder than Pot.

economical problems, bullets are not expensive. and if shot in the head they are not cruel or unusual. you dont even have time to feel it. it is just a bit messy.

as for people like Ley, and others that hurt that many people yeah charge them with high treason and shoot them in the forehead too.

talk about national debt, how quick would that be paid off if we got rid of all of our violent criminally that are serving jail time..for the cost of one meal we can eliminate 20 of them. and if that is too expensive, Rope is cheap and reusable.

for a punishment to work it cannot fit the crime it must be more severe than the crime.

think about it if your kids come home 2 hours past their curfew

do you just make them come 2 hours early the nest weekend,

NO

you ground them for 2 weeks.

if somebody kills or rapes somebody do you feed and house them for the rest of their life.

no you get rid of them. and i am not in favor of killing them in a humane manner, they should be put to death in the same way that they killed the person that they killed.

maybe then people will think twice about shooting somebody ofer a verbal insult or a traffic accident.

Answer 10

Who do we think we are to steal the life of anyone? Should people be imprisoned for the prevention of crimes? Absolutely, but it is not for us to be the executioner.

Impossible Princess, I currently work in a county jail and understand your frustration, but why should they be grateful to the guards we stand between them and freedom. If we are going to condemn people to die, because they desire freedom, then maybe we all ought to be executed, because we would be no different in their shoes. Yes they did bad things, but that does not mean that we get to kill them