how do you feel about the death penalty?

Question

people that oppose it say that it violates human rights, but its my opinion that if you brutally murder someone you forfeit those basic rights. granted that it seems hypocritical to take a life for taking a life, it's one of those circumstances i'll overlook. and i'm not for arbitrarily enforcing the penalty, it has to be with good reason. but before anyone jumps down my throat, think about this scenario: your husband, mother, child(etc) was beaten to near death, then tortured, then viciously murdered, and you saw the murderer smiling at you in court, pleased with himself...would a life sentence be enough for you?

Vitamin C-You're making an extreme blanket statement with what you said about people that support the death penalty and frankly you make a pretty ridiculous pagan. I'm pagan as well and a former catholic so don't preach to me. What's a pagan doing preaching anyway? As for the response to that statement, I do support the death penalty but have never laid hands on any child, and never would. Guess that blows your theory all to hell. Hah, hell.

Answer 1

My church is against the death penalty, and teaches that murder is wrong, even if it's done in the name of the state. Somebody in my family was murdered, and no, I still don't think that two wrongs make a right. Killing the murderer doesn't bring anybody back. Plus, there have been a number of cases in which people jailed for an offense have later been proven innocent, and I wouldn't want the blood of an innocent person on my hands (or on the government's hands as they act in my name).

Answer 2

In an ideal world I would love to believe I wouldn't support the death penalty; in an ideal world there would be no reason to even consider it.

I think I would find it very difficult if my family were brutally murdered to 'forgive and forget'. In some ways I think that, perhaps, freedom and life go hand in hand. They are both *rights*, so to speak. Taking away a persons freedom as a punishment for them doing wrong is still the removal of a persons *rights*. Although on the face of it this may appear less drastic than removing their right to live, is it *truly* that different?

How do I know I am alive? Without going into those sorts of philosophical questions, a quick answer would be that our own personal experience of the world around us convinces us we are alive. By removing a criminal's freedom, you are limiting/diminishing their personal experience of the world. You are, therefore, limiting/diminishing their life in some sense.

Perhaps the more serious the crime, the more diminished the life should become. At what point, however, do you decide that a criminal is not worthy of their own life *at all*? How is removing a criminal's life any worse than diminishing it?

Most importantly, consider the victim of the crime (I don't mean the murdered person, I mean the living person who is most hurt by the crime - husband, wife etc). Is their life at all augmented by the removal of someone elses? What if the criminal has a family, will they not suffer if the criminal is put to death? There are two many options to consider - a blanket 'law' will not work. Only on a case-by-case common-sense basis can the death penalty *really* be implemented.

But, even then, consider the job of the executioner (even if it's automated, someone must setup the machine). The executioner receives a salary (or, perhaps, a one-off-payment) for knowingly removing the life of another human being. The executioner's life is, therefore, augmented at the cost of someone else's. If the criminal killed someone for their money, is the executioner not simply doing the same thing?

If someone killed my family I'm not even sure I would want them to be executed. I think I'd prefer to see them suffer. But, as I've already said, is the removal of their freedom that different than the removal of their life?

No, I don't think I would support the death penalty on the grounds that I wouldn't be happy with the shadow cast over the other people involved. However, I am not opposed to it either on the grounds that an execution is nothing more than an extreme incarceration.

Therefore, on this decision, I'm afraid I must abstain.

Answer 3

Your view is predicated on the notion that the person who is on trial is definitely the one who did the deed. That isn't always the case, and here in the UK we've had some serious miscarriages of justice - especially in cases where, if we'd had the death penalty, innocent people would have been killed.

I'm a little ambivalent on the matter. If it were possible to prove absolutely that you had the right murderer, then I don't see why he shouldn't be made into cat-food. The trouble is, though, that we can never be sure.

For me personally, though, I'd far rather get the needle than spend more that a month inside one of those places - no question.

CD

Answer 4

I used to be pro-death penalty. I think the outrage and desire for revenge is a natural and understandable human reaction. However, I have changed my stance over the years, for several reasons (and none of them involve human rights, to address your first comment):

1. By far the biggest reason is this: Sometimes our legal system gets it wrong. Look at all the criminals who are being released after years of imprisonment because they were exonerated by DNA evidence. No matter how rare it is, our government should not risk executing one single innocent person.

Really, that should be reason enough for most reasonable people. If you need more, read on:

2. Because of the extra expense of prosecuting a DP case and the appeals process (which is necessary - see reason #1), it costs taxpayers MUCH more to execute prisoners than to imprison them for life.

3. The deterrent effect is questionable at best. Violent crime rates are actually higher in death penalty states. This may seem counterintuitive, but think about the mixed message it sends: we’re trying to take a stand against murder…by killing people. The government becomes the bad parent who says, ‘do as I say, not as I do.’

4. There’s also an argument to be made that death is too good for the worst of our criminals. Let them wake up and go to bed every day of their lives in a prison cell, and think about the freedom they DON’T have, until they rot of old age.

5. The U.S. government is supposed to be secular, but for those who invoke Christian law in this debate, you can find arguments both for AND against the death penalty in the Bible. For example, Matthew 5:38-39 insists that violence shall not beget violence. 1 Peter 3:9 argues AGAINST “eye for an eye”-type justice. Leviticus 19:18 warns against vengeance (which, really, is what the death penalty amounts to). In John 8:7, Jesus himself says, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Answer 5

Your question, "would a life sentence be enough for you?", implies that the purpose of the criminal justice system is to satisfy a lust for vengeance. In the case of the death penalty, I agree that's what it is -- there is no evidence that capital punishment is an effective deterrent.

But I believe the purpose of the criminal justice system should be to protect society, not take vengeance on the guilty. Life in prison protects everyone best -- it simultaneously protects the human rights of the guilty, while protecting society from a murderer.

That's how I respond to that specific argument. I have other reasons for opposing the death penalty though -- some of them sound religious (it is not our place to judge), even though I'm an atheist.

Answer 6

I oppose the death penalty because it is not an effective way of preventing or reducing crime and because it risks executing innocent people. The system has many practical flaws.

Not all victims family members feel as you hint at. Many of them who might support the death penalty in principal actually prefer a sentence of life without parole because of how the prolonged legal process (in place because we don't want to see an innocent person executed) affects families like theirs.

Answer 7

I don't really have a problem with the idea, *but* how do you ascertain guilt or innocence 100%? We are human. We aren't perfect. We are going to make mistakes.
If you make a mistake with the death penalty, you don't get a chance to do it again.
So, is it worth it to you that a few innocent people die so that all of the guilty ones may be put to death? If so, how many? Would you make exceptions for your own family if they were the innocent ones?

Answer 8

I believe it should be allowed in extreme cases...when it is 100% sure that the person is guilty.

Remember the role of our prisons is not about rehabilitation or even punishment...it is about protecting the populace from these people. If these people on death role has done something so violent and illegal that makes then a threat to anyone in society...then they should be put to death.

However, the laws should be fair and equitable to all. Certain crimes should be punishable by death...period...regardless of how wealthy you are and how good of a lawyer you can afford, etc...

Answer 9

The way people answer this question is a direct reflection of just how spiritually evolved they are.

People who support the death penalty are usually the types of folks who think it's appropriate to spank their child and then say "Bad boy, we don't hit!"

Good luck with that!

By the way, in answer to your last question: Yes, a life sentence would be enough for me. I know this for certain, because someone killed my grandmother and then had no remorse for it. He even bad mouthed her to anyone who would listen, after he killed her. I forgave him and I wish him no ill. I have no doubt that Jesus would have done the same. If you are a Christian, you may want to pick up your Bible a little more often, because it sounds like you've lost touch with Jesus' message. Unless, of course, you choose to follow the Old Testament laws when it suits your purpose.

Edit: Hi Tramp Stamp,

It sounds like I hit a bit of a sore spot for you, huh? I love the way you got on to me for making "an extreme blanket statement", and then you go on to make just as extreme of a blanket statement about how Pagans should act. In this moment, it makes it very easy for me to believe that you used to be Catholic. I don't believe what I said was anything but just plain logic. After all, do you think it is very enlightened behavior to murder somone in punishment for murdering someone? Your question is all about trying to get approval for the very unenlighten tendancy to want to take revenge on someone. As far as your "proof" that my argument doesn't work, it's obvious that you didn't take the time to notice that I said "usually". Although, it's good to hear that your penchant for wanting to take revenge hasn't affected your children, yet (or are you even a parent?)

As far as preaching is concerned, I think you are probably intelligent enough to realize that I thought you were probably Christian, considering the fact that most Pagans I've met have a little bit more respect for life than you were exhibiting. Believe it or not, there are Pagans who follow the teachings of Jesus, I'm glad I got to be the one to introduce you to this premise.

I must admit that the fact that someone like you doesn't approve of my behavior as a Pagan actually makes me feel better, since it shows me that I am obviously moving in the right direction.

Blessings,

Vitamin

Answer 10

I believe a life sentence (no chance of parole) is a much worse punishment than getting put to sleep. Taking away ones freedom is enough. Also, I can not overlook that taking a life is wrong no matter if it is the result of a crime or the result of a punishment.