-
-
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/22/mo...ion/index.html
This article from CNN recounts many of the issues related to the death penalty.
1. Death by injection might be painful and therefore, cruel and unusual punishment by some's standards. Therefore a federal court has intervened saying the execution can proceed if doctors are present to oversee it and to insure that it be a painless process.
2. The docs withdrew, saying essentially that since they preserve rather than take life their presence puts them in an ethical conflict.
3. If the death penalty is imposed, must it be painless to insure that it does not become cruelty or torture. -
-
I don't really approve of the death sentence, but if you are going to do it, this expensive injection/electrocution crap has to go. I have a simple and effective solution: guillotine.Comment
-
Those that oppose the death penalty. Have little rationalization of what the survivors go through when a loved one is murdered and/or maliciously molested. The inmates that have been sentenced to the death penalty should be awarded their fate. Keeping an inmate on death row for thirty some years is absurd. Has anyone out there, figured out the cost for his/her incarceration. Over a period of thiryt years?
Comment
-
quote:Originally posted by FMII:
Those that oppose the death penalty. Have little rationalization of what the survivors go through when a loved one is murdered and/or maliciously molested. The inmates that have been sentenced to the death penalty should be awarded their fate. Keeping an inmate on death row for thirty some years is absurd. Has anyone out there, figured out the cost for his/her incarceration. Over a period of thiryt years?
Not to get too personal, but do you? And does their death undo what was done? Have you figured out the cost of incarceration, over their death, including all the appeals in the courts? I do not want to cause you any grief, but I just have to know why you feel so adament about the killing of another human being.Comment
-
As the statistics seem to show a strong correlation between having the death penalty and a HIGHer-than-average rate of crime, I strongly oppose it.Comment
-
I personally do not know how to answer this question. Whenever this topic comes up I think on it and do not know where I stand, personally I do not believe in the taking of another humans life, but there are those who's crimes are so hidious, the question of if they deserve to live comes up. If a person kills someone and is condemed to death, does the one who kills "him" derserve to die? To me it is still a murder. I do not believe that a person who willfully kills another derserves human rights, because that person does not value human rights, but they are still human. So I question what to do with them. Do we make them human test subjects, or crash test dumbies? Maybe something akin to what the Germans did to the Jews during WWII? What happened is terrible, but a lot was learned of what the human body can endure. For me this subject brings up more questions that I do not have answers for.Comment
-
If a man could (and did ... see link above) kill another over the lack of toilet paper in the house having the death penalty is of no use.
All the reasoning of an eye for an eye, deterant, etc., for having the death penalty and all the reasoning of cruel and inhumane, senselessness, etc., for not having the death penalty are moot if as a society we foster such reactionary incidents as the one clearly illustrated in the news article cited.
Without the death penalty crime rates are lower for all crime while they are higher with the death penalty and for good reason: Cultures without the death penalty are more apt to be open and less judgmental and crime is not 'necessary' as a means of survival within those cultures because fewer people are ostracized from the mainstream of the culture by differences as they are in cultures that are closed and more judgmental.
Such closed and judgmental cultures have more 'laws' to criminalize differences and therefore make crime a 'necessary' survival tool within those cultures: The death penalty is envoked among these cultures yet they still have high crime rates and its presence does nothing to abate the crime rate.
Indeterminate imprisonment or swift execution is strictly an economic quandry and the soundest economic answer for the quandry is to make it so that the quandry doesn't exist ... but that my friends is another whole kettle of fish.Comment
-
What he said
Also, I think we should examine more the causes of crime and murder, rather than stand around like fools asking if we have the "right" to kill someone for their crimes.Comment
-
No, I do not think watching action movies or violent games causes someone to go out and kill. I do think they influence our thinking of what is right and wrong but not what if it is moral or not.
Having the higher crime rates where death penalties are invoked should be prove that the penalty does little to deter crime.
The criminal system should treat prisoners as mental patients and treat that.Comment
-
This topic can open up a whole case of "canned worms."!
Funny this topic is being discussed. Had a chance to sit and have a cup of coffee with my crew yesterday, while at work, and was approached by a radio personality and asked this same question.
One reply and one only. I will answer it as honestly as I can. There's no definate answer to this question. We all feel differently about it and for many different reasons. The Prof and I may differ for all I know.
I believe in the death penalty. I believe that someone who takes the life of another in that given context (not to be compared to those imposing the punishment) and is found not only guilty but sentence by a jury of their peers and a judge, should be put to death. To me, it seems that those that have suffered the most, the person initially killed by this criminal, are forgotten. All their suffering, pain and ultimate death are placed aside and many say, "it's not going to bring them back, taking the life of another." Why does this evil person get to continue to live, whether it's in prison, in an institution, or on parole.
I think if we really did the math, it does cost us tax payers more to house those on death row for years and years and years, regardless of the court costs. In my opinion.....remember, it's just my opinion......the reason the death penalty does not deter crime, is because we don't impose the death penalty.
That's it...........I'll leave the building and this topic. It's really a topic that will not change anyone's mind, I think.Comment
-
Because of my personal faith and John chapter 13 that the death penalty is morally wrong. I am aware that the number one reason people support the death penalty is because some criminals are such a threat to society that they should never be let loose. That is reasonable and I agree. Because of that I support greater use of life without possibility of parole.Comment
-
quote:Originally posted by namedun:
I don't really approve of the death sentence, but if you are going to do it, this expensive injection/electrocution crap has to go. I have a simple and effective solution: guillotine.
Have you seen the price of Razor Blades lately??
Imagine how much one big enough for a guillotine would cost.Comment
-
Because I am a left-winger, I mistrust government. Or maybe, because I mistrust government, I became a left-winger.
I am opposed to the death penalty because I do not want to cede to the government the power of life and death. No government should be given the power of choosing who lives and who dies and for what reasons.
Put aside all the nonsense moralizing, ethics, quibbling, victims rights of vengeance and closure, mistakes are made, imposition is uneven, and all the other bilge that gets spouted--no government should have the power to determine the life or death of its citizens.
Once you cede that authority to government, you have ceded all authority. Life is Creator endowed and does not belong to the state.
Futhermore, I think justice can be well served by other forms of punishment.Comment
Tweet
Comment