capital punishment

[justwhoever]

Ive recently read a few things about the death penalty, mostly to do with the sniper. And it never ceases to amaze me that people are so against the death penalty. Im not going to rag on those people I just dont understand the point of view. I have an extremely high respect for all life, however, when do you draw the line. Im not in favor of

Comments

[alexanderwait]

The standard argument in the case of the sniper for example is that we might execute the wrong person. Do you think it's fair to execute both of them? (Some people would be uncomfortable executing the younger guy even though he seems to have been the trigger man; others would be uncomfortable executing the older guy because it does not seem he was the trigger man.) Then you have the 100+ innocent people that have been exonerated on DNA evidence. And you realize that the death penalty kills innocent people.

I think it's silly to be against killing in self defense but it's also silly to use excessive force.

In the end as our standards of evidence get higher (for the death penalty) it might not be much more expensive to lock these guys up and throw away the key...

[justwhoever]

The standard argument in the case of the sniper for example is that we might execute the wrong person.

I dont see either one as the wrong person, because both directly facilitated to the murders. I see it as this, person A (driver) sets up a gun, and holds it while person B (shooter) pulls the trigger. Both are guilty. I believe it could be more argumental if it was a single occurrence, and the driver argued that he didnt know what the other did (was doing).

Then you have the 100+ innocent people that have been exonerated on DNA evidence. And you realize that the death penalty kills innocent people.

I agree, the justice system makes some big mistakes, but wars kill innocent people also, by the thousands, and its not a good argument to say we should never go to war because of it. But, this is the only decent argument against capital punishment to me.

...but it's also silly to use excessive force. I agree, but the question is if someone is in your house, what would be excessive? A small person alone could easily be subdued by a

[cobaltbluetony]

Rape, child molesting, murder, can NEVER be repaired. So the punishment should not be temporary. Theft, vandalism, assault can be repaired so the punishment should be temporary. (And the victim should be repayed for the damages.)

Your views are surprisingly similar to ancient Jewish law. It made a distinction between crimes against property [and livlihood] and crimes against the person. While "eye for an eye" was the general rule, the Law did not advocate sexual assault. If you harmed a person, the same was done to you, but if you sexually asaulted someone, you either had your privates maimed, or you were EXECUTED. And if you were executed, all the leaders of the community participated in it [if it was a stoning].

I do understand people's reservation to execute the wrong person. That in itself would be as large an injustice as the original crime. It would rob the victims of TRUE justice, also.

[justwhoever]

Your views are surprisingly similar to ancient Jewish law.

Ive always been fond of the 'eye for an eye' idea. (Even though I also like MLK's "an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind." But I guess they dont really pertain to eachother.)

I do understand people's reservation to execute the wrong person.

I do too, but thats why the system is "beyond a reasonable doubt." However, it is a fact that innocent people have been killed. But should we not move at all for fear of making the wrong move?

Re:

[cobaltbluetony]

Even though I also like MLK's "an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind."

MLK was speaking more of revenge than justice, I feel.

But should we not move at all for fear of making the wrong move?

If executing the wrong person was that undesireable, would they not make MANDATORY the most effective and accurate methods of determining guilt? Look, though, at who is the majority on death row: blacks. To the gargantuan old white fossil establishment, executing the poor blacks "who are a drain on society" is not as bad as executing the son of a wealthy [white] citizen.

Society is culpable for the creation of its most notorious criminals, in part, because of prevailing values, and also because of no compassion for those who might be the most susceptible mentally and psychologically to the subtle [and not-so-subtle] message of society. I sincerely think that no human can possibly provide sufficient justice, no matter how well intentioned and educated one is.

[justwhoever]

MLK was speaking more of revenge than justice, I feel.

I agree

who is the majority on death row: blacks

Its easy to look at one piece of a puzzle and determine that it is racist, but the bigger picture shows that there are far more factors. Mainly economics. Why are there more black basketball players? Are black people just naturally better athletes? Thats what it would appear. In reality, its economics. This generation grew up seeing that the only way a black man can be famous and loved is as an athlete, so those kids drove harder to accomplish that.

is not as bad as executing the son of a wealthy [white] citizen

Or a famous athlete. But the answer is "wealthy" far more than "white".

Society is culpable for the creation of its most notorious criminals, in part, because of prevailing values, and also because of no compassion for those who might be the most susceptible mentally and psychologically to the subtle [and not-so-subtle] message of society. If a person choose a criminal path, would you argue that it was society that