Anti-Pro, while I agree with you about the death penalty not being a deterrant(something that honestly has never quite made logical sense to me in any case) I have to dispute what you said about the DP not being vengeance.
“I don’t think of the death penalty as vengeance…for the state or for the victim. Vengenance should entail ‘getting back’ what was taken, and that isn’t possible.”
If it entailed “getting back what was taken” it wouldn’t really be vengeance at all, or at least not vengeance as it generally is defined.
Vengeance:1 infliction of trouble, as pain, injury, humiliation,or annoyance, on a person or persons who have been a source of injury or annoyance to one. 2. an act or opportunity of inflicting such trouble.
(this is from websters unabridged dictionary,1996 for those that are curious) nothing about “getting back” at all, in fact by this definition it seems that vengeance is exactly what the death penalty is about. Something that DP supporters seem to, if not support explicitly, imply in their reasoning.
What I meant Nu Vo Da Da, is that TO ME it isn’t about vengeance, I’ve listened to the argument that it is.
Which is why, I’ve never known how to classify MYSELF. I don’t think it should be done away with, which would put me in the ‘supporters’ camp. But, I do have serious reservations about the VERY fallible justice system, but I’m not quite to the ‘do away with it’ camp either. THAT sounds wishy washy, and I hate that!!
I think that the death penality is quite necessary. If you decide to plan to take the life of another human, then you are waisting oxygen and resources that could be better spent on someone who will not follow your example.
now I am not talking about killing every single murder. Note that I said if you plan to take someone elses life. If someone takes someone elses life in a spur of the moment action, then yes they should be punished, but the death penality should not be used. Also, a jury will not approve the death penality unless they are sure of the accused guilt, so the odds of an innocent person being killed are very low.
I don’t see how the state can use death as a penalty for murder. How much sense does that make?
“We can do it, but you can’t”.
I can understand why people support the DP, but I just can’t. And if you ask me how many innocent people on death row it takes to make the DP wrong, I will answer “One”.
Life isn’t fair and sht happens, I know, but why would we use that as an excuse to make more opportunities for unfairness and sht?
(Emphasis mine)
Very low? Just one is ok?
I’ve read pretty much all the posts on all the threads related to this subject, and I must say that not many have expressed this sentiment.
Please, read the other posts, including the links. You’ve got a lot to learn.
Peace,
mangeorge (Is this a joke?)
actually, I think the U.S. has some of the longest sentences in a liberal democracy - and one stat I saw suggested the U.S. had a greater percentage of its population behind bars than other liberal democracies.
When I hear the sentences your courts give out and compare them to what our courts do for equvialent offences, I’m amazed at the length of the U.S. sentences.
Oh, by the way, we’ve not had a death sentence in Canada since the mid-70’s, and the last execution was in 1962 (I think). There is no evidence that abolition has affected murder rates at all. At best, there have been some ambiguous studies that leave pro- and anti- types arguing about statistical methodology, which hardly strikes me as a clear-cut argument for the deterrent value of the death penalty.
Necessary, huh? The U.S. is the only industralized nation in the world with the death penalty. Guess they’re just “waisting” oxygen in Britain, France, Canada, the Netherlands, Australia, and so on and so forth. (Semi-useless factoid: the only person the State of Israel has put to death was Adolph Eichmann.)
I’m against the use of the death penalty. The idea of my country or state taking the life of a human being sickens me (with the possible exception of Eichmann, who clearly wasn’t a member of the human race). The thought of George W. Bush mocking the pleas of a woman he had signed the death warrant for on national television just gives me one more reason not to vote for him.
Had W. given that woman in Texas a reprieve, it would have given me a reason NOT to vote for him. She deserved to die. He mocked her? Well, now she knows how it feels to have her life in someone else’s hands who shows no mercy.
Then we have the recent case of the car-jacker who dragged a 6 year old to his death because he was entangled in the seatbelt. The mother was screaming for the guy to stop and saw her son being dragged down the street to his death.
Some people have proven that they have no place in a civilized society. Fry him. I’ll be happy to push the button.
It’s funny–I happen to be in the process of writing a paper that in part deals with this very issue. In an essay supporting the death penalty, Ernest van den Haag says the following:
The response to van den Haag’s aforementioned claim, in an essay by H. A. Bedau, is one that I would like to direct to your assertion that “you can’t protect everybody from misfortune.”
I hope now you see the distinction. Sure, people die all the time, many of them undeservedly. The question is, does ANYONE deserve to be put to death, especially given the inherent biases in the system that may lead to innocents being put to death (not to mention the racial and economic biases that have and probably will always exist). I don’t think anyone does, especially given that there is a perfectly viable alternative of life in prison without parole. Either way,though, comparing an execution to an accident is a specious argument at best.
I found a compelling argument in favor of the death penalty taken up by the writers of All in the Family, and by cartoonist Stan Lynde, who drew “Rick O’Shay,” a Western comic strip.
Archie and Mike are arguing about the death penalty. Archie says, “If you came home anf found that someone had slit Gloria’s throat, wouldn’t you be itching to fry that guy?” Mike shot back, “If I did have him executed, would that bring Gloria back?” Mike’s postion seemed to be to blame “society” for murderers.
In the story line in “Rick O’Shay,” a new judge has come to town; a local hardened criminal named Poley keeps running afoul of the law; Rick, the sheriff, keeps arresting him, but the new judge always dismisses the case.
Rick gets furious at this philosophy in fairly short order and demands, when speaking privately to the judge, for an explanation.
The judge smugly answers that Poley’s crimes are society’s fault.
Rick retorts, "Well, until you find a way to jail society, maybe you ought to find a fair way to deal with crooks like Poley!" The judge has no answer for this.
I agree it’s better to let the guilty go free than punish the innocent–but the murder victims are the most innocent of all. :mad:
:mad: