What Crimes Should Be Punishable By the Death Penalty

[Marley23]

@Pann

I don’t know how anyone in their right mind could read about the murders of the two sisters, age 16 and 9, and not think that justice was served by executing this guy.

Calling people crazy for disagreeing with you doesn’t help your argument or do you any credit. The murders you linked to were horrible (which murders aren’t?) but I’m not crazy for saying that killing a third person, horrible though he might have been, is not just either. Your emotional response is understandable and I’m sorry for what you’ve been through. Nobody is insane for having a different opinion from you.

[Pann]

@Der_Trihs

There’s people who think that killing people is always wrong, that killing people unnecessarily is always wrong, and there’s people who think that executions increase the murder rate. What he did or did not do is irrelevant to all of those positions.

Is there anyone here that is anti-death penalty that has ever actually known someone who was murdered? Especially in a manner as despicable as the murder of the Purnhagen sisters? I would bet that 3/4 of people that are anti-death penalty would change their views very quickly if they were intimately involved in something like this.

BTW, before all of this happened I was actively against the death penalty in Texas. I was forced to reevaluate my views.

[RickJay]

@Pann

Is there anyone here that is anti-death penalty that has ever actually known someone who was murdered? Especially in a manner as despicable as the murder of the Purnhagen sisters? I would bet that 3/4 of people that are anti-death penalty would change their views very quickly if they were intimately involved in something like this.

I knew a guy in high school who was murdered. Not especially well, but I knew him.

And I’m sorry, but no. The death penalty is wrong, IMHO, and appealing to theoretical emotion is not a logically persuasive argument.

I am sure if someone murdered someone I loved I’d want their head on a pike. I might find a way to put their head on the pike myself. But do you think our laws should be based on **the opinions of the most irrational, rage-filled people in society? **

You might not quite understand the position of people who oppose capital punishment; based on your harping on one case, actually, I’m sure you don’t. It’s not that Dennis Dowthitt didn’t deserve to die. He DID deserve to die. He committed an act so heinous, I honestly believe he deserved worse than death. But I oppose capital punishment all the same because I find it simply barbaric, because it’s airreversible in the inevitable instance that an innocent man is put to death, and because I do not want the government having the power to kill people in cold blood. Maybe Dennis Dowthitt got what was coming to him and maybe what he got was worse than life in a cell, but I don’t want to live in a world where our attitude towards justice is “he got what was coming to him.” It’s just not, in my humble opinion, the best way to run a civil society.

And you know what? They did execute Dennis Dowthitt, and his victims are still just as dead. So I’m not sure how we’re any further ahead.

[Marley23]

@Pann

Is there anyone here that is anti-death penalty that has ever actually known someone who was murdered?

I haven’t, but yes, there are people who are against the death penalty who have known murder victims. It couldn’t possible be otherwise.

Especially in a manner as despicable as the murder of the Purnhagen sisters?

A murder is a murder. Isn’t saying one murder is worse than another kind of insensitive?

I would bet that 3/4 of people that are anti-death penalty would change their views very quickly if they were intimately involved in something like this.

I think it wouldn’t prove anything even if you were right (which I doubt).

[cmosdes]

@Blaster_Master

Of course, one may argue that in some ways, one could consider life imprisonment to be a harsher penalty, and so why shouldn’t we prefer that to death? First, even in prison, one still has plenty of rights and experiences that the murdered will never be able to achieve. But, more importantly, just as we shouldn’t chop off the hands of a thief as it is a harsher penalty, that same logic would argue that life imprisonment is, in fact, equally barbaric as it not only fails to achieve the balance, but adds additional suffering on top of it.

This may very well be the first time I have heard anyone argue that life imprisonment should not be used because it is too harsh. That is a very interesting stance.

[River_Hippie]

None.

Maximum penalty should be life in prison no parole.

I would give those sentenced to life without parole the option of choosing death.

[DigitalC]

@Argent_Towers

I always hear people say this. Why? Why don’t you trust the legal system?

Because it’s made out of people that i don’t trust. I don’t want anybodies life to be in the hands of cops, lawyers or judges.

[SnakesCatLady]

I’ll probably get hauled over the coals for this, but the only crime I think is worthy of the death penalty is repeated child molestation. If you do it once, serve your time and register as a sex offender. If you do it again - death.

“But the victim wasn’t killed!!!1!!!” Exactly. They have to live with it.

[Marley23]

Rather than making it sound like police, judges, and lawyers are scum, I think it’s better to point out that everybody’s fallible and people are capable of deep gullibility, irrationality, and bias - and then there are the flaws of the system to consider. Knowing that, it makes sense to minimize the odds those personal and systemic flaws will kill someone.

@SnakesCatLady

“But the victim wasn’t killed!!!1!!!” Exactly. They have to live with it.

The consequences of sexual abuse are horrific, but this seems like another instance of treating sex abuse victims like they’re broken people.

[Bricker]

@Blaster_Master

To that end, no crime that doesn’t involve the infringement of another individual’s life should ever result in it, but by the same term, anything that does end the life of another is impossible to balance out with the removal of even every other right an individual has. As such, a case like murder necessitates the death penalty to achieve justice.

Explain this a bit more. It sounds to me like you believe that “justice” means that what was done to the original victims is also done to the criminal.

I don’t agree that this is justice. This seems more like “revenge.”

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Pann

Is there anyone here that is anti-death penalty that has ever actually known someone who was murdered? Especially in a manner as despicable as the murder of the Purnhagen sisters? I would bet that 3/4 of people that are anti-death penalty would change their views very quickly if they were intimately involved in something like this.

That is exactly my point. There’s a reason we don’t allow victims and their families to hand down sentences; they aren’t capable of making a rational determination.

[liberty3701]

Just adding my voice to the chorus: None.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Chronos

None. It is never any mortal’s place to decide the death of another.

By that standard, may we execute the executioners? If one person dead is bad, then surely two people dead is worse.

No because the murderer committed an unjustified slaying of a person while that of the executioner was justified.

@Incubus

I hate to admit it, but if we could be 100% the person charged was guilty, I’d support the death penalty. But because that’s not always true, and it ends up being so expensive just to kill an alleged murderer/rapist/etc I don’t think any crimes should be.

Rather the guilty should be left a life sentence of perpetual indignity and inconvenience. A lifetime of clogged toilets, reruns of some TV show you loathe, a roomate that always decides to noisily jerk off when you are trying to sleep, and that milk carton left in the fridge with but a scant film of milk left behind at the bottom.

How about a sort of solitary confinement where one is not able to see any other person for the rest of his life except for medical emergencies: for example food is served through a hole and so on?

@Jamaika_a_jamaikaiake

@OP: none, because I believe that ethics apply to states-as-agents, and I believe in a merciful ethic. Heck, I wish we had a maximum prison term like Norway.

Why and what about those who pose a danger to society?

@Knorf

This is clearly motivated primarily by retribution, as is most of what you say in defense of the death penalty, which is precisely why so many are against it.

But I’m curious. Here’s a partial list of the company we keep in executing citizens:
China. Iran. North Korea. Yemen. Saudi Arabia. Libya. Syria. Somalia. Sudan. Laos. Pakistan.

Among first-world nations, only Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore actively executive their citizens. The numbers of executions in those countries, it must be said, are very few.

The list of nations that have at abolished the death penalty overwhelmingly dwarf those that actively executive people. A partial list: England, France, Germany, Switzerland, Canada, Mexico, Spain, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, Turkey, South Africa, Russia, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Austria, Greece, Hungary, Uruguay, Peru, and I can go on for a total of 95 countries that are against it.

Why do you suppose, those of you who think the death penalty is peachy, that among nations that retain it, a majority of them are oppressive or third-world regimes. Why is it that the most stable, civilized, and free nations of the world are overwhelmingly against it?

Because they have adopted wishy-washy , topsy-turvey vaguely secularist vaguely hippieish, “progressive” morality that sees few problems with abortion but thinks that somehow that the death penalty is inherently ethically wrong. I would in this area countries like China are more realistic in their ethics.

@MrDibble

All killing of human beings is unethical.

Fortunately most people do not believe that.

[Der_Trihs]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

How about a sort of solitary confinement where one is not able to see any other person for the rest of his life except for medical emergencies: for example food is served through a hole and so on?

No, because that is a form of torture and tends to drive people insane. And what do you turn out if they turn out to be innocent? Throw the insane person you’ve created out on the street unable to support themselves?

[elbows]

Wait a minute, you’re against abortion, as it’s the killing of a life, but support the death penalty?

Then you make cracks about ‘wishy washy, vaguely secular, laws’, of other nations. Doesn’t your, risen from the dead, God prescribe not taking life? How are less ‘secular’ laws going to help your argument? I mean, ‘Thou shalt not kill’, makes it pretty damn clear, to me.

You think your Christian views should be enshrined in law when it comes to abortion, but don’t follow your own book on killing criminals?

I wish ignorance was recognized as a sin, that would improve the world more than having the state kill citizens, in my opinion.

Against the death penalty for any crime.

[Typo_Negative]

@Pann

Is there anyone here that is anti-death penalty that has ever actually known someone who was murdered? Especially in a manner as despicable as the murder of the Purnhagen sisters? I would bet that 3/4 of people that are anti-death penalty would change their views very quickly if they were intimately involved in something like this.

BTW, before all of this happened I was actively against the death penalty in Texas. I was forced to reevaluate my views.

Yes, I have personally known someone who was later murdered. Actually, more than one.

[Der_Trihs]

@elbows

I mean, ‘Thou shalt not kill’, makes it pretty damn clear, to me.[

As believers like to point out when this subject comes up, it actually means "thou shalt not murder; in other words, you can’t kill people without authorization. But if ordered you can wade to the hips in blood without breaking the commandment.

[Chronos]

As for “balancing the karmic scales”: After a murder, the scales are out of balance by one death. After an execution of the murderer, the scales are now out of balance by two deaths.

And it’s true that imprisoning a murderer won’t balance the scales, either. Nothing we can do can bring the scales back into balance. But that’s not why we imprison murderers. We imprison them to protect the public, and to hopefully rehabilitate them and deter others.

[Hilarity_N.Suze]

None

[gonzomax]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

No because the murderer committed an unjustified slaying of a person while that of the executioner was justified.

How about a sort of solitary confinement where one is not able to see any other person for the rest of his life except for medical emergencies: for example food is served through a hole and so on?

Why and what about those who pose a danger to society?

Because they have adopted wishy-washy , topsy-turvey vaguely secularist vaguely hippieish, “progressive” morality that sees few problems with abortion but thinks that somehow that the death penalty is inherently ethically wrong. I would in this area countries like China are more realistic in their ethics.

Fortunately most people do not believe that.

Christians are supposed to believe that. It is the 3rd commandment.
Vengeance is mine sayeth the lord.
I do not know why you are so aggressive and warlike while claiming to be religious. Killing people on death row… fine. Killling people who are far away like Aghanistanis…fine. Killing people who murder fine… Kill doctors who perform legal abortions…completely justifiable… Just don’t abort babies.