My categories eligible:
Hate Crime
Terrorism
Treason
Serial Killer (kill same type of victim one at a time)
Mass Murder (kill several victims in one incident)
Muder-for-hire
Interfering with Justice system
Jurors
DAs/Judges
Cops
Witnesses
Context of sex crime
Context of gun crime
Mutilating/other “weird” things done to body (e.g. necro)
This is only civilian crimes. Desertion is a capital offenses, IMO.
Its “thou shalt not murder” and pro-life means those who have forfited it by committing murder or other heinous crime. After all self-defence is justfied for example.
Exactly (although the characterization of the last sentence is problematic).
That is for personal matters.
As punishment, even Christ and Paul said that if they had done something worthy of death they would have accepted capital punishment.
One could at least have said Iraq. Afghanistan as I keep pointing out is a defensive war.
See above.
I do not support the killing of abortion doctors.
[/QUOTE]
Because unlike murderers and terrorists they have not done anything.
But they aren’t people, either.
Even if that is somehow true, it should be noted even animal cruelty is illegal and punishable by imprisonment. Indeed people (rightly) are more upset when animals are tortured than say the SS guards shot down at Dachau or at Lee Harvey Oswald being gunned down by Jack Ruby
They aren’t animals, either. Trying to be cruel to an embryo is like trying to torture a watermelon.
Not all animals. We generally seem to care about animals on a scale determined by two things; their cuteness (unfortunetly) and their intelligence, or at least their intelligence which is like us. So, for example, very few people would be upset by the death of a fly. Or an amoeba.
I’d like to ask you if I might on what basis you would consider a self-defensive killing to be justified. I mean, I agree to it, but i’m curious as to why you would.
If you or any other human being is attacked or threatened with deadly force, I think its quite justified for you to use deadly force. That is my standard.
I understand that. I’m asking why you consider it justified.
Well isn’t it logical? I find it self-evident and thus support it.
“Because I think so” isn’t a reason. Nor does it make something logical. Self-evidency isn’t a reason, it’s just an explanation that you think that way. Saying you believe something because it’s self-evident is exactly the same as saying you believe something because you believe it. It’s illogical, if anything, since it doesn’t answer the question.
I don’t want to die when I haven’t done anything and other people shouldn’t die for not having done anything either.
I don’t recall Jesus ever supporting the death penalty.
I’m not person you addressed this to, but I’m fine with calling it justice, revenge, retribution, whatever. I have no problem at all with any of them and I think that people need to know that if they choose to murder someone, revenge and retribution is what they will be in for if they get caught. I believe that revenge (to the degree it is) and retribution are both just and a deterrant.
Frankly, every form of criminal punishment carries with it an element of retribution. This is why we have different sentences for different crimes. We have said as a society that the worse they crime you commit, the more we’re going to make you pay for it. And in keeping with that practice and philosophy, I believe that the ultimate crime deserves the ultimate penalty, and if you choose to deprive someone and their loved ones of that person’s life, then society will make you pay with your own.
Well, I would tend to imagine that most people who have done something would probably prefer not to die, either. I don’t think personal preference makes a useful case there.
Still, this seems like only half a reason. Why does the possible taking of an innocent life override the life of the potential perpetrator to such an extent that their life may be justifiably taken to prevent the innocent death?
Wouldn’t this standard mean that a convicted murderer (or whatever crimes you feel deserve the death penalty) has no right to self-defense, given that they have done something?
I am absolutely for the death penalty for people who cant stop hurting kids, who have commited heinous crimes causing untold suffering. Serial murderers, for instance. Child rapists. People who torture other beings and who are beyond repair.
There is nothing wrong with executing when there is no doubt that they have done it. If a jury decides to put em to death, put em to death.
It has nothing to do with deterring people. It is just practical and smart and common sense. Like putting a lame horse down, or a rabid dog, or pruning back a bush.
And let people who want to stick up for the rights of these people to go on living be the ones to take care of em.
Actually, you could say his position on the matter was pretty firmly nailed down…
You want to execute witnesses, judges, cops and jurors?
A friend of mine had a huge chunk of her family massacred by an insane individual. She is against the death penalty.
Let me answer the second first, because it’s easier. Norway’s system has a maximum sentence of 21 years, but if a person is found to be a danger after their sentence is served, they serve another 5 years. Then they are reevaluated every 5 years until the parole board thinks they are no longer a danger. Of course the specifics are neither here nor there. The point is that I don’t think seriously dangerous people should be let free, but I think it should be determined whether they are dangerous at the time of parole, not whether they were determined dangerous 21 years ago. You see, someone can kill 100 people, and after 21 years in prison, they might be a different person and may not have the same traits that led them to kill in the first place. People change, even murderers.
Why? Well, like I said, I believe in a compassionate and forgiving ethic. I know that quoting the Bible is not a good argument around here, but you asked about my opinion, and it’s a fact that this here really means a lot to me:
[QUOTE=Matthew 25:34-40]
“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me,** I was in prison and you came to visit me.**’
“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
[/QUOTE]
(Bolding mine, of course). It is also a fact that I know various people who work in prisons in the US, and after many anecdotes and discussions, I think that prisons in the US are just not good things. They don’t rehabilitate; they dehumanize. They don’t teach a lesson; they institutionalize. I think that people in general underestimate exactly how harsh even a 5-year prison sentence is. I am not nearly the same person I was 5 years ago. 5 years is a significant portion of my productive adult life.
Also, I don’t care to argue whether the death penalty is ever justified. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. Rather, I would like assert that it’s never the best option. First, we should strive to teach criminals compassion, rather than to punish them. (I will admit that this is a tenet of my Christian faith and so may not be wholly rational.) Second, I think that killing dehumanizes the killer, and here I’m referring the the executioner, or to our criminal justice system. That is, I would prefer to be better than the criminals.
My turn. Qin Shi Huangdi, have you heard of the Truth and Reconciliation commission in South Africa?
Now that’s being even handed!
More seriously, they probably meant to to say murder of witnesses, judges, cops and jurors.
This is not persuasive. Creating a caricature, mocking a position, is not equivalent to refuting it. What your comments reveals is that you don’t fundamentally understand the position of those nations and peoples who oppose the death penalty.
But, let’s go with it for second. You really think countries as diverse as Mexico, England, Turkey, and Russia (to name four) have all been corrupted by the same “wishy-washy , topsy-turvey vaguely secularist vaguely hippieish, ‘progressive’ morality” into abolishing the death penalty? Care to elucidate how this remarkable coincidence came to pass?
The real question: is it better for society as a whole to execute criminals? Or is it better for society as a whole to not execute them? A huge number (95, a majority) of the world’s nations have abolished the death penalty, deciding that it is worse for society to execute criminals than to find justice via other means. Why? Looking for a real answer here, not farcical mockery.