The Death Penalty/Capital Punishment

If we assume, as most of us should, that violence is not an acceptable means for resolving our human differences; and, if we allow such practices as execution (death penalty) or torture to be perpetrated by the government, then we are saying that violence is OK under some circumstances. Then we must decide and pass legislation which delineates (1) what circumstances justify violence, (2) who will determine whether these circumstances have been met, and (3) how to avoid OKing violence as an individual’s choice.

If we adopt such an attitude that says violence is OK under certain circumstances which “the authorities” decide, how can we then fault a person who acts violently under circumstances which seem justified to him? Who among us is wise enough to know how and when to choose violence--with possible exception of self defense?

All the arguments for death penalty notwithstanding, if the government can be violent (execution or torture), aren’t we setting the wrong example for the populace? Or are we humans unable to get along without this savage tactic? It seems to me that violence begets violence no matter who commits it.

 

Of course, the "authorities" adopting such policies do not consider them to be acts of violence or even violent retribution. Capital punishment in the US is JUSTICE by God.
(can I get an AMEN!)

Proponents of the death penalty and torture have elevated their actions too high above the actions which "call for them" to see that the blood spilled and death caused exists on the very same plane.

 

I used to be for capital punishment as an acceptable form of justice but start probably about 6 or 7 years ago I began to change my mind about it. At this point I can say that I am against capital punishment. I've read and watched a lot of shows about it and ultimately I find the whole thing very peculiar. When you look at the measures taken to give the executioners plausible deniability that they killed someone ( 3 people push 3 buttons simultaneously, the blank rifle cartridge, ect.), the measures we go through to make the the prisoner as comfortable as possible (last meal, trying to find painless execution methods, ect.), having members of the victim's family watch the event, it just all seems so bizarre.

The methods of execution even the more modern ones seem barbaric. Granted it seems most states use lethal injection one (which is arguable whether or not its painless based on some of the botched executions in recent years), but the use of the electric chair and gas chamber were appalling. Even if the method of execution was painless I can't imagine the mental and emotional pain that is being inflicting on these people under the law. Sure, these people being executed have committed horrible crimes and may have put their innocent victims through more pain and torture than the are about to receive but that doesn't make it right in my mind. We should not stoop to the level of these criminals by punishing their violence with our own brand of violence. I see no reason why life imprisonment without any chance of parole is not a fitting enough punishment. It solves the issue, it removes this violent and dangerous person from society and does not cover our hands with blood.

I think the major turning point for me was reading the stories of the people wrongfully executed. I can't even imagine how awful it must be to know that you are being killed by a system that is designed to protect you for a crime you didn't even commit. Not saying that spending the rest of your life in prison for a crime you didn't commit is any better but at least it offers some glimmer of hope that new evidence will be brought to light and you can be set free. But once that person is killed that's it there is no going back from that.

I also can see from the victim's family point of view as well, if my family member was the victim of a violent crime I would probably want the perpetrator dead. The reason we have a legal system is to keep everyone from taking justice into their own hands. The system is designed to take the emotion and bias out of justice and when you get right down to it, capital punishment is more of an emotional response to criminal punishment. It becomes more than just removing that person from society to ensure they cannot harm an innocent again, it becomes personal and emotional. It becomes things that the system was put in place to prevent.

 

I don't. I believe there are many situations that violence solves quite easily. I also believe our society would be a lot better off if we put a little more murder back into it.

All that aside and in the context of the society we actually live in, we're talking about something that boils down to a most basic of human rights. The right to live. At what point can it be determined that a person no longer has the right to be alive?

My answer to this question is fairly simple:
When a person proves that they will consistently and heinously impose on the rights of others AND that they are beyond rehabilitation, it is time for them to be put down.

I think anybody should be given a fair chance at rehabilitation. The methods used and the measures taken in professional rehabilitation in this day and age can turn a lot of people around. However, some people, I believe, are beyond rehabilitation, though, in order to prove one way or the other, even the most heinous of criminals must be given their fair chance.

Those in the latter category die, because they are incapable of living by human standards and thus are, in fact, dangerous to keep alive.

When you are worth more lives dead than you are alive, you deserve to die...