Social Justice and the Death Penalty. - Page 4 - Historum

**Lucius** · July 8th, 2009, 02:23 PM

poser765,

I was just asking. Personally, I would consider 1% unacceptably high.

As to the theological issue, I think if you can explain things to most atheists in a way that seems good to them, the believers will come around.

poser765 · July 8th, 2009, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucius

poser765,

I was just asking. Personally, I would consider 1% unacceptably high.

As to the theological issue, I think if you can explain things to most atheists in a way that seems good to them, the believers will come around.

I know

i was just taking what you said and expanding on it a little bit

Scourge · July 8th, 2009, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poser765

Not in the slightest. Someone pointed out beyond reasonable doubt. That is not enough to take a life. A very strong suspicion of a crime is just not enough to merit killing someone.

What it comes down to is perspective. IS your reason to kill so much more morally correct than the murderer's? I dare say it is not. See...perspective. Granted it may save money and resources, but human life (even a life of waste and crime) is still worth more than some tax money.

Also, it seems to be the highest of hypocrisy to say killing is bad only to turn around and kill those who do it. "Oh, but he is an evil person for what he did and deserves to die." OK see my above paragraph. This is the same as spanking your child and telling them not to hit their sister. See the contridiction?

I didn't even touch on the theological issues that arise from the death penalty...whether it's even our place to assume we can take a life in punishment.

Yes my reason is much more morally correct. These people show zero remorse for their victims. They show no care in the fact that they murdered these innocent people for their own kicks and thrills. Murdering these people rids the world of people who harm others for pleasure. Not to help the world in any way shape or form. They are like a black hole or a potato bug or a tick at best. Not its not hypocritical or a contradiction of thought at all. It also benefits humanity in general and it puts money and resources back in the hands of the people instead of CONDEMNED criminals. Good theological points never ever influence me ever.

poser765 · July 8th, 2009, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scourge

Yes my reason is much more morally correct. These people show zero remorse for their victims. They show no care in the fact that they murdered these innocent people for their own kicks and thrills. Murdering these people rids the world of people who harm others for pleasure. Not to help the world in any way shape or form. They are like a black hole or a potato bug or a tick at best. Not its not hypocritical or a contradiction of thought at all. It also benefits humanity in general and it puts money and resources back in the hands of the people instead of CONDEMNED criminals. Good theological points never ever influence me ever.

Yeah, I didn't raise any theological points because I am not sure how I stand on them...but they are there.

A. I execute someone because he dissed my homies.
B. I execute someone because he was a creep and a drain on society.

Either way it's the taking of another human life. Is one reason more justified than the other? The righteousness of intent is just as relative as beauty. Me A feels completely justified as does me B. In both cases someone is dead, and n both cases the person doing the killing feels right. I would rather not have anything in common with a murderer.

**diddyriddick** · July 9th, 2009, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scourge

Yes my reason is much more morally correct. These people show zero remorse for their victims. They show no care in the fact that they murdered these innocent people for their own kicks and thrills. Murdering these people rids the world of people who harm others for pleasure. Not to help the world in any way shape or form. They are like a black hole or a potato bug or a tick at best. Not its not hypocritical or a contradiction of thought at all. It also benefits humanity in general and it puts money and resources back in the hands of the people instead of CONDEMNED criminals. Good theological points never ever influence me ever.

But I do wonder, Scourge, what your opinion would be if you were one of Lucius's hypothetical one percent.

Bobby · July 10th, 2009, 09:35 AM

I would have no problem with a death penalty if it were administered fairly and equitable, and it is not. Take a look at who dies and you'll find impoverished people and/or minorities. An OJ can get off from murder because he can afford a team of elite attorneys, Joe six pack ends up in the chair. Since we do not defend everone equally I think it a sham to be so arbitrary when it comes to a matter of life and death.

That said there are individuals who seem to rise above any generalizations. Would I support the death penalty for a Hitler? A Bundy, or a McVeigh? I thkn I might as their crimes seem to reach a level beyond the norm. Saddam seems to fit into that category too. The people of Iraq simply would not move forward until they were absolutely certain that man was dead.

Then of course there is war which is a snactioned death penalty of sorts. Give a man a gun and tell him to kill as many of the other guys as possible. We have done that throughout history so I don't buy the 'civilized society' standards. Every single one of us would inflict death under the right circumstances such as self preservation or defending a spouse or child.

coyotelaughs · July 10th, 2009, 10:33 AM

This discussion basicly comes down to do you think the state has the moral authority to take another persons life.

If you agree the state has the authority to imprison an individual for life ,which in my opinion is worse then death, then you agree that the state has the moral authority to take someones life. So there is at least that little bit of moral clarity.

The argument on the killing of an innocent man also boil down to this basic question. Is the risk of killing one innocent person worth saving hundreds of others. In my opinion the answer is yes.

You sacrafice the one to save the many.

Raven45 · July 10th, 2009, 10:55 AM

I think the death penalty is entirely appropriate for serial killers, spree killers, multiple murder killers and serial/child rapists. Those are definitely situations where you can never trust the criminal around innocent people again. Why take the chance that they could escape from custody or even take the chance to release them again? Why maintain their life in prison when you know you can't set them free anymore? They became human predators. If I see a tiger walk down my street I know it could be dangerous, but humans aren't that obvious.

I don't think morality has to come into the death penalty. Police officers often have to shoot criminals to save themselves or others. Multiple-killers and rapists don't care about human life and have thrown away their own morality. I think their free choice of behavior negates worrying about the morality of their punishment. DON'T torture them, but free them from this life.

Raven45 · July 10th, 2009, 12:35 PM

I'm going to add another thought to what I previously said. If we use the death penalty more often for unredeemable murderers & rapists, perhaps the funds that are freed up could be used to develop real rehabilitation methods for first time lesser criminals. Perhaps try building a prison for first time offenders only and focus efforts on directing them to a useful lifestyle and career. Just try it as an experiment and see what happens.

**diddyriddick** · July 10th, 2009, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raven45

I'm going to add another thought to what I previously said. If we use the death penalty more often for unredeemable murderers & rapists, perhaps the funds that are freed up could be used to develop real rehabilitation methods for first time lesser criminals. Perhaps try building a prison for first time offenders only and focus efforts on directing them to a useful lifestyle and career. Just try it as an experiment and see what happens.

The problem there is it is NOT cheaper to execute a prisoner than to incarcerate. Death Row cells are very expensive.