Everyone is against the death penalty and I will prove it.

Problem with jails and capital punishment is it only deals with the symptom (crime), and doesn't adress the cause (the 'system').

And I believe the very 'system' that the establishment protects, with its laws, is the cause.

For example 90 of crime stems from 'private property' and the problems it causes, poverty, homelessness, unemployment, alienation.
Crime could be almost eradicated if we changed the way society is ran. Overtly authoritarian rule and over competitiveness, thrusted on us from a very early age, cause development of anti-social behaviours and 'secondary lives' (the real you, and the one you project and society expects).

A classic example in the UK was the rise of crime during the Thatcher rein.
Thatcher released capitalism from the chains society in the UK held it in check. She championed free market capitalism, reduced civil liberties, centralised government, and weakened local governments. As a result crime doubled.

...the classical liberalism which these governments represent can have no other effect, the government's powers of repression must perforce increase as free competition results in more discord and inequality. Malatesta

We are a reflection of the society we live in, and that society is molded and manipulated by the wealthy elite (banks/corporations/governments), to serve their wants. We are constantly surrounded by violent imagery. We are constantly taught to be overly competitive, and think of our neighbour as someone to 'beet' rather than to cooperate with. We are constantly confronted with some danger, or 'enemy', that wants us dead. We are constantly reminded of our own mortality, and unnaturally put in a state of fight or flight.

And we wonder why we are so stressed out, and society creates so many anti-social deviants...

We don't need more jails, or capital punishment. We need more equality, and we need true liberty. We need to realise there is an alternative to the life they try to force us into.

"it is not love and not even sympathy upon which Society is based in mankind. It is the conscience -- be it only at the stage of an instinct -- of human solidarity. It is the unconscious recognition of the force that is borrowed by each man [and woman] from the practice of mutual aid; of the close dependency of every one's happiness upon the happiness of all; and of the sense of justice, or equity, which brings the individual to consider the rights of every other individual as equal to his [or her] own." Kropotkin, Mutual Aid, p. 16

[edit on 9/5/2007 by ANOK]

That goes to the argument of the very nature of man that A) we are naturally peaceful and inherently wish to incorporate with eachother in productive ways (say, Locke) or B) we are naturally greedy, selfish folks who inherently work for the benefit of ours and our kin - man as an animal (say, Hobbes.)

It would appear you believe in A, which I assume means you believe that if there were no "social contract" or laws there would be no crime and perpetual peace?

Regretably, I'd have to believe more in B, I think it was Napoleon who said "Religion is what prevents the poor from killing the rich." Now perhaps he wasn't the greatest moralist, but I think he has a point. I think mankind is inherently greedy and selfish and needs to be governed by something like the social contract that we all live under. I just don't think equality would work, because we're not all equal and in groups of people and animals hierarchies naturally develop.

That said, I believe the folks who make the most egregious breaches of such contract, having already been made well away of the consequences, must accept the most final and harsh of sanctions.

The entire world is ready for elimination. No man is above another. All shall perish. The Romans killed Jesus, the son of God. Authority is a false god, and shall be struck down.

Cut and dry but to the point.

There is a solution. Return to the age of dueling. As a matter of fact, if we all went armed and prepared to defend our words and our honor and our loved ones, in a fair fight, society would be much gentler.

Why do you suppose most people were careful not to insult one another when such remedies were prevalent?

Someone harms a family member or dear friend, they know they could be called out and killed on the spot.

Works for me.

Everybody is against giving money to a tramp, and I can prove it hypothetically:

Jim gives TrampA £500 after listening to the hardships said tramp went through, how he is unjustly screwed by everyone and every thing. TrampB happened to see TrampA and Jim at the cash machine, and a wad of cash exchanged. Jim wishes TrampA the best and goes home.

TrampA never wakes up the next day, as TrampB pushed a screwdriver into his ear whilst he was asleep and stole his money. It also turns out that the matrix was true, and the machines released the movie as a sick joke, and TrampA was Neo - the whole world is up # creek.

The moral of this story? In this world there are so many possibilities which we cannot forsee, that it is simply best to do nothing. Always. This applies to all parts of life....

..



Anyway, that idiocy aside, I am against the death penalty. If you can keep them incarcerated for less than it takes to kill them, what is the benefit of sinking the institution of government to the level of the executed? Isn't it sick? In fact I think putting people down because of maths and statistics unneccesarily is in fact more sinister than a possible crime of passion.

I am aware of a level of hypocracy within me, if someone killed my family I would kill them (probably), and I wouldn't argue for complete dimilitarisation etc... I also eat meat.

As for 1000 free rather than one innocent, yes we can put this esoteric thing called JUSTICE above all else, in effect sacrificing MORE innocents than the alternative, for the sake of an ideal which has little practical form in reality.

It's all about utilitarianism, I suppose, the greatest happiness for the greatest number - and if this meant killing criminals or inocents, then I'd be hard pushed to argue against it - however it doesn't HAVE to be like this.

I feel like the death penalty is a little similar to the Roman Colluseum. Let everyone cheer over a meaningless death. Great.

I live in the UK so no death penalty here (maybe treason still?), and I certainly wouldn't like GWB signing my death papers (dunno if he actually does).

Basically some people just have no regard for the sanctity of life, and are eager to pull the trigger because they are so far removed from that world.



On a COMPLETELY UNRELATED issue, I'm pro-abortion, simply because I believe at that point there is no significant conciousness to take. If you argue that you are preventing a life from taking place, you are doing that every time you AREN'T having rampant unprotected sex.

[edit on 9-5-2007 by x4nder]

Originally posted by lizziex3
I am against the death penalty mostly because it is murder. it makes us just as bad as the murderer we are murdering. why not be the better person and let them live? the bible says::
Matthew chapter 5
43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you...."

and even as an athiest I think thats a good thing to live by.

Quite frankly, I don't care what the Bible or any other work of fiction says. I've always supported the death penalty and always will.

Here in the UK, violent crime rates have increased dramatically since the abolition of this vital tool of public safety.

p.