After struggling for years in internal debate with my own conflicting convictions on capital punishment and capital crime, I have concluded for myself that the death penalty is fundamentally wrong.

It is man-made legislation that flies in the face of natural law in that it justifies a third party in the murder of an individual, who are objective from the crime for which they pass sentence.

Naturally, the only person truly justified in killing another human being is the one that is to be killed by a would be assailant, or one capable of defending an innocent from mortal harm who is not able to defend themselves.

I am not a religious person, but it amazes me how it seems that where the death penalty is the most prevalent and active is also where the populous tends to more vehemently celebrate their adherence to the teachings of Christ. Truly, what would Jesus do?

My conviction on this subject has for a very long time conflicted with my anger and hatred toward those who commit capital crimes such as murder, rape, and exploitation of minors. However, my personal interpretation of natural law has prevailed, and I would like to see the death penalty done away with.

Unfortunately, with the void left from the lacking a solution as to what to do with particular offenders, I have become an avid proponent of cruel and unusual punishment. Or at least legal corporal punishment to be delivered on a regular basis over a prescribed span of an offender's life.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by DeltaChaos]

Let me be the first to entirely disagree!!

OK, maybe not entirely, I do not think that a cold, sterile, state-sanctioned murder is an appropriate penalty for anything, but I do think that killing dangerous and violent criminals is necessary.

So, I propose we leave it up to the victim's families. If they want to pull the switch/trigger/syringe then so be it!! I know I would have no problem doing it if my family were violated or killed!

Now, if the family does not wish to carry out the sentence, then we have an issue. I am entirely against an expensive, lifetime incarceration. Life sentences do not make any sense! We keep them alive, on our dime, with shelter, food, healthcare, and entertainment without any hope of rehabilitation or integration back into the society! WHY? The are living better than a lot of lower and middle class families!! They have cable, and libraries, and educational material, and free healthcare, and clean clothes, and regular meals!

So, the alternative to the death penalty is an expensive, and ill-logical lifetime imprisonment. We have to find a third option. I say, we use the death penalty a lot more often, and a lot more rapidly, and we leave it up to the families! If the families choose to spare the life of the assailant, then we give them the choice of hard-labor camps to pay their own way, or suicide missions in our warzones! Just a thought.

I don't believe the victims family has the right to kill anyone after the fact either. The only way I could justify killing anyone myself is if that person were going to kill me, and I think that's the only way it should be.

As far as expense of maintaining a prisoner for life, yeah, it's way too expensive. That's where I propose what many would cry 'cruel and unusual' punishment. Live the rest of your life in a 4x4x4 hole and get your food and water dumped on you daily so you can eat it off of yourself.

Now doesn't that seem like a more fitting punishment than death? And cheap, I might add.

I, too, am against the death penalty. I am also not a Christian.

My main reasons are these:

1) I believe killing someone for killing someone makes you know better than the killer themselves and,
2) There is such a thing as an innocent person being on death row.

I have a saying that sums the rest up perfectly:

"Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?"

Makes perfect sense to me.

As to what we should do with murderers? Well, lock them up and throw away the key for the rest of their miserable lives in a maximum security prison where they have the least freedoms. Some would argue that such a thing just costs us more money. I argue that our integrity is priceless.

Yes, there are some sick SOB's out there, but even they gave themselves some excuse to justify killing another person. Just because we feel our excuse is more justified doesn't necessarily make it right, IMO.

What if I were to tell you that you don't have a right to kill another being even if they are about to kill you. Nope, not even then. People's belief that they have that right was granted to them by... themselves. A person's attachment to themselves is what makes them think they have a right to live. God, fate, whatever decides when you go and an individual has no right to interfere. If you are supposed to die at another's hands even though you are innocent, that's the way it goes. You have no right to take another's life to prevent them from taking yours. Sorry, I know it sucks but it's the real truth. IMO

EDIT: To add to the post after this one

Jesus said turn the other cheek, not shoot the bugger first.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by damwel]

I read that most of the Oklahoma City bombing victims eventually did not want Timothy McVeigh executed. Keep in mind this is the South, where the righteousness of the death penalty is established fact.

If anyone understands the futility of the death penalty, it's victims' families.

I'm sorry damwel, but I could not sit idly while someone was killing me, especially being particularly suited to not let that happen. Could you? Would you not fight for survival?

We may be human, but we're still animals.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by DeltaChaos]

In March this year I have addressed the following letter to your president :

"Your constitution provides for equal rights between men and women, has
abolished in 1965 racial discrimination, but still discriminates its murderers
with punishment by either death penalty or a life-long sentence, depending
on residence or location of crime.

As a German, brought up in a democracy that the Allied Forces after World
War II installed in my country, it is hard for me to understand that, when it
comes to death penalty - a human rights issue - the constitution of the
federation (the US) would not overrule in so important a matter each single
state´s legislation.

Therefore, I kindly ask you to consider my seeing the issue by a different
than the normal approach to the subject.

Hoping for a ruling by your constitutional court in favor, of course, of the
abolition of death penalty, I remain" ...

With this letter I wanted to short cut the arguments used in this thread
that millions of others have already tried to no avail in the past.

I like to point out that the US has signed the Declaration of Human Rights
in 1948 giving a promise to strive to abolish death penalty.

Lets read the rest of the letter. I kinda cuts off in the middle there.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I do think that Gandhi, or the Dalai Lama, or the Golden Child, lol, has a much elevated spirituality over me, and that if someone can stare in wonder and sadness for their aggressor while they are being killed, that it has a certain quality and enlightenment!

Dude, this is sarcasm at it's FINEST!!! Good work. Drink water.

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
After struggling for years in internal debate with my own conflicting convictions on capital punishment and capital crime,

I have become an avid proponent of cruel and unusual punishment. Or at least legal corporal punishment to be delivered on a regular basis over a prescribed span of an offender's life.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by DeltaChaos]

So we can't kill a killer.....that would be .............bad.

Instead we confine him and torture him at random intervals for the rest of his life?

You do understand that once a murderer is behind bars he cannot actually kill anyone outside of the jail? That means you will be hurting him just for the sake of hurting him.

That's much more disturbed than just executing a murderer.

Originally posted by damwel
If you are supposed to die at another's hands even though you are innocent, that's the way it goes. You have no right to take another's life to prevent them from taking yours.
[edit on 21-9-2009 by damwel]

This is the type of mindless arrogance that causes more death and suffering by enabling murderers to do what they do multiple times.

There is no balance here.

Pacifism without value for self preservation is merely self victimization and is almost as abominable as murder.

Nobody has the right to tell another person that he has been designated as a victim and must aquiesce to his fate without defending himself if it involves taking the life of one who would take his.

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
Truly, what would Jesus do?

What would Jesus do?

Lets see:

Stone him to death

Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.--Lev.24:14

Burn them at the stake:

After Judah pays Tamar for her services, he is told that she "played the harlot" and "is with child by whoredom." When Judah hears this, he says, "Bring her forth, and let her be burnt." Genesis 38:24

Not circumsized? Death be upon you

God decides to kill Moses because his son had not yet been circumcised. Exodus 4:24-26

If he does not like your labor practices he kills all the firstborn sons:

After God has sufficiently hardened the Pharaoh's heart, he kills all the firstborn Egyptian children. When he was finished "there was not a house where there was not one dead." Exodus 12:29

Hate thy Neighbor

God orders the sons of Levi (Moses, Aaron, and the other members of their tribe that were "on the Lord's side") to kill "every man his neighbor.... And there fell of the people that day about 3000 men." Exodus 32:27-28

Better not be gay:

If a man has sex with another man, kill them both. Leviticus 20:13

---

What would Jesus do? Kill, kill, and then kill some more.







[edit on 9/21/09 by FredT]

Originally posted by badgerprints
You do understand that once a murderer is behind bars he cannot actually kill anyone outside of the jail? That means you will be hurting him just for the sake of hurting him.

That's much more disturbed than just executing a murderer.

Well I was being a bit facetious about the beatings, but...

If prison was all solitary confinement, and there were no amenities, I'd say see what 2 months does.

Maybe then move them into a group setting for a week, examine them, find out how their attitude stands regarding what they've done. Determine if it has any rehabilitative effect, write it down on a piece of paper, feed them a good meal, and throw them back in the hole for 2 more months.

Repeat the process, except after their second good meal, explain to them that they may be eligible for release at some time in the future, but he doesn't have to go in the hole again... if he doesn't want to. All he has to do is not do what he did. If he does, tell them that they'll go in the hole twice more, but for a year each time, with a week between.

I believe a system like that would be much more effective from a prevention standpoint. Once people hear about what it's like to spend 4 months in a hole, I believe they would be much more likely to think about what they're doing.

But then what do I know, I think everyone should carry a concealed weapon.

"An eye for an eye will make the world go blind." (I believe Gandhi said that). And that is truly words of wisdom.

I cannot understand how Christians can defend the death penalty.
I am not a christian myself, but I believe that one essence of that religion is forgiveness? Turn the other cheek? "Vengeance is Mine", says the Lord etc?

Am I a better person than you, if I can lift a 200 pound rock and you only a 100 pound one?
How about the "mental" rocks? Some people can lift incredibly heavy mental rocks with ease, while others can barely lift none. Are they better persons than the latter?

Who is to blame? The person that stumbles upon the path of life, or the person who saw the hindrance and didn't remove it?

What is "right" and what is "wrong"? What do we really know about the bigger picture of life and the reasons for us being here?

Up until the 1970's it was a crime to be homosexual in Norway. These days gays are allowed to marry and have equal rights as heterosexuals. In Iran and other Muslim countries you get executed if you are gay. So, is it ok to be gay or not? Or is it a matter of where you live and when you lived?

Is murder ok? Or the killing of another human being in war? Is "collateral damage" in war ok? If yes, who says it is?

Is it ok to continue to practise capital punishment even if you know that innocent people have been, and will be executed?

I believe that part of the problems with crime (especially violent crimes) in the US are related to the fact that you don't value life. Not your own, nor the lives of others. And your government signals this, by being willing to accept the fact that innocent people get put to death (ie. murdered).

How can you expect that your citizens won't kill each other when your own government doesn't value life by killing innocent and guilty alike? It ties together, you know. One follows the other...

It is a well established fact that capital punishment doesn't work. That leaves only vengeance left as the only reason for continuing this barbaric habit. Ok, so you are a vengeful people. I'm not saying that it is wrong. It's only an observation. But I don't believe that it brings humanity forward either.

If the end justifies the means, the means often end up destroying the end. That is also just an observation...

Many of us know that there often is a small random event that separate those who are lucky enough to come forward as a helper, and those who are rendered helpless.

Open your eyes a little and don't be so busy poking them out on one another. There is life out there you know...as you will "see".

Namaste!