Capital punishment: is it right to kill the killer?

If it were a perfect system then maybe Id agree with it,but it isn't defendants from poorer backgrounds or with limited intellect get inferior legal representation,police sometimes frame evidence to get a prosecution and other discrepencies can occur where innocent men are executed and later exonerated.So life with no possibility of parole is my suggestion I dont mind my tax dollars keeping a murderer off the streets forever.With life imprisonment however there comes the possibility that DNA evidence or other subsequent findings can release innocent people.

Originally posted by anglodemonicmatrix
If it were a perfect system then maybe Id agree with it,but it isn't defendants from poorer backgrounds or with limited intellect get inferior legal representation,police sometimes frame evidence to get a prosecution and other discrepencies can occur where innocent men are executed and later exonerated.So life with no possibility of parole is my suggestion I dont mind my tax dollars keeping a murderer off the streets forever.With life imprisonment however there comes the possibility that DNA evidence or other subsequent findings can release innocent people.

It it were a perfect system, there wouldn't even be a reason to bring it up!

Surely, one of the reasons of capital punishment is to deter people from such crimes. Funny how murder is HIGHER in places with capital punishment.
Is it an act of love or an act of hate?
Love being getting closure for what happened to your loved one?
Or hate being your so fuelled with anger.
This subject is so clouded with emotions that its very difficult to get a 'right' answer.
Even if it was an act of love, does it still make it right?
If we choose to kill another human being, and we are ment to have 'equal' rights (which im quite sure that we dont) does that not, give another human being, the choice to determine wether we are to be killed?
Either way, all capital punishment is is relief for the family, it is no solution and merely a symptom.
Until we find out what the actual disease is that causes this symptom, we are always going to have capital punishment wether we agree with it or not.

More reasons to continue and improve the death penalty.

I feel sorry for the people who have to deal with these people.

reply to post by littlecloud


Absolutely!! There is no justice in jail, not when a family member has been murdered...If the courts didnt kill the person, my lifes mission would be to kill them honestly... Exspecially if the victim was someone in my immediate family...mom, dad, brother, sister, or my child...no if ands or butts about it... I as the victims family memeber couldnt sleep untill I knew the guy was dead, people can break out of jails, get out early on "good behavior" Theres no justice in jails...just wasted money! I believe if you cause terror in someones life such as a robbery with a firearm, kiddnapping, rape, car jacking, anything that causes TERROR in someones life should be treated and tried as a TERRORIST... I mean we are in a war to STOP terriosim right?! Why not start breaking bad right here in our own country! Im sure they can build a robot who can inject them, that way no body has to deal with the emotional baggage that comes along with killing someone.....

Originally posted by littlecloud
Surely, one of the reasons of capital punishment is to deter people from such crimes. Funny how murder is HIGHER in places with capital punishment.
Is it an act of love or an act of hate?
Love being getting closure for what happened to your loved one?
Or hate being your so fuelled with anger.
This subject is so clouded with emotions that its very difficult to get a 'right' answer.
Even if it was an act of love, does it still make it right?
If we choose to kill another human being, and we are ment to have 'equal' rights (which im quite sure that we dont) does that not, give another human being, the choice to determine wether we are to be killed?
Either way, all capital punishment is is relief for the family, it is no solution and merely a symptom.
Until we find out what the actual disease is that causes this symptom, we are always going to have capital punishment wether we agree with it or not.

When you are a convicted felon you have no rights

reply to post by StarrGazer25


that seemed to slip my mind. haha

reply to post by 19872012

I am against the death penalty, because i think if you are depraved enough to deserve it, you are so mentally disturbed that you should be pitied, not hated.

So, can I pick one and send them home with you, so they can be pitied and not hated? Will you insure they commit no more heinous crimes, and get the treatment, since you feel they are so mentally disturbed, you feel will work best?

I think it's entirely with merit to want a society that punishes humanely for crimes, up to life in prison or protective custody, in the hopes of that persons eventual repentance and even salvation. That's what comes from believing much of the worlds population to be demon-affected to demon-possessed however. What? The proof is simply everywhere, from a Benevolent perspective. If you can't take a step back and see our lives battles as most importantly spiritual ones, then I think you're not really part of the struggle in any real sense. Among the finest sermons I've seen - inspirational, wisely-guided, and spirit-led - was from a reformed Hell's Angel club leader who had shifted his intents around completely.

Time really can heal some peoples minds, and nothing is so terrible in applying humane justice to a human who went too far. As already mentioned, we are being hypocritical to repay evil with evil, or "an eye for an eye until everyone is blind" to the situation. It works in the immediate justice sense, but I don't think it sets any example for how we should be behaving. One thing I can be certain about is that there will always be a portion of our society who will Never believe that a certain elements of criminals deserve a continuity of life after their crimes. Yet if the cap is placed at life in prison, then can we not find a settling of justice at that point? It really could be its own punishment - not fun. Or must we be so determined in our own brand of justice that it becomes a vengeance mission too?

reply to post by Northwarden

Time really can heal some peoples minds, and nothing is so terrible in applying humane justice to a human who went too far. As already mentioned, we are being hypocritical to repay evil with evil, or "an eye for an eye until everyone is blind" to the situation. It works in the immediate justice sense, but I don't think it sets any example for how we should be behaving. One thing I can be certain about is that there will always be a portion of our society who will Never believe that a certain elements of criminals deserve a continuity of life after their crimes. Yet if the cap is placed at life in prison, then can we not find a settling of justice at that point? It really could be its own punishment - not fun. Or must we be so determined in our own brand of justice that it becomes a vengeance mission too?

I don't think it is so much an issue of vengeance, as it is sometimes just the right thing to do. If you watched the video above, tell us how many years it will take the man from Alaska to redeem himself and become a productive member of society? He killed outside the prison, and killed again while inside? If we do as some say, and lock them up for life, put them in the general population along with everyone else, who is to blame if they kill the person who was wrongly incarcerated? How many person's incarcerated today, will serve their sentence and return to society never to commit another crime? In Texas, the recidivism rate is roughly 72 to 76%. This is for the average inmate. Small petty crimes. If the person has committed a murder, been sentenced to prison where they murder again, what are the chances he/she will do it upon release?

Yes, there are some who do the right thing and turn out to be productive members of society, but they are few and far between.

That inmate, who had studied the warrior code of the samurai, Sun Tzu's Art of War, etc and had modeled himself to live according to that creed, and whose ambitions were to be made in the Mexican mafia, doesn't fit the model of someone who will be "reformed" by society. It is far more likely that he sees himself as someone who would reform society itself if given the chance, but got caught along the way. Without respect for the lives of others, or the just laws of society, no one will ever be reformed. So what point is there trying to "reform" someone who has hardened their minds into a warrior code which will not accept "Thou shalt not kill" as a tenet to live by?

The last question they asked him was "Would you ever kill again"?, to which he answered, yes. Would we, you or I, kill if it was in self-defense, or in defense of our friends or family, or for the matching geometry "right cause" in our minds by the same token? If a hundred screaming Somoli Pirates invaded a ship, should they fight back? It all becomes a rather medieval question past a point, which is what society does largely protect us from, and by which rules we have fostered to prevent street justice and cowboy-outlaw mentality from running amok in our streets and homes. It's also so that peaceful people, who promote the same, can have some peace of mind and keep to the continuity of their lives in hopes for what the future will hold in store. I'm skimming points here, but bear with me ... it is fair to say that in a way we should also be partially terrified by what society would become if there was no constitutional law to which we can agree upon to adhere to.

So, weeding out the criminals and incarcerating them for a penalty, up to life in prison, is a hefty thing to do, and possibly "more than they deserve" in cases, yes. It also costs taxpayer dollars, giving food, shelter, clothing, and a life to some felons who have, to best assessments, a zero chance of ever rejoining society. It's because our forefathers decided that a humane justice system would foster a kinder, more tolerant example for all concerned. It rules out the possibility of killing people who are not guilty, gives inmates the opportunity to change despite their present outlook, and avoids the hypocrisy of committing the very act we are sending people away for. If they're already behind bars, they can do no more (direct) harm to anyone at large. It joins our laws with mercy, which can have far-reaching and beneficial effects we probably can't even fathom.

I would say capitol punishment is a holdout for an enlightened society to retain, and with the exception of a few US states, it seems a lot of law-makers are in agreement there.

By mercy, I mean the concept of not repaying evil with evil, but repaying evil with good. Life in prison is not a failure in applied justice.

Sorry to break it to those of you who are.... "behind".... But the rest of the developed world has gotten rid of the death penalty for just reasons:

1. If further evidence is brought forward to prove the convincted's innocence, there is no chance for an appeal; he/she is dead. The State has then murdered (in all of its definitions) an innocent man... so, now do we give the DA the death penalty? Or was that just a forgivable murder because they are a representative of the state? Sorry to break it to you guys, but since you're on a conspiracy forum I think you ought to know -- the truth isn't always seen as a reasonable doubt!

2. How are we supposed to show people that killing people is no way to solve your problems if that's exactly the kind of vindictive behavior that the State participates in? Is this part of why the gun violence rate in the US is completely out of control?

3. We aren't vengeful cavemen... in most of the country.

Capital punishment: is it right to kill the killer?

Only for self defense purposes. If a killer is put in prison and is too dangerous for the fellow prisoners or for those who are put there to guard him/her .. then that person will have to die. Otherwise, no death penalty even if we think they deserve to die. Don't forget ... living can be worse than a quick painless death by lethal injection.

reply to post by littlecloud


An eye for an eye yes... It gets confusing when the judge doesnt have full ability too see into the individual tried and if they are innocent then the JUDGE GETS TO FACE THAT ON REAL JUDGMENT DAY, aswell as the operating DEATH MERCHANT OF THAT DAY pulling- injecting- gasing- shooting- beheading . SO IT CAN GO BOTH WAYS.

reply to post by littlecloud


As an abstract moral concept...I say never. The right to kill is reserved for self defense and Nature/God whatever.

If the perp is incarcerated and incapable of repeating the offense then killing the offender seems without moral justification or logical purpose beyond base retribution.

That said...if it was one of my own that was the victim...I'd want to see the offender die.

That's just the truth, I am morally confused on the issue.

reply to post by maybereal11


I totally agree, when we look at it we state that it is wrong, but if we were inside the picture it would be a COMPLETELY different story.
But that being said, hate only came into the world because eve at the apple (hypothetically)
so maybe we need to step back with our emotions as hard as it is.
and maybe our idea of retribution is wrong? is it not up to god to judge and not us?
maybe we are morally clouded because we are trying to do the judging when in reality it is not up to us.