Defending capital punishment

So with recent events that have transpired I hear the media saying that the debate for having capital punishment or the death penalty is now at the forefrunt. and since i have not heard anyone defend it yet. I figured I would try and step up and defend it.

For me I believe that capital punishment is needed because there are crimes committed that are very heinous in nature and need to be punished. and if anything needs to be brought to the discussion and debate and this may be extreme but maybe we should have a national debate about bringing public executions back..

And also by having capital punishment it sets the standard and maybe consequnce to toehr people so it wii dissuade them from committing a terrible crime against humanity.

And for those that disagree and say well we should just have life in prison. why should the criminal get to suck resources all his life if he is condemed. and I thought prison was for rehabilitation, not for alife without living.

And also by having capital punishment it sets the standard and maybe consequnce to toehr people so it wii dissuade them from committing a terrible crime against humanity.

Hows that deterrent working out?

The problem is, the many who commit murder usually dont have respect for human life, and are either too short sighted to realise the consequences of their actions, or just dont care.

Many people im sure have gotten away with murder, so the death penality doesnt fix that.

How about the many people who have been convicted of a murder they did not convict, and are sentenced to death?

There are only two ways to fix the wrongful death, and that is to either fix our corrupt and outdated justice system, which will never happen, or abolish the death penality.

it actually costs us MORE to execute somebody then to keep them in prison for their entire lives.Check it out

www.msu.edu...

reply to post by sicksonezer0


Well not to use the stimulus package argument but I wondeer how it would work if we didn;t. I am betting more crimes of brutual nature would be committed.

Public executions?..
Isn't that like a snuff film?.. but in real life?...

reply to post by earthship35


I am sure we can think off cheap ways to kill a person. If you really wanna go that route. we dont need to, do we??

reply to post by American-philosopher


I know what you mean, i think about that too, and i doubt we will ever know the answer to that, i guess they could get rid of the death penality and see what happens

S+F for you for ruffling some feathers

reply to post by TechUnique


Look througout history it happened. Now I am sure your gonna say there barbarian's and what not, and didnt know any better. But it served a purpose. and I am just saying lets have that discussion.

reply to post by American-philosopher


Maybe you could use a guillotine or you could use a rope and hang them. I hope your up to the job, or would you rather someone else do the dirty work?

reply to post by woodwardjnr


I have no doubt in my mind in our society we would have trouble finding someone to fill that position. Im sure they had no trouble in the past with narcissistic nature of human animals.

Originally posted by American-philosopher
reply to post by TechUnique

 

Look througout history it happened. Now I am sure your gonna say there barbarian's and what not, and didnt know any better. But it served a purpose. and I am just saying lets have that discussion.

Well if you look throughout history you will tend to find that a lot of other practises were Archaic in nature. The same as capital punishment. Its like stoning someone because they are accused of being a witch..

Think of all the people who actually didn't commit the crimes they were accused of.

'We've found hard evidence to suggest said Tommy was innocent.. lets release him from prison.'
'Sir.. we killed him yesterday. With a guillotine.... in public.....'

I think a lot of objections to the death penalty center around the potential of killing innocent people who have been wrongfully convicted, which has happened many times. Once someone is dead, there is no opportunity to correct the wrongful conviction.

Personally, I feel death is justified if you kill someone in cold blood. But I do find it hard to accept that innocents will be killed as part of the deal. .

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Thats why it was a position to be an EXCUTIONER. Ya know the guy who wears the black mask over his head who carries the ax. And that may be where the scary movies get it from? maybe??

Originally posted by American-philosopher
reply to post by woodwardjnr

 

Thats why it was a position to be an EXCUTIONER. Ya know the guy who wears the black mask over his head who carries the ax. And that may be where the scary movies get it from? maybe??

And scary movies use this character and form of punishment in general to portray archaism. Archaic practises are scary because nobody wants to face them in their lifetime.

If you live in a society where the killing of other human beings is accepted as the law (i.e. the death penalty), on what moral highground does the said society stand to legitimate the legal ban of murder ?

None.

Either killing is acceptable, or it isn't.

Violent societies produce violent individuals (which may explain the higher murder rates in states and countries which still apply the death penalty).

reply to post by American-philosopher


But you'd rather that job went to someone else rather than yourself. You support killing as long as it's not you that has to administer it? The executioner is a human being too and will be barbarised in the process of ending so many lives.

. Archaic practises are scary because nobody wants to face them in their lifetime.

reply to post by TechUnique


so is that not a reason to use them then. We agree that we dont want heinous crimes committed so a detterent would be a consequence that know one wants to face.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


For one I never said that I couldnt and wouldn't. Umm 2 even I think military excutions right is if I have this right have a 5-7 shooters standing to to kill a man and one of the shooters actually has the bullet that kills the person so that they have anonymity.

Also, the "deterrent" argument does not stand.

1) The numbers prove the opposite.

2) Only a marginally small percentage of capital punishment crimes are comitted in cold blood. The majority are "hot blooded" altercations between human beings. During these "passionate" moments the human brain has been scientifficaly proven to simply not be receptive to rational arguments. And therefore is deterred by nothing.