Originally posted by dfm65I don't believe it is a matter of showing more sympathy for one over the other. people are quite capable of supporting various causes. Generally, people are either for or against executions and there are no doubt good emotional and intelligent arguments to get rid of murderers. bottom line, we live in a democratic society and people have rights, including prisoners. their punishment is that certain rights (particularly their freedom) has been suspended whilst in jail and at times will include punishment of various sorts from prisoners.
Innocent people dying from lack of food, clean water, medicine and shelter in the third world, and even in the developed world are far more worthy of your sympathy and your time.
furthermore, a democratic society supposedly offers some protection for all citizens particularly the minority (prisoners in this case) when it should count, from majority rule. there would be hundreds of cases that the majority could justify killing perps, but then we must ask ourselves do we want democracy or tyranny. those are my thoughts off the top of my head.
Originally posted by masscathow is it that before I even clicked on your name link I new what country it would be.
I heard on the radio yesterday that an individual on death row has had his execution by lethal injection delayed. He claims in his lawsuit that because he is overweight and diabetic he could possibly suffer undue pain at his execution. He was a religious cult leader who murdered 4 family members, and the judge upheld his stay of execution so he could file ...[text shortened]... s there anything wrong with the guy suffering a little pain and discomfort at his own execution?
This whole matter is such a problem because of the inner conflict it arises. Either I think murder is OK, and I will have to condone of any murder, or I don't think murder is OK and I would have to accept that someone like that is still alive and kicking.
Anyone who says in some cases murder is all right, and in others it's not, is making it simple for themselves while providing others with an arbitrarily chosen argument for their case. If mere emotion and disgust about someone else's action (no matter how many of us agree that it is a vile deed) can allow us to take someone else's life, why shouldn't that someone be allowed to argue that he was emotionally very upset about something and that his morals gave him the right to take those lives in the first place?
I cannot classify the right to take lives according to emotions or my opinion about right and wrong. That's a dangerous path to take because we all feel so differently about different things. The same person who is absolutely appalled by the act of having his wife raped and murdered by some perverted psychopath is ok with people being raped and murdered in other parts of the world because the people who rule in those parts gives him a good and "meaningful" life. (Plus those victims aren't really innocent. I mean, who really is, besides my loved ones?) If our emotions and our moral beliefs give us the right to decide who lives or dies, the world would look... well, pretty much the way it does. And there's always someone suffering for it, now isn't there?
So, the position you take here has significant repercussions not only to yourself, and I would think long and hard about it. In fact, I have thought long and hard about it. If I say he shouldn't have been executed, I'm indirectly giving the message that I don't care much about those whom he killed and those who are left behind to suffer the loss (at least to them, while consumed with grief and anger, I do).
On the other hand, if I say that the death penalty was in order, I show clearly what I really feel about him, that those poor people left behind doesn't stand alone in their sorrow and that no one will get away with such a horrible crime as long as I breath this polluted air. At the same time I'm taking yet another step forward in justifying murders based on emotional impulses, probably the very same murders I'd consider incomprehensible because I have no way of knowing the true nature of the murderer.
I have taken the position that I cannot allow myself to pass judgement based on something as fuzzy as emotions and my moral beliefs, and I wouldn't want to live in a society that does. That way, I'm putting myself up for great sorrow and despair should any of my loved ones fall victim to such a heinous act, but I'm also making a clear statement. Something I think matters more in the long run: Murder of any kind is wrong and I for one won't stand for it! I will work hard to make sure that the government and the law enforcement are strong enough to protect people from those whom are overwhelmed with sorrow or obsession to such a degree that they honestly think it's up to them to decide over life and death.
Addition: No I'm not a bloody politician, though I realise how those last two sentences came out. 😕
Originally posted by stockenyou certainly did put a lot of thought into that
This whole matter is such a problem because of the inner conflict it arises. Either I think murder is OK, and I will have to condone of any murder, or I don't think murder is OK and I would have to accept that someone like that is still alive and kicking.
Anyone who says in some cases murder is all right, and in others it's not, is making it simpl ...[text shortened]... dy politician, though I realise how those last two sentences came out. 😕
Originally posted by stockenWell said.
This whole matter is such a problem because of the inner conflict it arises. Either I think murder is OK, and I will have to condone of any murder, or I don't think murder is OK and I would have to accept that someone like that is still alive and kicking.
Anyone who says in some cases murder is all right, and in others it's not, is making it simpl ...[text shortened]... dy politician, though I realise how those last two sentences came out. 😕
I think the only valid argument here is the fact that the death penalty cannot be "taken back" if the person is found not guilty. I say this because many posts deal with the morale of taking someone's life and forfeiting their rights, but life in prison is also taking a life and forfeiting rights. Prison is not a nice place, you will get beaten, raped, etc. and will definetily change you, probably making you colder and giving you a couple of skills not appreciated in the real world. Now what kind of life do you get from life in prison? I bet it is not a nice one...
So what is the "moral" diference between making life miserable and ending it? Which are the rights someone is allowed to forfeit and which are not? I believe too much emphasis is being put on "the value of being alive" when the emphasis should be in "the value of life".
Finally I see this coming down to religion because that is where one estimates "the value of life". For me life is not that valuable, I see no difference between euthanasia and putting a dog to "sleep". It's just like turning off a computer... It is unacceptable for the justice system to make mistakes, but feeding and caring for all those worthless psycos is not the way to solve that.
Originally posted by tradTo be honest, when I talk about not murder people in the name of the law, I'm not imagining to myself that they'll be put in places where they can only get worse.
I think the only valid argument here is the fact that the death penalty cannot be "taken back" if the person is found not guilty. I say this because many posts deal with the morale of taking someone's life and forfeiting their rights, but life in prison is also taking a life and forfeiting rights. Prison is not a nice place, you will get beaten, raped, etc. and ...[text shortened]... ut feeding and caring for all those worthless psycos is not the way to solve that.
Originally posted by XanthosNZmaybe, but there are other clues as well. this sort (as opposed to other sorts) of barbarism is cultural specific. somewhat like school kids shooting their classmates. yes there are exceptions to the school shootings which occasionally occur in other countries but not in proportion to the occurrence and population.
Because only one first world country still executes their population?
but it is not solely related to the culture of the gun and law enforcements, it also indicative of a deeper malaise. and that malaise wont be disappearing any time shortly.
Originally posted by Monty348You would kill someone to save money?
Of course, the five innocent victims wouldn't be brought back, but society would be spared the cost of supporting this sociopath for the rest of his life: housing him, guarding him, feeding him, clothing him, tending to his medical needs, providing him with entertainment, with a library, with free lawyers, and on and on.
Hundreds of thousands of dollar ...[text shortened]... Don't confuse revenge with justice. Executing this evil scum would solve a lot and save a lot.
I like to think I respect everyones views, but I think if you would kill to save money then you are sick. I can understand killing for revenge or what ever you might like to call revenge, say 'justice'. I would never consider killing for the purpose of saving money.
Imagine a disabled child has just been born and you read someones view:
"If we kill this newborn we will not have to pay for housing him, feeding him, clothing him, tending to his medical needs, providing him with entertainment, with a library, and on and on.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars...the hard-earned dollars of honest people...to give this cripple for free what the rest of us have to work damned hard for."
Both are killing for money in your words, I just changed who. I would rather pay a little more tax and save them both, and as a result maybe go on one less weekend away over the course of my life.
Originally posted by Will Everittsure mate, if it meant I would pay 1 cent per liter less at the petrol pump I'd even nuke Iran.
You would kill someone to save money?
I like to think I respect everyones views, but I think if you would kill to save money then you are sick. I can understand killing for revenge or what ever you might like to call revenge, say 'justice'. I would never consider killing for the purpose of saving money.
Imagine a disabled child has just been born a ave them both, and as a result maybe go on one less weekend away over the course of my life.