No announcement yet.

Death Penalty

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Death Penalty

    The execution of Saddam Hussein on Saturday, December 30th, 2006, once again brings to light the old debate about the effectiveness of capital punishment. The reasons why he was executed in such haste and the secrets he might have taken to grave is the subject of another article. But is capital punishment an effective tool and is it a moral approach in deterring crime?

    Advocates of capital punishment argue that by executing criminals others will think twice about committing the same crime. That it can be a public lesson in the consequences for violent or immoral behavior. Hence the extreme example of public executions in some countries around the world. But, is it effective? Many reports by international organizations such as the United Nations, Amnesty International, and the Human Rights Watch have indicated that in countries such China or the United States, crime rates have not been affected by capital punishment whether the executions were public or not.

    The fact it that criminal activity in society has many reasons, namely: poverty, racism, discrimination, and lack of resources such as adequate public education and health care. So long as these problems exist, criminal activity continues, no matter how many executions are performed. The focus of a society should be on prevention and healing and not just on punishment. Numerous studies in the US have shown that the majority of death row inmates are either poor, people of color, or both and they lacked the resources to have proper legal defense at the time of their trail. Recent DNA tests have shown that a number of people who were sentenced to death were completely innocent.

    Ironically, many of the same people who are in favor of the death penalty, are the so-called pro-life advocates who insist that it’s morally correct to preserve 150 cells of a human embryo, but yet advocate taking someone’s life or bombing other countries. They claim that capital punishment is morally justified and it is an “eye for an eye.” But they forget what Gandhi said: “ An eye for an eye, will leave the whole world blind.”

    If morality indicates the sanctity and preservation of life, then taking a human life is morally unjustified. When a mass murderer is put to death, the state is doing exactly what the murderer did: taking a human life or as the Pope recently regarded the Saddam Hussein’s execution as a crime to answer another crime. Executions do not create justice; rather they are a temporary relief for vengeful desires. Instead of promoting healing, reconciliation and forgiveness, executions create an atmosphere of vengeance and bloodletting.

    Countries around the world should follow the great example of the European Union and abolish the death penalty forever. Humanity must aspire to higher moral standards, and one of these standards is the abolishment of capital punishment throughout our planet.

    As for Saddam Hussein, he should have been tried in an international court, because he committed crimes against his own people and against the people of Iran and Kuwait. He should have been sentenced to life in prisonment without the possibility of parole. He should have been made to work: building roads, schools and hospitals in Iraq. Unfortunately, this humane approach could not have been possible in a country under a brutal occupation.
    I Don't Know

  • #2
    US loses faith in death penalty

    It took Angel Nieves Diaz 34 minutes to die from the time the two executioners inserted the IV tubes into each arm and began pumping the chemicals into his body. His eyes widened. His head rolled. He appeared to speak.

    "It was my observation that he was in pain," Neal Dupree, a lawyer for Diaz and a witness to the execution, wrote in an affidavit.

    The faint signs of movement from the body strapped to the trolley continued for 24 minutes.

    "His face was contorted, and he grimaced on several occasions. His Adam's apple bobbed up and down continually, and his jaw was clenched," he said.

    Diaz's execution in Florida on Dec. 13 for the murder of the manager of a topless bar was the last in the state for some months to come. Almost immediately after his body was removed from the execution chamber, it became clear that the execution had gone wrong.

    The cocktail of three chemicals that was meant to have sent him to oblivion within moments had led to a painful, lingering death. After a report from the medical examiner found 30cm-long chemical burns on Diaz's arms, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, opened an inquiry into his death and suspended all executions, granting the more than 370 people on Florida's death row at least a temporary reprieve.

    Although the brutality of Diaz's death merited attention across the US, what has gone almost unnoticed is that the death penalty, once an article of faith for conservatives, is now in retreat.

    The penalty remains the law in 38 states, but last year saw the lowest number of executions in a decade -- 53 including Diaz. The number of condemned fell to its lowest level since the restoration of capital punishment in 1976 -- 114, compared with 317 in 1996.

    Ten states have suspended executions, and for the first time last week, one state -- New Jersey -- announced it was leaning towards abolition.

    "The death penalty is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency," an official commission reported.

    New Jersey would be the first to take such a step since capital punishment was restored.

    "The death penalty is on the defensive," said Richard Dieter, director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington.

    "Its flaws are much more obvious now. If you are for the death penalty you are going to have to say how are we going to avoid executing innocent people," he said.

    Dieter attributes much of the declining taste for the death penalty to science, with DNA and other new technologies used to establish innocence in cases after conviction. More than 120 people have been freed from death row because of doubts about their conviction, including at least a dozen because of DNA testing.

    Such doubts led George Ryan, the conservative Republican governor of Illinois, to impose a moratorium on executions seven years ago, after more than a dozen wrongful convictions were overturned.

    His conversion came about when journalism students at Northwestern University produced a taped confession exonerating a man who had been on death row for 17 years.

    Other inmates on death row were later cleared by DNA, and subsequent investigations.

    "Juries make mistakes. Prosecutors make mistakes. If you are for the death penalty you have to say `we are going to lose innocent lives, but it is worth it,'" Dieter said.

    In Florida, executions are on hold because of public queasiness about lethal injection following Diaz's botched execution.

    As the medical examiner discovered, technicians missed the veins when they were inserting the intravenous tubes into Diaz's arms, and he needed a second injection to die. Death penalty opponents say such excruciating deaths are to be expected in US prisons.

    Human Rights Watch reports that one of the three chemicals in the mix of lethal injections has been banned for use on animals because of fears that it masks, rather than relieves, pain.

    In New Jersey, where there have been no executions since the state restored the death penalty 25 years ago, the argument came down to the high cost of legal appeals while keeping people on death row. An official commission last week concluded it did not work.

    "There is no compelling evidence that the New Jersey death penalty rationally serves a legitimate penological intent," it said.

    The judiciary has also turned against the death penalty, with the Supreme Court barring the execution of the insane, people with learning difficulties, or minors, and lower courts turning to alternative sentences. Thirty-seven of the 38 states that retain the death penalty now have life without parole.

    Death penalty opponents say that such lifelong prison terms make it increasingly difficult to argue that the death penalty is the last defense against a convicted killer going free. In the last few years, juries in celebrated capital cases have balked at imposing the final punishment.

    Zacarias Moussaoui, convicted last year over the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, got life in a maximum security jail. So did Gary Ridgeway, the Green River serial killer from Washington state, who admitted to murdering 48 people and received a life term with no parole. If one of the worst serial killers in history does not deserve the death penalty, the argument goes, who does?

    "There are indications of change even in places like Texas and Virginia," which perform the most executions in the US, Dieter said.

    Those developments came too late for Diaz, as did the outrage over lethal injection.

    But for Suzanne Keffer of the Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, his lawyer for the last eight years, his suffering may produce some good.

    "If you can look at it this way, that something good may come out of this ... it certainly may be a benefit," she said.


    • #3
      Death Knell for the Death Penalty?

      Nine states have now suspended executions over concerns about the potential cruelty of lethal injection, the method used by 37 of the 38 states that uphold the death penalty.

      Last week a legislative commission in New Jersey recommended that the state abolish the death penalty altogether.

      And juries have become more reluctant than ever to impose the ultimate punishment: U.S. death sentences fell to 114 in 2006, according to an estimate from the Death Penalty Information Center, reaching their lowest level since the country reinstated the death penalty 30 years ago.

      "Publicity surrounding wrongful convictions is the driving force behind that decrease," says Richard Dieter, the center's executive director. "The government has not been doing a good job with the death penalty, and the public seems to be pulling back."

      Executions have declined too — 53 last year, the lowest number in a decade. And that trend is likely to accelerate for one big reason: new challenges to lethal injection as "cruel and unusual" punishment.

      Under this method, an anesthetic is injected first to render the prisoner unconscious, a second drug paralyzes the prisoner and a third stops the heart. But when the procedure is not administered properly, it can be excruciating. If, for instance, the prisoner is not anesthetized sufficiently, he or she would feel searing pain when the third injection is given but could not indicate that because of the paralyzing second drug.

      Florida suspended the death penalty last month after the botched execution of convicted murderer Angelo Diaz. It took 34 minutes and two doses of lethal chemicals for Diaz to die because officials improperly inserted the needles into his arms.

      On the same day that Florida stopped executions, a California judge said the lethal injection protocol violated the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment and was therefore unconstitutional.

      Now all eyes are on Missouri, where the challenge to lethal injection reached a federal appeals court Wednesday. A lower court halted executions last summer after the doctor who supervised Missouri's lethal injections admitted he was dyslexic and sometimes "improvised" the deadly mix of drugs. Lawyers trying to stay the execution of convicted murderer Michael Taylor received those startling admissions when they deposed the doctor, identified in court papers as John Doe 1.

      One of those attorneys, Ginger Anders, says they discovered that "Missouri never had a written protocol. John Doe just did what he wanted to do on the night of the execution."

      The lower court ordered that executions in Missouri could not resume until the state found a board-certified anesthesiologist to oversee them. Try as it might, however, the department of corrections could not find one doctor in the state to work the death chamber.

      Brian Hauswirth, a spokesman for Missouri's Department of corrections, says the state now has a written protocol for lethal injection that is "humane and constitutional," and it should be allowed to resume executions. But when asked if a doctor helped to prepare the new procedure, Hauswirth says he was "not aware of any doctors involved in documenting the protocol."

      It may be months before the appeals court decides if Missouri's lethal injection protocol is constitutional. But as this case has now reached the highest judicial level, just shy of the Supreme Court, most observers say other states confronting challenges to lethal injection will be watching closely and waiting before they use this method again.

      Dieter says all these developments indicate that while "the country is not about to get rid of the death penalty, the tide has turned to a certain extent."


      • #4
        The hanging of ousted Iraqi ex-President Saddam Hussein fueled some death penalty opponents and those who believed it was barbaric and graphic.

        Even President Bush has stated the death is a milestone, but the manner in which Saddam was executed last month in the gallows was wrong.

        Video of the deposed dictator was captured by a cellular phone camera.

        Saddam, 69, was convicted in November by a U.S.-sponsored Iraqi court of crimes against humanity and was hanged at dawn Dec. 30 in Baghdad .

        Images of the execution were distributed globally through computers and on television screens.

        On Wednesday, people on the streets of Williamsport were asked if they opposed the death penalty, and if they did, what did they think of the manner in which Saddam was put to death.

        Only one of the six people interviewed thought Saddam should have been allowed to live out his life in prison.

        Kristen Gardner of Montoursville said she is against capital punishment at all costs, even for the brutal dictator.

        “I support life in prison as a course of punishment,” she said. “I don’t think they should have put Saddam to death.”

        Gardner said Saddam was likely to die in prison if that were the sentence handed down. “He wouldn’t have lasted too long,” she said.

        Another man polled favored capital punishment but not the gallows treatment.

        “I’d probably favor the death penalty,” said Don Fawber, a city resident who believes the hanging of Saddam was far too graphic and should never have been shown.

        “If you are going to execute somebody, do it privately,” Fawber said, supporting the way it is done in U.S. prisons with the accused’s family present and victims of the alleged crime given the decision to watch.

        “Even though he was a bastard and it was terrible what he did, you have got to have some dignity,” Fawber said.

        Geri Myers of Mill Hall said putting somebody sentenced in a court of law to death depends on the severity of the crime.

        She had no definitive answer about capital punishment, but was firm about Saddam’s demise. “That is how they do it in their country,” she said. “They went by their laws.”

        Marvin VanHort of York supports the death penalty only for more heinous crimes. He also believed the Saddam killing was not exactly right. “I think they should have waited,” he said. “They should have done it more like we do it in the United States. I think they should have held him.”

        Timothy Brown of Philadelphia said there was no excuse for Saddam’s record of murder and mayhem.

        “You kill, you get what you get,” he said.

        “He did what he did, so he got what he got. There is no excuse for killing 167 lives, probably much more than that.”

        In a Reuters article, Zahir Janmohamed of Amnesty International said Saddam’s execution would boost opposition to capital punishment worldwide.

        “It will be viewed as following a flawed, rushed trial that resulted in a penalty that is cruel and inhumane,” Janmohamed was quoted saying.

        Not for city resident Kurt Nagel.

        “We handled it well,” he said.


        • #5

          The central Asian republic of Kyrgyzstan has adopted a new constitution specifically banning all taking of life and lawyers are now drafting revisions to its legal code replacing the maximum criminal sentence of death by firing squad with long prison terms.
          Many independent lawyers and human rights activists here have welcomed this as an unequivocal ban on all state executions, saying the reforms were more progressive on this than anything in the constitutions of their immediate neighbours- Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and China.
          The new Kyrgyz constitution came into full force when President Kurmanbek Bakiev signed it on January 16, 2007. "Every person in the Kyrgyz Republic has an inalienable right to life. No one can be deprived of life," article 14 declares. "The death penalty has been abolished," a spokesperson on the parliamentary judicial reforms committee announced at a press conference immediately after the deputies approved the new constitution on December 30.


          • #6
            wow good news... i hope all nations will follow KYRGYZSTAN.
            “I want to feel passion, I want to feel pain. I want to weep at the sound of your name. Come make me laugh, come make me cry... just make me feel alive.”

            If you wish to be loved, show more of your faults than your virtues. - Edward Bulwer-Lytton



            • #7
              World execution numbers fall

              The number of people executed in Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Pakistan rose in 2006 as those countries bucked an overall trend towards fewer executions, a report said today.
              In its annual report on the death penalty, the human rights group Amnesty International said at least 1,591 people were executed last year, down from 2,148 the year before.

              "Last year saw a slight drop in execution numbers - but it was another grim death toll around the world and we are particularly concerned about a disturbing 'revival' of executions in countries like Iraq, Sudan and Pakistan," Kate Allen, the director of Amnesty International UK, said.

              In Iran, the number of executions almost doubled to 177 from 94, possibly linked to a crackdown on Baluchis. One-third of those executed came from this minority group.
              Eight-two people were put to death in Pakistan - up from 31 in 2005 - while the number of people on death row stands at 7,000, the highest in the world.

              Iraq executed 65 people, up from three in 2006. The Iraqi government reintroduced the death penalty after it had been suspended by the US-controlled provisional authority, claiming the move was a necessary deterrent because of the country's grave security situation.

              Amnesty challenged that claim, saying the security situation had continued to decline even as the number of executions rose rapidly.

              In Sudan, the number of executions went from zero to 65, possibly linked to a harshening political situation.

              China once again topped the list with 1,101, although Amnesty said the true figure could be as high as 7,500 to 8,000 because official statistics remain a state secret.

              Particularly horrific executions included that of one man in Somalia who was publicly stabbed to death after being hooded and tied to a stake, while a man was found to be still alive and moving after being hanged in Sri Lanka.

              However, the execution of an 18-year-old in Iran was stopped with the noose already around his neck after he was allowed to play a flute as a last request. His family then decided to spare his life.

              "Capital punishment is always cruel and unnecessary, and doesn't deter crime," Ms Allen said.

              "Many of the thousands of prisoners awaiting execution around the world have also endured torture, unfair trials and the misery of death row. We urgently need to see death penalty governments issuing bans on all imminent executions."


              • #8
                Death penalty under review

                The Supreme Court stepped into a death penalty case in the state of Texas Monday that mixes Bush administration claims of executive power with the role of international law in state court proceedings

                WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court stepped into a death penalty case in the state of Texas Monday that mixes Bush administration claims of executive power with the role of international law in state court proceedings.
                The case accepted by the justices for argument this fall concerns the fate of José Ernesto Medellín, a Mexican national who was sentenced in 1994 to die for the rapes and killings of two teenage girls.

                The state wants to go ahead with Medellín´s execution, despite a ruling from the International Court of Justice in The Hague that the convictions of Medellín and 50 other Mexican-born prisoners violated the 1963 Vienna Convention because they were denied legal help available to them under the treaty.

                The pact requires consular access for Americans detained abroad and foreigners arrested in the United States. Mexico sued the United States in the international court, alleging the prisoners´ rights had been violated.

                Unusual for a death penalty case, the Bush administration is siding with Medellín in asserting that the president´s primacy in conducting foreign policy is being challenged.

                President George W. Bush ordered new state court hearings for the defendants based on the international court ruling.

                But a Texas appeals court said the president exceeded his authority by intruding into the affairs of the independent judiciary.

                The administration noted in its brief to the court that Bush does not agree with the international tribunal´s interpretations of the Vienna Convention. However, the United States had agreed to the Hague court´s resolution of the dispute and said it would abide by the outcome.

                The Mexican government and international law experts have weighed in on behalf of Medellín.

                The justices agreed to consider Medellín´s case once before.

                But they dismissed the proceeding in 2005, after Bush ordered the state court reviews. The justices reserved the right to hear the appeal again once the case had run its full course, as it now has, in state court.

                Medellín has been on death row since September 1994 for the slayings of Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Peña, 16.

                The girls were raped, strangled, beaten and stomped to death after they came upon a railroad trestle in Houston where the members of a gang known as the "Black and Whites" were celebrating a new member´s initiation. The girls´ bodies were found four days later.

                The crime, committed by people all younger than 20, was so brutal it caught widespread U.S. attention and shocked the city of Houston.

                Five gang members charged with capital murder in the case - Medellín, Peter Cantu, Derrick Sean O´Brien, Raul Villarreal and Efrain Perez - received the death penalty.

                O´Brien was executed last year. Perez and Villarreal had their death sentences commuted to life in prison in 2005 when the Supreme Court barred executions for those who were 17 at the time of their crimes. Cantu doesn´t have an execution date.

                A sixth participant, Medellín´s brother, Vernancio, was 14 at the time.

                He was tried as a juvenile and is serving 40 years in prison.


                • #9
                  Piers Bannister, a researcher on the death penalty for Amnesty International, has had an active role in international lobbying for a global moratorium on the death penalty. A resolution calling all states for a moratorium on executions, passed at the UN General Assembly Third Committee in November 2007, leads up to a vote by the UN General Assembly. Piers, who has kindly answered some of my question about the death penalty in a previous interview, kindly agreed to talk more about international lobbying for the resolution.

                  Vahdati: Congratulations for the success on the first round of voting. What groups were involved and how long they have been lobbying?

                  Bannister: Many groups from around the world worked for this under the banner of the organization the World Coalition against the Death Penalty. This widespread campaigning was illustrated by the number of governments who took the opportunity to be cosponsors of the resolution with well over 80 nations from numerous regions backing the initiative. The campaign for this resolution started in the summer but the campaign to have a vote has been running for many years, backed by the anti death penalty group Hands Off Cain.

                  Vahdati: What lobbying mechanisms did you use? Did you lobby around the UN premises, or were activists and NGOs contacting country officials directly? What countries did you focus on, the possible “nay” votes, or the countries with possible abstain votes?

                  Bannister: Many lobbying techniques were used. We held a meeting at the UN which was addressed by three men who faced execution for crimes they did not commit. The testimonies from the three – from Uganda, Japan and the USA – were extremely powerful and moved many who heard them.

                  We also lobbied directly to representatives at the UN and to governments in their capitals. We targeted countries which might be persuaded to vote for the resolution or at least abstain. We also encouraged countries that were already very against the death penalty to use their influence to persuade nations they have good relations with to take a stand against state killing.

                  We held press conference both at the UN and in other regions to support the campaign and educate the media about the global trend away from the use of the death penalty.

                  Vahdati: Did you ever talk to the Iranian representatives?

                  Bannister: The Iranian authorities’ policy on the death penalty is well known. Although we seek to change that policy by the power of our argument we took the decision to target our limited resources on governments we thought more likely to respond positively.

                  Vahdati: Which countries were most vehemently opposed to the moratorium? Did Iran express its opposition vocally?

                  Bannister: The most vocal governments were (in no particular order): Botswana, Singapore, Egypt, Iran, Barbados and other Caribbean nations. The Iranian representative spoke often about his country’s objections to the resolution saying the death penalty was needed to deal with the nation’s drug and other crime problems.

                  Vahdati: What were the major arguments against the moratorium?

                  Bannister: That the UN had no authority to ‘interfere’ in the judicial systems of member states, that the death penalty was required as a deterrent to violent crime and that this only came from ‘the west’. These arguments were fiercely contested by the many supporters of the resolution who believe the death penalty to be a grave violation of human rights, that human rights are the concern of the international community and that the death penalty has never been shown to deter violent crime above other harsh punishments.

                  Vahdati: When is the date of the final round of voting at the UN General Assembly? Will the lobbying continue till then or do you think it will pass as it did before?

                  Bannister: The final vote will be in the plenary session of the UN General Assembly on 18 December. We continue to lobby countries that have ceased to execute to vote in favour and hope to push the vote in favour over the 100 mark.

                  Vahdati: Any interesting experience you would like to share?

                  Bannister: This is a major turning point in the fight against the death penalty. It may not stop executions in China, Iran and the USA but Amnesty International does believe that it will influence other nations who are already considering abolition. In time, we also believe that the major executing states will start to reflect on the international communities view on capital punishment and consider ending the killing of their fellow citizens.

                  Vahdati: Thank you. I wish you and all of the people who are fighting against the death penalty success.


                  • #10
                    actually, the death penalty is never justified. It may never have been justified, but instead seen as a "necessary evil" for social unity. There are three main, related arguments I've seen in support of the death penalty, each equally ridiculous than the other in today's context. It seems that most support for it comes from religious insecurity and the obligation one feels to support what they perceive to be their religion's moral laws.

                    The first argument is utilitarian, for the "greater good". Today, there are clear alternatives that better achieve the greater good than taking away a person's life, so that argument is fully refuted though some attempt to latch on to it like they're swimming in a river in Egypt.

                    The second argument is purely "moral", an "eye for an eye". Give the killer what he gave. This is perhaps a strong argument because it banks off weak human instincts. But really, it is based on the misconceptions that (1) killing someone as a means for retribution is equal to killing someone, and (2) that the person who killed is evil and blameworthy, rather than weak in strong circumstances.

                    The third argument is what everyone is waiting for. Religion advances the strongest case for the death penalty, and interestingly enough, it is based on a strong logic. There are some reasons why the logic fails in current circumstances, however. First, God's social laws don't stay the same, they are reformed based on circumstances, and this occurs everyday in the Islamic world based on Islamic science. Laws are to achieve the essential values of God. So laws on women's rights change with time for the sake of keeping up with the fundamental notion that men and women are equal. Clearly, God-given human life is also another essential element of God's Will. We end up playing God instead of exercising His Will when we don't need to use the death penalty to preserve God's ends, yet we do anyway.

                    This goes to the heart of the matter. Someone who is sentenced to death in Islam has broken a fundamental and absolute right, in other words God's Will. The fallacy invoked by proponents of the death penalty is that an absolute right, and God's Will, means absolute laws. What they miss is that laws are meant to preserve God's Will, and this can only occur if the institution applying them is not corrupt, and this has a very high standard. If the standard is met by a society, the society is almost perfect, and the fundamental laws can be used to prevent the breaking of fundamental rights and achievement of God's Will. Otherwise, fundamental laws will actively turn society away from God's will. Eventually, in the right society, the death penalty is abolished because God's Will is achieved without the need for it.

                    I know the above is somewhat confusing. It is simply an argument, at least apparently based on logic, and open to rebuttal.
                    Last edited by zubin; 12-29-2007, 06:56 PM.
                    Take him and cut him out in little stars,
                    and he will make the face of heaven so fine,
                    that all the world will be in love with night,
                    and pay no worship to the garish sun

                    - Shakespeare

                    "In all intellectual debates, both sides tend to be correct in what they affirm, and wrong in what they deny." - JS Mill


                    • #11
                      i am confused about the third argument

                      so are you implying that in the third argument death penelty is ok untill the will of g-d is observed

                      and in the first argument cant i say a usless person takes too much space and resources theire for it is the ultimate good to murder that person

                      i my self personally am not for it nor against
                      but for example when i hear someone brutily murdures or tourchers another
                      i have the strong desier to see the person get justice by dying and i belive when we sentence these murdurers to life in prison it is the socioty that is paying for it

                      also you forgot another argument which says it so others dont attept to do the same if they know the punishment is death
                      wich i think is the most restarted one,

                      but please continue

                      G-d determines who walks into your life....It is up to you to decide who you let walk away, who you let stay, and who you refuse to let go.



                      • #12
                        Originally posted by mike435 View Post
                        i am confused about the third argument

                        so are you implying that in the third argument death penelty is ok untill the will of g-d is observed
                        Personally, I'm unsure if the Will of God was ever achieved through the death penalty. To me, it seems simply a preventative measure, and in the right society, it will NOT be used but instead it will be effective in preventing the crimes, eventually leading to its abolishin.

                        Originally posted by mike
                        and in the first argument cant i say a usless person takes too much space and resources theire for it is the ultimate good to murder that person
                        killing someone when alternatives exist produces a highly damaging effect on the psyche of the society, and is the opposite action for bringing about a happy society.

                        Originally posted by mike
                        i my self personally am not for it nor against
                        but for example when i hear someone brutily murdures or tourchers another
                        i have the strong desier to see the person get justice by dying and i belive when we sentence these murdurers to life in prison it is the socioty that is paying for it
                        how is justice achieved through killing someone Mike? I gave two rebuttals above:

                        (1) killing someone as a means for retribution is NOT equal to killing someone, and (2) that the person who killed is NOT evil and blameworthy, rather than weak (of no fault of his own) in strong circumstances.
                        Take him and cut him out in little stars,
                        and he will make the face of heaven so fine,
                        that all the world will be in love with night,
                        and pay no worship to the garish sun

                        - Shakespeare

                        "In all intellectual debates, both sides tend to be correct in what they affirm, and wrong in what they deny." - JS Mill


                        • #13
                          I guess I neglected the fact that political affiliation (as well as religious obligation) compels people to such a ridiculous conclusion...
                          Take him and cut him out in little stars,
                          and he will make the face of heaven so fine,
                          that all the world will be in love with night,
                          and pay no worship to the garish sun

                          - Shakespeare

                          "In all intellectual debates, both sides tend to be correct in what they affirm, and wrong in what they deny." - JS Mill


                          • #14
                            hi zubin

                            you know i have been thinking about the death penalty i really don't think we do it becuase of justice or vengens or even so people learn their lessons and preemt furthur ecil, i think more than anything it is used to get rit of evil, i think more than anything it is adopted by society as a quick fix so they don't have to look at theme selfs and see were they went wrong to produce evil,

                            but at the same time how can you deal with certin cases with out the death penelty

                            example hitler, khomaini, these guys that creat total chaos and realize evil

                            you know i think this subject is way over my head and even your arguments they are a thousand times better than mine but still i dont think they adress the issue and i dont think it is going in the right direction

                            G-d determines who walks into your life....It is up to you to decide who you let walk away, who you let stay, and who you refuse to let go.



                            • #15
                              Originally posted by zubin View Post
                              how is justice achieved through killing someone Mike? I gave two rebuttals above:
                              look for a class of mine had to sit in the court room
                              i sat their and saw the joy this family got when they convicted the person of the crime.
                              I personaly think the guy who got convicted was innocent
                              but for the familt it didnt really matter that much it was more the act that he got what he deserved

                              i think it is a selfish gratification seeing somone pay for killing someone else.

                              Originally posted by zubin View Post
                              (2) that the person who killed is NOT evil and blameworthy, rather than weak (of no fault of his own) in strong circumstances.

                              see this os where i have problem you are telling me that Hitler being a killer is weak and thats why he should not get the death penealty
                              or all these other terrorist who kill kids and and innocent womman

                              look socioty need the death penalty just so it can get rit of the stain
                              but at the same time death ppenalty is only a bandaid on sociotys problem that created this type of people

                              G-d determines who walks into your life....It is up to you to decide who you let walk away, who you let stay, and who you refuse to let go.