@Point 1: I wasn't arguing at the American government, I was arguing at ethics at that point.

@Point 2: Ur...just because s/he tortured someone else doesn't stop what we do to him/her from being torture. So what if they're not a normal civilian? They're still human. As for "get at taste of his own medicine" that's an appeal to ethics and I respond with the cliche "an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind". "Let's give him a taste of his own medicine!" is an emotional exclamation used for whipping crowds into a frenzy and is not completely logical. But if you want some psychological payback, how about being locked up for the rest of your life? It's not exactly torture but it certainly isn't fun. Additionaly, it accomplishes the goal (removing the person from society) and it isn't savage mindless fury.

@Point 3: Even if you had proved two holes in my argument you didn't prove that the death penalty isn't inhumane.

EDIT: @Antgua: On most points you made there I can respond with a simple "I disagree" but the primal part has got me interested. So we're not civilized, I know that, but does that mean we shouldn't strive to be? And if I had a family member murdered I wouldn't be in a logical mind would I? I would be full of anger and hate and be swayed by that.

Oh, and are you trying to start a flame war? Or are just driven by personal experience? The "Mr. T" thing was just plain insulting.

Separation of powers, social contract in the form of our Constitution... yeah, it kind of is based off Christianity. <=P

And I've read the Constitution and can tell you that nowhere does it mention "separation of church and state." The First Amendment mentions two things regarding religion- the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. The former states that there shall be no national religion or established church as was the case in England, and the latter states that the People shall practice their faith uninterrupted. That's not "separation of church and state." The Constitution wasn't a secular document and I've argued this before. Not having a nation-wide established church is quite different than secular government. One need only look at the fact that separation of church and state was only an idea introduced in the mid-20th century in America. The fact is that many of the individual states did in fact have state religions and churches; the problem was a national church. That being said, American government kind of is based off Christianity. Sorry <=P

I'll be honest, I've always supported the death penalty. I do, however, feel conflicted. On one hand I do not believe in taking an eye for and eye, but forgiving others. And yet turning the other cheek is supposed to be a voluntary action for the individual. I'm not turning the other cheek if I'm allowing a man kill an innocent person. I'm being generous with someone else's life, and that's not acceptable. Turning the other cheek applies to actions against oneself and not against others. I can ignore someone attacking me, but I can't ignore someone else being hurt. I think it's a moral obligation to help others and defend the weak. That means stopping criminals and keeping them away from society where they can hurt people.

And yet where do we go from there? I think human life is sacred and worth protecting, so the death penalty seems wrong simply because of that. I also feel reluctant to give the state the power to execute people. It's the same reason I oppose socialist healthcare; government shouldn't be allowed to say who lives and who dies. And yet, these people get trials and juries and hopefully are fairly tried. A conviction by peers takes care of my fear of government abuse in that regard. And of course there's the idea, though, that these monsters might get out one day and harm others again. I don't want killers, rapists, and child predators on the streets. I don't think those kinds of people are so easily reformed. Again, I disagree with an eye for an eye. But then if they're kept alive they might always be able to get back on the streets for silly things like "good behavior." I don't take joy in the idea of killing others, and that's why it's a hard decision to support.

It's not just my Christian beliefs, but my libertarian-leaning conservative beliefs that influence my views here. As such, I don't believe the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. Rather I think it's appropriate to keep good citizens safe from the scourge of violence and harm that would occur if we just dropped these people back into society. If that means that murderers, rapists, and child predators have to be executed to permanently remove them from society and ensure that they're never going to harm others, then I think it's the best solution. I also don't wish to have violent criminals living off the taxpayers. I've heard that the death penalty is more costly than life in prison, which to me makes no sense whatsoever unless you're factoring in retrials and the like. But honestly there shouldn't need to be so many accommodations for someone that's about to be executed. Besides legal issues and court sessions, it shouldn't cost anything for the death penalty. They could make it more fiscally acceptable if they just brought back the guillotine and executed that way. All you'd have to do is clean off the blade and pluck the head out of the bucket. How often do guillotines break down? You have to replace ropes, electric chairs use electricity, lethal injections probably cost a pretty penny and take time to prepare, and just shooting them would cost money because you'd need to keep buying bullets. And the guillotine leaves the criminal with maybe ten seconds at most after their head is off? Doesn't seem too inhumane.

i don't like the death penalty. i think it's an easy way out for people who've committed several crimes. consider the possibility that their lives aren't valuable to them, meaning that the loss of their lives is more of an escape than a punishment. a lot of times, we kill people to make ourselves feel better. i don't think we have the right to say, "person number one can live, but person two over there needs to bite the dust." (wow, i'm sounding so anti-war here. which i'm not.)

however, we're paying to keep all these people alive and i'm not too fond of that. (ahh, taxes in canada!)

it's not something that seriously upsets me either way.

Good point. Sometimes it is easier to think that death is an easy way out, but I don't necessarily believe that. Keeping a person in a prison for years and years to make them think about what they had done doesn't always work. Some people just can't change, it becomes impossible after certain things have been done. Paying to keep them alive is a waste of money when really they don't deserve the life they have, for taking the life of another person.

the bible says eye for an eye... it also say to pluck out your own eye to hmmm (but only if it ofends you so if you pluck out one eye than in retaliation because of the eye for an eye does that mean you pluck out the other?...hmmm

...

Well, the Old Testament says that he whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man.

I don't believe the underlying message of the Bible is an eye for an eye. Even before Jesus and the New Testament there were times when even killers have been given forgiveness. After Cain killed his brother Abel, God said that anyone that killed Cain would have God's vengeance shall be taken on him seven-fold. And besides murder, after Joseph's older brothers sold him into slavery, Joseph rose to the highest position of power in Egypt under Pharaoh, and when he tricked his brothers into admitting that they sold him and were sorry and couldn't live with themselves if their newest brother Benjamin was taken and that they were sorry, Joseph revealed himself to his brothers and forgave them for what they did. Even the old Jewish laws and Bible have more to them than stoning people for this and that. Now, Jesus never said there would be no death penalty and said that he didn't come to throw out Jewish teachings. I don't think that Jesus likes the death penalty considering that he himself was subjected to it. <=P Jesus prevented a woman from being stoned by telling the men that had convicted her in their hearts of being an adulterer that they should stone her if they had no sins of their own. When there was no one man left standing, Christ let her go only telling her to live without sin.

That being said, this isn't Mesopotamia. Don't just take an eye for an eye; turn the other cheek, love thy enemy. Bible isn't best used to condemn people, but to establish God's law and Christ's message. We should take the decision to end lives very seriously.

i get that. i was actually refering to the part of the bible where it says: if thine eye offends thee pluck it out, if thine arm hurts thee cut it off, for it is better to enter into the kingdom of heaven with one eye, than enter into the flames of hell whole... or i think its the way it goes. no i get it. if i had to choose i would say ask the family of the deceased. if they choose forgivness then blessed be they, but if not and they kill him (or her) than it really sucks for the guy (or girl). although violense only begats more violence and that sucks worse than death. hmm by condemming a killer to death than that means that the family of the killer is in pain. and what if the killer didn't kill noone. it was an accident. hmmm after giving it some thought i'm thinking im against it. at least life without parole would be suitable and he's always going to have to cope with what he's done (or she)
at least it would give him a real chance for forgivness. thats it i'm against it

Heh, well that quote about plucking out your eye was more about resisting urges of lust or sexual preversion or adultery at any cost than about criminal justice, but ok.

I dunno bout the death penalty. Usually i'm for it. Depends on the circumstances.


However, i have an alternative that usually makes people look at me funny and avoid me until i stop explaining.

I suggest work camps.
Why?
Currently, the U.S. prison system is completly out of whack. Criminals can get college degrees, jobs, money, power, television, books, even healthcare; quite a bit while in prison. They are fed and kept in a nice happy shelter. They can even lounge about and be lazy if they want.
I believe that they should work for their food and keep.
Some would say that this is cruel and unusual. But is it? They are simply accelerating the process of working a job and buying food.
Should someone be wrongly incriminated and imprisoned, they would be reimbursed with cash from the government; quite a large sum too, as there will be a lot of cash saved by removing the prisoner benefits of the current prison system.
Of course that's just my point of view.

wow tomato guy person thats brilliant!! I'm for his idea.
P.S. thats not sarcasm by the way

I have to disagree and say it's not brilliant. I understand being disgusted at how tax payer dollars are spent on criminals, but that's as far as I'm with you on this. What you're proposing is something Uncle Joe would do IMHO. Maybe I'm reading you wrong, and I don't completely disagree with making criminals earn their share, but the idea of using prisoners in "worker camps" seems very Stalinist in nature. I'd rather reform the system so they don't live in luxury than potentially turn our prisons into gulags.

well depending on the curcumstance i wouldn't want someone who got in for stealing a couple of cds to work in labour camps but i think he would at least do gardening. i can see it now, if your house needs cleaning rent-a-sleeze, if your gardening needs gardening rent-a-theif, if your hair needs trimming rent-a-ex-mafia-hitman. comes complete with electric collars and and a remote control. coming to a prison near you

But then you're putting criminals back into society. It's one thing to say they should garden at a prison, but you want criminals out in the open and near the homes of others?

My idea wasn't "rent-a-sleeze" (funny as that is)
What i meant was depending on the severity of their crimes, they would work for however long.
When i said "work" i didn't mean quarrying and blasting holes in mountains and rock lifting and anvil making.
More like toothpaste cap turning. assembly line jobs.
Who needs foreign factory workers when there is a plentiful supply of work at home?

i know what you meant i was making my own wonderful world of perfection. besides they would have electric collars on them. if nothing else you could shock them for fun (no, don't really thats cruel)

In my opinion, the death penalty is immoral and disgusting. The Fear of impending death is terrifying, and an eye for an eye is not the best way to settle arguments. Also crime is at an all time high, so it's obvously not exactly the worlds best deterent. there's only one way to replace it... Castration! Just kidding.

I'm for the death penalty.

Maybe it does violate human rights, maybe it's immoral, but at least it's minus one killer/rapist/whatever. I don't like the idea of life in prison..I mean, what if they escape? If you kill them right then and there, then you wouldn't have to worry about them breaking out and resuming what got them in jail. Sure, maybe one or two dudes might be wrongfully convicted of crimes deserving capital punishment, but we're all gonna die anyway. Probably not the best way to pass, though...

Despite believing execution is right, eye for an eye is stupid. If you poke my friend's eye out on accident, should I poke your friend's eye out? If you break my leg, should I break your leg? Like they say, it makes the world blind.

I like my variation of that saying.
"An eye for an eye makes the world blind, but free of crime."

: )

yo bishniggity diggity yo
....word

That was one of the worst attempts at humor that I've ever seen. :(

This.



Mikael, if you have nothing to add to the conversation, don't bother posting. :|

I am against the Death Penalty. This comes from the fact that we don't have the rigth to decide who lives and who dies. Only God can decide that. We can decide to put them in jail for the rest of their life, but not kill them. It's also us stooping to the level of the killer. They're human's too. We can't kill someone because they did. That's just plain idiotic!

GQ, i have an underlying point.
Our Prisoners, our CRIMINALS are kept in better conditions than the homeless and poor. And the healthcare they get is from the GOVERNMENT. The gov can give our murderers and pickpockets healthcare, but can't feed the poor. Something is wrong there..

: )