The Death Penalty

[ac1dsp3ctrum]

Same here MsMittens... This is my last post to this thread
I am also truly sorry for your loss

[antihaxor]

I think its time for me to back out of this thread at this point...for obvious reasons.

This is a sensitive issue. I do not want to use the misfortune of another to exalt my viewpoint.
I never expected to change anyone else's either. It was just my two cents worth

I'm sorry to hear of this tragic event Msmittens

[MrLinus]

Originally posted by ac1dsp3ctrum
Same here MsMittens... This is my last post to this thread
I am also truly sorry for your loss

Thank you for the kind words but please don't stop posting. As I was mentioning to Negative in IRC, my post wasn't meant to stop the discussion but rather to add to it. A different point of view if you will. One of the beautiful things about the many countries that many of us live in is the ability to voice opinions about things like the Death Penalty without fear.

Without these discussions and exchange of ideas, our world would still be in the Dark Ages (although there are times I wonder if we are). I did pose some questions in my post and was trying to point out that one cannot make a simple answer to whether we support or don't support the Death Penalty or other "controversial" topics. We all have a degree of prejudice in regards to these topics, viewpoints and experiences that point us in one direction or another.

If anything I was hoping that my post my generate more discussion. As I mentioned to Negative, the question changes when you experience something like I did. I wonder what the families of those who died in the 9-11 attacks would think about the Death Penalty. I wonder how many would like an eye for an eye not only with the Terrorists who carried out the plans as well as the Mastermind (intent can make one as guilty as the act).

What would you do if it happened to you?

[Conf1rm3d_K1ll]

Miss Mittens,


Just to lighten things up a little on such a sombre thread--



Do you realise that we haven't posted in the same thread since our "clash of heads" in the internet censorship thread? I think that was back in November! That "clash of heads" cost me ALL my points! Perhaps, subconsciously I'm afraid to step back "into the ring" with you again? LOL...



Anyway, as previously stated, I'm going to back away from this thread. Human emotion is a hard thing to debate with and there is never a winner. Before I go though, isn't it good to see such topics as this debated and on the AO home page rather than the worlds longest thread. It brings a tear to my eye!

[Remote_Access_]

Human emotion is a hard thing to debate with and there is never a winner.

Good point conf1rm3d_k1ll.. I'm also glad to see actual discussions on the front page of AO instead of the world's longest thread. Thanks everyone for your replies and opinions.

Remote_Access_

[zepherin]

Originally posted by ac1dsp3ctrum
Im against it... Why should we kill criminals.. Even if they did take someone elses life.... Killing the criminal doesnt bring closure to the family... Just more grief to the family of the killer... The only time the death penalty should be considered is in EXTREME cases.

The Texas Seven prooved that prisons aren't secure enough. Convicted murderers have less to loose if they break out of jail (they just go back when they are caught). Putting them down may keep them from killing more people. It's peace of mind.

[rcgreen]

I spent a little time in prison (dope),
and can testify that there people
in there who make life miserable
for the rest.
It is "cruel" to lock anyone up.
The US constitution forbids punishment
that's "cruel and unusual", but "unusual"
is a slippery word.
And let's not be so quick to condemn
the "dark ages". Until recently, no society had the
resources to spend on locking people up.
As a practical matter, people were often just banished.
"Go away and leave us alone" and only threatened with
death if they returned.
The expression, "an eye for an eye" is also misunderstood.
It's from the odl testament. Read the whole thing in context,
it makes a lot of sense.

[D.J.]

well, i'm gonna just make this short and to the point. if the gov't kills someone by using the death
penalty, they are no better than a murderer. that would just make them murderers. what does the
death penalty solve, anyway? it will only create a cycle of hate.

[Ramzi]

I'm going to have to make this short because I need to sign off in a few minutes.

I don't understand why people consider "the government" and "the people" two different entities. Think about it.

The government is used to keep order, and in order to keep order that means weeding out bad folks.

There's a difference between killing someone in anger or hate, and killing them in justice and to ensure safety.

The system may not be perfect, and there are times when it'll mess up, which is inexcusible. Granted, but this is the best we've got. We all know -- but don't like admitting -- that we'd be better off if we killed one innocent than if we left him alive and let a thousand criminals go free.

The thing to do would be to ensure that no innocents get sentenced. Pass new laws requiring DNA tests or whatever. Abolishing Capital Punishment altogether would be the quick and easy fix that won't work.

I'm sorry I couldn't eleborate more, kinda pressed for time.

[MrLinus]

Originally posted by Ramzi

I don't understand why people consider "the government" and "the people" two different entities. Think about it.

This caught my eye. It is an interesting thing that we often forget. That "we the people" elect those people that make up the higher-up portion of the government. We also make up those that are employed by the "government". It isn't truly a separate part of society but we often view it as such because it has a different feel to it than elsewhere in society.

During my time in politics in Ottawa one thing that was often mentioned was that it was the "goldfish bowl". It was true. What happened in Ottawa wasn't a realistic view of the rest of the country. Now, that all said no matter what the decision - whether for or against the death penalty - it is done based on what the view point is at the time in government and as to how beneficial it is to society.

And not just in a moral sense but also monetary and political. No issue is a clear cut case and has many facets to it. We have to consider all of them. It would be interesting to see how many who are against or for the Death Penalty may be for or against say... euthenasia (sp?). Again, this is a form of controlled "murder" but we justify it because of "suffering" of the "victim". Is one better because we view it as being more moral to do so?