Views on death penalty

[Davros]

Against.

Not entering into debates - logic doesn't come into this one because neither side choses to listen. Some debators will try and rationalise their choice and give the pretense of listening and reasoning, but in the end they have already gathered enough belief to cling to and picked what side of the fence to sit and they are staying there. People don't get persuaded from one side to the other because it is no debate - THEY ARE EITHER FOR OR AGAINST.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: I support the death penalty. I also support human rights. The two are not mutually exclusive. The only criminals that face the death penalty are those who have been convicted of especially heinous murder cases. The criminal not only violated the other person's "human rights" but also took away their "right to life". It is fitting that the criminal's own life should be forfeit in such a case.

I strongly disagree.

For one a "heinous crime" is subjective and differs from culture to culture. Is adultery deserving of the death penalty? Is practicing Christianity deserving of the death penalty? Is making scientific discoveries deserving of the death penalty? Cultures have killied their citizens through the ages, each assured that the punishment fits the crime.

Subjectivity.

The right to exist is one no human should ever take away from another human, whether they have killed millions, raped, commited treason or heresy.

In killing WE BECOME THE MONSTER. Society is no different from a murderer when it kills, as it is saying, just as the murderer does, that the victims life is worthless and should end.

No life is worthless. The energy of the terminated individual could be involuntarily exploited and used to better society.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: As well, freedom from imprisonment is a basic human right, yet sending someone to prison does just that. Theft is illegal, but many crimes are punished by fining the person. Be it imprisonment, fining, or executing, any instance where the state/society punishes a wrong is by its very nature a situation where the state is doing something otherwise legally impermissible to the person.

The freedom to exist within a society is not a right, but a privilege. A society has every right to remove or restrain members of itself who will destroy others in the society.

We are given life by God, but education, language, food and freedoms are given us within the context of society. We cannot feed ourselves without society. We would die in a few days of arriving on the planet.

[Yorick]

The room for error, is also a strong reason not to support an irrevocable punishment.

[Yorick]

Although, in case of error you never get the imprisoned years back either. You could get get financially compensated though I suppose.

[Dundee Slaytern]

For.

Like Davros, this will be all I have to say on the matter.

[Yorick]

Cerek. What if your child was convicted and sentenced to death. Even if guilty would you want them killed? Or would their life still be worth something to you?

[Azred]

Obviously I am not Cerek, but I will jump in to answer that question since I have a son.
Were my son to murder someone, be convicted, and sentenced to die then I would feel sorry for him that he had made such disastrous choices but I would also support his execution because he murdered someone. The need for society to be protected from murderers outweighs my feelings as a father; being a realist, that is simply how the world works. Besides, I always teach that actions have consequences, so obviously extreme actions have extreme consequences.

Clearly, I support the death penalty, but no one ever seems to listen to me when I suggest exile as a viable alternative. Oh, well...the approval of others is not a prerequisite for my choice of perspective.

[The Hierophant]

I suppose it depends on whether or not you think killing other humans is fundamentally wrong. Personally I loathe the idea of disarming another person and killing them in a situation where they cannot fight back. Whether this is done by governments or individuals is irrelevant. Only kill if your victim has the ability to fight back, any other killing circumstance is disgraceful. If I had my way then in the case of heinous murders the loved ones of the victim should be able to elect a champion to duel the murderer to the death in supervised duel. If the murderer wins, they recieve life imprisonment until another champion is elected.

And before you no, it's not a crazy idea... death-duelling has been a part of civilised societies since, well, the dawn of civilisation itself, and has only in the past century or two fallen out of fashion in the 'Western' hemisphere in favour of 'cleaner', industrialised execution methods such as lethal injection or the gas chamber *shudder*. Duelling allows for an honourable, heated sense of victory against your percieved wrong-doer, whereas controlled execution is just too cold-blooded and voyeuristic to meet my tastes...

[Stratos]

How would you make sure the fight is fair, what would happen if someone cheated and who would want to be the elected champion in the duel if there's a risk of them dying? How would the champions ever get an life insurance?

How much space would be required for the duel, would the Colosseum in Rome be enough? ( [img]tongue.gif[/img] )