The Death Penalty

Its not that I can't define any- its that I can't know for sure if I'm right. Here's the thing, neither can you. Our subjective guess are little more than that. I could say self-defense but then maybe I'm a danger to society and deserve to die.



The justifications given for the death penalty are not the reasons for it. I think it is incredibly naive to think that death penalty is anything more than a demonstration of power and control, and a matter of gratification. The only difference between the nut-job and the executioner of the state is the insane that kills people because he thinks they deserve it is the audience. The former's is himself and the latter is the people of the state.



Again its not that I can't define any, just that I can't be certain.

I leave dealing in certainties to fanatics and the insane.
 
How so?

Justice is not the reason for the death penalty. Executions gratify the public (most specifically by assuaging the grief of any victims' relatives, but by no means is it limited to them) and serve as a demonstration to the public the government has the power to take life and has enough control over events that it can protect them from the dangers of the world. These are the reasons behind it. Justice and other abstract concepts serve only as rationalisations of this to the public, but in reality there is no such thing. They are evasions not reasons.

An insane killer that kills people because he thinks it is just is similarly not doing it because it is just. He is gratified by the experience enjoying it and relieving himself of his frustations thru it. He sees it as an exercising of his own power and shows himself he is not as inadequate as he thought, he sees himself as being strong because of his actions(ugh). Importantly he believes after the experience he is more in control of his life and the confusion it presents him becomes less frightening, less dangerous. Justice and other abstract concepts serve only as rationalisations of this to himself, but in reality things do not exist, certainly not within the framework of his dieased consciousness. They are evasions, not reasons.

What is irrational or insane about this comparsion?

Care to explain your implicit personal attack?
 
If executions can not be justice, can any imprisonment be justice? Does that not make all forms of prosecution simply demonstrations of the state's power? Does that mean that any and all attempts to punish someone for their behavior by a government is unethical?
 
Of course not is the answer to the first question. Justice is a pleasant abstract concept that makes us feel better- the reality is you are sending someone to get raped. You pay with your taxes for people to get beaten bruised bloodied and deprived because it makes you feel safer and happier. Tho the answer to your second question is that it isn't just a demo. of power but also of control- the government is in control of the situation of crime or at least see by most to be in the instance of an incarcation. Futher it makes people less afraid and less likely to question the government or the state because they are in fact happier with that being place. Justice is an excuse we sometimes cite for doing horrible things.

This does not mean that an attempt to punish someone is necessarily unethical. They might deserve to be raped beaten and deprived in prison. But this is not the reason we put them in that situation, nor is it the root of desire- we take revenge to feel good and to enjoy apparent safety. If it so happens that the punishment fits the crime, then that is an ancillary benefit for which we should occassionally pat ourselves on the back.
 
hello, all. i have to admit that i keep swerving back and forth between both sides of the question. taking the life of a convicted criminal won't bring the victim back to life, or restore their life back to normal. however, the sense of justice, internalized within people, that supports our system of law in the first place, compels us to seek a balancing of the scales, by punishing the offender. and in the case of someone like ted bundy, or timothy mcveigh, or osama bin laden, do people think we can successfully rehabilitate them? however, Jesus does tell us to forgive others; yet, at the end of the world, everyone will be judged (this is what I believe, as a Christian) for the sins and crimes they have comitted; people who have not asked for god's forgiveness, will receive a judgement much harsher than our courts could ever devise or impose. like i said, I keep swerving back and forth. In the end, tho, I think that there have to be appropriate punishments for criminals, and I just don't think you can completely take the death penalty off the table. There appear to be times, when it is the most appropriate penalty.
 
An excellent question. I'm no psychologist but I don't think so. So the question becomes, do we have the right to kill them?
That's ok, you're allowed I just like to think that human beings are capable of more than that though. It feels to me like lashing out in revenge. I think it's possible to look deeper at the issues that surround the crime itself and that this ends up being a more effective way of looking out for our friends and family.
 
We have a right to kill Osama Bin Laden and Tim McVeigh. Ted Buny was insane. Probably not him.
 
You have to judge someone to decide whether the penalty is appropriate.

Judging others is against the Christian religion.

If I were you, and seriously was concerned with my place in heaven and how to get there, I would change that position. And repent having had it.

Pray on that thought brethren. Please.
 
Medi, you have a strange way to define what an insane person is. Especially, don't you consider it insulting to call someone you don't know over the internet, based on a statement they make, insane ? What if that person would say the same about you ? How would you react ?

Christian
 
What, you mean like saying that those who believe in executing people in the name of justice have the thought processes of an insane person?
 
I distinguish between what is the individual and the government. The individual does not have the right to kill. The government does. Ultimately, if the government abuses it's power, a consequence will be paid.
 
Well, it depends on how you consider the Bible. Is it just a bunch of fables, does it contain the Words of God, or is it The Word of God?
 
Irregardless, I think the writer has had more of a positive impact on the world than all the people on MAP combined.
 
Waaa! Waaaa! Waaaa! You made me cry because you have a different opinion to me!

Seriously, I don't care. Their opinion isn't unreasonable- its just mad

Tho in fairness

similar to...remind me of...=/= have
 
Back
Top