Two Death Penalty Questiosns

[carlo]

The death penalty says more about us than the criminal. To assume that compensation, justice or such matters is only in the hands of human beings is short-sighted and truly unnerving.

To think of death as the ultimate punishment is statement to our lack of knowledge and dearth of understanding.

Those who are active in propagating this type of "penalty" will surely tie a karmic bond with the victim which will have to be addressed. The hangman and the hangee will surely meet again. This should not be thought of as a threat but as fact.

The compassionate society will take on the karma of the criminal and in fact of each other. By bringing this (compassion) to the event a proper and more far reaching action will come about.

regards,
carlo

[BluffTHIS!]

I am going to give an answer to both questions from my catholic point of view. The Catholic Church teaches that the death penalty is wrong in most cases because the means exist to protect society from such criminals via secure incarceration. Thus my position is that it should only be applied to those who kill multiple times in different incidents, or more than one person in the same criminal act where evidence of same is not circumstantial, demonstrating that they are a danger to other inmates/guards in correctional facilities, and that they pose an extreme danger were they to escape. This standard, killing more than one person in the same act or differenct incidents, should except in the case where someone is somehow "framed", make their execution error free.

[coheedandcambria]

There are people saying that since there is a slight chance that the criminal guilty he should not be subject to the death penalty. But he is still subject to spending the rest of his life in a maximum security prison, suffering with the fact that he is innocent. Putting him to death sounds like a mercy killing.

[cwsiggy]

We just need a Pre-Crimes unit like in the Minority report. Oh wait even that was flawed.........

[Girchuck]

This is most likely wrong.
The thing that distracts the drivers is not the thing they hold in their hand, it is the conversation.

[adios]

The DS question is stating that each life has an equal value. You've attempted to change the meaning to equating life with money. Two different issues.

[John Cole]

Does each life have equal value? 25 does not equal 11.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
Does each life have equal value? 25 does not equal 11.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. 25 > 11, which is why Dan Slansky said it would be okay.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Does each life have equal value?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do they to you?

I've discussed this question several times on these forums but I don't believe the death penalty is a deterrent nor do I support it as punishment.

[ QUOTE ]
25 does not equal 11.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's true. If 14 less people are killed is it worth having the death penalty (hypothetically 25 less murders due to the death penalty because it's a deterrent to murder while 11 innocent people are killed by the state because of the death penalty)? Big difference between saving lives and saving money.

[John Cole]

Okay, now in terms of worth, which are more "worthy," the innocent or the guilty?

Unlike David, I will not assume that the innocent are usually "dirtbags."