View Single Post

Old 12-22-2008
No country specified. To select a country, go to User CP -> Edit Profile -> Country Khushrenada
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,833
 Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!

Originally Posted by DaDaimon View Post
I will then re-iterate my point, if you do not accept the death penalty because of the risk that you could execute an innocent, you therefore cannot accept any form of punishment, because any trial and punishment inherently has this risk. This has nothing do with the death penalty but with our ability find out the truth, which is never perfect.
Sidestepping all the moral issues of anybody having the moral ground to kill anyone I'll just go ahead and mention the fact that due to it's very nature the death penalty is somewhat more irreversible than it's other counter parts.

Fact of the matter is that you do agree with imprisoning a few innocent people for the rest of their lives. The argument that they stay alive and you could eventually rectify it doesn't matter, because how much would this improve the odds compared to keeping someone on death row for ten years and giving them numerous appeals?
Don't particularly care - the line has to be drawn somewhere and I choose to draw it at the point where we will inevitably sanction the murder of an innocent person.

That coupled with the fact that the death penalty provides no strong tangible benefit when compared to life without parole makes abolishing it to me, the obvious choice.
At least the folks on death row got a defense that's better motivated and under a strict time schedule.

In the end you'll have to motivate the death penalty based on its effectiveness within the system as a detterent and a way of consoling the victims families by enacting revenge on their behalf. Justice must be seen to be done.
Console the relatives? Ah ok, so should we only sentence people to death if they have living relatives/loved ones who feel wronged? What if the person murdered some random homeless person who no one knows. What does his death then achieve?

Sorry but seeking revenge based on the feelings of relatives doesn't really factor hugely into it, it's justice not revenge, we're punishing him for what he done because it was wrong not as some sanctioned vengeance, because surely if we're doing it for that reason, how morally questionable the incident is becomes less and less the barometer of how he should be punished as opposed to how bad the survivors feel. Shall we pull off his toe nails because they want to see him suffer?

That and I'm not particularly keen on officially endorsing someones wish for someone else to die.
Note: I am not in favour of the death penalty. Though I have to admit that on a very basic level I do feel the need to have people put to death that would do harm unto any of my loved ones.
The legal system is not for revenge. It is a deterrent, an enforcer, a rehabilitator and a rule maker. We dole out punishment for these reasons.

Or would you prefer the government changed to basically an endorsed vigilante style enforcer?

We don't dole out punishments as revenge for any other crime, we in the west aren't particularly fond of killing people or torturing them for what they've done so why is an exception made when it comes to murders?

Does the death penalty actually achieve anything life without parole doesn't?

Deterrent is bullshit, most murders are commited in either moments of high emotion and impulsive action (neither of which make you particularly likely to consider the ramifications) or the mentally disturbed who don't think they'll get caught and would do it regardless of what the punishment is.

Revenge is bullshit because at the end of the day we'll eventually murder one innocent person just to make some people "feel better", we're endorsing killing for personal satisfaction and I'd say that life imprisonment is sufficient enough to "ease their pain" within the realms of a lawful society, otherwise we may as well just say fuck it and allow the victims to brutally torture any convicted person until they feel better again. Fact is that they're only going to get past an event like that with personal development, not killing.

There's just no strong reason to risk even one innocent life I'm afraid.

When you can come up with a tangible reason other than "cos it feels more right" and "cos it makes some people feel better" I'll possibly consider re-thinking my position. Till then I'm happy that we don't have it in the UK, where amazingly we aren't running about killing each other willy nilly because there are "no strong deterrent" and the victims of crime don't disolve into puddles upon hearing a punishment other than "kill the cunt" and perhaps happier in the knowledge that the government isn't occasionally accidentally murdering it's own citizens.

Last edited by Khushrenada; 12-22-2008 at 01:07 AM.

Yes I have a blog. Read it newbie.

Khushrenada is offline

Reply With Quote