Death Penalty/Euthanasia

[Lightkeeper]

How can we have the death penalty but not allow euthanasia? What is the difference?

 

[splitfangr06]

we cant, in my opinion the death penalty is wrong. It could be fixed by having more laws, they should be more strict about when to enforce this.

 

[Ardhanariswar]

wow, i dont think there should be the death penelty, but i think there should be euthanasia. hehe. im odd.
the differenes is that in the death penelty, u dont know if the people are guilty. i mean, they are guilty according to our legal system, but somtimes it does make mistakes, we may have killed an innocent person! anyways, those criminals are better of building or doing some work like such. there are things far worse than death.

as for euthanasia, the people want to die! they dont want to suffer or let them be a veggitable or be a burden on family or waste money on being dependent on medicine just to live another five years. its pointless. just move on.

 

[Lightkeeper]

It does seem strange to me that in some states we allow the death penalty, but euthanasia is outlawed. We kill as a punishment, but won't let someone die who has nothing but suffering to look forward to.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

This is a very interesting question. On one hand, it seems, some governments threaten prisoners with death as a way of keeping them in line. On the other hand, death is seen by some of the same governments as a 'reward,' one that people who are in incredible suffering and have never hurt any other soul obviously don't know the moral implications of the whole situation.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Great question Lightkeeper - I think I'll start a thread on just the Death Penalty. Personally, I'm for both the death penalty and euthanasia (but don't go by me) - I'm also Pro Choice on the abortion issue. Does that make me morbid? What I find interesting is people that are for the Death Penalty but Pro Life. Now that puzzles me.

TVOR

 

[civilcynic]

wow, i dont think there should be the death penelty, but i think there should be euthanasia.

I agree overall. I oppose the death penalty for a number of reasons:
1. I do not think it is a significant deterrent.
2. There are gross inequities in the judicial system. We have seen over and over again how wealthy individuals with access to high-powered attornies, private investigators, etc; can get away with crime...even murder.
3. Innocent people are convicted....it happens.
4. Death penalty cases take an enormous amount of time and money with appeal after appeal. It is excruciatingly painful for victims' families to have to relive the horror repeatedly while the case is tied up for years...there is no closure for a long, long time.
5. Losing one's freedom for the rest of one's life would, to me, be more punishment than a qquick death.

Although I support euthanasia, I can see it to be 'a slippery slope'. I do believe that individuals who are suffering and really have no hope for relief should be allowed to make this decision. On the other hand, there must be considerable caution because:

-Who is to determine the appropriate level of and type of suffering a person has to endure before the person is permitted euthanasia. Would it be limited to terminal physical illnesses or physical problems which lead to extreme suffering but potentially will not kill you for a long time? Would psychiatric disorders such as severe depression, bipolar, OCD, etc; be considered for euthansia? What about Alzeihmer's, stroke or spinal cord injured?

-What would prevent some individuals from deciding upon euthanasia because they know that their medical treatment will devastate the family and they would rather give their life out of love for their family?

-What would prevent some individuals from persuading a loved one or pressuring a loved one to end their life so as to become independent from their burden or benefit in some way from the persons' death?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

1. I do not think it is a significant deterrent.
2. There are gross inequities in the judicial system. We have seen over and over again how wealthy individuals with access to high-powered attornies, private investigators, etc; can get away with crime...even murder.
3. Innocent people are convicted....it happens.
4. Death penalty cases take an enormous amount of time and money with appeal after appeal. It is excruciatingly painful for victims' families to have to relive the horror repeatedly while the case is tied up for years...there is no closure for a long, long time.
5. Losing one's freedom for the rest of one's life would, to me, be more punishment than a qquick death.

Civil -
A point by point rebuttal (with honest disagreement - no hard feelings):
1) Ted Bundy isn't killing anyone anymore - I'd call that a deterrent.
2) Because the system isn't perfect doesn't mean we shouldn't eliminate those that we can.
3) True - and it's a shame when it happens. We need to work on this one. Good point, though.
4) Fix the system - if you are convicted of a capital crime you get one appeal - and a maximum of one year to try to sway whatever court hears your appeal.
5) Hollow argument - people do escape from prison, and besides, most people would rather live than die.

TVOR

 

[splitfangr06]

what would you do to change it

 

[The Voice of Reason]

what would you do to change it

I'm not sure what other things might be done, but for starters, how about we say that any District Attorney (or anyone else involved in prosecuting the case) that is proven to have intentionally withheld evidence to obtain a conviction be subjected to the same penalty as the person that is convicted? That ought to put a damper on some of the "zeal" with which tampering occurs. With the advent of DNA testing, our percentage of mistaken convictions should drop to an infintesimal level (see my comment about withholding or tampering with evidence above).
Again, I would severely limit the number of appeals and elapsed time after someone is convicted. I realize the risks that we run with this, but hey, I'm getting tired of seeing these guys drag 20 years of state sponsored support out of a serial killing spree that has overwhelming evidence. Dahmer would still be alive if it weren't for somebody killing him in prison. Who can honestly say that the world misses him? Not me. Please remember, I do not place a high value on human life simply because it is human. We would not hesitate to put a rabid dog to sleep - why hesitate with a human that is clearly outside the bounds of societal laws?

There's a start - maybe some of the others have some ideas.

TVOR

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Wow, that's really weird...I could have sworn I had written a reply in this thread...but now it's gone....

 

[Sunstone]

Wow, that's really weird...I could have sworn I had written a reply in this thread...but now it's gone....

God didn't want you to post, Mr. Spinkes. The evidence of divine intervention in the affairs of men is everywhere, but you refuse to see it. Repent!

 

[Mister Emu]

I do not believe in either.

I do not agree with suicide of any kind(which euthanasia is)

I think all the lifetime/deathrow prisoners should be sent to a special island just for that purpose, ideally thousands of miles from any other source of land and in shark infested waters

 

[Ardhanariswar]

like alkatraz...which we already have. like azkaban!