Do you support the death penalty?

[Jumi]

1) In the case you highlighted of the murderers, there are options other than 'fixed-term sentence followed by release' and 'being killed by the state'. Life imprisonment, namely.

Which could arguably also be worse for the criminal or lead to their release or escape.

In Russia there are now many people sentenced to death who are to be released this year due to their sentences commuted to 20 years after the fall of the Soviet Union. Many of these people are likely to do it again. I saw an interview where one of them said that he gave himself in, because he didn't want to continue murdering, but he will... once he is out.

I think the state should be held to the same moral standards as ourselves.

In case of the death penalty I don't see that as a problem. If society and rule of law disintegrated because of catastrophy and there was a killer loose, my moral standards would say that I have to do something about it.

 

[Smart_Guy]

1) In the case you highlighted of the murderers, there are options other than 'fixed-term sentence followed by release' and 'being killed by the state'. Life imprisonment, namely.

2) You are assuming that the convict reaching this perfect end is definitely a convict. There have been cases where people have been convicted and given the death penalty, and later found to be innocent.

I think the state should be held to the same moral standards as ourselves. Killing is bad, this is something pretty central to most religions and moral systems. Certainly it's there in the ten commandments and features prominently in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. I don't know if this is the case in Islam, but I would rather hope so.

1) But the current already used option was thought to be good, but ended with having the murderers still killing more innocents. The innocents are not experiment subjects to try different options and see if they work. If they were executed, the result would have been 100% perfect that the later innocents wouldn't have been victims to those murderers.

2) I'm not assuming that. All I'm saying is that I believe the death penalty should be considered an option and not completely canceled. I don't support it in the sense that I want it to be the answer. I actually hat it. All I'm doing is trying to think rationally instead emotionally. Also, putting a death sentence is a critical and huge responsibility that if there is the slightest possibility of any doubt, I believe it should not be exacted. The judgement should be looked at carefully. But then again on the other hand, there must also be cases that the convict was not innocent but given been let off the hook going free.

Killing is bad in Islam indeed. But that should not make killing an absolute no option. Remember also that definitions here vary. We are talking about barbaric murderers, brutal sexual rapists, child rapists, etc. and not just killers. In Islam, many kinds of kills do not require executions, by the way. We are not talking executing someone just for a doubt, or killing bystanders. The best example for that is killing an assailant who wants to murder us in the process in defending ourselves. I'm not saying that killing the assailant is necessarily the right course of action, I'm saying that perfectly neglecting that as a possible option is actually wrong and not a smart move. We can't just be too kind or too violent, we must adopt, be flexible and be in the middle with no extremism.

 

[Kirran]

1) But the current already used option was thought to be good, but ended with having the murderers still killing more innocents. The innocents are not experiment subjects to try different options and see if they work. If they were executed, the result would have been 100% perfect that the later innocents wouldn't have been victims to those murderers.

2) I'm not assuming that. All I'm saying is that I believe the death penalty should be considered an option and not completely canceled. I don't support it in the sense that I want it to be the answer. I actually hat it. All I'm doing is trying to think rationally instead emotionally. Also, putting a death sentence is a critical and huge responsibility that if there is the slightest possibility of any doubt, I believe it should not be exacted. The judgement should be looked at carefully. But then again on the other hand, there must also be cases that the convict was not innocent but given been let off the hook going free.

Killing is bad in Islam indeed. But that should not make killing an absolute no option. Remember also that definitions here vary. We are talking about barbaric murderers, brutal sexual rapists, child rapists, etc. and not just killers. In Islam, many kinds of kills do not require executions, by the way. We are not talking executing someone just for a doubt, or killing bystanders. The best example for that is killing an assailant who wants to murder us in the process in defending ourselves. I'm not saying that killing the assailant is necessarily the right course of action, I'm saying that perfectly neglecting that as a possible option is actually wrong and not a smart move. We can't just be too kind or too violent, we must adopt, be flexible and be in the middle with no extremism.

1) There are options other than 'exactly as things are now' and 'bringing in the death penalty'. If they'd been imprisoned and never released the result would also have 100% that they'd not have killed those people. Note I have not clicked on the link, because I have no respect for the Daily Mail as a source for anything.

2) The death penalty is absolutely final. There's no going back if you find they were innocent. At least somebody on a life sentence with no chance of parole/release can be let out if you find they didn't do it. Killing someone trying to kill us is hardly comparable to the execution of a captured criminal by the state of which they are a citizen.

 

[Smart_Guy]

1) There are options other than 'exactly as things are now' and 'bringing in the death penalty'. If they'd been imprisoned and never released the result would also have 100% that they'd not have killed those people. Note I have not clicked on the link, because I have no respect for the Daily Mail as a source for anything.

2) The death penalty is absolutely final. There's no going back if you find they were innocent. At least somebody on a life sentence with no chance of parole/release can be let out if you find they didn't do it. Killing someone trying to kill us is hardly comparable to the execution of a captured criminal by the state of which they are a citizen.

1) Yet it still happens regardless of these thoughts. You're a bystander, a civilian who talk about these thoughts, and I don't think such ideas slipped the minds of those really involved. Then again, what about escaping prison and doing their desires while being fugitives, wasting the hard work and the hard earned money of the country and the people (taxes) for murderers and rapists pleasure, giving murderers and rapists free food, health care and entertainment, giving rapists and murderers who don't care as long as they eat and drink for free an incentive to rape and commit murder, etc.? There are other factors to it. There are also stories of people murdering those they love claiming they are saving them, some of them even murder their own children so they can go to heaven. If I'm a child sexual rapist, which I'm not of course (really!!), and I know I'm not gonna be executed and that I'm gonna get the things I mentioned above, I would consider putting a good plan in finding a good rape to enjoy, then go and enjoy life in prison. Specially poor convicts could see it is a nice idea.

2) Indeed, which could have saved the victims in the link I provided, which is the other side of the coin of this. It is also why I support never resorting to execution if there are no absolute evidence to support the conviction. Don't forget that there's also those who aside from being convicted with clear evidence, they admit it. At least those are covered in this item (item no.2) in your post. I gave the example of killing who wants to kill us just to prove that killing is not always bad, depending on the situation; a side argument you presented and regardless to having it as part of the commandments. Sorry if it caused a confusion.

 

[Kirran]

1) Yet it still happens regardless of these thoughts. You're a bystander, a civilian who talk about these thoughts, and I don't think such ideas slipped the minds of those really involved. Then again, what about escaping prison and doing their desires while being fugitives, wasting the hard work and the hard earned money of the country and the people (taxes) for murderers and rapists pleasure, giving murderers and rapists free food, health care and entertainment, giving rapists and murderers who don't care as long as they eat and drink for free an incentive to rape and commit murder, etc.? There are other factors to it. There are also stories of people murdering those they love claiming they are saving them, some of them even murder their own children so they can go to heaven. If I'm a child sexual rapist, which I'm not of course (really!!), and I know I'm not gonna be executed and that I'm gonna get the things I mentioned above, I would consider putting a good plan in finding a good rape to enjoy, then go and enjoy life in prison. Specially poor convicts could see it is a nice idea.

2) Indeed, which could have saved the victims in the link I provided, which is the other side of the coin of this. It is also why I support never resorting to execution if there are no absolute evidence to support the conviction. Don't forget that there's also those who aside from being convicted with clear evidence, they admit it. At least those are covered in this item (item no.2) in your post. I gave the example of killing who wants to kill us just to prove that killing is not always bad, depending on the situation; a side argument you presented and regardless to having it as part of the commandments. Sorry if it caused a confusion.

1) I'm not entirely sure why you think I'm saying that my having these thoughts is going to impact things. Keeping them in prison indefinitely would have. As for the apparently 'luxurious' environments within prison, it is nevertheless hardly motivating when you are confined according to a strict regime for life. In any case, while such theorising is all very well, criminologists in the USA, for example, where there's a split between areas using and not using the death penalty, are overwhelmingly of the opinion that it has no impact upon the rate of conviction.

2) People sometimes plead guilty even though they're innocent, for various reasons. It's happened before. Getting absolute certainty, enough to condemn someone to death, for a crime is practically impossible. It's only very high likelihoods.

All this comes down to the fact that you think a government should be authorised to kill somebody in case they kill someone. That does not strike me as at all morally defensible. There are plenty of people are genuinely rehabilitated and reformed by being in prison, and never commit crimes again, although that's ultimately irrelevant to the fact that you are sanctioning murder by a fallible government apparatus, to be carried out at its own discretion, due to the possibility that this person will murder somebody.

EDIT: Does a human have a right to life? Or are we granted the privilege to life by our governing bodies?

 

[Kirran]

This kind of thing is certainly of concern, although I imagine it can be said to be unsuited to the present context.

'Ubada b. as-Samit reported: Allah's Messenger as saying: Receive teaching from me, receive teaching from me. Allah has ordained a way for those women. When an unmarried male commits adultery with an unmarried female, they should receive one hundred lashes and banishment for one year. And in case of married male committing adultery with a married female, they shall receive one hundred lashes and be stoned to death.

— Sahih Muslim, 17:4191

 

[Smart_Guy]

1) I'm not entirely sure why you think I'm saying that my having these thoughts is going to impact things. Keeping them in prison indefinitely would have. As for the apparently 'luxurious' environments within prison, it is nevertheless hardly motivating when you are confined according to a strict regime for life. In any case, while such theorising is all very well, criminologists in the USA, for example, where there's a split between areas using and not using the death penalty, are overwhelmingly of the opinion that it has no impact upon the rate of conviction.

2) People sometimes plead guilty even though they're innocent, for various reasons. It's happened before. Getting absolute certainty, enough to condemn someone to death, for a crime is practically impossible. It's only very high likelihoods.

All this comes down to the fact that you think a government should be authorised to kill somebody in case they kill someone. That does not strike me as at all morally defensible. There are plenty of people are genuinely rehabilitated and reformed by being in prison, and never commit crimes again, although that's ultimately irrelevant to the fact that you are sanctioning murder by a fallible government apparatus, to be carried out at its own discretion, due to the possibility that this person will murder somebody.

EDIT: Does a human have a right to life? Or are we granted the privilege to life by our governing bodies?

Those are good arguments. I'm not really opposing you or believe that death penalty is a must, I just can't feel otherwise.

And no, a human does not have the right to life. But the law (no a single human) has the right to exact justice. Real justice is allowing (not necessarily a must) giving an equal trade, which is part of the definition of justice which is being fare. Does a human have a right to properties, imprison other humans, take taxes to give to those unworthy of it (the subject convicts in this context), for example?

This kind of thing is certainly of concern, although I imagine it can be said to be unsuited to the present context.

'Ubada b. as-Samit reported: Allah's Messenger as saying: Receive teaching from me, receive teaching from me. Allah has ordained a way for those women. When an unmarried male commits adultery with an unmarried female, they should receive one hundred lashes and banishment for one year. And in case of married male committing adultery with a married female, they shall receive one hundred lashes and be stoned to death.

— Sahih Muslim, 17:4191

You compared the three Abrahamic religions before but gave exclamations about Islam only. Stoning for married adulterers was borrowed from Judaism actually, and Muslims, because they believed in Judaism, believed in it and used it. Let alone that the ones stoned in the times of the Prophet Muhammad, confessed it and wanted this punishment to cleanse their sin. Prophet Muhammad even refused to believe them until they insisted and repeated is for three times. They were not reported and arrested to get this. One of them was a pregnant woman and Muslims refused to execute the punishment before giving birth and feeding for I think it was three years. Not to mention also the almost impossible requirements for conviction for both adultery for the married and not married. However, there is no evidence that Muslims in the time of Prophet Muhammad stoned after the verse of adultery was revealed, and Quran is the first source of Islam. Therefore, and this is what I believe, stoning was abrogated with the verse of adultery which only states lashing which is not a death penalty, which accordingly means it is a completely different subject.

And yes, it is completely off-topic. I can't see why you chose to say this here. Please don't get me wrong, but if someone else posted it in this thread, I would tell almost for sure that is was to create propaganda. Starting another thread for it I would consider a perfectly fair play tho.

 

[Laika]

I'm not sure. Death is not an easy issue, and I would be frightened if it was. Death is inevitable. So we all suffer a death penalty. Their is no supernatural "right" to live beyond the life we have the power to obtain or deny. Nor can we will ourselves to die. wishing it and doing it are very different and betrays the surperfical illusion that we are rational creatures. And yet Murder isn't "wrong" because governments do it all the time- so why punish murderers by becoming one? or simply become the accomplice of murder by paying taxation as we reign bombs on foreign fields or pay for a lethal injection? how much difference does the symbolism of a uniform, a flag or a piece of cloth make to our morals or do they reveal the absurdity of our "morality"? How we can condemn murder as a crime in the act of commiting it without betraying some level of hypocrisy in our vision of justice?

Every Criminal, rapist, pedophile and murderer and mass murderer dies. There is no escape. Time is our executioner. And the seconds pass, as witness to age. So the idea it is a choice between them living or being killed as a punishment is an illusion. killing the guilty is built on an illusion of control that we are the masters of death, when in fact we are at it's mercy. if we fail to respect death, we fail to respect ourselves. we demand others suffer a fate of which we are appalled at when it befalls ourselves. Death is the great egalitarian. it punishes the innocent and the guilty and no government can post-pone it indefinetely. Those that have tried to master it as a weapon to discipline the people are the ones we near uniamously condemn for their indifferent to "human" rights. we all suffer the same fate and the question is whether we should seek to accept a death from nature or act of god, or one driven by deliberate conscious intent. why is the latter just?

perhaps, the more intresting question is why is it necessary to speed up the demise of those to whom we attribute guilt?

 

[Kirran]

Those are good arguments. I'm not really opposing you or believe that death penalty is a must, I just can't feel otherwise.

And no, a human does not have the right to life. But the law (no a single human) has the right to exact justice. Real justice is allowing (not necessarily a must) giving an equal trade, which is part of the definition of justice which is being fare. Does a human have a right to properties, imprison other humans, take taxes to give to those unworthy of it (the subject convicts in this context), for example?

I do respect that you don't see it as a must, and I hope such views continue to spread. I hope that ultimately we (humanity) can abolish it entirely, and we've made a lot of progress in that direction.

The bolded is interesting - the right to life is one of the absolutely core human rights as defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (from the UN) and by the European Court of Human Rights. So this is a very different understanding of what rights a human being should be assumed to have by society.

As for your last sentence: no, certainly not. But this is the state fulfilling its role as an institution, while allowing it to straight-up kill people rather goes beyond that in my mind. To endorse the death penalty is to endorse murder by the state, it seems to me.

You compared the three Abrahamic religions before but gave exclamations about Islam only. Stoning for married adulterers was borrowed from Judaism actually, and Muslims, because they believed in Judaism, believed in it and used it. Let alone that the ones stoned in the times of the Prophet Muhammad, confessed it and wanted this punishment to cleanse their sin. Prophet Muhammad even refused to believe them until they insisted and repeated is for three times. They were not reported and arrested to get this. One of them was a pregnant woman and Muslims refused to execute the punishment before giving birth and feeding for I think it was three years. Not to mention also the almost impossible requirements for conviction for both adultery for the married and not married. However, there is no evidence that Muslims in the time of Prophet Muhammad stoned after the verse of adultery was revealed, and Quran is the first source of Islam. Therefore, and this is what I believe, stoning was abrogated with the verse of adultery which only states lashing which is not a death penalty, which accordingly means it is a completely different subject.

And yes, it is completely off-topic. I can't see why you chose to say this here. Please don't get me wrong, but if someone else posted it in this thread, I would tell almost for sure that is was to create propaganda. Starting another thread for it I would consider a perfectly fair play tho.

I am glad you know me well enough to know this wasn't just to be Islamophobic!

I raised this because I happen to be talking to a Muslim, rather than someone of another religion, and it does rather seem to me that Islam would impact your views on these things. Hindu traditions impact my own views, I am sure.

Basically, I was seeing what your understanding of this verse was, and hoping to improve understanding of the effect of Islamic ideas and history upon your view on this topic. I do know you well enough to know that the fact you live in a country essentially ruled by Salafist laws (except for the royal family) is only tangentially relevant to your own views on issues of crime and punishment.

 

[roger1440]

Continuing from another thread. Do you support the death penalty and if you do, what crimes should be punished with death?

What reasons do you have for being for or against? If you are for or against the penalty are there any exceptions where you think it should or shouldn't be applied?

Do I support the death penalty? It would depend. Am I on the list?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In any country with a functioning penal system, I'm opposed to the death penalty.

... and in the ones without a functioning penal system, it's generally better to improve the penal system as your first choice.

Yes, I support the death penalty. Capital crimes deserve capital punishment.

Begging the question.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I do respect that you don't see it as a must, and I hope such views continue to spread. I hope that ultimately we (humanity) can abolish it entirely, and we've made a lot of progress in that direction.

The bolded is interesting - the right to life is one of the absolutely core human rights as defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (from the UN) and by the European Court of Human Rights. So this is a very different understanding of what rights a human being should be assumed to have by society.

As for your last sentence: no, certainly not. But this is the state fulfilling its role as an institution, while allowing it to straight-up kill people rather goes beyond that in my mind. To endorse the death penalty is to endorse murder by the state, it seems to me.

I am glad you know me well enough to know this wasn't just to be Islamophobic!

I raised this because I happen to be talking to a Muslim, rather than someone of another religion, and it does rather seem to me that Islam would impact your views on these things. Hindu traditions impact my own views, I am sure.

Basically, I was seeing what your understanding of this verse was, and hoping to improve understanding of the effect of Islamic ideas and history upon your view on this topic. I do know you well enough to know that the fact you live in a country essentially ruled by Salafist laws (except for the royal family) is only tangentially relevant to your own views on issues of crime and punishment.

Well, I guess I said what I have to offer about this subject. I'm still so far from wanting death penalty to be abolished. At best, I want it to never be needed.

Just to be clear tho, I support it as an idea, not as fixed sentences to specific crimes. I can't but see that some people do deserve it.

 

[Jumi]

perhaps, the more intresting question is why is it necessary to speed up the demise of those to whom we attribute guilt?

They might be speeding it up for others, what made it necessary for them?

Do I support the death penalty? It would depend. Am I on the list?

Maybe. I've considered that if I ever did something meriting the punishment I'd probably do it myself.

 

[McBell]

"Criminologists' Views on Deterrence and the Death Penalty

A recent survey of the most leading criminologists in the country from found that the overwhelming majority did not believe that the death penalty is a proven deterrent to homicide. Eighty-eight percent of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to a new study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and authored by Professor Michael Radelet, Chair of the Department of Sociology at the University of Colorado-Boulder, and Traci Lacock, also at Boulder.

Similarly, 87% of the expert criminologists believe that abolition of the death penalty would not have any significant effect on murder rates. In addition, 75% of the respondents agree that “debates about the death penalty distract Congress and state legislatures from focusing on real solutions to crime problems.”

The survey relied on questionnaires completed by the most pre-eminent criminologists in the country, including Fellows in the American Society of Criminology; winners of the American Society of Criminology’s prestigious Southerland Award; and recent presidents of the American Society of Criminology. Respondents were not asked for their personal opinion about the death penalty, but instead to answer on the basis of their understandings of the empirical research."
source​

Thank you.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Continuing from another thread. Do you support the death penalty and if you do, what crimes should be punished with death?

What reasons do you have for being for or against? If you are for or against the penalty are there any exceptions where you think it should or shouldn't be applied?

I am against it only because people are still wrongly incarcerated for crimes they did not actually commit. To me, if there's the slightest chance a person might really be innocent, that person doesn't deserve the death penalty. Furthermore, if punishment is in part to make the person feel remorse- how can a dead person feel remorse for the crime committed?

 

[GoodbyeDave]

It seems more reasonable to me that, say, a serial killer should be executed than that they should live at public expense for the rest of their life.

The greatest argument against it is the fact that you cannot right a wrongful conviction. On the other hand, what's the difference between being executed for a crime you didn't commit and killed by a drunken driver? Both are deaths caused by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Personally, I'd rather be executed than spend ten years in jail.

The question of remorse seems irrelevant. If we execute a killer, it's to make sure that they never do it again. Whether they feel remorse or not is their problem, not ours.

The misuse of executions by some cultures is also irrelevant. The fact that the Saudis execute apostates is no more an argument against execution than the fact that they imprison people who drink alcohol is an argument against prison.

 

[Kirran]

Well, I guess I said what I have to offer about this subject. I'm still so far from wanting death penalty to be abolished. At best, I want it to never be needed.

Just to be clear tho, I support it as an idea, not as fixed sentences to specific crimes. I can't but see that some people do deserve it.

If I may ask you another question - would you be happy to be the executioner? To be the one killing a person sentenced to death for multiple rapes and murders, for example?

 

[Jainarayan]

I am for it, unless there is a good banishment alternative which isn't too expensive. I don't think societies should have to tolerate or support folks that go beyond a certain line of behavior.

The list o'crimes would be similar to what we have now - I'd have to think more on it to add or subtract before posting.

I'm too lazy to type, but... this. ^

 

[metis]

It seems more reasonable to me that, say, a serial killer should be executed than that they should live at public expense for the rest of their life.

The greatest argument against it is the fact that you cannot right a wrongful conviction. On the other hand, what's the difference between being executed for a crime you didn't commit and killed by a drunken driver? Both are deaths caused by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Personally, I'd rather be executed than spend ten years in jail.

The question of remorse seems irrelevant. If we execute a killer, it's to make sure that they never do it again. Whether they feel remorse or not is their problem, not ours.

The misuse of executions by some cultures is also irrelevant. The fact that the Saudis execute apostates is no more an argument against execution than the fact that they imprison people who drink alcohol is an argument against prison.

But that still doesn't explain why execute someone in a civilized society when there are other alternatives, which also tend to be cheaper on the average? You don't think a person can change? Why take another life away?

 

[Brickjectivity]

But that still doesn't explain why execute someone in a civilized society when there are other alternatives, which also tend to be cheaper on the average? You don't think a person can change? Why take another life away?

How about for revenge? Lots of people may want revenge.