The death penalty. Are you against it or for it?

[Trailblazer]

And so you contend that doing it again (two wrongs) makes a right?

I contend that it is not two wrongs, it is only one wrong.

 

[We Never Know]

I contend that it is not two wrongs, it is only one wrong.

Yep. There's was one wrong. The other is the fix to ensure that wrong doesn't happen again, at least by that person.

 

[Trailblazer]

Perhaps we have different notions about what justice might be.

This is one definition of justice I agree with:

Justice means punishing actions or words that are wrong and upholding things that are good. This helps ensure that wrongs will be ended and rights will be upheld thereby leading to a safer society for everyone.

What is justice and why is it important? - Quora

 

[We Never Know]

This is one definition of justice I agree with:

Justice means punishing actions or words that are wrong and upholding things that are good. This helps ensure that wrongs will be ended and rights will be upheld thereby leading to a safer society for everyone.

What is justice and why is it important? - Quora

It amazes me how many people think its ok to kill a dog, a croc, a bear, etc that harmed or killed a human... When all those animals were doing is what comes natural to them. They don't perceive its wrong.
But let a human molest, rape and kill a child and they think we should not kill them. That is insanity.

 

[Trailblazer]

It amazes me how many people think its ok to kill a dog, a croc, a bear, etc that harmed or killed a human... When all those animals were doing is what comes natural to them. They don't perceive its wrong.
But let a human molest, rape and kill a child and they think we should not kill them. That is insanity.

And the other thing is that the dog, croc, and bear did not get to appeal their conviction for years on end. They were just killed outright, which is what should happen to heinous murderers whose guilt is not in question. Imo.

 

[Trailblazer]

People say that the death penalty is only for revenge, but justice is not revenge. Justice is imposing an appropriate punishment for the committed offense as the following passage explains:

“In His Tablets ‘Abdu’l-Bahá explains the difference between revenge and punishment. He affirms that individuals do not have the right to take revenge, that revenge is despised in the eyes of God, and that the motive for punishment is not vengeance, but the imposition of a penalty for the committed offence. . In Some Answered Questions, He confirms that it is the right of society to impose punishments on criminals for the purpose of protecting its members and defending its existence.”
The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 203

 

[Stevicus]

It amazes me how many people think its ok to kill a dog, a croc, a bear, etc that harmed or killed a human... When all those animals were doing is what comes natural to them. They don't perceive its wrong.
But let a human molest, rape and kill a child and they think we should not kill them. That is insanity.

I thought the original question was just about the death penalty in general. As I noted in my earlier post, I suggested that there might be extraordinary circumstances where a death penalty might be warranted.

I don't know about this particular case you're referring to, so I can't say whether the convicted murderer should be killed. There are some cases where a defendant may be guilty of the act, but they may be mentally ill or developmentally disabled. I don't know the rules for all states, but I think they generally forbid executions of the mentally ill or the mentally challenged.

For what it's worth, this reminded me of a case which was pretty famous here locally when it was current: Attorney general seeks execution warrant for man convicted for murdering Tucson 8-year-old (kvoa.com)

In this case, it was an 8-year-old girl he was convicted of killing. He's exhausted his appeals, and the state attorney general is seeking an execution warrant. Arizona hasn't had an execution since 2014, due to pharmaceutical companies no longer selling lethal injection drugs to the state. But apparently they were able to recently secure a supply of lethal injection drugs, so now they're able to proceed with executions. There are 115 people on death row in Arizona. In this particular case, the condemned man can select either lethal injection or gas, as he was convicted prior to 1992.

It's significant to note that this guy has been on death row for well over 30 years. That's a long time. He's still getting three hots and a cot on the taxpayer's dime. I don't know if it's more expensive to keep people on death row, but my impression is that it might be cheaper to have them in the general population. And who knows how long a child-rapist and killer would last? Jeffrey Dahmer was spared execution, as Wisconsin outlawed the death penalty, but he didn't last.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Shooting or drop-hanging would knock out sense and awareness instantly, Aup.

Can we do a deal? Where you are you can have your mass execution date to get rid of your backlog, and we'll just lock 'em up in the UK. I do appreciate that your offenders on death row had done some dreadful things, but I just can't vote for the death penalty.

One wrongful conviction is all it takes ...... and in the UK we wrongly convicted/hanged too many.

1. Perhaps a person from medicine will be able to say.
2. I have better faith in Indian judicial system. Any doubt, they would not give a death penalty.
3. Well, you are welcome to manage the situation in the way you think is the best for UK, I will stick to the simpler solution. Any serious transgression of law, any action against the safety of the country - the punishment should be death. No attempt to straighten what is warped. Most of the time a useless exercise.

 

[Heyo]

I don't quite understand the rationale behind this. Why do you think this way?
How does murder being wrong leads to capital punishment also being wrong?
I would only see that as the case if by murder we meant every single instance of human killing.

The definition for murder is "premeditated". Sometimes "helpless" and "unaware" is thrown in or "for selfish reasons". No matter which definition you use, capital punishment fits it.
The only point that doesn't fit is "unlawful", but that seems to me an "except when I say so" clause in a legal definition.

 

[oldbadger]

1. Perhaps a person from medicine will be able to say.
2. I have better faith in Indian judicial system. Any doubt, they would not give a death penalty.
3. Well, you are welcome to manage the situation in the way you think is the best for UK, I will stick to the simpler solution. Any serious transgression of law, any action against the safety of the country - the punishment should be death. No attempt to straighten what is warped. Most of the time a useless exercise.

OK....... but it does seem as if India is reviewing the situation, simply because there are so many convicts on death row now. Do you think that your country will continue with executions?

 

[Heyo]

By definition, murder is illegal killing. If we made all killing legal, then there would be no murder.

When a grown man molests, rapes and tortures a young child, destroys what spirit she had, destroys her dreams, robs her from growing up, robs her of ever having a life by killing her...On that alone that POS needs put down.

Contemplate the following scenario: the murderer of the child gets free on a technicality or by bribing the judge. The mother shoots him on his way out of court.
Do you want the mother "put down" with the same fervour as the rapist?
If not, do you agree that your argumentation is emotional instead of rational?

 

[Aupmanyav]

OK .. but it does seem as if India is reviewing the situation, simply because there are so many convicts on death row now. Do you think that your country will continue with executions?

Reviews of law go on all the time. And the Indian government does not seem to be interested in finishing the jobs quickly. Some people have escaped the noose because Supreme Court thought they have remained in jail for a long time and suffered (I differ from this view). But I do not think Indian government is going to abolish death penalty completely.

 

[Koldo]

Contemplate the following scenario: the murderer of the child gets free on a technicality or by bribing the judge. The mother shoots him on his way out of court.
Do you want the mother "put down" with the same fervour as the rapist?
If not, do you agree that your argumentation is emotional instead of rational?

If this happens in Brazil, I can easily argue that the mother didn't commit any crime.

Let me try to explain why: To call any given action a crime, such as homicide, at least 3 criteria must be met. If any of those is not met, the action is not a crime. The first one is that there must be a law that calls it a crime. The second one is that the law must not specifically mention it as an exception to the first criterion, think of self-defense for example. Those two criteria are easily met in your example, but the interesting part is the third criterion: The perpetrator must be legally culpable.

I would easily argue that the mother in your example is not culpable, and therefore committed no crime. Now, what does culpable even mean on this context? There are certain circumstances that if present entail that someone is not culpable. The one that fits is: unenforceability of different conduct.

What this means is that if I, the one judging the action, think that I can not demand the perpretator to have acted differently I can not call her action a crime. A desperate mother that sees no other way to achieve justice? Not culpable.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

People on each side of wars have choices, are trained, given weapons, told what the war is about(even if its BS), told to kill or be killed, etc.

Then there is ...

A grown man and a young female child. He kidnaps her, molests her, rapes her, tortures her, kills her. She had no choice on anything. It was all forced upon her against her will for no reason.

Do you see a difference yet.

Of course I see the difference -- I'm not an idiot.

However, in war -- as stupid as they are, engaged in by humans at our most silly -- at least the combattants are fighting each other. In your other case, as awful as the act might be, executing the man 16years later, which is the average time on death row, isn't protecting anybody, it's just revenge. (Why isn't it protecting anybody? Because for thos 16 years, he's been in prison, kept away from society.)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I contend that it is not two wrongs, it is only one wrong.

Well, there, you see? As someone who is against capital punishment, I see it as two wrongs. You don't.

Fortunately, I live in a civilized country (among many in the west) that has outlawed capital punishment. Fifty-five countries still have capital punishment, 109 countries have completely abolished it de jure for all crimes, seven have abolished it for ordinary crimes (while maintaining it for special circumstances such as war crimes), and 28 are abolitionist in practice. Although most nations have abolished capital punishment, over 60% of the world's population live in countries where the death penalty is retained, such as China, India, the United States, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran – I must say, I don’t think much of the company the US keeps in this regard.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It amazes me how many people think its ok to kill a dog, a croc, a bear, etc that harmed or killed a human... When all those animals were doing is what comes natural to them. They don't perceive its wrong.
But let a human molest, rape and kill a child and they think we should not kill them. That is insanity.

I don't kill any of those things...in fact, I've never owned a gun or any other weapon. Never saw the need.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Of course, to Americans, there's just something sort of eehhhwwww! about somebody who has never fired a gun. Different culture, I guess.

 

[Aupmanyav]

We have too many appeals in India. The last appeals are to the governor of the state and the President of India. I fail to see how they are involved in the decision to give some criminal a punishment by death or exempt him/her from it. Since the criminals are finally to be executed, what difference it makes if they remain 16 years in prison or 60 years. They should be taken as dead.
Yeah, normally Indians too do not keep arms.

 

[Aupmanyav]

“In His Tablets ‘Abdu’l-Bahá explains .." The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 203

Some confusion here. Kitab-i-Aqdas as written by your manfestation from Allah. How come Abdul-Baha tries to write a 'tablet' on it! Did the manifestation of Allah say something which was not clear / doubtful that Abdul-Baha had to explain it?

 

[metis]

... the only surefire way to get rid of murder and murderers would be to remove all evil people who commit the crime of murder.

But then were are doing the same thing ourselves because there are other alternatives.