Why the death penalty should never be abolished.

Howland937

Active member
I'll never, ever EVER understand opposition to the death penalty in cases like this.


For those who would argue that any death imaginable would be too cruel or unusual, consider that in some cases we shouldn't view it as punishment for crimes. Death for people who harm the helpless should be viewed no differently than stepping on a cockroach.

There are atrocities for which 2nd chances or rehabilitation should never be a consideration. This is one example.
 

theotherwaldo

Well-known member
We just had a local case where a group of men (probably cartel) opened fire on a house and managed to kill a six year old girl in her bed.
Three of the men have been caught so far.
They are not being held without bond
Do you think that they will get the death penalty?
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
Death for people who harm the helpless should be viewed no differently than stepping on a cockroach.
Well, I'm a conservative, but I have to disagree. I don't think any human being should be compared to a cockroach. Who knows what the value of that human life might be? I think mandatory life in prison with no possibility of parole is a satisfactory and reasonable punishment and keeps that criminal out of society so they can do more harm and keeps them where they can reflect on their crime and their guilt and their punishment for the remainder of their life, and perhaps come to some sense of what they need to do before they go to meet their Maker.
 

Howland937

Active member
Well, I'm a conservative, but I have to disagree. I don't think any human being should be compared to a cockroach. Who knows what the value of that human life might be? I think mandatory life in prison with no possibility of parole is a satisfactory and reasonable punishment and keeps that criminal out of society so they can do more harm and keeps them where they can reflect on their crime and their guilt and their punishment for the remainder of their life, and perhaps come to some sense of what they need to do before they go to meet their Maker.
Then we're in disagreement. They would have ample time to make whatever amends they can between themselves and God while awaiting execution. The cockroach comparison is actually unfair, as stepping on a cockroach is simply killing it for being what it is, though it didn't have a choice. These people had a choice and their lives are no longer of value to society. There is absolutely no redeeming quality in people so vile as to hurt children and they should be treated as the scourge they are.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
Then we're in disagreement.
That's OK. It happens.

These people had a choice and their lives are no longer of value to society. There is absolutely no redeeming quality in people so vile as to hurt children and they should be treated as the scourge they are.
I'm giving them an extended lifetime to make another choice and to redeem themselves by that choice. It happens.
 

Howland937

Active member
That's OK. It happens.


I'm giving them an extended lifetime to make another choice and to redeem themselves by that choice. It happens.
I guess I'm of the opinion that after choosing to kill a child and dump him in the river, they should never be afforded the luxury of making another choice in whatever remaining time they have on this earth.

There are just some choices you can't recover from. They should never have the option to try.
 

TimRB

New member
There are just some choices you can't recover from. They should never have the option to try.

There it is. I have had to live with the consequences of every single mistake I have ever made. Sometimes bad mistakes, and sometimes REALLY bad mistakes.

The only problem I have with the death penalty is that it is administered by the government, and the government screws up everything it touches--including prosecutions. There have been cases where inmates on death row were exonerated by DNA evidence, evidence likely unavailable at the time of the trial. I don't know how to resolve this problem--maybe require some extraordinary level of proof of guilt in capital cases? Even then, what does "extraordinary" mean?

Tim
 

M5-Shogun

Member
Virginia abolished it recently. I'm pissed because it's a criminal deterrent. If there's one thing I do agree with Muslims on, there's a need for punishments of the capital variety. I don't agree with how everything is implemented with them, mind you, but executions are a massive criminal deterrent. For many grifters and lowlifes in our country, getting a lifetime of medical care, a bed and three square meals may not be that much of a punishment.

Then again I'm a bitter savage when it comes to Communists. If Cuba had a liberating revolution I'd be right there and ready to give Raul Castro the same treatment his brother Fidel and comrade Che they gave to my uncles and cousins, just a whole lot worse. I'm talking things that even on here would probably upset people. If you want an idea, look up what they did to Gaddafi. Add lots of extra gunshots to the legs, breaking all of his fingers, and using tazers on him repeatedly.
 

Magyars

New member
Well, I'm a conservative, but I have to disagree. I don't think any human being should be compared to a cockroach. Who knows what the value of that human life might be? I think mandatory life in prison with no possibility of parole is a satisfactory and reasonable punishment and keeps that criminal out of society so they can do more harm and keeps them where they can reflect on their crime and their guilt and their punishment for the remainder of their life, and perhaps come to some sense of what they need to do before they go to meet their Maker.
So we have to pay to house, feed, educate, and medicate for the rest of their miserable existence?
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
There are just some choices you can't recover from. They should never have the option to try.
Hmmm, yes, well I can see that viewpoint, but I guess that's the crux of our disagreement, because I think it's up to a Higher Power to make that decision, not another human being. I'd just as soon leave it out of my hands since I don't believe I can presume to have the moral authority to take another person's life as punishment for what they did.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
So we have to pay to house, feed, educate, and medicate for the rest of their miserable existence?
Killing another human being on the basis of economics is never justified under any kind of moral system. Make the case based on appropriate punishment or make it not at all. And frankly, in terms of punishment, which is the greater punishment: end of life or living a full life in prison? IMO it's the latter.
 

Howland937

Active member
Killing another human being on the basis of economics is never justified under any kind of moral system. Make the case based on appropriate punishment or make it not at all. And frankly, in terms of punishment, which is the greater punishment: end of life or living a full life in prison? IMO it's the latter.
If the goal was punishment, then yes I'd agree with that. This isn't about an equitable punishment or retaliation. I'd be perfectly fine with calling it eradication.
 

Howland937

Active member
Hmmm, yes, well I can see that viewpoint, but I guess that's the crux of our disagreement, because I think it's up to a Higher Power to make that decision, not another human being. I'd just as soon leave it out of my hands since I don't believe I can presume to have the moral authority to take another person's life as punishment for what they did.
I'm not a theologian or even a practicing christian. But I'm certain of a passage in the bible that addresses this. I think it's Matthew 22:21.
The higher power you reference will determine the fate of their everlasting soul. If you truly believe that, then you believe the body is merely the vessel in which the soul awaits judgement. I see no moral issue with speeding up that process.

Were either of the World Wars about punishing adversaries for what they did or were doing, or was it more for the sake of stopping evil people from doing evil things and assuring that they'd never again be able to have any influence of any kind?
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
Were either of the World Wars about punishing adversaries for what they did or were doing, or was it more for the sake of stopping evil people from doing evil things and assuring that they'd never again be able to have any influence of any kind?
Yes. And life in prison accomplishes the same goal without usurping the authority of the higher power.
 
Top