posted
I am for the death penalty, and like some others, would like to see it applied not just to murderers, but also to serial rapists and child molesters.
Child molestation and rape are horrid crimes that keep on giving, frequently for years and decades after the actual event is over.
Why am I for the death penalty? Because some people don't deserve to live. If you commit a crime that heinous, then as far as I'm concerned, you no longer have the right to demand to be alive. I do, however, agree with previous comments that the death penalty shouldn't apply universally. It should be applied on a case by case basis. And again, I don't think that the death penalty should be excluded on the basis of age.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: But since you don't give them that right they don't have the same responsibilities.
On those things they don't, but under age youths can sue for emancipation. They can be married. They can have babies and abortions. They can also commit pre-meditated murder, rapes, agravated assault, etc.
With the death penalty for minors, it is not being open automatically as a penalty to them.
Anyone to whom it may apply has to be found before trial even begins that they are competent to stand trial as an adult. Then and only then can the death penalty be sought.
Generally "banning" it based on age would be wrong because every case is different.
All the time you have a "group" or "gang" of youths who commit a crime where 2 are a month or two older than 18 and 2 are a month or two younger. Every person is unique, but if the group planned the crime together, then the "mentallity" of this group is probably very similar.
Why should the 2 that are 3 or 4 months older be treated more harshly and those that are just under the age of 18 be treated less?
If it can be proved that they are much less mentally mature than their actual ages then you have a point. If they understood that what they were doing was wrong and that it's results would end in the death, rape, assault of another person, but made the conscious decision to participate, then they have the responsibility to claim for those actions as well.
Again, just my opinion.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Wouldn't it be interesting, if, ten years down the road, the title of his book was 'I was wrong'?
Why should he have the right and freedom to persue that? In my opinion he shouldn't for the reasons I stated before.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your argument rests to some degree on the idea that he would commit more 'bad' by being left alive. I'm just pointing out that that may very well not be the case.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fact, let me kind of extend that argument just a little to kind of feel out where you guys are coming from. Let's say that you have a crystal ball and you know that someone that you believe should be put to death will, if left alive, absolutely do ten times more 'good' than the 'bad' he did. Let's say that the person you believe should die, if left alive, causes ten other people to not do the same crime that you believe she should die for.
Should that person live or die?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You would have to give that person the "freedom" to choose to do that. I don't believe they should have that after committing a premeditated heinous murder.
IMHO, you don't take that chance and you don't reward their crime by givig them freedom.
They had that maximum God given freedom to begin with and they choose to do the maximum evil with it.
They had the choice of which path to take, and they chose the worst possible course for which there is NO possible restitution because you can't bring the person back to life.
When the day comes that they can bring that person back to life, and given them a second chance, then they have earned their right at a second chance as well.
The difference for me is "restricting" freedom and "removal" of freedom. You restrict the freedom of a person who abuses freedom. You remove freedom from a person who denies it from someone else. If you deny it forever, then you forfeit it forever.
If they truly are sorry and repentant for what they have done, then plea bargain for life imprisonment.
As a murderer, your victim's death shouldn't be the catalyst that enacts change for the better within you.
A person who has to kill in order to then choose to do good, abuses their victim's death for their gain and betterment.
Someone shouldn't have to be killed for you to decide to start being good.
Again, just my opinion.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As to the crystal ball hypothetical, you could apply it to anyone who does evil deeds.
It is entirely possible, (although highly unlikely) that OBL could convert to Buddhism and become a strict advocate for peace, lay down his weapons and someday win the nobel peace prize.
Does that small remote possibility mean that we shouldn't persue and try to kill him?
In my opinion, no. We should hunt him down and make sure that there isn't enough of him left to make a martyr's burial out of.
Zarqawi the sword wielding beheader? I don't believe he has the right to live or breathe another second.
That may sound very harsh, and I do think it is. But if we start "rationalizing" the lessening of punishments, then where do you draw the line? I believe in keeping the line firm where it is.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, I'm not trying to convince anyone what my view is right for everyone. Just that view is right for me and this is why.
Beside the reasons above, I also have religious reasons.
Jesus (as far as I know) never remitted the death sentence of anyone who had committed murder.
He was against unjust punishment (ie. Death for Adultery or Death for being a Prophet or Death for saying YHWH.) but for justice.
Also, Jesus was sinless, but killed, while Barabbas was a convicted murderer, and was set free. By Man.
There is something to be said for punishing someone "worse" than their offence. There is someting to be said for punishing someone "equal" to their offence. There is something to be said for punishing someone "less" than their offense.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: On those things they don't, but under age youths can sue for emancipation. They can be married. They can have babies and abortions. They can also commit pre-meditated murder, rapes, agravated assault, etc.
I don't know the "rules" on emancipation of minors, but I do know that in order for a non emancipated minor to get married or have an abortion, they need to have adult consent.
Here's a hypothetical: So a parent is legally responsible for a child until they turn 18. What if, in a murder trial, they were (at least to some degree) legally accountable if that child committed first-degree murder?
Here's what it breaks down to, for me anyway:
I believe in God, and I believe that God is infinetely just. I know that our justice system is nowhere near perfect, but God's justice is.
Our system isn't perfect; nomatter how hard we try, people are going to slip through the cracks, however few and far between they occur. Our system isn't perfect, so a peer jury will have a different emotion over an white woman than a black man (or a black woman than a white man). We may try not to, but it happens sometimes.
That, in part, is why I oppose the death penalty. It's never clear-cut across the board. Not even at God's level, I'd think.
posted
"I don't think the Death Penalty should ever be abolished, but that it should be used only in those cases where the presence of the criminal (Ted Bundy, Manson, Dahmer, McVeigh) remaining by influence alone causes a 'threat' to society."
But you just mentioned, in the previous part of your post, that you felt the death penalty was an essential bargaining tool, used to extract plea deals. Do you believe that we should only extract plea deals from people who meet the above criteria.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Do you believe that we should only extract plea deals from people who meet the above criteria.
No, the plea bargaining process is open to all. It's the proposed criminal's choice. Take a gamble by not cooperating, pleading "innocent" (when you are guilty) and having the chance of getting off completely (a la' O.J.) or face the maximum punishment of having your freedom completely and permenantly removed.
quote: Why do we stop at execution when we could torture people and then execute them?
Because you have "groups" who think anything considered "cruel and unnusual" is unconstitutional. Such as not allowing them to sit in front of a T.V. all day is "cruel". Not giving them better meals than they serve in public schools is "cruel". Not allowing them to work out or not giving them weights to use is "cruel". Not allowing them outside every once in a while is "cruel". Making them work in extremely hard physical labor is "cruel". Removal of the genitalia of serial rapists is "cruel and torture".
I am against torture. I am not for free room and board and TV.
quote: I don't know the "rules" on emancipation of minors, but I do know that in order for a non emancipated minor to get married or have an abortion, they need to have adult consent.
The constitutionality of "Adult consent" for abortion has been challenged and may be found unconstitutional (may have already been done). But it is pretty well known that a 15 year old has passed puberty. They can have sex and can impregnate and become impregnated.
I support it on a case by case basis. I don't support a ban on it.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do agree that prison should not be so cushy. I think it wrong that prisoners sit in front of a TV all day and get free medical care while some of my friends have no insurance for themselves or their children. But how is it not cruel to take someone's life?
Posts: 1021 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: But how is it not cruel to take someone's life?
It's not meant to "not" be cruel. That's the problem. Putting them in Jail is cruel (or at least it should be) as is restricting their freedoms and rights.
The definition of "cruel" is very much fluid and debatable.
I'm not saying that it's not cruel. I'm saying that it is cruel, but that is why it's a punishment.
quote: I do agree that prison should not be so cushy. I
As long as they are alive however, there will be someone willing to fight for their "rights" or "freedoms".
If they're dead, there's nothing to debate on. Problem solved.
quote: But the Consitution specifically outlaws cruel punishment. Thus, if what you just said is true, it's unconstitutional.
But history of the constitution, government and death penalty show that it is not. (hangings, firing squads, electric chairs, etc.)
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You just said it's cruel. The consitution says cruel punishment is forbidden. The history is irrelevant, except to prove that (like segregation) something unconstitutional was allowed to slide for a long time.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, the history isn't irrelevant, because what is considered "cruel" and what is considered "just" are two different things.
I may consider it "cruel", but putting a person on the table and injecting them is subjective.
Example: A person who is a vegetable mentally being allowed to be euthanized and "die" is "humane", but a person who has murdered and is guilty being euthanized is "cruel".
My P.O.V. isn't the constitutionally proven one.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
The constitution says "Cruel And Unusual Punishments" not Cruel OR unusual.
Making your employees get up at 6am to be in on work at time may be cruel, but it is not unusual.
The question is, is killing a 17 year old boy for a crime he committed when he was 14 something too unusual for consideration.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's cruel AND unusual. Also I don't think historically that executions were considered unconstitutional but still practiced. They were practiced under the authority of the constitution.
I believe the implied meaning behind the phrase "cruel and unusual" is one limiting punishment in "excess" as in it would be cruel and unusual for someone who steals bread to have their hand cut off.
Or someone who swears to have their tongue cut out.
In all honesty I think that "cruel" has been mis interpreted by the courts to mean anything that is considered "cruel" by society which is wholey subjective.
I believe it means punishment in excess of the original crime.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I'm currently living in a country where drug possession can get you the death penalty.
So how 'bout we solve the problem this way? Ship those murdering SOBs over here with wads of coke or heroine in their pockets and rat 'em out to the cops.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
