Capital Punishment, what are your views on it?

Post Reply New Topic

Taking a combination law-and-order–conservative/religious-conservative stance, the death penalty should be supported because:

• Christians are taught to "render unto Caesar" (Matthew 22:21), which means Christians ought to acquiesce to the demands of the secular state in temporal affairs (e.g., taxation, obedience of the law, deference to authority).
• Criminals deserve to be punished harshly as an end in itself (law-and-order conservatism).
• A stable social order is an intrinsic good, and preserving the predictable, orderly execution of the law is required—even if it means some innocents may be killed in the process (so long as they were given due process of the law). Even if a statute of the law may be considered unjust and a person is convicted under it (even sentenced to death because of it), this does not matter so long as due process was given. That is, law and order is a greater good than justice, truth, or human life (law-and-order conservatism).
• Stemming from the preceding point, it is necessary that a person be able to sentenced to death unjustly, for if Pontius Pilot did not sentence Jesus the Nazarene to death by crucifixion, he would not have been able to redeem humanity from original sin. Likewise, if Christ were to be reborn in the United States and if it were God's will that he be killed again, a legal regime allowing this would be needed (a combination of religious conservatism and law-and-order conservatism).

Then let us say that certain sectors of our society - due to various structural reasons - are more prone to murderous action. Should that - at all - be taking into account when deliberating whether or not to execute?

And some people are just barbarians by nature and blood thirsty.

NeantHumain - are you taking the p*ss or do you seriously believe that stuff? (I'm sorry - I can't tell!!)

techstepgenr8tion - if a society can be rehabilitated then why can't an individual be rehabilitated?

I quite agree as to the possibility. Most times the capability is missing.

I agree but it's more than worthwhile trying.

I don't think anyone's lost on the realities of that, its why I mentioned that people and circumstances are something that need to be weighed out. Justice will never be easy or reducible to a few simple rules as this isn't a simple enough world for that to ever be practical.

In the case that would get put out for an example of structural crime, inner city gangs and things that happen with that - its no less complicated. Did the person kill a rival gang member? Was it a coerced action such as initiation? Did they rape and kill someone just because they did? Based on the particular case what similar common law instances have come up? What was the verdict for those cases? What made those cases individually either more or less heinous?

It's just a modest proposal.

An individual showing blatant disregard or even glee at someone else's suffering is different than similar sorts of people rounding up a society and taking control of what would otherwise be, by and large, well intended people. The former can't be fixed, they are something that in substance is too different from the way what we except as 'humanity' operates - ie. kindness and attempts at rehabilitation will not get the results that you'd expect with a sane/healthy individual. The later can be healed of the effects that the former had on them because, even if they had the potential to go either way they still least have at least some amount of hope in that they were forced subordinates, it wasn't entirely their will, and particularly for those forced to either endure the system as it was or die - they're as much victim as the people slaughtered on the other side.

What makes you so sure that the former can't be fixed?
And remember - death is final - there's no bringing them back once it's done to see if they might eventually have some remorse.
I've had disregard for certain things in the past - and that has now changed.
I've also felt glee for certain things in the past which has also changed.
Do you mean to say you've never changed your mind about anything before?

Are we talking about whether or not I like coleslaw or whether or not I've been ok with dragging someone down my basement, chaining them to a wall, and cutting off fingers and toes or performing sexual mutilation prior to killing them? It sounds like a surreal question for a good reason - it is a surreal question, quite likely neither you nor I (or at least I'd hope) can imagine being able to answer the later from personal experience, nor the train of thought processes that made it ok to begin with.

Changing your mind on fashion, 80's music, even political issues or religion - all of that's pretty normal. Ever deciding that it would be fun to rape and murder someone - that's really far gone; some actions you can't and shouldn't regain society's trust after engaging in them. If someone does that and makes peace with Jesus, believes he/she is forgiven for their sins - that's fine, however redemption again is not up to us - its between them and God (if such a being exists); in letting a career criminal of that sort out you do what Mike Huckabee did with the assailant who went into a Starbucks in Seattle and gunned down four police officers, at that point the people who let him out become liable and 'I thought we got through to him/her' isn't a reversible oops - as you said, death is permanent.

^ If you're trying to be offensive you're doing a really good job.

Well, maybe there are better uses for these monsters than lopping off their heads. Someone that far gone should be eligible for major nerve system modification. Let the researchers at them to see what radical surgery or psychological conditioning can do. Maybe that will benefit some body of knowledge as to how mutable people can be. Something along the lines of "The Clockwork Orange" without a reprieve.

Changing your mind about 80's music should be a crime! lol (I'm just joking!) But anyhow, I actually don't see much difference between casual thoughts and major beliefs - they are all susceptible to change. What about people who get married? They go through such an elaborate process to agree on something that will last until they die - and yet so many people change their minds about it later on. No matter how ingrained the thought process is, I still think it's possible to change it.

And I'm not necessarily proposing that someone who is suspected of being dangerous be allowed the opportunity to reoffend. But the thing that I find incomprehensible - is how can it be justified to kill a person? It's not justified is it? So why is it then a lawful practice? IMO there really is no difference between the person who commits the crime of killing and the people who support the law that kills them. It's all exactly the same crime. And I'm at a loss that you cannot see that?!

Oh no!! !! I hope you're joking Sand.

I am not. Some radical monsters deserve to be research animals. I would have loved to see what inquisitive psychologists could have done with Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and perhaps Henry Kissinger, G.W.Bush, and a host of other callous bastards that need mental reconstruction.