The Death Penalty

**Farnan** · November 10, 2009, 08:28 PM

Is it ethically right or wrong? Don't add legal issues.

**Monarchist** · November 10, 2009, 11:17 PM

I tend to think that insane murderers would do better, both for us and for them, to be cleft from this world. Let them be sorted out amongst the thronging masses above or below. None of us may be without sin, and thus we cannot legally throw the first stones, but some dangers simply need to be removed. Whether it is done by the state or a righteous hero does not particularly concern me. Cleanse the world of the wicked murderers, and spread joy throughout all that is left after the deed is done. The light of the world cannot shine if drooling lunatics are blocking it.

**Captain Blackadder** · November 10, 2009, 11:20 PM

It is never acceptable from a moral perspective if we descend to the level of the criminal we are like them and I do not trust the legal system to make the calls of life and death with any degree of accuracy we may say only do it if 100% sure but that never works by having a death penalty innocent people will die and that is never right.

**Monarchist** · November 10, 2009, 11:38 PM

Originally Posted by Captain Blackadder

It is never acceptable from a moral perspective if we descend to the level of the criminal we are like them and I do not trust the legal system to make the calls of life and death with any degree of accuracy we may say only do it if 100% sure but that never works by having a death penalty innocent people will die and that is never right.

The problem is that some of us make a distinction between a human being who has killed out of vindictiveness, insanity, or revenge, and one who has killed out of self defense or preservation. The vindictive are a harm to all, no matter where they go - if in prison, they usually kill behind bars. The insane will simply hurt all they come into contact with, and it would be better to relieve them of the chaos in their brains. The Vengeful seek, with a mixture of insanity and vindictiveness, that which can only be satiated by more and more blood. Once the vengeance is complete, they wander in empty brokenness. These men must, sadly, be brought to their beds for all time to come; they do not deserve life, unless they repent and try to atone. When they refuse even that, however, it is time for the chair, needle, rifle, or rope - regardless of whether it is the government or a heroic citizen.

The murderers of self preservation and of self defense are right in defending their righteous souls which only take the lives of others in sudden desperation.

The distinction shifts one from the commonplace to the extraordinary, and should lead to removal from this Earth. The other should be left to its own sorrows and conscience.

**SigniferOne** · November 11, 2009, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by Captain Blackadder

It is never acceptable from a moral perspective if we descend to the level of the criminal

Umm, why not?

we are like them

Really? Are we like them? They kill someone who is innocent. We kill someone who is guilty.

**Prodigal** · November 10, 2009, 11:31 PM

Some criminals just cannot be rehabilitated. The death penalty is definitely a needed thing.

**Captain Blackadder** · November 10, 2009, 11:36 PM

Do you trust the government to make that call? As to who is not able to be "rehabilitated" I don't want a government that has the power of life and death over its citizens.

**Mega Tortas de Bodemloze** · November 10, 2009, 11:56 PM

Originally Posted by Future Redleg Officer

Is it ethically right or wrong? Don't add legal issues.

I think that is individual perspective.... Do you murder the murderer? Who is naturally proven guilty....no doubts. I was once told in respects to this, if you can't pull the switch {electric-chair/hanging gallows, etc.} then leave this topic alone...

Well in my case I can pull the switch and making sure a murderer never plys his/her trade again is ethically the right thing to do...

**Prodigal** · November 11, 2009, 12:42 AM

I look at it as an eye for an eye. The simplest, and most righteous form of justice. You take away someones life, we take away yours. You rape someone, you're virtually ruining a persons life, especially if it's a child, so we will take away yours.

**Stark of Winterfell** · November 11, 2009, 01:23 AM

If the person would be a grave danger upon escape, or possibly from prison, and is unquestionably guilty. Then the death penalty should be applied.

**iudas** · November 11, 2009, 05:45 AM

An eye for an eye "justice" makes you no better than the criminal.

**Helm** · November 11, 2009, 05:47 AM

Originally Posted by iudas

An eye for an eye "justice" makes you no better than the criminal.

I suppose but then they were the ones to start it so it's not like they can complain.

**Admiral Piett** · November 11, 2009, 08:45 AM

Please define your use of "capital" and "heinous" to make a distinction between the two.

By capital do you mean murder and by heinous do you mean rape?

**Farnan** · November 11, 2009, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by Future Filmmaker

Please define your use of "capital" and "heinous" to make a distinction between the two.

By capital do you mean murder and by heinous do you mean rape?

Capital = Murder

Heinous = Murder + (as in murder a child, mass murder, torture + murder)

**SturmChurro** · November 11, 2009, 08:48 AM

I am completely for it, some people really just deserve to get the death penalty such as mass murderers

**Freddie** · November 11, 2009, 10:34 AM

I'm for it the trouble is the UK would find it very hard to reintroduce capital punishment due to the human rights act which prohibits it.

**Helm** · November 11, 2009, 10:38 AM

It more the European Union having laws against it that would be the issue. Seeing as the human rights act applies to the US and they still have it anyway.

**Confederate Jeb** · November 11, 2009, 10:40 AM

Voted for option 5, but 4 works as well.

An eye for an eye "justice" makes you no better than the criminal.

But letting him sit in a comfy jail cell at taxpayer's expense is perfectly fine? People like this Fort Hood murderer should be getting the firing squad/electric chair/gallows as soon as possible, but they'll probably wait years (unfortunately)...

EDIT: Holy crap, when I reloaded the page I had mod powers here!

**Nazgûl Killer** · November 11, 2009, 02:21 PM

Only for real terrible crimes, but then again - My view of truly terrible crimes is that any crime that destroys another living, sentient being's life (Killing of animals, killing of humans, rape) or that damages the country or government itself (Treason, high treason).

So... Yeah.