having the power to end life, justly or unjustly. I agree to some extent. But bad guys like Timothy McVeigh and Scott Peterson deserve just one thing in life, the should be swiftly and viciously delt with by justice.
Here is the question. Is the State’s power to imprison a human being also a violation of natural humans rights that get violated when a prisoner is “justly” executed?
Philosophers out there please answer.
Incoming search terms for the article:
Related Post
Tags: about, death, devalues, human, Life, Penalty, question, Some, State, this
Keep it.
Interesting because Montana just voted to keep the death penalty, but specify that the death penalty is for only the most heinous criminals, deters murderers, is used very rarely.
Ultimately, the courts must be trusted to enact justice. This means no artificial restrictions, such as the prevention of the death penalty. If the restrictions are too high, confidence in the courts will be lost, undermining their purpose. In cases of the death penalty, the burden of proof must be higher than normal though. It must be clear that death is final. The risk of killing an innocent man must be weighed heavily. The burden of proof is higher, but it must be objective and possible. A burden that can’t be met is the same as eliminating the death penalty.
If they’re a danger to others, like a Serial killer, child rapist, or terrorist,
then the death penalty should be an option
I can’t wait to see how many “pro lifers” answer this in defense of the death penalty. Their inconsistency is a hoot.
If there is no perception of punitive justice from the state, there will be punitive justice by citizens, which can create a domino effect. It’s in the interests of the state to stop that domino effect by taking control of the issue.
I don’t think we should have the death penalty, and here’s why;
Say a person is sentenced to death, and right after they are killed, evidence is found that clears the person of the crime they were just killed for. What does the family of the person who was executed get? Nothing. The State says “Sorry we just killed your husband/father/son. Our bad”. Is that right?
Also, I think rotting in prison for their life is a worse punishment then killing them.
death penalty devalues human life?!?!?! what about the life that the murderer just ended? or how the little girl will feel for the rest of her life after someone raped her? yeah, she will feel “devalued”. i think the offender gets the same treatment that they gave their victims. if it was rape, then rape them over and over again and then get the chair. if it was a perterson job, then do the same to him
I can’t see how the death penalty devalues human life; it just ends life.
Devaluing human life would mean to reduce the worth or value of human life example; fetus vs. unborn child.
The state just doesn’t sentence people to death, the courts do that.
Imprisonment is a punishment and should be treated as such. If it is not providing punishment then the system is flawed but to suggest no punishments would mean that the laws have no purpose. Anarchy would run wild.
Well, if you want to bring in christian beliefs (as I’m sure someone is going to mention Jesus and God in this at some point) the death penalty is abhorrent.
No honest christian can support it, as God is the only true judge, since he is the only without sin.
In a philosphy sort of stance, using reason, in my opinion:
I don’t believe the death penalty is justified, as, it can’t be corrected if new evidence comes to light. If someone is imprisoned for life, and new evidence comes about, proving the man innocent, he has a chance of getting out. The death penalty, however, completely and totally removes any chance of that ever happening.
Also, it depends on whether you agree with Hobbes or not. Hobbes would support something like that, as, the example made by one execution, would scare future criminals.
I, however, would argue that that is not the case as, even in societies with strict law codes, crimes still happened. In large numbers.
Since the death penalty doesn’t prevent future crimes, it is just pointless killing, as, life in prison would have the same effect of not only punishing the guilty, but of also protecting the innocent.
Also, killing a criminal, usually causes some kind of rebellion. If there is a group that follows the man, the follwers will think of the one who is executed as a martyr. This, of course, can cause many future problems.
My problem with the death penalty is that we make too many mistakes. Since Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld founded “The Innocence Project” in 1993, they have gotten more than 200 condemned men off death row based on DNA evidence. Many murder cases do not have any DNA evidence.
Can you imagine what it’s like to face death when you know you’re innocent? Can you imagine what it’s like to take that fatal walk from your cell to the death chamber when you know you’re innocent?
There is no question about the guilt of Timothy McVeigh or Scott Peterson, so let them die.But there are so many others who are condemned when the evidence is not as strong.
Spare them!