|
Wraith of J.O.I. posted:Eh, not a fan of the death penalty. Reading these and thinking of someone being put to death like that and seeing that realization in their final words is depressing. Not Texas, but it can't get much more depressing than Ricky Ray Rector saving the pecan pie from his last meal for later, though. I just read about him. He didn't loving deserve his pecan pie anyways.
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 12:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 13:12 |
|
|
Here is something from a book I once read, in which a person talks to a crowd who do not believe in killing for any reason, including defending themselves from murderers and rapists. Just putting this here as food for thoughts, leaving everyone to make their opinions. ¨They have forfeited their right to be heard. There is no moral dilemma involved, no ethical question open to debate; they must be ground into dust. There is no greater value than life - and that's what you partially recognize by your confused notion of mercy. Their conscious, deliberate act of murder takes the irreplaceable value of life from another. A murderer, by his own choice to kill, forfeits the right to his own life. Mercy for such evil is nothing short of excusing it and thus allowing evil to prevail- it codifies the taking of innocent life by not making the murderer forfeit their own guilty life.¨ ¨Mercy grants value to the life of a killer, while, at the same time, it strips away the value of the life of the innocent victim. It makes the life of a killer more important than the life of an innocent. It is thus a trade of the good to the evil. It is the victory of death over life.¨ ¨Compromising with murderers, which is precisely what you are suggesting, grants them moral equivalence where none can rightfully exist. Moral equivalence says that you are no better than they; therefore, their belief - that they should be able to torture, tape or murder you - is just as morally valid as your view-- that you have the right to life free of their violence. Moral compromise rejects the concept of right and wrong. It says that everyone is equal, all desires are equally valid, all actions are equally valid, so everyone should compromise to get along.¨ ¨Where could you compromise with those who torture, rape and murder people? In the number of days a week you will be tortured? In the number of men to be allowed to rape your loved ones? In how many of your family are to be murdered? No moral equivalence exits in that situation, nor can it exits, so there can be no compromise, only suicide. To even suggest compromise can exist with such men is to sanction murder.If you once thought that I enjoy killing, let me assure you that you are very wrong. I hate it. I do it to defend life. I would never expect you to relish killing. It is a necessity to do it, not to enjoy doing it. I expect you to relish life and do what is necessary to preserve it¨
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
I don't think the problem is the death penalty itself, rather its the system that administer it. It shouldn't be left to just one or two guys to decide what evidence is presented or which witness qualifies. Prosecutors who withhold evidence, or put witness on the stand that have no right to be there, need to have someone checking over their shoulder. And the penalty for being such a douchebag that you are willing to send an innocent to death just to win your case needs to be so severe, that these guys will not risk it, especially if someone is checking over them. I also think that when a lawyer claims to have new evidence that could save his client, it should not be left to a politician to decide to stay the execution. Politicians have proven times and times again that they cannot be left to make important decisions, much less the right decision. In the end, no system will ever be perfect and there are innocents who will die. But it is our responsability to try and keep that number as low as possible and constantly re-evaluate the system to improve it and minimize error. Killing prisoners is not ideal, but some people are just too dangerous to ever be released back in the population. Left in prison, they are dangerous towards other criminals who may have been charged for a much lesser crime. Let prisons be for criminals, and the death penalty for murderers.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:Because in civilised societies we believe that it is wrong to punish somebody for no reason. This means that if we do accidentally punish somebody for no reason, we attempt to compensate them to put them in the position that they would have been in had they not been punished for no reason. Sometimes we are not able to adequately compensate a person who has been punished for no reason, but this does not mean that our belief that it is wrong to punish somebody for no reason is not sincere, or that we do not consider that persons punished for no reason should be compensated. Its funny how everyone who have wrongly punished for no reason ended up having to fight lenghty court battles in order to be compensated. We do not attempt to compensate them. We fight them tooth and nail and eventually accept to give them a modest sum as a settlement for the promise that they will shut up about their experience. Also, for those who have been in prison unjustly, that experience is something they will never forget and will mess with them until they die. How many of those guys got bullied, beaten up or became someone's bitch? How much poo poo they they have to do not to be bullied, beaten up or become someone's bitch? How much crap have they seen in prison that might mess with their head. There are good arguments for and against the death penalty. No justice system will ever be perfect, but we can strive to make it as close to it as humanly possible.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 03:50
|
|