More blood for blood has a just and propotional elegance ONLY when universally applied to all murders. Once the state tries to pick and choose which murderers get executed ( in Kentucky 4have have been picked in 53 years out of thousands of other murders) the premise of retributive equivalence has been destroyed, And while I don't accept the dooctirne to begin with, the truth is it has never been applied by the state in modern times.--the death penalty has always been selectively applied.
"Does fining a criminal show want of respect for property, or imprisoning him, for personal freedom? Just as unreasonable it is to think that to take the life of a man who has taken that of another is to show want of regard for human life. We show, on the contrary...our regard for it, by the adoption of a rule that he who violates that right in another forfeits it for himself and that while no other crime that he can commit deprives him of his right to live, this shall."
We'd show even greater regard for human life by refusing to execute someone no matter how horrible the crime he or she committed. Taking the high road would speak volumes.
And, of course, the death penalty is infallible, meaning that people like Cameron Todd Willingham are put to death despite not committing any crime. That's not valuing human life.
On a final note, how can murder be taken seriously if the penalty isn't equally as serious? A crime, after all, is only as severe as the punishment that follows it. As Edward Koch once said: "It is by exacting the highest penalty for the taking of human life that we affirm the highest value of human life."
We don't punish thieves by stealing from them, we don't punish rapists by raping them, we don't punish arsonists by setting their homes ablaze. Life in prison without parole is a serious punishment. And it's one that can be reversed lest an innocent person be condemned.
They say that life in prison without parole serves just as well. Certainly, if you ignore all the murders criminals commit within prison when they kill prison guards and other inmates, and also when they kill decent citizens upon escape.Another flaw is that life imprisonment tends to deteriorate with the passing of time.Putting a murderer away for life just isn't good enough. Laws change, so do parole boards, and people forget the past.
A sentence of life without parole is just that. No parole board gets involved. And changing laws rarely pertain to murder and even more rarely do they retroactively impact sentenced criminals. And you're yet to explain how the death penalty shows how society values lives when it executes innocent people, like Cameron Todd Willingham.
That two wrongs do not make a right, therefore, executions are equivalent to murder. First of all, the term murder is specifically defined in any dictionary as the UNLAWFUL killing of a person with malice and aforethought. So logically, the word murder cannot be used to describe executions since the death penalty is the law. To do so is an obvious abuse of semantics.
Executing a murderer is the only way to adequately express our horror at the taking of an innocent life. Nothing else suffices. To equate the lives of killers with those of victims is the worst kind of moral equivalency. If capital punishment is state murder, then imprisonment is state kidnapping and restitution is state theft.
We shoul abolish prisons because they deprive people of their right to liberty. Prisons = kidnapping, fines and taxes = extortion. Let's work hard to abolish all of them.
Think of violent people who murder prison guards and other inmates in prison. Do you have real empathy and sympathy for family members of the victims? What would you do if Osama Bin Laden walked into the room right now? Most people would say they would kill him for the crimes he committed against our country. This is the same thing that the familys and friends of most murder victims feel about the person that took their loved one away from them.
You might want to look at the websites of Murder Victims Families for Human Rights and Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation. Plenty of survivors oppose the use of the death penalty. You will find their reasons there.
Don't try to fool me here. I only know this are a minority. When Chemical Ali was executed, heaps of Kurdish people celebrated on the streets. Fumiko Isogai, who had her only child killed in this crime, launched a campaign to call for the death penalty. Within ten days, her petition was signed by 100,000 citizens. She presented her petition for the death penalty. About 318,000 citizens had signed her petition by December 2008.
Think of violent people who murder prison guards and other inmates in prison. Do you have real empathy and sympathy for family members of the victims? What would you do if Osama Bin Laden walked into the room right now? Most people would say they would kill him for the crimes he committed against our country. This is the same thing that the familys and friends of most murder victims feel about the person that took their loved one away from them.
Actually we kill people WHEN WE CROSS THE LINE. All of us agree that those who murder have crossed the line by taking human life and need to be punished. We who refuse to accept the death penalty are refusing to cross the line that killers cross. And so we find it necessary to punish by means short of killing another person. And in Kentucky that generally means life without parole which protects our children and families and severely punishes one who might harm them.
we kill people because they have crossed the line from being civilized humans to uncivilized animals and makes fighting for our way of living and children ,familys who died for that cause meaningless its too late for there victims, theres no mercy. also should only spank a child when they put there life at risk on average a child should only be spanked twice in there lifetime else when they run infront of that car or hang out of 5th floor window the parent will be sorry when its to late
More blood for blood has a just and propotional elegance ONLY when universally applied to all murders. Once the state tries to pick and choose which murderers get executed ( in Kentucky 4have have been picked in 53 years out of thousands of other murders) the premise of retributive equivalence has been destroyed, And while I don't accept the dooctirne to begin with, the truth is it has never been applied by the state in modern times.--the death penalty has always been selectively applied.
Dvish000 2 years ago
"Does fining a criminal show want of respect for property, or imprisoning him, for personal freedom? Just as unreasonable it is to think that to take the life of a man who has taken that of another is to show want of regard for human life. We show, on the contrary...our regard for it, by the adoption of a rule that he who violates that right in another forfeits it for himself and that while no other crime that he can commit deprives him of his right to live, this shall."
jonathansee 2 years ago
We'd show even greater regard for human life by refusing to execute someone no matter how horrible the crime he or she committed. Taking the high road would speak volumes.
And, of course, the death penalty is infallible, meaning that people like Cameron Todd Willingham are put to death despite not committing any crime. That's not valuing human life.
ZEverson 2 years ago
On a final note, how can murder be taken seriously if the penalty isn't equally as serious? A crime, after all, is only as severe as the punishment that follows it. As Edward Koch once said: "It is by exacting the highest penalty for the taking of human life that we affirm the highest value of human life."
jonathansee 2 years ago
We don't punish thieves by stealing from them, we don't punish rapists by raping them, we don't punish arsonists by setting their homes ablaze. Life in prison without parole is a serious punishment. And it's one that can be reversed lest an innocent person be condemned.
ZEverson 2 years ago
They say that life in prison without parole serves just as well. Certainly, if you ignore all the murders criminals commit within prison when they kill prison guards and other inmates, and also when they kill decent citizens upon escape.Another flaw is that life imprisonment tends to deteriorate with the passing of time.Putting a murderer away for life just isn't good enough. Laws change, so do parole boards, and people forget the past.
jonathansee 2 years ago
A sentence of life without parole is just that. No parole board gets involved. And changing laws rarely pertain to murder and even more rarely do they retroactively impact sentenced criminals. And you're yet to explain how the death penalty shows how society values lives when it executes innocent people, like Cameron Todd Willingham.
ZEverson 2 years ago
That two wrongs do not make a right, therefore, executions are equivalent to murder. First of all, the term murder is specifically defined in any dictionary as the UNLAWFUL killing of a person with malice and aforethought. So logically, the word murder cannot be used to describe executions since the death penalty is the law. To do so is an obvious abuse of semantics.
jonathansee 2 years ago
Executing a murderer is the only way to adequately express our horror at the taking of an innocent life. Nothing else suffices. To equate the lives of killers with those of victims is the worst kind of moral equivalency. If capital punishment is state murder, then imprisonment is state kidnapping and restitution is state theft.
jonathansee 2 years ago
We don't burn arsonists; we don't rape rapists; we don't go steal the property of thieves; we shouldn't be killing killers.
PatrickDelahanty 2 years ago
We shoul abolish prisons because they deprive people of their right to liberty. Prisons = kidnapping, fines and taxes = extortion. Let's work hard to abolish all of them.
jonathansee 2 years ago
Think of violent people who murder prison guards and other inmates in prison. Do you have real empathy and sympathy for family members of the victims? What would you do if Osama Bin Laden walked into the room right now? Most people would say they would kill him for the crimes he committed against our country. This is the same thing that the familys and friends of most murder victims feel about the person that took their loved one away from them.
jonathansee 2 years ago
You might want to look at the websites of Murder Victims Families for Human Rights and Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation. Plenty of survivors oppose the use of the death penalty. You will find their reasons there.
PatrickDelahanty 2 years ago
Don't try to fool me here. I only know this are a minority. When Chemical Ali was executed, heaps of Kurdish people celebrated on the streets. Fumiko Isogai, who had her only child killed in this crime, launched a campaign to call for the death penalty. Within ten days, her petition was signed by 100,000 citizens. She presented her petition for the death penalty. About 318,000 citizens had signed her petition by December 2008.
jonathansee 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Think of violent people who murder prison guards and other inmates in prison. Do you have real empathy and sympathy for family members of the victims? What would you do if Osama Bin Laden walked into the room right now? Most people would say they would kill him for the crimes he committed against our country. This is the same thing that the familys and friends of most murder victims feel about the person that took their loved one away from them.
jonathansee 2 years ago
Actually we kill people WHEN WE CROSS THE LINE. All of us agree that those who murder have crossed the line by taking human life and need to be punished. We who refuse to accept the death penalty are refusing to cross the line that killers cross. And so we find it necessary to punish by means short of killing another person. And in Kentucky that generally means life without parole which protects our children and families and severely punishes one who might harm them.
PatrickDelahanty 2 years ago 2
we kill people because they have crossed the line from being civilized humans to uncivilized animals and makes fighting for our way of living and children ,familys who died for that cause meaningless its too late for there victims, theres no mercy. also should only spank a child when they put there life at risk on average a child should only be spanked twice in there lifetime else when they run infront of that car or hang out of 5th floor window the parent will be sorry when its to late
user7671 2 years ago