Views on death penalty

[Grojlach]

I know it's a nono to initiate any debates on religion, but I've been wondering about this for a while, merely interested in a short, non-topic-derailing answer.

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Ronn Bmann hit the nail on the head. I have never read the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, nor do I intend to. I do have my own view of human rights. They are based on my Christian values and the teachings of Jesus Christ.

But exactly what is so Christian about supporting the death penalty? I haven't opened a single copy of the Bible in more than a decade, so I can't list any obscure bible references that some Christians could (ab)use for their pro-DP agendas (though I assume there are at least some that could be interpreted as being pro-DP); but it just strikes me as a rather un-Christian thing to do, especially considering the teachings of Jesus "turn the other cheek" Christ, and catchy one-liners of "thou shalt not kill"-fame.

I normally don't bother with any of the religious debates here on IW (in my point of view, religion is something that happens to other people ), so if this was discussed in detail before, a link to said topic would be more than sufficient.

[ 03-07-2004, 06:51 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[wellard]

Against (strongly)

But if my child was killed? Then i would want to kill the murderer slowly and painfully myself. Is this a contradiction? Of course but I guess an understandable one. We need the strength of social standards to prevent mob rules or as Masklinn says "eye for an eye = everyone becomes blind."

Question to those who support DP
If life sentences would mean exactly that, and that the murderer would be off the streets forever. Would that make a fair compromise or satisfy your need for justice/revenge/deterrent?

Question for those against DP
Would you also be against DP if the murderer were proven guilty of murder twice or more in totally separate and independent cases? For example not a case of a hot head losing it in a fight but someone who has coldly calculatingly killed twice or more like a child pervert?

It would be interesting to get peoples views.

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Stratos: Fairly irrelevant if you're the criminal and have a death penaly hanging over your head.

True. But if the criminal survives, without cheating, they get to continue breathing. The will to cling to life, no matter how miserable the life may be, is a powerful thing.

Honour or not, who would pit themselves against a convicted, possibly professional, and most likely dangerous criminal?

As I've already said: someone who is not a coward and prepared to risk their life to avenge the death of their loved ones. I know that if my friends or family were murdered, the utter hatred I would feel for their killers would easily override any fair of death in combat.

I was thinking about my family. They'll have to have enough money for two funerals, mine and whoever it was I tried to avenge.

True. You may have to cut costs on your funeral then if your family is not particularly well off. No surprises there, it's just the way finance works.

In other words; state sanctioned vendettas.

Yeah, if history is any guideline, some people will pay alot of money to watch people die. Duels/Gladiatorial Combat/Formalised Execution: they have all had their place as popular public spectacles. And hey if your undertake your duel in the public sphere, you may even receive corporate sponsorship, thus taking care of the 'life insurance' queries you had earlier.

I think you and I just have different ideas regarding what human life is and how it should be approached/valued. For me there is no merit in pacifism. There is no afterlife, for me or for anyone else, or so I believe. All grievances must be settled here and now, in this material world. I can't just sit on my hands and hope for divine punishment of transgression in the netherworld because it simply isn't going to happen. Likewise, taking a passive standpoint isn't going to grant me a seat in paradise either. The dissolution of heaven gives life an even greater sense of urgency. So, only the present matters, only now matters, and therefore, revenge matters too.

[Grojlach]

Oh, and I'm with Davros. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Against. Not entering into debates - logic doesn't come into this one because neither side choses to listen. Some debators will try and rationalise their choice and give the pretense of listening and reasoning, but in the end they have already gathered enough belief to cling to and picked what side of the fence to sit and they are staying there. People don't get persuaded from one side to the other because it is no debate - THEY ARE EITHER FOR OR AGAINST.

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Grojlach: Oh, and I'm with Davros. [img]smile.gif[/img] quote: Against. Not entering into debates - logic doesn't come into this one because neither side choses to listen. Some debators will try and rationalise their choice and give the pretense of listening and reasoning, but in the end they have already gathered enough belief to cling to and picked what side of the fence to sit and they are staying there. People don't get persuaded from one side to the other because it is no debate - THEY ARE EITHER FOR OR AGAINST.

[/QUOTE] [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[Gab]

Futhermore I'd like to add that I think that the only people who deserve to die are evil dictators like Saddam and crazy serial killers.

Here's question for you people who support the death penalty: What's wrong with life imprison? The murder will suffer the rest of his life locked up in jail and slowly rot away. Killing a criminal usually just puts them out of their misery.

[ 03-08-2004, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Gab ]

[WillowIX]

How do I feel about the death penalty? Hmm let's see. I'm a doctor. I don't like to see any people killed. That's a tough one.

Originally posted by Cute, but lost, Boy-stalker in the Night: I view the death penalty as nothing more than chemo or radiological treatment.

Does that mean you should start killing innocents as well? [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 03-08-2004, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: WillowIX ]

[Melusine]

Originally posted by The Hierophant: quote: Originally posted by Grojlach: Oh, and I'm with Davros. [img]smile.gif[/img] quote: Against. Not entering into debates - logic doesn't come into this one because neither side choses to listen. Some debators will try and rationalise their choice and give the pretense of listening and reasoning, but in the end they have already gathered enough belief to cling to and picked what side of the fence to sit and they are staying there. People don't get persuaded from one side to the other because it is no debate - THEY ARE EITHER FOR OR AGAINST.

[/QUOTE] [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]Jumping on the bandwagon has never been this easy - cheers guys, for giving a dumb blonde the opportunity to post in this forum too. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Night Stalker]

Originally posted by WillowIX: How do I feel about the death penalty? Hmm let's see. I'm a doctor. I don't like to see any people killed. That's a tough one. quote: Originally posted by Cute, but lost, Boy-stalker in the Night: I view the death penalty as nothing more than chemo or radiological treatment.

Does that mean you should start killing innocents as well? [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]Absolutely! Twice even! Dammitt! It's about time the Human Gene Pool had some chlorine added! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Erm .... uhhhh ..... Ahem.

No, what it means is that IF a well functioning and fair justice system were in place that was consistant in applying the same standards accross the board in reguards to the death penalty, I feel that if someone is convicted three times having exhausted their appeals, the chair (or whatever) should be charged up and waiting for them as they exit the court room on their final shot to get acquitted. If they are still innocent, and there has been no malice shown from the prosecution, then they just had woefully bad luck. I do not believe that a system needs a zero error margin to employ the death penalty, just an extremely low probability for a truely innocent person to be convicted 3 times.

As I don't think our justice system is currently fair and ballanced, I do have some doubts, though. I don't believe in sustaining a violent criminal for life at a standard of living that is often greater than on they would have enjoyed on the Outside.

[Timber Loftis]

Sorry, Maethias, logic is logic is logic. If your logic is different than my logic, then one of us is simply wrong.

in reality i have no problem with a government punishing its people, so long as it is not in a mortal fashion.

Well, that's fine, and it's a qualitative value judgment you have placed on a type of punishment. Good for you.

All I'm saying is that often people act like it's so very logical to say "two wrongs don't make a right" or "the state has no right to murder." Both of these are deceptive logical fallacies, despite the siren's call within them that attracts us to them. Any system of criminal punishment is by definition a situation of "two wrongs." Here's how: (1) the criminal commits a forbidden wrong against a fellow human; (2) because the criminal has committed a wrong, the government/court is now free to assess penalties to that person that would in fact be "wrongs" or "crimes" if it (or another citizen) were to perform such acts sua sponte.

In other words, the wrong the criminal does justifies committing a punitive "wrong" against the criminal, be it imposition of a fine, imprisonment, physical torture, house arrest, parole, death, whatever.

Now, if you've gone and decided there are some "wrongs" that in your opinion are SO wrong the government should never utilize them as punishment, that is perfectly fine. Just, please, realize this is a value judgment and NOT couched in logic.

Logic alone can only dictate it is either wrong or right to punish in the first instance, logic itself is incapable of drawing qualitative distinctions between types of punishment. That's where we come in.

I'm not disrespecting your opinion here, I am merely pointing out it is opinion and not an inescapable conclusion one must reach through applying the rules of logic.

Since I'm not a lawyer, I can't tell you exactly what Article 30 is addressing. Fortunately we do have a lawyer in our midst, so maybe he can provide clarification.

I'm not going to claim to be an expert on the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

However, let me requote the cited portions, and maybe add some:
___________________________
[cited]
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 29.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

[additonal]
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 29
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
___________________________________
Here's the thing: the language in these provisions is mush enough to argue however you like. But, one thing is certain, this document in 1948 as passed did not clearly preclude the death penalty.

Everything listed here can be revoked by criminal punishment. Article 3 states everyone has the right to life and liberty – how one can argue this provision denies the death penalty yet allows for imprisonment is beyond me.

Article 9 contains the word “arbitrary” which of course doesn’t apply where a crime is concerned, because then it’s done “for cause” and not arbitrarily.

Article 29’s language is so mushy it can be read to say or not say whatever you want on the topic. Clearly, the language “by law” indicates that nations are free to pass laws punishing crimes that would accord with Article 29.

Article 5’s prohibition against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is probably the best argument against the DP. This is reminiscent of our 8th Amendment to the constitution, and our courts have consistently held that when the crime is egregious, death is not an excessive punishment.

Article 30 provides that “Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State… any right to . . . perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.” Taken literally, this means you cannot destroy ANY of the rights in the treaty. This would include the right of property and the right of liberty. Ergo, if read this way, NO punishment is allowed. Obviously, this is not the case, and Article 30 is properly read to mean “don’t outright destroy freedoms,” but you can limit then as provided in the treaty – ergo pursuant to Article 29 (pass national criminal laws).

Anyway, HERE’S WHAT’S IMPORTANT. This treaty is from 1948, and IIRC the US signed on. This treaty as written is highly similar to our Constitution, and the rights provided that our Constitution (including via court interpretation) does not provide are very minor. However (and I haven’t had time to research this), since 1948 many other treaties have been passed pursuant to this treaty and many language changes/modifications have been undertaken. As far as I remember, in each instance when the UN attempted to write into this declaration an outright prohibition to the DP (which is needed, as the original treaty does not prohibit the DP), the US has NOT signed on. In fact, in many instances, this is the primary reason the US has not signed on.

So, while there are modern-day incarnations out there in international law indicating the DP is a no-no, the US has balked at ascribing to those. If I had more time I’d delve into my books and refresh my 4-yr-old recollection of this issue, but I’ve typed enough already. If anyone else wants to post a better treaty history of the Declaration of Rights, I’d appreciate it.

____________________________

As a final note, I'd like to bring this right to the attention of my bosses, and, more importantly, to the attention of the bosses of par-time burger-flippers out there:

Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

So much for human rights in America, eh? Where's our paid vacation?

[ 03-08-2004, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]