For decades, the question by most is whether or not it is humane to have a death penalty. Thousands of years ago, it was easy to mame and kill without a jury selection or judge, only the behavioral mindset of popular vote. Concurrently, there remains religious preset to whether or not it is "just" or "unjust" to kill another regardless of conviction. In other words, is it a religious, or non religious point of view; or both!
David Hume, a great philosopher with whom I respect very much, has explained that a mans mind- so copious and various by nature and biological disposition, can contemplate in the same sentence the question of all ideas without regard to that thoughts totality or end consequence. Yet, without a concise ability to directly, or indirectly divide a topic so exclusively to confound on a single point, the question remains, should we we (humans) kill a murderer or rapist? Let me say that things in Hume's understanding are not so black and white as in human nature itself. For example: Most of those with strict religious beliefs contradict themselves often as Hume's postulates by one side saying kill or be killed, or though shalt not kill.
My questions are to you all is ( what do you surmise)? Is it, or is it not, just... to kill another for any reason, without reason itself? Is it a religious prefacto, or a vengeance is dependent on a legal system?
I appreciate any thoughts on this matter.
For me, I too waver and I am a non-theist. I dont believe in the death penalty. Yet, if someone were to harm or kill one of my own I would honestly seek revenge. Could I honestly follow through, no, but emotion aside it would be due to consequences only.
Thanks for reading.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
The title didn't match your OP. I don't see suicide as a sin, nor have I seen the Bible calling it sin. That said suicide isn't a good thing, nor is the path that takes you there good.
As far as killing a murderer, I think there is justice behind it.
Youre right, I digressed, thanks for pointing that out.
I do not believe in the death penalty. I believe the state should have no more right to kill than the individual. An individual has the right to live and therefore a right to self defense. The state should only be allowed to kill in self defense.
I would argue the death penalty is an act of self-defense against a murderer.
If he or she is confined to a cell or handcuffed then no claim of self defense holds. If a killer tries to kill while confined then self defense is arguable.
So psychological torture is better than death.. if that were the case I wonder why jails have a higher suicide rate than the general population.
Restricting freedom is the just penalty for those that act against the freedom of others. If you are dangerous to others the others need protection. We treat psychiatric patients no differently.
The person didn't "act against the freedom of others," they murdered others. Nyar hates when I give subjective values, but I would venture to say being murdered is a little more severe than having my freedom acted against.
Murder is the ultimate act against a persons freedom.
Great, then since by your own admission restricting freedom is a just penalty. You ought to have no problem with the state murdering (restricting freedom) of criminals.
Nice try! Note I used the word "ultimate" ! We are discussing matters of degree, are we not?
Prisons are expensive, and money doesn't grow on trees. Would you rather give free food and housing to a murderer or to a victim's family member?
$71,000 a year, would you give it to a murderer or a victims family?
So, you would advocate for giving $71,000 a year to a victims family? Every member of the family or just the nuclear family collectively? Why do they deserve it? Perhaps the victim was murdered by a family member!
I would hope that we would not make moral decisions based on money.
Yet its a decision nonetheless and an important one. You either close your eyes and pretend it doesn't exist, or become proactive about it.
@ Chimp,
I am a behavioral health counselor in a crisis psychiatric unit. It does not take much in the state of Arizona to petition someone with a court order and take their rights away based on secondary witnesses, thus restricting freedom, which; in my observation, breeds unjust actions. I have seen this time and time again. I am soon to leave my field due to this assumption that has bred the restriction of freedom as an act against others when it all comes down to a circular motion having the scholars at the top and the true geniuses on bottom. sad reality. Knowledge, common sense, and reality tells us these things and provides the gift of true knowledge.
An ex-Arizonan and a registered nurse. Worked for a time at the Maricopa Med Center Psych annex. If any area of life toes the line between freedom and self defense it lies within the field of psychiatrics.
Amen-Chimp
I am a behavioral health counselor. I have come to more suicide attempts in jail than on the outside. Proposing your argument holds weight, which it does, one would assume psychological tortrure is bad indeed, however there is a large gap between mind f-ing, and killing. ;)
@ John,
What happens when DNA later proves someone did not kill, yet is not pardoned?
Well that's a horrible situation. I think its horrible when a person is found innocent, set free, but the state does nothing to recompense.
@ John,
Valid point. like I said in my original point, divided minds and situation portends to the outcome. Love your mind!
Drivenone1974,
DNA evidence isn't worth spit because the analyst can fake it to support his own biases. So unless there's enough of it for at least three randomly-selected labs to analyze in a blind test I would tend to disregard it.
My mind sees "Execution" as "Revenge".
I opt the word "Termination" for those who have been proven as risk. There was a compulsive pedophile who was going to be executed, and he was asked; "If you are freed would you do the rape of minor again?". He affirmed that he would because he just can't help it.
I think the death penalty should be avoided when possible. Whether it costs, $71,000 or more, they're still a human being...
That being said, if a known self proclaimed terrorist/gunman who shows no signs of remorse is captured, it's better for society to put down this person rather than risk everyone's safety by keeping him alive.
Sorry I didn't read the whole OP. Too busy.
About the death penalty, it is quite clearly revenge and nothing more. It doesn't make a dent in crime.
I hold that the death penalty should be reserved for treason and nothing else.
I don't believe in using the death penalty. I don't really care in the end as it currently does not effect me or anyone I care about.
To me, for some of the more heinous crimes that a person can do, the death penalty is too nice. I think the person should suffer in prison for the rest of their lives. Plus if the person is later found innocent they can be freed, with a large settlement for all their time lost and suffering.
Also the death penalty is frequently quite a bit more expensive then simply jailing someone in prison for 40 years.
I am also for a total rehaul of the criminal justice system, sentencing, and how prisons work. It should not cost tax payers 71k a year to imprison someone for a year.
I would not consider the death penalty in any way shape or form, you essentially condoning what was done by killing another.
As someone with a vast knowledge and history within martial arts I would never call this self defence, it's premeditated murder... which is worse then a crime of passion for one example.
However, they do need to be punished, and I would suggest something akin to a life of solitary confinement... you broke societal laws, why should you have access to parts of it like social interaction?!
Lock em' up and throw away the key.
Randomhero1982,
Solitary confinement for an extended period is cruel and inhumane treatment.
Denying social interaction is more inhumane then murdering them?
Pages