Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

What's the difference between killing someone with a lethal injection and taking away their freedom for the rest of their life?

TOTPD!!:eekdance:

_________________

As I said before in this thread, the difference is the malevolent revenge associated with the death penalty. Inamtes on death row are prevented from committing suicide--that's what really gets me. Why are they prevented from prematurely carrying out their own death sentence? They obviously don't want to be around anymore--which is what the courts decided was best for them. If they were in the middle of an appeals process, they obviously have decided to give up on that as well, meaning it'd be one less bit of paperwork to tie up the courts system. Plus, it would free up a cell for another inmate to move in. It would seem like a win-win strategy for everyone...and yet, they are still prevented from killing themselves. Why? Because the people who put them there want more than for them to just die and be rid from society--they want them to hurt as they themselves hurt. They want revenge. And revenge in that style becomes highly questionable as to whether or not you can call it "justice."

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

I'm sorry PMG, but I just don't get this. Let's turn this around a bit. Let's imagine opposite scenarios and see if we can think of something better.

1) They are allowed to commit suicide whenever they want, but aren't provided any means to do it really. No razor blades, ropes and places to hang from, guns, needles of lethal stuff, etc. If the prisoners are allowed to attempt suicide in these conditions, suicide will likely be unsuccessful. The pain and suffering of the inmates will be increased based on the ways in which they injure themselves attempting suicide.

2) They are given tools to commit suicide in such a way that success is guaranteed. First, is there any kind of way to guarantee that? No way. Second, who's to say that they won't use the razor blades, ropes, guns, needles, whatever against their captors? And who's gonna pay for all the lawsuits when the ACLU finds out that you're providing captives with tools for committing suicide? Giving death row inmates the pill and saying, "if you wanna die, swallow this" could be construed as cruel and unusual punishment because of the psychological effect that would have.

The reason they are very specific about the death penalty is because they want it to be controlled. Not because they are vengeful, but because life and death are important things, and there should be as little room for corruption as possible. Instead of having rumors circulating about an inmate commiting suicide because of pressures from other inmates or from the jailers or whatever, it should be all be in a very public, regulated manner, with many people overseeing every step.

_________________

Murder is an interplay of different actions.Also,Someone kills your family they go to jail.You want revenge-Them being killed you dont.
Its absurd.The death Penalty is an example of man's instinct for barbaric revnege.
And btw "He" or so u call him hasn't been the reason every1 has healed-Some join other religions!OR MAKE UP THEYRE OWN MIND~

Killing someone should be public!And if they are being suicidal they could not eat or drink.
I am Canadian and 70% of us roughly believe in no death penalty for 1 reason!Rehabilitation!

And that's one reason why I'm against it.

_________________

We must heal people not torture them.Killing a man doesn't solve modern problems.Also, We must address the root of the problem.

What is the root of the problem?
Poverty? Plenty of people are poor, that doesn't mean that all poor people commit capital offenses.
Drugs? A lot of people do drugs that don't commit capital offenses.
Crappy time growing up? A lot of people have a crappy childhood, but they're not all capital offenders.
Hard times? Plenty of people hit hard times, but not everyone having a bad day (or bad week, month, or year) goes out and commits a capital offense).

I'm not saying this to be a jerk, it's just that you always hear people say "we have to cut to the root of the problem", but they never really offer any solid "root" to cut.
Believe me, I'd be happy to address the root of the problem if/when those begging to address the root tell me what that root it.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Maybe they could have a choice? Life Imprisonment or Death? It was like that when the Picts attack Northern English villages. Eat Haggis or be killed! (And haggis tastes nice!)

_________________
MikeyJC
"The JC means Juber Cool!

When i say root, i mean we just can't just have a prisoner thrown in jail for murder and look at as simply as "let's kill em".
Also, we must examine what walks of life they come from examine it fully, consider different angles.

They don't just throw people into jail and say "let's kill 'em".

Things like the nature of the crime, the past of the criminal, etc, come into play in the sentencing.

I really don't see a different upbringing as a major cause. Like I've said, plenty of people are poor, on drugs, come from broken homes, etc, but they don't all commit crimes.

Granted, a majority of death row offenders may come from one or more of those backgrounds (I don't know), but it's important to note that correlation does not always equal causation (it MIGHT in this case, I'm not a sociologist/criminologist).

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Many people brought up in poor circumstances see more Crime and Drugs and gang violence.
I live in a fairly good part of my city-never seen a crime in the neighbourhood. My friend lives in a ghetto his neighbour smokes cocaine on his porch.Poverty leads to other things in many occasions.

I'm not going to argue you there.

There does seem to be a correlation there.
It's hardly 1:1, though. There are a lot of people who grow up poor that turn their energy into something creative, like working to improve their station in life. Granted, work doesn't always equal success, but it's a might bit greater than the alternative.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

I agree-we don't live in a Caste System but i mean poverty can be a factor.

Continued from THIS THREAD.


Just for clarification, due process means trial by jury with an appeals process, usually a very lengthy appeals process.

To let you know, though, I'm not an avid supporter of the death penalty, but I do see a pretty drastic difference between cold-blooded murder and, say, the executioner of the one who committed it. The difference is pretty simple: the victim did not deserve death, whereas the murderer, having deprived another of life, proves himself unworthy of life.

_________________

But that's just a glorified form of the bureaucracy.



And I can, too, in a way. I'm not equating the two acts, and a condemned criminal needs to be punished. But why should execution be the answer? And what punishment is morally right in any given case? And what gives a bunch of lawyers the moral right to control life and death? That's what I want to know. And I've been reading up on this, and haven't been convinced by many pro-execution arguments.

(The questions are rhetorical, btw, I'm not necessarily posing them to you. Of course, I probably didn't need to tell you that. Anyhoooo. )



I have a huge problem with this concept. Again, who has the ultimate authority to decide that one life is more worthy or less worthy than another?

That ultimate authority rests with the states. It has to, otherwise, how do you expect a state to carry out justice at all?

But in any case, the basis for this is pretty simple: the punishment for a crime should fit the crime. Now, within the past few centuries, for some reason, imprisonment has become the most common way of punishing criminals and attempting to preserve justice, but not to the exclusing of other forms of punishment, such as fines, community service, etc. However, the notion that a criminal who commits the most heinous crimes, particularly murder, should be executed is based on the notion that the punishment for a particular crime should fit the crime. And according to this formula, to deprive a person of life then warrents the death penalty. Granted, the death penalty is not necessary in every instance, but that is a matter for courts to decide, based on their authority to carry out one of their primary functions: to preserve justice.

Now, if your argument is essentially that murder and other heinous crimes do not merit the death penalty, then I can only surmise that you're claiming that the punishments should not fit the crime. This is problematic, since it undermines this key concept of justice: the punishment fitting the crime.

_________________

I don't accept that. Each state should be responsible for carrying out justice, yes I agree with that much. But I don't accept that justice includes playing God over human life.

See, don't misunderstand what I'm saying here. I'm not saying any of this out of sympathy for criminals. The fundamental problem that I have is the fact that lawmakers are allowed to play God over human life. There are laws in existance that state that some people have the right to cast the judgment of life or death over others. And I don't see what qualifies any person or group to do that - to assert that there are lives that are less worthy than others, that they and only they are allowed to terminate.

It's a terrible hypocrisy that doctors and scientists are constantly being levelled with the charge of playing God, while the fact that the pro-execution lobby are advocating the exact same thing for themselves.



I fully support the idea that the punishment should fit the crime. But I don't think that that's what you're arguing for here. I think that you're arguing for an "eye for an eye" brand of punishment, which is far more extreme. It's revenge instead of dispassionate justice, in other words. And if you kill a person for murder, you might as well go the full distance - have beatings administered for assault charges, burn down the houses of arsonists, etc etc. And soon we'll all be in Iran.

The punishment can fit the crime perfectly, without any need to play God over life and death. Forty years to life imprisonment is a very apt punishment for the worst crimes. You'd be protecting society from the worst criminals, and the element of punishment would be just as effective as the death penalty. You are in effect depriving the criminal of freedom for the best part of their lives.

I disagree with your assessment that executing justice is "playing God." These lawyers of which you speak (I assume you mean judges and legeslators) have been empowered by the people they represent, i.e., the public, to carry out justice. They are not arbitrarily selected (at least in the US they are not - I cannot speak for Ireland). My point is that, contrary to your argument, this process is far from arbitrary; such decisions are not left to the whims of a small handful of people, but are subject to due process of law.

Nor do I agree that life imprisonment is sufficient punishment for the most atrocious crimes. My point is, and has since this discussion began, is that if someone commits such a heinous crime, they deserve death. Now whether they actually receive the death penalty or some form of imprisonment is up to the courts to decide.

But in my book, the reason I say that certain such dangerous criminals deserve death is because it is only fair. If one deprives another human being of life, it is only fair if that person also forefeits their life.

_________________

Okay, I suppose we'll just have to disagree.

Though I'll just add that my concern isn't about whether the system is arbitary or not. My argument wasn't about that at all. The main thrust of what I'm saying is that I don't see what elevates lawmakers and law-enforcers to the status of demi-gods who have the power over life and death. Regardless of whether they've been especially appointed, or what amount of bureaucracy they wade through, or whatever else.

Of course, I've raised my concerns about miscarriages of justice that could lead to the execution of innocent people before in this thread. That's a different issue, but it's also another reason why I don't think that the death penalty is a good thing.

One little sidepoint to the "moral" argument. It won't address the moral issue completely, as many determine their morals without believing in the scriptures. But from my understanding of the scriptures, God has given the authority to man to set up systems of government, through which men can set laws and affix punishments and execute those punishments.

I don't think that God is upset with the jury that condemns a man to death, so long as the jury did their best to judge the case fairly, and the verdict was decided through due process of law.

There are cases where people are convicted of crimes they did not commit, as you have pointed out. If the jury/judge did their honest best to determine whether or not he was guilty, and condemn him to death based on the evidence, I don't believe they will be held guilty in the last day for that action. If they didn't try their best, and condemned him out of racial prejudice or some other bias, then that's a totally different story.

I'm not trying to be insensitive to the unfairly sentanced or their family either as I say this. I believe that God is over all and I trust that He will help all involved gain an understanding and peace about what has happened. He will more than adequately recompense them all for their sorrows and trials eventually.

Of course, this is all my own opinion, and I'm not trying to convince anyone to agree with it. This doesn't address the morality issue at all if you don't believe in God, or in the scriptures or something.

_________________

Yeah, I'd be on board with that, racerx. I get your's and Didymus' perspective on this. I wouldn't even say that I'm violently opposed to the death penalty.* But I've got my reasons for being against the practice - as does someone who supports it.


* Well, unless someone tries to bring it back in Ireland. If that happens, some stuff is going to be set on fire in our nation's capital, I'll guarantee you that.