»
Discussion
»
Feelings
»
Capital Punishment
| Feelings |
|
Capital Punishment |
|
LoveBug
Moderator
Member Elite
since 2000-01-08
Posts 4697
|
Most of you have probably read Sharon's piece in Open about the execution of Timothy McVeigh. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this topic. I'm really interested in seeing what the opposite side says to justify their feelings. Here's what I think. Killing is wrong. Period. It doesn't matter if it is done by an individual or the federal government. We all know that premature death is horrible, but somehow people think that causing the premature death of another person will somehow justify the death of the victim. Two wrongs do not make a right! People who have lost loved ones should know better than anyone the value of human life, but somehow they forget that the killers are also human! For those of you who are Christians, remember that Christ told us that we should forgive those who do wrong! And, of course, Christ Himself was also the victim of capital punishment...  "Men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, for everyone can see and few can feel."-Machiavelli |
||
| © Copyright 2001 Erica N. - All Rights Reserved | |||
catalinamoon
since 2000-06-03
Posts 9543The Shores of Alone |
I usually have mixed feelings, because I hate the crime done, especially in this case. But I can't stand it, really, it makes me want to cry and it also terrifies me that the government can take that kind of power. From what I read, McVeigh was protesting that in the first place, though in a horribly wrong way. I am resolved to watch NO tv tomorrow, so I don't have to see any details. And it feels hypocritical to me to say this, when I think if my little granddaughter had been in that daycare, would I feel differently. Yeah I probably would, but still that would not make it right. Peace Sandra [This message has been edited by catalinamoon (edited 06-11-2001).] |
||
|
Elizabeth
Moderator
Member Ascendant
since 1999-06-07
Posts 6871Minnesota |
You know, I can't believe in the death penalty. I just cannot do that. For those of you who are believe in God, the last time I checked, I wasn't God, so who am I to take someone's life? Yes, I know that's what Timothy McVeigh did, but I don't say that what he did was right either. Also, when McVeigh blew up the Murrah Building, he was protesting against the government and he believed he was justified in doing so. When we support his execution, we believe we are justified in doing so......and so we are doing the same thing, doing what we say he should not have done. People have felt empathy for the family of the victims, but are they feeling any empathy for McVeigh's family? After all, they had nothing to do with his plans, and they are losing a son, a brother, etc. Regardless of what he did, I'm sure his family still loves him, whether they agree with his actions or not. They need to be considered too. |
||
|
Acies
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 2000-06-07
Posts 7665Twilight Zone |
Erica and Elizabeth have summed up everything I have to say. 2 wrongs don't make a right, and what gives the government the right to execute someone. hi Sweets, Lizzy, Ina, Erin, Erica, Minna, Kit, Kamie, Javi, Jenn, Sharon, Nan, Cawlee, Cherish, Ashley, Sara, Justine, Leah, Jess, Kimmie, Maree, Mic |
||
|
Marge Tindal
since 1999-11-06
Posts 42384Florida's Foreverly Shores |
~*The pen of the poet never runs out of ink, as long as we breathe.*~ |
||
|
Marge Tindal
since 1999-11-06
Posts 42384Florida's Foreverly Shores |
The Victims of the April 19, 1995 Oklahoma City Murrah Building Bombing In Memoriam ______________________________________ Lucio Aleman Jr. Teresa Alexander Richard Arthur Allen Ted Leon Allen Baylee Almon Diane Althouse Rebecca Anderson Pamela Argo Saundra Avery Peter Robert Avillanoza Calvin Coolidge Battle Peola Battle Danielle Nicole Bell Oleta Christine Biddy Shelley DeAnn Bland Andrea Yvette Blanton Olen Burl Bloomer Lola Rene Boldon James Everett Boles Mark Allen Bolte Cassandra Kay Booker Carol Louise Bowers Peach Lyn Bradley Woodrow Brady Paul Gregory Broxterman Gabreon Bruce Kimberly R. Burgess David Neil Burkett Donald Earl Burns Cynthia Campbell Michael J. Carrillo Karen Gist Carr Rona Chafey Zachary Chavez Sharon Louise Wood Chestnut Robert Chipman Terry Smith Rees Kimberly Kay Clark Margaret Louise Clark Anthony Cristopher Cooper Antonio Ansara Cooper, Jr. Dana Leanne Cooper Harley R. Cottingham Aaron Coverdale Elijah Coverdale Jaci Rae Coyne Kathy Cregan Richard Leroy Cummins Steven Douglas Curry Brenda Daniels Sgt. Benjamin Davis Diana Lynne Day Peter L. DeMaster Castine Brooks Deveroux Kim Robin Cousins Sheila Driver Taylor Eaves Ashley Eckles Susan Jane Ferrell Carol June "Chip" Fields Katherine Ann Finley Judy JoAnn Froh Fisher Linda Louise Florence Donald Lee Fritzler Mary Anne Harper Fritzler Tevin Garrett Laura W. Garrison Jamie Lee Lialkowski Genzer Margaret Goodson Kevin Lee Gottshall II Ethel Louise Griffin Colleen Juretta Guiles Randolph Guzman Kayla Marie Haddock Cheryl Hammon Ronald Vernon Harding Thomas L. Hawthorne, Sr. Doris Adele Higginbottom Anita Hightower Thompson Eugene Hodges Peggy Louise Jenkins Holland Linda Coleen Housley George Michael Howard Wanda Howell Robin Huff Anna Jean Hurlburt Charles Hurlburt Paul Douglas Ice Christi Jenkins Norma Jean Johnson Raymond Lee Johnson Larry James Jones Alvin Justes Blake Ryan Kennedy Carole Sue Khalil Valerie Koelsch Carolyn Ann Kreymborg Teresa Lea Lauderdale Catherine Mary Leinen Carrie Ann Lenz Donald Ray Leonard Lakesha Levy Dominique London Rheta Ione Bender Long Michael Lee Loudenslager Aurelia Donna Luster Robert Luster Jr. Mickey Bryant Maroney James Kenneth Martin Gilberto X. Martinez James Anthony McCarthy Kenneth Glenn McCullough Betsy Janice McGonnell Linda Gail Griffin McKinney Cartney Jean McCraven Claude Arthur Medearis Claudette Duke Meek Frankie Ann Merrell Derwin Wade Miller Eula Leigh Mitchell John Clayton Moss III Patricia Trish Nix Jerry Lee Parker Jill Diane Randolph Michelle Ann Reeder Mary L. Rentie Antonio Castillo Reyes Kathryn Elizabeth Ridley Trudy Rigney Claudine Ritter Christine Nicole Rosas Sonja Lynn Stroud Sanders Lanny L. Scroggins Kathy Lynn Seidl Leora Lee Sells Karan Denise Shepherd Chase Smith Colton Smith Sgt. Victoria Lee Sohn John Thomas Stewart Delores M. Stratton Emilio Rangel Tapia Victoria Jeanette Texter Charlotte A. Thomas Michael George Thompson Virginia Thompson Kayla Marie Titsworth Rick L. Tomlin Larue Ann Treanor Luther Heartman Treanor Larry Turner Jules Valdez John Karl VanEss III Johnnie Allen Wade David Jack Walker Robert Nolan Walker Wanda Lee Watkins Michael Don Weaver Julie Marie Welch Robert G. Westberry Alan G. Whicher Jo Ann Whittenberg Frances Williams Scott Dwain Williams William Stephen Williams Clarence Wilson Ronota Woodbridge Tresia Worten John Youngblood ~*The pen of the poet never runs out of ink, as long as we breathe.*~ |
||
|
LoveBug
Moderator
Member Elite
since 2000-01-08
Posts 4697 |
Those people should be remembered, but should the death of another be the way? "Men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, for everyone can see and few can feel."-Machiavelli |
||
|
Dopey Dope
Moderator
Member Patricius
since 2000-08-30
Posts 11132San Juan, Puerto Rico |
Hmmmmmm.......he killed them......and I do not condone killing....but this dude should be treated how they would have done in medievil times.... I despise those who take lives sencessly.  |
||
|
Marge Tindal
since 1999-11-06
Posts 42384Florida's Foreverly Shores |
In my opinion - one who kills another knowing that the consequences of those actions should they be caught, tried and found guilty would be execution - should be executed. quote: If we believe we are 'justified' we should go ahead and commit the horrendous act of terroristically murdering 168 innocent people? They key is innocent - The 168 victims were innocent - Timothy McVeigh is guilty and should pay the price accorded by law. quote: Yes. This mother feels great sympathy for his family and will pray for their comfort in their time of loss. quote: The laws of the United States Of America, set forth by the people. ~*The pen of the poet never runs out of ink, as long as we breathe.*~ |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
The comment is raised: quote: would you have a powerless government? Would you have no rules? And...if it happened to your family? To your spouse or child? The laws have been set down, and various states have, at times, gone the way of the people by vote. Penalties for crimes have swayed in the past. They will continue to sway, by the people, in the future. Had McVeigh been under age, I would assume that some responsibility would have been given to his parents, rightly so. As an adult, with the knowledge that he was going to carry through those actions that were/are in violation of this country's RULES.... and admitting his guilt.... he then assigned himself accordingly the punishment as is described by law. Is it right? Wrong? For now, it is the law. [This message has been edited by Sunshine (edited 06-11-2001).] |
||
|
LoveBug
Moderator
Member Elite
since 2000-01-08
Posts 4697 |
It may be the law, but is the law right? If I lost a loved one, as I said before, I think that I would appreciate human life even more. Yesterday I was watching CNN's coverage, and they had the father of a victim on there. This guy went all around the world, protesting the death penalty. Why? He said his daughter had been against it since she was a teenager. Sure, he lost a daughter, but he doesn't feel that killing someone else will make that any better. Yes, McVeigh should have been punished, but now he is a martyr to all the people who agreed with what he did. What if someone decides to avenge his death? Just keeps the senseless circle of death going around... "Men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, for everyone can see and few can feel."-Machiavelli [This message has been edited by LoveBug (edited 06-11-2001).] |
||
Mysteria
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
Now as a Canadian our laws are somewhat different than yours and sometimes I sure don't agree with some of the things I see, here or there. I watched t.v. from up here in absolute awe at a famous trial that in my opinion, freedom was bought by power and money. In this particular discussion, all I first wanted to say is that I fully believe in freedom of speech, but my first reaction was, was this the right place to have posted this poem in the first place(in the general poetry section), considering the nature of the subject? This area is viewed by not only mature adults but anyone really that is sent a link, as I do this all the time to very young girls in Big Sisters to read your poetry and they often spend time at the site. Secondly, this trail was a trial by the "law" set up by you, the people of the United States, and if in fact the outcome is not one that suited the masses, then you of course through quorum need to have them changed. However, if you believe that this man should have been tried by conscience, or religious convictions, I have attached yet another thing for you to peruse in your decision of the outcome. I for one believe that if a person consciously with full knowledge of their actions, causes any kind of harm, including death to another human being, they must suffer the consequences of their actions, and in this case I felt that sickness inside my heart, over an action such as this, 168 times! Yes...I believe this man should have beene tried within the limits of the court, and if found guilty, that his actions were acted upon accordingly, dicated by the law set up by the people, and also for some closure to the INNOCENT victims so easily eliminated from having a full life. Here is the Sermon On The Mount perhaps that will help, as quite often the quote of "an eye for an eye" is totally misused out of context: http://www.gospelchapel.com/Sermons/Archives/Mount/28_84.htm By the way - I am not a religious fanatic but in this particular instance, I went looking for this one! Just my opinion. And to further tell you how strongly I feel - if someone in my own family were to kill another human being knowing it was a) immoral and b) against the law, I would simply say, "God, have mercy on your soul"! I do not believe we have the right under any circumstances to take the life of another human being and I have personally been in a suitation once in my own life, where not only should I have done this, but could have, so I do speak from some experience and bear the scars to show my decision now and my opinion today. This has been in the hearts and minds of the survivors of these victims since April 1996, and if any of you are reading this, may you find forgiveness in your heart for this horrible dead done to you, and may the light of the life of the person you lost forever shine on in the knowing that some of us truly do care. And to the family of Timothy McVeigh, may you someday grow to understand why, forgive, and move on from this terror. God Bless! Just my opinion, thank you. [This message has been edited by Mysteria (edited 06-11-2001).] |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
You have a valid point, Elizabeth. Now. You are willing to pay for the care and health maintenance, room and board for the person that took your family member's life, right? And, Mysteria, I am glad to see that as one who does not now live in the United States, pay so much attention to the media, and have some good comments to make. LB, before you think I am taking the side of capital punishment, please know: [and think of this please in the way of a scenario] if your brother took the life of my daughter by way of a car accident, and he had been drinking while driving, it is still an accident. That he did not pay heed to the rules of the state and willingly got behind the wheel, does not make him a criminal in the sense that he knew he was going to go out and kill someone by his actions. I think, then, that is where the difference resides, at least, for me. [This message has been edited by Sunshine (edited 06-11-2001).] |
||
|
Mysteria
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
May God Have Mercy On His Soul! http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/11/mcveigh.03/index.html Timothy McVeigh was executed this morning! My prayers are with the families of all those whose hearts are now in sorrow. May God bless you and heal you. ~*~ Remember to tell someone today that you love them as tomorrow may never come ~*~ [This message has been edited by Mysteria (edited 06-11-2001).] |
||
|
Acies
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 2000-06-07
Posts 7665Twilight Zone |
The question is not whether it's the law or not. The question is, is it right? My morals and values tell me that it isn't. hi Sweets, Lizzy, Ina, Erin, Erica, Minna, Kit, Kamie, Javi, Jenn, Sharon, Nan, Cawlee, Cherish, Ashley, Sara, Justine, Leah, Jess, Kimmie, Maree, Mic |
||
|
Elizabeth
Moderator
Member Ascendant
since 1999-06-07
Posts 6871Minnesota |
There are plenty of things the law protects that I don't agree with. I am against abortion, and yet my tax dollars go to that because abortion is legally protected by the law. I don't like that. Just because something is the law doesn't mean that I agree with it or that it's right. If someone I cared about was killed, I would hope that I am able to forgive that person. I can't say that I would, because I have never been faced with that dilemma, and I pray God I never will be. I admire the people who are able to say, "I lost someone I loved to a senseless tragedy, but no matter what I do, nothing will be able to bring them back. Why fight for the death penalty?" That to me is truly admirable. |
||
|
Acies
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 2000-06-07
Posts 7665Twilight Zone |
I agree with you Elizabeth  hi Sweets, Lizzy, Ina, Erin, Erica, Minna, Kit, Kamie, Javi, Jenn, Sharon, Nan, Cawlee, Cherish, Ashley, Sara, Justine, Leah, Jess, Kimmie, Maree, Mic |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I have rather strong feelings on both side of this issue, but would like to throw out a few conflicting points for discussion. Because I also have strong feelings about misplaced logic.  Fact: The legal process for executing a condemned criminal in this country is a very long and complex one. In every single instance, it costs the tax payers MORE money to kill a man than to imprison him for life. Those who argue for capital punishment because they don't feel they should pay for life imprisonment need to reconsider their justifications. Similarly, those who argue against the death penalty based on the sanctity of human life, claiming that governments do not have the right to take a life, need to give some serious thought to the parallels of war and law enforcement. Deny your government this right and you deny them the ability to protect you and your freedoms, and condemn every soldier who has ever fought for their country. Your police force could not only not protect you, they couldn't even protect themselves. If you argue that protection is different than capital punishment, you concede that your government does have the right to take a life -- and we are then only debating the circumstances. Those who argue capital punishment is valid because it's supported by law, as well as those who argue the law itself is wrong, will each find themselves treading a very dangerous path. The founders of the United States based their entire revolution on the premise that unjust laws MUST be defied. But, they then put into place a system where each of us has it within our power to change the laws we find distasteful. Should you obey an immoral law? Do you have the right to defy a law even if you have made no attempt to change it? These are tricky questions with profound implications. Issues that deal with basic moral decisions, like capital punishment and abortion, will never have easy answers. It seems to me, in most cases, each of us reaches our own conclusions based on our "gut" rather than through logic. I'm not at all sure there's anything wrong with that, either. Whether a person is getting married, planning a family, or pulling a trigger, I think each of us has to follow our own heart if we are to sleep at night. Your gut is who you are, and perhaps it should be unnecessary to justify that. But I do think, if you seek logical justifications for your gut, you need to be accurate and think about your arguments very carefully. And I suspect any time you find an easy answer to an impossible question, there's probably a flaw in you logic. |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
FYI from Internet information available: The money trail · By the mid-1990s the US was spending in excess of $200 billion annually on the crime-control industry.8 · An individual sentenced to five years for a $300 theft costs the public approximately $125,000.8 · A Rand Corporation Study predicts California's new three-strikes-and-you're-out law will cost an additional $5.5 billion in criminal-justice expenditures.9 · In Canada between 1971 and 1991 the number of police officers increased 41% and the number of private security guards increased by 126%. By 1991 private security forces outnumbered police by about 2 to 1.10 · In the US two major companies account for 50% of private contracts to run prisons.11 · Average yearly cost per inmate (1994)12 US $30,000, Aotearoa $40,000, Canada $51,000 · New Conservative proposals for a tougher penal regime will increase the UK's incarcerated population by 28,000 and require the building of 48 new prisons at an estimated cost of $4.5 billion and an additional running cost of $945 million.13 http://www.oneworld.org/ni/issue282/facts.html BUFFALO, N.Y. -- Survivors of the Oklahoma City bombing are disturbed that suspect Timothy McVeigh's 12-attorney defense team is being funded by the federal government he is accused of attacking. ''I think, if we continue to have trials that cost this much money, the trials themselves will victimize the taxpayer,'' Dr. Paul Heath, president of the Oklahoma City Murrah Building Survivors Association, told the Buffalo News for a story in Sunday's editions. ''It's going to cause a significant attitude change on the part of the taxpayers toward the judicial system.'' More <> Witness has long criminal record McVeigh, a Pendleton, N.Y., native, has a team of 12 defense attorneys, each working at a cost of $125 an hour, the News reported. And since McVeigh has no money, federal taxpayers are paying the bill. ''I've been told by (McVeigh's lead attorney) that before this trial is over, if you include the prosecution side and the FBI, it will cost in excess of $50 million,'' said Heath, who was in his fifth-floor office when the bomb went off on April 19, 1995. ''The Murrah building only cost $37 million.'' McVeigh goes on trial March 31 for the bombing, which killed 168 people and injured more than 500. Some are already calling his trial the most expensive proceeding in American legal history. Because prosecutors seek the death penalty and McVeigh has no money to pay for his defense, federal law guarantees him two court-appointed lawyers. But McVeigh's lead attorney, Stephen Jones, has added others to the team as the case grows more and more complicated. At times, 15 lawyers have worked on his defense, the Buffalo News said. ''The Justice Department has tremendous resources available to prosecute a major case, and in the interest of keeping a level playing field, there must be a strong defense,'' said David A. Sellers, spokesman for the U.S. Office of Courts Administration. ''It's often very difficult to find a lawyer who will even take a death-penalty case. There are entire states that don't have one lawyer who will take one.'' Because the case is being tried in Denver to ensure a pool of jurors not directly affected by the bombing, the government is also paying for the living expenses of the defense team. Living expenses for McVeigh's 12 lawyers, four secretaries, three support staff members and project manager costs taxpayers about $50,000 a month, Jones has said. The trial could last six months. Taxpayers also pick up travel expenses. An investigator working on the case for McVeigh recently traveled from San Francisco to Buffalo to interview witnesses. Another eight lawyers will represent suspect Terry L. Nichols, McVeigh's former Army friend -- also at taxpayer expense -- for his separate trial. The government team is expected to number at least nine prosecutors at both trials. In 1994, the latest year for which statistics are available, taxpayers spent $263.5 million to defend criminal suspects in the federal courts, according to the U.S. Office of Courts Administration. More than 81,000 defendants that year were represented by attorneys whose fees or salaries were paid by the federal government. http://www.ardmoreite.com/stories/021797/news/news03.html |
||
|
Poet deVine
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-26
Posts 22612Hurricane Alley |
I know this is going to sound lame....but capital punishment hurts my heart. Everytime I think of it, I start to cry! For me, this is not an issue of money or Government or legal issues...it's just that my heart says don't kill....that's all. |
||
|
Acies
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 2000-06-07
Posts 7665Twilight Zone |
I do believe that capital punishment is totally a different kind of killing compared to say a war or law inforcement circumstance. I believe that's why law inforcers are strictly ask to fire shots only in defense of themselves. In other words, when their own lives are in danger. And they themselves get prosecuted if done other. And when it comes to war, I find this also a totally different situation altogether. Those who fight in defense of their own lives and country are in no way wrong for the acts that are accompanied by war, except for certain situations such as inhumane treatment of war prisoners. I believe that's why treaties were imposed when it comes to treating war prisoners. And people who violated this understanding usually go to trial for inhumane acts. With regards to people under capital punishment, their existence I believe no longer causes a threat to other lives. And to the government specially. I do look at all 3 to be a different situation or circumstance. I guess it all depends on whether it's self defense or not. hi Sweets, Lizzy, Ina, Erin, Erica, Minna, Kit, Kamie, Javi, Jenn, Sharon, Nan, Cawlee, Cherish, Ashley, Sara, Justine, Leah, Jess, Kimmie, Maree, Mic |
||
|
LoveBug
Moderator
Member Elite
since 2000-01-08
Posts 4697 |
Here are just some of my personal thoughts. I could never fight a war. I do not believe in war. There is no way I could justify killing in the name of "freedom" or whatever. I might be able to kill in self-defence, but even if I could, I would feel guilty for the rest of my life. I was in the car when my mom hit a squirrel in my car the other day, and I cried for hours. I don't eat meat, because that's how much respect I have for life. I most certainly respect the lives of those killed in the Oklahoma City bombing, but I also respect the life of Timothy McVeigh. I guess it may come down to this question: is one life more sacred than another? I respect and appreciate all of your opinions, although I don't agree with them all. "Men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, for everyone can see and few can feel."-Machiavelli |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
But, acire, you have essentially just said you believe that government-sanctioned killing is acceptable. Quibbling over the details is not the same as taking the high moral ground and saying governments don't have the right to take a life. One could easily argue that law enforcement officials have killed wrongly in the past and will do so again in the future, or that war is just an extension of "might makes right" and very rarely a matter of self-protection. I can guarantee you that someone somewhere will argue that execution of murders is a deterrent that "protects" the future of society (all statistical evidence to the contrary). My point is simple. If you are looking for a logical rationalization, either for or against, I think you are going to be disappointed. Though I welcome the search, I believe there are no easy answers to be found. As Sharon so poetically expressed, I think each person has to follow their own heart (which should also include voting and participating). |
||
|
Elizabeth
Moderator
Member Ascendant
since 1999-06-07
Posts 6871Minnesota |
I thought of something today.... People ask me, when I say that I don't believe in capital punishment, "But what if that was your loved one killed in Oklahoma City? How would you feel then?" I in turn ask them this: How would you feel if Timothy McVeigh was your loved one? What if that was your son, brother, husband, or friend being executed? |
||
|
LoveBug
Moderator
Member Elite
since 2000-01-08
Posts 4697 |
Right on, Elizabeth! As for the government thing, I am only 16 years old. For now, my decisions are still being made for me, which really sucks. But I will be making my views known until the day I can cast a vote against it. "Men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, for everyone can see and few can feel."-Machiavelli |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Ron...oh Ron oh ron oh ron...HOW DO YOU DO IT? Because, here I am, a vehement opponent of capital punishment, but at the same time...I ponder the implications of World War II, a war, I thought, both justified and unavoidable. And thus you brought up the only argument that gave me pause in this entire matter, is that Timothy McVeigh considered his atrocity an act of war--he considered it justifiable homicide. BUT THEN AGAIN...had it been left up to me? To find that man's vein? and poke it with a needle full of poison? His execution would not/could not have happened. And yet, I am human, and had I held the remnants of a loved one in hand? I would not have needed an implement to kill him. So I am sadly confused, because you reminded me that I do believe Hitler needed to die...and while watching the Columbine disaster on CNN? I PRAYED that the perpetrators would commit suicide. And right now? If someone broke into my home? and threatened my children? I'd have no quarrel with killing them. There would not be a second thought. So...here I am confused..again...I do believe that life is sacred, and am quite confused as to what lengths I should go to in order to prove the point. Something in me still believes that the greatest justice is making a man understand the wrong he has committed (not sure if that's always possible) but what irks me the most? Is that McVeigh died believing he was a martyr. Was his death justified? Maybe. I do believe, though, it was premature. Somehow? He should have suffered MORE. |
||
|
White Wolf Member
since 1999-09-18
Posts 371Somewhere in the vast wasteland |
The question I would ask is this. If you warn a child that a plate is hot and he will get burned if he touches it and yet he touches it anyway, should the child get burned? Another question I would also ask along the same lines is this. If you tell your child that if he does what you tell him not to do that he will be spanked and yet when he disobeys you, you let him off with just another warning, what does that say to the child? Timothy knew the consequences of his actions and if he didn't then he should have figured them out before he did what he did. Although I may not agree with capital punishment, it is still the punishment for some crimes. If he had not been executed for his crime what kind of message would that send to the other would be criminals out there? Maybe it would tell them that they could commit a crime and get a lesser sentence or a different one rather than what the law has set forth. So what I have to say is that the laws and the punishments for breaking those laws need to be kept. If we don't like them, well lets get them changed, we do have the power given to us by our forefathers in the Constitution. That is one of the biggest reasons they fought for it. I could also bring religion into this to support what I have said but it might cause an arguement or debate that I would rather not get into right now but maybe later. The White Wolf If life is just a game, when does it end cause I want to get to what is real. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I don't think this particular trial is a good starting point to discuss capital punishment. It's kind of like using the OJ Simpson trial as an example against the prejudical treatment of African Americans in the US judicial system. See, he was set free, we don't have a problem. See, Timothy McVeigh deserves to die, we don't have a problem. The government makes mistakes. Innocent people have died as a result of those mistakes. Why is this okay? War and on-line police duty are not really commensurable with procedural law. Procedural law is designed to repress that 'gut' feeling in order to make a reasoned choice based on the evidence. We do this, not because the alternative is one's death, the death of others, or the unfufillment of some strategic goal (well, maybe sometimes, some people do use the law for strategic purposes), but in order to avoid the incarceration and death of innocent people. It's a flawed system but going from the 'gut', following your feelings is precisely what we don't want in a political/legal system. Because innocent people die. Let's, however, think about using our 'gut' in other situations: "Gee, Mr. President, why did you push the button?" "Gee, Mr. General, why did you order the rape of Nanking?" "Gee, Mr. Judge, why did you order the hanging of four black men?" "I felt it in my gut." "I was pissed off, we were losing the war." "I didn't like the look in their eyes." Do you want people like that in positions of responsibility? Okay, but Timothy McVeigh is guilty. He deserved to die. What about that? Except we live by a law system set by precedent, the more you kill, the easier it gets -- "If McVeigh was killed, why not . . .?" -- the more the chance that an innocent person will be unjustly killed. Oh, I doubt this case will have any real legal value, I doubt if it will be used in court with any kind of suasive legal force, but I also believe that the sheer popularity will taint juries for a long time to come. I worry about the people who don't make the news, who won't have movies made about them, who won't have Barbara Walters praise his blue eyes. I worry about the innocents. Brad |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Wow, Brad. Would someone please mark this day on a calendar somewhere? I think you and I are in almost one hundred percent agreement. Well, except for one little thing (wouldn't ya know?). I think war, police duty and procedural law ARE commensurate, but only if we first agree on the definition of "gut" feeling. I wasn't talking about an emotional response to an individual event or person, but rather was describing the decision process for difficult moral issues. Is war ever justifiable? Should policemen routinely carry guns? Does capital punishment ever make sense? If you argue that McVeigh deserves to die, then you believe in the moral certitude of capital punishment. Everything else is just quibbling over details, though I certainly won't denigrate the importance of those details. How you arrived at the conclusion this specific individual should pay for his particular crimes with his life is one discussion. How you decided you had the right to reach that conclusion is another discussion entirely. The former is and should be governed by logic, and suggests you "could" be swayed from your decision. I maintain that the latter, however, is governed by your gut. I believe that many absolute moral questions (as opposed to circumstantial ones) have no logical answers. Or, rather, they have too many logical answers, argued by different people with equal conviction and often equal persuasion. I think most us make those kinds of moral decisions based on our guts, and all of the logical answers so vehemently expounded are just our justifications. The biggest difference between an emotional response, which I agree we want to avoid, and a "gut" response is that the former is likely to change from instance to instance. The gut response, however, is who you are and changes little (if at all) over the course of your life. Here's a more pointed example of what I mean, and perhaps a demonstration of why logic is often inadequate to the task. If you argue that capital punishment should be eliminated because it results in the death of innocent people, that is a logical conclusion and open to discussion. One might, in return, suggest you have made a common cause and effect error, assuming a simple cause when in fact it is a Complex Cause. "The Challenger explosion was caused by the cold weather." True, but the explosion would not have occurred had the O-rings been properly constructed. Do innocent people suffer because of the death penalty? Yes, but even more suffer because of unjust imprisonment, and you end up just arguing the severity (and permanence) of the injustice. The real cause isn't the punishment, but as you pointed out, the imperfections of the system. It's a Complex Cause, and attacking the simple cause certainly isn't the only answer and probably isn't even the best answer. Or let's go in the other direction. If capital punishment should be eliminated because of the loss of innocent life, then it naturally follows that war and police action are far more culpable and should also be eliminated. A handful of innocents may die every year because of the death penalty, but scores die at the hands of police and thousands in the cauldrons of war. If you contend that law enforcement and war are inevitable evils, while capital punishment is unnecessary, your argument just turned into one of cost versus benefit, something quite different from where we started. On other hand, if you tell me that coldly, in premeditation, taking the life of another human being is morally repugnant - without questionable logic, without circuitous justifications - I have no response beyond accepting that is who you are. I may agree or disagree, but I know I won't change your mind without first changing your basic nature. My original point was that we shouldn't be deceived when someone offers justifications and thus assume their decision is a logical one which can be argued with better logic. I think it's fine to discuss these issues and I encourage such discussion. But don't, for a moment, think you're going to change anyone's mind if they are following their "gut." |
||
|
epoet Member
since 2000-05-11
Posts 291grand rapid,MI, usa |
Two questions pop out in my mind when first reading this thread. First, is it right to kill people who killed people to show that killing people is wrong? I personally don't believe in the death penalty, but if it helps to set an example of what will happen to someone for doing what Mr. McVeigh did, then do so. Second, did Mr. McVeigh realize the consequences for his actions in Oklahoma? I believe that as a former soldier, Mr. McVeigh knew full well the implications of his actions and what the results would bring if he was convicted. He seemed resigned to his fate to me, so I suspect that he knew full well what was to come. Myself having been a former soldier for this country and also having lost a loved one to a tragic accident (don't ask, too painful to talk about), I feel that the governments actions were justifiable in executing Mr. McVeigh. As soldiers, we pledge our lives to protect the innocent and uphold ALL the laws of the Constitution. He knew full well the discipline that would come for breaking the law as he did and I personally don't see where the government was wrong. I do feel for his family, they are losing a piece of them that will never be the same. But my heartfelt prayers are with the survivors of this horrible event. May God give them closure and help to start the healing process. This truly is a hard topic to discuss because morally to me, Mr. McVeigh was wrong. Did he deserve what he got? Only God can be the judge of that, not me. P. J. Kotrch |
||
|
jenni Member
since 1999-09-11
Posts 478Washington D.C. |
I don’t see any moral imperatives here based on the sanctity of life. The fact is, there are many situations when we say taking another life is ok, many of which have been noted in this thread – war, self defense, reasonable force in law enforcement, etc.; it simply isn’t true that taking another life is ALWAYS morally wrong. I think the better question is whether capital punishment “fits” in our criminal justice system. I’m not sure it does. Any punishment, of course, must first be proportionate to the offense; capital punishment in the U.S. today is reserved for only the most serious murders, so it would seem to be ok on that score. Why do we punish people who commit crimes? What do we hope to accomplish by punishment, generally? Several things, actually: * Rehabilitation of the offender; * Education (of the general public; when we set stiff penalties for DWI, for example, or drug crimes, or whatever, we are, in part, sending a message to everyone in society that we are taking these offenses very seriously); * “General”” deterrence (make other people think twice about committing crime in the first place); * “Special” deterrence (lock up the offender so he won’t do it again); * Vengeance or retribution. Does the death penalty meet any of the goals of punishment? With capital punishment, rehabilitation, of course, is moot. (Typically, though, with the kind of crimes we’re talking about, rehabilitation is a fantasy anyway.) Education is rather a wash; while capital punishment certainly tells society that we take capital crimes very seriously, it perhaps sends a rather mixed message by taking another life, and one wonders how necessary it is in the first place to educate the public that heinous murders are bad. Studies have shown over and over again that it does not serve as a general deterrent. As a “special” deterrent, capital punishment is quite effective, to say the least. On the other hand, so is life without possibility of parole. And then there’s vengeance. Vengeance, of course, is a very real human emotion, and there is some merit to the argument that vengeance is best left to the government, which can attempt to check and control that emotion through a judicial system following legal precepts of due process and protecting the rights of the accused. Others have noted, however, that those very principles of due process and the rights of the accused (as well as the “civilized” manner in which the death penalty is carried out) make it almost impossible to achieve the cathartic benefits of vengeance, which requires punishment to be swift, bold and certain. Looking at it this way, I’d say capital punishment is a very mixed bag, certainly little more effective in serving the aims of punishment than a sentence of life in prison without possibility of parole. There is the very practical matter – which cannot be entirely ignored – that capital punishment saves the law-abiding, upstanding taxpaying citizens the not inconsiderable expense of lifetime incarceration. This, I think, is a very valid point. There are other practical matters, though, stemming from the fact that our legal system is run by human beings and therefore by definition is, and always will be, imperfect. As Brad notes, innocent people are sometimes convicted – not often, but it does happen – and with capital punishment, of course, the mistakes cannot be remedied. Moreover, study after study has shown that the death penalty is fraught with racial and socio-economic bias. Looking at the universe of capital cases in any jurisdiction, studies have shown that guilty minority and poor defendants are many, many more times likely to receive the death sentence than a guilty white or wealthy defendant. Ineffective assistance of public defenders is a serious problem, and not just with capital cases – the issue deserves real attention – but I for one am not optimistic that it will ever be adequately solved; ditto on the racial biases of juries. Because of these fairness issues, then, if nothing else, I’m against capital punishment as a general principle in our criminal jurisprudence, especially when the only function of punishment that the death penalty clearly serves – special deterrence – can also be served quite adequately with life/no parole. In McVeigh’s particular case, the fairness issues are largely absent, and I won’t lose any sleep weeping for the man. But as a general principle, capital punishment in the U.S. has serious problems that we shouldn’t ignore. Jenni |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Yeah, I agree with Jenni. Ron, It's late but if I understand your idea of 'gut' (I would probably say base, Craig might say touchstone)correctly, we disagree in that I think it changes a lot more than you do. We just don't realize that it does change. Maybe I'll change my mind tomorrow, Brad |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Jenni said: quote: If you change the "we" in that sentence to the more appropriate "I" or maybe even "most," I'll buy into it. But Conscientious Objection isn't just a loophole in the law. It exists. There are many, many people who believe the sanctity of human life is not situational. quote: Read a few of the earlier posts, Jenni. There may be exceptions, but in every single instance I've seen documented, the long and complex process of executing someone in the United States invariably costs more than a lifetime behind bars. Usually, by a factor of at least ten. quote: The first part of your statement is certainly (and sadly) true, but I question the inferred cause and effect of your conclusion. Capital punishment doesn't cause unfairness, and I think the same logic would dictate an abolishment to imprisonment, which is equally rife with injustice. Brad said: quote: Doesn't matter. My point isn't the name we call it, or its invariability, or even whether it's right or wrong. My point is that it's how we make our most important decisions, and everything else is simply justification. I have yet to see an argument, either for OR against the death penalty, that didn't consist of holes big enough to encompass an entire Logic 101 classroom. I think it's important, whether you want to persuade someone or understand why you couldn't, to recognize your enemy. Are you arguing against logic? Or justifications? |
||
|
jenni Member
since 1999-09-11
Posts 478Washington D.C. |
ron-- it's interesting, the different approaches we're taking here. what kind of "logic" demands that we have either an entirely perfect justice system, or no justice system at all? i think you gotta play the hand you're dealt. inequities will exist and injustices will occur in our human institutions no matter what we do, all we as a society can do is work hard and try to minimize them. it would be wonderful if we could stop the world, put everything on hold, devise a perfect justice system, then go back and put all the defendants on trial, but you know as well as i that's impossible. of course capital punishment doesn't CAUSE unfairness, such that by getting rid of capital punishment we can get rid of unfairness. as things stand now, though, unfairness sometimes results in capital punishment. and starting from this inescapable fact -- that the rich can buy better justice and that the poor and minorities are treated like, well, like the poor and minorities (and, you're absolutely right, this is not unique to capital cases, something i recognized in my earlier comments) -- what do we do about it? well, figure out some way to try to remedy the unfairness, of course, or at least the more egregious forms of it. but how long do you think that will take, ron? i'll laugh if you say anything other than "decades, if ever." so what do we do in the meantime? keep putting people to death when we have reason to suspect that a good number of them have been convicted and/or sentenced unfairly? or maybe just throw up our hands and say, well, we can't sentence ANYONE to any kind of punishment until we get this straightened out? call me silly, but i don't think either alternative is very logical. abolishing or putting a moratorium on the death penalty under these circumstances does not require abolishment or a moratorium on every form of punishment; this, i think, would be a good example of a foolish consistency being the hobgoblin of little minds. people will still suffer from unfairness inherent in the system, yes, but at least they wouldn't be killed because of it. it doesn't seem illogical to me at all to chip away at problems bit by bit, and take things one step at a time. jenni |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Ron, I accept that the government can kill people. I accept that I can kill people. I accept that you can kill people. In all cases, I can think of a situation where punitive action should not be taken. In this sense, yes, Lovebug's original statement: Killing is wrong. Period. Is something I would have to disagree with. Actually, outside of a context, it's a statement that is incoherent. You kill to survive, if you don't kill, you end up killing yourself. But that obviously isn't what she meant and would be absurd to pursue that line of thinking. Or is it? Let's make a jump and assume that she meant killing other humans is wrong. Same problem, isn't it? It doesn't allow an individual to protect him or herself thereby contradicting itself. This statement CAN NOT apply to any and all situations. Okay, so we start adding exceptions. It's true except in self-defense. But what determines self-defense? Self-defense can only be determined with certainty if it is not applied successfully, if it is a failure. Any other outcome leaves room for doubt. Let's make another jump, killing by the government is wrong. Period. Therefore, the government cannot protect itself. The police force cannot protect itself. Thereby, the same contradiction applies. If it doesn't kill, it gets killed itself. So again, you add the modifier 'except in self-defense'. But again, this can only be determined after the fact. So what do you do? You, I, the government guesses. You play the odds. I hope, by now, you can see that this applies to capital punishment as well. Or does it? The odds that any death row inmate will topple the American government are very small. The odds that the same death might result as a symbol, a trigger that eventually topples the government are probably about the same. Therefore, probablistically, this argument argues that capital punishment is unnecessary at the present time because the killing of any individual neither promotes nor hinders the self defense of the American government. Brad PS The whole thing falls apart if you believe that killing is right. I think this is where Ron's 'gut' comes into play. PPS I'm not done yet but don't blame me. Blame Ron. He's the one who started this discussion. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
To recap (and if I did it correctly): If one accepts the proposition, 'killing is wrong' one must also accept 'except in self-defense' or more precisely 'except when one's own survival is in question' in order to avoid contradiction. Since capital punishment is not an issue of government survival (and if it were, it would be called something else), capital punishment is wrong. Now, why isn't this a particularly persuasive argument? Don't most people intuitively accept the first proposition? I think yes but realistically most people also know that nobody really follows it. Certainly, governments don't follow it. So what comes next? Killing is wrong except in cases of capital punishment. There is no logical reason for this but let's proceed from this proposition and see what happens? Except not now, baby's crying. Brad |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Jenni, it doesn't really matter if I agree with you or not - we're no longer having the same discussion. You have decided you have no moral problem with capital punishment, just as did Brad. That was the discussion. Some people, and I don't think the numbers are small, do have a problem. A serious one. There is, of course, absolutely nothing wrong with running a cost/benefit analysis on capital punishment, but I think it has very little to do with moral decisions. You are convinced there is little benefit and the cost for that small benefit is much too high (and I'm sure the people wrongly executed would agree with you). One can only assume that if we could lower the cost, or greatly increase the benefit, you would be willing to change your mind? Those who have a moral issue with the taking of life won't be so easily swayed. Though it's a bit off topic, Jenni, let me also add that, no, I don't think we should throw out the entire justice system. I do, however, think we should apply the same cost/benefit analysis across the board. I believe if that was done fairly - without politics rearing its ugly head - we would release about ninety percent of the prison population tomorrow. But I suspect that's a different thread… quote: Brad, I was going to point out that you're making two unsubstantiated assumptions, one, that the need for self-defense is inevitable and, two, that self-defense requires lethal force. I would have probably followed that with a disagreement on your "self-contradiction" proof, by suggesting that death resulting from moral certainty - whether that includes a refusal to take a human life or running into a burning building to save one - isn't quite the same thing as killing yourself. I might have even argued this was a Joint Effect fallacy, where your cause and effect are in fact both the effect of an underlying cause; i.e., people placing too low a value on human life. However, by your logic, I can't really present any of those arguments. Since I haven't killed anyone lately, I must be dead. * Just out of curiosity, since I've carefully not stated my own "gut" feelings, has anyone guessed where I stand on the issue? |
||
|
Poet deVine
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-26
Posts 22612Hurricane Alley |
I find the path this thread has traveled to be amazing. It's really such a simple question. Do you believe in capital punishment? I do not. And I'll take a guess that Ron doesn't either. (my opinion since he asked) |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Ron, Of course you would be. The first assumption does not limit itself to human beings but to anything that can be considered alive. You can't eat rocks, can you? I think maybe you need to go review Star Trek TOS a bit more.  I did say going to humans is a big jump, didn't I? You didn't ask for a realistic argument, you asked for a logical one. Interestingly, if you start from the assumption, 'killing is right' you blow yourself and the argument up. There is no contradiction in terms of the agent dieing. More later, Brad PS My first argument was cost/benefit, this one is moral logic (so far anyway). Oh, the lesser of two evils argument doesn't follow yet. All life is equally valuable but because of the inherent contradiction, the agent's life will, at first glance, be seen as more valuable -- that is an illusion. It simply follows from the assumption. PPS I don't have time to check through this yet. So if I've made a mistake please let me know. |
||
|
jenni Member
since 1999-09-11
Posts 478Washington D.C. |
ron-- i think you're misunderstanding me, which no doubt is my fault, lol. i wasn't arguing on the basis of any cost/benefit analysis (although i did acknowledge that others approach the issue with this kind of analysis). what i was attempting to do is look at the question of capital punishment in its context in the criminal justice system rather than on a purely theoretical or philosophical level. if it is ever to be considered morally appropriate, i think it must first be an appropriate punishment, i.e., measured to the seriousness of the offense and serving at least some of the goals of criminal punishment generally -- which arguably it does. BUT, given the unfairness and inequities that currently exist (and will likely continue) in the human institution we call the american legal system, where similar cases are given dissimilar treatment largely along racial and economic lines, i think it is wrong to sentence people to death. "wrong" as in unfair, which, to me, anyway, is a moral issue. costs or benefits really have little to do with the matter, as i see it. i guess, in a way, i think you're looking at the issue from the top down, and me from the bottom up. i realize this is somewhat different than considering the issue purely on a theoretical or philosophical level. what would i say about the morality of capital punishment if we DID have a perfectly fair criminal justice system? lol, i'll get back to you when that day comes; i wouldn't recommend holding your breath, though. thanks for listening, jenni [This message has been edited by jenni (edited 06-15-2001).] |
||
|
Alwye
Moderator
Member Elite
since 1999-06-16
Posts 3850In the space between moments |
I understand the moral conflicts with this issue. It's hard to think of taking another human life. I am still a firm supporter of the death penalty, however. The greatest issue for me is not the cost comparsion between keeping a prisioner alive or dead or if one life should be taken in exchange for those lost, but rather one thing. This man, Timothy McVeigh, killed 168 people. Cold, calculated, murder. As long as he lives, he poses the threat of escaping, of being let loose, something. You can't deny that as long as he's alive there's a chance that some way he can kill again. Would you want to feel like you could have done something to prevent the loss of more innocent lives? People who do such violent acts deserve no pity, no chance to do it again. He lost his rights in my eyes when he decided to take the rights and lives of those 168 people away. That is my opinion. *Krista Knutson* |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Back to the moral argument. Ron did point out an ambiguity with the word 'kill' -- is 'let die' equivalent in a moral sense? I think it's an interesting question and one I wouldn't mind pursuing but I don't think it applies here. Capital punishment is not the same as letting someone die. Given a strict sense of 'kill', by the way, offers up some very strange predicaments as 'moral'. If one follows this moral dictum and only this moral dictum, one can conceivably let one's daughter die of starvation (moral) but cannot drop her off a fifteen story building (immoral). Anyway, I want to begin here with "Killing is wrong except in cases of capital punishment." Or if you want, "Killing is wrong except in self-preservation and except in cases of capital punishment. Capital punishment does not logically follow from the original assumption, therefore, in order for this statement to work we need another assumption. What is it? Capital punishment is right. or Capital punishment is right when the prisoner is guilty. or Capital punishment is right when the prisoner is guilty of a capital crime. Of these three, the third is what I think people mean. The first means the government can kill at any time and will always be right, the second implies the government can kill when someone steals bubble gum from the corner store and be right. The third is the only proposition that limits the killing to what people are talking about (I think). It also has the advantage of destroying my first argument. The morality of capital punishment is not based on uncertainty but on the already known guilt of the victim. If someone is innocent, he or she will not be killed in a moral action. If we accept this assumption as a moral one, the argument is over. But that's not what people are doing. From the fact that that is not what people are doing, I can then assume that people are following another moral assumption that either defends or conflicts with this statement. From reading the posts, I think we can reduce them to four or five points: 1. an appeal to feeling. 2. an appeal to authority 3. an appeal to consistency 4. an appeal to consequences 5. an appeal to justice There may be others but these are the ones I see being presented here: 1. Feeling = Killing is wrong except when I feel it is right. This doesn't work in the same way my whole argument falls apartment if someone disagrees with 'killing is wrong.' Someone can disagree with your feeling because they feel differently. Also, the 'because I feel it is wrong' argument is not a moral argument unless one believes in natural morality and, again, we end up back at the beginning. That is, as appeal to feeling justifies all forms of killing. 2. Authority = Killing is wrong except when authority says so. This defers the question to daddy, to the law, to God but it doesn't address the morality of the statement (actually, it eliminates morality). Well, a deferment to God doesn't -- by definition, his authority is moral. The problem here is that without direct access to God, it still leaves the problem of interpretation. Does God mean that killing is wrong except in cases of capital punishment? Or does he mean capital punishment is wrong? We effectively leave morality to the interpreters and power holders. 3. consistency = Killing is wrong except when we are being consistent. The problem here is that it avoids the moral question of killing completely or rather subverts the whole question to consistency. If we say that 'killing is wrong except in cases of consistency,' we effectively nullify 'killing is wrong'. If I tell you I'm going to kill you because you didn't like my poem, I am immoral if I don't follow through. An interesting aside involves 'awareness'. If the guilty party is not aware of good and evil, if the party does not understand morality or did not understand the consequences of the action, then it is immoral to kill that person. However, if the morality of the originating statement is accepted this does not apply. The 'awareness' of the agent who will be killed is not the issue (you can kill a morally unaware agent if your own self-preservation is at stake). The awareness of the individual has to be another assumption that we add on and only add to the capital punishment exception. It does not question the morality of capital punishment as a whole. 4. consequences = Killing is wrong except when the consequences of not killing leads to other killing. I like this one. In a general sense, it's my argument (we shouldn't kill because of the consequences) and many others here. Is it moral? Well, it means 'the end justifies the means'; we can kill immorally if the killing will prevent immoral acts. No, I don't see how this can be considered moral (action based on a pre-determined code). It is pragmatic. Which leaves us with one more argument: justice. And that's a good one. Brad |
||
|
catalinamoon
since 2000-06-03
Posts 9543The Shores of Alone |
Me again-It seems they have executed another man, and this one even harder to understand, as he was not a mass killer. I accidentally saw a video his children had sent to someone higher up, begging for their father's life to be spared. Do you think the governmentt gave a damn? No. It makes me feel sick. And this one brought into call a lot of racial things that are happening, and discrimination in the amount of minorities on death row. It's all so horrible. Sandra |
||
|
Blaec Member
since 2001-04-23
Posts 130The Sunshine State |
I don't want to say a lot on this subject. But I have to say something. I'm sure a lot of you will think that I am a cruel person after this. I don't care. My opinions on this subject are strong. I do believe in capital punishment. I don't care if I have to pay more in taxes to execute someone. I'll gladly pay the extra money. My cousin and bestfriend was murdered 4 years ago. It was not a mass murder. The man who killed him only took the life of one. He shot my cousin in the back of the head in his own livingroom. Then he covered him with a blanket and left him there for his mother to find a day and half later. They were supposed to be friends. He killed him for no reason. He stole his truck and his credit cards and went to the mall shopping. He was sentenced to 2 terms of life with no parole. I wish that they had given him the death penalty but it wasn't an option. Anyway. In my opinion i wish that they could have killed McVeigh once for every life that he took. I wish that he would have had to look into the eyes of every child who's mommy or daddy's life he took. I wish that he would have had to explain to everyone of those children why. I'm not saying that they way that I feel is right. I know that it isn't. But it is the way that I feel. I can't change that. Until someone that you love has been murdered you have no idea what it feels like. [This message has been edited by Blaec (edited 06-26-2001).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
And with Blaec's last comment I can explain the why justice is not an exception to the original assumption, 'killing is wrong except in cases of self defense.' Justice is reciprocality. Reciprocality is impossible. Therefore, justice is impossible. Therefore, justice is not an exception to the original moral assumption. Capital punishment is morally wrong. As long as the first assumption holds, what other possibility could there be? Why isn't this going to persuade those for the death penalty and give little solace to those against it? Because as Blaec so aptly pointed out, "He doesn't care." Human beings are neither moral nor logical animals. We're neither immoral nor illogical animals. We are amoral and alogical. We use logic and morality to pursue our goals, not to determine them. And that's the way we should be. Brad |
||
|
RSWells Member Elite
since 2001-06-17
Posts 2533 |
"Thou shalt not kill" Thou is every damn one of us. "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to decieve" |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
commendations all around but especially to Ron, Brad, and Jenni for presenting well thought out points for debate. There is a lot I could say about how events in my life have molded my opinions on this subject but it would be better if I didn't. I'm finding myself to be more in agreement with Ron than anyone though. What I will say is if a person has morals, and most people do, killing is never tasteful for any reason, no matter how justified or necessary it seems -- and it is the tacit admission that we haven't reached the intellect to find a better solution to our problems. [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (edited 07-09-2001).] |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
