Where do you stand?
Yes, you can release someone from prison, BUT you cannot bring them back to life. The same applies to their victims; no matter what justice or sentence is handed down it will not bring the victims back.I am opposed to it.
I realize the bible states it for hundreds of things, but I understand this as divine PERMISSION, not divine prescription. This is why I don't stone to death anyone who admits to sex outside of marriage, etc. While I think it's PERMITTED to kill folks living together, I don't think that is mandated.
I have three reasons to oppose it:
1. As I understand it, it has never been shown to be a deterrent to criminals.
2. I'm not sure we can ever be SO sure of guilt as to kill them.... there's a steady stream of stories in the news about prisoners being found to actually be innocent.
3. I understand it's actually CHEAPER to keep them in prison for life - as expensive as that is. All the enormous legal fees involved in the death penalty with all the appeals, etc. actually cost more than a sentence of life without possibility of parole.
I can't document any of the above, but they are my understanding - and thus the reason for not accepting the death penalty.
Well, death is an option in VERY few crimes; usually only in first degree murder with certain other conditions either killing more than one person, sometimes the age of the victim or victims comes into play. Just because it is a first degree murder case does NOT in and of itself make it a death penalty case, so "stupid" decisions are pretty much out in terms of motive.This is a hard question. I'm Canadian and we do not have the death penalty, so I've been socialized to not accept it. I still do not accept it for so many reasons - primarily because of the potential for innocent people to be executed. Also, if someone is executed, perhaps that is shortening their potential time to have a conversion experience for salvation. I'd also be concerned about intent. Some people simply make a stupid decision that leads to their incarceration, but what specifically led to that stupid decision? The justice system rarely looks at the context of the person's life, their potential for rehabilitation, their remorse, etc. I'm not a bleeding heart, but I do believe there are often far deeper things going on than the courts allow for, but should be considered.
On the other hand, when I hear of serial killers whose intent was to kill and they have no remorse, or when I hear of people like Jihadi John, I think there are natural consequences...if you live by the sword, you will (should?) die by the sword.
I saw a show last night called the Science of Sin. Last night one of the sins discussed was anger. Researchers and other professionals assert that all of us - every single human being - is capable of murder if we get angry enough, and for some people, anger is largely fuelled by the body's chemical process, making self-control practically impossible. It is possible to learn to control it through therapeutic approaches that teach trigger recognition and body awareness, though. So even people who are angry enough to murder can learn to manage it before they do harm. If people can be rehabilitated, then why not offer them that opportunity with life in prison? After all, there is no such thing as justice without mercy.
ETA - sorry! I didn't realize this is in the debate section of the forum. My apologies, I do not want to debate the issue...just put in my nickel (inflation, you know )
However innocent people being convicted isnt and that happens a lot more than people thinkWell, death is an option in VERY few crimes; usually only in first degree murder with certain other conditions either killing more than one person, sometimes the age of the victim or victims comes into play. Just because it is a first degree murder case does NOT in and of itself make it a death penalty case, so "stupid" decisions are pretty much out in terms of motive.
I know, but I am saying that when the death penalty is sought it is usually not a case where people were being stupid; they either planned it out OR they were committing ANOTHER violent felony at the time. The state does not and cannot seek the death penalty in cases where they were just horsing around.However innocent people being convicted isnt and that happens a lot more than people think
Yes, now I have no issue with people shooting in self-defense. IF it is more than just their property in danger.Yet just a couple days ago a man that had been in prison for 33 years was exonerated and he is not alone. The death penelty at least the way it is administered at present is wrong
no, not always. There have been cases of people released from death row after YEARS, Right now it has been determined by the high courts that rape of adults just plain rape if they are not killed does not warrent the death penalty. Which rape is hard to prove anyway.If they are on it, they must of had a good reason. Murder and rape.
no, not always. There have been cases of people released from death row after YEARS, Right now it has been determined by the high courts that rape of adults just plain rape if they are not killed does not warrent the death penalty. Which rape is hard to prove anyway.
no, I do however know of a sex offender that he knows he did nothing wrong his family knows that, yet because he chose not to get a lawyer because he well knew that he ended up doing 1.5 decades on probation.Have you ever met or knew personally a murderer or rapist?