Opposition to the death penalty
It seems opposition to the death penalty is becoming popular these days but why?
I for one, only oppose it due to the fallibility of the judicial system.
I do not object from it morally however. I certainly believe that the punishment should fit the crime.
In my opinion, death would have been a just punishment for the Woolwich murderers. However, life imprisonment is sufficient too as it still fits the crime, ie a life for a life.
The main advantage that life imprisonment has is that a wrongful imprisonment is slightly more forgivable than a wrongful execution. They both pretty much do the same thing (provided life means life and no early release etc).
I'm sure many oppose the death penalty for this reason too, but I'm sure many oppose it because apparently proper justice is too barbaric.
I for one, only oppose it due to the fallibility of the judicial system.
I do not object from it morally however. I certainly believe that the punishment should fit the crime.
In my opinion, death would have been a just punishment for the Woolwich murderers. However, life imprisonment is sufficient too as it still fits the crime, ie a life for a life.
The main advantage that life imprisonment has is that a wrongful imprisonment is slightly more forgivable than a wrongful execution. They both pretty much do the same thing (provided life means life and no early release etc).
I'm sure many oppose the death penalty for this reason too, but I'm sure many oppose it because apparently proper justice is too barbaric.
(edited 10 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
I also only oppose it because of our justice system, there is always the risk of executing the wrong person, even if that risk has reduced over the years. If such a thing as a perfect justice system existed I would support the death penalty but that is never going to happen.
Aside from that, there's also the cost of the process, which would increase with the death penalty because of an endless appeals process. Often imprisonment can actually be cheaper.
I certainly don't agree with the moral arguments against it though.
Aside from that, there's also the cost of the process, which would increase with the death penalty because of an endless appeals process. Often imprisonment can actually be cheaper.
I certainly don't agree with the moral arguments against it though.
Original post by Jjj90
Killing is wrong. It's as simple as that.
There is absolutely no justification for taking another persons life under any circumstance whatsoever, in my view.
There is absolutely no justification for taking another persons life under any circumstance whatsoever, in my view.
Isn't imprisoning someone against their will also wrong?
Original post by tazarooni89
Isn't imprisoning someone against their will also wrong?
No.
Original post by Jjj90
No.
Why not?
Original post by Jjj90
Killing is wrong. It's as simple as that.
There is absolutely no justification for taking another persons life under any circumstance whatsoever, in my view.
There is absolutely no justification for taking another persons life under any circumstance whatsoever, in my view.
By saying that, you're spitting on the graves of all the soldiers who died in defence of your freedom.
Original post by felamaslen
By saying that, you're spitting on the graves of all the soldiers who died in defence of your freedom.
Actually that's true. I think war can be justified.
I believe that people who commit the worst crimes should have a choice:
1) Accept whole-life imprisonment?
2) Be killed?
Custody without possibility of parole actually seems a far worse ordeal to me than a swift hanging. That may have something to do with my complete lack of belief in an afterlife.
1) Accept whole-life imprisonment?
2) Be killed?
Custody without possibility of parole actually seems a far worse ordeal to me than a swift hanging. That may have something to do with my complete lack of belief in an afterlife.
Original post by Jjj90
No.
But imprisoning someone against their will removes their liberty.
And what is life without liberty?
Nothing worth living in my opinion.
Original post by Jjj90
Actually that's true. I think war can be justified.
Yes, the trouble with pacifists is that their enemies don't share their ideals.
Original post by Falcatas
But imprisoning someone against their will removes their liberty.
And what is life without liberty?
Nothing worth living in my opinion.
And what is life without liberty?
Nothing worth living in my opinion.
People are released from prison.
Original post by Jjj90
People are released from prison.
Hopefully not for crimes where I'd say life imprisonment (or death) could be just.
Temporary imprisonment is just in most cases as most crimes aren't deserving life imprisonment.
Original post by Falcatas
Hopefully not for crimes where I'd say life imprisonment (or death) could be just.
Temporary imprisonment is just in most cases as most crimes aren't deserving life imprisonment.
Temporary imprisonment is just in most cases as most crimes aren't deserving life imprisonment.
I disagree. People are evaluated, those deemed suitable for release have a second chance at life having served their time. You can't re-evaluate a corpse.
Original post by Jjj90
Actually that's true. I think war can be justified.
Original post by P357
To clarify, I don't think it's right that the state should kill the people that it is there to protect. That war can be justified is irrelevant.
Original post by Falcatas
It seems opposition to the death penalty is becoming popular these days but why?
I for one, only oppose it due to the fallibility of the judicial system.
I do not object from it morally however. I certainly believe that the punishment should fit the crime.
In my opinion, death would have been a just punishment for the Woolwich murderers. However, life imprisonment is sufficient too as it still fits the crime, ie a life for a life.
The main advantage that life imprisonment has is that a wrongful imprisonment is slightly more forgivable than a wrongful execution. They both pretty much do the same thing (provided life means life and no early release etc).
I'm sure many oppose the death penalty for this reason too, but I'm sure many oppose it because apparently proper justice is too barbaric.
I for one, only oppose it due to the fallibility of the judicial system.
I do not object from it morally however. I certainly believe that the punishment should fit the crime.
In my opinion, death would have been a just punishment for the Woolwich murderers. However, life imprisonment is sufficient too as it still fits the crime, ie a life for a life.
The main advantage that life imprisonment has is that a wrongful imprisonment is slightly more forgivable than a wrongful execution. They both pretty much do the same thing (provided life means life and no early release etc).
I'm sure many oppose the death penalty for this reason too, but I'm sure many oppose it because apparently proper justice is too barbaric.
I'm opposed to punishment solely for the sake of punishment/retribution/revenge/whatever.
Original post by Jjj90
To clarify, I don't think it's right that the state should kill the people that it is there to protect. That war can be justified is irrelevant.
war can be started on economic grounds(oil $$$)-is the state-provided protection legit in this case?
Suppose the statement"the state is there to enforce laws that protect the people"- the murderer/aggressor breaks these and hurts lots of people.Is he deserving of state protection?are his victims not worthy of justice? are potential victims undeserving of permanent elimination of those threatening their safety?
Original post by P357
war can be started on economic grounds(oil $$$)-is the state-provided protection legit in this case?
Suppose the statement"the state is there to enforce laws that protect the people"- the murderer/aggressor breaks these and hurts lots of people.Is he deserving of state protection?are his victims not worthy of justice? are potential victims undeserving of permanent elimination of those threatening their safety?
Suppose the statement"the state is there to enforce laws that protect the people"- the murderer/aggressor breaks these and hurts lots of people.Is he deserving of state protection?are his victims not worthy of justice? are potential victims undeserving of permanent elimination of those threatening their safety?
No.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
