Our BetterMost Community > The Polling Place
Do You Support The Death Penalty?
moremojo:
The behavior of Cooke and his cohorts was reprehensible, and society certainly has a responsibility to protect itself from such people. But of course they were/are human--so was Hitler, so was Pol Pot, so was Stalin. The term 'humanity' doesn't just encompass those things within our species that we like--it also includes those things that disturb us or can even destroy us. By recognizing these elements as being real, and acknowledging their perpetrators as human beings rather than folklore-level bogeymen, we can protect ourselves better and cultivate the more enlightened world that progressives and liberals supposedly endorse.
As inflammatory as it may sound, even though I understand the impulse to punish someone like Cooke, if that punishment entails violence worthy of a lynch mob, than the punisher becomes, in my eyes, no better than Cooke.
loneleeb3:
Here's a shock, I'm for it.
Until you have a family member that has been brutally murdered you can't know what it's like and I have had 2.
I think it's a load of crap that these people should be sent to prison for life or less. They sit in an institution where they get fed, healthcare and cable TV. They get a facility to work out they get to continue their education if they so choose and they are alive. What happens to the victim? They rot in a grave. Their familes are devastated and never recover. I'm not saying prison is a picnic but it sure beats rotting in a grave never having to opportunity to live your life to it's fullest extent. Prisoners get to have family visits and in come cases conjical visits. Victims families get to go to a grave.
These people made a choice to murder another human being. They stole the most precious gift someone has which is their life. They destroy families and the schock waves extend far outside of the family.
The punishment should fit the crime and I don't even thin lethal injection does that.
Their death should be painful and hard just like what they inflicted on their victims. Then the punishment would fit the crime.
souxi:
--- Quote from: loneleeb3 on October 19, 2007, 12:04:44 pm ---Here's a shock, I'm for it.
Until you have a family member that has been brutally murdered you can't know what it's like and I have had 2.
I think it's a load of crap that these people should be sent to prison for life or less. They sit in an institution where they get fed, healthcare and cable TV. They get a facility to work out they get to continue their education if they so choose and they are alive. What happens to the victim? They rot in a grave. Their familes are devastated and never recover. I'm not saying prison is a picnic but it sure beats rotting in a grave never having to opportunity to live your life to it's fullest extent. Prisoners get to have family visits and in come cases conjical visits. Victims families get to go to a grave.
These people made a choice to murder another human being. They stole the most precious gift someone has which is their life. They destroy families and the schock waves extend far outside of the family.
The punishment should fit the crime and I don't even thin lethal injection does that.
Their death should be painful and hard just like what they inflicted on their victims. Then the punishment would fit the crime.
--- End quote ---
Here here. Well said, I completly agree with you.
moremojo:
Richard, I am very sorry to learn of your tragic losses. You do have the capacity to speak from experience on this issue rather than the abstract angle from which those like myself approach it.
But I must still respectfully disagree with your stance. One way of reasoning out my argument could go like this...with every execution, the executioner arguably becomes a murderer in turn--he/she certainly becomes a killer, with all the moral anxieties that that term should invoke. Where does the cycle end? It can only logically end when the state no longer forces people into this position.
And I cannot condone the sadism, however latent it might be, in the attitudes I am reading of in this thread. Gleefully killing a gleeful killer makes one in turn a gleeful killer. Where is the morality or honor in that? I know I am setting myself up here for potential enmity or reproach, but I feel it is my responsibility as a citizen and a human being to acknowledge my observation, however inflammatory it may be, and to condemn it.
loneleeb3:
--- Quote from: moremojo on October 19, 2007, 01:42:47 pm ---Richard, I am very sorry to learn of your tragic losses. You do have the capacity to speak from experience on this issue rather than the abstract angle from which those like myself approach it.
But I must still respectfully disagree with your stance. One way of reasoning out my argument could go like this...with every execution, the executioner arguably becomes a murderer in turn--he/she certainly becomes a killer, with all the moral anxieties that that term should invoke. Where does the cycle end? It can only logically end when the state no longer forces people into this position.
And I cannot condone the sadism, however latent it might be, in the attitudes I am reading of in this thread. Gleefully killing a gleeful killer makes one in turn a gleeful killer. Where is the morality or honor in that? I know I am setting myself up here for potential enmity or reproach, but I feel it is my responsibility as a citizen and a human being to acknowledge my observation, however inflammatory it may be, and to condemn it.
--- End quote ---
Scott, ;D
Feel free to disagree with me anytime! ;D
If we all shared the same opinion it would be a very boring world!!
In respose, I myself find no glee in the carrying out of that punishment. It is a sad situation for the family of the beast who comitted the murder. His mother still loves him, his children still need him. However, he made a choice to commit a heinous crime. The punishment for said crime is death. An executioner carrying out a sentance mandated by our courts is not a killer.
He is doing his job. The criminal is the one whom the sentance is being carried out upon. There are consequences to actions, I learned that very early on. These monsters either didn't learn that or don't care.
Housing them feeding them and taking care of them is not justice.
here is the definition of Justice
jus·tice (jsts)
n.
1. The quality of being just; fairness.
2.
a. The principle of moral rightness; equity.
b. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.
3.
a. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
b. Law The administration and procedure of law.
4. Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason
Is it fair to the victim and theie family if the muderer of their loved one gets to live out their life in an institution where there every need is met? Is it morally right for that same situation to take place.
We have good decent people barely getting by in society who would love three hot meals a day, a hot shower, a bed to sleep on at night, cable TV and other amenities. Why should our tax dollars got to provide that for animals who kill our family members? What have they done to deserve that? I would much rather my tax dollars go for that then to house a killer.
I'd rather people make the right decisions and take resposibility for their own lives but if tax dollars have to be spent I'd rather them be spent on the poor and needy than murderers!
To say they are in prison and it's a horrible place is true but to be on the street or in a delapitated house with no electricity, food or comfort is worse because those people didn't break the law to be in their situation.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version