Capital Punishment for Murder

[Scotsmanmatt]

Why I would support capital punishment even if I didn't hold my current view that it is God-sanctioned for the state to do in the case of murder.

I hold the view that human life is the most precious thing to possess in this world.
The act of murder removes the most precious thing to possess in this world.
There is no possibility of recovery, treatment, or counselling for the victim, no return to normal life, no privilege to breathe, to be happy or sad, to love or to hate, to feel pleausre or pain.
It is final.
No removal from society as a punishment for murder, even where that is for life without the possibility of parole, can bring back that most precious thing to possess in this world for they do possess that which they have denied another, recovery, treatment, counselling, return to normal life, privilege to breathe, to be happy or sad, to love or to hate, to feel pleasue or pain.
I also believe in justice and that the primary purpose of justice is to punish those who would violate the law, including against murder.
Only the removal of life by the state, in the most humane way (the contrary way the perpetrator in many case has afforded their victim(s)), can balance the scales of justice with the punishment fitting the crime.
On the above basis I believe all murderers, where convicted beyond all reasonable doubt, ought to be killed by the state and I believe this only on the grounds above and without consideration of financial matters, value as a detterant, possibility of rehabilitation etc.

[mican333]

I hold the view that human life is the most precious thing to possess in this world.
The act of murder removes the most precious thing to possess in this world.
There is no possibility of recovery, treatment, or counselling for the victim, no return to normal life, no privilege to breathe, to be happy or sad, to love or to hate, to feel pleausre or pain.
It is final.

Ironically, if you replace the word "murder" with "capital punishment", and "victim" with "condemned" your statement is a strong against against capital punishment.

And since innocent people are sometimes condemned, it's a very strong argument against capital punishment. You can let the wrongly convicted out of prison, but not out of the grave.

No removal from society as a punishment for murder, even where that is for life without the possibility of parole, can bring back that most precious thing to possess in this world for they do possess that which they have denied another, recovery, treatment, counselling, return to normal life, privilege to breathe, to be happy or sad, to love or to hate, to feel pleasue or pain.

And if you replace "removal from society" with "execution" that statement is likewise true.

I also believe in justice and that the primary purpose of justice is to punish those who would violate the law, including against murder.
Only the removal of life by the state, in the most humane way (the contrary way the perpetrator in many case has afforded their victim(s)), can balance the scales of justice with the punishment fitting the crime.

On what basis do you conclude that? Are you saying that only by receiving what one has given others can the scales of justice be balanced? If so, then should we sentence rapists to being raped? And why should the condemned be executed humanely if they were not humane in their murder (such as torturing someone to death)? If we hold that "one must receive what they gave" as the standard of justice, then refraining from torturing a torturer or mutilating a mutilator or raping a rapist is to fall short of justice.

So I think you need to explain further one why killing the killer is necessary for justice.

[MindTrap028]

One reason for capital punishment, is that it is perverse to force the victims to support a killer. This is true in many other crimes, that is why I am for banishment over any life sentence or equivalent.

As to the wrongly convicted. It is important to have a fair and just system. If we demand perfection then all punishment will become unjust. It is no more just to put a person in prison for 20 years wrongfully, then it is to give the Death penalty wrongly.
Because our system is prone to mistakes I am in favor of professional jurors. Especially those like the elderly and disabled. We could serve a double purpose by helping older people and disabled stay engaged in society, earn a living wage when otherwise they may not be able to. As well as taping into the wisdom that comes with age, and through education eliminate some of the BS of the system. We could also work towards removing any movie type coercion of jurors. Maybe also cut down on the time it takes to have trials as jurors would be pre-screened, though various tests we could develop.

o.k. off topic maybe.
So, killing may be necessary to prevent the injustice and cruelty to the victims by forcing them to support their attempted killers and killers of their children.

[SadElephant]

Why I would support capital punishment even if I didn't hold my current view that it is God-sanctioned for the state to do in the case of murder.

I hold the view that human life is the most precious thing to possess in this world.
The act of murder removes the most precious thing to possess in this world.
There is no possibility of recovery, treatment, or counselling for the victim, no return to normal life, no privilege to breathe, to be happy or sad, to love or to hate, to feel pleausre or pain.
It is final.
No removal from society as a punishment for murder, even where that is for life without the possibility of parole, can bring back that most precious thing to possess in this world for they do possess that which they have denied another, recovery, treatment, counselling, return to normal life, privilege to breathe, to be happy or sad, to love or to hate, to feel pleasue or pain.
I also believe in justice and that the primary purpose of justice is to punish those who would violate the law, including against murder.
Only the removal of life by the state, in the most humane way (the contrary way the perpetrator in many case has afforded their victim(s)), can balance the scales of justice with the punishment fitting the crime.
On the above basis I believe all murderers, where convicted beyond all reasonable doubt, ought to be killed by the state and I believe this only on the grounds above and without consideration of financial matters, value as a detterant, possibility of rehabilitation etc.

If you believe in justice and you believe that life is so important then it is clearly the most unjust of actions to have executed an innocent man. Even the chance of it happening should warrant a complete ban on capital punishments.

This is the case even when they have been convicted "beyond all reasonable doubt" since there are inherent flaws in the system of justice, criminal prosecution, investigation techniques, maintaining the chain of custody for the evidence. There is so much that could go wrong that it does not matter that there is no 'reasonable doubt' - that judgment could be based on flawed information.

So I don't think you can hold that life is precious but that some lives are less precious: is it not better if a man who has killed redeems himself in some way?

I think a better way is a life sentence but to allow assisted suicide so that a killer could choose to end his own life.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SoylentGreen]

Why I would support capital punishment even if I didn't hold my current view that it is God-sanctioned for the state to do in the case of murder.


When it comes to theism i can hold various positions depending on the view given. But the view that a law, especially about killing someone, is sanctioned by a god tends to put me into the position of militant atheist. I would actively appose any move by church or theists to bring a death penalty into law on the basis of "it's what god wants".

I hold the view that human life is the most precious thing to possess in this world.
The act of murder removes the most precious thing to possess in this world.
There is no possibility of recovery, treatment, or counselling for the victim, no return to normal life, no privilege to breathe, to be happy or sad, to love or to hate, to feel pleausre or pain.
It is final.
No removal from society as a punishment for murder, even where that is for life without the possibility of parole, can bring back that most precious thing to possess in this world for they do possess that which they have denied another, recovery, treatment, counselling, return to normal life, privilege to breathe, to be happy or sad, to love or to hate, to feel pleasue or pain.
I also believe in justice and that the primary purpose of justice is to punish those who would violate the law, including against murder.
Only the removal of life by the state, in the most humane way (the contrary way the perpetrator in many case has afforded their victim(s)), can balance the scales of justice with the punishment fitting the crime.
On the above basis I believe all murderers, where convicted beyond all reasonable doubt, ought to be killed by the state and I believe this only on the grounds above and without consideration of financial matters, value as a detterant, possibility of rehabilitation etc.

Offering a death penalty does nothing more than satisfy an urge for revenge. As does a justice system based on punishment. An eye for an eye religious style of justice has never changed anything. So it is time to try for something better than just punish those who offend.