Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Becasue our judicial system, and its results, are fallible, I would suggest it is inappropriate to take a life based on the judgement of a system that has demonstrated previous errors in judgement, i.e., finding innocent parties guilty.
This keeps coming up. Confidence in the court system seems to be pretty low.
What about cases in which there is no degree of doubt?
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Justice, I believe, is/should be the idea that if one lives his/her life within the rules, he/she will be safe from violence/crime/etc.
You're not talking about justice, though, you're talking about security.
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
I have to agree with Tom, the Canadian experience has seen case after case overturned recently based on new DNA evidence not available at the time. At the time of the conviction in the 60's - 80's there was little or no doubt. If we still had the death penalty numerous innocent's would have died.
I agree on a practical level, there are too many problems with the death penalty to be assured it is applied fairly and in the appropriate circumstances. The hard question, though, is assuming it could be perfectly administered, is it moral? Is there a higher value than justice? I would argue yes. What do you think?
Assuming (there's that word) it could be applied fairly/correctly I would support it in the case of offenders with no redeeming value to society. Is their life worth any more incarcerated for life vs being put to death. The moral question is how do you deal with someone with no morals, compassion etc. in the case of the most extreme offenders? Do we lower ourselves to their level by our actions.Not if they are given a fair trial which is far less than what they gave their victim(s).
I would support it in the case of offenders with no redeeming value to society.
I have big problems with this. Now you aren't talking about the sanctity of life, or the value of an individual human life. Quite the opposite- now human life has worth only if it serves the greater good.
Do we lower ourselves to their level by our actions.
Dealing out justice to a murderer in no way lowers us to his level. And it actually confirms our belief that he is a real person, an accountable human being, an individual who we're going to hold responsible for his actions, rather than a mechanical unit which is to be controlled- either jailed or exterminated- merely for the utilitarian benefit to society.
(And I repeat: There are, in fact, cases in which guilt is unquestionable. The two I mentioned earlier still stand out in my mind.)
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
First point I guess is your spin on it, value, worth only if it serves the greater good. I suppose it serves the greater good in some sort of eye for an eye kind of way the point I was making is if they are of no use to society what is the difference between life in prison and the death penalty. Therefore an extreme crime warrants an extreme punishment.
You misinterpreted, or likely I poorly explained, my point we are saying the same thing. It was a rhetorical question and I don't subscribe to it myself.
point I was making is if they are of no use to society what is the difference between life in prison and the death penalty.
And the point I'm making is that's the wrong way to look at it, and dangerous. The question isn't whether the criminal is of "use to society," it's whether or not they justly deserve the death penalty. Big difference.
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Not that big of a difference in alot of cases. A viscious, remorseless murderer is of no use to society and also justly deserves the death penalty no?