Welcome to Gaia! ::

There are different reasons for the death penalty. Ah, darn you, you're making me get out my notes. It is a punishment. There are reasons for punishment. Ready? Let's go! okay, sorry, sugar...anyway...

1. Retribution - punishment in return for wrong-doing. It's deserved. Which is what you're talking about.

2. Prevention - prevent from repeating the offense....like, you know, how they used to cut off your hand if you used it to steal? Can't use that hand for it anymore.... Or imprisonment so they don't do it for the time being.

3. Deterrence - keep people from doing it.

4. Reform - punishment in order to induce people to conform to standards of behavior that they ignored before.

In the case of the death penalty, which is another system I feel needs reform (surprise surprise.... xp ) it's hard...it goes case by case.

Retribution alone is no excuse for it, in my opinion, locking someone away for life for a single murder where you're forcing them into unhappy conditions instead of a short and sweet good-bye world is much more fitting....let them live with the consequences as long as possible. I'm just cruel like that. This also allows for prevention. They can't murder people...well they can but they can't do it so easily. There's chance for them to reform, and it keeps people from not killing....not a great life, prison. Life in prison is cheaper, and for most people, it seems the best solution. It also keep suicidal killers....who aren't gutsy enough to kill themselves but will kill others....from killing so they can be put to death and it wouldn't be suicide, technically.

But....how about convicted murderers who escape from prison and kill again? It is a matter of public safety that something be done about them. Also, there are people who only keep from murdering others because they fear for their own lives. In death penalty cases, there is no more chance for reform, of course, you can't really be told, hey, you're dead. "Oh now I'm a new person!" No. You're dead, hell or heaven, wherever you are, it's not on earth and nothing that can count as reform by human standards.

The death penalty I think should only be used when they're CERTAIN that a person is a murderer, who will kill again if given the chance and who attempts escaping prison. That's my personal point of view, but that's because I have no moral qualms about killing in self defense, and that does include people who will kill again if given the chance.

So the punishment for the fetus's crime, existing....

1. Retribution - Goshdarnit, why didn't it just not exist? Oh wait...it couldn't...
2. Prevention - I suppose you can't really suck the reserves of your mother if you're dead.
3. Deterrence - Erm....unless people have REALLY smart sperm and eggs, doubtful.
4. No chance whatsoever for reform.

The only possible reason for punishment is prevention. But, if we shot every robber, they wouldn't be able to steal again. The punishment doesn't fit the crime, though, does it?

If however the fetus is threatening the mother's life, well....that's debateable among prolifers, with me though I feel that it's a question of self defense and she's got a right to defend her life.

I think I'm going to be against the death penalty... I have no idea why.

I maintain that all humans have a right to defend their lives, this includes the death penalty being an option in some cases, as well as abortion an option in some cases. Those cases, however, are few and far between. Both should be a last resort, as these are both final, irreversible death sentences. But they should still, in my opinion, be an option if they are needed.

It was called Australia. The problem is, what happens when they develop ways to get back to mainland and harm others? First of all. Secondly, it's not necessary for more than a few cases. If it comes down to it, I'd rather I do what's necessary to keep the innocent alive. My idea of retribution is a long, unhappy life. I'm just evil like that. Death being dealt out is only necessary for defense, in my opinion, because it fails miserably for retribution. You can kill someone, but that doesn't bring back who you lost, or teach that person what it's like to lose someone. It isn't fair to kill their son or mother or friend or whatever, because you'd be harming the innocent, and killing them is more punishment to their family than it is to them. It isn't really equal retribution, and it doesn't change the fact that someone's gone forever. It makes it no better to double the count, not logically. Emotionally, for a time, maybe. It can never make up for what was lost, though, can it? In some cases, killing one saves many. It might not be up to humans to decide whether the one is more valuable than the many or vice versa, because well, then you get into trouble. But there should be some way to defend society against a danger that can be dealt with in no other way. The probability of such a situation occurring is slim, but it's possible, it has happened, and it is not hypocritical of me to support the use of the death penalty in certain cases, especially not since I support the use of abortion in certain cases. THese cases are RARE because they are the cases where killing is the only possible way to save more lives.

In the case of certain pregnancies, they're both innocents, it's a moral dilema. Should nothing be done, both lives will be lost. Should an abortion be performed, one will be lost, but one will be saved. My own moral structure tells me that a woman should be able to defend her life in those situations, just as my own moral structure tells me that when a murderer has escaped from captivity, killed again, and been recaptured, if there is no other way to stop him or her from being a threat, death should be a viable option. Both of these are final solutions to serious problems that end very sadly and should only be used once every other option has been tried.

It makes perfect sense for me to support the death penalty and be against frivilous abortions. In fact, it kinda appalls me that I group people who have killed and are willingly a threat to society with people who have no choice whatsoever and are forced to be a threat to a woman's life. Let's face it, a criminal can say, Alright, won't kill again, got it, and live up to it. A fetus cannot say, Alright, I'll stop growing, got it, and stop growing in order to keep a woman alive. A criminal chooses to endanger people. An innocent in the womb does not.

It is no more hypocritical for me to support the death penalty in select cases than it is for someone who is prochoice to be against the death penalty. That's not hypocritical, either.


For those who are getting kinda confused with why I said that since I'm prolife, well...:

Since fetuses are not people to prochoicers, the deaths of millions of them a year aren't fatalities. People who have chosen to commit crimes, however, are people to them, and shouldn't be killed. They've chosen to do what they've done, so it's very fitting that prochoice deems that they should not be killed for the choice they made in killing.

It's not hypocritical. If it was, I'd be worried. At least their point is clear. Fetuses=/=people to them, but criminals do because they've been born.

Death is not a matter that should be taken lightly. Sometimes it is necessary to kill to defend yourself and your family, though, and if that's what it takes, so be it. I don't like death. I don't like killing, and it would certainly be killing, it would be murder morally from any viewpoint I take it. Sometimes, though, the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, to me. It is perfectly reasonable that I feel morally justifiable in supporting the death penalty and abortion in certain cases. Now if I supported one without the other, maybe I'd worry about how much sense it made, but I support both, because I value life. If a criminal chooses to get (him/her)self killed by being a threat, at least that person had a chance for redemption. A fetus aborted in the womb has no way to stop harming the mother and has no choice in the matter. That is much sadder to me.

Ha! You make it sound like all Australians in modern times are murderers and rapists, who regularly make trips to other countries in order to spread their terror... Mwahahaha!

didn't mean it like that....they put all the debtors in Georgia you know....

Geez, if you're gonna call her Kate, call me Andy.

I mean, I thought we were close enough to go by first names, aren't we? gonk
Ah, but the difference is that in a courtroom the jurors, I'm almost certain, -have- to pay attention to each the case of the defendent as well, and weigh the issues. In the case of an abortion, Pro-Choicers might claim that you -should- but no one is forcing them to.

But then again, that's exactly the problem. They see it as a crime to be conceived -How could you? Geez...-However, do we? I'm pretty sure this part only has to do with being Pro-Life and Pro-Death penalty, and we don't see conception as a crime. At least, I'm pretty sure we don't. o.O

Different people can see different things as a crime to them, but that doesn't make it so-Nor does it allow them to take action and punish the culprit. I can't claim that your standing on my lawn is a criminal offense, and shoot to kill.

Well, actually, I can as long as I own the land... But in places besides Texas I can't. xp

Ah, but as I said before, we are talking about why being Pro-Life and being Pro-Death penalty are right v. wrong. In a perfectly anti-abortion world, it wouldn't be predetermined that abortion was ok. You are trying to link them based on the fact that both of them are legal and acceptable, and using an assumed "If one is ok, the other is" which simply makes it impossible to argue with you.

Not to mention that it hasn't been pre-determined that it is a reason to be put to death; They don't believe they are putting a -person- to death. They believe they are just killing some parasite. So their main backbone-reason is that it's some weird thing that, they think, is where it shouldn't be and they want it removed.