Welcome to Gaia! ::

Hello, I know this is a very old thread, but I wanted to say my opinion on this theme. I find this an important issue and everybody should think about this theme over and over again.

I'm totally against the death penalty:
I could take Kant for my argumentation, but he has been already quoted in this thread, so I like to state something else I believe in.
We are humans, if someone dies, get's killed or murdered we cannot give them their life again. We cannot say: "this person derserves to live, so i make him alive" (I really hope this will stay so forever, humans are already messing too much with nature...)
We cannot do anything about it, sentencing the killer to death will not bring the beloved person back to life.
The fact that we cannot give life to the ones we want to live, takes the right of deciding over ending others peoples lifes away from us.(to make myself clear: I don't talk about giving birth to a new life here, I talk about already existing life, human especially.)
As long as we can't make people alive again we are not to take other peoples life's. We have no right of saying: This person deserves to live, this not.
This is a moral law I believe in, because it's a law for me this goes for all situations. If someone kills my mother, I might wish him dead, but I know I have no right kill him. Just because this person acted against morality, I should not become unmoral as well.

From the buddhist perspective, the death penalty is totally against my belief of not killing other being by will. We are not to harm any other being, when sentencing someone to death, you had they choice of not doing it. Through this you become a killer even, if you are not the performing it in person.

These are my personal beliefs and views, you don't have to share them, I just ask you to think about them and post your own. As I said I consider it an important issue and think this thread should become "alive" again...

I just realized that I elaborated on Kant's categorical imperative incorrectly. The way that I have done so sets it up so that the categorical imperative is an argument from the consequentialist ethical perspective. This is not the way that Kant would've wanted it to be taken. Instead, Kant argued that we should follow it because it is logically correct, which is regardless of the consequence that one wants.

That is to say, for example, we should not litter in the Grand Canyon because it would exhaust the purpose that it serves. Meaning, if we litter in the Grand Canyon, then we must assume that everyone else will. If everyone litters in the Grand Canyon, then that defeats the purpose that the Grand Canyon serves (to look pretty). It is not the case that we decide to not litter in the Grand Canyon because we do not want to face the consequence of everyone littering in the Grand Canyon which would make it look like s**t.

This might sound a bit offensive, but I think they should take every murderer and child rapist, throw them on a deserted island thousands of miles fromany sort of land with no supplies except weapons. I don't have anything agianst the death pealty as long as it's used properly. If someone goes out and uzis out a shopping center, killing at least 20-50 people, send him to Wesir, let Him administer a really appropriate justice for the guy in the afterlife. And if you want a really practical reason, what if the guy gets out and starts back up killing agian because of predjudice or whatever and puts you and your family, your CHILDREN in danger?
And I agree with toxic. Life should mean Life. And not everyone CAN be rehabed. Some people are too sick, twisted or closed minded that it goes in one ear and out the other, and then they use it to get out and start back up agian, and it has happened, more than you might want to realise. Those who can be rehabed, all the better, but not everyone can. And the system can be used, abused and loop-holed. Just looking at this in a realistic sense.

the problem with the death penalty is that it's so final. And there have been so many people who have been on death row and have been exonerated of the crime that put them there. A lot have been exonerated thanks to DNA testing. Sacco and Vanzetti is a famous case from the 20's or 30's that got me interested in the death penalty. And interested in being a criminal lawyer. I love Clarence Darrow, one of my heroes. Anyway, there's also a play that was made into a movie entitled The Exonerated about five or six people who were on death row for crimes they didn't commit.

Ever heard of the WM3, the West Memphis Three? They are three teenagers in Arkansas who have been jailed for 14 years for killing and mutilating three 8 year olds. they have denied doing it all this time, though one of them did confess. He has an IQ of 70 and was interrogated for `12 hours by police, so the confession is somewhat questionable. I don't know if they did it or not. But a lot of people believe they are innocent. And remember the Lacrosse players accused of raping that dancer and they didn't do it. so, is it possible that the court system doesn't work? Obviously.

There's a line: better to let a guilty man go free than to let an innocent man go to prison. Problem is that in some places in the U.S., that's not true.

But at the same time, if you kill my brother or some friends, you deserve to die. So does Sue Smith, who undeniably killed her small children by drowning them. Certain serial killers who definitely did the crime should be put to death. There are people who were put into prison for murder that are still killing peopole in prison. These people deserve to die. Sorry.

I am against the death penalty. I mean to kill a killer would make us no better then them..I am NOT saying we woudl be evil, but we woudl lower ourselves to their level, and its pretty hipacritical ( spelling) . But this is just my opinion.