That would be the problem. I agree with the death penalty assuming all possibility of error in the conviction can be excised. I want no chance of someone being executed when they are in fact innocent (as happens an awful lot, it seems) I sincerely doubt this will happen, and so my theoretical support of the death penalty turns into a practical opposition to it.
Sorry- I should clarify that sentiment.
A person accused is still innocent until proven guilty, and deserves every possible defence, every last bit of evidence, every possible chance to prove their innocence. I believe in using any means available to get to the truth of what happened.
But once that is done, all I really care about is getting the victim the closest thing they can have to justice- Whatever that may entail. There are some crimes that are simply unforgivable: It really doesnât matter whether the guilty party develops a conscience after the fact, the damage is done, and weâre talking about situations that canât be fixed or even mitigated. I donât think anything should be off the table.
Again, I think a distinction needs to be made between âviolentâ and âpredatoryâ.
Somebody that kills a guy in a bar fight or a robbery gone wrong can be redeemed or rehabilitated, and there can be a chance that new evidence will exhonerate him. Prison is a perfectly good option there.
Somebody who rapes and kills little kids is going to have a pattern. If you start digging, youâre not going to find proof of innocence, youâre going to find more bodies.
Oh you are just being squeamish. If reducing the murder rate was an objective, the US would ban guns, period. The excess murder rate in the US is entirely due to guns. Take out the gun deaths and the US murder rate drops to the same as the UK.
The real function of the death penalty is the same as reality TV: it gives the people whose lives are otherwise rather boring something to feel good about. So from a functional perspective it really doesnât matter if the person is innocent or guilty, thats not the point.
Some people just donât feel comfortable unless they are being governed by a person who enjoys an execution. So they elected George W. Bush (sort of) and were all surprised when he went and murdered half a million people in his war against Saddam.
The death penalty is a sexual fetish for sickos.
In a sense, the âjustâ punishment for rape would be to rape the rapistâbut I donât want my government engaging in rape under any circumstances. I feel the same way about torture and execution.
3 Likes
I think we all have actions which we feel strongly about the government not performing in our name, and I can respect your position on that, although I disagree with you on specifics- and I believe that âcruel and unusualâ can be subjective.
The fact is that we allow the use of deadly force by police under certain circumstances, we train an extensive military, our secret agencies support coups, assassinations, and wars in other countries. Ayn Rand argued that governmentâs sole right was the âmeasured application of forceâ, that such power not lie in the hands of a mob, while the far left wants to ban private gun ownership because they feel that power should lie with the police and military instead of untrained civilians- The far left and far right actually agree about something!
But by my own morals and reasoning, I would rather the governmnent take a human life by lawful execution than by war- Both are done in the interest of protecting the citizenry, but an execution targets an individual and is subject to an extremely high burden of proof, while war is chaotic and always leads to civilian deaths.
There are things that I too feel strongly about the government doing in my name. As a pluralistic society, weâre going to have these disagreements over where the line gets drawn- Under what circumstances may a police officer open fire on a suspect? Only if the suspect is armed? If they are strongly believed to be armed? Only if actually fired upon? In the defense of innocents? If they are visibly carrying something that may be used as a weapon? If they are in danger of escaping? If the suspect is armed, how many attempts are needed to resolve the situation before shooting?
I just happen to feel more comfortable with killing someone who has been proven guilty through due process than I do with killing someone in a war I may or may not support.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
