The Death Penalty

[Klaus]

? AI
The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment

It violates the right to life

It is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent. It has never been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments

More than three countries a year on average have abolished the death penalty for all crimes in the past decade. Once abolished, the death penalty is seldom reintroduced. Since 1990, more than 35 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or, having previously abolished it for ordinary crimes, have gone on to abolish it for all crimes.

By April 2003, 76 countries and territories had abolished the death penalty for all crimes. A further 15 countries had abolished it for all but exceptional crimes such as wartime crimes. Twenty-one countries were abolitionist in practice: ie had not carried out any executions for the past 10 years and are believed to have a policy or established practice of not carrying out executions. At present there are 112 countries which are abolitionist in law or practice and 83 countries which retain and use the death penalty.

In 2002 at least 1,526 people were executed in 31 countries. At least 3,248 people were sentenced to death in 67 countries. These figures include only cases known to Amnesty International; the true figures were certainly higher. The vast majority of executions worldwide are carried out in a tiny handful of countries. In 2002, 81 percent of all known executions took place in China, Iran and the USA.

In China, limited and incomplete records available to Amnesty International indicated that at least 1,060 people were executed, although the true number was believed to be much higher. At least 113 executions were carried out in Iran. Seventy-one people were executed in the USA.

Here are some more links:
http://web.amnesty.org/web/links.nsf/nonAIsites!OpenView&Start=1&Count=300&Expand=8#8

To me death penalty by a government is the inhumane, imagine what you would think about a criminal who would arest you in a cell and tell you that he will kill you - the date of murdering will always be moved to the future, you are allowed to write him letters and ask for mercy...
While you can't compare these situations directly you can compare what you do to the ones who are sentenced to death - and there are allways some percent of innocent people. There also is allways a chance of (political) abuse even in advanced civilizations like the US (remember Nicola Sacco Bartolomeo Vanzetti)

i'd be curious if there are any pro-death penalty people here.

Klaus

 

[Johnny Swallow]

Sure I'm pro-death penalty, Anti-abortion. Is that a paradox? Hypocritical? I don't think so, but if I dug deep enough I could make that case. I'm wondering if anyone is pro-DP/pro-abortion or anti-DP/anti-abortion. I've never known one, at least that would seem like less of a paradox.

I have the standpoint that if our society is based on freedom, and the restriction of said freedom. If you kill someone I see that you have violated their freedom and your own freedom is no longer valid. If that leads to a death penalty I'm not opposed to it in theory. Each case is different but the main argument is still about the basic murderer gets executed type of case. (Not killing in self-defense/of pulling the switch/sticking the needle in the inmate/war etc) Aren't those killing as well? It seems to me that they initiated the process that ultimately resulted in their punishment so I don't have much sympathy for them.

And an unknown number of people have been falsely executed yes...but at the same time people have been falsely imprisoned. So should we just not punish anyone for crime so that we don't risk punishing 'innocent' people? That leads down a road of it's own.

Is it even our place to judge? Who am I to play God? Well I have to make judgements based on the principles that I guide my life with. If we as a society our not willing to make judgements then we have failed.

I've always been curious as to why it is such a big issue, there are so many other human rights violations on a larger scale to innocent people that the few hundred hardened criminals that are executed in the US per year seem like a strange choice to be so up in arms about.

And one last thing: the US is not that advanced.

 

[deep]

I'm wondering if anyone is anti-DP/anti-abortion.

John Paul II and many of his devout followers.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I'm anti-dp and anti-abortion

 

[Saracene]

And an unknown number of people have been falsely executed yes...but at the same time people have been falsely imprisoned. So should we just not punish anyone for crime so that we don't risk punishing 'innocent' people? That leads down a road of it's own.

The big difference is, a wrongly imprisoned man may still be let out of the prison; a wrongly executed man is beyond saving.

 

[Anoosh Vs. God]

I'm anti death penalty and anti abortion.

 

[Klaus]

Saracene is absolutely right!

I also think that governments should be a good example for their citizens and show that killing someone isn't a solution.

Klaus

 

[Screaming Flower]

i'm anti-death penalty and anti-abortion.

 

[Anthony]

At the risk of making the thread sound monotonous, I'm anti-death penalty and anti-abortion.

Ant.

 

[melon]

Add me to the monotony...lol.

Melon

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I also think that governments should be a good example for their citizens and show that killing someone isn't a solution.

Klaus

Once again, exactly.

Adults preach to kids that killing is wrong, we shouldn't be violent and all that...then they turn around and kill, or support killing.

I'm anti-death penalty and pro-abortion...but then again, I don't consider abortion murder.

But that's a whole other topic.

Angela

 

[anitram]

I'm anti-death penalty and pro-CHOICE. Different from pro-abortion.

 

[adamswildhoney]

i'm anti-death penalty and anti-abortion.

same here!!

 

[pax]

I think everyone is anti-abortion. Nobody likes the thought of abortion. I am pro-choice, yes, but also anti-abortion in that I believe abortions should be made much rarer.

Oh yeah, and anti-death-penalty too.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Sorry, pax, but if you think abortion should be legal, you may not technically be "pro-abortion", but you're certainly not "anti-abortion".

 

[pax]

Of course I am. I'm against abortions. I don't think they should ever happen. But I recognize that in some cases, they are necessary and, yes, even justifiable. I'm also against eminent domain, taxes, pollution, highway construction, aspartame, deforestation, and motor vehicles in general. But they exist, and at least some of those things are unavoidable facts of life.

I'm much more concerned with trying to create a society in which abortion is no longer necessary, rather than simply trying to make a decision which should ultimately lie with a woman and her doctor illegal.

 

[deep]

I am anti-adultery, anti-lying, anti-smoking and many other things that I believe should not be illegal.

I certainly am not pro any of the above.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I'm much more concerned with trying to create a society in which abortion is no longer necessary, rather than simply trying to make a decision which should ultimately lie with a woman and her doctor illegal.

What is so difficult about making abortion unncessary? It's as simple as people not having sex unless they're ready to deal with the possible consequences. That's a part of maturity.

Also, where the decision should lie is at the center of the whole debate. I happen to disagree with you. If I am right, if a fetus is indeed a living human being, then the choice most definitely does not lie with the woman, unless of course, you believe a woman should have a right to commit murder.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Sorry to sidetrack so blatantly here, but 80's its not a matter of abstinence. Safe sex and sex education are more realistic ways of reaching pax's ideals on less instance of abortion. Few people can abstain. It is a whole lot easier to accept that people might have risky sex, and work with that, rather than eliminating the act altogether. Which I know is not the point you are trying to make, And I know that 100% abstinence is THE only surefire safe sex methond, but its not realistic. We gotta work with how things are.

In a broader sense, relating more to the topic though, killing people has many names in our society. I think if we are that sure that murderers should be sentenced to death, we have to look at least at how we define murder. It is known under the names of murder, manslaughter and abortion to name a few. So if we think killing of convicted criminals is a just action, then can we keep accepting these others as something different? In a borad sense, murder is killing someone. Simple as that. If you support the execution of criminals, why not anyone else who may end someone's life? Such as a case of a woman aborting a pregnancy she cannot continue with, or a store clerk who kills the robber before he shoots him? The only difference is really that the criminal is a 'bad person'. They're no more or less guilty of actually taking a life than the other, so how can it be ok for one and not the other when the only real difference is the nature of the person who ended the life?

That is my main reason for not supporting the death penalty. Simplistic perhaps, but when it comes down to it, in black and white it is ending a life. I dont think we can base a view of acceptance on the fact that such criminals have a different mind set to those in other situations where they may end someone's life.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Add me to the anti-death penalty and anti-abortion list.

 

[sharky]

back to the death penalty, I suggest you read this series.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/dp/chi-justicederailed-htmlstory.htmlstory

 

[Klaus]

thanks sharky for the link, i didn't read the articles itself because i have no subsription to the chicaco tribune (yet) but the abstracts of the articles are verry interesting.

Klaus

 

[80sU2isBest]

Safe sex and sex education are more realistic ways of reaching pax's ideals on less instance of abortion. Few people can abstain. It is a whole lot easier to accept that people might have risky sex, and work with that, rather than eliminating the act altogether. Which I know is not the point you are trying to make, And I know that 100% abstinence is THE only surefire safe sex methond, but its not realistic. We gotta work with how things are.

You say it's not possible. It sure is possible. I haven't had sex in 13 years. 13 years. But in this society, have we come to accept that people are animals, unable to control themselves ? I guess so. That's what we see on TV after all. That's what we hear on the radio. No one acts maturely anymore, no one takes responsibility.

 

[nbcrusader]

Few people can abstain.

Everyone can abstain. Few people want to.

 

[sharky]

thanks sharky for the link, i didn't read the articles itself because i have no subsription to the chicaco tribune (yet) but the abstracts of the articles are verry interesting.

Klaus

I think the subscription is free -- all you have to do is sign up. the series won a Pulitzer and was one of the main driving forces behind Gov. Ryan's decision to abolish the death penalty in Illinois.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Sorry to sidetrack so blatantly here, but 80's its not a matter of abstinence. Safe sex and sex education are more realistic ways of reaching pax's ideals on less instance of abortion. Few people can abstain. It is a whole lot easier to accept that people might have risky sex, and work with that, rather than eliminating the act altogether. Which I know is not the point you are trying to make, And I know that 100% abstinence is THE only surefire safe sex methond, but its not realistic. We gotta work with how things are.

In a broader sense, relating more to the topic though, killing people has many names in our society. I think if we are that sure that murderers should be sentenced to death, we have to look at least at how we define murder. It is known under the names of murder, manslaughter and abortion to name a few. So if we think killing of convicted criminals is a just action, then can we keep accepting these others as something different? In a borad sense, murder is killing someone. Simple as that. If you support the execution of criminals, why not anyone else who may end someone's life? Such as a case of a woman aborting a pregnancy she cannot continue with, or a store clerk who kills the robber before he shoots him? The only difference is really that the criminal is a 'bad person'. They're no more or less guilty of actually taking a life than the other, so how can it be ok for one and not the other when the only real difference is the nature of the person who ended the life?

That is my main reason for not supporting the death penalty. Simplistic perhaps, but when it comes down to it, in black and white it is ending a life. I dont think we can base a view of acceptance on the fact that such criminals have a different mind set to those in other situations where they may end someone's life.

Exactly.

I should have said "pro-choice" instead of "pro-abortion"-that's what I meant, I'm pro-choice.

I personally would never think of having an abortion unless in a really screwed up situation...but I'm all for women having the right to make that decision. I understand they have their reasons, I understand that it's THEIR body, THEIR business (everyone else can just butt out), so...if they have an abortion...okay.

Anywho, back on track with the death penalty...Angela Harlem makes another good reason as to why the death penalty is wrong.

Angela

 

[nbcrusader]

It is interesting how selective we are in the approval of an individual's choice in their own matters. There are plenty of private matters where we do not give the individual choice.

Looking at it another way, would you sit quietly while a parent started hitting their child? You may think corporal punishment is wrong; but, its their choice.

And the choice argument is soundly denounced when it comes to schooling a child.

Either abortion is wrong (killing another person) or it is not. "Choice" is nothing more than semantics.

 

[Klaus]

sharky:
yes, but i had no time when i checked the articles, i was working and just waiting that the big computer would finish his calculation job

I allways thought there would be many pro death penalty people in the US. But either that changed, this thread is flooded by international writers or u2 fans have simply a different view on that

Klaus

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

It is interesting how selective we are in the approval of an individual's choice in their own matters. There are plenty of private matters where we do not give the individual choice.

Looking at it another way, would you sit quietly while a parent started hitting their child? You may think corporal punishment is wrong; but, its their choice.

The difference is this: With child abuse, someone's life is in danger. With abortion, since some people don't consider it to be murder and don't consider the fetus to be an actual person until the day it is born (like me), a life isn't in danger.

Originally posted by nbcrusader
Either abortion is wrong (killing another person) or it is not. "Choice" is nothing more than semantics.

Abortion isn't that black and white an issue, though. Everyone has their own idea of when life actually begins, and some people consider it murder, others don't, and things like that.

Angela

 

[nbcrusader]

Abortion isn't that black and white an issue, though. Everyone has their own idea of when life actually begins, and some people consider it murder, others don't, and things like that.

So, the principle is - as long as we disagree on the subject matter, we can each choose what we deem best?

Using the example - a parent might think the corporal punishment is in the best interest of the child. Is it now choice?

I realize we can debate until the Second Coming on when life begins. But, can a person who believes abortion is the taking of a life (murder) still leave it as someone elses choice?