|
I guess a few things come to mind as I read through this convoluted thread:
I am taking a risk at saying that most of the people in this world who commit crimes like peds and murders and torture don't have the same concept of human life that the majority of people do...meaning that they might not have the same level of respect. So, if these people don't respect others lives, why should they respect their own and be deterred from committing a crime for which the punishment would be death? I just cannot believe that the death penalty would deter most criminals from making choices to commit crimes, de facto. Personally, if I knew that eating spaghetti was a crime punishable by death and I HAD to eat spaghetti....because I just had to...I would sooner suffer death than the squalor that is a life in prison. But, then I am not crazy enough to kill and rape people. I don't think the issue here is really "should there be a death penalty". I think it is more of an issue of "what will stop crime more quickly and easily". To think this is possible with the flawed but better-than-anarchy system is like believing the tooth fairy will deliver you a winning lottery ticket.
The argument about the families' wishes for revenge as a response to anti-death penalty arguments is clearly an emotional diversion. However painful, horrible and gutwrenching the crime and the sufferings of the families of victims, as a system, we can't rely on those emotions to determine the outcome of another's life. The facts are really what matter, and if the facts simply don't prove (beyond the shadow of a doubt) what some people believe, that just is not good enough. That is why we have appeals, and due process, etc. If we didn't, anyone could get arrested for anything they "may" have possibly done and forget the idea of being proven...the emotions of the victim would be enough to convince a judge that "this person needs to be put to death". If that were enough, the emotions of the judge, the lawyer, the innocent bystander, the anybody-who-gets-a-newspaper would have precedence over the facts and that is where our entire system goes from flawed to completely arbitrary. We may as well get out our pitchforks and nooses, at that point. At least we *have* a system, flawed or not.
Who are we to determine who dies? Who is anyone? Nobody has that "right". That is why it is unlawful to kill a person...because nobody nobody nobody has the right to take a life of another person. Even our judicial system (which is made up of people, also). If we are going to make a law for the civilization, it should be applicable to all. No killing for us, no killing for the government. (don't get me started on the war)
Self defense is a different notion. It isn't killing, it is protecting. When a situation warrants self defense, no it is not always necessary to kill a person to stop them from doing something, but if killing them is the ONLY way to stop a man from raping or killing you or someone else, then that shouldn't even be debated. But the *facts* should be able to prove that the person was defending themselves, and not guilty of just plain killing.
|