ext_97971 (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
enders-shadow.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2009-12-10 01:24 pm
enders-shadow.livejournal.com) wrote in talkpolitics2009-12-10 01:24 pm
Entry tags:
(no subject)
I'm going to attempt to argue a theory here; many may jump on me for the real-world practice that goes on, but this is not about that.
In theory, I support the death penalty. This is an eye-for-an-eye sort of justice.
If you take anothers life, delibrately, in cold blood, in a pre-meditated fashion, you have lost your right to live, IMO.
Now, since this penalty is to be administered by the govt, there ought be some strict guidelines. Here is what I propose:
Either:
A) You are caught in the act by the authorities (but the person dies before he/she can be rushed to the hospital)
B) There is overwhelming evidence against you--personally I feel that four criteria would be met for this:
fingerprint
DNA
eye-witness
video of event (audio is a plus, but I feel these four are sufficient to ensure that the guilty party is the one being punished)
These strict requirements, are, to my knowledge, not required anyplace where the death penalty is enacted. Thus my theoretical support of the death penalty does not support the real-world way in which the death penalty is applied in the US (or elsewhere)
I recognize that in the US (and prolly elsewhere too) the death penalty is applied in a biased manner and that in too many cases the wrong person is executed. I feel that the criteria I laid out are sufficient to ensure no wrongful executions -- though, of course, I am open to hear contrary views on that.
Let us put aside issues of economic cost (which vary) and issues of how to execute (which vary) and focus on the question of: "Is execution for murder an acceptable punishment?"
I feel that it is; I feel that one forfits their right to live when they steal that right from another. I believe in human rights that are inherent but not absolute--the human rights that we all have are what we start with, but we do not necessarily retain them forever. We can lose them.
Thoughts?
In theory, I support the death penalty. This is an eye-for-an-eye sort of justice.
If you take anothers life, delibrately, in cold blood, in a pre-meditated fashion, you have lost your right to live, IMO.
Now, since this penalty is to be administered by the govt, there ought be some strict guidelines. Here is what I propose:
Either:
A) You are caught in the act by the authorities (but the person dies before he/she can be rushed to the hospital)
B) There is overwhelming evidence against you--personally I feel that four criteria would be met for this:
fingerprint
DNA
eye-witness
video of event (audio is a plus, but I feel these four are sufficient to ensure that the guilty party is the one being punished)
These strict requirements, are, to my knowledge, not required anyplace where the death penalty is enacted. Thus my theoretical support of the death penalty does not support the real-world way in which the death penalty is applied in the US (or elsewhere)
I recognize that in the US (and prolly elsewhere too) the death penalty is applied in a biased manner and that in too many cases the wrong person is executed. I feel that the criteria I laid out are sufficient to ensure no wrongful executions -- though, of course, I am open to hear contrary views on that.
Let us put aside issues of economic cost (which vary) and issues of how to execute (which vary) and focus on the question of: "Is execution for murder an acceptable punishment?"
I feel that it is; I feel that one forfits their right to live when they steal that right from another. I believe in human rights that are inherent but not absolute--the human rights that we all have are what we start with, but we do not necessarily retain them forever. We can lose them.
Thoughts?
no subject
Do you have anything substantial to add?
no subject
somehow your post and comment do not go well together
no subject
Not to mention: yes, tampering with evidence is possible and it can be planted; are we to then assume that all evidence is planted? Are we going to remove the element of trust we have in our police? Is DNA+video survellience evidence going to be discounted because it could be tampered with?
no subject
no subject
no subject
I don't see these four criteria standing the test of time as technology enables individuals (or organizations (or insiders)) to falsify or otherwise make things seem as they are not.
no subject
no subject