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
On top of that, there's the moral argument always going on in a culture that produces certain moral standards for that society, and it may be different than another society.
Based on those, we can conclude that 'not killing (innocent) people' is a pretty standard moral. However, as was said so elequently, opinions are like assholes. If we're going to make judgments on what is innocent, or what the exceptions are, are we going to let other people justify it too?
Are we going to accept 'oh well he stole my watch, I needed to kill him'? Or how about 'if they're not christian they're not an innocent', or maybe 'if they're gay they're not innocent'.
I mean isn't this the exact reason why we value free speech? because we can't always assume we're the ones that will have it guaranteed if people start putting conditions on it?
Pretty sure it is. So why does it work for free speech but not for something as solumn and permanent as killing a person? If free speech is impinged upon, we can fight to restore it. If you're killed for not being what society considers innocent, well that's just too bad.
So isn't the haziness of morality exactly the argument against state sanctioned killing of other humans?
no subject
That has nothing to do with morality??? What?
the stability and continuance of society, which has nothing to do with morals whatsoever.
It has everything to do with the stability and continuance of society.
no subject
And AD&D is a game, it's not actually how society is run ;) It is necessarily simplified in order to fit into a game system. I wouldn't try to apply it to real life.
no subject
no subject
Wait. No.
*enjoys adult substance of alternate variety*
no subject
Not the kind of substance I was thinking of.