| Subject: Re: The Death Penalty |
Author:
Vivien
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 13:27:00 06/09/01 Sat
In reply to:
anon
's message, "Re: The Death Penalty" on 11:49:26 06/09/01 Sat
>How would you categorize someone who kills someone in self->defense?
>The law says that that specific act of killing is >permissible act under certain circumstances. Law >enforcement officers can use deadly force under certain
>circumstances. Are those two acts of killing >institutionalized murder?
No, I wouldn’t call them institionalised murder except perahps in cases where police officers kill when, clearly, deadly force was not needed. I think most reasonable people would draw a distinction between killing in self-defence, and strapping an individual to table and administering a lethal injection. This form of punishment to me is as cold-blooded as any murder.
>The idea that the Death Penalty should not be imposed >because a mistake may be made is an old argument. No >society or set of laws is perfect. Mistakes are always >being made. Do we just shrug our shoulders and say "that's >the way it goes?" Of course not, we work to improve those >laws and the system.
It may be an old argument but it is an extremely valid one. However, I don’t denounce it on this basis alone. I’m against the death penalty in any circumstances, regardless of the crime committed. I’m also concerned that it appears to work most against those who are poor and from minority groups.
>If a police officer is found to have used deadly force >when it wasn't necessary there are procedures to follow >and possible punishments. We don't say "Please, never use >deadly force again."
>We need to do the same with the death penalty. If a >mistake is made and "deadly force" in this case is an >execution, than those who made the mistake need to be held >accountable just as in any "deadly force" case.
How often are people who make 'mistakes' held accountable? Who exactly should be held accountable? If you are deemed responsible for the wrongful execution of an individual should you too suffer the death penalty?
>If you want to argue the Death Penalty is wrong on the >moral issue that ALL killing is wrong, that's fine. But >don't bring in the "what if a mistake is made issue" >because no "Civilized" Society can ever run without making >mistakes.
I agree and I’ve said as much in another post. However, should society risk this kind of terrible ‘mistake’, someone’s death?
>The Death Penalty is a legal killing under the law. We as >a society decide what is or isn't a legal killing. Right >now, the Death Penalty is legal on a federal level and on >many state levels. It's a punishment that a society >imposes to defend itself from what it sees as a heinous >crime. That self-defense may emcompass the idea of revenge >or justice or setting an example, in addition to punishing >the invididual who committed it.
>If all killing is murder, than the Death Penalty >is "institutionalized murder", as is killing in self >defense, use of deadly force, hitting someone with your >car, being a soldier in a war. Killing is killing, murder >is murder. Of course not, we as a society define what is >and isn't murder. We do agree that killing is possible and >legal and at times necessary. We don't rejoice in that >fact but we accept that it happens and is at times >permissible and necessary.
No, this is where I think you are wrong. Killing at times as you say is unavoidable, during war or perhaps when defending oneself, but the systematic execution of individuals is VERY AVOIDABLE.
>The Death Penalty extends from that concept, that under >the law, killing is at times acceptable. We can alter that >as we can all our laws but it needs to be done with more >reasoning than "institutionalised murder" or "how >barbaric" which seem to be emotional catch phrases to >incite or put down a specific society rather than words >intended for a back and forth discussion of ideas.
You make not like the phrases “institutionalised murder” and “barbaric”, but I’m afraid they are accurate descriptions when it comes to the death penalty and I make no apologies for using them. They are emotive, but I think they are needed, because it is precisely the cold and clinical nature of execution that is so horrifying. I am vehemently against the death penalty, but it is not my intention to put down a whole society. I visit the States often, and there is much I find to admire and respect.
>anon -
>because I'm kicking myself for even getting involved
>in this thread
There's no need to do that. Although topics of discussion can become very lively at the AQ, for the most part, people respect one another's views. However, I do admit I push my luck at times.;)
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 