Philosoft

Petty theives aren't innocent either. Why can't we kill them?

PopeInTheWoods

Aaargh! Of course I don't notice the current thread in MF&P on this very topic until after I started this one. Sorry.

Andy

yguy

Because they haven't committed a capital crime.

Grad Student Humanist

I wouldn't. I'll take living in prison over execution anytime. A choice between existence and annihilation isn't much of a choice.

Prisoners get food, water and shelter. They also recieve medical care. It's not a life of luxury, but they're better cared for than many free people in this world. Those who are so inclined may use the time to educate themselves and try to offer something of value to society.

If this society would focus on rehabilitation instead of vengeance then we would truly take a step towards becoming a more civilized society. Someone who's convicted of murder should lose their freedom, but they should not lose their life. Instead they should be encouraged to improve themselves and become positive members of the society in whatever small way they can while they serve out their life sentences.

Of course the politicians are only interested in building more prisons and jailing as many people as they can (including non-violent offenders), without putting any time and effort into making prison a place where criminals can change for the better. Instead prisons are like criminal factories where men are raped, physically assaulted and generally dehumanized, as if this is going to somehow make them better citizens. Is it any wonder then why someone who gets out of prison is more of a threat to society than he was when he went in?

I would add, however, that if someone is convicted of murder and wanted to be executed, it would not matter to me if the state indulged their wish.

Philosoft

Maybe not, but you don't have any objective standard to refer. Absent original sin, fetuses are objectively innocent - they haven't done any maliciously harmful acts. Thus, you have an arguable objective standard for preventing abortion (whether I agree with your argument or not). But a capital crime is legally defined based on social mores, among other transient things. So your argument for executing murderers but not thieves amounts to "because I think the line should be drawn here."

Loren Pechtel

I think the death penalty has one useful purpose: If someone who has already committed crimes that would get them life without parole and then go on to do serious wrong (such as murder) beyond that then the death penalty is the only way to punish them.

Jat

Hey, this is not the movie "Minority Report" you can't arrest, or execute people for what they may do in the future.

Plus the death penalty is letting them get off too easily. Those who have little to no regard for the lives of others usually have no regard for their own and in many cases actually want to die themselves. There are worse things than death.

Jat

Double standard and quite hypocritical. To the Pro-Life movement all life is sacred. To say otherwises shows the sheer hypocrisy of your beliefs.

Jat

Thus far more of a real deterent than capital punishment has ever been. My system is far more humane since an innocent person could eventually have a chance to prve their innocence. With capital punishment once you're dead you're dead.

It is a fact that in places which don't have capital punishment also have far fewer murders and places which do have CP have far more murders as well. Even in the USA you can see this difference as well.

Plus, it costs more to execute a person than it does to imprison them for life. That is one of the main complaints of those for capital punishment. That they don't want to waste their tax dollars keeping criminals alive.

Jat

They once did. They even hung a man who may have stole some bread to feed his family during the Middle-Ages before a more civilized system of justice was made.