[Der Freiheitsucher]

Are you For, Against, or "Depends (With reasons)"?

For each of the answers I would pressume you'd post a message explaining why you chose that option, for the latest option I would obviously expect a more thorough explanation, exposing in which case you would be for or against.

At some point, seeing if lots of people voted for the third option, I would change it to adjust to a more widespread opinion.

I voted the third option. I believe human life is the most valuable thing to consider, and it should not be terminated in any case, except one. Take in consideration a prisoner that has been condemned to life in prison. the costs of handling this inmate are extremely high, not to mention the emotional and economic stress it causes to its family. When this money becomes an issue, the costs are too high, and he is supposed to be in jail for some other decades, I am for death penalty. Nonetheless, even if this method worked n'th number of times, flawless, without an error, I believe one innocent killed using this punishment is not justified by anything, hence I would say that apital punishment is something I would only accept if each case was evaluated thoroughly (I am not saying it's not this way currently) and would treat with extreme caution. It's one of the questions I have the biggest difficulty answering.

[Zenn™]

Ultimately, it is a difficult question. In a large majority of circumstances I am against the death penalty. However, it sometimes is needed. What it shouldn't be is an attempt at getting one's own back, to even things out - such is barberous. As Elizabeth Fry said "Punishment should not be to get revenge, but to safen society and reform the criminal", or something to that extent. If a former leader is being executed during a revolution, I have no problem with it. It safens society, as you have taken away the figurehead and much of the human machinery of the old regime. Sometimes they only way to safen society is to keep an individual either in prison or to kill them. I think in this case, capital punishment may be viable, just for cost effectivenss, and the risk of escape, and sometimes is the more humane option.

The death penalty should therefore be allowed for multiple instances of murder, but not mass murder. With mass murder, the crime has only occured in one large instance, so one must give the criminal another chance, and educate him or her, whether through prison, counselling or other means. However, people who commit murder on multiple occasions even after prison and re-education should perhaps receive capital punishment, to safen society.

[Vivisekt]

I voted for the third option - execution depending on the situation. My take on killing is for the moment as follows:

1. There is no inherent difference between any act of killing. No matter what the circumstances, a person's life is being ended prematurely and often against his or her will.

2. 'Justification' of said killing is entirely relative to the perspective of observation. As such there is no inherent "good" or "evil" in the act itsself even though, ironically, it is a very important and signifigant act from the human perspective, at the same time.

3. Death is an intimate and vital part of all life, just as destruction is a fundamental ally of creation (no matter where in the universe we choose to look, or at what system).

4. Therefore, killing (death, destruction of some sort) will always persist and we should do our best to accept this fact and look at each situation that potentially warrants the death of a person with the utmost objectivity, weighing in all forseeable and realistic factors (including emotional reprocussions). We must also, however, temper this with the fact that the less humans that we kill, the better the chances of our species long term survival and advancement. By that token, killing should not be taken lightly.

[SueDeNîmes.]

Depends, with reasons..

I have no problem with the idea of executing ppl who torture and kill other ppl ...if the police can catch the right guy. Unfortunately in such cases(in the UK at least) they have a nasty habit of beating a confession out of some defenceless village idiot and locking him up until they have all retired. With capital punishment, the implications are obvious. Speaking as a defenceless village idiot, I believe it worse if one innocent is executed than x guilty live.

[Jesse]

I support the death penalty for four crimes - murder, sexual assault and rape, assault causing irreversible harm and treason.

[Gustav Fluffy]

Morally, I am against all punishment, because I believe that if a state sentences a man to death then the state becomes just as corrupt as the criminal. This is, however, impractical, and so I accept that punishment must feature in society.

But why sentence them to death when you can make them work in forced labour camps? This both serves as a punishment, and benefits the economy instead of draining it.

Jesse wrote:

treason

Why treason? Do you use this in its correct meaning - i.e. a crime against a monarchy? What if the state is oppressive and those accused of treason are fighting for what we would class in traditional morality as the greater good of their fellow countrymen?

[Al Khabir]

For. I just fail to see any reason why not to use the death penalty, other than the ridiculous number of Public Appeals that cost so many millions of dollars to the taxpayer every year. Although, I do believe that Castration is a far more humane and effetive punishment for sexually motivated violent crime.

temper this with the fact that the less humans that we kill, the better the chances of our species long term survival and advancement. By that token, killing should not be taken lightly.

I disagree with this. Presumably by killing the right people the chances of the species' survival would be drastically increased (although of course it is impossible to say who's children will be the great scientists of the future...).

[Gustav Fluffy]

Although, I do believe that Castration is a far more humane and effetive punishment for sexually motivated violent crime.

I wouldn't call that humane.

[Jesse]

Their actions surrender their humanity, I'd say.

[Al Khabir]

More humane than letting them fry I suppose.

Morally, I am against all punishment, because I believe that if a state sentences a man to death then the state becomes just as corrupt as the criminal. What if the state is oppressive and those accused of treason are fighting for what we would class in traditional morality as the greater good of their fellow countrymen?

Yes, but the state has right of conquest over the individual. States are the same as individuals in one respect- they are corrupt without exception.

But why sentence them to death when you can make them work in forced labour camps? This both serves as a punishment, and benefits the economy instead of draining it.

True, though if I was Libertarian I would probably say that paying the lawyers was helping to create investment. I feel that there are some crimes that require a greater deterrent than others, although I would be perfectly happy to go along the forced labour route to test it's efficiacy..

[Maxim Litvinov]

Against.

1] It is not right to kill people as a general rule.
2] By supporting the death penalty, you also give some legitimacy to its misuse by authoritarian governments.
3] It doesn't really save money.
4] It can result in the grossest miscarriages of justice.
5] It supports a culture of violence against perpetrators, over a culture that seeks to rehabilitate criminals and prevent future crimes through addressing their root causes.

[Gustav Fluffy]

Yes, but the state has right of conquest over the individual.

I guess that's the essential difference between our philosophies on life, then.

[briansmith]

I support capital punishment only when all possible appeals have taken place in the case of a first-degree murder case, or for serial killers and other first-degree murderers who have admitted their guilt and pleaded guilty.

I don't think capital punishment is a big deterrence, basically, so that's why I think that there is little reason to make it necessarily mandatory for certain crimes where it does not apply. It is capital PUNISHMENT, not capital deterrence, so, there's where I would apply the punishment.

I think there needs to be extreme levels of review in regards to all cases involving capital punishment, and there is more than enough time to enact that review. Generally, I oppose killing people, so it's tough for me to support capital punishment, but those are the guidelines I would require for capital punishment to be carried out in this country.

As a result, I voted "Depends."

[Ixa]

Against. People are not responsible for their actions. A person's behaviour,
good or bad, is controlled by factors which are often difficult to detect.
The prevailing tendency is not to punish someone when consicuous
controls are at work when he commits a crime, i.e., if someone
physically forced him to do it. We punish him because the control is obvious.
But when inconspicuous controls are at work, which assert
themselves just as much as conscpicuous controls, we do punish him.
This makes little sense.

I oppose the death penalty as a form of punishment.

[Vivisekt]

I disagree with this. Presumably by killing the right people the chances of the species' survival would be drastically increased (although of course it is impossible to say who's children will be the great scientists of the future...).

People will be killed in sufficient amounts, by themselves, without state involvement. They always have been - you could look at both murder and suicide as an ally of evolution in this regard. Neither of these things will cease if the state cuts back on it's killing.

Also, we aren't equipped with enough foreknoweledge to implement a program of eugenics focusing on extermination of the "unfit". Any moves we make twords eugenics will have to be positive, via gene therapy and biomedical science that can be applied to the populace at large - as opposed to selective killing to try to herd the human organisim into making these changes ittself.

[David]

I am against. It is unnecessary for the protection of modern society.

[Tex]

I voted "for." While I don't necessarily disagree with the practical and moral arguments "against," I happen to believe that genuine and unadulterated evil does exist in the world, and that it may be destroyed when confronted.

A human being can demonstrate himself to be so completely without redeeming qualities, as to place himself in a category for which the normal, more civilized application of justice seems not to be adequate. Call it primitive, or a throwback to "frontier justice" if you want...but in my mind, justice dictates that a person who commits murder, with "evil intent" against an innocent human being, should not be allowed to walk the earth, while his victim rots in the grave.

The state of Texas has probably always led the western world in the number of executions conducted, so this argument is always "near the surface," where I reside. In 99% of the cases I have personal knowledge of, I would probably not even consider the death penalty as an option...but I also would not willingly give it up as an option.

[antigoat]

I voted against. If the Justice system were perfect, I might be willing to consider it. But then we'd be living in a perfect world, and it wouldn't be necessary.

My main reasons are that I view the main purpose for the Criminal Justice system not as punishment, but for the benefit of the law abiding portion of society. It is a problem solving measure. Capital punishment doesn't do anything life in prison doesn't do, for society. I mean, if you're talking punishment, I don't think lethal injection is a fiair punishment if someone, say, rapes and kills womeone and children. So its a moot point.

But if some guy kills the murderer of his child, if i'm on the jury, we go WAY easy on him. if he was right.

Also, it costs more to execute someone then keep them in jail for life.

A person being executed should be able to choose any method they like (eg firing squad), not the state (lethal injection used because it LOOKS very civilized, you know, no contorting face in agony, no smoke, no blood).

[Andrew]

I am against Capital Punishment because:

A] It is undemocratic because it contradicts society's death stance.
B] It is immoral to kill somebody as it lowers standards on human life. Also, the upper authorities could exploit it.
C] The family of the prisoner is unfairly treated and punished by having their loved one killed. The family is innocent of the crime.
D] It is a waste of money.
E] There have many been incidents when people at fault have been wrongly accused. How can they be pardoned from it if they are not alive?
F] Its quite useless because you're just killing another person. The prisoner should do a Life prison term instead if the incidant was so massive.
G] People with disabilities or awful adolescence years have been mentally damaged. They should not be punished for the awful lives they have lived through Capital Punishment as the crime commited by them is mainly a result due to disadvantaged lives. A Jail Sentence is enough. (E.g, Ailleen Wurnos).

Watch the movie "Dancer In The Dark"! Or read "The Crucible". Capital punishment shoudn't be part of society.