3477Re: Abolishing the death penalty
- Jun 6, 2006Tony,
Points well taken. Like I said, corrupt and/or despotic governments
should not be in the business of imposing capital punishment. They
need to clean up their act first. Judicial judgments that emerge
from such governments are invalid, or at least highly suspect, in my
opinion. Only politically and economically stable governments of
societies that are firmly grounded in libertarian principles (where
everyone has equal standing in the law) should be meting out the
But maybe we should step back a bit and talk about the concept of
punishment itself. Forget the death penalty for a moment. Forget
about its association with religion. Let's look at the issue through
secular eyes. What do you think about the concept of punishing
another person for crimes committed against other humans? Is there a
legitimate place, in your view, for punitive actions against
behavior that threatens the lives of others? If you think there is,
then how should this punitive action be carried out, who should
carry it out, and to what extent should it be carried out?
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "pinoy_infidel"
> Hi Tekton,
> My objection to the death penalty is because it's irreversible.
> it's done, nothing can be done to reverse it if the person is infact
> innocent. Our justice system is still in the Stone Age (I think DNAwhere
> testing is still not very much in use) where might is right and
> trial by publicity is very common. Petty thieves such as the Florasup
> are left languishing in jail, while the plunderers can go scot-free
> because of "technicalities". The poor Echagarays will make a fine
> example that crime does not pay but the rich murderers can live it
> and be fine examples that justice can be bought if the price isright.
> Until we perceive that our justice system has become blind tomatters
> of social standing and the amount of money the suspects have in theare
> bank or with whom important and powerful one is connected with, we
> simply not ready for it. That is why I welcome it for now.crime
> On deterrence, despite the number of executions we already had,
> is still rampant. In short, it has not been proven to be adeterrent
> to crime. What will be a deterrent for crime is when the would-beto
> violators know that the probability of getting caught and brought
> justice far outweighs the probability of not getting caught and
> suffering the consequences of his/her actions. That is a better
> deterrent to crime, I suppose.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>