Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Mostlypoetry. We hope you enjoy your visit.


Hey, Guest. :] You're currently not registered here, so your view of our site is somewhat limited. It's totally free and really quick to sign up, so if you'd like to be part of a community that feels that art should not be limited and that free speech is most important in an online community of writers, please join. :]


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Death Penalty
Topic Started: Mar 14 2009, 07:52 PM (1,206 Views)
ShiloFish
Member Avatar
Shilo Of The Fishingness
The death penalty. As shocking as this may be to those who know me, I disagree with it. Gasp! I have met many people, mostly ignorant and naïve teenagers such as myself, who agree with the death penalty. Their justification for it is “He killed them, lets kill him back.” Now, that has to be the stupidest fucking shit I have ever heard. The “eye for an eye” philosophy half-assed at best. Your daughter was gunned down in a robbery. A burning candle was snuffed early. Its sad and completely wrong for something so beautiful to be cut short. But, how will killing the man who shot her, a man who’s own light pales in comparison, right what is wrong? How can it possibly equalize things? The few seconds he has before you pull the trigger won’t be enough to make him realize what he has done. Death would be a release from the things he COULD feel. There would be absolutely no chance for him to feel an understanding of what he has done, to feel pain, fear, remorse. Maybe he never would have, but the chance is always there. There would be no way he could balance the scales either, but he could teach others. He could still learn to show compassion to others. Every little bit helps this world towards a brighter morning.

Your argument might be, “well, he had no right to take her life, so we should take his as a consequence.” Your argument is your downfall. NO ONE has the right to take anyone’s life. You have absolutely no claim, no title, no right to any such thing. We were put her to live and to die, not to kill. Other than that, making that decision completely negates free will. The ability to make any decision, action, or consequence. By naming yourself God and choosing to end another persons life, you are shitting on their free will. You are destroying one of the purest things in life. You are doing the exact same thing they did, and in my mind, that makes you exactly the same as them.

P.S.

Bring it bitches xD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
YesterdaysDreams
Member Avatar
Official Greeter
I 100 percent do agree with the death penalty, not as an eye for an eye though. As a college student in the law feild it took me about one semester before I realized how very flawed our law system is. There is no black or white its all shades of gray. Victims seldom ever see justice.

Myself at the core I am rather set on examples. Would a murder murder if he KNEW he would die an awful torturous death if caught? Would a rapist rape if he knew the consequence would end in being a eunich? Oh yeah I go well beyond eye for an eye. I see mayhem and in the end result I see people thinking hmm yeah I would REALLY like to steal that old grannies purse but I would much rather keep my ARM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ShiloFish
Member Avatar
Shilo Of The Fishingness
Well put. I see a few flaws. Like an alchoholic or a drug addict. They know that the drink will kill them, they know that the next hit might kill them. They do it anyway. If I was to kill someone, you are goddamn right I would know that I would be caught and put to death, or atleast left in prison for the rest of my life. But I would still kill. I would kill and be satisfied not by the death of that person, or the death of myself, but the lack of life for both of us.
Edited by ShiloFish, Mar 15 2009, 06:03 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ShiloFish
Member Avatar
Shilo Of The Fishingness
That was a shitty arguement but i'm fucking tired and I don't care. More later.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Poetic Prince
Member Avatar

Umm... Losing your arm for stealing an old ladies purse? I remember back when I was in highschool, I learned in a social studies class that in Saudi Arabia, they have a similar punishment for thieves... I will try and recount it here, but I may make a mistake, I believe this to be accurate... The first offense, one gets their hand cut off, the second offense, the other hand is cut off, the third offense, their head is cut off.

Now, I tend to think of Saudi Arabia as being a very backwards country (though, I have deep respect for the Middle East). I'd like to think that the United States is more civilized than that. Of course, I'd like to think a few other things too, but chances are I'm not going to be that deluded...

Yes, we need to have consequences for our acts, but there is no way to know for sure if a person truly committed a murder or did whatever the punishment is for. We can be pretty sure, but there is always a margin of error. One of the Ancient Greek philosophers once said that it was better that an innocent man be punished rather than a guilty man go without punishment (or something to that effect). Personally, I disagree. I'd rather see a thousand guilty men walk free than one innocent man suffering for a crime he did not commit!

There needs to be consequences for our actions, and there are consequences for our actions. They do not always come from the law, but it's always there. As for the death penalty? It seems quite ironic: "You killed someone, and that is wrong, so I am going to kill you". What message are we wanting to send here? We need a standard set of morals, not a set of morals that are enforced upon all of us, but so that we all CHOOSE these morals by our own free will. Then, and only then, will there be any progress in our law system.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Duchess Dizufish
Member Avatar
The Duchess of Administration
i agree. i'll quote someone anonymous or unknown to me: "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"
a big problem for me, though, is a bit callous and logical. . . but if we keep these murderers in jail for life and don't kill any of them, who's going to pay for it? it costs SO MUCH to keep one person in prison for life, and America is paying about a college tuition a year per person in prison for these murderers. but i really can't see another way of doing it; if we don't pay, who will? and we really don't want them in the streets. . .
all in all i think i'd rather pay to keep them in prison than kill them.
but maybe we could cut the price a bit? o.O
i dunno.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
m&m.Michael.
Member Avatar

I agree with the death penalty too. I did not always agree with it. However, like Kim, I am in law school as well [along with medical school.]

The death penalty was "an eye for an eye" in about the 1800s. We are no longer in times where solutions are that simple anymore.

It was a long time ago that people believed the death penalty was established on religion. A quote from a lawyer in the 1850's, "Those actions that are immoral for human life, thee offender should have to face God's court. Where there is no innocent men, only the guilty. Where there is no jail, only hell." Back then, the death penalty was built around that theory. God does not want us killing other people, or anything of that nature. Therefore, the law gave those offenders the death penalty.

What is the reason behind the death penalty now? I honestly believe it is just the punishment that comes towards those actions. My example, two jail cellmates. One, drove without a license one to many times and would not do the community service. The other one, slaugtered four families like a bunch of cows. Who in their right mind sees that as just? To put these two men under equal crime and equal circumstances? If so, then maybe I should stop running so many stop signs before I am put in a jail cell with a murderer.

People do not understand, the law does bend. You can dodge the law in so many ways. You can get away with crime, with little time. But, like everything else in life, you can bend the law until it breaks. And that is where I think the death penalty comes into play. It is the last resort. In fact, the death penalty is made up of many many court cases. The man who is sentanced to the death, was not sentanced right on the spot by a town policeman. They probably spent many years in jail, and had over 20 court cases. Which means the offender had that many years, and that many cases to get out of the shithole they put themselves into. More offenders can wiggle their way out of the death penalty, they either can prove their case very well or have a pretty good damn lawyer that can prove it for them. So let's not blame the law, the law is far more loose than it is strict. The law is not playing God. The law is protecting and viewing what is just. The offender controls their own fate, the law did not whisper in their ear to commit crime.
Edited by m&m.Michael., Mar 15 2009, 03:06 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Masquerading Doll
Member Avatar

I can see all points here.
And. I am young, yes.
I'm not really sure about my opinion.
I dislike the fact that we're paying for the upkeep of people we don't and never will know. But, then again, they do work for their upkeep.
Now. The death penalty. I can see where I would agree. If it were one of my loved ones, I would be all for it. That is. Until I sat back and thought.
It isn't my right, to take another's life. Besides. That would be too fast for me. I'd rather they rotted in jail all their life.
I agree with Michael very much. By far, his is the one that I lean towards the most.
The death penalty isn't the rule, it's the exception.
I'm going to try something here. I'll probably seem immature, but I'm going to throw it out there.
What if you were the prisoner?
If you murdered someone. Would you rather suffer in prison all your life, or take the quick death?
Now, being me...If I was given a choice, it would be to rot in prison, taking all the beatings, rapes, or anything else the other inmates threw at me.
Because, if I could kill someone, I would want to suffer as much as possible, pay as much back (although I believe you can never pay anything back after taking a life) before I was taken away myself.
I'm sure some part of me would be screaming for mercy, the quick way out. But, the part of me that was raised to take my punishment is stronger than the weak part.
This is all objective, of course. I've never been faced with this, and hopefully never will. Maybe I would choose differently, maybe not. We don't really know.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Poetic Prince
Member Avatar

m&m.Michael.
Mar 15 2009, 02:10 PM
It was a long time ago that people believed the death penalty was established on religion. A quote from a lawyer in the 1850's, "Those actions that are immoral for human life, thee offender should have to face God's court. Where there is no innocent men, only the guilty. Where there is no jail, only hell." Back then, the death penalty was built around that theory. God does not want us killing other people, or anything of that nature. Therefore, the law gave those offenders the death penalty.
The law is playing God. What does this mean? What does it mean to "play God"? Well, what is the traditional concept of "God"? Well, Michael has already said it for me, so I won't bother to go into that!

No, the death penalty is not based upon religion anymore. In the early days of the U. S., a lot of things were based upon religion, our laws supposedly came from the Bible. But as time went on, the Americans became a more broadminded group (even though, in general, they probably aren't near as intelligent as they once were). Our laws are no more based upon any religion, but there are elements of religion in government! The similarities between religion and government cannot be denied by any intelligent person. Both teach us how we should live, both speak of punishment for evil actions, both have a "temple" of sorts (look to your courthouses and other government buildings!) where their message or "gospel" is preached, both have historically been violent and conquering by nature (even though they are supposed to be opposed to violence to other peoples). These comparisons may be somewhat weak, but this is the best I can come up with at present.

The law is playing God. Again, what does that mean? Well, I don't mean that in the same way as Michael meant the opposite statement. I once read this book about spirituality, in the book, the author was talking about the concept of God, he asserted that God is infinitely loving, and does not judge us, nor cast us into hell, but we cast ourselves into hell by our own evil actions (we freely cast ourselves into hell, God is not involved in that at all). Of course, this is common in his school of thought, it's nothing different. BUT what I'm interested in here is what he went on to say about the traditional concept of God... He said that people who picture God as an angry, all powerful being who wants to punish mankind for its evils is likely to reflect back on how we ourselves behave. If we picture God in such a way, then it is likely we will imitate this behavior. That was the first time I came across such an idea! Not so long after I read that book, I came across something in the Yahoo! Answers forum where someone was expressing the same idea! Anyone who knows me very well knows that I'm not the type to believe everything I read, I always have to think about things and discover it on my own. Gullibility is one of many characteristics that I despise!

Now, I ask you, is the law playing God? Of course, it isn't an "eye for an eye" thing anymore (as Michael has explained to us), but what are they really doing here? What is the point in the death penalty? If nothing else, it is a sign of giving up, quitting. The point of the law enforcement is for rehabilitation, isn't it? To reform evil doers? Well, Michael has told us that those who get the death penalty have been in jail for a long time. There should be more than enough opportunity for them to be reformed, shouldn't there? And what if they aren't? Well, anyway you look at it, the system simply doesn't work!

We are who we are, and I'd say that person is formed primarily how we relate to "spirituality". In my opinion, the root of the problem rests in how we perceive God (if we believe in a god). The picture of the sadistic God is drilled into our hearts and minds too deeply.

Now, I'm not saying that the government should establish an official religion, and I would never support such a thing! I completely believe that we should be free to be who we are. But we need to recognize the power that spiritual beliefs have over our lives. It isn't the governments responsibility to teach us a religion or anything, that is up to our parents to teach us in our young age, and when we are old enough to really think, it's up to us what we want to do. What is the law's responsibility? Quite simply, its responsibility is to do what it was instituted to do: keep the citizens under control! There should be no dictation over our personal beliefs, but those beliefs should be developed and reflected upon during rehabilitation (whether or not we believe in a god). As I said before, if nothing else, the death penalty is a sign of giving up, quitting! But I'd like to add, that I doubt the law was ever really trying to start with... And if the law was never really trying to start with, is the death penalty truly a last resort?

In conclusion, the law is just as responsible as the murderers themselves.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Duchess Dizufish
Member Avatar
The Duchess of Administration
I'm not going to attempt to comment with any sort of substance here, since I have class in half an hour and homework to do; however, I would like to comment on Michael's paragraph addressing the "eye for an eye" approach. When I quoted that, I wasn't quoting it in a religious context; in fact, God didn't even cross my mind, as terrible as that seems to say. I was more commenting on the moral balance we seem to need; we like to exchange something for something else of equal value. If someone wants a candy bar, they are expected to pay the amount of money that is said to represent that candy bar. Likewise, if someone takes a life, the "eye for an eye" theory states that they should pay with something of equal value; their own life.
Of course, one can't say that the theory was not meant at all in a religious way or with any religious connotations, since most of our moral code was born from religious doctrine and most of us are grounded in it whether we realize it or not.
I suppose my point was that I made that comment based on the way our society/culture views the exchange and payment of something for something else moreso than the way God feels about it all.

I'd definitely love to comment on the rest of Michael's post, as well as Prince's, when I have the time. :]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply