Is there a moral justification for capital punishment, also known as institutional murder?
What degrees of defence and protection should there be to make sure the innocent are not executed?
Would some punishments, such as flogging, be less destructive and expensive in the long run and more deterrent?
Does the punishment reconcile the crime? Is this a case of two wrongs making a right?
A moral justification for capital punishment is if the punishment is roughly apportioned to the crime. For ex. capital punishment for a serial killer.
ReplyDeleteFor the last question, i do not believe punishment reconcile's the crime but is just the right or fair thing to happen and that punishment is the criminal taking responsibility for commiting a crime.
I personally believe a moral justification for the death penalty is, as wrong as this may sound, if someone was to kill someone - unless of course in self defense with reasonable proof - the person who committed the murder himself should be killed, but not morally. I believe the murdurer should be killed the same way he killed the victim - so he can "see how it feels".
ReplyDeleteAs for your second question - I believe that the court of law and the jury would need extreme proof before committing the act of capital punishment. If enough proof was found, then sure, go ahead. But if there is not enough - you shouldn't jump on and say "He did it. Let's kill him". There are so many cases like this where someone was killed or put in jail for many years for a crime he/she didn't commit.
Your third question - Sure, beating someone in the face with a stick would be more destructive and less expensive. And maybe it would help people stop commiting stupid acts such as murdur, rape, ect.
Fourth question - The punishment would never reconcile the crime. They would never forget that their son, daughter, mother, father, ect. was murdured, or raped. It could be a minor case of "two wrongs make a right". But I believe capital punishment isn't a wrong. So this could be a case of...one wrong makes a right? I can't explain it.
Killing a killer would be giving him the easy way out. I believe for rape, molestation, murder (not manslaughter), and any severe violence should be punished, not with years is a cosy prison.
ReplyDeletedid you know that prisons have free healthcare, gyms, libraries, food, and people inside can make money? prisoners get better treatment than the elderly in homes. how is this punishment AT ALL? I see nothing but benefits.
I think that they should be subjected to humiliation and pain and isolation and darkness. Don't kill them. It's the easy way out.
So, if you disagree with killing a killer, or putting in them in a prison - which I agree is WAY too "comfortable" for them, what would you do with them?
ReplyDeleteread the last sentence. humiliation, pain, hard labour, pain, isolation from everyone.
ReplyDeleteOh, I didn't even see that part of your comment. >.<
ReplyDeleteI can agree with that. Although like Caleb said - what if he was a insane serial killer - that only targeted children, murdering over 30 in some of the most brutal possible ways imaginable?
after putting him on display where people can scream at him, put him in a room, alone, dark, tied up. play the sound of those children's voices, laughter, singing, repeatedly. he will go insane, he will break, he wont be able to escape.
ReplyDeletedeath would let it all be over. he'd beg for it. it's be release from everything.
(please don't mind me, aside from being incredibly sadistic I am a normal person)
Haha @ your bracketed comment.
ReplyDeleteBut is that itself morally ethical? Wouldn't it be better to kill him, then basically make him go completely insane and possibly snap, once again, killing more people aside just from the children?
Like you said to me before you walked out - sure, he's tied up in a chair. But he can't always be like that. He/she would have to eat. Have to go to the bathroom. Have to have some physical exercise of some form. They can't keep him chained forever.
ReplyDeleteyou can always make meals/washroom breaks humiliating. rather easily.
ReplyDeletethe only reason why people ever punish people is to make themselves feel better about the crime, or to make others feel better. Say i was a serial killer and killed 30 people. In the end i may be jailed, because people would feel safer. I may be killed, because others would deem it to be appropriate. It would make them feel better hat i am dead. Thus, emilija, it could be said that our entire justice system is sadistic. I would say that your insanity punishment would be too light. Yes, traumatic at first, but once you snap the punishment loses its hold on you. I would say drag the torture out over several years. If ever the criminal showed signs of snapping give him/her time to recuperate, to heal. Then begin anew.
But all that is beside the point.
No, the punishment, in the end, does not cancel out the crime, it just makes others feel better about it. In medieval times people from all over would flock to see a flogging or hanging etc, not to see the punishment, but to see the...spectacle. the suffering of the criminal. we are all sadistic.
However, all said and done, it is still morally justifiable. After all, what better way to stop killings then to kill the killer? Chains always have a way of falling off after a while.
As to killing the innocent... just have the whole jury thing. If guilty, kill him/her. I can think of no other means to separate the innocent form the guilty-at least not off the top of my head.
you can always make meals/washroom breaks humiliating. rather easily.
ReplyDeletethe only reason why people ever punish people is to make themselves feel better about the crime, or to make others feel better. Say i was a serial killer and killed 30 people. In the end i may be jailed, because people would feel safer. I may be killed, because others would deem it to be appropriate. It would make them feel better hat i am dead. Thus, emilija, it could be said that our entire justice system is sadistic. I would say that your insanity punishment would be too light. Yes, traumatic at first, but once you snap the punishment loses its hold on you. I would say drag the torture out over several years. If ever the criminal showed signs of snapping give him/her time to recuperate, to heal. Then begin anew.
But all that is beside the point.
No, the punishment, in the end, does not cancel out the crime, it just makes others feel better about it. In medieval times people from all over would flock to see a flogging or hanging etc, not to see the punishment, but to see the...spectacle. the suffering of the criminal. we are all sadistic.
However, all said and done, it is still morally justifiable. After all, what better way to stop killings then to kill the killer? Chains always have a way of falling off after a while.
As to killing the innocent... just have the whole jury thing. If guilty, kill him/her. I can think of no other means to separate the innocent form the guilty-at least not off the top of my head.
oops... posted that twice
ReplyDeleteI agree with caleb, in the fact that it would be wrong to receive the death penalty for robbing the local corner store, and that the punishment should be relevant to the crime that was committed.
ReplyDeleteI am also struggling with the saying 'two wrongs don't make a right'. I have always believed that, but in this case i can make an exception. I would be outraged if some one like Hitler were to get away with a life time in prison rather than receiving the death penalty.
I do not, however, agree with what emilija is saying about the never ending torture. Even though the individual might have done terrible and unethical things, it is simply inhumane for a person to be treated that way. The prisoner is still considered a citizen. If the authorities were to treat prisoners in such a way, then i believe that it would give civilians the excuse to do the same to each other.
Totally agree with Willow - whoever you are. :P
ReplyDeletehm caitlin, good wording on the last bit, aha. however if a citizen hurt someone else, they would be punished, so why hurt others?
ReplyDeletehowever, death is an easy way out, an easy way to cause punishment, and then it's totally over. why end someones life, instead of making it hell until they beg for death? make them hate their life as much as they hated the lives of others.
You make good arguments Emilija. :P
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you to a certain extent. Although I still believe that if someone kills someone just for the pure sake of doing it...then they deserve to be killed themselves.
Although I do believe that self-defense should be allowed to go - or lets say a child kills their father because he abused the child and/or mother for many years. That shouldn't have a penalty - or much of one, at least.
In my own opinion, death does not justify death. I myself would strap the offender to the ground, feed them strange concoctions of various disgusting things, and tell them that it is their choice if they stop eating but they would be throwing their own life away.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, capital punishment isn't always appropriate and just. As I see it capital punishment is equated as revenge for pain and suffering that the criminal inflicted on the victim. And sentencing the criminal can give relief to the family members of the victim in that they have obtained justice. But besides vengeance what else is there really to gain? If a criminal has committed murder exceptions can be made, but then if we execute that person, what's the difference between us and the criminal? It's wrong for them and seen as a terrible crime, but it's morally acceptable and completely ethical in our case? No; I don't think that you can justify killing another person - no matter how horrid the crime.
ReplyDeleteAlot of comments are being passed around that we should torture and cause pain to thoes that have been killed, also that our justice system is sadstic. But doing these things makes us just as bad as them. Even though we are hurting someone who has killed innocents and they clearly arnt it doesnt give us a go ahead to torture them. Killing if we have strong proof yes, but not years of torture. or it would cost too much and take to much work. Take Osama bin ladens death for example: he was a horrible horrible man hat did something that has afffected thousands of people, d left many dinner tables empty but was taken just by death. Yet you dont see anyone angry that he was killed and not torutred people are celebrating in by thousands in the streets. Life is a gift weather its in a dark place or a family home, people who have killed dont deserve that. thats just how i see it.
ReplyDeleteI believe our justice system does the best they can that leaves as little room for mistake as possible, they cant have any of the prisoners leaving the prison for healthcare etc because that could leave room for escape. Also they cant just leave prisoners in their cells to rot when they need it, that could rile them up and cause more out breaks until they could get uncontrollable, they need them as comliant as they can get them, and even with all this "comfort" they still have issues.
emilija - I understand what you are saying, but when a person commits a capital crime, they go through an awfully long process that includes many trials, appeals, and they stay on death row for an awfully long time, sometimes it can last for decades. They wheels of the justice system are slow and painful in itself.
ReplyDeleteIn most cases, being on death row is torture enough because the endless waiting, guilt, and pressure that is upon them is tremendous. Many of them probably just resign themselves to the fact that they are going to die someday, but that fact is hanging over there head for a long time.
I don't think that we have to go to the lengths of actually harming the individual. I believe that locking them up in a cell all by themselves with only their thoughts and guilty consciences to keep them company is good enough.
In the bible, it even says 'an eye for an eye'.
ReplyDeleteMuch to the meaning, if you are to take a human life, you are to give a human life.
I feel like keeping these people in jail is a waste of time and money. Many of these people have mental problems in which, keeping them locked up for years on end will not solve or change their mentality about the crime they have committed. Many people who committ these crimes have justified their actions for doing so in their own mind already. That being said, I believe that if one is to support capital punishment, that they need to be positively assured that the accused did in fact commit the crime. There have been many cases in which people have been wrongly accused and sentenced to death row, and then years later they are found innocent but by that point in time it's too late.
ReplyDeleteTo go off Caitlins comment I think yeah in the bible it says and 'eye for an eye' but truly how is killing someone making them pay for what they did. after their dead they can't feel anything. I think capital punishment has no justification because its a hypocritical law right? We arn't allowed to kill but the law is. Like Jack said in class 'Hypocrisy is a luxury of the wealthy' if a court judge says its okay then suddenly its morally 'okay' to kill? not really if a regular citizen made that choice then it would be wring. So i dont think there is a justification to it.
ReplyDeleteits been said various times that killing is unacceptable under any circumstances. Let me ask you this:
ReplyDeleteIf Hitler was again at large, and you had an opportunity to plant a bullet between his eyes, would you hesitate?
Killing should only be the punishment for large-scale crimes, but it is logical under many circumstances.
After all (in response to snowpants guy) Hitler was not raised to be a genocidal maniac- quite the opposite. And as was said earlier: death could be a mercy compared to many alternative. Is it so inhumane to be merciful?
ReplyDeletealso, it costs over a million dollars to put someone on death row. just a statistic.
ReplyDeletecompared to how much it would cost to keep them alive... to feed them etc... a couple million dollars ist no'ting
ReplyDeleteI completly agree with stephy, and even if putting someone on death row costs alot of money its another obstacle that makes people make REALLY sure the person commited the crime they are being accused of.
ReplyDeletePutting someone publically to deth now a days is a touchy thing, so we must be careful i think the cost is put that way purposfully because they want to avoid death row as much as possible. I believe that if it was up to them they would or could do it as cheap as they want. But then again iit would probably be someone they really want dead, or someone who would be worth all that money eg: Hitler or Osama bin Laden