Voted "I'm opposed to it." The purpose of the law in general and the penal system in particular is first and foremost, to protect society, second to punish the guilty and third and least, to reform the criminal if possible. In that order.
Capital punishment, generally speaking, does not seem to afford those benefits. First, it is the surety of punishment, not its severity, that is a deterrent to crime. If an individual is sure that they will be punished, they will likely not act. If that individual believes that they might get away with it, they will likely run the risk.
So in that sense, capital punishment fails its first and most important test. It does not deter and therefore it does not protect the society. Throw in that it applies only in cases of premeditation - crimes of passion are not premeditated - and the range of those whom capital punishment applies becomes proportionately smaller.
Secondly, it is axiomatic that we shape our laws and then our laws shape us. In that context, capital punishment reflects - and is a result of - the society's treatment of life as a means rather than an end. In this it is the parallel of the abortion argument. The planted axiom of liberal abortion laws is that life has no value save that which each individual attributes to it, therefore the law has no proper standing to afford it protection.
Capital punishment is a case of the society deciding that the value of life is contingent rather than absolute. That action decides life's value rather than life's inherent worth. When the society places vengeance over any inherent value to life, it will apt in its larger context to see more of the former and value the latter less and less.
To be sure, in the matter of capital punishment that is at the margins and dealing with decidedly unsympathetic individuals. Arguably the case can be made that "killing the killer" suggests that society places a much higher value on life. However, on balance, the inspiration of capital punishment is vengeance and not justice and thus both the value of life and the value of justice is undermined.
Beyond that, humans are imperfect and there are issues related to failings of the legal system. In the question of justice, the accidental execution of the innocent is not an injustice that can be undone. Indeed, it is what suggests that vengeance - and not justice - is what inspires laws that condone capital punishment.
In short, capital punishment harms society with too few countervailing benefits.
oh yes. compassion doesn't make the world a better place it makes the streets dirty and unsafe. Executing criminals reduces our tax dollars spent on criminals and removes the potential for repeat offenders
now to preempt your usual poorly thought out counter arguments
1. do not respond with studies saying 3 strike policies make the person fight harder on their last arrest. this is not the same thing as saying we have more criminals overall. we don't. executing criminals reduces overall crime by removing repeat offenders. no more 9 or 10 arrests for the same person
2. do not say executions are expensive, executions are very cheap. only LIBERAL execution methods are expensive
I believe that people should rot in prison and not be allowed to get the easy way out unless they are pedophiles or rapist. Drugs and theft should be worked with instead of just having lives thrown away when we can find ways to fix those things. It’ll take trial and error cause a lot of people will fail but some people have came out of prison and started their lives and built themselves into better people. The other people that don’t want help can stay there and never see their friends and family or even the general public ever again
How many times is this going to be asked this week? You are # 25 in line.
Opinion
13Opinion
sadly, i think it's necessary in extreme cases where you have convicts like in the story i read last night: https://www.freshedits.com/spotlight/a-teenage-friendship-gone-wrong-the-skylar-neese-case/30.html?fps=fb&br_t=ch&_pg=p12&fbclid=IwAR3KftE4ol028STKc-rzoogc-ePpN3Ai6UGMZVPYBHiL2fiWo_SNKXw8rDU
I don't support it. Having to make other people responsible for killing people sounds very unethical in my opinion. Some people may deserve to die for their crimes, but I don't think anyone deserves the job of an executor.
You have people such as Maxine Waters pushing violence, And it’s going to get someone hurt/killed
And not by the police. I believe Waters wants that also myself. Civil unrest plays into the Democratic
Party. If the people turn on her! And the Government then they have lost control.
Washington is just a small # of politicians. So their best weapon is Civil unrest.
But that’s only my opinion.
Yes. If it can be proven through hard scientific evidence or caught on camera someone doing something horrible and inhuman like premeditated murder or just something unspeakable then the person must be put to death. No waiting 10 or 20 years on death row non sense. They will be put to death upon conviction.
No. I don't think that the State has the right to take a person's life!!
In contrast, I don't want to pay taxes to keep them in prison, so I think they need to work, and contribute to society, rather than just rot in a cell.
Somewhere between E and F, which basically means no. I think there are people who deserve to die, but I don't like the state being in that business.
If the criminal justice system actually worked yes. People in jail for like should be executed instead of a burden on society
Opposed. 100% sentence for a crime we can only by 99% sure of guilt.
It should be expanded to liberals.
I'm very much against it.
I am absolutely opposed to it.
No executions , no abortions
Very much so.
Don’t support it.
Mixed thoughts
