How My Position On the Death Penalty Wavered

Good read.

Looks like you copied and pasted the same section twice, though.

Good article

If I had to try to sum up what I learned it is this - taking absolute positions is easy, provided you don't have to actually test those positions in sticky emotional situations like this one.

Oh so true.

But who would I tell these relatives, who seem to be almost blood-thirsty in their quest for revenge, that they should wait until calmer times to stake out a position on the issue? I can't. Can you?

yes, i can. let me know how when who and where.

it's pretty simple. the most enlightening views are those which are intentionally disconnected from emotion. there is a reason that modern judicial systems dont have the victims' familes serve on juries or as the judge. emotion is a cloud, not a microscope.

while one can certainly understand the desire for revenge, etc., that understanding does not require agreement. i can understand why people get upset in these situations, and i would be, as well. it's at those times in our lives when we need strength and support. usually, with time and a sense of calm, we can see things better.

think of it this way — when at work, we often get emails which drive us crazy. what is the most commonsense way of dealing with this? walking away. turning off the email application. come back to it later, devoid of emotion.

it's a simple concept, and the finality of death obviously creates an even more muddied reality, but it doesnt change things. the last people who should be influencing justice are those who are still feeling the visceral pain of the crime. without that, we're the same as animals in the jungle.

Scoop...it's most certainly a difficult question and fraught with emotion and logical fallacies. After 48 years of thinking about it I came up with a logical paradigm that i just can't get around. I'll put it to you in as simple a way as possible.

If the state, or government states that it's against the law to murder, than the intellectual fallacy falls and chokes any thought of the state committing murder as a penalty.

If it's against the law to murder than HOW can the state murder?

It makes no logical sense and no matter how hard I try I just can't justify it in any type of logical fashion. Kind of like teaching your children by saying "Do as I say, Not as I do".

Food for thought,

Forest

The death penalty is always a difficult subject. I have always believed that any organized society (one with a governmental structure) has a duty to protect the innocent from monsters. Whether that protection comes from permanent incarceration or death, the duty remains. In fact, were I faced with permanent incarceration, I would find death the more humane treatment.

Nevertheless, as a juror, I would have difficulty voting for the death penalty. Why? Not because I would feel guilty for disposing of a human who took pleasure in torture/murder of others, but because our legal system exempts portions of the population from that penalty.

I've always felt strongly that any law that doesn't apply to all citizens should apply to none.

If placed on a jury where a the atrocities you mention were committed, I really don't know how I would deal with this conflict.

As a European, the popularity of the death penalty in the us always surprises me. The mere thought of it seems barbaric. For example, for a state to be eligible to join the EU, it must not have the death penalty.

I particularly agree with Scott "Scoop" Butki's comments above. I also think it's important to believe in redemption - which necessarily excludes the death penalty. Also, it has not be proven to act as a detterent to crime. Another important issue in this matter is that of the error of law; it's not uncommon that people have been sentenced for crimes they did not commit - on a number of occasions dna-testing has told the real story, sometimes when it's already been too late.

It reminds me of when the US was one of the last western powers to eliminate slavery, same deal different issue. At times it seems that we're a rather backwards country, last to see the light.

Forest

scott - sorry, since i'm a new newsvine member i can't put html links in comments. anyway, just add the usual characters to these: and

A really fascinating subject. So many different takes on it. I am against the death penalty, but not because it is "cruel and unusual," for we really don't know if it is or not.

I am against the death penalty as I am a firm believer in limited government, very limited government, and I don't like the idea of the government, any government, having the ability to murder one of its own.

But, I also know there is evil and I also know that, even if small, there is a chance of an evil person escaping prison, the way prisons are currently operated.

So, as I have expressed before, I have come up with my "red button" solution. A person convicted of a heinous crime is placed into a cell, no windows, no tv, no books, a cot and a pot, and a red button on the wall. His food is pushed through the door, no face to face communication. Lawyers talk through the door (a slit) to communicate with their client. And there he or she stays, until he or she gets very tired of that way of life. If they get tired enough, they can press the red button and the room instantly fills with an odorless, colorless, but lethal gas that puts them to sleep, then causes them to shuffle off this mortal coil.

Simple, effective, inexpensive.

As for our current death penalty, the only thing I can say about it is that it is a SPECIFIC deterrence, that is, THAT person will never commit a crime again. I don't believe it is a general deterrence and I don't believe the death penalty should be used for revenge.

I think repeat rapists and paedophiles should be subject to the death penalty.

I have no sympathy for those who destroy the lives of others for pleasure.

I don't care what happened in their past to drive them to that.