Today many people are calling for the clemency of "police killer" Troy Davis, who has been on death row for 20 years. This case raises the question of whether the death penalty is an ethical punishment. How and when do you think the idea that it was appropriate to punish humans by putting them to death, emerged in society? Although we have left behind the barbaric methods of stoning, hanging, the firing squad, and nailing people to crosses in the United States, we continue to take the lives of convicted criminals. Is the death penalty a punishment or merely a solution? Some claim it is a punishment, which raises the question of whether humans have the ethical right to put another to death, while others claim it is a preventive measure. Does an eye for an eye make the whole world blind? Many who defend the death penalty will claim the only reparation for a lost life is the taking of one, but you do not often hear these people proposing a rapist getting raped or a robber getting robbed. Is taking the life of another justified when they have have taken a life themselves? How are we even able to determine, in a moral sense, whether putting a person to death is right or wrong? And if there is no way to determine this, should we do it? As a preventive measure, it seems to not make much sense. If one is so demented as to commit a serious crime worthy of this punishment they would probably not be thinking of the future consequences. They may either be in a blind rage, or planning a crime while knowing the punishment, but hoping they do not get caught. Would there be any way to console a family who had a member put to death, if later evidence proved their loved one was innocent? What do you think about the death penalty as a form of punishment?
The execution of Troy Davis is a clear example of society’s ‘eye for an eye’ mentality. This American lex talionis approach to crime and punishment is rooted in Foundationalism. The basic belief in God and the Devil, heaven and hell, seem to justify that people ‘reap what they sow’. In the bible, chapter twenty-one of Exodus elaborates on appropriate punishments, and death happens to be mentioned considerably. It is no wonder then why many support the death penalty with religious fanaticism. If God exists, then the death penalty is appropriate.
ReplyDeleteIn the New Testament of the bible, God sent his Son to reform things. Twice, including in chapter eight of John, God’s son refused to condemn a convicted person to death. Using the same Foundationalist rationale, one would say that if God exists, then the death penalty is obsolete.
If i believed there was a God I would be against death penalty. For me death penalty should at least be applied to confessed killers or rapers who have no probability of being a part of society again, also to those who don't confess the crime but have no reasonable doubt in their cases. In more complex cases where doubt exists it shouldn't be used, at least while the doubt last or there is another suspect. I do agree in the eye for an eye mentality (as long as there are no doubts or other elements that may change the situation), I think if this was applied for every crime, the society would be more secure, all men and women must be take responsibility for their actions.
ReplyDeleteI believe is a matter of showing how the society do punishes those who do wrong.
ReplyDeleteI agree, it is an eye for eye situation. How would you feel if your daughter who is 10 years is awfully raped and abused? Would you let go the rapper? Would you approve the death penalty for him?
I believe in God, so for me we are not the ones who should decide who lives and who dies. Taking someone’s life puts you in the same level as the one convicted. I agree with life imprisonment, you are indeed punishing someone, because killing someone will make them suffer in the moment, but what next? they don’t suffer no more. Instead, living their whole life in prison is worst; you won’t be able to see the external world ever again and will be condemned for the rest of your life to a 4 walled square with no light and no communication at all.
1,2,3... posting.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe in the death penalty because of the possibilty of executing someone who is not guilty.
ReplyDeleteWe are all doing mistakes as it is the human nature. So, I believe always in the second chance and I'm not with what is called "death penalty".
ReplyDeleteAs a direct victim of a violent crime, my father was murdered in front of me when I was 12 years old, the death sentence will definitely not bring our loved ones back. There are convicted criminals that are simply way past the point of social rehabilitation; however, I do not agree with incarcerating an individual for 20 years and end up putting him to death for a crime that he pretty much had already paid for. Is it worth it putting a convicted murderer to death after serving 20 years on death row? Was not that enough punishment? Certainly we would to have to wait 20 years to prove if we think the same when Scott Petterson is put to death. The death sentence is being an ongoing debate and does it solve the crime itself? Does it comfort the parties involved? Does it in some way help to clear the judicial and penitentiary system? No, it does not solve the crime, I guess some parties involve feel comforted by the fact that the killer of a loved one will die as well, and it certainly does not clear the system as a death sentenced is delayed through a series of appeals and legal maneuvers taking years, sometimes a full regular sentence, to actually take place, but then again a criminal that is being in jail several times, that had committed several crimes, that shows signs of escalating violence and premeditation is worth saving?
ReplyDeleteThe death penalty, I think, is not an ethical or justified way of punishing someone who deserves it. The person who is receiving punishment is only alive for a couple of seconds or minutes (in the case of lethal injection) and does not get to experience any of the anguish that the victim and/or family of the victims have gone through. I don’t think humans have the right to take another humans life unless ordained directly from God, but I still believe in punishment by suffering.
ReplyDeleteIs it right or wrong? That's a question that cannot be answered. The definition for right and wrong, the thin line that divides them is itself a topic of debate. For the Death Penalty to be cataloged as right or wrong all the people (at least in this country) would have to think the same. So, as long as there is at least one individual who thinks differently, we shouldn't decide. So how can we solve this dilemma? I don't know. I do, however, accept the idea that someone truly beliefs what I disagree with, and that is why I wonder about this: Should we try to convince each other? Is the solution is a world where everybody think alike? What do we really spec?
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting question above is whether or not we (I assume she/he means as a society, but the same can be asked of the individual) can determine what is, and is not, right action.
ReplyDeleteGiven that there have been many frameworks for deciding upon right and wrong action offered by philosophers and others over the the last 2000 plus years, and there is still no consensus on how best to know what is right and what is wrong, this seems a valid question.
It also renders more pertinent the blog author's next question of, whether if we can't know whether a particular action is right or wrong, we should apply the "precautionary principal" (when in doubt, don't).
This seems like a reasonable approach to consider in the case of an action like putting someone to death, which cannot be reversed, or as he/she later implies remediated in any way.