Maryland abolishes death penalty

(I'm a bit late to this discussion, though I did talk about it in chat.)
IMO some people do deserve death sentence. People who admit to their crimes and show no signs of regret, like the Norwegian guy Breivik who killed all those children. Since he obviously knew he'll end up in prison for life and was OK with it, I say ruin his plan with a death sentence. It isn't a real punishment if the criminal doesn't view it as one.
 
Forostar said:
I stick to the necessity. Why kill people if it's not needed? Or:.. when justice can be brought in a different way?

Now I wonder if you or someone else will (or can) come up with something else as "because that's what the law says".
Click to expand...

It is a matter of appropriate penalty, not that the law says it, but I believe that some crimes deserve that penalty. Like some require the penalty of jail versus house arrest probation, or a fine or some prisons are harsher than others for more violent criminals or within jails some people are locked in their cells 23 hours a day and some prisons have no fences. Different crimes require different punishments and a death penalty is an appropriate punishment in some cases.
 
I guess we're finally coming more to the morals section.

Night Prowler, if Breivik would get the death penalty, I don't think he would see that as a punishment either. He'd be a bigger martyr (in his eyes at least).

But in general, to punish someone so severely by taking his life, only because he has to feel it as a punishment still doesn't sound valid to me. Or at least, I have different morals.

Bearfan:
At least we can conclude that you don't mind that people get killed unnecessary.
These are also not my moral standards. And I am glad I don't live in a state/country where politicians (voted by a majority of punishment culture fetishists) still think so lightly about life. My conscience wouldn't take it.
 
Foro, I'm at work and don't have time to get into this in depth, but I need you to define "necessary."
 
I think you are overstating "think lightly about life" the processes that leads to an execution actually happening is a long and detailed process with many safeguards (and perhaps there should be more). No one gets arrested one day and is hung up on a lamp post the next.

... and no, I do not mind people who have gone through this process being executed for incredibly horrible offenses.
 
When there is a necessity to do something, there are no alternatives. So it must be done, depending on someone's moral standars.

An abortion must be done if a mother would die if it wouldn't be done.
Germany had to be attacked by Allies in WWII or else matters would have gone worse for a big group of people.

I can't make such a sentence in the case of the death penalty. Life is too precious for me to do that.

But I had thought some of the pro-death penalty people could finish this sentence:

In some cases (example) the death penalty has to be done, or else....


Night Prowler was the first who made an attempt.
He basically said: Breivik has to be executed, or else he will not be punished (or feel the punishment).

I think that ending someone's life is worse than someone not feeling punished. So I don't think it's a necessity.

Here's another one:
No one else's life will be saved when a death penalty takes place.

The abortion saves the life of the mother.
Attacking Allied forces saved the life of people by ending the Axis terror.

Come to think of it: Saving someone's life (or unbearable suffering in the case of euthanasia) really shows the necessity to end life / kill, for me at least. But I see that other members think more lightly (sorry bearfan; that's what I think) about life.
 
Forostar said:
Night Prowler, if Breivik would get the death penalty, I don't think he would see that as a punishment either.
Click to expand...
Probably. But there'll be another trial in 21 years and he'll be in the spotlight again. His crime won't be forgotten so quickly. The second trial will be a great chance for him to spread his views again.
Either way, it just doesn't seem right letting him live the rest of his life here. For someone who did what he did it doesn't seem harsh enough.
anders_behring_01.jpg
 
Good thing the Norwegian state doesn't give him the honour of bending its standards for him.
 
I didn't say they should've changed the laws for him, I just used him as an example cause he was the first person that came to my mind.
 
Forostar said:
When there is a necessity to do something, there are no alternatives. So it must be done, depending on someone's moral standars.

An abortion must be done if a mother would die if it wouldn't be done.
Germany had to be attacked by Allies in WWII or else matters would have gone worse for a big group of people.

I can't make such a sentence in the case of the death penalty. Life is too precious for me to do that.

But I had thought some of the pro-death penalty people could finish this sentence:

In some cases (example) the death penalty has to be done, or else....


Night Prowler was the first who made an attempt.
He basically said: Breivik has to be executed, or else he will not be punished (or feel the punishment).

I think that ending someone's life is worse than someone not feeling punished. So I don't think it's a necessity.

Here's another one:
No one else's life will be saved when a death penalty takes place.

The abortion saves the life of the mother.
Attacking Allied forces saved the life of people by ending the Axis terror.

Come to think of it: Saving someone's life (or unbearable suffering in the case of euthanasia) really shows the necessity to end life / kill, for me at least. But I see that other members think more lightly (sorry bearfan; that's what I think) of life.
Click to expand...

You seem to be saying that life can be taken in these other scenarios where it is a snap decision or a decision made by a relatively few people against generally innocent people, but it is an issue to go through a long and contemplative process where someone guilty of something very horrible ends up dying.

No one else's life will be saved when a death penalty takes place.
Click to expand...
Not really ... people kill people in prison

Attacking Allied forces saved the life of people by ending the Axis terror.
Click to expand...
When the war ended you would have been opposed to the death penalties handed out at Nuremberg and those handed out in Holland after the war?
 
Spending years thinking & planning their execution sounds dangerously close to the premeditation you're criminalising some of these people for in the first place.

People don't need to kill other people in prison; this is preventable.

Nuremberg? Correct, I wouldn't have advocated executing them.

This all a total irrelevance anyway. You (or your government) are advocating killing people. What would happen if (like jury duty) normal citizens were requested to carry this out? Would you give the injection, switch on the chair, pull the trigger? One of you, undoubtedly, is going to jump in here and say "Yeh, no problem. I would do it". Well, if that's the case, it's a sorry, sorry world we live in. And if not, why should some other sucker do it? Does it make everyone (who advocates this stance) genuinely feel better to think that the law is protecting you or your executioner? People keep saying --look at what these two guys (the earlier case) did? I say: look at what you're doing? (--whether by proxy or not.)

It's not necessary.
 
(post WW executions) I didn't mourn for the death of some responsible people, but I wouldn't have minded if they had a lifelong sentence instead either.
edit:
In fact I would like to think that they're overthinking their crimes for a long time.

People kill people in prison? It hardly happens in my country. I know it happens, but something can be done about it. Not a good reason to have a death penalty instead.

And the length/process of the decision plays a role, but it's not as decisive as its consequence.
 
You (or your government) are advocating killing people
Click to expand...
Not to beat a dead horse, but we just went through other examples of state sponsored death.

People kill people in prison? It hardly happens in my country. I know it happens, but something can be done about it. Not a good reason to have a death penalty instead.
Click to expand...
Not a reason to have a death penalty, but pointing out that putting someone in prison for life does not mean they cannot kill/harm someone else, either other prisoners or the guards.


What would happen if (like jury duty) normal citizens were requested to carry this out?
Click to expand...
Probably not, but we do not ask ordinary citizens to join the army, perform an abortion, etc. There is some training and screening involved in just about every job. What if you asked the jurors to guard the person they just convicted

People keep saying --look at what these two guys (the earlier case) did? I say: look at what you're doing? (--whether by proxy or not.)
Click to expand...
The factor in all of this is process/due process of law. The criminal undertook an action they knew could lead to this penalty and had every opportunity to defend themselves and avoid the death penalty all together by pleading guilty (assuming they are guilty). The people that were killed in the first place had no such opportunities.
 
Forostar said:
In fact I would like to think that they're overthinking their crimes for a long time.
Click to expand...

Eh. That's generally one of my arguments against death penalty, but the nazi bosses are a bad example. Hess, Speer, Schacht, Schirach and all the others died perfectly happy nazis who were in denial of their wrongdoing.

Okay, Hess killed himself in prison, but they would have let him out decades before if the prison hadn't been a monument of Soviet control in West Berlin.
 
Does anyone think all abortions are necessary? All wars? All euthanasias?
If not, do you draw your line using the same "if" formula Foro uses?
 
All of those are not necessary and not all death sentences have been necessary ... I would like to just get to those that are proper
 
@Perun:
Hmm, alright, I admit this is a tough one. But if I had to choose I would still oppose the death penalty.
Even though -in the light of their crimes- I have more difficulties to explain it, there's still no necessity, imo.

bearfan said:
Not a reason to have a death penalty, but pointing out that putting someone in prison for life does not mean they cannot kill/harm someone else, either other prisoners or the guards.
Click to expand...
Nothing is sure of course. Who knows the one who pushes the button of the electric chair can be electrocuted when all safety measurements have not been taken.
 
As much as I have enjoyed this, I have a ticket to go see Star Trek at the IMAX theater tonight and need to get rolling in a few.
 
mckindog said:
Does anyone think all abortions are necessary? All wars? All euthanasias?
If not, do you draw your line using the same "if" formula Foro uses?
Click to expand...

I draw a different line. A legislative has no say in this. In my opinion, the limits of a legislative should be the ruling of life and death. It has no right, in my eyes, to rule that someone should die for a crime, it has no right to rule over a mother's choice of abortion, and it has no right to rule over somebody choosing to die instead of living with a medical condition. All those are things that no lawmaker should ever mess with. It's not my business, it's not your business, it's not a parliament's business.

War, that's something different, and too complex to get into for me now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top