It is a FACT that the death penalty is wrong, NOT an OPINION. Here's why.

Because to err is human, at some point an innocent human being WILL be killed by the state.

Put all the arguments whether it is right or wrong to kill the guilty aside, because those arguments aren't required to defeat the logic of those who support murder by the state.

It is better a million guilty murders be given life than one innocent die.

Those who support the death penalty have no case in logic or morality.

a place to sleep. I'm sorry for all the folks around here that want to save this guy. I applauded you guys that you can forgive him for what he's done. In a way I can, but in a bigger way I can't, he has denied to those poor people their dreams, their hopes, their freedoms. I'm sorry but to me he needs to meet his maker and explain to him/her, his actions and ask for forgiveness.

The issue is that by keeping the death penalty in place as an option, innocents WILL be murdered by the state.

There is no way around it. The logic and inevitability are inescapable.

Very nice

at those pictures;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5560689&mesg_id=5560689

I'm sorry, I'm truly sorry. but tookie needs to meet his maker. hey let me put it to you like this I have two boy's that I love sooooo much man, so much. But I would take them out of this world myself and face the same death penalty that I have no problem assigning to tookie, if I thought that all they could contribute to the world is what tookie did with his freedom. I'm truly sorry but I just have no respect for tookie.

The issue is not Tookie.

By a huge factor.

It's the legal costs.

If taxes are your big concern, you need to educate yourself about which alternative is cheaper.

give your life.

:pals:

It was mentioned in Dead Man Walking, but I have found that most people would guess that life without parole is way cheaper.

BTW, that book has a good description of the actual machinery of state-sanctioned death.

Keeping murderers imprisoned for life uses a lot less of your tax dollars than killing them.

Is not life in prison punishment enough? If one was "forgiving" him, then they would want him released, no? You're making it sound as if us anti-death penalty people condone murder, and that's wrong! If murder is so terribly wrong, why is it ok for the government to do it to someone?

"It is better a million guilty murders be given life than one innocent die," is an assertion, not a conclusion.

prove that one innocent's death is worse than the deaths of a million murderers

I'm not taking sides; I'm just pointing out a logical flaw.

is worse than giving a million murders life...in prison.

There is no ethical standard that can support any other view, except an unethical standard.

Be sure to reread your post.

"prove that one innocent's death is worse than the deaths of a million murderers"

Have you ever in your life been accused of something, anything large or small, that you did not do? Ever been thrown under the bus by a co-worker, accused of stepping out on an SO?

period

justice is not a natural condition

note that I am not advocating or defending capital punishment

but the OP's argument was logically flawed

Just because something is not a "natural condition" (your own ambiguous, vague, and undefined term) doesn't mean it isn't real!

Please explain THAT one to me!

there is no metric by which one can validate justice

at best it is a vague, imprecise attempt at achieving some sort of subjective balance

there is no force, no law of science, no precise measurement that results in "justice"

the fittest, not the fairest, survive

it may well be, for all we can say with certainty, that one innocent life does in fact balance a million guilty ones

IMHO there are other, more compelling and more logical arguments against capital punishment than this one

Human culture is real, human ethics are real. The most basic tenets of justice are real.

It's unjust to kill an innocent without any counterbalancing benefit to society.

It's not an abstraction. It's part of the reality of ethics shared by all world cultures.

:shrug:

It's in my nature.

:-)

:shrug:

Regardless of personal opinion as to whether or not a particular individual deserves death...that is not the issue.

I'm ruthlessly ethical and I do not consider it "proof."

it is not a true statement that capital punishment is unethical

there are many reasons why it might be wrong, but I require some sort of proof beyond the mere assertion.

otherwise is unethical by any standard.

The ethics of the tragic killing of innocents in war can be debated because it can be argued that the particular conflict is necessary for the safety, freedom, etc. of other innocents in society.

That isn't the case with the death penalty.

Safe in this context means no possibility the criminal will again endanger society.

It is quite possible to make prisons for those now on "death row" escape-proof, if that is where you are going with this line of thought...

I don't believe that killing them makes us safe from the consequences of their lives

I don't believe that locking them away in an escape-proof cage makes us safe

:shrug:

I'm not debating whether the death penalty is right or wrong. I'm just saying that the OP wasn't "proof"; it was an assertion of opinion.

Well, depending on your definition of "wrong" (which is an opinion).

Frankly, you bring up the very issue I have with the death penalty. It's a permanent resolution to an issue that's occasionally dynamic.

However, That's my OPINION.


It's not a "fact" that the death penalty is wrong any more than it's a "fact" that abortion is wrong. The variable in the equation is your individual definition of "wrong".

This isn't like abortion where there is a debate about the definition of when a fetus is "human."

Comparison to the abortion debate doesn't hold water.

..that debate doesn't exist in everybody's mind.


Which is exactly why the comparison DOES hold water.

how there can be any debate that killing a million murders when society can be kept safe otherwise and more cheaply justifies the killing of one innocent.

is genocide wrong?
you tell me

have the death penalty as part of their system of justice?

surely these countries would be a model of progressive thought and peaceful societies.

i would be interested to see such a list and compare ourselves with these other civilized and free societies. after all, the test of a society is how it treats its criminals.

i for one am firmly anti-dp. maybe i am barbaric?

But they have not through the logic deeply enough to realize it.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

You just made all that shit up. Those aren't facts. Those are still your opinions.

any thinking person can be in favor of the death penalty . . . I've read all of their arguments and considered their position, but it always comes back to what kind of society we want to be . . . and a society that doesn't embrace compassion will not long survive . . .

"Well, HE sure as hell wasn't compassionate!" is the inevitable response . . .

which is all the more reason that the rest of us must be . . .

as a society, we have to get our actions in line with our values . . . if one of those values is that killing people is wrong, there can't be exceptions for those we (via our government) don't like . . .

because one day, those people could be us . . . (see Germany, late 1930s to mid 1940s) . . .

not fact.

Aside from the fact that the death penalty is simply another murder...the possibility that one innocent life will be taken it the zeal to execute as amny murderers as possible invalidates the whole system. And that possibility cannot be eliminated.

It's wrong to kill people. I think most of us agree with that.

Doesn't it seem contradictory to kill people to demonstrate how wrong it is to kill? We don't rape rapists or beat up batterers to punish them. Our society should exemplify the highest ideals of humanity. When we apply the death penalty it becomes the most rigorous process and ritual we undertake. It entails procedures and sober solemnization beyond any other thing we do.

An observer might conclude that putting someone to death is the highest function of our society. He might conclude that it is the highest function of an individual. If the person is sick enough, he might arrogate that act to himself. We should not allow that.

While individuals might seek revenge, our aggregate society should reflect the better part of our nature, the part that knows that killing is wrong. That should set the example.

--IMM

Just because you can offer evidence of your opinion doesn't make it into a fact...

Its still an opinion...

recommended.