|
Post by pettyluv on Mar 4, 2002 23:41:11 GMT -5
^^They're remorse does not make their offense any less horrendous! Just because they are sorry for their actions does not mean they should not reap the consequences of them.
|
|
|
Post by girlpoet21 on Mar 5, 2002 0:55:24 GMT -5
^^Petty- not sure who you were talking to, but if it was me, I wasn't saying it did. I was just pointing out that she had said that they should feel remorse before htey did it, and that you can't generally feel remorse for something you haven't done yet. That usually (with some people) comes afterward.
Fuzzy- Just to quote you- " In my book, if you take the life of another, you do not deserve to live, for I view life as a privilege and a blessing." So doesn't that make the executioner just as bad as the criminal? After all, they're killing them.
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on Mar 5, 2002 1:03:10 GMT -5
^^No, I do not see it that way, I see it as society acting in self-defense against someone who killed a member of society, thus society has been harmed and it has the right to strike back and terminate one who ends the life of one of its members.
|
|
|
Post by Soleluna on Mar 5, 2002 1:09:06 GMT -5
I am compltetely against the death penalty. No one has to choose when a person has to die. Put them to work, make them do act that will be useful for the society, but don't take their lives!!!! I think it is just not right.
|
|
|
Post by .Hunting:High:and:Low. on Mar 5, 2002 1:40:01 GMT -5
Well said petty, I don't think I really have anything to add to that, girlpoet... soleluna, I agree with you to a point. But prisoners aren't doing any hard labor and that is what I disgree with. You do something wrong and harmful to society, you should be doing back breaking, excrutiating work, IMO. Until our justice system takes that turn and doesn't let those useless maggots just sit there in their jail cells doing nothing to help benefit the society it harmed, then I still want the death penalty. Edited to add this: I also think that prisoners should be sent off to remote areas to do that work, whatever it may be, without any outside contact such as family or friends. Maybe if these people got some real punishment, they'd think twice about killing innocents (anyone remember that little San Diego girl? Whoever did that made me sick and so angry, no one deserves to live after doing something like that, and some of you people are telling me that he should? Grr.)
|
|
|
Post by Cassiopeia on Mar 5, 2002 21:17:59 GMT -5
>>So doesn't that make the executioner just as bad as the criminal? After all, they're killing them. <<
I agree with 100% girlpoet. It is wrong for anyone to murder another human being, regardless of their authority. And for those of you who say that a murderer loses their priviledge to live, what gives you the right to decide that?
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on Mar 5, 2002 21:30:10 GMT -5
<< what gives you the right to decide that? >>
The laws ordained by the Constitution and Congress of the United Stated of America.
|
|
|
Post by .Hunting:High:and:Low. on Mar 5, 2002 21:33:02 GMT -5
And for those of you who say that a murderer loses their priviledge to live, what gives you the right to decide that? One could say that about any right that we may or may not have, so it is pretty much pointless to argue that. I believe that once you take someone else's life, you should have to forfeit yours. Personally, I believe that. If I murdered someone, I would not expect to live out my days when that person is 6 feet under, but then again, I am not a criminal, so of course I have more sense than they do. But I also feel it is in the society's best interests to... well, what better way to put this? There is none so I will just say it: Best interests to get rid of the problem, and in that case, a murderer. Edited to add this: Cassiopeia (don't know if I spelled that correctly, sorry ), you ask me what gives me the right to pick and choose who to kill under the DP? What gave that killer the right to rape, kill, maim, slaughter, or whatever they did to that victim? Whatever happened to a victim's rights? They are slowly dwindling down so that the criminal has more rights than the victim! That is ludicrous!
|
|
|
Post by Cassiopeia on Mar 5, 2002 22:03:46 GMT -5
^^^ A murderer does not have the right to kill another person, and that's why they are punished for it in some way. However, the person who gives the murder the lethal injection is just as bad, yet they aren't punished. It shouldn't be illegal for one person to kill another, and be perfectly fine for another person to do the same to them.
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on Mar 5, 2002 22:12:30 GMT -5
^^Nope the "exacutioner" is ordained by the government of the United States of America to perform this act, as is a soldier able to kill in battle, and a police officer able to shoot and kill in self defense, as is your everyday citizen able to shoot and kill in self-defense.
|
|
|
Post by Cassiopeia on Mar 5, 2002 22:16:09 GMT -5
Executing someone is not self-defense. Killing someone in self-defense is when the person who is defending him or herself is in danger of being killed by the other person right then and there.
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on Mar 5, 2002 22:19:39 GMT -5
^^Yes it is! It is in self defense of society and the state so that these killers can no longer pose a threat to society.
|
|
|
Post by Cassiopeia on Mar 5, 2002 22:27:45 GMT -5
It is very different in my opinion. If you are a police officer and are being shot at, it is justifiable to shoot back at that person to save your own life. One of you is going to die anyway, so it makes sense that you would want to save yourself. But a convicted murderer poses no direct threat to the person who is giving them the lethal injection. Also, the person he or she killed is already dead. By killing the murderer, you are not saving anyone; you are just killing another person.
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on Mar 5, 2002 22:34:33 GMT -5
The person administering the lethal injection is not at fault in any way, and I see this point of view in folly. The person is just doing his job was the intentions of his job once he was hired by the United States government. This is a mere government job that he takes.
|
|
|
Post by girlpoet21 on Mar 6, 2002 2:49:15 GMT -5
Cassi-I agree with you totally. You're making some great points.
Petty-The government (even if it is the United States) is not a total authority though, and it shouldn't be. As a Christian (yes, I know, some of you are saying, ugh, is she going into that again?!!) I believe that only God has the right to decide whether someone should die or not. We are only human, we don't have that right, and neither does the US government. And now for the secular side. Sticking a needle filled with a lethal dose in a person who is strapped down surrounded by guards is not self defense. It's just killing someone, and the executioner lowers themself to the same level as the original murderer. Unless you are in immediate danger, it's not self defense.
|
|