willbeurdaddy
Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: nephandi Greetings quote:
The problem I have with your position is that it is similar to the moral equivalency that plagues US foreign policy discourse. You equate the state putting to death a heinous criminal with "murder" and with his crimes. Once you have done that then there is obviously no option but to oppose the death penalty. The fact is that there is not even close to an equivalency between convicting and punishing someone who has (in this instance) murdered nearly 100 people and his execution. There are sick people in this world who simply deserve to die, and accomplishing that is not murder, it is justice and improves society. This is an extreme case, and yes I agree, some people deserve to die, they deserve worse, they deserve to be slowly boiled in oil their toes first, however my problem is, who is getting to decide, is it really for human beings to sit in judgment over one another and decide who live and who dies. However if you look past this one, horrible case, then most people who kill will not call it murder, they will have some reason why it is justified, why should it be better when a state decides that a killing is justified than when a single individual do? I am also very concerned with the fact that not everyone sentenced for a crime have actually done it, and death is rather finite. In this case the guy was caught red handed, but if we had death penalty, what about next time, can we really trust a court to be good enough to separate out the truth to be allowed to decide if a man or a woman lives or dies. At times like this my heart cries for blood, I hope this man dies, I hope he have horrible, painful death. I am outraged that he faces 21 years in jail, and in a Norwegian jail at that which have a rather good standard, yes he deserves to die, but no matter how much I want for his death I still do not think it is right for a nation to be able to decide to kill someone. I understand your point, but I can not agree with it, even if my opinion on that weavers today when faced with just such massive evil. I wish you well To your first rhetorical, yes, it IS for other human beings to decide...there is no "higher authority" to make that judgement. Civilization has been built on crime and punishment and ensuring that "evil" is not allowed to flourish. It IS better when the state decides because the state is representing the people it is charged with protecting. Again, capital punishment is not morally equivalent to mass murder. As far as innocents being executed, yes, it is possible but becoming more and more unlikely. Even before DNA evidence cases of actual misidentfication of who committed a murder was extremely rare (as opposed to willful punishment of an innocent as a scapegoat or racial target). Is it still possible to convict an innocent? Yes, but I don't think that miniscule chance justifies tipping the balance of justice entirely the other way.
_____________________________
Hear the lark and harken to the barking of the dogfox, gone to ground.
|