This is something I didn't give much thought to until recent years. When I was a Christian, I thought the death penalty was okay based on scriptures like "an eye for an eye" or based on the fact that it was permissible throughout the bible.
Recently, Texas switched to pentobarbital, which was pretty controversial because it was believed to cause pain before death. Some would argue that the person being executed should suffer the same way they caused their victim(s) to suffer. I personally think that if we're going to execute people, it should be done without causing them to suffer or to be tortured. I just feel that torturing another human being would rob the torturer of some of his/her humanity, as I feel torture is inhumane. Isn't that the reason for executing, the fact that the person guilty committed some heinous, inhumane act?
My biggest gripe with the death penalty is the fact that many innocent people have or could be put to death. Still, the issue remains nebulous. Is it just a matter of ensuring that those on death row are REALLY guilty of the crime or is the penalty of death wrong regardless of the crime? Should the death penalty only be applied if you kill one person or two? three? four? What makes the Hitlers and Bin Ladens of the world deserving of death, but the Bushes of the world get to live despite the deaths they contributed to (although indirectly...and no, I'm not comparing Bush to Hitler lol) I guess intentions should also be considered right? So would that mean that if a mentally ill person kills numerous people, they should NOT receive the death penalty? Where's John Steinbeck when you need him? lol
I don't know. I'm just curious to see what others have to say. I'm not sure how I feel about it.
Replies are closed for this discussion.
God of the Bible is basically an super powerful egotistical bullheaded asshole, who thinks that whatever he thinks at any given time is right. According to God, Long hair on men looks like crap so any man with long hair is Sinning, except for Samson of course who just wears the long hair stunningly so its okay if he does it.
God: "I like tomatoes!"
Human: "Ew.. I don't"
Human: "I don't like tomatoes"
God: "YOU WHORE! YOU DIRT FILTHY SLUT! HOW DARE YOU HATE SOMETHING I LOVE! SINNER! INFIDEL! YOU SHALL FOREVER BURN IN HELL FOR THAT CRIME!"
Human: "But... didn't you make me this way?"
God: "...I...Well..Erm... BLASPHEMER!"
I think I just came up with the script for my next animation. :D
This is not an easy issue.
The justice system relies upon evidence. Problem is, evidence is not the same thing as fact. Everything that transpires in a court of law is speculation, not fact. 2 different sides interpret the evidence that exists, and a jury of our peers attempts to decide (ideally) which side makes the most reasonable case. But since all parties involved are human, error is inevitable. With lesser cases, such as theft or drugs, or even assault, this error is negligible. But when we're talking about the possibility of handing out a sentence that absolutely cannot be rescinded, nothing is negligible. And so, to proceed with said punishment carrying the knowledge that a conviction is possibly in error, however remotely, is irresponsible. State sanctioned or not, killing an innocent person is murder.
A justice system shouldn't operate upon what the prevailing opinion feels is deserved. I certainly think a child murderer deserves death, but how do I know the person authorities have dragged in front of me is right one? There's simply no way to know with 100% certainty. Again, even 99% is still too much of a margin for error when talking about killing someone.
We have closed this discussion as it has gone wildly off-topic.
As Adriana suggested, the Bush The Liberator discussion needs a thread of it's own.