Yeah, They Can Die.

Personally I believe that no one living thing is more important than any other living creature and because of this belief I don’t agree with capital punishment. I understand that keeping a person in prison for life is costly and that tax payers pay for the food and the needs of the person in prison but there could be alternatives to that. A person who is given a life sentence could work in the prison in order to earn money that would pay for the things they need. That’s reasonable and that way people aren’t playing God. It’s not right for other humans to decide if a person is worthy of living or not. I am not über religious person, that’s pretty well known, but I respect God’s love for all people, DESPITE whatever wrongs they may have done. I mean I am not condoning any of the things a person may have done to be given the death penalty, but I can’t judge their actions. I don’t know their life or their issues or their personality; I especially can’t judge what is right or wrong because I feel like those words have a unique meaning to each person. By giving people the right to decide that another person must die is making the decider a murderer, or in other words it’s making murder okay as long as it’s the murder of a “bad” person and the government says it’ okay.

Capital punishment is not an eye for an eye, taking the life of a criminal doesn’t bring the murdered back to life. It doesn’t change the fact that the killed will never be seen again in this life time, the negative feelings that are felt won’t magically become positive when the murder is killed, it doesn’t work like that. People create their own feelings and choose their own actions. Revenge doesn’t work; if there’s anything that history, and movies, has taught me it’s that no matter what revenge isn’t a magical fix it all. The only way a person is going to feel any better about the loss of someone they love is by dealing with their own internal feelings.

Aside from being totally hypocritical capital punishment also provides a kind of Get Out of This Life Free card. If a person has the mental and physical ability to kill someone else then it’s a safe bet that there’s something wrong with them. By killing them you’re removing their ability to suffer, if the desire is to have the murderer suffer then keeping them alive is probably one of the worse forms of punishment. The human mind is quite intense, if allowed to wander and think for copious amounts of time, which is bound to happen if a person is in a prison cell, then one can only imagine what thoughts would go through the murderers’ mind. Death would allow an escape from this world and the process of thinking for the person and would remove the suffering a person that people obviously want suffering.

THE Capital Punishment

First I would like to thank the people that have already done their journal. Without them I would not be able to go onto the blog to see what in the world I have to write about. BUT, because they did in fact do their journal early like the good little students they are I know now that the topic of discussion is capital punishment.
Capital punishment is a very controversial topic( naturally because everything we blog about falls into this category) that is discussed a good deal. It is not the most discussed topic but since Georgia houses one of the few facilities in the country where prisoners are taken to be executed so it is a little more discussed.
The death penalty implemented by the government, to its citizens is an idea that can be traced back to the Bible. In fact most of the rules in modern day government can be somewhat traced back to the Bible. The difference is though, is that the Bible condones many different reasons for the death, while our law mainly reserves such a penalty to murder. The idea of the death penalty is that the convicted is so evil and such a threat to society that they are a risk even to be left alive. I believe that there can be such a case where this would apply.
Ok so yes I am for the death penalty in the certain situation that I have stated above; now to address all of the "well what about when..." statements that follow the death penalty. First of all: "Well what about how it is very painful when being eliminated?". Personally, I don't understand how this argument make sense. Let me give you a situation. A man decides he is going to date some women and then when he is going to bring them home. Back at his home he will then proceed to rape and/or kill them. Now, let's imagine that this man is arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to the death penalty. Now, please raise your hand if you are worried about the amount of pain this man receives as he is being exterminated from society. Exterminated: just like a pest.
"What about how it cost more to kill a felon than to keep him in prison?". If you think that what you are doing is really true, then allowing monetary concerns affect your decision making process is an insult to your own character. Do we stop enforcing the border with Mexico because we will never catch them all and it costs us a lot of money? Or do we not send a helicopter to someone because it will be costly for them travel all the way out in the woods? Money invested in keeping our country safe is money better spent than many other ways our taxes are used.
Finally I would like to talk about the "What if the person is innocent?". For the last two responses I had a rather simple time developing a stance. This is a harder question, especially because of The Innocent Project expositing so many people who have been convicted who are actually innocent. The only answer I have, and I do not believe that this would be good enough for anyone who has been falsely accused, is that when you become a citizen of a country you lose some of your rights, but you gain the protection of the government. There are risks involved in being a citizen and you can say this one of them. Also, we can not dwell on the bitter past, but rather it is more prudent to move forward. I'm sure that today with many DNA testing the odds are very low of being falsely convicted and as time goes along, the odds will go down. And there you have it: Capital Punishment.

Capital Punishment

Capital punishment or more commonly known as the death penalty, “is the killing of a person by judicial process as a punishment for an offense. Crimes that can result in a death penalty are known as capital crimes or capital offences.” This subject is very controversial, but has been practiced by most countries though many no longer use it or have abolished it. Some only use it in extreme cases such as wartime and whatnot. I feel like I do not have much of a say on this issue because I do not really deal with it on a daily basis like I do with the environment. Capital punishment is not something that I can easily be a part of or make a difference in so why would I actually really care about it, but that sounds kind of harsh doesn’t it. Capital punishment I do not think is something that will ever have a right or wrong answer, there will always be critics and there will always be pro-capital punishment people. “In most places that practice capital punishment it is reserved for murder, espionage, treason, or as part of military justice. In some countries sexual crimes, such as rape, adultery, incest and sodomy, carry the death penalty.” In a way people who do these kinds of things are not a positive influence on our country and therefore should be taken out. We do not need people in our country that cannot follow the rules and treat others with respect. The other option would be to live in jail for the rest of your life, or a very long time. I mean which would you really rather have? Why would anyone just waste their life away in a jail cell? I guess some could be afraid of death and what comes after, or some hope for release, possibly escape, who knows. I mean definitely the people who do these things more than once should get the plug pulled because they are apparently not learning their lesson, the point is not getting across. Oh this sounds so bad when you’re talking about a human being’s life because is not something you just play around with. “In the U.S., surveys have long shown a majority in favor of capital punishment. About half the American public says the death penalty is not imposed frequently enough and 60 percent believe it is applied fairly. Yet surveys also show the public is more divided when asked to choose between the death penalty and life without parole, or when dealing with juvenile offenders.” There are so many questions to be asked when dealing with capital punishment, and so many varying situations. It is difficult to know when a situation is extreme enough to apply it, but I guess some cases are clear because people are being given the death penalty. I think we should always keep in mind how special life is, and that people are able to change they just need encouragement and support to get through it.

Does anyone have the right to take another’s life? This key question is the basis for many controversial topics. Capital punishment is one of the most hotly debated topics within our country today. It’s even right up there with abortion, universal health care and oil. However, it seems this one is more important seeing as how it directly relates to the giving and taking of life. It seems the central argument is whether it can be deemed “right or just” to take a murderer’s life.
In my personal opinion, I completely agree with the death penalty. No one has the right to take another’s life, however I believe this right is forfeited when the murder is committed. If the government shows weakness in this area, then there will be nothing deterring people from committing murder everyday. We already have enough killing as it is. If the perpetrators have very insignificant consequences to face due to the murder, then they will most likely see it as an open call to do whatever they want.
The life sentence is a weak way out. I personally do not agree with this. If the individual enacted the most terrible act of taking another’s life, there is no excuse; this person should not be given the privilege to live out the remainder of their life. I find it’s only fair that they should pay the ultimate price for their deeds. Although many, more liberal, individuals would argue that if the murderer doesn’t have the right to take a life then neither does the justice system. This idea, however, is inconceivably childish. This would be like letting a child go unpunished for an act they committed. People have to learn their lesson the hard way. If that means paying for murder with your life, so be it. This is the only way to keep people from feeling they have the freedom to do whatever they want. If the death penalty was abolished, many more murders would be ensured. Our prison systems would be over-run with the murderers; our nation would waste copious amounts of tax-payers’ money to take care of the scum that decides to perform such atrocious actions. This is ridiculous. What would anyone have to fear then? A disregard for the laws would overwhelm the nation. The only thing the murderers would have to fear is sitting in a cozy little jail cell, not having to work for anything or even do anything for the remainder of their lives. This is so clearly not fair, while their victims are rotting in the ground.
I can understand if there was a solid logical reason for the murder, such as self-defense. This is the only excuse for committing such an act as murder. This still has a consequence attached to the act because, most likely, the individual would be tortured by the thought that they have taken another human life.
Unless the murder falls under the only acceptable branch of self-defense, all murderers should be put to death regardless of the magnitude of the death. Texas has the right idea of an express lane for the death penalty. If three or more people witnessed the murder, the individual automatically jumps straight to death. This is completely reasonable. Capital punishment needs to remain strong within our country.

Capital Punishment

Capital punishment is the killing of a person by judicial process as a punishment for a capital offense. This process has been practiced in almost every society in the past, and currently, 58 nations around the world practice it, with 95 countries abolishing it and the 10 remaining not using it or not allowing it except in certain circumstances. Recently, I have noticed that the topic of capital punishment has changed from a legal issue to a bigger moral issue. Gone are the days where the decision to execute a criminal was simple and accepted. These days there is a huge debate about whether capital punishment is morally the right thing to do. Opponents of the death penalty argue that it has led to the execution of innocent people and that its main motive is revenge rather than justice. They also feel that it is just a means to saves money, discriminates against minorities and the poor, and violates the criminal’s right to live. Supporters of capital punishment feel that the death penalty affirms the right to life by punishing those who violate it and that it is justified by the principle of retribution. Both sides feel they are correct in the matter and there is evidence to support both arguments. One thing I see is that both sides are arguing about the right to live; one for it and one against it. This shows that the issues surrounding capital punishment revolve around whether or not it is morally right to kill a person after they have committed a horrible crime.

Personally, I have mixed feelings toward capital punishment. In some cases I agree with it but in other cases I don’t. When we discussed this topic in class a while back, many people were in the middle as well. A big factor for me regarding the use of the death penalty revolves around the crime and the condition of the criminal. In my opinion, the death penalty should only be used in cases involving murder, including first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and voluntary manslaughter, that exceeds a certain number of people. The death penalty should not be used for a criminal that kills one person because I don’t feel that it the proper punishment. If someone kills another person, they deserve to live the rest of their life in the worst possible conditions. In the case of one person being murdered, I think that their killer should spend the rest of their life rotting in a jail cell. In the cases involving multiple murders, the killer should receive the death penalty. If they take it into their own hands and end the lives of numerous people, their life deserves to end. In this case, the criminal is forced to sit on death row for an unknown amount of time awaiting their termination. I do not believe that some criminals should be excused from the death penalty because they are considered mentally unstable or their crime was committed in the “heat of passion”. It is a good thing that I am not in charge of handing out death row invites because I just don’t think I could handle that.

Journal Entry 5/3/10 - Capital Punishment

When someone mentions capital punishment, usually the first thing that comes to mind is the death penalty, or execution via lethal injection or electrocution. The death penalty has existed all throughout time and has been put into place using everything from the gallows to the guillotine. Capital punishment is used in our country today for people who commit extremely serious crimes, usually involving multiple murders or cases of rape, etc. A big debate arises and is still very prevalent whenever someone asks whether we should keep employing this punishment tactic. Is it worse to be kept in prison without parole than to just be put to death? In some cases, yes; I believe that sometimes, depending on the individual, it would be worse to suffer in solitary confinement than to just be put to death immediately. Some people, however, just hate knowing that they are waiting to die, just sitting in prison knowing that their day will come and yet not having any control over the situation. Another issue about the death penalty is the topic of innocent victims. What if you were convicted of a serious crime, yet innocent, and was sentenced to the death penalty. How horrible would that be? I have heard cases in which some people have been proven innocent via DNA testing years after being put to death. Although this might be rare, it still has happened enough for the death penalty to be evaluated in its effectiveness. I think however that the death penalty does more good than harm and when false accusations lead to innocent deaths, I think that is faulted to the court system not the death penalty. I am for the death penalty for the most part because it ends people's lives who do not deserve to live after committing evil, gruesome acts. But, at last, there is another debate: the morality of the death penalty. Who is the US to say who gets to live and who gets to die? They are almost playing the "God" role in the court system. If the system ever gets corrupted, there is the deadly potential for everyone just to be put to death, though this is unlikely due to checks and balances. Although many countries have retained capital punishment, there are many nations in Europe that have abolished it. I saw a statistic stating that since colonial times, around 13,000 people have been put to death. This actually surprised me because I would have thought over the course of 300 years, there would be many more people killed due to all the ruthless murderers that have existed throughtout history. The death penalty offers no second chance and this is the only aspect of capital punishment that I am less fond of. Everyone is capable of change and I think that bad people can become good, however the death penalty greatly eliminates this. Overall, I appreciate capital punishment for taking cruel people out of society and lessening the chance of other violent murders and grotesque crimes to occur within our countries boundaries.

cap pun

“…within sovereignty, the right over life and death is unbalanced, since "sovereign power's effect on life is exercised only when the sovereign can kill, such that the essence of the right of life and death is actually the right to kill."”

- Giorgia Agamben, Sovereignty and Life

It seems to me that the debate about the death penalty has taken an unfortunate transformation into a debate between ethics and pragmatism, which makes arguments on each side inconsistent with each other. Capital punishment is one of those issues that could only be determined as per epistemology; seeing that any opinion pertaining to this issue could be refuted with pretty devastating arguments. Of course, the epistemic problem is pretty self-evident and could be applied to everything, but the problem is that most people neglect this consideration and hide behind the walls of ignorance. The epistemic problem is also just a consideration; it should not hinder us from our opinions, but rather open us up to accept the validity of others. As for capital punishment, not many would question the utilitarian stance of the death penalty; eliminating the threat of a dangerous criminal, who would probably go off and kill many others, could only be seen as a pragmatic decision. But on the other hand, who are we to judge when we have not gone through the experience of having a close relative or friend being sentenced to death? How do we know that all that we believe the death penalty is true? It seems that many people would argue for death penalty because it seems to be the most utilitarian route: justifiable with the “you kill him so I kill you” ideology. However, if we look beyond the almost negligible body count, capital punishment seems to bring about much more negatives than it does positives.
Of course, I could use lots of stories and personal experiences to voice dissent towards the capital punishment, but that doesn’t seem to be an argument for those who are for it (people tend to dismiss the arguments such as “it is immoral”, “we are killers”, etc). So I will concentrate my arguments within the framework of those who are for the death penalty: a framework that favors utilitarianism and absolute assumptions (there are no mistakes in sentencing). First is an economic issue. Richard Dieter, executive director of The Death Penalty Information Center, reported that the financial cost to sustain the practice of capital punishment not only exceed the cost of life sentence by 4 times, but also drags down state budgets. This problem is especially relevant in recent years when our economy has been very unstable. Dieter also indicates that some states just could not afford to execute anymore of their prisoners (perhaps that is the reason behind the diminishing number of executions in the US). Note that this money comes out of the pockets of citizens, which means that our earnings are also (no matter how negligible the effect) are also affected by capital punishment. Second is the law. This is not the “it is cruel and unusual” argument. The death penalty is in direct violation of international law. Anthony Bishop, professor of law, indicates that this violation of international law greatly undermines other country’s respect for the United States, our credibility as a proponent of human rights, and even our ability to get other countries on board to further our national interests.