define('DISALLOW_FILE_EDIT', true); define('DISALLOW_FILE_MODS', true); Comments on: Thoughts on the so-called “death penalty” http://www.makingchutney.com/2005/12/15/thoughts-on-the-so-called-death-penalty/ One part facial hair. Two parts moxy. Fri, 10 Feb 2006 02:56:22 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0 By: .. http://www.makingchutney.com/2005/12/15/thoughts-on-the-so-called-death-penalty/comment-page-1/#comment-2987 Fri, 10 Feb 2006 02:56:22 +0000 http://www.makingchutney.com/posts/2005/12/15/thoughts-on-the-so-called-death-penalty/#comment-2987 […] I have ambigous feelings about the death penalty. But anyone who kills someone over religious satire deserves to die, painfully and in public. And anyone who incites others to do so deserves to die. Twice. […]

]]> By: rdk http://www.makingchutney.com/2005/12/15/thoughts-on-the-so-called-death-penalty/comment-page-1/#comment-2851 Thu, 22 Dec 2005 14:52:21 +0000 http://www.makingchutney.com/posts/2005/12/15/thoughts-on-the-so-called-death-penalty/#comment-2851 this is right on. i just wanted to add, that as a family member of a person who was murdered (and whose killer is currently on death row), my first and lasting reaction is that i would really like to kill the motherf@cker. with my bare hands. and maybe a spoon. and you know what that’s about? vengeance.

vengeance is not and never will be justice.

your point about spectacle adds to this angle, i think. since at least if there was a public beheading in the square, someone else might think twice about committing a crime. as it is, the “death penalty” does not act as a deterrent in any way. at least if it were a deterrent to future crime, advocates for it would have some sort of policy imperative to stand on.

i also feel strongly that when my cousin’s killer is executed (he’s in TX, so clemency is highly unlikely), the number of victims will be doubled. my cousin’s son will never be able to talk to her again, and his family, too, will become more victims of the tragedy.

]]> By: Jeff http://www.makingchutney.com/2005/12/15/thoughts-on-the-so-called-death-penalty/comment-page-1/#comment-2839 Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:20:53 +0000 http://www.makingchutney.com/posts/2005/12/15/thoughts-on-the-so-called-death-penalty/#comment-2839 Though I could only be described as a conservative, I am against the death penalty. I don’t believe anyone has the right to take another’s life — be it in an executive chamber or as part of a police action on foreign soil.

]]> By: smijer http://www.makingchutney.com/2005/12/15/thoughts-on-the-so-called-death-penalty/comment-page-1/#comment-2835 Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:46:19 +0000 http://www.makingchutney.com/posts/2005/12/15/thoughts-on-the-so-called-death-penalty/#comment-2835 Whoops… the above link should have gone to #19 rather than #20 …

]]> By: smijer http://www.makingchutney.com/2005/12/15/thoughts-on-the-so-called-death-penalty/comment-page-1/#comment-2834 Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:45:25 +0000 http://www.makingchutney.com/posts/2005/12/15/thoughts-on-the-so-called-death-penalty/#comment-2834 t "penalty" a sports term? Not only that, "penalty" makes the whole discussion about whether someone deserves execution or not. </blockquote> As you say, "of course he deserves it" (presuming he wasn't falsely convicted!)... But since when is the state supposed to be in charge of making sure everyone gets what they deserve? That's just silly. The state should not administer <i>undeserved</i> punishment, but the mere fact that it is deserved does not make it the state's job to ensure that it is gotten. The state's job is to provide for the security and general welfare of the people... not to see that they all "get what they deserve". <blockquote>There are some pretty good thinkers who’ve made the case that "life imprisonment" (there’s another funny term) is more inhumane than public execution. (If this is the case, perhaps some will want to be appointed public gloaters to enjoy, on our behalf, the hours of unceasing unenjoyment that the imprisoned suffer.) Are we really so sure that "life imprisonment" is more "humane" than execution?</blockquote> The major difference here is that life imprisonment isn't inhumane by design. We imprison for life in order to protect the innocent. Protecting the innocent is a valid design of justice. Execution is expression of the view that the individual "deserves" this particular type of cruelty. Of course it's cruel - cruelty is the only motivation behind it. As you can see, my views on the death penalty are closely tied to a desire that our justice system serve justice, rather than any other principle. An eye for an eye is sound moral reasoning, if it is taken as a limitation: no more than an eye for an eye - rather than a command: One should take an eye for an eye. If there is no just or moral cause served by the taking, there is no morality in it... It is revenge, retalitation, retribution... whatever you want to call it. <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=12&verse=21&version=kjv" rel="nofollow">Here's one thought on that</a>.]]>

The impossibility of reconciliation with the executed.

I phrase this differently, but the approach is the same… I call it the impossibility of restitution by the executed. Restitution is a valid form of justice. If justice is to be done, restitution should be made, where possible. Execution ends the possibility for restitution and is therefore unjust.

The responsibility of spectacle.

Good point.. .Although I fear executions might be watched with prurient interest by many, your points are sound. I think that at the very least, the governor of the state, when clemency is denied by him, should be asked to witness the execution. He makes the final decision, he should know what his own hand hath wrought.

Isn’t “penalty” a sports term? Not only that, “penalty” makes the whole discussion about whether someone deserves execution or not.

As you say, “of course he deserves it” (presuming he wasn’t falsely convicted!)… But since when is the state supposed to be in charge of making sure everyone gets what they deserve? That’s just silly. The state should not administer undeserved punishment, but the mere fact that it is deserved does not make it the state’s job to ensure that it is gotten. The state’s job is to provide for the security and general welfare of the people… not to see that they all “get what they deserve”.

There are some pretty good thinkers who’ve made the case that “life imprisonment” (there’s another funny term) is more inhumane than public execution. (If this is the case, perhaps some will want to be appointed public gloaters to enjoy, on our behalf, the hours of unceasing unenjoyment that the imprisoned suffer.) Are we really so sure that “life imprisonment” is more “humane” than execution?

The major difference here is that life imprisonment isn’t inhumane by design. We imprison for life in order to protect the innocent. Protecting the innocent is a valid design of justice. Execution is expression of the view that the individual “deserves” this particular type of cruelty. Of course it’s cruel – cruelty is the only motivation behind it.

As you can see, my views on the death penalty are closely tied to a desire that our justice system serve justice, rather than any other principle.

An eye for an eye is sound moral reasoning, if it is taken as a limitation: no more than an eye for an eye – rather than a command: One should take an eye for an eye. If there is no just or moral cause served by the taking, there is no morality in it… It is revenge, retalitation, retribution… whatever you want to call it. Here’s one thought on that.

]]>