Should Murderers Have The Option of Requesting the Death Penalty?

[burning 4 revenge]

And you're arguing that people should be left to rot in prison, some confined to solitary. That's inhumane treatment. Look at animals in old fashioned zoos. They go insane and their cages are larger than what some felons experience. So this is okay with you? To force "human beings" to live like this for decades until they die? Now who's inhuman.

So your answer is to what....kill prisoners when they get depressed...the very act of the state killing someone in a controlled situation dimishes all of us

[Trialbyfire]

So your answer is to what....kill prisoners when they get depressed...the very act of the state killing someone in a controlled situation dimishes all of us

If their choice is to die, that's their choice. How does it diminish us all? I see it as abiding by the wishes of those who are human. Do you wish to diminish their rights by forcing them to live under the confines of what you deem as right, which would be inhumane torture? Who are you to decide for someone else, what they want to do with their lives?

[burning 4 revenge]

If their choice is to die, that's their choice. How does it diminish us all? I see it as abiding by the wishes of those who are human. Do you wish to diminish their rights by forcing them to live under the confines of what you deem as right, which would be inhumane torture? Who are you to decide for someone else, what they want to do with their lives?

You are advocating that the state either (a) actively kill them or (b) give them the means to kill themselves which goes beyond their choice and becomes society's choice

[Trialbyfire]

You are advocating that the state either (a) actively kill them or (b) give them the means to kill themselves which goes beyond their choice and becomes society's choice

This thread discusses allowing prisoners to kill themselves or take the route of a state execution, by choice. That puts the responsibility back into the felons hands. It's their choice that motivates the action.

[burning 4 revenge]

This thread discusses allowing prisoners to kill themselves or take the route of a state execution, by choice. That puts the responsibility back into the felons hands. It's their choice that motivates the action.

If the state provides them the means then it becomes society's choice to participate

[Trialbyfire]

If the state provides them the means then it becomes society's choice to participate

Society would be allowing people the ability to make their own choices, instead of forcing someone to live their lives through decades of inhumane torture in solitary confinement. We treat animals better now than felons on death row.

[burning 4 revenge]

Society would be allowing people the ability to make their own choices, instead of forcing someone to live their lives through decades of inhumane torture in solitary confinement. We treat animals better now than felons on death row.

Im not so sure everyone on death row spends decades in solitary confinement. Usually that is a temporary punishment for unruly prisoners

 

Secondly your argument opens the door to euthenasia whcih you undoubtably support

[Trialbyfire]

Im not so sure everyone on death row spends decades in solitary confinement. Usually that is a temporary punishment for unruly prisoners

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/time-death-row

 

Guess again.

 

Secondly your argument opens the door to euthenasia whcih you undoubtably support

Yes, I do support it. Btw, I have a living will. Quality of life v. quantity of life.

[IrishCarBomb]

Im not so sure everyone on death row spends decades in solitary confinement. Usually that is a temporary punishment for unruly prisoners

 

In regular prison, this is the case. However, since death row is the worst of the worst, and they theoretically have nothing to lose, many states keep them in solitary confinement as the norm.

[burning 4 revenge]

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/time-death-row

 

Guess again.

 

Yes, I do support it. Btw, I have a living will. Quality of life v. quantity of life.

Well Id prefer to improve their living conditions as opposed to killing them

 

Had you thought of that?

[Trialbyfire]

Well Id prefer to improve their living conditions as opposed to killing them

 

Had you thought of that?

How about ensuring they all have feather beds and pillows, with XFM radio access and luxury hot tubs?

[burning 4 revenge]

How about ensuring they all have feather beds and pillows, with XFM radio access and luxury hot tubs?

So now you admit you want to kill them out of a sense of vindictiveness?

[burning 4 revenge]

Quality of life v. quantity of life.

This sounds like something Hitler would say

 

This is why I voted for Sarah Palin instead of Barack Obama even though hes obviously more sophisticated. I dont trust secular progressives on the most fundamental issues of human rights

[Trialbyfire]

So now you admit you want to kill them out of a sense of vindictiveness?

Vindictiveness? Spare me. Seems to me you prefer to torture and drive people insane with solitary confinement.

 

This is why I voted for Sarah Palin instead of Barack Obama even though hes obviously more sophisticated. I dont trust secular progressives on the most fundamental issues of human rights

Why doesn't this surprise me? You vote emotionally.

[burning 4 revenge]

If you believe there is no value in emotion then you are already dead and that is why youre an advocate for the culture of death

[Trialbyfire]

If you believe there is no value in emotion then you are already dead and that is why youre an advocate for the culture of death

Emotional voting = irrational voting due to fear. That's meaningless to me.

[BubblyPopcorn]

See this is what amazes me, this topic mentioned nothing about the rights of those children that this man MURDERED. What about their rights??!! Oh that's right, they have none.

 

Urgh!

[IrishCarBomb]

See this is what amazes me, this topic mentioned nothing about the rights of those children that this man MURDERED. What about their rights??!! Oh that's right, they have none.

 

Urgh!

 

I don't understand your point. Certainly the crime was bad enough to put the criminal to death. But the crime is not the point, the issue is whether or not it's a wise thing to do once convicted of the crime. The children are dead, it's awful, but really not part of the issue.

[BubblyPopcorn]

I don't understand your point. Certainly the crime was bad enough to put the criminal to death. But the crime is not the point, the issue is whether or not it's a wise thing to do once convicted of the crime. The children are dead, it's awful, but really not part of the issue.

 

My point is in response to the original question. Why are we, as a “society”, arguing over the rights of a convicted murderer? Why aren’t we, as a society, arguing over the rights of the victims? That’s what I have difficulty understanding.

 

I am by no means attacking you, but how is it that you can say "the crime is not the point"? Of course it's the point. Wise in what sense? That the children are "dead" but not part of the issue?

[IrishCarBomb]

My point is in response to the original question. Why are we, as a “society”, arguing over the rights of a convicted murderer? Why aren’t we, as a society, arguing over the rights of the victims? That’s what I have difficulty understanding.

 

I am by no means attacking you, but how is it that you can say "the crime is not the point"? Of course it's the point. Wise in what sense? That the children are "dead" but not part of the issue?

 

Victim's are typically the most biased and least capable of wanting a productive result.

 

The crime is not the point because by the time capital punishment even enters into the scope of discussion, it's already moot. The most severe and awful crimes are requisite to even mentioning capital punishment. The victims cannot be brought back, there is nothing than can undo the crime, and the criminal will never have his freedom again (in the very least, he will get life in prison w/o parole). In short, the crime is a sunk cost.

[Taramere]

This sounds like something Hitler would say

 

Long time no see, b4r.

 

The quality versus quantity of life comment might well sound like something Hitler would say, but I'd venture that it's something lots of other people who are nothing like Hitler would agree with. With regard to euthanasia, I strongly think that if I were in a pretty much vegetative state with no hope of recovery then I would want my life terminated. I'm not advocating this should be compulsory for others, but I'd like to have the option of having my own life terminated in those circumstances.

 

Similarly if some terrible, uncontrollable part of me had done something dreadful like murdering a child, I really believe that would torture whatever healthy human part of me was left day and night. That I'd be very grateful for someone giving me the means to bring it all to an end. I might be wrong of course. Perhaps if I was suddenly in that situation for real I'd feel differently. We can only use our imaginations and our existing knowledge of who and what we are in speculating about how we'd handle situations that are foreign to us.

 

In that same vein, I suspect if I was directly involved (ie developing a counselling relationship with someone who was considering that option of assisted suicide) I would find it very difficult emotionally. I don't know that many people could be closely involved in a process like that without having some pretty serious psychological fall-out.

 

But I wouldn't consider it immoral to provide the person with the means of suicide if they found that preferable to the idea of rotting in prison and living with the constant realisation that a broken part of them had done something supremely evil (ie killing a child). Difficult and distressing, yes....but those things do not automatically mean a certain course of action is the wrong one.

 

If the wider belief in society is that assisted suicide for someone who genuinely wants to die (and for whom the circumstances that make them want to die will not change) is morally wrong, then I accept that. But I've yet to hear an argument that makes me agree with it. Morality sometimes seems like little more than the reflection people want to see of themselves in the mirror. The pride of knowing that they're adhering to a set of beliefs and principles....all too often at a cost which others must meet.

 

I'd concede, though, that a policy of permitting assisted suicide to take place could open the floodgates to other policies and actions that I would agree were immoral.

[Brimstone_Angel]

God has NEVER, EVER done away with justice or laws. He has left the execution of human decency and the necessary to punish evil to the hands of humankind. He has never said it was wrong for a man or woman OR even child for that matter who knowingly, wrongfully, and willfully take the life of another. He has told us that evil needs to be put away from us. Thus, we have things like prison and jails and even mental hospitals to hold those who cannot live within the bounds of a peaceful society. Why? Because like a disease or cancer, to let these evils live within a society only leads to its deterioration and eventual destruction.

 

So, why end the life of a person who has knowingly, wrongfully, and willfully ended the life of another? Because that person has denied the rights of a peaceful, fulfilled life of another. No amount of time sitting in prison, allowing this person the pleasure of eating, watching t.v., conversing with others, etc. will NOT serve justice. The dead person is not given those luxuries.

 

How many men and women who have committed the act of murder are now free and have spouses, children, jobs, enjoying life, etc? Is this justice for that dead person who are no longer present with their loved ones? How many children are missing one or both of their parents, siblings, or other relatives? How many young men or women will never see their potential, have a family of their own, or be with their family and friends again? But, some who gets 15, 25, or even life without parole can still have some chance at achieving their dreams, see their families and friends, some even go on to get married while in jail.

 

There is a reason why death was given to certain actions, both Biblically and socialially wise.

 

Now who has determined what is just and what isn't? God, we as a society, and the universe. God does not interfere with how we carry out justice. But, we must be careful and cautious in how we mete it out. We must search our hearts before we judge, sentence, and execute that sentence when we seek justice.

 

One last thing, justice is NOT always fair and it never meant too.

[IrishCarBomb]

So, why end the life of a person who has knowingly, wrongfully, and willfully ended the life of another? Because that person has denied the rights of a peaceful, fulfilled life of another. No amount of time sitting in prison, allowing this person the pleasure of eating, watching t.v., conversing with others, etc. will NOT serve justice. The dead person is not given those luxuries.

 

This is a critique of the prison system, not an advocation of capital punishment. Saying that the prisoner gets luxuries while the victim is dead just says that the criminal no longer should receive good prison treatment, it does not come to the conclusion that he should be killed. Certainly the crime is so awful that he should no longer have his rights, but that doesn't lead to his necessary death.

 

How many men and women who have committed the act of murder are now free and have spouses, children, jobs, enjoying life, etc? Is this justice for that dead person who are no longer present with their loved ones?

There is a reason why death was given to certain actions, both Biblically and socialially wise.

 

People convicted of murder and then released typically were not candidates for capital punishment. These murders were deemed lesser crimes, not warranting even consideration of an execution. Take it up with murder sentencing guidlines and murder laws, but it does not in itself advocate capital punishment.

[Brimstone_Angel]

Your right about one thing with the law and the justice system of a lot of lands. It really isn't about taking care of its citizens vice it is about weighing the life of another.

 

I can get the whole thing about determining if an act was an accident or not. But, to say a person could get 15 years because she was a young girl when she willfully took the life of another another girl is right? It wasn't like it was self defense. The girl got mad at the other girl because the families did not like each other. Why should a woman who willing drugs her own sister and allows her boyfriend to rape her and in the process she dies from the drugs given her? And this woman goes on to be an active participant in other murders and she gets only 12 years and is now out and living her life elsewhere, with a family of her own? What about her sister, the girl was like 13 to 15 years old.

 

Why should a serial killer or mass murderer who is not found guilty by reason of insanity be allowed to sit and sit and wait out their time in prison, enjoying the air others breath and the ones they have killed are denied such opportunities? I can understand a family(ies) being allowed to grant the person his or her life, but that should up to the family(ies), not a court of law or judge. I can even understand give someone life instead of death if they cooperate with law enforcement on convicting others involved in murderous actions. But not this first degree, second degree, bs. Why does it matter if someone killed someone out of anger or with purposeful intent? Or if they used a weapon or not? The result was the same. Someone's life was ended not by accident but willful choice fulled by dark emotions.

 

But, to be more on point. I do believe that if a person is found guilty for murder. And he or she knows they did it with intent. They should be allowed to ask for the death penalty vice sitting up in prison.

[chris250]

When someone commits a felony they have no rights anymore. Therefore I do not believe convicted murderers should have a say in what type of punishment they want to receive for their actions. They are no longer in a position to decide their punishment.

 

If we allow one convict to decide their own punishment then we would have to allow it for everyone else. There would be no real justice there.