Dark X 101
Chieftain
OK, this is a artical by Casey Carmical, who supports the Death Penalty. I am posting it here because I also support the Death Penalty and I think this has some good points. Please read it.
Dark X <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/reddevil.gif" border=0>
So, with out further a due:
The Death Penalty: Morally Defensible?
by Casey Carmical
The death penalty has faced much opposition as of late. Can the death penalty possibly be a morally acceptable punishment? A popular bumper sticker says, "We kill people to show people that killing people is wrong." The slogan is short, simple, and to the point. But is there really such irony in capital punishment as the slogan implies?
WORD GAMES
First of all, the slogan misses an important point. The death penalty does not punish people for killing, but for murder. Killing is justified when it is done in self-defense. Killing means to cause death. Murder, on the other hand, is defined as, "the unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another" (for the less observant, this definition cannot be applied to the death penalty, because the death penalty is lawful, non-malicious, and is not carried out by an individual but by the government). "Kill," "murder," and "execute" are not interchangeable terms. Death penalty opponents would like us to believe otherwise. Just because two actions result in the same end does not make them morally equivalent. If it were so, legal incarceration would be equated with kidnapping, lovemaking with rape, self-defense with assault, etc.1 Therefore, the slogan is better stated, "We execute people to show people that murder is wrong." Not quite as catchy, is it?
MORALITY
Morality is defined as "the principles of right and wrong." As moral creatures, humans deserve praise for good deeds, and punishment for bad ones. Punishment may range from a slap on the wrist to death, but the punishment must fit the crime.
Morally, it is wrong to incarcerate someone for murder. A sentence of life in an air-conditioned, cable-equipped prison where a person gets free meals three times a day, personal recreation time, and regular visits with friends and family2 is a slap in the face of morality. People will say here that not all prisons are like the one cited. This betrays an ignorance, however, of current trends. Eventually, criminal rights activists will see to it that all prisons are nice places to go. But regardless of the conditions of a particular prison, someone who murders another human being can only be made to pay for his actions by forfeiting his own life. This is so, simply because a loss of freedom does not and cannot compare to a loss of life.
In reality, the murderer actually gets off easy when he is sentenced to death. Executions in this country are performed by lethal injection and electrocution. If a person is lethally injected, he is first put to sleep, and then he is administered drugs that will stop his heart. If a person faces the electric chair, he is dead within seconds (180 seconds max). Compare this to the heinous crimes of the murderer, where often the victim will go through excruciating pain for minutes, hours, or sometimes days.
FIVE REASONS YOU SHOULD SUPPORT THE DEATH PENALTY
The Campaign to End the Death Penalty gives five reasons on their website why the death penalty should be abolished. Those reasons are quite commonly given, so I will address their objections here.
1. The death penalty is racist.
2. The death penalty punishes the poor.
These are basically the same argument. What it boils down to is "the death penalty is not applied fairly." This cannot be an argument against the death penalty. If it were, then it would be an argument against all punishments. To argue that the death penalty is to be abolished because it is not fairly imposed is to admit that if it were imposed fairly it would be okay. This is not an argument against the death penalty but an argument to improve the justice system. Is the system unfair? Fix it. What is unfair is not that the black and poor prisoners get what they deserve. What is unfair is that the rich and white prisoners do not.
June 6, 2001- Justice Department finds that there is no bias in application of death penalty.
3. The death penalty condemns the innocent to die.
There is absolutely no proof for this statement. The possibility of an innocent person being executed is extremely small, and continues to decrease with the improvement of forensic science. It is true that death row prisoners have been released, but it is not true that they were innocent.
Consider the following fact: A judgment of acquittal is final. Even if overwhelming evidence is later uncovered, the prosecution can never appeal. Likewise, if a conviction is reversed on appeal because the evidence of guilt was legally insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then the defendant cannot be retried. Furthermore, if a court decides that the evidence brought against the defendant was legally insufficient, it is not saying that the defendant was actually innocent. By making this decision, the court is merely saying that the prosecution did not prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
We must make a distinction when we use the words "acquittal" and "innocent." The media often overlooks this distinction, and thrives on causing widespread panic that an innocent person was falsely convicted. Being acquitted, however, does not mean that the defendant did not actually commit the crime. A jury must acquit "someone who is probably guilty but whose guilt is not established beyond a reasonable doubt." Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 225 (1976).
4. The death penalty is not a deterrent against violent crime.
The death penalty as a deterrent to crime is not the issue. Capital punishment is, pardon the redundancy, a punishment for crime. As a punishment, it is 100% effective; every time it is used, the prisoner dies. Additionally, the death penalty is actually 100% effective as a deterrent to crime: the murderer will never commit another crime once he has been executed.
5. The death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment.
The death penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment. The framers of the Constitution supported the death penalty, so it is ridiculous to claim that cruel and unusual punishment refers to the death penalty. Furthermore, it is logically impossible to be cruel while punishing a guilty murderer for murdering an innocent victim.
DEATH PENALTY YES, MURDER NO
I have tried to argue here that the death penalty is moral and just. We must never forget that no one has to be executed; if no one murders, no one is executed. Murderers are not innocent people fighting for their lives; that statement describes their victims. Let us work in America to get back the mentality that victim rights are more important than criminal rights.
[This message has been edited by Dark X 101 (edited June 18, 2001).]
Dark X <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/reddevil.gif" border=0>
So, with out further a due:
The Death Penalty: Morally Defensible?
by Casey Carmical
The death penalty has faced much opposition as of late. Can the death penalty possibly be a morally acceptable punishment? A popular bumper sticker says, "We kill people to show people that killing people is wrong." The slogan is short, simple, and to the point. But is there really such irony in capital punishment as the slogan implies?
WORD GAMES
First of all, the slogan misses an important point. The death penalty does not punish people for killing, but for murder. Killing is justified when it is done in self-defense. Killing means to cause death. Murder, on the other hand, is defined as, "the unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another" (for the less observant, this definition cannot be applied to the death penalty, because the death penalty is lawful, non-malicious, and is not carried out by an individual but by the government). "Kill," "murder," and "execute" are not interchangeable terms. Death penalty opponents would like us to believe otherwise. Just because two actions result in the same end does not make them morally equivalent. If it were so, legal incarceration would be equated with kidnapping, lovemaking with rape, self-defense with assault, etc.1 Therefore, the slogan is better stated, "We execute people to show people that murder is wrong." Not quite as catchy, is it?
MORALITY
Morality is defined as "the principles of right and wrong." As moral creatures, humans deserve praise for good deeds, and punishment for bad ones. Punishment may range from a slap on the wrist to death, but the punishment must fit the crime.
Morally, it is wrong to incarcerate someone for murder. A sentence of life in an air-conditioned, cable-equipped prison where a person gets free meals three times a day, personal recreation time, and regular visits with friends and family2 is a slap in the face of morality. People will say here that not all prisons are like the one cited. This betrays an ignorance, however, of current trends. Eventually, criminal rights activists will see to it that all prisons are nice places to go. But regardless of the conditions of a particular prison, someone who murders another human being can only be made to pay for his actions by forfeiting his own life. This is so, simply because a loss of freedom does not and cannot compare to a loss of life.
In reality, the murderer actually gets off easy when he is sentenced to death. Executions in this country are performed by lethal injection and electrocution. If a person is lethally injected, he is first put to sleep, and then he is administered drugs that will stop his heart. If a person faces the electric chair, he is dead within seconds (180 seconds max). Compare this to the heinous crimes of the murderer, where often the victim will go through excruciating pain for minutes, hours, or sometimes days.
FIVE REASONS YOU SHOULD SUPPORT THE DEATH PENALTY
The Campaign to End the Death Penalty gives five reasons on their website why the death penalty should be abolished. Those reasons are quite commonly given, so I will address their objections here.
1. The death penalty is racist.
2. The death penalty punishes the poor.
These are basically the same argument. What it boils down to is "the death penalty is not applied fairly." This cannot be an argument against the death penalty. If it were, then it would be an argument against all punishments. To argue that the death penalty is to be abolished because it is not fairly imposed is to admit that if it were imposed fairly it would be okay. This is not an argument against the death penalty but an argument to improve the justice system. Is the system unfair? Fix it. What is unfair is not that the black and poor prisoners get what they deserve. What is unfair is that the rich and white prisoners do not.
June 6, 2001- Justice Department finds that there is no bias in application of death penalty.
3. The death penalty condemns the innocent to die.
There is absolutely no proof for this statement. The possibility of an innocent person being executed is extremely small, and continues to decrease with the improvement of forensic science. It is true that death row prisoners have been released, but it is not true that they were innocent.
Consider the following fact: A judgment of acquittal is final. Even if overwhelming evidence is later uncovered, the prosecution can never appeal. Likewise, if a conviction is reversed on appeal because the evidence of guilt was legally insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then the defendant cannot be retried. Furthermore, if a court decides that the evidence brought against the defendant was legally insufficient, it is not saying that the defendant was actually innocent. By making this decision, the court is merely saying that the prosecution did not prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
We must make a distinction when we use the words "acquittal" and "innocent." The media often overlooks this distinction, and thrives on causing widespread panic that an innocent person was falsely convicted. Being acquitted, however, does not mean that the defendant did not actually commit the crime. A jury must acquit "someone who is probably guilty but whose guilt is not established beyond a reasonable doubt." Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 225 (1976).
4. The death penalty is not a deterrent against violent crime.
The death penalty as a deterrent to crime is not the issue. Capital punishment is, pardon the redundancy, a punishment for crime. As a punishment, it is 100% effective; every time it is used, the prisoner dies. Additionally, the death penalty is actually 100% effective as a deterrent to crime: the murderer will never commit another crime once he has been executed.
5. The death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment.
The death penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment. The framers of the Constitution supported the death penalty, so it is ridiculous to claim that cruel and unusual punishment refers to the death penalty. Furthermore, it is logically impossible to be cruel while punishing a guilty murderer for murdering an innocent victim.
DEATH PENALTY YES, MURDER NO
I have tried to argue here that the death penalty is moral and just. We must never forget that no one has to be executed; if no one murders, no one is executed. Murderers are not innocent people fighting for their lives; that statement describes their victims. Let us work in America to get back the mentality that victim rights are more important than criminal rights.
[This message has been edited by Dark X 101 (edited June 18, 2001).]
