"Moral" objections to the death penalty?
Read this.
posted by Howlin' Hobbit @ 12:45 PM
4 comments
Don't Make Me Uke!
A small area of the net where Howlin' Hobbit feels free to comment, critique, question or just rant and rave about anything that strikes his fancy at the time.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
About Me
- Name: Howlin' Hobbit
- Location: Seattle, Washington, United States
I'm a multi-instrumentalist with a special fondness for the 'ukulele and "junk" instruments (such as my washboard). I'm also a bit of a geek, thus this blog.
Previous Posts
- A message for you ladies
- The tabloid mentality
- Happy Birthday to me
- Little Western Swing Girl
- Fame and Fortune
- Up a tree
- Thank you, Mr. Doctorow
- Great Quotes -- remote edition
- On the other paw, I have great taste in hats
- Mood swings
Me & Some Of My Bands
this blog is syndicated
4 Comments:
I have no moral objections to the death penalty.
And in this case, I want to be riding one of the horses when the killer is drawn and quartered.
agree with Chimera on objections, but as to punishment?..if the boy WAS burned ALIVE, bring back the "auto-de-fe"!
The Death Penalty is not about this particular guy and his absurdly heinous crime. Sure, if the scumbag were electrocuted on the spot, I'd be happy to hear about it. Instead, the Death Penalty is about whether we feel comfortable to let the government kill people for wrongdoing when wrongdoing can never be 100% ascertained in every case. In other words, no matter how careful the State is, it's gonna wind up killing some innocents (and, we know that the State is currently very far from being careful about such things). The alternative? Life without the possibility of parole--and I'm talking real life, not "Richard Speck" life. This way, the--what is it, 5%? 10%?--of DP convicts who are wrongly convicted might have a chance to get their convictions/sentences overturned on appeal with new evidence, while the actual evil ones will be assured to rot for the rest of their lives.
I'm not sure I want to provide room-and-board to all the convicted felons for the rest of their lives. It comes down to economics, and it is cheaper to fry someone than keep them fed, clothed and sheltered for an indefinite period.
And here is something to think about: it is far more common for a real killer to be set free by the system than for an innocent one to be executed. No system is perfect, but ours tends to favor the side of caution, and "reasonable doubt" has set many a murderer back on the street. It happens every day.
Since many killers tend to re-offend (i.e.: keep killing people until made to stop), they tend to end up back in the system. But how many innocent people have to die in the process?
A choice between 2 evils: possibly kill an innocent, or possibly allow more innocents to be killed. The line needs to be drawn somewhere, and who is going to draw it?
As human beings, we are all capable of moral thought. Not all of us live up to that expectation, as a rule. Which is why we have laws, and police, and a justice system, and prisons, and armed forces, and security cameras, and locks on our doors.
It is our shame - that we all have the capacity to be good, caring, responsible people, but sometimes we are not.
So, I believe we need to know that when we kill each other, we will be killed in turn. There needs to be an ultimate punishment, from which there is no return.
It is not something to be proud of. We need to feel shame that such atrocities are necessary for our society to function.
But it is necessary.
Post a Comment
<< Home