Death Penalty

Nice to see you on here again. Alright, let's toss all personal opinions on "right and wrong" out the window. While we act according to our own personal standards, there is always the law itself keeping us in line, which proclaims that killing - not in defense of yourself or others - is wrong. The law cannot be changed by the personal opinions of the judge, jury, or prosecutor, and was created in accordance with the Constitution. So if I were to look at this unbiasedly, my conclusion would be that the killing of a person is wrongful, simply because the law says so. In the 1972 trial Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court abolished the death penalty, ruling it at cruel and unusual punishment. Granted while it was brought back a few years later, it proves that the stability of the argument for Capital Punishment is weakening; why else would 18 states have gotten rid of it? But the argument against most killing of any kind has stood the test of time - that's where I get my ideas of "right and wrong" for this debate. I see where you're coming from, I really do. If a person kills someone, we should kill them because they are guilty. That does not, however, change the fact that the law states killing is unright. So why should the government be able to kill them? I know I've asked this a lot through this whole thing, and I promise I'll stop if you give me one reason why the government should say one thing is wrong, but then inflict it on someone else as a punishment for doing it. One of the main points in Furman v. Georgia was that there was no consistency in who got killed and who didn't. What's the deciding factor? The personal opinion of the judge? If we have something so serious in place, it should be consistent; either everyone who commits murder dies, or no one does. Yes, one of my points here is that Capital Punishment is simply killing in retribution for something that has already happened. A meaningless death, if you will. And yes, I have been tossing around several "trigger" words without providing the most clear explanation as to why they are being used. So... Barbaric: the formal sentencing of a person to death has been going on for as long as humans have been around. This is the 21st century, where everyone is truly (mostly) equal, technology has advanced at amazingly fast rates, and so forth. Yet for some reason we still feel the need to execute people. Cruel: I actually think I explained this pretty well. The means by which we kill those sentenced to die are often painful and drawn-out. Hypocritical: someone (in this case the federal and state governments) says not to do something, then turns around and does it. That's pretty much the definition, and I'm not sure how you can't see how hypocritical it truly is. Unjust: not justified; no one's life is in danger. Revenge: an action done simply out of anger, intended to harm someone for something they did in the past. Humane: treating someone/something kindly and in an unharmful way. You seem to be reaching a bit here. Obviously I'm in favor of incarcerating dangerous criminals; what you seem to be saying is that if someone rapes a person, they themselves should be raped. If someone assaults someone with a blunt object, then they should be assaulted with a blunt object. Do you see what I'm getting at here? This is not how the justice system works. People are locked away for life for the safety of the public, in addition to it being a cleaner form of punishment. And while prison isn't at all happy and healthy, I'd sure take it over the electric chair. I fail to see how my statement would make it seem like I was defending them. All I said was that if a person is not actively attempting to harm someone, they shouldn't be killed. Do you think police officers shoot the person after they've dropped their gun/knife/baseball bat? Usually not. "Personal accountability"... that varies from state to state? In my opinion, personal accountability shouldn't depend on where you are when you do the bad thing. Once again, there needs to be consistency; if not, then I fail to see how it can be considered "justice." Yes, I do believe it is more humane than killing them. In fact, if they are not being tortured by actions/thoughts, then I say life is always the more humane option. But if they really hate prison, well (I'm going to be blunt) they can kill themselves. Hell, it might even be quicker than the methods used in the execution chamber. If any former/current convict wants to hop on in the comments and give his/her opinion, then that would be great. And yes, I have seen the film Blackfish - but what do you want to do? Get rid of prisons? And have you ever seen a criminal happy when they get sentenced to death? No? Neither have I. I hope this has cleared up some of my points I've been making.