Death Penalty

Hey there, sorry about the down-to-the-wire responses, I’ve got a bit busy of late…so here goes… Okay so we kind of put ‘right and wrong’ down for a bit: “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,” but then it gets picked right back up with “, 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.” LOL. Don’t worry about it, I’m not here to batter you with moral relativism, I too believe that killing is wrong, without just cause. I believe that murder is wrong, legally (morally also). But I know that I cannot impose my morality on others. I must find means of doing it via the law, which as you say, applies to us all. 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. Again the law does not say that killing is wrong, but killing without just cause i.e., murder is wrong. Note the distinction. The eight amendment clearly reserves the right of the state to administer the death penalty/capital punishment. So if we use the law, then there is no wrong/wrongfulness/hypocrisy to speak of: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The eight amendment even mentions it, not to prohibit it, but to demand due process (that the accused get a fair trial). The unconstitutionality of the death sentence in the case you mention, had to do with the process, the arbitrariness found in the states’ administrative process concerning the death penalty. This is why it was reinstated, because the states simply rewrote the laws, death for capital crimes was never upheld. I see where you're coming from, I really do. If a person kills someone, we should kill them because they are guilty. Oh no, let’s just be clear, that I don’t believe in an eye for an eye. My point is only that all forms of justice are justifiable if they pursue the betterment of society. Because morality is subjective we must submit to a common definition of right and wrong (only as it pertains to the society) it’s still subjective, but we agree to give our govt./lawmakers the authority to do/pursue the best interest of the society, including to redress wrongs committed by individuals in order to have some justice to which we can appeal. Some commonality, some degree of objectivity. So, if the govt. decides that some crimes are so ‘infamous’ that they warrant a capital punishment, then it is not wrong, unless it can be proved wrong for society. Do you see what I mean? You would have to prove that the govt.’s pursuit of the death penalty is at odds with the best interest of society. You have put forth points to support this: 1) the hypocrisy (which I think I’ve proven, is not true, as the constitution never offered an absolute condemnation for killing) 2) the barbarity, obsoleteness (outdated), cruelty, etc, I have attempted to demonstrate how these are all subjective value judgments based in where you assume humans should be at this stage of evolution, despite the fact that human beings have never ceased to harm one other. I have lumped the govt. in with this capability for justifiable harm, saying every individual (govt. employee or not), will have and hold his own justification for killing, e.g., war, rage, negligence, envy, greed, etc. 3) You have offered reasons such as exorbitant cost, and ‘containment is enough’ which I not only felt were callous observations in the face of the victims, but were also misleading, or irrelevant respectively. Misleading pertaining to costs, because it was legal fees, not due to the administering the sentence and irrelevant as it pertains to the ‘current’ containment, because justice is predicated on actions committed, not what the offender is doing at the moment. If his actions warrant death (via written law), then justice must be carried out, according to that law. To not pursue this law, without just cause, would mean that the law is ineffective. So your goal remains to undermine the established law/govt. authority by proving that capital punishment is damaging to society (goes counter to the govt’s purpose). And I believe this has yet to occur And lastly your alternative: 4) Then you offered the life-sentence as humane (not cruel) and effective as it keeps society safe (containment). I have countered with evidence to the contrary, that the overcrowding and diminished resources along with the lack of autonomy and the common violence from prison staff and inmates make this a dismal/anything but humane alternative. And I will add, to your question “- but what do you want to do? Get rid of prisons? Yes, I am against prison. I am more against prison than I am the death penalty. I think if we are not going to rehabilitate them/let them contribute to humanity/redeem themselves, then they are forever outcasts, which only makes them a liability to our society. Prison to me is the death penalty, because I cannot trade quality of life, for life itself. There is a difference between quantitative life, and what it means to live, qualitatively. They are not the same thing. This is like saying to a terminally ill person (one whos life has been reduced to waiting for death), at least your still alive. Yes, it’s painful, and the pain is pointless, but just think, you could be dead!! Lol. The criminal knows that his sentence is to suffer, but prisons are tortuous to the human psyche, so why torture them to death strip them of their humanity until death? If this is the punishment then say so, but don’t do it under the guise of ‘life is always best’ argument. That seems really sinister…lol I am trying to return volley sooner… I hope you understand a bit more the structure of my argument. I mean, where we are in my mind..lol