Nebuchanezzar
Banned
^You failed to see what I was getting at in the post. The circumstances where I'd say, "hmmm, that seems fair" are so outrageous, so wild, so flamboyantly moronic that it'd never even be possible. If there was even the slightest chance that the person could be innocent (which is pretty much in every trial, really) then I don't support the idea. That's my main gripe with capital punishment, really.
Anyway, I don't really think that a war criminal such as, say, Hitler, would be any less deserving of getting a swift bullet to the head (after a lengthy, and fair trial with absolutely no chance that he's innocent) just because he confessed and acted "remorseful" That seems to rely on the idea that giving a guilty plea is a plea of remorse, which I, in my ever wordly wisdom, would say can be totally untrue.
Anyway, I don't really think that a war criminal such as, say, Hitler, would be any less deserving of getting a swift bullet to the head (after a lengthy, and fair trial with absolutely no chance that he's innocent) just because he confessed and acted "remorseful" That seems to rely on the idea that giving a guilty plea is a plea of remorse, which I, in my ever wordly wisdom, would say can be totally untrue.
Oh, I very much agree with this point of view. My own thoughts on the matter are constructed around this thought in many ways, with the sole exception that I've already highlighted.lucid scintilla said:The argument breaks down to this, or something that resembles this, the death penalty is supposed to deter murderers (which I believe is just utter bullspit, because, with or without it, in the grand scheme of things, "shit happens");
Once again, I agree.Also, having accidentally executed a 'prisoner', one cannot simply undo such an act against human rights and justice; thus, the risk of accidental execution of innocents precludes the use of this radical method to deal with crims (but America doesn't care, nor does China, or any 'revolutionary' country for that matter, like Cuba).
Ah, now this is where you and I differ. IF the above problems can be rectified (which is next to impossible) then I see no reason why retribution, revenge, an "ultimate punishment" (yes i'm aware how morbid that sounds) shouldn't be applied. Surely when one man, or woman has such reckless disregard for human life, then they don't deserve to live? Surely that in that case, giving them a relative slap on the wrist (compared to what they've done) is a suitable punishment. No? Well I don't have much to offer in rebuttal. Really, I believe that this is the only question regarding capital punishment that's subjective, and can't be settled in a debate. It's a matter of person beliefs about human rights. You might think it's highly hypocritical to say that someone can protect human rights by killing someone, another might say that you're hypocritical for not defending human rights to begin with. They're my scattered thoughts on the matter. But really, apart from Hussein, Hitler, Bush (and co), a select few leaders in China and North Korea and that guy from Chile, I can't think of another instance where I'd be willing to say "YES" to the matter, and even then, they're all still a little iffy...and it is retribution to those who wrong (no, I don't believe this is a fair reason to take another human being's life - leave this to gangs, mobsters, and such people, but not the freaking system/State).