your thoughts?

[DancingWillowTree]

Hi, I was reading something about how someone thought that just because someone killed someone that they deserve to die also. Now don't get me wrong they do need to go to jail for a long long time but do they really deserve to die? My thoughts: Lets say that someone killed alot of people and this person decided who got to live and who got to die, well, that is evil in my mind so...if we pick who lives and who dies we are just as evil as the person who killed alot of people. anyway what are your thoughts on this? Thanks! -Willow!

[Lost_Demise]

Sometimes in life the choice needs to be made, it all depends on the circumstance.

Its a choice doctors need to make sometimes. Over a hundred people need a new heart and could die at any day without one - but there is only a hand full of hearts for transplants. Who lives and who dies?

There are a lot of starving people in a town you run in to while on vacation. You want to help but only have so much food and money on you. Who lives and who dies?

In war you need to kill or be killed, in a sense you are trying to decide who lives and who dies by simply trying to fight and survive.

The world isn't black and white.

[Traumwandlerin]

Well, I even don't think people who killed someone belongs to the prison. I think they belong into serious therapeutical counseling (in a closed institution). A prison does nothing to help those individuums who believe killing is a valid way to interact with the society.

So, in my opinion no one should be killed for their deeds. In my opinion noone belons into prison because of their deeds. Everyone who acts out of line way too much should belong into therapy or other things which will help them to deal with their underlying problems.

[_Kaimira_]

i agree with traumwadlerin with this one, i don't believe it's anybody's choice to die. I think the death pentality is a joke and i find it wrong, they are killing people that's legal? omg it makes sick.

[ScarlettRose]

This is a very horrible thing that goes on in this world. I do agree with what everyone is saying.
I really like how Traumwandlerin said it. Those were very wise words and it did make me think! That is very wise and that is a wonderful idea.
People in this world are very cruel, and Willow like you said they are just doing the same exact thing that the person did. I find that very wrong. Why should we do the same thing?? It really doesn't make since. That's is the way this world does a lot of things though, and it is terrible. Like war and death penalties.. Sooo many things.
It's really sad!

[Ravencry]

I perfectly agree with Traumwanderlin.

people who constantly do the same crime over and over again (killing, rape, beating people) have serious mental problems, perhaps from difficult childhoods, that need to be assessed and therapeutically taken care of. I don't think that killing someone because they have killed is needed.

[JuniperBerry]

Hi, I was reading something about how someone thought that just because someone killed someone that they deserve to die also. Now don't get me wrong they do need to go to jail for a long long time but do they really deserve to die? My thoughts: Lets say that someone killed alot of people and this person decided who got to live and who got to die, well, that is evil in my mind so...if we pick who lives and who dies we are just as evil as the person who killed alot of people. anyway what are your thoughts on this? Thanks! -Willow!

These people know that if they kill someone they stand a good chance of being put to death themself. It's supposed to be a deterrent, as in "Hey, if you don't want to die, then don't kill people." Yet people do anyway, and then as a society we should show them some sympathy and compassion? They knew the consequences. And people put to death aren't people who commited involuntary man-slaughter. It's people, like the mother and father in New Mexico who gang-raped, beat, burned, and threw their six month-old daughter (up to the ceiling and then just let her drop to the floor)for her entire life until she died from her injuries. It was the worst case fo child abuse in history. But yeah, poor things...they need some sympathy.

Well, I even don't think people who killed someone belongs to the prison. I think they belong into serious therapeutical counseling (in a closed institution). A prison does nothing to help those individuums who believe killing is a valid way to interact with the society.

So, in my opinion no one should be killed for their deeds. In my opinion noone belons into prison because of their deeds. Everyone who acts out of line way too much should belong into therapy or other things which will help them to deal with their underlying problems.

Why do they need help? If someone murdered my child my main concern won't be that they get the help they need so that they can heal and live a productive life. I want them to suffer. I want them to be miserable. Did they care about my feelings? Did they care about my child's life? I don't give a damn if they had a hard life, EVERYONE HAS A HARD LIFE, it's how you deal with it that matters. We have institutions set up for people that are mentally ill, that can't grasp the nature of their actions or the reality of rigth and wrong. But people who know that it's wrong, and horrible, to kill another but do it anyway don't deserve to be treated as a special snowflake with some issues. They knew.

It's easy to identify with these people. Everyone has a dark secret and everyone hopes that if it were ever exposed that people would understand, that people would be compassionate. But you can't identify with these people, because they don't care if people have sympathy, they don't feel remorse, they don't feel regret. Did the mother in New Mexico, who carried a chidl for nine months and then let her husband, brother, friends rape her newborn baby- let her internal organs become damaged, bruised, torn- give a f*ck? Does she deserve sympathy after she let her baby be used as a god damn ashtray? By the time that child died, she was brain dead. Almost every bone in her body was broken. Her organs had shut down. How in the f**k can anyone hope that mother gets the help she needs, so that she can have a happy life?

I don't think they should leave it up to the government. I think if someone harms my child I should have every right to take their life with my own bare hands. I think they should suffer as they made others suffer. We give them too much compassion if you ask me.

It's also somewhat concerning that more sympathy is shown to the freaking killer, then to the innocent victim. "Hey, I'm sorry that you were eleven, walking to school, and some sick bastard kidnapped you, raped you, cut off your feet and then put you in a suitcase and threw you in the ocean...but he's just a hurt little puppy and shouldn't have to suffer for it." Are you kidding me? That's twisted.

[JBRaven]

I agree with both sides on this issue. I am not for death penalty all the time, but for certain instances (like the New Mexico couple) some people should be sent to death if proven guilty. You have to deal with the consequences of your actions, if you disregard a human life to the point of killing it for fun, then you do not have the right to live.

If I take my five year old and set her on fire and beat her with a bat until she stopped screaming, should I be forgiven and "healed" through therapy? How is that justice to my husband, or our parents, her friends and future? If I was having those thoughts, before committing the act, I should have gotten help.

Kaimira, if I ripped your child away from your arms and cut his throat, would you prefer me to "get help" 'or cease to exist.
Traum- If a man rapes, tortures and the shoots your mother in the head. Could you really look at him and say get help?



It sounds beautiful and more spiritual to be forgiving, but it is not. It is stupid. If a person kills just to kill, (there are circumstances that cannot be helped) then they have chosen to deal with the repercussions. Life is about choices and dealing with them.

I will say that I think that there are reasons for all of these crimes. Personally, if i had not been abused in the way I have been, I would not have been help the people I have. I suffer to bring others peace.

[Asch]

It's a very subjective situation, it is easy for each of us to weigh the moral implications and decide that killing a killer is an unjust action, however, when faced with an unrepentant monster that cannot be helped by current therapeutic techniques and will most likely cheerfully kill again, what then? What if the monster's victim was your spouse, parent, or child?

I firmly believe that in the U.S. FAR too many people are going to prison for stupid petty crimes like using marijuana etc. There must be better methods to deal with these offenders (ending prohibition for one) but, there are some persons that are so dangerous their lives are forfeit, they need to be locked away at the very least.

[JuniperBerry]

so...if we pick who lives and who dies we are just as evil as the person who killed alot of people. anyway what are your thoughts on this? Thanks! -Willow!

Another point in this is that we as a society have decided what is moral or not and have based our rules off of what the larger community has deemed inappropriate. The individual killer is stepping outside of society's structure to impose his own rules of order and justice and that can't be allowed. No one man can decide what is right and wrong for everyone and mete out punishments that he finds are in order. Again, it's not that the government wants an excuse to kill people, they don't want people to die so they've set up a punishment of absolute severity and import to keep innocent people from needlessly dying.

Like Asch and JB said, there's varying degrees to the issue. There are people in jail for petty things that deserve a second chance. And that's why we have a court system; it's to weigh the circumstances, the situation, the motives. It's too decide how severe a punishment will be. The judge listens, the lawyers debate, the jury listens and the best justice is determined by a group that represents the morals of Society and Law. Not the morals of an individual.

[WhiteOne]

I don't think the death sentence is an ethical question.
To me, the most important thing is what benefits humanity. If the killer can be rehabilitated--great, then he should.
If the killer can not be rehabilitated, and continues to be a threat to the innocent, then he should be removed via death.
Jail often doesn't re-rehabilitate people, and it should. There is no point to putting someone in a prison and paying for them to eat--just so they can sit around and become even more racist and criminal (which often happens out of necessity in the environment of prison.) If we are going to put dangerous people in jail, then it should at least be somewhat rehabilitative.
The biggest problem with the justice system (at least in America)--ok, not the biggest problem, that would be waaay too hard to figure out--but one big problem is that money and race effect justice. The majority of people who are put to death are ethnic minority. I see a problem here. If being white and rich is going to get you off the hook for murder --which I am sure it does all the time--then there is a big problem with the death sentence.
Plus, as was previously pointed out, the death sentence is already supposed to be preventing people from committing murder--yet the US doesn't have a considerably lower rate of murder than other comparable countries that do not have a death sentence.
I believe the ethical decision is to stop thinking about the ethics of revenge and think about prevention. Murders don't sprout from trees, they are raised. That is why we need to realize that problems like poverty, unemployment, wage suppression, and lack of educational opportunities effects all of us. Every one in the society--not just the poor.
Frankly, I believe that someone who is a murderer could be killed, ethically, if they pose a threat to others. But that isn't the point. We need to take a hard look at social influences that effect the rate of violence--and work from there.

[Lost_Demise]

I suppose I'll be more specific with my thoughts on this. As I said before, people need to choose who lives and who dies a lot. I think after someone is proven guilty of murder that they need to be put to death- why rehabilitate them, so they can do it again? So he or she can have children that are ether abused or taught violence is the answer? The world is over populated, we don't need to save murderers and rapists for the sake of being good people.

Do you think its being good to let them be unpunished? To let them live after robbing someone so greatly? What really effects justice in the US is NOT race but the pressure put on police to find the killer, and the right one. If they find a guy and its proven not the killer the officers that found him would likely all be fired- THAT puts a LOT of pressure. It often leads to quick arrests and them panicking to put as much evidence as they can on the person.

[JuniperBerry]

I don't think the death sentence is an ethical question.
To me, the most important thing is what benefits humanity. If the killer can be rehabilitated--great, then he should.

I think it's definitely ethical. Why should he be rehabilitated? Does he deserve it? Is it really ok to ask the families of murder victims to spend their tax dollars on healing the man who killed their child so that he can go on and get a decent job, a car, and a family of his own? Things their child was robbed of? Do you think all the victims of the holocaust would like to have seen Hitler, ten years after rehab, out at the park laughing and smiling with his kids and shopping at the market for hot cocoa? Why are the rights of the guilty more important then the rights of the innocent?

Jail often doesn't re-rehabilitate people, and it should. There is no point to putting someone in a prison and paying for them to eat--just so they can sit around and become even more racist and criminal (which often happens out of necessity in the environment of prison.) If we are going to put dangerous people in jail, then it should at least be somewhat rehabilitative.

There are programs in jail to help rehabilitate people, but it's a punishment. That's the whole point. Why should anyone fear justice if all they get is a cozy rehab facility, a shrink, and an oppurtunity to turn their lives around? "Let's see...I can go kill someone, they'll send me to center where I'll work with a shrink who will help me rebuild my life, I won't be in any physical danger, they'll pay for my education, they'll tell me it's not really my fault that I made the choices I made, and then I'll come out even more prepared to get the American dream." Sounds horrible.

The biggest problem with the justice system (at least in America)--ok, not the biggest problem, that would be waaay too hard to figure out--but one big problem is that money and race effect justice. The majority of people who are put to death are ethnic minority. I see a problem here. If being white and rich is going to get you off the hook for murder --which I am sure it does all the time--then there is a big problem with the death sentence.

So, minorities, who are repeat offenders, and adults, can blame the fact that they commited a crime because they're not rich and didn't have oppurtunities? How about those minorities who grow up in the same situation, make mature decisions, and build a life for themselves? Their hard-work, mature choices, and effort amount to little because obviously they must have had it a little bit easier, or they got lucky. Everyone has the ability to make decisions for themselves, whether poor, black, rich, or white. No one, no one, is forcing these people to react to their bad situation by being criminals. There are situations that create more oppurtunity for criminal activity, but ultimately each person is responsible for himself and the choices he or she makes.

Enabling them, telling them it wasn't really their fault and excusing their behavior based on skin color or income doesn't help anyone. So they get out, they're rehabed and told they're a victim of circumstance, they get a great job and then a situation occurs where they have to make a chocie to be strong and right, or weak and criminal. Why wouldn't they just go with criminal, when they're told it's not their fault, that they don't have the option of choice, that the situation has forced them to make the wrong choices?

Plus, as was previously pointed out, the death sentence is already supposed to be preventing people from committing murder--yet the US doesn't have a considerably lower rate of murder than other comparable countries that do not have a death sentence.

The US is also an incredibly large country with a high population. Comparing our crime rate to Canada's, for example, is ridiculous. The biggest problem with America isn't it's justice system, the biggest problem is with attitude. The idea that one is a victim of circumstance and therefore not truly accountable, the idea that even after you murder someone, society should still be responsible for fixing you. At what point is a person responsible for himself? All of us have managed to avoid a life in prison. Was it not our choice?

I believe the ethical decision is to stop thinking about the ethics of revenge and think about prevention. Murders don't sprout from trees, they are raised. That is why we need to realize that problems like poverty, unemployment, wage suppression, and lack of educational opportunities effects all of us. Every one in the society--not just the poor.
Frankly, I believe that someone who is a murderer could be killed, ethically, if they pose a threat to others. But that isn't the point. We need to take a hard look at social influences that effect the rate of violence--and work from there.

Justice isn't revenge. How are we going to prevent crime? Are we going to go into an extreme police state where any hint of anti-social behavior is assessed and nipped in the bud? Will everyone have to undergo parenting assessments and mental health check-ups? Will the slightests indicator of something being out of the norm require a stay in a rehab facility? This is real life. Real life isn't perfect, not everybody is a wounded litle bird that needs love. We can't fix everything, we can't have infallible systems. What we can do is say this is what we have to work with, and this is how you navigate through it; by taking responsibility for yourself, by accepting the consequences, by realizing that no one owes you anything. Either man up and not kill anyone, or kill someone and be prepared to spend a life in jail where you'll be raped, beaten, and put to death. How HARD is that choice? The problem isn't in the way jails are run, the problem isn't in society's inability to parent it's citizens, the problem is in the citizens.

And if people are that concerned, then vote in your local elections more. Vote for a judge who has an approach that thinks outside the box instead of jail. Vote for the politicians who want to run the jails the way you think they need to be. We created this society, so be accountable for it and fix the wrongs you see.

(The argument I'm making is focused on the aspect of murder more then petty crimes.)

[WhiteOne]

One thing I am going to clarify is that I believe the problem with ethnic inequity within the judicial system is not that ethnic minorities should be treated with kit gloves (or kid gloves, or whatever), but that this is an indication that our legal system is racist and doesn't judge people equally, or it indicates that our country has some mechanism within it's structure that enables the villianization of particular ethnicities. Justice should be blind, not racially motivated. Unfortunately, it is difficult to tell why there is this discrepancy between white and black death sentences. I will adamantly argue that it is not biological. That leaves the possibility that the crime rate is affected by social constructions--or that it is the judge and the jury that are influenced by racism. These are both potential problems that should be addressed.

Either man up and not kill anyone, or kill someone and be prepared to spend a life in jail where you'll be raped, beaten, and put to death. How HARD is that choice? The problem isn't in the way jails are run, the problem isn't in society's inability to parent it's citizens, the problem is in the citizens.

This is a good example of how jail is actually detrimental for those who are not given death sentences (and people who they come in contact with after they're out.) Can you imagine a child molester being raped and beaten in jail, just to be released after his "punishment"? Do you think he is going to "learn his lesson" by being given a dose of his own sodomy? That would be great if life were that simple--but no. The guy was probably abused to begin with. Having him spend time in an environment like that would only feed his abusive nature--and make him more dangerous to children when he gets out.

BTW--*Personally*, I think that certain types of rape do deserve death, because I don't think that many of those who would do such things are capable of rehabilitation. But this is another problem in the justice system--child molesters are often released, they can live near schools--this is another example of how the justice system doesn't match my own ethics.

But back to the quote, the choice isn't hard for me, but I don't know how hard it is for someone who has been abused as a child, or has grown up with gangs being the main judicial system, or who has seen their family live in poverty their whole life. I don't know what it is like to know myself to be worthless, assumed as a criminal because of my skin color, or to think that the most successful person I know works at mc.donalds and hasn't done crack like the rest of my family. Maybe I am falling into racial prejudices now, but really--I don't know how hard it is. I only know how it is for me.

When our society starts paying its citizens for their value--when preschool workers (who educate, discipline, and protect THEEE most important asset in America) start making as much as taco bell employees, and the caregivers of the elderly are able to afford the same health care as their clients, then maybe I won't argue that society has a problem with "parenting" its population. Ultimately, its hard to understand that it's a problem with its citizens--then what causes the problem? Biology? Although we in America like to spout doctrine of independence, no one is independent. We are interdependent on each other--usually it means that we should care for each other, but sometimes that means not being murdered by each other. I don't think the attitude of entitlement, or being excluded from the consequences of one's actions based upon circumstance, is the problem. I think the problem is that we don't realize that the strength of a society is just that, it isn't the strength of one over many, it is the strength of all of us together.

I would say, preventing crime is to see: Does crime have a correlation with poverty and unemployment? If so, lets stop buying stealth bombers or whatever, and make an effort to develop our local economy. Lets stop seeing health care as a "charity" or a commodity for only those who can afford it, and lets say that anyone who supports our society deserves to be supported by it--and to be eligible to receive health care if they need it. Lets stop treating the poor--yes, even those lowly preschool teachers who get a Bachelors in Child Development or 12 units of ECE, and who prevent people's "reason for living" from falling off the jungle gym and getting brain damage, or from being abducted by "Uncle Letcher" and used to make a whole hell of a lot more cash as sex-slaves than any one in a decent working class job sees-- like they are asking for charity to be able to afford rent or health care. I don't know all the answers for preventing crime, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice tenancies between poverty and crime.

Ultimately--ethically, I see nothing wrong with killing someone when you are preventing others from being injured and/or killed. If anyone hurt my child in some of the ways people have hurt others--I would not hesitate to kill them. I would wish death on some people who have harmed others in ways that are very against my ethics.
But--this is not reality. Reality is what we really can do. I can not go around as a vigilante killing people. I would rather see a world where less people get traumatized, than a world in which the people who are traumatized are revenged by their tormentor's death.
And ultimately--it would be great if Hitler, instead of causing the Holocaust, was laughing and giving the kids ice-cream. It would be great if he was giving kids ice-cream half-way into the Holocaust, and he never committed the second half. It is great that he killed himself--and if he did it sooner.
The only thing that should matter to justice is the protection of the innocent and the prevention of those crimes.
However, I do not believe someone deserves to die because they killed --but if someone is an un-rehibilitatable threat, like a serial killer or a perverted child sadist, then they should be eliminated. It is just really hard to figure out who can reliably judge that.
In conclusion, I don't think the death sentence is ethically wrong--it just doesn't seem to work. One offender's life is not worth one victim's (the victim's life is worth more to me, so preventing another victim is most important). I do believe that the ideal circumstance would be rehabilitation of the offender (definitely in petty crime situations, or those where the individual will be released), but ultimately I think we should be intervening by giving children and families more opportunities--when children are young--than trying to resolve the problems that people create when they have grown up in a crappy situation.

[Lost_Demise]

WhiteOne - Why do you say certain types of rape instead of all kinds of rape? Rape is very simple to understand how it works. It can happen different ways to different people of all ages and genders. The victims of rape are STILL not getting near as much attention as they should be getting especially male ones. If a guy calls in to one of those rape help clinics they are more likely to assume its a crank call or someones husband then a victim.

If the victim is an adult does that mean the killer shouldn't be killed for destroying so much of that person? Making a permanent scar that will never go away. Maybe I'm just bias because of my own experiences but I'm still far far from healing and victims of rape be it men or women are often treated like its their own fault or like its not a big deal and they should get over it. You have all this pity for those doing the crime but what about those that will be scarred forever?