If the phrase, ‘An Eye for an Eye’ (Exodus 21:24) still has significance, then if anyone commits murder, then the state should put them to death. Many nations believe otherwise, and have abolished the death penalty for all crimes. However, in this violent age, should the death penalty be universally mandatory for murder (and, perhaps, other crimes, too)? I believe it should. Do you agree, and if so, how would you justify retaining or reintroducing the death penalty, and what form should it take?
Eye for an eye does not mean just death penalty, it means justice. If an army following order kills enemies and gains control over a country should all in that army be put to death for murder? Would that be justice? If a thief steals should that theif forfiet their hands? would that be justice? while I agree with keeping the death penalty, i do believe the justice system in many countries are not wisely applying true justice. A person murders for various reasons. Should not the reasons be taken into account? Justice is not an easy thing to hand out. If you give a death sentence then you murder, If you are the jury and convict then you murder. If you are the hangman you murder. If you raised a murderer, then you too can be held accountable in certain ways for those murders. If you are a friend to a murderer then you are connected also.
Eye for an eye is not simple. Justice is needed but there is so few people that can remove emotions and beliefs to actually apply true justice. what about the man that killed someone accidently while trying to steal food to feed his kids? Should he die? Is he the real criminal? Or is it the system that forces a human to that point?
I pretty much agree with what Kriswest was saying, there are many circumstances which raise a murderer, how can we even define what justice is in this case and even then it is only a temporary definition until the laws change again. So with that I am against the death penalty, slight side-note but I once saw something about a farm in Scandinavia someplace where they had all the murderers working and whatnot as a form of recovery…I tend to think there are more effective things to do than just noose them. Also how does an eye for an eye work with a drug dealer, do they receive drugs in return?
An eye for an eye’: read as, ‘he who does harm shall have (equal or approximately equal) harm done to him’. This, I’d say, is what justice means in this context. When I say ‘he who does harm’, I mean to exclude soldiers on the field of battle, wives who kill because they can’t take any more violence, and so on. The list is almost inexhaustible.
There is a time-honoured distinction in US law between first and lesser degrees of murder. First degree murder (roughly, deliberately taking the life of another human being with malice aforethought) is what I would punish by means of the death penalty - and justly so.
I don’t see why soldiers should be excused, they sign up to fight, they are given a license to kill, there have been instances in the Iraq war of ‘unlawful’ killings and the soldiers get away with it because they because they are soldiers, they are already excluded as you say. And then the woman who kills her violent husband surely she had the option to just leave him or report him. If you’re going to support the death penalty then who is to judge what murder is deemed worthy of the noose or not?
Who is to judge, indeed. Good point. But, as it happens, some do judge, as in certain states of the US.
On the supposition that capital punishment is lawful, and there are (perhaps contrary to common sense and reason) clear boundaries delimiting its employment, the question remains: is it too kind a punishment when compared to, say, life imprisonment? It’s certainly cheaper!
Some convicted villains have actually preferred to be put to death.
What’s so bad about being sentenced to death (given that it’s warranted, that is)?
Well, I have heard it said (from a reliable authority) that many who are convicted of murder welcome the death sentence, and positively run to the chair (or the noose, gas chamber, etc.). Indeed, the period between sentencing and the final moment gives the prisoner time to relax, put his/her feet up and get over the rigours of the trial.
I find it difficult to establish a justification to end another human beings life in any circumstances, particularly in justice or what could also be argued to an extent as revenge.
I’m a firm believer more can be achieved by displaying a greater morale approach when not engaging in an equal retribution. After all its highly contradictory and hypcritical to state killing another human being is unaminously wrong (we have to include also unfortunately, unlawfully) to then go and end the life of that person.
To be rejected by human society, and to live the remainder of ones life without freedom (to whatever extent you believe this to be) behind bars having to consider ones actions, is IMO a greater punishment and a lonelier place for somebody to be than to simply end that persons life. Which can be supported to an extent by those who would rather commit suicide than face their eternal punishment locked up.
The cost of keeping a prisoner alive is a financial consideration, borne by the humble taxpayer. If I were a condemned prisoner, I’d look forward to the period between sentencing and execution to get over the rigours of the trial - just to put my feet up and relax. And I’d be grateful that the taxpayer won’t have to keep me alive for x amount of years behind bars. I have great respect for the humble taxpayer.
Which is a pragmatic view, you could argue, the individual and families contribution to tax will ultimately pay for that persons stay. Particularly if we stop making prisons 5 star hotels. You behave like an animal, then why expect to be treated much differently?
We also make our own beds (ok not perhaps us, but parliament and house of lords) the more laws there are, the more laws there are to be broken. Thus the greater chance tax payers will contribute to individuals stay in prison’s.
Two points i have difficulty with are as follows;
1.) how is it that every country has a different set of laws, yet we are all at the end of the day part of the same Human Being race, how is this consistant and how does that support law as a greater morale good.
2.) I’ve not once declared / signed alligence to the laws in this country, however am expected to live by those laws.
No it’s not a practical implication of life, if a government turns around and says we have to execute prisoners because we can’t afford to keep them then it is their failings which has brought the situation about, if you did support this stance then you would also be supporting where tax money is currently spent, such as the luxuries politicians are ‘entitled’ to and the wars in the middle east.
