I get that they're both human beings, and some people would rather spare human life, yet I still say NO. Killing a baby with no knowledge of the world and will never see the world and killing a mass murderer who has taken the lives of many are 2 totally different things in my book.
True it cant be revoked. Another plus is they offender cannot offend again. Capital punishment should be mandatory to murderers,( abortionists) rapists, kidnappers on the testimony of 3 eye witnesses and the required due process of law. This should apply to male and female criminals without bias.
except there are a lot of "cold blooded killers" who didnt actually commit the crimes that they are accused of. Of course, it is a small minority, but considering that death sentences, once carried out cannot be revoked...
I mean that IF a society judges certain crimes to be a capitol offense, then these precautions MUST take place. And you are right, some societies can't afford the expense. The ones that can't, should not have capital punishment.
Let me think.....killing the innocent unborn, right through the ninth month, no less, vs. executing cold-blooded killers, found guilty in a court of law. Ah.....no.
The "majority of the world?" Well, let's see... Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Botswana, China, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Kuwait, Libya, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, USA, Vietnam and Yemen are known to have executed people in 2007, according to Amnesty International. Does that make a majority?
Says who? You state your ideology as a fact, when it is nothing but an opinion.-If you consider that a murderer is some percentage (x) likely to repeat the crime of murder, then you can be wrong (< x) of the time, and society still comes out ahead -- in terms of the number of innocent victims of violent crime.-You ascribe to a rather black-and-white ethic that leaves no room for a practical solution. It is certainly clear that the majority of the world exercises capital punishment, and it is a relatively effective solution in societies that can't afford the ridiculous expense that we invest in our criminal justice system. (and in spite of the expense, it is criticized continually)
Thing is, the death penalty cannot be revoked. If the death penalty MUST be carried out, then (a) the crime has to be extremely heinous and (B) there must be no doubt that that person had committed it, as once an innocent man is executed, that is it.
Of course I also find it hypocritical to be pro choice and anti-death penalty. There isn't much Martin Sheen and I agree on, but we strangely enough hold the same opinion on these two topics.
no killing an innocent baby is not the same as killing an adult who deserves it.
I get that they're both human beings, and some people would rather spare human life, yet I still say NO. Killing a baby with no knowledge of the world and will never see the world and killing a mass murderer who has taken the lives of many are 2 totally different things in my book.
i am to the contrary on this one. the answer is no. not at all. These are two completely diferent things.
True it cant be revoked. Another plus is they offender cannot offend again. Capital punishment should be mandatory to murderers,( abortionists) rapists, kidnappers on the testimony of 3 eye witnesses and the required due process of law. This should apply to male and female criminals without bias.
except there are a lot of "cold blooded killers" who didnt actually commit the crimes that they are accused of. Of course, it is a small minority, but considering that death sentences, once carried out cannot be revoked...
By population, about 2.5 billion tops (just a rough guess), so, no.
I mean that IF a society judges certain crimes to be a capitol offense, then these precautions MUST take place. And you are right, some societies can't afford the expense. The ones that can't, should not have capital punishment.
Let me think.....killing the innocent unborn, right through the ninth month, no less, vs. executing cold-blooded killers, found guilty in a court of law. Ah.....no.
The "majority of the world?" Well, let's see... Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Botswana, China, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Kuwait, Libya, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, USA, Vietnam and Yemen are known to have executed people in 2007, according to Amnesty International. Does that make a majority?
Says who? You state your ideology as a fact, when it is nothing but an opinion.-If you consider that a murderer is some percentage (x) likely to repeat the crime of murder, then you can be wrong (< x) of the time, and society still comes out ahead -- in terms of the number of innocent victims of violent crime.-You ascribe to a rather black-and-white ethic that leaves no room for a practical solution. It is certainly clear that the majority of the world exercises capital punishment, and it is a relatively effective solution in societies that can't afford the ridiculous expense that we invest in our criminal justice system. (and in spite of the expense, it is criticized continually)
Thing is, the death penalty cannot be revoked. If the death penalty MUST be carried out, then (a) the crime has to be extremely heinous and (B) there must be no doubt that that person had committed it, as once an innocent man is executed, that is it.
Of course I also find it hypocritical to be pro choice and anti-death penalty. There isn't much Martin Sheen and I agree on, but we strangely enough hold the same opinion on these two topics.