Originally posted by nismoS132:
and what would you consider a better substitute for capital punishment? life imprisonment?
is it necessary to spend all that money, to provide for one that has already been condemned to be away from society for eternity? in another, wouldn't be more humane to end his suffering now than later?
many of the arguments against capital punishment for murder lie on the fact that not everyone kills with intent, that they are often driven by emotion. in such cases, it is arguable that the murderer could be let off the loop with a 10-20 year sentence. but in cases of drug smuggling, kidnapping, murder with intent, where the sole purpose is to profit off of people's misery, i believe that death is a just reward.
is it really necessary to live with the western (and often christian) ideology that every sin is forgivable, every man is redeemable?
justice, at it's very origins, iss just another way of saying "an eye for an eye".
While I would like to succumb to my animal instinct to agree with you - that the 'Death Sentence' is preferred to 'Life Imprisonment' - it is too easy a way out for myself.
'Life Imprisonment' is just as cruel to the person incarcerated for the rest of his/her Life - without any 'short circuit' of justice of being released after 20 years as practised in UK and USA.
Life imprisonment will mean incarceration for the rest of one's Natural Life.
This will allow time for the offender to reflect on the murderous actions committed, which extinguishes someone else's Life.
Does it help anyone emotionally or psychologically, if one legally extinguishes the Life of a person, as punishment for the act of taking someone else's Life ?
Money is already spent to build an effective gallow that will ensure the punishment act of hanging will be definite and cleanly executed to end the life of the condemned.
Anyone who is able to survive the hangman's noose, will not be put through the punishment a second time, and the punishment will be commuted to a Life Sentence.
If the Death Sentence has to be made effective, no one will escape the chemical dose that will certainly be more effective in overwhelming any physical resistance of the body.
In a country when the Death Sentence is so quickly and pervasively applied as punishment - (for Capital Criminal Offense of Murder, Drug Trafficking, and Arms Offenses) - the punishment is quick and final; and leaves no opportunity to right any injustices when more information and truth is discovered at a later date.
In a judiciary system that is dependent on the observation of the District and High Court Judges - sitting alone in court; and the Appeals Court and Supreme Court - (sitting as a panel of Judges - some of whose decision is dependent on their breakfast consumed and workloads of the Court ), can a condemned person be given a fair hearing, when so much depend on the personal and subjective standards of human experience of these Judges - however learned and trained they may be ?
In a judiciary system that does not recognised its own declared rule that the ACCUSED is presumed INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, and INSIST that the ONUS of PROVING ONE'S INNOCENCE rests with the accused, can justice be practised here ?
Is "forgiving someone" an act of charity only peculiar to Western social norms and Christian Religious thinking only ?
Is Western social norms synonymous with Christianity ?
Such a statement belittle the social norms of older civilizations from the East, and the mature religions of Hinduism, Sikhism, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism - (all of which existed before Christianity as we know it today) - and any other religions that may have been inadvertently missed.
Our society has achieved the high standards of the First World, but has our social and cultural standards developed in tandem with our economic achievements ?
Have we remained mired in the survival thinking of the Third World, living constantly in a 'Dog-eat-Dog' environment, where gracefulness is non-existent, knee jerk 'skull breaking action' is the norm towards any opposing views, where the last pound of flesh must be extracted for justice to be carried out ?
An 'eye for an eye' ?
This is the practise demanded in the extreme fundamentalist world of the Talibans.
Is it good justice being practised on the principle of an 'eye for an eye' ?
What is 'Justice' ?
The dictionary define it as:-
The quality of being just; fairness.
The principle of moral rightness; equity.
Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.
The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
Law. The administration and procedure of law.
Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reasonThe word 'Justice' as elaborated further in the Thesaurus will include the following words, and my choice are shown as colored in '
Blue' and the '
Red' being the emphasis for what Justice must be :
amends, appeal, authority, authorization, charter, code, compensation,
consideration, constitutionality, correction, credo, creed, decree,
due process, equity, evenness, fair play, fair treatment, fairness, hearing, honesty, impartiality, integrity, judicatory, judicature, justness, law, legal process, legality, legalization, legitimacy, litigation, penalty, [color=red]reasonableness, recompense, rectitude, redress, reparation, review, right, rule, sanction, sentence, square deal,[/color]
truthWebsites of the Hung: Was Justice Done ?
http://www.thinkcentre.org/article.cfm?ArticleID=1125http://www.thinkcentre.org/article.cfm?ArticleID=818