• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Death penalty is wrong, this is why..

Matteo Martini

Banned
M
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
4,561
Hereby, I am willing to demonstrate to you why death penalty is wrong.


PART I

Let` s assume you are an husband, you have a nice wife and two little kids
One day, at 3 a.m., your wife wakes you up, as she hears some noises from the other rooms.
She goes downstairs, but, you have not woken up completely yet.
She has a gun with her.
She finds a burglar masked, he is stealing something in the ground floor.
The burglar also is armed.
Your wife yells, you wake up completely, also your son wakes up.
You take another gun, and run down the stairs.
In the mean time, your wife has pointed the gun to the burglar, but, the burglar, scared, has been quicker, and shot your wife.
Your son comes, yells, you also come, see your wife heavily wounded, and see the burglar.
You jumo against him, and manage to take off the mask.
You recognize the many, as it is a guy living not so far from your house.
Again, the burglar, very big man, kicks you back, you take the gun, but the burglar is quicker, and shoots you and your son.
You do not manage to shoot him.
The burglar escapes, you call the police and the ambulance, but, for your wife, it is too late, she dies.
Your son also dies, the other son, was in bed and survives, but, he did not see the burglar in face
You tell the police you know who the burglar is.
They arrive to his house, and catch him.
He has no twins, and, you are sure he is the man who shot your wife dead.
Unfortunately ( for you ), the burglar lived with his wife, brother, mother, etc.
Basically, they all tell the police the same story, the burglar was at home all night.
Basically, they prepared this story to tell the police, just in case.
They all tell the same thing, they have learned by heart, and there is no contradiction.
It is your word against the word of other five people.
The day ofb the process comes, but, the burglar does not get convicted, he is free.
You are full of anger.
The police believes your version, your friends believe your version.
But, nodoby can do anything for you, as it is your word against the word of other five people.
The burglar, even smiles at you, when he is brought out of prison.
Soon, everybody forgets about this story.
Everybody, but not you.
You declare to yourself, that you will not have peace in hearth until you had justice been done.
Time passes, you do not get married.
Your only son grows older.
You keep thinking and thinking.. what can I do..
You keep watching this man.
Soon, he and his family move to another town.
Ten year have passed from that night.
Everybody have forgotten that night.
Not you.
You decide it is time for revenge.
With the help of some loyal friend, you come to know that the burglar, now retired, is living in a city 200 miles from your city, and he is used to go to fish alone in a far-away lake, every Sunday morning.
You rent a new car, the most common car used.
You cut your hair.
Bring your son to his grand-parents for the weekend.
You buy a big gun with silencer.
During Saturday night, you go to that lake, park the car nearby, and wait.
The burglar comes to fish, as predicted, he is alone.
Nobody is around.
You cover your face with a mask, approach him, and you kill him.
Then, you throw his body in the river.
Nobody around.
You walk back to the car, drive away.
Nobody stops you.

Now, my question is, is this behaviour to be defined as " moral ", in your opinion?
 
Last edited:
Um...and the burglar says that he never had any intention of killing anyone until you surprised him, right?

Ok, I don't think that's why the death penalty is wrong, certainly not in all cases because there most certainly are killers than mean to kill, but I do agree the death penalty is wrong.
 
EeneyMinnieMoe said:
Um...and the burglar says that he never had any intention of killing anyone until you surprised him, right?
Click to expand...

During the trial, he says he was not in your house, that night
This is why he got out for free..

EeneyMinnieMoe said:
Ok, I don't think that's why the death penalty is wrong, certainly not in all cases because there most certainly are killers than mean to kill, but I do agree the death penalty is wrong.
Click to expand...

OK.
I am looking forward for people who think that death penalty can be right
 
The death penalty, IMO, can be applied to people who have been convicted as being responsible for intentially wanting to kill other people and eventually making it happen.
For instance, a serial killer. That man does not deserve to live. Think about it, in prison where do you think he gets his food from? from your tax money. And he can legally marry a woman and bring kids to this world and see them from time to time. Why should he have that privilege if he has taken the basic privilege of every human being which is to live?

Regards,
Yair
 
No, it is clearly immoral behavior. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with the death penalty, which makes me feel posting such a hypothetical with this particular title is a little immoral.

Matteo Martini said:
OK.
I am looking forward for people who think that death penalty can be right
Click to expand...

You mean... like... normal society?

How come people who think that the death penalty is wrong can't explain why to the rest of us? How come they always end up posting incoherent threads like this?
 
not having A twin, I think it is. However, it's very unlikely that he would emerge unscathed from a gun brawl in someone's house, as well as leaving no fingerprints.
 
strathmeyer said:
How come people who think that the death penalty is wrong can't explain why to the rest of us? How come they always end up posting incoherent threads like this?
Click to expand...

"Always"?

Poisoning the well a bit?

Want me to try explaining why the death penalty is wrong?
 
Matteo Martini said:
Now, my question is, is this behaviour to be defined as " moral ", in your opinion?
Click to expand...

No, but this is a question of vigilantism rather than the death penalty. The morality of the scenario wouldn't really change if the victim kidnapped the robber and held him couped up in a cell for twenty years, rather than kill him.

Now, why is vigilantism immoral? The erronous execution of justice is a moral evil and its a greater evil to put an unjust punishment on an innocent man than to fail to put a just punishment on a guilty man. Humans are, as individuals, all failable and prone to misapprehensions, superstitious behaviour and acts of passion. Because of that, no single human can be trusted with the right to execute justice. This right must be reserved for a system designed to limit the erronous execution of justice as far as practical.

As long as such a system exists and is, overall, functional, no man has the right to set this system aside for his own convenience, emotional satisfaction or personal conviction.

It does not matter if you know who did it. It does not matter if your family honour requires vengance. It does not matter if God tells you to do it. No single man has the moral right to appoint himself judge, jury and executioner and to assume this right is immoral.
 
The reason the death penalty is wrong is far simpler.

It is impossible to eradicate miscarriages of justice.

The problem isn't killing guilty people (that's another debate entirely), it's killing innocent ones by mistake.
 
I beg to ask for two things:
1) this question, the question at the beginning of this thread ( did the husband do a bad thing ) was mainly directed to people who believe that, death penalty, is, in some cases, right;
2) I made a precise question: did that man behave " morally ", or not? If not, why?
 
Matteo Martini said:
I beg to ask for two things:
1) this question, the question at the beginning of this thread ( did the husband do a bad thing ) was mainly directed to people who believe that, death penalty, is, in some cases, right;
2) I made a precise question: did that man behave " morally ", or not? If not, why?
Click to expand...

The thing is, the scenario you posed has nothing to do with the moral rightness of the death penalty, so your point 1) and point 2) are not related.
 
This is just one scenario. It does not mean that the death penalty is wrong in all cases.

In my case, if I knew with absolute certainty who killed my wife and kid, and the criminal justice system failed me, and I had to power to do justice myself, I probably would do it. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. I'm not an other-cheek-turner.
 
yairhol said:
The death penalty, IMO, can be applied to people who have been convicted as being responsible for intentially wanting to kill other people and eventually making it happen.
For instance, a serial killer. That man does not deserve to live. Think about it, in prison where do you think he gets his food from? from your tax money. And he can legally marry a woman and bring kids to this world and see them from time to time. Why should he have that privilege if he has taken the basic privilege of every human being which is to live?

Regards,
Yair
Click to expand...

This argument is just sickening, you are basing the decision to end a human's life on an economic cost analysis. The argument may be emotionally appealing to some people, if you really think about it, this is as immoral as it comes.

I have two reasons to be against the death penalty.

My first reason is that the legal system should be about justice not revenge. The death penalty is a way to "get even", the legal system should not be about "getting even", it should be about punishment fitting to the crime.

The second reason, and maybe the most important one, is that the death penalty is irreversable. We all know how many people are now getting released even after 20 years, because new pieces of evidence, or new methods to look at evidence have become available. Had these people been put to death, this would have been institutionalized murder of innocent people. Since the legal system cannot garantuee a 100% aquital rate of innocents, it should not have the death penalty included in it's list of penalties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom