A discussion about death penalty

Here is a little dialog I had about death penalty... What you see is exactly what I and Katie wrote, with all my errors. Consider that I was quite exited by the subject and by some events outside the Net that you can not see...

Marco Bodrato

katie

Marco Bodrato

katie

Marco Bodrato

katie

Marco Bodrato

katie

Marco Bodrato

katie

Marco Bodrato

katie

Marco Bodrato

katie

Marco Bodrato

No more answers...

Comments

Katie said about the possibility of killing an innocent: "THATS A MISTAKE THAT THEY WILL HAVE TO LIVE WITH". I'm wandering whom is she refferring to with THEM. I think the innocents. Well, I should have writen WE. But I do not think that innocents have to live with the possibility of being killed for a mistake!

In my class at school I am fighting against the Death Penalty. I believe the death penalty is very wrong.

It is just like the saying an eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind. It is not our place to judge other peoples wrong doings. But I also think that if we didn't have such strong laws that who knows how bad our crime rate might be right now.

I have done so much research on the that its really hard to believe some of the stuff these peole do. I some states here in America they still have laws to hang people, and I found that over half of them are blacks. That really made me angry. Well, I guess I will have to go but I want to say thanks for standing up for what you believe in only if more prople would we would have such a problem today. see ya!!!!!!!

        Asley Mayson.

My name is Sara. I am a sixteen year old Finnish girl doing a school project on death penalty. Searching the Web, I stumbled across your page and wanted to make a comment.
The question about death penalty is a very complex one, but I think that you are right. For one, nobody has the right to take someone else's life under any conditions. If a murderer is killed, it is only to repeat the crime. As long as we have no Universal Judge who knows everything, we should give suspects the benefit of the doubt. And another thing; If I was convicted for murder, death penalty would be an easy way out. For me it would be much worse to spend the rest of my life isolated in prison. In that situation death would be a blessing. That way there would also be time for further investigation if there is the slightest doubt about the suspect's guilt.

        Best regards,

                Sara

Good day.
My name is Ted Shields and I am a PhD Sudent in criminology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
Because I focus on corrections, it is a near impossibility not to become consumed with the capital punishment question. Considering the death penalty from a moral standpoint, volumes could, and have, been written on the subject.
Is it morally acceptable to kill a murderer. I do not know. This is a question we all have to answer on our own. However, the answer to the question should not determine policy. What should morally happen and what can be permitted to happen are rarely images of one another.
For our purposes, let us say that I beleive that destroying those that take human life is a moral imperative. Even so, I cannot support the death penalty.
This is true for several reasons.
First and foremost, can we permit the innocent to be executed. In the past half century, there is documentation of approximately 30 individuals who made their way through the system, had their day in court, and were executed. Later these individuals were found to be innocent of the crimes for which they were killed. How can this be accepted. A punishment of such finality can never function without such tragedies in our imperfect system.
Moreover, if murderers are put to death for killing the innocent, how about the judge, jury, and society as a whole that executed an innocent suspect. Did they not murder an innocent individual. That was just a error, a one in a million tragedy. I'll bet that's what plenty of convicted murderers might say as well.
The justice system is, and always will be, run by individuals that make mistakes. Police officers make mistakes, witnesses make mistakes, lawyers make mistakes, judges make mistakes, and the juries make mistakes. O.K., the jury must be convinced beyond a "reasonable doubt" of a suspects guilt. However, I'm positive that every individual alive has been dead sure about something that turned out to be false. Fortunately, in most of these cases, a life does not hang in the balance. I know everyone can think of there own examples. We all make mistakes.

Now let us consider the attorneys. In the United States of America, an attorney's job is plain and simple.WIN. The prosecutor's job is not to find the truth. Once the District Attroney makes the decision to prosecute the only focus is to triumph by any legal means. The defense lawyer's job is the same. However, these are people.
In every case, be it shoplifting or murder in the first degree, one lawyer, or group of lawyers will be superior to the other. It is not possible to argue against this fact. A superior lawyer will be able to make the evidence point in their direction. Should such a competition (who is the wittier lawyer) decide whether or not individuals live or die. I wish not.
I want to make it clear that I am not complaining about the system as a whole.I beleive our adversarial system is the best path to the truth. If you allow two sides to argue their opinions incessantly, eventually the truth, or something close, should become visible. Also, the concept of being judged by one's peers must be considered superior to leaving all in the hands of the government. No, I am not complaining about the system as a whole. I simply wish we could admit that the system does have faults. That does not mean we should change the foundation of the system.
Everything, and everyone, has faults. And they always will. Sometimes these faults cannot be corrected without destroying the entire system, machine, or person. In such cases, we simply must attempt to minimize the problems caused by such faults. Yes, in such an adversarial system, innocent suspects are occasionally convicted. We accept this tragedy because we feel our system convicts less innocent suspects than any other. Also, these individuals have the opportunity to continue to plead their innocence through the appeals process. If we accept that several statements/theories are true, we can come to only one logical and acceptable conclusion.
First, we do not wish to choose the basic structure of our system. We like the fact that a jury of peers makes the final decision based on evidence presented by two sides.
Second, no matter how much we like the system, we must admit that, being human, the participants in the system will inevidably come to occassionaly incorrect conclusions.
Third, it stands to reason that some of these incorrect conclusions will occur in capital punishment cases.
Fourth, innocent people WILL be condemned to death.
Fifth, we cannot execute, nor allow our representatives to execute, innocent people. That would be murder.
Finally, if we cannot execute innocent people; and in our system innocent people will be condemned to death, one can logically infer that we cannot execute prisoners.
It is simple logic.

Premetto ritengo la pena di morte una azione moralmente sbagliata ma questo non può influenzare la mia analisi dei fatti.
Uno stato non deve avere altra morale che difendere e custodire al meglio i cittadini partendo dai piú deboli fino ad arrivare ai piú forti.Deve allungare la mano verso chi ha bisogno e chi ha bisogno se non vuole essere diversamente considerato deve accettare sia l'aiuto, sia le regole della stato che lo ospita.
Al primo reato, anche il piú efferato non è assolutamente giusto applicare la pena di morte ma quando un criminale è recidivo e sicuramente colpevole (es. flagranza di reato) non è giusto nei confronti delle persone piú deboli che tale individuo venga mantenuto in vita in una prigione ogni piú piccola risorsa deve andare ai bimbi che soffrono, ai ragazzi che non hanno lavoro, agli anziani che vivono male e che si sono sempre comportati onestamente.
Anche se costasse una sola lira mantenere un carcerato non sarebbe giusto utilizzarla per far vivere colui che per due volte ha mancato di essre giusto e ha rifiutato di capire l'errore commesso.
Per quanto riguarda poi l'essere recidivo per reati contro i minori la pena di morte è UN DOVERE DELLO STATO che deve proteggere il futuro di tutti i cittadini.
Se poi dovesse succedere che uno stato avesse risorse in tale quantità da non avere ne poveroie ne bambini bisognosi allora sarebbe giusto pensare alla riabilitazione del recidivo e non alla sua morte.
Fino a quando ciò non sarà possibile dobbiamo chiederci non se sia ingiusto mettere a morte il colpevole ma se sia giusto privare i deboli e gli onesti di risorse fondamentali, non dovremmo costringerli a diventare loro stessi dei delinquenti.
La prima volta si perdona e si aiuta, la seconda si punisce una volta per tutte.
Non venitemi a dire che sarebbe un assasinio, perché non è cosí.
Sarebbe legittima difesa a favore dei piú deboli, per i quali lo stato non spende certo piú di 100.000 mila lire al GIORNO a testa !!!!!!!!!
Personalmente sono per la vita ma deve esistere un limite a tutto altrimenti non potremo mai migliorare un mondo nel quale la giustizia è un assunto logico per cui se anche tu uccidi sei un assassino.
Non è importante ciò che fai (per questo si può perdonare la prima volta) è importante il sentimento con cui lo fai.
Se uccidi sapendo di commettere un grave atto teso però a proteggere i piú deboli non sarà mai ingiustizia sarà coraggio, sarà giustizia.
Se mi sarà chiesto di sparare a qualcuno reo di un reato grave non esiterò a farlo, magari vomitando e non dimenticandolo per tutta la mia vita, ma non fuggiro di fronte al dovere di proteggere i piú deboli perchè capiscano anche loro che sbagliare è possibile è umano, ma perseverare è piú che bestiale. Le bestie sono meglio.
Buon lavoro ad Amnesty perchè ciò che fa è importante visto che la pena di morte applicata finora è stata sempre e solo un ingiustizia. Io sono contro quella pena di morte.

Cordiali saluti,


                Marcello <???@???arcanet.it>

I am a member of the Mennonite church. Mennonites firmly believe in pacifism, so therefor I cannot support the death penalty from religous grounds. In the past weeks I have begun to write an essay upon the death penalty. I came accross your page while reseaching. I wanted to let you know that I completely agree with you. We cannot allow our government to kill, even in retribution.

Thanks for sharing your conversation and your stand against the death penalty. It is importan to know that there are those who care about life. All to often I here only cries for violence.

Somos técnicos em Processamento de Dados. E no momento estamos discutindo tal assunto. Somos TOTALMENTE contra a pena de morte (penalty death). Achamos que não é possível que alguém tenha o direito de tirar uma vida de outra pessoa, pois quando permitimos que se mate um assassino estamos sendo assassinos também.

What is death row. Nothing but us american people to pay more taxes to keep a criminal living off of our money for his or her whole life. Forget that! I think it sucks! There is no excuse for killing someone. Not only do i believe that if you kill someone you should die the very next day!!!!!! & not only that, that person should be killed the same way he/she committed their murder.

I was looking up the death penalty as a project for english and I found your page here. I, myself, am for the death penalty.. As I read your little dialogue I must say that I could not see you back anything you said up with statistics.. if you do that you would have an easier time to convince to people that your side is a valid one. I did not use "right" because in a topic such as this no one is "right" there is only oppinion.. I will not stand here and tell you your wrong and I hope you don't stuff my address saying I'm wrong :) .. but I believe that the death penalty is a good way to slow crime and possibly stop it altoghether.. I understand how you feel and that's ok.. sure it's murder killing a killer but what I have to say is -> An eye for an eye.. heck I think that there should be it's own law.. stating what you do to a person should be done to you. you kill a person we kill you.. see what I'm getting at? Answer this to me.. If I killed you and then 2years later got out of prision how would you feel? (assuming that you feel anything :) ) but that would be a horable thing... I just think this "revenge" would be a good way to repay a criminal for there kind acts if you get my drift.that's all I got to say.. please reply :)

Good statements made. I do not believe that we prove anything by putting to death someone who has killed. To show our children not to kill we in turn kill. Doesn't make sense to me. I do not believe that the guilty should not be punished, but according to the Bible there is nothing that the Lord will not forgive except To blaspheme the Holy Ghost. It does indeed take more money to put someone on death row and wait to kill them that to give them life without parole. Quality of life in prison is not good being seperated forever, not having any say over anything about yourself is punishment. If you don't think so try it for awhile. Our system has flaws in it and I know that innocent people are in the system. Our government will go out of it's way to save one person in distress, but will willing put to death people that may be innocent. Doesn't make sense to me. All life is belongs to God, and if you are responsible for putting to death an innocent (Judge, jury or Prosecuting attorney, witness, ect.) you will be called into judgement for it with God.

I believe that people should be punished in some way other than our current system, as it does not seem to be working... In my country the death penalty is not used widely, or very often, but in areas that it is more heavily used, there is often NOT a lower crime rate, but often a HIGHER one... this seems to puzzle me, and leads me to conclude that the only answer for crimes that MIGHT constitute the death penalty would be TORTURE!

Salve,
sono stato anch'io studente della SNS (dal 1983 al 1988). La mia posizione sulla pena di morte è semplice: sono assolutamente contrario, oltre che per ragioni morali, anche per ragioni logiche (per altro strettamente connesse con le prime): voglio dire che non sono mai riuscito a trovare una sola argomentazione valida a favore della pena di morte; valida nel senso che riesca a trarre conclusioni perfettamente coerenti con le premesse). In effetti, mi stupisce che gli americani, che hanno una tradizione filosofica basata sulla logica e sulla filosofia analitica, siano in maggioranza pro death penalty. Questo mostra probabilmente il gap tra intellighenzia e società civile. Un altro mistero per me è costituito dalla posizione di Kant: il filosofo di Königsberg in alcuni scritti tardi (tradotti in italiano nel volume Scritti sulla politica e sul diritto, Editori riuniti) si esprime a favore della pena di morte e polemizza contro Beccaria. È comunque interessante notare come Umberto Eco abbia usato argomenti kantiani contro la pena di morte (cfr. "Dialogo sulla pena capitale" in Dalla periferia dell'impero, Milano, Bompiani).

From a moral and social standpoint the death penalty is unacceptable in the United States of America. I've read all of the previous posts and I must say that I disagree with most of them. First and foremost, no major religion supports the death penalty. Jesus didn't support it. Read the New Testament. Read the story about the prostitute. Jesus said the person who has committed no sin may cast the first stone at her. Thats the bible right there. Second of all, the death penalty descriminates against minorities and poor people. To explain this arguement I would need alot of time so if you want to hear the rest of this just e-mail me. Lastly, in response to the woman who cried that the U.S. needed to bring back cruel and unusual punishment please go to your library, get a copy of the amendments and read number 8! Well if anyone disagrees with me just e-mail me with your comments. Theres nothing I like more than a good 'ole fashion debate-I'll be waiting!

I agree with Marle's message. I think one of the biggest problems you all are having in deciding if the death penalty is right or wrong is a lack of information. Your opinions don't seem to be based on anything. "I don't believe in the death penalty because I'm religous", that is so stupid. Look it up in the old testement "Thou shalt give LIFE for LIFE". It's kinda hard to find anything more specific than that. You can't say it's not there or maybe he didn't mean it that way. Look, do a little research see what's on the other side. Why don't you look up exactly how many convicted killers have been let back out on the streets only to kill again or how many people they've killed within prison. Everyone seems to have a lot of sympathy for these people although it seemed to be the one thing absent from the killers' minds when they struck.
Maybe listening to all the stories of hell they have brought into our society isn't enough. Perhaps the day this event hits close enough home is when you'll decide to back up your words. My whole point in writing this is not to offend anyone just to make you think. It's very easy to take a side, but the difficult part is listning to both sides FULLY and then making a decision. I can tell you right now there is a lot more to the death penalty than the few bits and pieces that rise to our visable surface.

To everybody pro or against death penalty, may I recommend reading "IN COLD BLOOD", a non-fiction novel by Truman Capote.

If anyone has any information on the death penalty with sources that they can send in the advocacy of, please send it to me ASAP.

About death penalty

Marco Bodrato

katie

Marco Bodrato

katie

Marco Bodrato

katie

Marco Bodrato

Marco Bodrato

katie

katie

Marco Bodrato

katie

Marco Bodrato

katie

Marco Bodrato

katie

katie

Marco Bodrato

Marco Bodrato

No more answers...

Comments