How does a government and society expect people to value all life including themselves and each other, while at the same time, the government can influence and enforce the death penalty and abortion?
If people see abortion and "DP" as justified when someone is inconvenienced or found guilty of crime, why would the observers value life when the government doesn't?
I believe there's a big difference between abortion and the death penalty. Abortion involves someone who can't choose yet and is innocent.
The death penalty applies to people who've made very bad choices in life and have been proven guilty.
Thanks, I don't get this. What about an innocent person being wrongly convicted and sentenced to death? Sure there are many appeals in attempt to get the decision "right", but has there never been an innocent person killed by the death penalty? Wouldn't one innocent be to many or is there a number? How many insane people have been killed that had a damaging childhood? Why don't we just kill all insane people instead of putting them in mental hospitals if we kill some by the DP?
I am not opposed to the death penalty in all cases - I support its use on serial killers and others who have been proven guilty of particularly heinous crimes without a shadow of a doubt - but in more run of the mill cases it is often applied inconsistently and even unjustly, so I think it is horribly over-used and that its use in this country is more often than not a discredit to American values and way of life.
Since 1973, more than 130 people have been released from death row due to wrongful conviction.
Studies have found that blacks are more than three times more likely to be given the death penalty than whites in comparable cases where the victim is white.
95% of death row inmates could not afford their own attorney.
An estimated 5-10% of death row inmates have serious mental illnesses.
Facts such as these make me extremely uncomfortable with the death penalty. I'm agnostic and it still feels too much like "playing God" when human error, racism, and social inequality can combine to condemn the innocent to death for a crime they didn't commit. We're not living in the Middle Ages anymore.
if you are doing these crimes your mind is not right, they all can claim mental illness
Maybe if the thugs who fabricated the evidence or were just racially biased to incompetence, that results in the clear wrongful convictions, were given the death sentence for doing it things might change.
Thanks. Is that your solution to devalue life even further, kill even more for messing up the paperwork? I wouldn't want to work for you. lol
Most everyone is incompetent in at least 1 thing. Should every incompetent person that does something drastic in effecting their lives or someone elses get the DP as well? Or do they only get the DP if they are incompetent on purpose?
Thanks Kerry. You say you are still partially for the DP, then give statistics showing over 130 released for wrongful conviction. If there was 130, how many more are there, could there be? How many wrongfully convicted would you be for getting the DP simply to satisfy your or a families revenge of seeing a mentally disturbed serial killer die?
Does the DP teach our society forgiveness or revenge?
abortion is wrong, but if we stop the death sentence for being wrong the we need to take all our armies and take them to court for killing
If you really believe that then I can agree with you - but it is not your services at fault it is the criminals who send them, order them, to war in distant places for the gain of a few arms dealers and contractors.
I agree with you, you can not judge the armies, I was in Vietnam, and the Leaders was not right
I agree about Vietnam, can anyone now explain what it was about it all that was worth so many lives ?
Again, there are reasons I didn't mention war, but you have a good point.
If a country invades your country, war may be the only option. There are many more variables of when to help allies when they can't help themselves. If we just let defenseless people be murdered in other countries, wouldn't this also justify that killing is alright, as long as you live in another country? So which is more important, the whole or the individual? Many are already taken to court for killing innocents, didn't you see where the Seals got taken to court for "slapping"?
I do not believe we should keep a mass murderer alive for tye rest of his natural life
I sometimes sway back and forth with you on my individual belief. But I am talking about which is better for the whole, legal murder or keeping them alive? If one is alright, the others will be seen as alright and justified most often.
I guess my main point on the DP is that it teaches revenge while not killing in a sense teaches forgiveness. Which is more important to the whole?
If forgiveness is more important than revenge on many occasions to the individual, why isn't it more important to the whole?
you can not teach forgiveness at this point, that would be like taking away their tv's if they mug someone
Thanks. Everyone has a different idea of what forgiveness is. I'm not suggesting to let a hardened criminal be forgiven with a new start, i'm simply saying not to execute them because I think it devalues life.
I beg to differ with your total outlook on this issue.
Even "IF" ... Especially "if" I were inocent of a crime; I would rather recieve the DP than to serve the rest of my life in prison. That to me would be cruel and unusual punishment.
And If I were guilty of the crime; I would know that I didn't need to be allowed to thrive in the general public.
When you pull weeds out of your tomato patch; are you punishing the weeds by killing them? Do you carefully transplant them and take it upon yourself to care for and nuture those weeds forever? or ... Are you simply enhansing the growth of your tomatoes.
you can value life yet still want to see criminals executed. if someone broke into my house with the intent to harm/kill me or my loved ones, I would have no qualms at all about blowing their head off, yet if I find a bug or spider that wandered into my house I will escort it from the premises unharmed, so I value life. Someone who breaks the law by killing someone, knowing the penalty for it (after a convoluted & lengthy legal and appellate process), that is called JUSTICE.
Ever onward with the equating game...
Abortion devalues life.
The death penalty does not.
The relatively few that this affects [ right or wrong is not the issue ] should be put into context against the untold nummbers of deaths from the un-heroic wars of the past few decades from Vietnam to Iraq and the supporting of any number of tinpot vicious dictators for some minor world strategy advantage ? Or don't they count as they are all Asian, or coloured, or Muslims or gay or some other 'other' ????
Get real with these stupid posts that try to credit ancient religious traditional moral values instead of responding to the real of today !
Thanks. I understand wars, but there are many more variables in wars. This is the specific reason I didn't use "war" in my question. If you have something valuable rather than just tired religious accusations, please add.
One war example just for you. Here is current, our government tries to punish Navy Seals for "slapping" a terrorist that has killed innocents when our government will sentence them to death. You see no contradictions here?
Ok - valuing an unborn person who, if born, will add to the worlds trailer trash and general unwanted, above a 'foreign' person you don't know is ethically shocking. Valuing the life of some murderous paedophile over the life of my child by not 'killing' him is also totally ridiculous in any scheme of things. In a world that is fair and balanced and kind and loving then dealing with these issues is simple - but this world is full of mathering religious nonentities spouting moral values with none of their own, and wishy washy luvvy duvvies who think it is ok to release criminals to kill again because they did not give up their right to life after taking one.
When a nation stops indiscriminately killing people for its own gains then it might be grown up enough to look to its minor internal affairs.
Until then supporting the government in its overseas murders while twittering on about relatively minor issues as though they are important is total hypocrisy. Is that clear enough ?
Thanks. Wow, you said a lot here, " valuing an unborn person who, if born, will add to the worlds trailer trash and general unwanted". I think this single line gives insight into what kind of value or lack of you already put on life, yet you believe your right opinion of abortion doesn't devalue life.
In the case of the paedophile, do you have to devalue life in order to value it? I still don't think you comprehend the questions of the thread, I listed my reasons for not adding war to the topic. But if you want to that bad, I will talk about war with you. But it has many more variables. War can be like a bully punching you in the mouth everyday on the way to school or it can be based on political lies for power or money. Which side do you want to cover?
No I don't - if those Navy Seals have tortured what i guess was an untried terrorist then they are acting against their own orders, their own consience, their own humanity and they have devalued the US yet again in the eyes of the world. The same with Guantanemo, avoiding International laws just means you are outlaws.
The few Navy Seals that I met when I was in service would not have done such a thing, they were exceedingly well trained and disciplined and I find it hard to imagine them doing what you claim in your post, but if they have then that branch must have regressed a notch or two in the last couple of decades.
Thanks. So, the death penalty is alright, but a slap is worse? I don't know how you logically come up with this. If they were already tried, would the slap or the death penalty be worse?
I'm not pulling it out of thin air, if you are familiar with the news, it has been in the media in the past few months. I believe all were found innocent.
Yes - the death penalty has been properly tried and convicted, in other words the defendant has been found guilty - slapping (I guess this is your speak for beating) the defendant before he has been found guilty is torture and trial without defense and execution of punishment without authoriswation - and if guilty those resposnsible should be dismissed from the service they have soiled and punished. If they are not guilty - why did you bring it up ?
Thanks. It is guilty until proven innocent here, not innocent until proven guilty. This is why people are taken and detained in jail before court or sentencing. They supposedly had multiple accounts of accusing the Seals of slapping the terrorist, but I guess they figured it was alright since our government tortured in the past.
Abortion devalues life in that it treats the enchoate fetus as trash, or even as less.
The death penalty, in my opinion, places a high value on life, in that, if you take one for no good reason.
We take yours.
Thats is a high price.
Thanks. I agree with your abortion take and see where you are coming from on the DP. I still do not think it's possible to up value on life when you legalize death. People look at the government as an example, when someone commits a crime, I think government killing empowers people to think killing is alright when crime has been committed. Many then take justice into their own hands for unneccessary killing. If your religion teaches forgiveness, why are you for "eye for an eye"?
Vigilantism is not the rampant problem here that alot of folks would make it.
I do not actually remember the time I last heard about a group of vigillanties killing someone for committing a crime.
But I can tell you about criminals killing people, every day. People who may have been able to live had they been armed.
As for me.... render unto Ceaser... and that means law and punishment along with taxes.
And death penalty cases in America are capitol crimes involving a hainous nature. We don't excute thieves, apostates or adulterers. I think you have to take into account the torture and pain inflicted on the victims, also.
I don't have a problem with the death penalty if all the circumstances call for it.
Have you ever watched "gangland" on the history channel? Gangs aren't just mythical creations, walk through a hood one day. Gangs take justice into their own hands when they feel another has committed a crime against them. Gangs are vigilantes.
I agree that some crimes that are committed are almost impossible to imagine for the victims. It goes back to the individual and the whole. Which is more important, the victims individual rights or the wholes view that killing is sometimes justified and alright? Is the value greater to the individual victims or to the whole that killing is wrong?
Gangs are the criminals... don't get trapped in some ramanticized understanding of a gang. yes i have seen the show.
And I grew up in Lynn and Boston Mass. I have been in the Hood" my entire life. So... I don't know what you think that is suppossed to change.
Gangs kill for profit, for drugs, for vengeance and for fun. They are not the ones top hold up as an example of vigillanties.
Thanks. Are the children thats joining the criminals or is it the parents? How much free will and choice does a young child have when it's not taught to them? How many options are there in a limited childs mind when gangs in their environment are threatning when others offer protection? Do you put all the children and their parents in jail or do you just kill them all? Does jail rehabilitate or teach to be a more successful criminal?
None of that changes the fact that a gang and a vigillanty group are not the same.
We can argue free will -Vs- Societal Pre-Determinism all you want... but lets make sure we all know that to equate a gang, to a vigillanty group, is simplistic and biased, and at base incorrect.
Thanks. Gangs don't take the law into their own hands?
Gangs don't regard the law at all.
And thought don't try to enforce it in the least.
They make thier own rules and business is firsty. You think all the heroes on gangland are enforcing a law when they kill the snitch in most episodes.
No comparison to a vigillanty group. A biased and telling equating.
Thanks. You are missing my point. Gangs enforce their own laws. A vigilante doesn't just mean someone that enforces government laws. Vigalantes live by their own laws, not the government laws. You are the one calling them hereos, not me. Biased is putting your words to other peoples name.
I did not make them heroes, I simply corrected you in your worthless and inaccurate equating of the two.
Most vigillanty groups uphold, even loosely, the established law or rule of order. And unlike the permanance of gangs they pop up in the lack of, or in the absence of, real law enforcement efforts.
Gangs do not.
it's way to early in the a.m. for me for a heavy discussion.
"If people see abortion and "DP" as justified when someone is inconvenienced or found guilty of crime, why would the observers value life when the government doesn't?"
my initial thoughts...
i don't view abortion as an inconvenience...i don't think the word inconvenience is a good one to use...there are a variety of reasons why women choose abortion...and i'm not walking in their shoes to determine whether or not their choice is right or wrong...it's their choice - not mine...and for each decision the context of a woman's life at the time she makes/made that choice has to be considered...it's up to her...not me...not anyone...this is a complex issue.
as for the DP - and being found guilty of a crime...i 'flip flop' on this all of the time because there are times that people have been found guilty and the decision has been reversed after many years because of how the legal system works for some....luckily for those that were eventually proven innocent, there was no DP.
Thanks. I understand your thoughts on abortion. But which is more crucial to the whole, value on life, or right of the individual? If right of the individual, why not let right of the individual succeed over other rights of the whole? When we can stop a person from killing themselves, we put them in mental hospitals, but it is their individual right. When they attempt to have an abortion, we say it's alright. Why is it alright to kill another life when it's not alright to kill ourselves? Also, why are people convicted of two crimes at times when killing a pregnant mother if abortion isn't murder? Wouldn't it just be sentencing for the mother and not the unborn child?
well...that's another discussion altogether ....suicide...like I said it's too early for me to get into it...
for me the term suicide also includes assisted suicide and euthanasia....really it's another topic.
for me it's like comparing 'apples to oranges'.
Also in places like China where there are limits on how many children a woman can have.
It doesn't devalue life that a woman will have repeated abortions in attempts of having a boy instead of a girl?
Does Death Penalty(Capital Punishment) and Abortion Devalue All Life? NO!
You seem to be running in circles with your argument.
The death penalty is needed, as I stated in my hub about it, because humanity is not civilized. And, there can be a civilized way of applying it.
You keep bouncing back and forth about this pathetic notion of deterministic or free will.
When are you going to realize- Free will, allows for deterministic to be. Otherwise, it doesn't exist.
As for the Death Penalty, versus abortion? Two separate and distinctly different things, and to put them together as one is absurd.
The Death Penalty is a punishment for heinous crimes against humanity(citizens). This covers all people.
Abortion is a medical procedure, which is an option(choice) for woman. This covers only woman, for obvious reasons.
Thanks. So humanity is uncivilized, but the DP to kill humanity is civilized? By this logic, we should just kill all the uncivilized. Who gets to determine who is civilized and who isn't?
The deterministic is the sum of the whole / free will. When the deterministic comes before the whole that has free will, also being more obvious than free will, isn't the deterministic that allows for free will? How do you figure free will comes before deterministic?
I have already stated why abortion and DP are similar. Legalized government killing. Looks like a common to me.
Again, what I asked above. Does the DP teach society revenge or forgiveness?
Again, I am not talking about individual scale, I am talking about large scale. Which is better, free choice of the individual to have a child terminated or a higher value placed on life and humanity as a whole?
Apparently, you have yet to realize that morality needs to be taught and isn't a natural thing. So, a somewhat civilized method to move humanity forward needs to be used so as teach those who want to constantly harm the rest of society to not do that.
Oh, so you figure that a serial killer is civilized?
Deterministic is a human concept, born from free will. Without free will, NOTHING is thought of in the first place.
I'm sure it does.
Compassion is the only teacher of forgiveness. Justice, the form known, is an altruistic ideology, no different than revenge. It is dressed up to look different.
Whatever is in the best interest of the future of the person who has to make the decision. It is not in the best interest of a person, to be forced to do something that can screw up the rest of their life, when they have a legal option to ensure that their life isn't screwed up, just because they had sex.
Thanks. I understand that morals are taught and not inherited. The government teaches morals by putting laws into effect. The part we disagree on is what you call a "civilized method". What is civilized about killing? My point is that when the government kills for revenge, this leads others in society to kill for revenge into a chain effect. Then everyone has different interpretation on what revenge is justified.
I didn't say a serial killer is civilized. How is your death penalty civilized when it is doing the same as the convicted killer, killing?
I agree deterministic is a human concept, but this doesn't mean determinism didn't happen before we termed it. Without the universe determining life to exist, there would never have evolved free will. The name or term doesn't bring things into existence, the materials are there before we name them.
Do you think it's compassionate to fry someone in the electric chair? Compassion is understanding everyone is wired different and not killing them because they fail to think or act like yourself.
Revenge is not altruistic. Compassion is sacrificing self for others, revenge is sacrificing others for yourself. I never said force anyone to have a child, I am just entertaining the debate on whether or not abortion is better or worse for the whole. I think many people only look at individual rights without consideration on how it effects the whole. It is also hard to understand abortion for an "oops". If you have a child, why shouldn't it be legal if you decide later on that you made an oops? Should you be able to kill the child?
You are equating what is in the best interest of all versus what is in the best interest of one. It is civilized to hold those who are mass murderers accountable for their actions and if need be, ensure they are unable to damage society again, and the only solution for that is to destroy them, so as to not have any type or sort of chance to doing more damage to the whole.
That's one of the problem, the limitations derived by choice ignorance, which skews the view/perspective/perception of each person.
Because, it's protecting the citizens in the here and now, and in the future. Or are you saying that we should house these people for rest of their life? If so, good you can PAY for them on your own. How is that? It's better to not force people to continually pay for sadistic killers or serial killers, for the rest of their life, when it is much safer to the public and most cost effective to the public, to end their life.
And you cannot prove it existed before human consciousness ever existed, and to claim it does is ignorant of facts known to humanity. Before human consciousness, human existence existed, but by control of nature.
You're stretching. The Universe did not determine life. Your statement insinuates that the Universe has a consciousness similar to human consciousness and can make decisions, like human beings. There is no such facts to support your assumption.
It is most certainly compassion, but not for the person to fry, but for the family they destroyed or damaged.
Understanding everyone is different is already learned by humanity. Killing them because they fail to think or act like yourself(me)? Compassion for these people ends when they kill more people than one can count on one hand and have no feeling toward what they did, as wrong.
Revenge is "eye for an eye" is derived from ancient religious teachings. And is incorporated as "Justice" in government, which is altruistic.
Compassion is about caring for others. It's nothing to do with sacrificing.
If you were more concerned with the whole, then you should have realize that the whole only works when individuals work in a positive and productive manner, which does not harm others. The fact that rights are infringed upon by those who want the highest moral standard, simply shows their individual lack of knowledge about morals and human beings.
Of course, the average person cannot grasp globalization of anything. They have enough problems trying to live their life day to day, because of their lack of wisdom.
Abortion isn't an oops, as you label it. Creating a child, even with protection taken, can happen. That's an oops, as you say. In present parts of the world, abortion is legal and some places it is not legal. In America it is legal, up to a point, where viability becomes a factor.
It's not a fact of deciding later...if the growth inside a woman, reaches viability(it can survive on it's own), then abortions are not allowed. To define LIFE at the base of conception is foolish, because it doesn't protect individual rights nor does it protect the so-called soon to be parents.
A person who circumvents(breaks) the laws of state or federal authority, with their own laws enforced by them is a criminal.
Just a thought.
by KyleBear5 years ago
I've been advocating against death penalty since the beginning of time. Here are reasons why I believe it should be abolished.Please do feel free to share your views here too. This thread is about communicating and...
by mandybeau7 years ago
Big fan of the Guillotine for these Guys, Happy to operate it, I personally don;t see why we need to keep this pondscum alive, costing our Governments a fortune in food med. exps, dentistry.New zealand has quite a few...
by Cat R5 years ago
Supporters say that some crimes deserve the Death Penalty and that we are spending too much money to keep prisoners comfortable in prisons. That there are too many people that don't have cable, a home, free education...
by Grace Marguerite Williams5 years ago
It behooves me that those who claim to be pro-life are oftentimes pro-war and pro-death penalty. Also, these people who believe that any woman who becomes pregnant, should have the baby no matter what...
by SparklingJewel8 years ago
As author Jeffrey Bell says about Gov. Palin: "The simple fact of her being a pro-life married mother of five with a thriving political career was - before anything else about her was known - enough for the left...
by cathylynn995 years ago
i disagree with the death penalty for several reasons.it's not a deterrant. in one study, murder rates actually rose after an execution. it was as if the stae were saying, "it's okay to kill. we do."there but...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.