Our Next Question for Discussion
My article on the death penalty is below. I am now accepting your articles in answer to the question:
Are you for or against the death penalty and why?
In composing a post for our discussion, remember the ground rules which are:
1. I'm looking for reasoned debate, not ad hominem attack.
2. Foul language will be edited or even form grounds for rejection.
3. Articles will be expected to remain on the given topic.
4. Articles should be no longer than 1,000 to 1,500 words
5. Please frame views that do not agree with yours in positive terms
that proponents of said view use with respect to their views.
Other than that, any position on the topic is acceptable. Please submit your contributions to me at revcraigh@yahoo.com.
posted by Craig R. Harmon at 6:38 AM
3 Comments:
wow, this post came from the future. neat.
anyway - i've never understood the logic of proving that killing is wrong by killing someone. it has not proven to be a deterrent (and in fact may even give an air of official sanction to death) it assumes the justice system is totally objective and infallible, which it certainly isn't. it takes the power of life and death away from nature/god/whatever, away even from individuals, and gives it to the state, which is a terrifying idea to me. it also assumes an absolute morality associated with a very unabsolute thing like government, and the absolute unchangeable nature of people, a rather dismal example to set for a supposedly civilized society.
interesting concept for a blog by the way. i may return.
inkheart
While I'm an eye for an eye type of person, I cringe at having a government decide these things.Well, unless the accused opts for a non-jury trial, the Government does not decide them, 12 of his/her peers do. Of course, an eye for an eye, without due process is a no-no.
However, if you're going to have a death penalty, there needs to be a quicker appeal (and get to the actual penalty phase) process.Given the level of erroneous convictions, I believe that the accused should be given every opportunity to prove his/her innocence. Of course, in my post on the subject, I argue that, given the level of erroneous convictions, capital punishment should not be imposed at all.
As long as the death sentence is carried out behind closed doors it looses its potential deterrent effect. As long as states like California let murderers spend millions in taxpayer dollars to appeal for many years the death penalty looses its effect. Yet - there is no reason to keep alive such killers. I'd put others like pediphiles to death as well!
http://wheresyourbrain.blogspot.com/
Post a Comment
<< Home