Should women get the death penalty?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

It might seem so but that's the kind of logic that appears with "modern morality". Humans are animals, yet we obviously have to live by some humane standards - but who sets those standards? To me a mass murderer like Saddam has killed 100,000s of people, death is not a punishment, we are just putting him down as that is the only way to deal with such crimes. Similarly there are crimes which would require the death penalty - walking into a school and killing children for example.

I can't understand how giving an appropriate punishment (torture would be "revenge" if that is what we were after) is seen as murder. Otherwise putting somebody in a prison could be seen as some kind of torture as well.

All I am saying there must be a frame of reference for all, otherwise it is just opinion and nothing more.

So you would have your reasons which, to you, were entirely justifiable, for killing another person or persons - what do you think Saddam Hussein did?

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

So you would have your reasons which, to you, were entirely justifiable, for killing another person or persons - what do you think Saddam Hussein did?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

So this is just "our" definition of murder. That is subject to continuous change anyway.

It's the legal definition under UK law yes

[d000hg]

Subject to three exceptions (see Voluntary Manslaughter below) the crime of murder is committed, where a person:

of sound mind and discretion (i.e. sane);
unlawfully kills (i.e. not self-defence or other justified killing);
any reasonable creature (human being);
in being (born alive and breathing through its own lungs - Rance v Mid-Downs Health Authority (1991) 1 All ER 801 and AG Ref No 3 of 1994 (1997) 3 All ER 936;
under the Queen's Peace;
with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH)

The death penalty would be carried out by someone of sound mind and discretion who had the intent to kill, it would be under the Queen's peace and the person would be a human being and breathing - the only thing that would stop it being murder under the legal definition would be that, should we chose to change the law, it would be justified by the State.

You're still not getting it.

murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another

The death penalty is legally allowed where it is carried out, so by the definition of the word it can't be murder because murder is unlawful. Your original statement is an oxymoron.

You can make a valid case for it being immoral, but the one thing it cannot be is murder.

[mudskipper]

The universal truth en-composes a life after death. If your view of the world is that it ends here then I still don't see how not ending their life works. If you view the life is only a short period after which there is an eternal life then putting and end to evil people's lives makes sense.

Isn't that the justification that suicide bombers use?

If you view this world as one where life will end then why do they deserve to continue living while they have destroyed so many lives

They may not 'deserve' to continue living, but nor, IMO, do we have the right to make that call. Killing for revenge seems wrong - most religions teach forgiveness.

I am not proposing torture followed by death, rather just putting them down - similar to how we put dog's down. Interestingly how do you view that? We are animals just like dogs right? So why can we put them down but not humans?

Really? We farm and eat cows and pigs. Perhaps we should farm and eat babies too.

[mudskipper]

Out of interest - and not tying this to any specific religion - why do you find the concept to be incompatible with "Some Universal Truth"? Or rather, why would locking someone up for 50 years as an act of punishment/revenge be OK but taking another's life as an act of punishment/revenge wouldn't be? It sounds a lot like you're taking your personal opinion and dictating that as some sort of truth - the universe can't possibly work in a way you don't approve of?

Serious question.

Well quite. The whole concept of a Universal Truth has been done to death with Jung and archetypes and all that bollocks. The whole idea belongs to the privileged classes. Clearly if you think it's OK to kill someone, and I don't, it ain't a universal truth.

[d000hg]

Well quite. The whole concept of a Universal Truth has been done to death with Jung and archetypes and all that bollocks. The whole idea belongs to the privileged classes. Clearly if you think it's OK to kill someone, and I don't, it ain't a universal truth.

That seems a cop out. YOU expressed an opinion that agreeing with a death penalty contradicted religion on some basic level... whay? Purely because you don't like the death penalty or for some deeper reason?

[mudskipper]

That seems a cop out. YOU expressed an opinion that agreeing with a death penalty contradicted religion on some basic level... whay? Purely because you don't like the death penalty or for some deeper reason?

Gut feel that at a 'basic level' it's wrong. Mine gut feel is as valid as anyone else's. Perhaps my 'universal truth' is different to yours.

Would you be happy to meet your maker if your job was administering lethal injections to convicted criminals?

[MyUserName]

That seems a cop out. YOU expressed an opinion that agreeing with a death penalty contradicted religion on some basic level... whay? Purely because you don't like the death penalty or for some deeper reason?

I think one of them said something about 'thou shall not kill', 'vengeance is mine' and other related things ...

[d000hg]

If it were my job, then yes. But if it were my job, that would mean I didn't have a problem with it... but it's not my job and nowhere have I indicated any support for the death penalty.

It's not an issue I've ever given much consideration to because we don't have it in the UK. From an objective/logical point of view, there appears nothing inherently wrong with removing individuals who threaten the safety of the species. And forcibly detaining people for the majority of their adult life doesn't really seem more moral or even less extreme. With no "ultimate truth" taking a life is not of any cosmic significance, any more than killing a cow to eat it is of cosmic significance, one might argue. Killing a hardened, irredeemable criminal used to be viewed as quite normal but these days we're raised in a different society. We like to call it progress (we like to call all change progress, ever noticed?) but is it better, or merely different, to lock someone up and forget about them instead?

But I'm thinking out loud really, like voluntary euthanasia and abortion these are important topics but not ones I've ever had personal connections to or any particular reasons to delve into deeply .