Jedi Believe, death penalty section

if it was common that being executed were preferable to life in prison then those who were sentenced to death would not so often appeal

tell you what, if you really think that people would rather be executed than to have to complete a life sentence (or die in prison of old age) then maybe you should write to a few of them and ask?

http://prisoninmatepenpal.com/inmate-penpal-profiles/death-row-inmates/

maybe you believe that you personally would rather die than to have to live out the rest of your life in prison, but you havent been to prison, and you havent talked to people who have been to prison, not many and not about this question

while there may be some who would rather be executed, and some few more who SAY they would rather be executed, most, when their time gets closer, would not

life is still life and it is still better than death

at least, many see it that way

People appealing is frequently what runs costs up, by the way.

But look, we can debate ethics all day long. I can write an essay for each of your short responses, and we can go back and forth forever. That's not really the point of this post, though.

I do think we've exemplified well that not all of us here agree with that particular part of the code, and I do agree that politics are something best left from a religious/philosophical organization.

i dont see this as a debate so much as a discussion and an exploration of a topic

to serve that purpose i refer to established facts and to logical analysis - which indicate that its not necessarily cheaper to execute people than it is to house them for a life sentence, and that there people who are sentenced to be executed who do not consider execution to be a mercy

there isnt any debate on either of those points, because its very easy to establish whether they are true or not true

well maybe there is still a debate on the issue of financial cost, ultimately, but ive posted info to make the point that its not as obviously decided as people assume, which is all i really intended anyway

we COULD progress the discussion to the ethical responsibility of a voter to be informed, and we could debate the question of whether or not people have a "right" to keep their opinions simply because they want to - which i think is often because they feel like its a debate and that this means that changing their views would be the same thing as LOSING, or even because they simply dont know how to say "oh i guess i didnt know/hadnt thought of that or hadnt thought of the topic in that way"

IMO (lol) we should consider opinions as being the utterly expendable consequences of available information: we base our current opinions on our current info, and if the info we have changes, so does our opinion

my position would be that being personally attached to opinions is unethical in the event that ones opinions disregard available information AND have the potential to affect institutional policies

since you mention religion and philosophy, i could also say that a religious or philosophical arena is EXACTLY the place to discuss political and social matters, as it is in our social and political lives that our philosophies and religious ideas manifest into concrete decisions which affect our society

theres no better place to explore the implications of our spiritual beliefs than over the context of the policies (their consequences) which those beliefs will affect at a social and civil level

thats my current opinion, based on my current understanding

put in the form of a question, the question would be this: if a persons opinion is based on assumptions, which cean be shown to be inaccurate or incomplete, AND that opinion has the potential to affect policy, is that person acting unethically if they refuse to alter their opinion?

more: why would a person choose to hold on to an opinion in the event that it can be demonstrated that the assumptions which they base that opinion on are inaccurate or simply incomplete?

"In the sanctity of the human person. We oppose the use of torture and cruel or unusual punishment, including the death penalty."

Its not that difficult, killing someone is cruel and unusual , so we oppose the death penalty , we can discuss this till Kingdom come but i find this more a discussion for politics than for Jedi's

Ion Eldor wrote:
I get what you mean, but i can't agree. Everyone is capable of being rehabilitated.

but people need to want to be rehabilitated. We cannot force people to change.

Brenna wrote:

Ion Eldor wrote:
I get what you mean, but i can't agree. Everyone is capable of being rehabilitated.

but people need to want to be rehabilitated. We cannot force people to change.

How to deal with the ones that do not want to rehabilitated? Some might resist for whatever the reason is.

MartaLina wrote: Its not that difficult, killing someone is cruel and unusual.

i beg to differ. in fact, killing someone via war, murder, execution, etc is more the norm for the human race than not. we are inherently war like, belligerent. to pretend otherwise is ludicrous. we may as well ask the great auk and the dodo bird their opinion on the topic. or raise hitler and the duke of wellington to duel at dawn, winner finally gets to rest in peace among the city fathers of nagasaki or carthage.

humans are the most destructive force on earth, bar none. i appreciate the greater angels of our nature, hence why im here, but my past has shown me....war never changes. mechanized destruction. utter chaos and disdain for life. peace is preferable.

so i have a different viewpoint on humans who kill for sport or pleasure, murderers. to me, they have lost their right to the greater angels of humanity, have lost that which makes them human. they have become animals. and we put down rabid dogs, dont we?

When i look in this thread, it reminds me of something i heard once:
We kill people because they have killed people and we belive killing people is wrong

My personal belief is that life is sacred no matter the situation. And we should look on how things that the criminal has done can be prevented in the first place.
I belive that a person should instead be put in prison, with a life's sentance.

how many innocent people is it ok to kill in the name of killing the guilty?

if the answer is higher than zero, does that not make the one who answers also guilty of murder?

accessory to murder?

we know that innocent people get sent to death row

Desolous wrote: so i have a different viewpoint on humans who kill for sport or pleasure, murderers. to me, they have lost their right to the greater angels of humanity, have lost that which makes them human. they have become animals. and we put down rabid dogs, dont we?

there comes a point in human depravity where i pretty much agree with this sentiment

however

the reason i oppose the death penalty as it exists is this: every person who commits murder, regardless of the circumstances, is a murderer, by legal definition

but not all murders are equally vile

lets say that in the broad scope of human interactions, there have been instances of a person committing a murder that many would consider are not necessarily deserving of death

our legal system does a terrible job of sorting out those who live up to this criteria from those who dont

the information demonstrates that people who have the money for a defense attorney dont get the death penalty even when they "deserve it", whereas people who cannot afford a decent lawyer, most especially if they are "minority" are more likely to get death sentence simply because they are poor or dark skinned

in other words, in situations where the circumstance of the crime would not result in a death sentence for a white offender

there is hard data showing, conclusively, the bias towards executing poor people and minorities

Desolous wrote:

MartaLina wrote: Its not that difficult, killing someone is cruel and unusual.

i beg to differ. in fact, killing someone via war, murder, execution, etc is more the norm for the human race than not. we are inherently war like, belligerent. to pretend otherwise is ludicrous. we may as well ask the great auk and the dodo bird their opinion on the topic. or raise hitler and the duke of wellington to duel at dawn, winner finally gets to rest in peace among the city fathers of nagasaki or carthage.

humans are the most destructive force on earth, bar none. i appreciate the greater angels of our nature, hence why im here, but my past has shown me....war never changes. mechanized destruction. utter chaos and disdain for life. peace is preferable.

so i have a different viewpoint on humans who kill for sport or pleasure, murderers. to me, they have lost their right to the greater angels of humanity, have lost that which makes them human. they have become animals. and we put down rabid dogs, dont we?

In my opinion its never the question "What we do" but what " We should do"