Capetonian wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2019 5:29 pm
" Whilst I understand all the arguments against the death penalty, I disagree with most of them.."
That's more than a contradiction in terms, because, if, as you claim, you understand the arguments against the death penalty, you wouldn't disagree with them..which begs the question, which arguments do you agree with ?
It's not a contradiction in terms at all, it may just be that you can't grasp the concept of understanding something but disagreeing with it.
To put it simply, I can understand why people steal from others, but I don't agree with it.
To save you asking, I am passionately against it.
I can't exactly say I am shocked to the core by that revelation from you. I have friends who are passionately against the death penalty and I respect their belief, and yours in this case, whilst disagreeing with it.
I note, that, as always, whenever you are asked a direct question, your reactive stance is to prevaricate as your response above further illustrates.
Consequently, here are my reasons for being opposed to the death penalty.
Irrespective of legislation, any human being intent on murder, murder being a premeditated act, will carry out that murder. The penalty is
not a deterrent.
The media.
The media have always been selective as to which murders they give prominence to, and why. The Soham murders for example were "perfect " because they involved two middle class innocent children. In Bristol however, they turned their attention on a subsequently proven innocent gentleman whom they decided was guilty because he gave the appearance of being eccentric and thus, by default, guilty. The extensive coverage invariably influences public opinion. The public, you may recall, constitute the jury at any subsequent trial.
The media also exert pressure on the police to solve the crime. The police are human beings and therefore, at times, fallible. Public outrage, as conveyed by the media, demands retribution. Gathering the evidence therefore may not always result in the evidence being entirely factual to appease this outrage.
Then there's the imposition of the sentence.
As this is governed by the state, formality and protocols are involved. These are both barbaric and grotesque enough in their own right, and even more so in America where the public are invited to attend and watch the state sanctioned murder being carried out. As these events generally take place in the small hours, the ghouls attending probably stop at " Ma's 24/7 Diner " for breakfast on the way home.
Finally, there's the inconvenient little matter that, once executed, the victim when subsequently proven innocent cannot be resurrected. A bit of paper saying "sorry, we made a mistake..no hard feelings " is going to be of scant comfort or relief "x" years later to the family and relatives. The only saving grace, and I use the term reservedly, with a miscarriage of justice is that at least the innocent are still alive. Quite what their psychological state is however, after years of false imprisonment, would be easy to comprehend.
Now that you have read my views as to the death penalty, and you claim to agree with some counter arguments, which I frankly doubt is the case , again, I pose the question as to what these are..... and why ? That, and why you support the death penalty.