Quote:
Originally posted by marichiko
The death penalty takes life with malice (note the anger displayed by some of its proponents), with forethought, with intent, and with purposeful action. No individual or entity can retain a stance of integrity by saying one thing and doing another. "Human life is sacred, killing is wrong. We will now kill you." The dissonance inherent in this action is staggering, as well as the hypocrisy. Governments and countries must stand by the same moral values as an individual. The results of governments doing otherwise can be seen in Buchenwald, the killing fields of Cambodia, etc., etc.
|
Show me this malice. Sure there are certain people who would dance a jig over the grave of the killer of a loved one, but that doesn't mean that there is malice in the act of execution.
"Human life is sacred, killing is wrong. <important part you left out>And to prevent you from taking more lives</important part you left out>, we will now kill you."
The State should strive to the same ethics as the individual, but the state has responsibilities that we do not and must sometimes add corrallaries to those ethics to cover those situations. Otherwise it could not function in a way resembling it's goals.
Quote:
Originally posted by marichiko
Society harms itself by condoning acts of violence. If a government of a people sanctions violence, the individuals under that government will recieve the message, subconsciously at least, that violence is an acceptable response. The US alone among Western nations imposes the death penalty and also has one of the highest per capita murder rates in the Western World. I cannot help but wonder if our violent society is influenced by our violent government.
|
I think that the lack of deterrent effect is due to the disparity between the ideal of capital punishment and its lack of proper implementation.