Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Karthik
There's been some good discussion in this thread, it's refreshing. On the other hand, there have been some personal attacks in this thread. That's not cool. Let's try and keep things on track here, as opposed to singling people out and making sarcastic comments about them.
|
I agree with Karthik. There is some quality debate happening here, but I also see some personal attacks. I generally shy away from political discussions like this for that reason, but I do feel the need to add a few thoughts. I suppose it's more a blanket statement than anything else, but it's something to chew on.
In any given political discussion, there are an infinite number of opinions, and no completely right answers. The purpose of debate is to throw opinions out there for others to consider and critique, in the hopes of formulating a more informed opinion as facts and ideas are put together. It's one thing to hold a thought up and say "this is how I think things should be" and accept criticism with dignity and respect. It's another thing to hold a thought up and say "this is how things ought to be" and dismiss anyone offering criticism as wrong or an idiot. Bickering about fine points or who the burden of proof is on does nothing to further the discussion. If anything, furthering the discussion can sometimes mean knowing when to back down, without feeling the need to prove yourself right.
That said, I also have some opinions to offer, for whatever they're worth to the discussion. For a while, I was in favor of the death penalty in situations extreme enough to warrant ending someone's life. To an extent, I still am. The trouble is, and reading through this discussion has only given me more to think about, it's tough to determine when or if death is an appropriate punishment for any given situation. Certainly ending one person's life prematurely is reason enough for the friends and relatives of the victim of such a crime, but at the same time, what of the family and friends of the accused? Why should they be punished by losing a relation for the actions of that individual?
To address what others have said so far in relation to capitol punishment as a deterrent to murder- I'd ask you to define each type murder (short of the dictionary definition given above). Pre-meditative murder vs. spontaneous/emotional vs. killing in self defense vs. killing in defense of another vs. killing in a military environment. The movie Minority Report gave me a few thoughts that might apply here. In situations where a murder is planned and thought out, of course the killer has time to weigh the consequences of the action vs. the repercussions. In these situations the potential of the death penalty can help prevent further action from being taken. However, in spontaneous or emotional murder, say a husband coming home to his wife with another man, there is no planning involved. It happens there and then as a result of intense, uncontrollable emotions- without stopping to consider the consequences. Often, these cases are plead as temporary insanity. But the point remains, in that situation the threat of the death penalty never makes it into the killer's head because it happens so fast.
Without knowing all the details of Mr. Williams' case, I'll refrain from forming an opinion there. As far as the other political discussions go, I'll keep out of those as well, as they seem to be taking this thread off it's original topic.