The Death Penalty is a Denial of Human Rights
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the U.N. in 1948, proclaims the right of every individual to protection from deprivation of life. It states that no one shall be subjected to cruel or degrading punishment. The death penalty violates both of these fundamental rights and perpetuates a cycle of violence. It is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment and has no place in a modern criminal justice system. Over two thirds of countries in the world – 137 – have now abolished the death penalty in law or practice.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
terrible crimes forgo all kinds of rights and you enjoy that aspect so much you want to slap them on the wrist and go...there there it's ok, we forgive you?
I think that mentioning the cost is ridiculous. If the amount of money spent on helping the environment doesn't matter because it's helping the environment...then the amount of money to rid this planet of scum doesn't matter, because scum shouldn't exist no matter the cost. I always hated that stupid argument of cost. Of course cost doesn't matter when it's a liberal loony idea. It's for the good of the humans. Such a lie that just stinks of foul stupidity.
However, I think the death penalty is unnecessary. No one should have to lose their life because losing an innocent person due to the cocky nature of the DA is not acceptable. What should be done instead? Make those that are "guilty" of crimes like murder or terrible atrocities to humanity do work that will benefit those they've harmed. If they murder someone make them work doing something that is needed and pay them. Then take all the money they make and give it to their victims. Make them write a letter stating they are sorry for what they have done every time they make a payment.
There are ways to make them suffer that forces them to see what they've done and pay for it in a way that helps society and the victims.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
I don't think a person should be killed for murder , it doesn't seem to promote the idea that murder is wrong . If you place a person in prison for life without parole, that seems like a miserable consequence to suffer through. I think the person could suffer a greater punishment in prison. A person has the right to live, I don't think it should ever be forced from them.
I spoke to a priest and he said that self defense such as in war time or when we are defending ourselves from an intruder or protecting someone else from an intruder is acceptable even if that defense should lead to death and is not murder . When we discussed whether the death penalty was murder he said that if the person cannot be rehabilitated then the death penalty is no different than self defense since this person is a danger to himself and society it is self defense or the defense of someone elses life to put this person to death. I agree with his explanation and from that day forward have had no problems with the death penalty. I do however have problems with men running their corrupted system and too often use the criminal and judicial system to harm good men/woman due to vast corruption.
So I say start by executing all corrupted officials in the police forces and judicial systems and then work up to the political systems and then I bet the rest would take notice and youd have to do fewer executions in the private sector. You think?
I think this is the closest you've come to saying something I agree with...
The death penalty , as currently applied, is fought with both errors and corruption. Far to many cases have been overturned years later of me to have any comfort in how the death penalty is applied. Advocating for the death penalty means accepting that sometimes the government will execute someone who is innocent (even if we somehow removed all of the corruption from the system there would still be errors). That is something that I cannot accept in good conscience.
"So I say start by executing all corrupted officials in the police forces and judicial systems and then work up to the political systems and then I bet the rest would take notice and youd have to do fewer executions in the private sector."
There are plenty of people that I think should be 'Wed to the rope-makers daughter and taught to fly'... but that is an emotional response, and thus is not useful in making rational decisions.
The Death Penalty: Not a Human Rights Violation
Dudley Sharp, contact info below
Some wrongly state that executions are a human rights violation. The human rights violation argument often comes from European leadership and human rights organizations.
The argument is as follows: Life is a fundamental human right. Therefore, taking it away is a fundamental violation of human rights.
Those who say that the death penalty is a human rights violation have no solid moral or philosophical foundation for making such a statement. What opponents of capital punishment really are saying is that they just don't approve of executions.
Certainly, both freedom and life are fundamental human rights. On this, there is virtually no disagreement. However, again, virtually all agree, that freedom may be taken away when there is a violation of the social contract. Freedom, a fundamental human right, may be taken away from those who violate society 's laws.
So to is the fundamental human right of life forfeit when the violation of the social contract is most grave.
No one disputes that taking freedom away is a different result than taking life away. However, the issue is the incorrect claim that taking away fundamental human rights -- be that freedom or life -- is a human rights violation. It is not. It depends specifically on the circumstances.
How do we know? Because those very same governments and human rights stalwarts, rightly, tell us so. Universally, both governments and human rights organizations approve and encourage taking away the fundamental human right of freedom, as a proper response to some criminal activity.
Why do governments and human rights organizations not condemn just incarceration of criminals as a fundamental human rights violation? Because they think incarceration is just fine.
Why do some of those same groups condemn execution as a human rights violation? Only because they don't like it. They have no moral or philosophical foundation for calling execution a human rights violation.
In the context of criminals violating the social contract, those criminals have voluntarily subjected themselves to the laws of the state. And they have knowingly placed themselves in a position where their fundamental human rights of freedom and life are subject to being forfeit by their actions.
Opinion is only worth the value of its foundation. Those who call execution a human rights violation have no credible foundation for that claim. What they are really saying is "We just don't like it."
copyright 2005-2009, Dudley Sharp
Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is approved with proper attribution.
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas
our society is run by oppressive criminals. on every tere in every faction of society. Dirty people. they do not want to see any kind of reprisals for their existence . These people, in the lap of luxury have no need for such perspectives. In my opinion every liar should be sentenced to death. I'm not saying that those who don't know the wing speed of an unladen swallow be condemned, but as society goal, that's what we need to work for. There was a story in the paper. a man broke into someone's home and was found pawing at these people's 5 year old daughter with a tube sex lube in his hand. He got away but was caught later. In new jersey, this man is considered a hero. The police can not touch him. He was taken to a club resort in a nice rural area. It house 750 others sexual offenders at the expense of over 200 million dollars to the tax payer.
I say simply execute the guilty parties. the guilty being everyone who remove this man from justice. I advocate death for his parents , his school teachers, the court room, the leigislatures, ect ect. I just don't belive having your home viloated and your 5 year old violated, is acceptable society.
The liberals don't agree. I would rather not live with those people, and there is no european destination free of the liberal. In eesence, you can no long have children free of the tyranny of satanic an evil librals. that's very simple. my solution is simply too. starve the people.
You shall wither and die.
A right to exist is true if and only if the being in question is in harmony with its surroundings. Cancer are cells that are not inharmony with the body. The cancer does not have a right to exist and is therefore erradicated.
People who murder intentionally and repeatedly are not inharmony with their surroundings-that is society. Therefore, their right to exist is forfeited and therefore should be exterminated.
But, this argument is only valid when the assumption is made that all or some individuals are permanently incapable of living harmoniously within society. Inotherwords, are humans more akin to a tool, fixed to one function? Or are they more like a violin, a tool that is capable of functioning in harmony with other tools.
The root of the argument comes down to this. Is the right to exist absolute? If it is then the argument against the death penalty is sound. But if the right to exist is not absolute then the argument for the death penalt is sound.
Almost all people, who receive the death penalty, have schown by their heinous acts, that they are destitute of a moral sense. But this makes them just more or less intelligent animals. Animals have no human rights.
The U.S. should abolish the Death Penalty because death is no penalty.
The death penalty should not be abolished but should only be applied to the most reprehensible individuals. The cruel and degrading aspect only comes into play because of the extremely long appeals process. We need to have it shortened.