That's basically what this is saying. he said he was sorry. That makes everything alright. He should've gotten three hots and a cot.
shareI think it shows both sides of the issue. When he's being executed, his crime is being shown again, as if to say "Yep, this is why."
share^Agree^
It serves to remind you that, just in case too much sympathy has been garnered for him, here's what this twisted *beep* did to PUT HIMSELF on that table.
It shows both sides of the issue, but it is obviously quite heavily on the side of sympathy and mercy for the disgusting rapist/murderer, with barely any acknowledgement of the misery of his victims and their families.
shareAlthough I disliked the fact the omitted other murders committed by Willie( penn's character ) . So it sounded like a one time thing . When there was 3 seperate attacks with 3 murders and one attempted murder . I think if you knew this it's easier to be pro death penalty .
shareI don't understand do-gooders who work with death row inmates. Literally everyone else on Earth is more deserving of charity and compassion.
I suspect they're trying to win brownie points with their deity, and I must admit, redeeming the soul of a murderer has got to be worth a lot of points.
No one should purposely be put to death by the government. We have our bad characters, and they do bad things, but when we all agree it's good to kill people, this is a major step backward for humanity.
shareThere's also the fact that miscarriages of justice and false convictions happen, and carrying out the death penalty removes any hope of the right thing happening. So I will say that while I agree with you on an intellectual level, but somehow I can't get my emotions to get with the cause.
I once heard an interview with a priest who ministers to death row inmates. He said that every single death row inmate he'd ever dealt with innocent, and he stated it as though it were a fact. The interviewer asked him what he meant by that, and he basically said that they'd one and all told them that they were innocent, and he chose to take them at their word. Whatever, I guess that was how he managed to do his job.
Thank you for the response. I notice that you said you agree "intellectually." That's exactly what I'm getting at. Sure, I have emotions, too, and I'd like to see someone die if they've committed a heinous crime, but I think if you really examine the issue closely, it serves no purpose to sanction killing people if we are to consider ourselves an enlightened society.
Oddly enough, I think of the legality of marijuana. I don't think it's necessarily good for us as a whole to be a bunch of stoners, but persecuting people for wanting to get mellow seems counter-productive.
You both make a brilliant and honest point in separating one's personal emotional feelings from a more objective or 'intellectual' response towards murderers (and I suspect one could apply the same logic to other serious criminals like child abusers and serial sex offenders).
Most, if not all, of us would want to see the most grievous harm done to anyone who murders or serious harms a close family member/friend of ours, and that's a perfectly understandable response under such circumstances, where our emotions come fully into play. But, with all due respect to the unfortunate victims/victims' families of particularly heinous crimes, it is up to the law and society at large to act as objectively and impartially as possible, and to display as much compassion and clemency as a civilised society can muster, in recognising, as you do, that no good arises from the state-sanctioned execution of individuals (unless, of course, we are talking about an immediate threat, like an imminent terrorist act or a display of necessary self-defence).
I guess it goes to show that religion is good for something then, if it means that someone is showing some sort of compassion and humanity towards their fellow humans.
Like snepts says, we gain nothing from torturing and executing people. We can't undo the evil that has been done and bring the innocent back to life. An eye for an eye simply leaves us all blind. And by putting someone through the pain and trauma of death row, we simply perpetuate the cycle of misery.
It's up to the state to be better than that. To be above emotion-driven and irrational instincts for vengeance and violent retribution.
I look at it this way: Anyone who commits a murder has voluntarily surrendered their right to happiness and compassion!
Personally I don't see why anyone would want to minister to them, except for a selfish desire to win points for going to heaven. If they want to show compassion to the most downtrodden and unhappy people on Earth, why not pay some attention to the mentally ill? Now there's a bottomless pit of need and suffering that nobody's trying to fill! Why don't religious institutions use their wealth and earn their heaven-ward brownie points by providing housing and treatment to people who are desperate and suffering because God has chosen to afflict them?
We're all humans. We're all entitled to compassion. That type of platonic love shouldn't be conditional.
And how is it 'selfish' to minister to murderers? Also, is it only the religious who are arguing against the death penalty/for clemency? That's not what I've observed.
Finally, who says one can't care for and support the mentally ill and homeless, and show compassion towards criminals? Love and compassion is not a finite resource, even though some people talk about so-called 'compassion fatigue'.
Perhaps people do just that. The Death Penalty is a hot-button issue we pay attention to, but this doesn't mean we aren't ministering to the mentally ill. However, this convo is taking a turn, as trying to help people who haven't the capacity for reason is getting into some murky waters. We don't condemn to death people who aren't mentally competent, but then again, these people my not have enough directed rage to be able to commit murder.
shareActually, even though the film is ultimately anti-death penalty, it does go to show the killer finally face up and acknowledge his evil crimes, and offer some sort of repentance to the victims' families, precisely because he is on death row and is thus convinced by Sister Helen Prejean not to let his final actions be consumed by hate.
shareI would hate to be in a position that I had to take satisfaction at seeing someone's life snuffed out because they had done ill to my family, especially if they took responsibility and showed remorse. I really don't know how I feel about this.
share"There but for the grace of God go I"
It's hard to say what one would do unless one has had the misfortune of being in such a situation, but I'd like to think that I would take the same approach as you, rather than be consumed by bloodthirsty rage.
I see it a little differently. I believe many people are capable of a sort of redemption. That doesn't mean they get off scott free and don't have to pay some sort of consequence for their actions. I think it has more to do with what you think the point of life and living is. If you have a more nihilistic belief and think life has no meaning than it doesn't really matter.
For me it has to do with the purpose of life to be growing as a human being and somehow struggling to become the best version of yourself you can.....even after you may have made a bungled mess of it all and have little time left to spare.
It's never too late. And I think there is peace in that.
As far as the death penalty; I'm fine with it but only in the most heinous of cases.
For instance those men that kidnapped that family and held them hostage for several days , torturing their young son and then killing them all in the end..Or the gang that captured and kidnapped 2 teenagers and tortured them for days before killing them..
There's no redemption for people like that (devoid of conscience) and since they would only be dangerous to others left alive then the death penalty is a logical decision. Beyond vengeance or even justice.
It's practical.
If my young son or daughter, who were nice people and had lived non-criminal lives and never harmed anyone, were out on a date and were brutally raped and murdered by fucking worthless savages, I'm pretty certain I would regard that as a "most heinous" case. I would petition the court to allow me, personally, to throw the switch, drop the trap door, pull the trigger, or start the injection on the monsters. Any meaning their lives might have is negative. They are lethally dangerous and should be exterminated like poisonous spiders.
shareNo, that makes you as bad as the killer.
shareHoly fucking shit, you are so abysmally stupid you don't even realize how stupid what you just said is.
shareYou’re a retarded cunt, murder is still murder dipshit.
You’re the type of person that would willingly execute their own grandmother, due to your idiotic logic. I mean look at you, you’re foaming at the mouth with excitement over the idea of people being executed, you’re one sick fuck.