Pro The Death Penalty

Nov 7th, 2008, in Opinion, by

Treespotter looks at capital punishment around the world, and an argument in favour of it.

On Death Penalty

I personally support death penalty. As a working principle, it follows the logic that people that kill other people with ease (bombers and drug dealers come to mind), should have no problems about being killed in their chosen professions. Similarly, we forgive death in war zones, why can’t the rule applies in civil environment?

I know many people who disagreed, most of the people commenting on this article in Global Voice are opposed to it.

Many of them are opposed to on moral reasons – scripture or otherwise. That is not the case as there is no religion that does not recognize some sort of capital punishment, including Christianity. Barron Clarke – a commenter on the said article – quoted the Judaic Christian saying of

an eye for an eye

in its modern interpretation to be understood as setting the limit of maximum execution and that I concur: capital punishment is the maximum punishment mentioned in the Christian doctrines, it should be exercised with caution and only as the very last recourse for the most severe of crimes. Various other parts of the Christian scriptures supported this view while maintaining to recognize death as a form of legal and legitimate form of punishment at the same time.

While Jesus didn’t live long enough to ever fight war or condemned anyone to death, various different European churches in all the different flavors of Christianity went on in killing in the name of God and execute condemned heresies for many centuries afterwards. There is no way to argue that Christian scripture doesn’t recognize capital punishment – the different churches change their views of capital punishment all across two millenias of Christian history, from applying it with zeal (eg. During the Inquisitions) or to not at all (when Christian churches no longer carry the authority to condemn and execute such punishment under secular governments).

Islam and Jews both recognize capital punishment as legit and legitimate. As a model for the Jew regime, Israel’s view on capital punishment is somewhat, understandably biased due to their very unique history in the last century and all Islamic government in the world have death penalty laws on the book.

Interpretations, however, vary from the different Moslem countries: Somali’s an anarchy-state and Saudi Arabia, a Wahabi-ancient kingdom state both maintain very orthodox and ancient interpretations of scriptures – including public beheadings, gender based capital discrimination and arbitrary moral sentencing in issuing deadly verdicts. Egypt and Jordan are more moderate include more consideration as well as more secular – and accountable – arbitration. The courts in these countries are also generally more accountable and open to outside influences when sentencing a person to death.

Indonesia – a country with large Moslem population and a secular government – is secular in state sanctioned capital punishments. The religious court does not have the power to condemn anyone to death and deals only with matrimony and dietary requirements. There is no reason to assume that the Indonesian court issued death sentences with religious bias (favoring any particular interpretation of scriptures). Capital punishment is only available on violent crimes or major drug-related cases and hardly ever issued for political views since Indonesia moved to a more peaceful democracy in the last decade.

The society is split and continued to grapple between its support and opposition of capital punishment. In a weird logic, the largest group opposing the execution of these particular three condemned men, is the single most vocal proponents of death penalty.

The public opinion on death penalties in all these countries are split the way it stirs passionate debates in the United States to this day. The Supreme Court ruled for each state to rule their own and some states, like Texas, prosecute death penalty aggressively in accordance to secular law, available and legitimate, under the protection of the Constitution of the United States.

Somalia and Taliban Afghanistan have no internationally recognized governments and death sentences are handed in arbitrary-summary condemnation performed by tribal court (often involving only a sole individual with a chief-like authority and nonnegotiable and opaque morals). The sentences vary wildly from one court to another within the same national borders. Death sentences are often times political in these courts (political oppositions face almost certain deaths under these governments), rather than moral (the world hears very little about it until they start killing young woman with kids).

Both countries have proven to be the most resilient to American attempt to change their political views – rather than religions.

Germany has museum of state-sanctioned murders, a holocaust that shatters the conscience of history to this very day. As a state policy, most of the modern western states abolished death penalties more influenced by the events in WW II rather than pre-war moral consideration.

The court in Nuremberg sentenced Nazi war criminals to death and executed quite a few. Those who were convicted were charged with state-sanction systematic murders were guilty in gross abuse of their political and executive powers, rather than their personal beliefs in regards to death penalty.

Indeed, in a perverse logic, a whole new set of laws were created to accommodate this new class of heinous crime and the resulting high court was set to deal with only the most extreme of crimes in the Hague. In a curious observation, it’s interesting that Hermann Goering, Saddam Husein, Milosevic and Pinochet, four of the most famous defendants in crimes against humanity trials of the last 60 years, all died before the court had the chance to sentence their crimes. Maybe there is a higher justice in the power of nature.

Post communist Russia make Stalin’s gulag archipelago a tourist destination these days. From a monarchy to a communist state to a now crowdy democracy, the Russians remain a firm believer in capital punishment.

Singapore government prosecutes death penalty aggressively in drug cases but not on political dissidents. This is a government with a peculiar obsession in legislative social engineering and it has very effectively been a successful deterrent creating an almost drug free in Singapore (neighboring Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand all have thriving underground illicit substance industries and most probably consume more illegal drugs collectively than any other country on the planet).

In imperial Japan, one form of honorable traditional conduct – an acceptance of failure – is to murder yourself. Hara Kiri is probably the most impressive execution of all death sentences. The Philippines, a proto-democracy with Catholic and American influences, death penalty had been repealed and reintroduced and repealed again during the last twenty years. China executes more people than any other country on the planet and recognizes abortion as a form of population control.

As a belief held globally, by population headcount, opposition to death penalty almost certainly forms only a small minority – mainly only to include those who represent power rather those with more acceptable morals. This was true for the ancient Roman empire when murderers of Roman citizens were swiftly dealt with in the most severe manners, often including burning down entire villages of the offending groups and remains true on the protection awarded to the conduct of American soldiers overseas by not having them placed under international laws.

Death penalty is made available in societies and civilizations by necessity and interests rather than moral, imposed by the more powerful rather than the righteous. It has nothing to do with religion or morals.

If one were to argue that it is not far, let me say that I don’t even believe in absolute, universal moral codes. While Life is a precious commodity across all civilizations in all of history, Death fluctuates in value. Stalin famously said that one person’s death is a tragedy and one million deaths are statistics. For the less brute, George Orwell put society in more elegant manners where all animals are equal, but some more equal than others.

Some are worth more than others and that is a hard thing to deal with. Life is the only thing worth dying for, is my own, personal morbid fascination with Death. Capital punishment is an interesting subject and probably deserves a further discussion. For now, in accordance to the prevailing law, I think all execution should carried out as swiftly as possible. Death and taxes – you will always pay your dues, that’s my personal beliefs.

I don’t mention their names on principle because I don’t want them turning up on Google searches.

That’s my own, personal morbid fascination with Death and I intend to write more on Death as a subject in the future.

81 Comments on “Pro The Death Penalty”

  1. janma says:

    gunung batu said,

    I wonder if we should make killing flies, mosquitos, cockroaches, viruses, and bacterias as illegal.

    you see the problem there is that mosquitos and viruses kill people hon… so if you want to save mosquito’s at the cost of millions of childrens lives, you may not find many supporters….

  2. janma says:

    What I just don’t understand that if the Bible, Koran, etc is supposedly the word of God why do humans need to interpret, censor and review it like god didn’t know his mind or what he/she was saying.

    well… probably because they don’t know what the hell ‘he’ was trying to say. If you can’t interpret or review it then what are you supposed to do with it?

    About the high homicide rate in the US compared to other countries. I am of the opinion that it has nothing to do with punishment and more to do with gun laws.

  3. Barron Clarke says:

    well… probably because they don’t know what the hell ‘he’ was trying to say. If you can’t interpret or review it then what are you supposed to do with it?

    I’m using the “you” generically in the following.
    That’s the point. read it. Don’t let other people read and interpret it for you. Make of it what YOU will. Its a bit like statistics. Organised “religion” interpret it and demand people fellow their views and many times through the ages that meant killing other people. This has little to do with the specific religion.
    Also if we take most major religions these have been censored and no more so than the bible. There are many other gospels that were left out of the “official” bible because they did not suit the hierarchy at the time. These are loosely know as the Gnostic gospels and we still have Gnostic Christians.

    More to the point of the debate, as I read it Jesus actually stopped at least one execution and gave direction for ant other stonings. “Let you who are without sin cast the first stone. etc” this was new for many sects in the jewish faith, not all but we get arguments here stating that Jesus favoured execution because that’s what they are told.
    Without going on this is even reported more strongly in some of the censored gospels.

    Also I couldn’t agree with you more about US gun laws and killings. Of course we get that wonderful mantra from the NRA and others that “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”
    You only have to look at the figurs for people killed in cars where cars are plentiful, say Australia, compared with somewhere like Vietnam. Cars don’t kill people, people kill people????

    It should be obvious to and the dimmest of people that if you take away the guns (or cars) people will stop dying.
    (before someone attacks me for this I’m not suggesting we remove cars its just an example to show the stupidity of the NRA.)
    The US was born of violence and has used it ever since to solve (unsuccessfully in most cases) it problems that is one major reason for executions in some states in the US.
    I could be really nasty here and say that most Americans (US) are not very thoughful and deserve what they get, but I won’t.

  4. Purba Negoro says:

    why not? It is fact. And hardly opinion of only one nation.
    Americans are world renowned for their stupidity and lacking the requisite responsibility for their alleged individualist freedoms.

    I disagree with the argument about guns.
    Switzerland has almost one military gun per house as part of compulsory national reserve system.
    Yet the homicide rate is very low.

    Must be social values and culture and perhaps level of education.

    I had one friend who son was to study in Atlanta- this is one of the worst cities in US- at least one murder a day in the Downtown area.
    Who is to blame? Crazy black gang banger who shoot people even at traffic light.
    So- it appears their social attitudes and poor culture are to blame- and also element of long term intoxication/substance abuse which damage their brains.

    Asian society understands if you use violence against someone- very likely you will recieved it in return.
    Like Lao Tze: “He who seeks a journey of vengeance must first dig himself two graves”.
    So itr is permanent aspect of our mentality

  5. treespotter says:

    barron clarke,

    Thank you for clarifying that you weren’t attacking me. How relieving.

    If you allow me, i will try to make my point succinct and clear but this is highly unlikely as i am obviously not a learned man like you.

    “Jesus neither respected the Roman law nor followed it”

    that is categorically false. I don’t assume or presume that Jesus preached the same morals along the same line of the Roman laws – some would consider this as an argument to say that Jesus somehow ‘condone’ or ‘sanction’ it.

    My understanding of the Christian scriptures, particularly in many other areas in regards to taxations and the significance of social justice (neighbors wife, et al) is that while Christ certainly never condone the explicit acts of the state authority (Roman at the time), he considered a great deal to be within the friendly and acceptable protection of those laws. In other words, most ideas would take into a very large account the prevailing social statues.

    Islam shows exactly the same tendencies where the Prophet chose to address issues furthest from the realms of secular state so that he wouldn’t be directly in opposition to the state. At some point, the prophet left Medina precisely not to fatally confront his opposition prematurely.

    The fact that both religions had never considered a secular state sanctioned capital punishment to be a ‘grave’ insult to their theologies shows that in both religions alike, death is an acceptable instrument of social justice – whether it is executed ‘righteously’ or not.

    Christ stopped Matthew from drawing his sword in the face of his own death – the event that lead to the quote i mentioned earlier. It showed that Christ understood that some deaths are acceptable – his above all else.

    I rest my case.

    NOTE: 500 years later Calvin had problems with this queasy (and often cosy) relationship between the church and the states and that lead to his thing. Death remains for more than two millenias in all Christian countries, so let’s not even go there.

    I don’t care one shit of pennies to your personal religious beliefs or wherever you went to school and what God only knows might come up if i do a google on your names. It is not an insult but if you were to make an argument, do start by not calling up for higher beings to certify for your righteousness (Google is not an impressive name drop, God is even least effective for meself).

    Promising not to return by sentencing your opponents argument is also a just a degradable way to lower yourself beneath all trolls. You did it twice already and yet you stick around like an intellectually deprived pest.

    Careful with what you wish for.

  6. Yakir says:

    I agree with the death penalty for murder, not for drug dealers… unless they’ve personally killed someone, you cannot say they “kill other people with ease.” I believe drugs are a health problem, not a crime problem (until prohibition makes them one).

    I refuse to visit Singapore and Malaysia for its practice of executing those carrying drugs (especially a case like Van Nguyen, who was carrying them to help his brother, not for his own profit). I wish Indonesia would end this practice, before any more people die for this “crime.” Treat addicts, don’t execute them.

  7. Barron Clarke says:

    Below is why I won’t waste time with your “facts” and “arguments”
    You just seem very angry.

    that is categorically false. I don’t assume or presume that Jesus preached the same morals along the same line of the Roman laws – some would consider this as an argument to say that Jesus somehow ‘condone’ or ’sanction’ it.

    My understanding of the Christian scriptures, particularly in many other areas in regards to taxations and the significance of social justice (neighbors wife, et al) is that while Christ certainly never condone the explicit acts of the state authority (Roman at the time), he considered a great deal to be within the friendly and acceptable protection of those laws. In other words, most ideas would take into a very large account the prevailing social statues.

    I read English very well but have no idea what you are trying to say here and is typical of the level of debate.

    I don’t care one shit of pennies to your personal religious beliefs or wherever you went to school and what God only knows might come up if i do a google on your names. It is not an insult but if you were to make an argument, do start by not calling up for higher beings to certify for your righteousness (Google is not an impressive name drop, God is even least effective for meself).

    The point of googling my name was to show I was using my (real) name and as I explained and will explain again it was not aimed at you or your debate. You would find no reference to any religion.

    Again I don’t even know what you are trying to say here. I honestly don’t see what point you are trying to make.

    By the way what is “one shit of pennies”?
    When one stoops to this level of comment it really shows a lack of commitment to and understanding of the debate.

    The deliberate misinterpretation of the writings in the New Testament and lack of understanding of Roman laws and culture of the time is self-evident in your arguments.
    A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

  8. treespotter says:

    for a moment, i considered writing a reply in German. But i don’t speak german so it could be even harder to understand. this is something plainer and simpler:

    ==> “Jesus neither respected the Roman law nor followed it” <== That’s your statement.

    that is categorically false. <== that is categorically false. Snubnosing your way into your divine credence or google legitimacy didn’t impress me.

    Give one example where Jesus “neither respected the Roman law nor followed it” – or indeed, to encourage any uprising/resistance of sort against it.

    If you can keep it on topic and make it related to the punishment in the Roman courts, that will be a plus point. You can even google it.

    My post was about death penalty. It’s not a language lesson, so maybe you can pardon my ungoogleable illiteracy and tell me what your understanding of scripturers tell you.

  9. Purba Negoro says:

    Excuse the ignorance of a Muslim, but did not Iesus Xiristi (pbuh) state “render unto Caesars that which is Caesars’ and unto God’s that which is God’s??

    Is this an example of Christ advocating validity for Judean tax for the Roman empire- and thus tacit support fort obeying Roman law?

    And did not Christ also condemn the actions of the Zealots?

    Also US Southern Baptist argue the death penalty is extension of Noahic Covenant:

    The Noahic Covenant, found in Genesis 8-9, applies to the whole of humankind. In this covenant, God:

    1. blesses Noah and his sons, and tells them to populate the earth (9:1)
    2. places all plants and animals under human command (9:2-3)
    3. forbids eating meat with the blood still in it (9:4)
    4. forbids murder (9:5)
    5. commands humankind to shed the blood of those who shed blood (9:6)
    6. promises that he will never again destroy all life on earth by flood (9:11)
    7. creates the rainbow as the sign of this covenant for all ages to come (9:12-17)

    Then the great scholar Thomas Aquinas advocated the death penalty:

    . “The life of certain pestiferous men is an impediment to the common good which is the concord of human society. Therefore, certain men must be removed by death from the society of men.”
    On I Corinthians 5, 6: “You know that a little leaven corrupts the whole lump of dough?”

    I Corinthians 5, 13: “Put away the evil one from among yourselves”;

    Romans 13,4: “[it is said of earthly power that] he bears not the sword in vain: for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that does evil”;
    I Peter 2, 13-14: “Be subjected therefore to every human creature for God’s sake: whether to be on the king as excelling, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of good.”

    Aquinas held these superseded the text of Exodus 20,13: “Thou shall not kill.”

    Aquinas argued “Thou shall not kill”, was superseded by Exodus 22,18: “Wrongdoers you shall not suffer to live.”

    Aquinas argued if a pest would not repent in the face of death, it was unreasonable to assume they would ever repent.

    “How many people are we to allow to be murdered while waiting for the repentance of the wrongdoer?”, he asked, rhetorically.

    Concerning Islamic jurisprudence- which is not relevant to Indonesian law- but good point for discussion:
    Qur’an prescribes the death penalty for several hadd (fixed) crimes—including rape—murder is not among them.
    Instead, murder is a civil crime covered by the law of qisas (retaliation), whereby the relatives of the victim decide whether the offender is punished with death by the authorities or made to pay diyah (wergild) as compensation

    In Islamic jurisprudence- the the family of the victim has the right to pardon.

    This is very interesting divergence from Western law- where community outrage at inadequate sentencing is rife.

    Therefore- it canbbe seent hat the two great religoins of Islam and Catholciism wisely support capital punishment.

    It is only the wimpish morally superior Protestant with their desire to impose their perception of the greater on others which was a major part of the evil of Colonialism.
    That it was their moral obligation to impose heir White Man’s burden upon we brown heathen.

    Interestingly- Asian societies are far more functional and civil than Western modern society.

    Also- I have read the NGO rubbish about anti Death Penalty:

    It is rebuked by:
    1.Executions are carried out at staggering cost to taxpayers.
    * a more extensive jury selection procedure
    * a four fold increase in the number of motions filed
    * a longer, dual trial process
    * more investigators and expert testimony
    * more lawyers specializing in death penalty litigation
    * automatic, mandat

    Again the ignorant morally smug fail to appreciate realities outside the West.

    These “arguments’ are non issues.

    Gallup International poll from 2000 said that “Worldwide support was expressed in favor of the death penalty, with just more than half (52%) indicating that they were in favour of this form of punishment.

    Gallup in October 2008, 64% of Americans supported the death penalty for persons convicted of murder, while 30% were against and 5% did not have an opinion.

    Thus the gutless minority attempt to impose their psinelss cowardice on the majority.

    In 1921- in Afghanistan- death penalty by suspending in cages and starvation effectively ended banditry.

    South Africa has highest rate of rape and homicide in the world- yet no death penalty- thus no deterrent.

  10. Barron Clarke says:


    In theology does not god create life therefore is not life part god’s domain. If you read the teaching jesus not just in the bible (it is there) but also the censored out parts called the Gnostic texts jesus states this quite emphatically. Therefore this is a statement against the state murdering or sacrificing people. Romans did indeed practice human sacrifice at this time. They also hard the Circus. They were cruel even to their own citizens and soldiers.
    Look up the origins of decimate.
    As for Gallup poles yes In the US it has been shown that the death penalty has a very small minority but what is very interesting that O.J.Simpson was on trial for the (brutal) murder of two people that only 23% were in favour of capital punishment in his case. Why?
    Simply because he was not a statistic but a real person to most people. So to use statistics to prove a case remember that famous saying ” Lies. damn lies and statistics”

    “You don’t have to be in a majority to be correct” – Ben Franklin

    Why did England give up the death penalty? It recognised that between 5% and 10% of all people executed (not just in England) were posthumously pardoned or found to be innocent. This is certainly the case in the US were the figure is about 7%. (Sorry about the statistics.)
    That’s one major point, no matter how careful the innocent die. Who will within the arguments put here, in either Christian or Muslim eyes pay for the death of the innocent under capital punishment. Who is able to spill the blood of the executioners? Who should pay for the innocents’ lives?

    I would hardly hold the Southern Baptist church ( a very disparate group of churches) as a reference for anything. Ask them about creationism, the handling of snakes and the literal interpretation of the Bible only where it suits them to name but three items of delusional thinking. Their views on the Flood mythology which appear in Sumerian writings (The Epic of Gilgamesh almost word for word but earlier) are also fantastic (as in fantasy).

    Thomas Aquinas was indeed a moral scholar ( but not a great original thinker) in the 13th Century which might mean we have come no way in our thinking since then about the morality of executions.

    His most famous, work which was never finished,Quinque viae or the five Proofs (of God’s existence) consist of:

    The Argument of the Unmoving (Unmoved) Mover
    The Argument of the (Initial) First Cause
    The Argument from Contingency (this contains a wonderful statement that “MOST things either exist or don’t exist.” Well that about covers it because I can’t think of anything else.)
    The Argument from Degree
    The Teleological Argument

    Were mainly arguments taken mainly from such thinkers as Plato, Aristotle and Homer.
    Consider these writings in terms of today’s modern science. They’re just mainly plain ignorance.
    Don’t write off we “liberals” and our views as rubbish. Once you use terms like that you lower the tone of a very serious debate and indicate a lack of counter argument.
    I strongly disagree with you on this issue but in the most part I have come to respect you but it is not enhanced when you say someone’s opinion is “rubbish” without backup facts.


    Please for everyone’s sake any more responses give even more serious consideration to writing them in German even if you don’t know German because they’ll be as literate as they are now.
    I still don’t understand you.
    I did get one point. Jesus refused to accept Caesar as a god. Simple isn’t it.
    Now why was he executed again?
    He was simply similar to Gandhi – don’t fight them, ignore them. It called passive resistance – go look it up.

    Anyway here’s something to ponder on the subject.
    If Jesus and therefore Christians were in favour of Execution then why is he reported to have said in his penultimate sets of words “Father (God) forgive them for they don’t know (understand) what they are doing?”
    Why would Jesus want god, any god, to forgive the lawmakers if he agreed with the lawmakers.

  11. Purba Negoro says:

    well- I apologise for being polemic. It is counter productive.

    I do not think either of us will be swayed by one another views.
    However the myth of majority wisdom is well taken.

    But I am not arguing the morality of Capital Punishment is ‘right’ nor the State is entirely free of guilt in killing the condemned.

    I am arguing its’ necessity and practicality – it is one of the necessary lesser evils we must undertake for the greater benefit of society- where the greater evil would occur if State were to divert funds from the law abiding poor to the criminal.

    What right and is it right that the State to divert its funds from the law abiding to the criminal?

    I argue no.

    After some reading I came across the Anglo Saxon Germanic concept of “weregild”- much like Islamic jurisprudence whee spilt blood from feuds or such manslaughter was recompensed financially.

    This is interestng the West has abandoned this “blood money” concept for the issue of individual acts of homicide (as opposed to say drug company negligently killing people)

    In Indonesia- the issue of guilt before capital punishment is as a rule very clear- and there are many mitigating issues which the defence may bring to argue for life imprisonment. SO it is a misconception death penalty is applied universally and not on case by case basis.

    Like the homosexual cannibalistic murder “Ryan of Jombang“- he has of his own accord frequently admitted his own guilt.
    Or the terrorists?

    One can argue- what right does the State have to assuade its’ conscience by saving this life of one person who killed many- instead of potentially saving more than one by making an example of him.

    As State is supreme authority here- and has the duty to protect greater community from such murder who may become recidivist- and lack the capital capacity of the west to house such persons for their life- is it not fair and understandable this person be executed as an example of consequence fr actions?

    If we consider much of the world is not only far less morally and intellectually advanced as the West- but also very simply has a totally different perspective divergent from the historical precedences and education which now forms Western persepctive.

    So if one from the West is to argue one is right- is that also not a case of moral supremacy?

    I do see there are alternatives to capital punishment- but the West is not a good model- and your criminals have a luxurious life even in the very worst prisons compared to the terrible lives of the law abiding poor here.

    If we argue criminals have imposed a financial debt and burden on society- then it should be repaid through their labour.

    Criminals should be nett economic credits not debit- they should be entirely self sufficient and not cost society a penny for their accommodations etc.

    I am very favourable of chain gangs and forced hard labour.
    Criminals should grow their own food, do their own laundry and work so industriously at much need hard labour community projects that when they return to jail they ae so tired from hard work they lack the energy to stab one another and form gangs and earn thousands trading in drugs- which incidentally are used for the criminal to escape the drudgery of confinement.

    Such numerous public projects include- litter removal, bbridge and raod maintenance, park and gardening, beautification and so many infrastructure projects.

    In Indonesia- the less dangerous criminals are taught carpentry and build facility for the very poor. Many are used to paint bridge and such
    The real bad apple we have them digging storm canal, smashing rocks and carrying railroad- they become the State’s animal of labour and social improvement.

    Literally- we have so much need for such social project fixed by free labour.

    We should force all criminals to develop useful skills so those who can be rehabilitated- will return to society a positive skilled person who is very mindful of such horrible hard labour if he breaks the law again.

    In the West the recidivist has nice clean bed and three meals that awaits if he lacks the persistence to make it lawfully in society and chance to become tertiary educated at State expense- a privilege unavailable to many law abiding poor- and this I argue is a much greater evil- than shooting societies turds- denying the law abiding such opportunities and gift them to criminal.

    Also- I argue capital punishment use as deterrent has been dmagaed by removing it from public sight.
    Justice must indeed be seen to be done- and by insularising society from the horror of the punishment- it vastly lessens the effect as deterrent.It should be a public spectacle- something like “everyone- see what the price is for being a unrepentant rapist or murderer- if you act like him- this is your fate”.

  12. Geordie says:

    Pn said the following:

    If we argue criminals have imposed a financial debt and burden on society- then it should be repaid through their labour.

    Criminals should be nett economic credits not debit- they should be entirely self sufficient and not cost society a penny for their accommodations etc.

    Excellent idea and, what’s more, any government should be able to market the services they can provide beyond just ‘civil or society’ projects too.

  13. Purba Negoro says:

    I believe this was once the wisdom of your nation and the French- and what built your nation into being great- not merely middling.
    Surely this would reverse the Walmartisaton of the West by outsourcing low skilled manufacture to shoddy quality and slave labour of China.

    One of my very favourite books is Les Miserables- but only in English and Indonesian for me- although it is very ‘gengsi’ I cannot allow reader think I an understand French- although I wish I could
    The main character, Jean Valjean, must work on treadmills providing free power to the local mills.
    And from his hard labour- he can help a poor old man Lafit due to his enormous strength from hard labour- can lift a wagon off Lafit that was crushing him.

  14. Barron Clarke says:

    That reminds me. I knew I had read many of the arguments here for the death penalty. So I went back and checked.
    All of the religious, moral, legal, logistical and economic arguments are those that slave traders and owners use in favour of slavery in England, France and the US. If you think slavery was the main or even the initial issue in the US civil war best you go back and read the history of that skirmish. (And yes England did use slaves). Not in England but in the West Indies and were heavily involved stealing. buying and selling human beings as was France and the US. Other countries to lesser extents.

    Before slavery we had serfdoms and other forms of indentured labour and most religions recognise slavery as a right. It was needed for the good of the “savages”. Interesting to note that the mean life expectancy of a slave in a cotton field in the US was seven years.

    Now here’s an idea instead of putting people to death make them slaves of the state or to the families they have wronged.

  15. LeD says:

    R u Indonesian???
    or someone who care so much about indonesia????

  16. Barron Clarke says:

    To Treespotter
    Again if you are going to argue do it with facts not points you think facts. Quote your sources for your nonsense. I am not of any particular faith and I usually don’t attack people personally but someone as vocal (and illogical) I will make an exception.

    I will lower my sites to your level and say this if was stupidity was a capital offense you’d be one of the first up against wall.

  17. treespotter says:

    I had almost completely forgotten this thread but i saw this but i can’t respond now. I will later.

    It is exciting when you think you been sentenced to death.

  18. Barron Clarke says:

    To treespotter
    This is not mine. It’s interesting because it’s my writing style but I have no reason to write it.
    I will apologise as it is in my name.

  19. Georgina Rodriguez says:

    I am on for Death penalty this is so because someone who does not respect someones life does not deserve respect for his/her life. Thus it is not against religion since God himself states in Genesis 9:6 that someone who sheds another person’s blood, his blood must be shed and the person who takes such action as a form of justice is only honoring god.

  20. Barron Clarke says:

    For what purposes would you condone the death penalty?
    By reading what you have written only for killing someone. Did you know that 75% of all executions carried out in the world in at this time are for “crimes” other than murder?
    Murder comes in 4th or 5th depending on who you read.
    Of all executions in the US about 7% of those killed have been found to be innocent. Who gets to spill the blood of the executioners?
    If you think you are honouring god, any god, by killing people then I feel very sad for your religion. Your quote from the Bible does not mention death and does not necessarily deal with one person killing another.
    You’ll also notice if you read the citations in the Bible below “God” very definitely endorses slavery. What is your view on slavery?
    I suggest that you go back and read my comments on what people have done over time in the name of their gods.
    I also suggest you read the other parts of the bible where “you will not kill”(1) is one of the main tenants of the old testament and “let you who are without sin cast the first stone” (Let whoever is without sin cast the first stone) (2) one of the main tenants of the new testament. Jesus as Rabbi (teacher) basically tells the crowd that they have interpreted the Law of Moses incorrectly and this is what they should do.

    1) Exodous 20:17 Deuteronomy 5:17

    2) John 7:53-8:11

    This is also reported in the Gnostic Gospels.

  21. Stupid Bule says:

    @ Treespotter

    just in case it gets even more confusing later: I fully support death penalty. I fully support death penalty on these three people. I will pull the trigger myself.

    Who then will hold you accountable for your murderous crime?

    @ ALL those who are quoting religious doctrines;

    This is just taking a pile of shit, then covering it with sugar and other assorted toppings, and then offering it up as a plausible meal to quench our desire for murdering those who murder…Please go away.

    Why is it crucial that an alleged “civilised” group of people should see fit to murder anyone that has been judged uncivilised before a natural cause of death reaches the accused?

    Death will come to us ALL. There is no escaping death, so what’s the hurry?

Comment on “Pro The Death Penalty”.

RSS feed

Copyright Indonesia Matters 2006-20
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact