Terry Mitchell

How the Death Penalty Should Be Limited



Posted: Friday, May 22, 2009

by
http://commenterry.blogs.com

I used to be a strong proponent of the death penalty, but not so much anymore. Yes, I still believe there is a place for it, however only in certain limited circumstances. Almost every human life has some value. Only an infinitesimal number of lives, in my opinion, ever get to the point where they are no longer salvageable.

Below I have I listed some conditions, all of which I believe should be met before I would go along with the idea of imposing the death penalty on someone.

First, one must be a coldblooded murderer. That is, one who has intentionally, and in a premeditated manner, taken the life of at least one human being. No lesser crime should even merit one the consideration of the death penalty.

Second, the murderous act was not an isolated incident in the life of the perpetrator. Instead, it was in keeping with a pattern of life for that individual – a life of violence and criminal activity.

Third, the murderer shows no remorse for his or her crime and seemingly has no conscience at all.

Fourth, the killer is apparently so bloodthirsty that he or she would be almost certain to kill again if given the slightest opportunity. That kind of person would be a constant threat to prison personnel as well as other inmates, and would be especially dangerous to the public if he or she were ever to escape.

Fifth and finally, it would be unlikely that this person could ever be rehabilitated. Sadly, he or she is just too deeply immersed in a lifestyle of violence to be useful, even in a prison setting.

If someone meets all of the above qualifications, I would agree that he or she is a justifiable candidate for the death penalty. For anyone else, I don't see how it could be warranted.
 
Terry Mitchell is a software engineer, freelance writer, amateur political analyst, and blogger from Virginia, USA. He posts a least one article a day to his blog - http://commenterry.blogs.com - on subjects such as current events, politics, technology, society and culture, religion, health and well-being, self improvement, personal finance, trivia, and sports. Terry is also the owner and operator of a website that is dedicated to allowing U.S. citizens to find all types of insurance at reasonable prices.  
 
This Article has been viewed 152 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (1 total)
» left by Phil Ellis
 2 years 259 days ago.
I hold similar views with some slightly off center ideas on the subject. This is an excerpt from one of my older blog posts...(I won't leave the address but if you are interested email me)...
 
"I don't generally believe in capitol punishment. If, however, you are are going to have a death penalty available in the court system, then the jury members should have to attend the execution personally, look the "victim" in the eye, and each one throw a switch to kill the convict. If they cannot do so, then there should be no execution. To kill under color of "law" by pronouncement and have someone else do the dirty work is just "State sanctioned murder". Murder by any other name is still murder. If you feel enough conviction to have someone killed for a crime, then you should have the "chops"to participate in the execution yourself."
 
Feelings on this subject tend to vary depending on which side of an actual incident you are on and how close to the injured party or the accused you are and can change with time and historical perspective.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.