Is Captial Punishment ethical?
107838
Yes, justice is always ethical
303605
George Carlin is 100% correct on this one.  To paraphrase, he says that capital punishment doesn't do anything--it simply satisfies the Judeo-Christian/Biblical need for revenge.  We are so indoctrinated to believe that it is a deterrent to crime.  I personally have refused to sit on any juries, because I will never put myself in a situation where I judge another person for ANY crime!  ESPECIALLY one where my vote is needed to kill someone!  And look how often juries are found wrong themselves!  Abolishing capital punishment just might help us take a closer look at ourselves and the "whys" and "wherefors" of a completely flawed judicial system!
932087
A term used to describe the leniency or compassion.
916790
not silly but might be un-ethical!
620822
Good Afternoon!\n \nMorals are objective, and subjective.  That is, genocide is always wrong.  Rape?  Wrong.  This morally so.  But person's intention has to be taken into account.  Take for existence a man putting a knife into another man's heart, and the second man dies.  Was the first man action morally wrong?  If his intention was to kill or harm the other man, yes, his action is morally wrong.  It is never right to intend harm on another.  But maybe he was surgurn performing emergency surgery on a patient, and the patient died despite the doctor's attempt to keep him alive.  So his action is not wrong, becuase the intention to save a life.\n\nThat is there a many actions that are morally wrong.  When Deciding if the person is cupable fo a wrong act one most consider three things: 1 whether the person knows the act is wrong.  2 whether the person has considered what they are doing and 3 whether or not they choose to do it freely, with out coersion.  \n\nThere are morally wrong and right acts.  If someone steals from you something they do not need, you will know that is wrong, no matter where you are.  But the act must be veiwed with the intention included.  Maybe it was someone who did not the object was yours, and thinking it belonged to some one they knew, would borrow and return it.  However, in this case it is not stealing, and is simply a mistake. \n\nLastly, one can never choose a moral wrong intentionally for the sake of another good.  That is always wrong, no matter what the more distant intention is, becuase the immediate intention is wrong.\n\nPeace be with you.\n\nsorry about typographical errors, I'm in a hurry.
617943
There are no reasonable cons (pardon the pun).  Either a person makes a difference and contributes to society and the betterment of everyone or a person is a criminal and takes from others.  Unless a prisoner changes his or her attitude to respect others, society will lose.
811035
It should be called..."the rights of the "snitch"...most of the time it is called "States evidence"...wher a criminal would receive no or lesser sentence for their crime if they testify for the prosecution and convince the court/jury of the prosecutions case against the defendant whom in "many cases"; has comited a lesser crime.\nAs for ethical? No it isnt. If I were a judge and even a juror on such a case, I would give them whom cannot do their job properly and or effectively the business.
905775
Silly question.  People are punished for all kinds of unjust reasons.  It's like asking why do bad things happen to good people or something.
1160993
answer as a moral question
506946
If you are asking in the legal sense, you may want to look up the M'Naghten Rules.  If you are asking in the moral sense, it depends on the situation.  It may be satisfying, but it would be grossly unfair, to punish someone who literally doesn't understand what he is doing.
713259
All excellent points - and the simple truth is that people **DO** afford criminals more rights than victims. It isn't politically correct to do otherwise.\n\nHowever in the US, a very interesting project has been set up. In short although people cannot be FORCED to submit to corporal punishment - some criminals can VOLUNTEER to be treated in that way under some conditions - and perhaps get reduced jail time in return.\n\nLots of details here http://www.okplus.com/fedup/index.html \n\nVery interestingly, they presently have a ZERO recidivism level for people that have been through their system.\n\nDo not be thrown by the site, the program is still running BUT the website is badly in need of some updating (or was when I last looked)\n\nI think one hangup people have about corporal punishment, is the perceived severity of it. The old UK / USA way of flogging across the back in fact left little more than "shaving nicks" - if it cut at all.\n\nAnyone who has seen too many "Mutiny on the bounty" style films and wishes to disagree should try to remember that the make-up department tends to get more than a little carried away.\n\nWet rope is not sharp enough or dense enough to "lay a mans back open to the bone" Something does not need to cut to be felt ;)\n\nThe scheme mentioned above in fact uses low-voltage cable as a cheap disposable lash material. Like the rope, little or no cutting at all - but apparently the welts are quite tender at the time.\n\nI just wish we had a system like this in the UK too, I think it could be a valuable tool to help people stay out of prison and to reduce the prison population. Nanny-state in the UK though at the moment so not much chance for a while yet.
98268
considering how many cases have been overturned (especially with advances in DNA testing), i think it is obvious that the death penalty is "flawed", not neccessarily 'bad' or 'good'. \n\nimagine if someone you knew was faslely sentenced to death for a crime they did not commit... or even you. is it worth the risk of making those mistakes and ending innocent peoples lives to "punish" the wrongdoers?\n\nadditionally, consideration should be given to the concept that death is the ultimate punishment. is death really the worst outcome for a convicted murder? proponents of capital punishment claim that "scum" are rewarded with an easy life of "freebies". if those freebies include shivs and anal rape, then they may be right. point being - prison is not a cake walk. some would consider a lifetime of confinement greater punishment than instant death. \n\nmoreover, as one person noted, the death penalty may not actually scare off future criminals. some cultures do not believe in "punishing" people who commit crimes, but instead focus on recovering, as a community, after such an act. \n\nthe plain fact of the matter is, people make mistakes. even big ones. why not try to understand the cause for these crimes (i.e. why did this person feel the need to steal) instead of endlessly reprimanding them when we already know it will happen regardless? often when a person commits a crime, it is out of a sense of neccessity, not enjoyment. few people take such big risks for the sake of fun. most act out of desperation - fearing they have no real alternative. \n\ni feel the death penalty is not working well in any aspect and should be reexamined. so, to put it simply "bad".
336403
Punishment isn't about revenge, jerk-off, it's about Justice.  Go look that one up and come back with some mature questions.  Don't lose your yellow ribbons and Armstrong wristbands on the way, Toy-boy.
896935
This is more an ethical question than a legal one.
274217
Morally not necessarily\n\nRealistically yes
540999
Uh... how do you suggest we enforce the punishment?
24767
Human experimentation is only morally right when a human has consented to the experimentation. \n\nThis reminds me of the fear experiment of the '70s in which a small child was startled (with crashing cymbals) each time it was shown a white rabbit. This was to show that you could create a fear in and then desensitize the boy. However, a human rights group stopped the experiment...of course...after the fear part and before the desensitize part. \n\nMakes ya wonder if little Johnny is hunting down people in Easter costumes to this day?