what do you believe?--The Death Penalty

[townes]

I have to run, but i figured i would kick start this first. Where do you stand on the Death Penalty?

Hint-I'm opposed to it. However, I was a bike messenger in S.F. back when they offed Ted Bundy, and, I'll admit, that I unplugged all appliances just to make sure they had enough juice for Ted when Old Sparky started flowing. Turned out they didn't need the extra juice, but i just wanted to make sure. Just doing my civic duty. ( I realize he was executed in Florida, but I still wasn't taking any chances.)

I'll say why i oppose the Death Penalty later, hopefully others will weigh in before then.


later,


townes




BTW-I also believe the Patriots will be getting Lombardi No.#3 this season, but that shouldn't surprise anyone.

[Undertaker #59]

I am for the death penalty in cases where guilt is without a doubt. Why spend the resources to keep them alive locked in a cell for the rest of their lives?

[thomas144]

Although capital punishment is tempting, sometimes, ultimately I think we are better off as a society without it. In fact, I am actually proud of the fact that I live in a state without the death penalty. It's one of the two reasons I didn't vote for Mitt Romney (the other being that I didn't want to cast a vote that might look like an endorsement of George W. Bush).

A little anecdote: I remember my wife's cousin's daughter in Italy, a 22-year-old student in Milan, a couple of years ago, deriding the United States, mocking us, with some lyrics she had heard, something about "you say you are the land of the free, but you have the death penalty." Although I think the logic of that statement is ridiculous, ultimately I would prefer that I lived in a civilized society. Let's put it this way: I'm pretty sure Osama Bin-Laden would be an advocate of corporal punishment.

[Undertaker #59]

Originally posted by thomas144
Although I think the logic of that statement is ridiculous, ultimately I would prefer that I lived in a civilized society. Let's put it this way: I'm pretty sure Osama Bin-Laden would be an advocate of corporal punishment.

I disagree with the notion that it is more civilized to lock someone in a cell for the rest of their lives than to put them to death.



Maybe I should stay out of these political threads...I am going to be on an island most of the time. :)

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Undertaker #59
I disagree with the notion that it is more civilized to lock someone in a cell for the rest of their lives than to put them to death.



Maybe I should stay out of these political threads...I am going to be on an island most of the time. :)

I'm with you on this U.T. People who are against the death penalty like to argue that they are somehow morally superior to those of us who are for it. It don't see what's so civilized about locking a man in a cell to rot for 80 years as opposed to injecting poison into his arm and burying him in the ground.

[mgoblue101415]

I am opposed to the death penalty for 2 reasons.

1) There are just TOO many cases where people sentenced to death have later been proven innocent. Unless the person is caught in the act there is always a chance they are innocent.

2) There are several people who make their peace with God after being sentenced. Sure, most say they have, but God is the only one who knows if they are sincere. And yes, some are sincere. So now the state executes these people and they are spending eternity in paradise instead of rotting away in a cell. And even for those who haven't made atonements I still think it's more of a punishment to have them spend the rest of their days in prison instead of giving them a quick out.

[thomas144]

Originally posted by spiderman
I'm with you on this U.T. People who are against the death penalty like to argue that they are somehow morally superior to those of us who are for it. It don't see what's so civilized about locking a man in a cell to rot for 80 years as opposed to injecting poison into his arm and burying him in the ground.

How would you feel about public beheadings or stoning people to death?

You are arguing that we should not punish people at all. Do you mean that we would be more civilized if we just let murderers go free? I don't agree with that.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by thomas144
How would you feel about public beheadings or stoning people to death?

You are arguing that we should not punish people at all. Do you mean that we would be more civilized if we just let murderers go free? I don't agree with that.

Maybe I missed something here. How am I arguing that we should not punish people at all?

You made a comment that the US cannot claim to be a "civilized" society if it sentences its citizens to death as punishment.

My question was, why is it more civilized to lock a person up in a cell until they die, as opposed to putting them to sleep?

As far as public beheadings and/or stoning people...that's my point. We don't do that.

[Annihilus]

I have mixed feelings on this issue, and if I had to pick one or the other I'd pick NOT to have the death penalty - just because as mgo noted - there are far too many people who are pulled off of death row after DNA testing proves their innocence. One dead innocent is just too many.

However, in the case of absolute guilt (which is often difficult to prove - even with a confession), I'm all for it. I'm sure it would lower the cases of the application of the death penalty - but the right thing to do in my opinion.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by mgoblue101415
I am opposed to the death penalty for 2 reasons.

1) There are just TOO many cases where people sentenced to death have later been proven innocent. Unless the person is caught in the act there is always a chance they are innocent.

2) There are several people who make their peace with God after being sentenced. Sure, most say they have, but God is the only one who knows if they are sincere. And yes, some are sincere. So now the state executes these people and they are spending eternity in paradise instead of rotting away in a cell. And even for those who haven't made atonements I still think it's more of a punishment to have them spend the rest of their days in prison instead of giving them a quick out.

#1) So are you saying that if a person IS caught in the act then they SHOULD be put to death? If so, then you aren't saying you are against the death penalty, only that you think in the majority of cases the burden of proof is not enough.

#2) What about an Atheist? They couldn't care less about who makes peace with God? If we are moving towards becoming a more secular society then how does this argument hold weight?
Also, if it is a worse punishment to have to sit in a cell your whole life, then this supports my other argument which is, maybe it is more humane to put people to death then it is to make them sit in a cell for 60 years.

[mgoblue101415]

Originally posted by spiderman
#1) So are you saying that if a person IS caught in the act then they SHOULD be put to death? If so, then you aren't saying you are against the death penalty, only that you think in the majority of cases the burden of proof is not enough.

#2) What about an Atheist? They couldn't care less about who makes peace with God? If we are moving towards becoming a more secular society then how does this argument hold weight?
Also, if it is a worse punishment to have to sit in a cell your whole life, then this supports my other argument which is, maybe it is more humane to put people to death then it is to make them sit in a cell for 60 years.


1) No, I'm not saying they SHOULD be put to death if they are caught in the act. I was simply pointing out that in the majority of cases there is no difinitive proof that a person commited the crime they're accused of. So with the death penalty there are plenty of chances that innocent people will be executed. And if the person is caught in the act and is proven 100% guilty, then my #2 reason is the reason I don't believe they should be executed.

2) I don't care if the person is an Atheist. It's not their belief that I'm basing my reasoning on, it's my belief. Also, like I said, even if they don't make their peace, IMO, it's more of a punishment for them to live out their lives in prison than giving them a quick out. And it's not like these people are in some 5x5 dirt cell. It's not exactly "inhumane" to keep them in prison. But it is a punishment that takes away their privileges. Privileges they freely gave up when they decided to commit their crime.

[spiderman]

Let me say this,

Person A is proven 100% to have committed the ultimate crime worthy of our society's most severe punishment.

Why should Person A be sentenced to life imprisonment as opposed to death?

[mgoblue101415]

Originally posted by spiderman
Let me say this,

Person A is proven 100% to have committed the ultimate crime worthy of our society's most severe punishment.

Why should Person A be sentenced to life imprisonment as opposed to death?


Let me ask you...

Would you rather spend the rest of your life, 40, 50, 60 yrs, however long, not having any freedom. Never leaving your "house". Your body and life at risk every day, constantly looking over your shoulder. Waking up, eating, sleeping only when you're told to. Having no options of your own. Your life utterly controlled by people who think you are the scum of the earth.

OR...

To avoid that, would you rather take the "easy" way out and just have your life ended. All your problems over, no more worries.


So what sounds like a worse punishment? The first option sounds much less appealing to me.

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by mgoblue101415
So what sounds like a worse punishment? The first option sounds much less appealing to me.

Although I'm on your side of the death penalty argument mgo, there are a ton of people that have been institutionalized and couldn't cope on the outside if they had to (the old guy in Shawshank Redemption is a good fictional example of this). While I wouldn't say they LOVE being in prison, it's an acceptable life to some.

If death was such an attractive option to them, I would think there would probably be a lot more suicides among lifers.

[thomas144]

Originally posted by spiderman
Maybe I missed something here. How am I arguing that we should not punish people at all?

You made a comment that the US cannot claim to be a "civilized" society if it sentences its citizens to death as punishment.

My question was, why is it more civilized to lock a person up in a cell until they die, as opposed to putting them to sleep?

As far as public beheadings and/or stoning people...that's my point. We don't do that.


You are saying that you think it is more "civilized" for society to kill people than to incarcerate them. I disagree. I think it is more civilized to incarcerate people than to kill them.

Would it be more civilized to set them free or incarcerate them?

Would it be more civilized to stone them to death than to electrocute them than to hang them, than to gas them, than to drug them to death?

I'm just trying to understand your basis for thinking that killing people is more civilized than jailing them.

[thomas144]

Originally posted by spiderman
Let me say this,

Person A is proven 100% to have committed the ultimate crime worthy of our society's most severe punishment.

Why should Person A be sentenced to life imprisonment as opposed to death?

Why not execute them at the half-time of the superbowl and sell their bodies as animal feed?

[mgoblue101415]

Here's the entire study (http://aafs.micronexx.com/PDF/JOFS/JFS2002023_475/JFS2002023_475.pdf) .


Just thought I'd post this little piece..

Suicide, however, is especially common in some institutional settings, such as areas where juveniles are incarcerated in adult institutions and in forensic units. Suicide is also especially common on death row, a surprise given the greater supervision usually afforded those on death row. Lester calculated a suicide rate of 146 for death row inmates from 1977 through 1982.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by mgoblue101415
Let me ask you...

Would you rather spend the rest of your life, 40, 50, 60 yrs, however long, not having any freedom. Never leaving your "house". Your body and life at risk every day, constantly looking over your shoulder. Waking up, eating, sleeping only when you're told to. Having no options of your own. Your life utterly controlled by people who think you are the scum of the earth.

OR...

To avoid that, would you rather take the "easy" way out and just have your life ended. All your problems over, no more worries.


So what sounds like a worse punishment? The first option sounds much less appealing to me.

So you are saying that life imprisonment is a worse punishment then death?

[spiderman]

Originally posted by thomas144
You are saying that you think it is more "civilized" for society to kill people than to incarcerate them. I disagree. I think it is more civilized to incarcerate people than to kill them.

Would it be more civilized to set them free or incarcerate them?

Would it be more civilized to stone them to death than to electrocute them than to hang them, than to gas them, than to drug them to death?

I'm just trying to understand your basis for thinking that killing people is more civilized than jailing them.

I'm not necessarily saying that. YOU said that capital punishment is not "civilized". I'm just asking you to explain WHY. mgoblue is arguing that life imprisonment is a worse punishment.

Also, why do you keep talking about people being stoned to death. That's not how we execute people. You are trying to demonstrate capital punishment (i.e. lethal injection) as somehow being a violent act in order to support your argument. That just isn't the case.

I want YOU to explain to ME why the death penalty is "uncivilized".

[spiderman]

Originally posted by thomas144
Why not execute them at the half-time of the superbowl and sell their bodies as animal feed?

Now you're just being silly. Let me know if you would like to continue this debate or not. If not, I won't waste my time.

[mgoblue101415]

Originally posted by spiderman
So you are saying that life imprisonment is a worse punishment then death?


IMO, yes. I would much rather have my life ended if the alternative was spending the rest of my life with no freedoms, the constant fear of rape and beatings, no control, no choices.

Wasn't there some NE guy who said "Give me liberty or give me death."?

Yeah, okay, so slightly different subject matter, but that's exactly how I, personally, feel.

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by mgoblue101415
Here's the entire study (http://aafs.micronexx.com/PDF/JOFS/JFS2002023_475/JFS2002023_475.pdf) .


Just thought I'd post this little piece..

That works out to 15.9 Suicides per 100,000 (National Average in the U.S.) against - 39.6 per 100,000 in Prison amongst death row inmates. Still waaaay below 1%. Yeah it's two and a half times the national average, but still minimal at best.

I'm not personally disagreeing with you, just pointing out that there's mostly a whole other viewpoint among people that have been institutionalized.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by mgoblue101415
IMO, yes. I would much rather have my life ended if the alternative was spending the rest of my life with no freedoms, the constant fear of rape and beatings, no control, no choices.

Wasn't there some NE guy who said "Give me liberty or give me death."?

Yeah, okay, so slightly different subject matter, but that's exactly how I, personally, feel.

So why are you against the death penalty?

[mgoblue101415]

Originally posted by spiderman
So why are you against the death penalty?


Because I think life imprisonment is a harsher punishment then the death penalty.

They serve prison time for a few years then are executed... punishment over.

I say let these people suffer and spend the rest of their miserable lives rotting and agonizing away in prison rather than give them an easy way out.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by mgoblue101415
Because I think life imprisonment is a harsher punishment then the death penalty.

They serve prison time for a few years then are executed... punishment over.

I say let these people suffer and spend the rest of their miserable lives rotting and agonizing away in prison rather than give them an easy way out.

So you are basically saying that person A should be given life imprisonment because it is a more severe punishment then death.

Now, I would like to keep the death penalty as an option in certain circumstances, is this acceptable?

[mgoblue101415]

Originally posted by spiderman
So you are basically saying that person A should be given life imprisonment because it is a more severe punishment then death.

Now, I would like to keep the death penalty as an option in certain circumstances, is this acceptable?


In my opinion, there would be no "acceptable" cases, but you're entitled to your own opinion.

In certain cases, such as sexual assault, especially against children, I say cut off the penis and then let them spend the rest of their lives in prison. For woman who abuse children something else would have to done, obviously.

Actually I wouldn't be against the whole "Clockwork Orange" thing. I see nothing wrong with that sort of punishment. Make them suffer.

[Ballbustah]

No one on this Earth has the right to put someone to death.

I am not saying punishment should not be put forth.

We are all a bunch of imbeciles who think we know who should die.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by mgoblue101415
In my opinion, there would be no "acceptable" cases, but you're entitled to your own opinion.

In certain cases, such as sexual assault, especially against children, I say cut off the penis and then let them spend the rest of their lives in prison. For woman who abuse children something else would have to done, obviously.

Actually I wouldn't be against the whole "Clockwork Orange" thing. I see nothing wrong with that sort of punishment. Make them suffer.

So we as a society have the moral authority to "cut off men's penises", but not to take their life.

Why? Who said this? How do you arrive at this viewpoint?

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
No one on this Earth has the right to put someone to death.

I am not saying punishment should not be put forth.

We are all a bunch of imbeciles who think we know who should die.

I'll pose the same question to you. Why don't we have the right to put someone to death? Why do we have the right to decide there fate, and have certain options in front of us, but not death?

What I'm saying is, if 90 people out of 100 say that the death penalty is an acceptable form of punishment, why is this still not right?

[mgoblue101415]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
No one on this Earth has the right to put someone to death.

I am not saying punishment should not be put forth.

We are all a bunch of imbeciles who think we know who should die.


Another very good point.

It is not for us to decide who lives and dies. That's in God's hands, and that's where it should stay.

Course, if a person doesn't believe in God then they could care less about this point.

But still, a very good point.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by mgoblue101415
Another very good point.

It is not for us to decide who lives and dies. That's in God's hands, and that's where it should stay.

Course, if a person doesn't believe in God then they could care less about this point.

But still, a very good point.


AH HA!!! You said it! It took you a while but somebody finally said it.

[spiderman]

So let me ask another question.

Did God personally tell you that we, as a society, aren't allowed to take life, only he is?

What I'm getting at is, how do you know only God is allowed to take life?

[mgoblue101415]

Originally posted by spiderman
So let me ask another question.

Did God personally tell you that we, as a society, aren't allowed to take life, only he is?

What I'm getting at is, how do you know only God is allowed to take life?


It's all what you believe.

I believe the Bible is God's word. And the Bible is pretty clear on the subject of taking another man's life.

I know there are plenty of people who don't believe in the Bible or God, and that's their choice.

But you asked how I knew, and that is how I know.

So to answer your question, yes, God did tell me personally, as well as anyone else who chooses to listen.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by mgoblue101415
It's all what you believe.

I believe the Bible is God's word. And the Bible is pretty clear on the subject of taking another man's life.

I know there are plenty of people who don't believe in the Bible or God, and that's their choice.

But you asked how I knew, and that is how I know.

So to answer your question, yes, God did tell me personally, as well as anyone else who chooses to listen.

So you are basically saying that we must legislate in accordance with YOUR religion.

[mgoblue101415]

Originally posted by spiderman
So you are basically saying that we must legislate in accordance with YOUR religion.


No, I'm saying why I, personally, believe the death penalty is wrong.

And I think I've stated reasons that have no religious basis to them as well.

I'm not some Bible thumper who wants to shove my religious beliefs down everyone else's throat. That couldn't be further from the truth. I'm actually one of the few people I know that feel the phrase "under God" SHOULD be taken out of the Pledge, because the Pledge should include ALL Americans, not just those who believe in God.

And actually, in most in religions, the stance on taking another man's life is pretty similiar, so it's not just in accordance with MY religion.

And for those who don't have any religious belief... Like I've stated, there are several non-religious reasons for doing away with the death penalty.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by mgoblue101415
And for those who don't have any religious belief... Like I've stated, there are several non-religious reasons for doing away with the death penalty.

Not really, all you said was that life imprisonment was a worse punishment then death. When I asked if we could keep the death penalty as an option you said NO, because we don't have the right to take life only God does. You then stated that you know that he (God) feels this way because it says so in the bible.

So you are arguing on one hand that we must live under "God's law" as described in the bible, then on the other hand saying that we must live in a secular society free of statements like "One nation under God".

Do you see the dilemma?

:confused:

[mgoblue101415]

Originally posted by spiderman
Not really, all you said was that life imprisonment was a worse punishment then death. When I asked if we could keep the death penalty as an option you said NO, because we don't have the right to take life only God does. You then stated that you know that he (God) feels this way because it says so in the bible.

So you are arguing on one hand that we must live under "God's law" as described in the bible, then on the other hand saying that we must live in a secular society free of statements like "One nation under God".

Do you see the dilemma?

:confused:

In reply to your "if we could keep the death penalty as an option" I did not say "NO, because we don't have the right to take life only God does." What I actually said was...

In my opinion, there would be no "acceptable" cases, but you're entitled to your own opinion.

In certain cases, such as sexual assault, especially against children, I say cut off the penis and then let them spend the rest of their lives in prison. For woman who abuse children something else would have to done, obviously.

Actually I wouldn't be against the whole "Clockwork Orange" thing. I see nothing wrong with that sort of punishment. Make them suffer.


You're combining my different posts, which is a nice touch. :thumb:


I don't think that particular post deals with God or religion at all.

And I'm not arguing that "we" should live under God's law, I've simply stated that's how I try to live my life. I never once said ANYONE ELSE should live that way.

And as to the "Under God" statement, that IS boarderline shoving a perticular belief down people's throat. Especially considering it was not part of the original Pledge, but added in by Eisenhower. Any American should feel proud to recite the pledge without having to skip over a line that has to do with religion.

I have my religious beliefs, but I feel everyone is entitled to their own religious or non-religious beliefs.

So I really don't see any dilemma other than the one you are trying to create.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by mgoblue101415
So I really don't see any dilemma other than the one you are trying to create.

Combining different posts??? I didn't combine anything, I simply re-stated the things that you wrote. Your statements about God were in reference to the topic at hand, it wasn't like I cut and pasted something out of a different thread or something.

If anything it is MY argument that is a secular one, not yours.

Me: The death penalty IS acceptable, because we as a society have decided it is.

You: The death penalty IS NOT acceptable, because we must succomb to a higher power that says it is he and only he who is allowed this right.

Therefore we are not living by Man's laws, but instead by God's laws. And then you make the illogical leap towards saying that we must remove all references to God, so that we will not offend those who don't believe in his existence.

[mgoblue101415]

Originally posted by spiderman
Combining different posts??? I didn't combine anything, I simply re-stated the things that you wrote. Your statements about God were in reference to the topic at hand, it wasn't like I cut and pasted something out of a different thread or something.

If anything it is MY argument that is a secular one, not yours.

Me: The death penalty IS acceptable, because we as a society have decided it is.

You: The death penalty IS NOT acceptable, because we must succomb to a higher power that says it is he and only he who is allowed this right.

Therefore we are not living by Man's laws, but instead by God's laws. And then you make the illogical leap towards saying that we must remove all references to God, so that we will not offend those who don't believe in his existence.

Yes, you did re-state my posts, but my responses concerning God do not correlate to every post I have responded to. You took the posts out of context of their original responses. You aren't a reporter by any chance, are ya? :p

And you may feel the death penalty is acceptable, but there are enough people on both sides of the issue for it not to be said that "society" finds it acceptable. There are many in our society who feel it is, but there are just as many who feel it isn't. So, I guess according to "your" society it is acceptable. The rest of us are still debating the issue.

And again, you only take my religious reasons as to why I find it wrong. My original 2 reasons were...

1) Because of the numerous cases of innocent people on death row.

and

2) Because I feel it is a harsher penalty to spend the rest of your life in prison, than to be executed.

Neither of those have anything to do with religion

Yes, there are a few reasons I feel the death penalty is wrong but my MAIN 2 reasons have nothing at all to do with religion.

Obviously you have a problem with religion, which is fine, that's your life. But don't twist all my arguments into some "God's Law" thing, because most my arguments weren't based on religion until you got hung up on it.

And again, I believe what I believe, but I'm not some right wing consevative that believes my way is the only way. Each and everyone of us have the freedom and the right to believe what thay want. I don't see how it's "illogical" to have my religious beliefs and yet respect the beliefs of others. Perhaps if more people felt that way there wouldn't be so much hate and anger.

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by mgoblue101415
1) Because of the numerous cases of innocent people on death row.


That is reason enough to really end any argument about this topic in my opinion regardless of it's fascinating social debate possibilities.

The fact that there has been more than one innocent person discovered on death row makes me wonder how the death penalty hasn't been immediately abolished or suspended in more than one state that currently has it installed.

[spiderman]

UGH!

Okay let me try this again. The whole thing about people on death row being innocent IS NOT an argument against the death penalty, it is a comment about the burden of proof,and is a SECONDARY issue. You can't say that the death penalty is unacceptable because there are people wrongly sentenced, unless you make in illogical leap in your reasoning. That is why I posed the argument the way I did. Which was:

IF it was proven 100% that said person is guilty why should he/she be given life imprisonment as opposed to the death penalty. This negates your first argument against the death penalty.

Your second point, once again, isn't an argument against the death penalty either, you are simply stating that YOU believe that life imprisonment is a worse punishment. How does this tell me WHY the death penalty is wrong?

It wasn't until you said God is the only one allowed to decide life and death that you started dealing with the issue.

Again YOU brought GOD into this, go back an re-read the thread, don't try to make it look like I am putting words in your mouth. I am NOT. I have not TWISTED anything that you've said, you made reference to GOD and opened up a whole can of worms. Which is why I said AH HA! Now you are trying to back pedal, if you would like to give another reason why the death penalty is unacceptable I am all ears.

Finally, my statement about "We as a society..blah, blah" was a hypothetical statement in order to frame my argument, I'm not saying that everyone feels that way. The point being that if everyone in society DID believe it was acceptable, according to YOUR logic it still wouldn't be, because we are not allowed to make laws for ourselves, we have to succomb to God's laws.

I really feel like I am making my point pretty clear, apparently I'm not.

:banghead: :donkeys:

[Oedipus Tex]

I support the death penalty because I live in Texas.

No, actually I support it because I think that it is inherently just. However, the application of it is horribly unjust, and until we can find a way to correct that, I'm functionally opposed to it.

[Ballbustah]

Originally posted by spiderman
So let me ask another question.

Did God personally tell you that we, as a society, aren't allowed to take life, only he is?

What I'm getting at is, how do you know only God is allowed to take life?


Don't you think there is something wrong with a group deciding if someone should die.
How bout if they are mistaken in the details.
How bout if it didn't go down like they think.
Spending your life behind bars is no pic nic.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Don't you think there is something wrong with a group deciding if someone should die.
How bout if they are mistaken in the details.
How bout if it didn't go down like they think.
Spending your life behind bars is no pic nic.

I can't keep repeating myself, I'm sorry.

[Ballbustah]

Then stop whinning....

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Then stop whinning....

Dude, easy. Don't get all bent out of shape. If you looked above you would see that I addressed the points you've made a couple of times. If you would like to respond to one of those posts fine.

I was trying to be POLITE instead of just ignoring your post.

This is something I hate about message boards, you can read things so many different ways.

[thomas144]

Originally posted by spiderman
Now you're just being silly. Let me know if you would like to continue this debate or not. If not, I won't waste my time.

I'm trying to get you to think about what you mean by "civilized".

Do you think that lethal injections are more "civilized" than public beheadings or stonings?

I certainly do, but I think that more advanced, more enlightening "civilizations" don't have capital punishment at all.

[Ballbustah]

Originally posted by spiderman
Dude, easy. Don't get all bent out of shape. If you looked above you would see that I addressed the points you've made a couple of times. If you would like to respond to one of those posts fine.

I was trying to be POLITE instead of just ignoring your post.

This is something I hate about message boards, you can read things so many different ways.


Maybe you just don't get it.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Maybe you just don't get it.

no idea what you're talking about...whatever.

[runnerone]

Originally posted by thomas144
Why not execute them at the half-time of the superbowl and sell their bodies as animal feed?

That would certainly be more rivetting entertainment than last yrs production put on by MTV! Hey, maybe VH1 could do their stint with the death row rapists and murderers who play in prison bands backing up the execution to the melodic tune of "Helter Skelter" or even Pink Floyds "The Final Cut"

Now that would be entertainment!

Society as a whole has gone to hell in a bucket, there is no more shock value in anything and a general apathy towards lude and violent behavior.

I am for the death penalty by the way, with many exceptions. I think serial offenders should be put to death, as they are incorrigeable, as well as people who are caught in the act of commiting violent crimes.

I don't think if there is any doubt, that a person should be committed to death however.

I believe one arguement being left out here is the huge financial burden of the penal system to "House" these violent members of "Society" for decades at a staggering and ever rising cost.

My 2 cents.

[Flagg the Wanderer]

I'm against the death penalty, even though I think it is just.

It is actually MORE EXPENSIVE to put someone to death in the current system, because of the extensive appellate process and the requirement for increased security, constant suicide watch (go figure) etc. That's one reason.

Secondly, it is unfairly administered. A woman convicted of a capital crime is 1/3 as likely as a man to be sentenced to death. A black man is more than 3 times as likely as a white man, and a hispanic man more than twice as likely as a white man.

Thirdly, the possibility of error is too grave (though I agree that this is a seperate argument about the burden of proof, not about capital punishment per se.)

Finally, I don't believe in the "eye-for-an-eye" theory of justice. There are essentially four reasons for punishing a criminal: 1) Rehabilitation; 2) Retribution; 3) Protection of the rest of society; and 4) Repayment to society. There isn't one of those reasons that is better served by capital punishment than by imprisionment.

Rehabilitation is obvious - capital punishment removes this reason from the equation completely. However, life without possibility of parole does the same thing.

Retribution - as already stated, many would consider the permanent deprivation of freedom and priviledge a greated punishment than death. While I don't agree, I think they are comperable.

Protection of the rest of society - Here capital punishment has a leg up, I suppose, but that is one out of four. Prison breaks are rare enough that I don't consider it a huge plus.

Repayment to society - Death Row inmates are not traditionally participants in prison work programs...we're not even getting licence plates out of them.

What it comes down to is this:

As I stated at first, I believe that capital punishment is not inherently unjust. However, a wealthy society can afford to trade swiftness of justice (if a death sentence were swift, which it is not) for mercy. Even if it was more expensive to incarcerate for life, we can afford it as a society as an act of mercy. Our society will benefit in the long run from taking a stand against killing in all its forms, rather than the hypocracy that we currently enjoy which is: killing is wrong, except when the government does or approves it.

There's a reason they have three switches for electricutions, two of which are dummys. For LI, there are multiple plungers, two of which are filled with saline. Why? Because no one wants to be certain that they are the one who did the actual killing. That should tell you something about the regard with which the people closest to the process view it.

[Ballbustah]

Nice post...

[spiderman]

Flagg Wanderer you basically hit upon what I was trying to get at with your comment about "inherently unjust". This is what I am trying to get at in my thread about "Can we Govern without God" Unfortunately when you mention GOD the topic gets bogged down with issues of religion and faith. But basically when you say "inherently just or unjust" this is what I mean by "God's law" There are certain things that are wrong, regardless of how we decide as a people.

Therefore, if we remove GOD from society, then we must replace him with some set of inherent justice. Until now, the belief in a higher being has provided us with a basis for this inherent justice, without GOD what will be the source?

[townes]

screwed up.

[townes]

Originally posted by Flagg Wanderer
I'm against the death penalty, even though I think it is just.

It is actually MORE EXPENSIVE to put someone to death in the current system, because of the extensive appellate process and the requirement for increased security, constant suicide watch (go figure) etc. That's one reason.

Secondly, it is unfairly administered. A woman convicted of a capital crime is 1/3 as likely as a man to be sentenced to death. A black man is more than 3 times as likely as a white man, and a hispanic man more than twice as likely as a white man.

Thirdly, the possibility of error is too grave (though I agree that this is a seperate argument about the burden of proof, not about capital punishment per se.)

Finally, I don't believe in the "eye-for-an-eye" theory of justice. There are essentially four reasons for punishing a criminal: 1) Rehabilitation; 2) Retribution; 3) Protection of the rest of society; and 4) Repayment to society. There isn't one of those reasons that is better served by capital punishment than by imprisionment.

Rehabilitation is obvious - capital punishment removes this reason from the equation completely. However, life without possibility of parole does the same thing.

Retribution - as already stated, many would consider the permanent deprivation of freedom and priviledge a greated punishment than death. While I don't agree, I think they are comperable.

Protection of the rest of society - Here capital punishment has a leg up, I suppose, but that is one out of four. Prison breaks are rare enough that I don't consider it a huge plus.

Repayment to society - Death Row inmates are not traditionally participants in prison work programs...we're not even getting licence plates out of them.

What it comes down to is this:

As I stated at first, I believe that capital punishment is not inherently unjust. However, a wealthy society can afford to trade swiftness of justice (if a death sentence were swift, which it is not) for mercy. Even if it was more expensive to incarcerate for life, we can afford it as a society as an act of mercy. Our society will benefit in the long run from taking a stand against killing in all its forms, rather than the hypocracy that we currently enjoy which is: killing is wrong, except when the government does or approves it.

There's a reason they have three switches for electricutions, two of which are dummys. For LI, there are multiple plungers, two of which are filled with saline. Why? Because no one wants to be certain that they are the one who did the actual killing. That should tell you something about the regard with which the people closest to the process view it.



No sense adding to this, i agree completely, great post.

[dropKickMurphy]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Don't you think there is something wrong with a group deciding if someone should die....


Let me pose a few hypothetical situations to you, Ballbustah:

1)
A heavily armed terrorist enters a school yard and holds a bunch of kids at gunpoint. He threatens to kill one kid every 5 minutes until his demands are met. Fifteen minutes later, 3 kids are down.
Now, suppose an FBI sniper has a clear shot at the guy....

2)
A cop is approached by an armed suspect that has just shot his partner. The suspect aims his weapon at the cop. Do we allow the cop to attempt to kill the supect?

3)
Our country is under attack (say, Japan/Pearl Harbor). Do we give our armed forces permission to fire at the attacking planes?

In all of these cases, we as a society have given groups, be they law enforcement or armed forces, the power to take human lives. In essence, we are allowing these people to decide who will live and who will die.

Now, I'm not equating these examples with capital punishment. Certainly, there is a difference between killing to prevent an action and killing as punishment for an action. I'm saying that we, as a society, do decide whether certain people are to die. Law enforcement and armed forces personel are given the authority, by us, to make decisions to take the lives of individuals.

There are many legitimate reasons to be against the death penalty. The right of a society to impose death against an individual in certain cases, is not one of these valid arguments.

[Spinal Tap]

I just caught this thread and figured I would quickly weigh in on the subject.

I am FOR the death penalty. However, I think that there needs to be absolutely NO DOUBT that the crime was committed by that individual. I would say that multiple eye witnesses must be in place, but there are ways to prove beyond any doubt that someone committed a particular crime.

People that take the lives of others do not deserve to live. I have NO SYMPATHY for psyhopathic killers or baby killing terrorist bastards. I would actually like to kill a terrorist myself......seriously.

[PA_PATS_FAN54*]

Originally posted by mgoblue101415
Let me ask you...

Would you rather spend the rest of your life, 40, 50, 60 yrs, however long, not having any freedom. Never leaving your "house". Your body and life at risk every day, constantly looking over your shoulder. Waking up, eating, sleeping only when you're told to. Having no options of your own. Your life utterly controlled by people who think you are the scum of the earth.

OR...

To avoid that, would you rather take the "easy" way out and just have your life ended. All your problems over, no more worries.


So what sounds like a worse punishment? The first option sounds much less appealing to me.

First off I am for the death penalty .that being said MGO and everyone else.
Can you tel me why the hell should we pay to keep a convicted murderer alive? or rapist for that matter? given the choices I'd rather give them the easy way out and put our tax dollars to more beneficial uses.

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by PA_PATS_FAN54
First off I am for the death penalty .that being said MGO and everyone else.
Can you tel me why the hell should we pay to keep a convicted murderer alive? or rapist for that matter? given the choices I'd rather give them the easy way out and put our tax dollars to more beneficial uses. I can.

First of all, it is more expensive to put a man to death than it is to put him (usually a him) in jail for life, on average. It isn't as if we get the conviction, then light him up on the following Friday. It's a hugely expensive legal battle, with multiple mandatory appeals and maximum deference given to the convict. In most instances, the attorneys fees are paid by the taxpayer. Additionally, because of his constant legal representation, the treatment of him is with absolute kid gloves, because the prison knows they will be called on EVERYTHING.

Conversely, when a guy is in there for life without possibility of parole, his appeals are treated, by-and-large, with what could kindly be called disdain. And he has no right to an appointed attorney.

Second of all, even if it WAS cheaper, we can afford to do it to be an example and witness to the world of the importance of human life and human rights, that there is something inherently dignified and worthwhile about the life of a human being. We have a very wealthy nation - if we were worried about millions of people starving in the streets, if we weren't able to afford the glut of luxury items that we all take for granted, than perhaps a "cost" argument would have legs. But I don't see it - life vs. $$$. Even if the life in question is the most hardend convicted felon you can imagine, life is worth more than money.

Again, I don't think that the death penalty is fundamentally unjust, but I do think that it is applied unjustly, and the cost argument is a red herring. We can afford to show that life is worth our attention.

[PA_PATS_FAN54*]

Originally posted by Flagg Wanderer


Second of all, even if it WAS cheaper, we can afford to do it to be an example and witness to the world of the importance of human life and human rights, that there is something inherently dignified and worthwhile about the life of a human being. We have a very wealthy nation - if we were worried about millions of people starving in the streets, if we weren't able to afford the glut of luxury items that we all take for granted, than perhaps a "cost" argument would have legs. I stand corrected on the $$ issue ( don't have the percentages in front of me )
as for the dignity and worthiness of a human life ...... If someone can willingly take a life be it a fit of rage or during a crime then I don't have one iota of sympathy for them. At that point they have no conscious to me and there for do not deserve to live.

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by PA_PATS_FAN54
I stand corrected on the $$ issue ( don't have the percentages in front of me )
as for the dignity and worthiness of a human life ...... If someone can willingly take a life be it a fit of rage or during a crime then I don't have one iota of sympathy for them. At that point they have no conscious to me and there for do not deserve to live. Fine. What about if they were wrongly convicted? What should the standard be for who gets the death penalty and who gets life without parole? Is it okay with you that men and blacks are much more likely to get the death penalty than women and whites? Should it be a hard and fast rule, or should it be subjective, decided upon by a jury or a judge?

Should there be a different standard of proof, something stronger than "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Required DNA evidence, etc? If so, why wouldn't we apply that standard across the board to avoid incorrect convictions on non-capital cases?

And lastly, if the goal is to make sure that they don't do it again, and locking them up is cheaper than lighting them up, shouldn't we just lock them up, then? After all, as you stated, why waste the extra money?

[PA_PATS_FAN54*]

Originally posted by Flagg Wanderer


Should there be a different standard of proof, something stronger than "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Required DNA evidence, etc? If so, why wouldn't we apply that standard across the board to avoid incorrect convictions on non-capital cases?

And lastly, if the goal is to make sure that they don't do it again, and locking them up is cheaper than lighting them up, shouldn't we just lock them up, then? After all, as you stated, why waste the extra money?

Fine. What about if they were wrongly convicted? What should the standard be for who gets the death penalty and who gets life without parole? Is it okay with you that men and blacks are much more likely to get the death penalty than women and whites? Should it be a hard and fast rule, or should it be subjective, decided upon by a jury or a judge?
There should be ABSOLUTE proof that the person in question committed the crime in question. I am not saying I have a "cure all" solution just stating that I am all for the death penalty again I'll reiterate if a scumbag can bring themselves to kill another person out of anger or while committing a crime then I say fry the fugger.
and if men are committing more crimes then yes .........otherwise what your stating ( and we all know it is unfortunately true) is our current "rehabilitation system" needs some drastic re tooling don't you think? Also I do believe having a death penalty would make SOME think twice about murdering someone. IMHO

[#1Patsfan_chica]

I only believe in the death penalty if the person convicted is 100% at fault. But nowadays with DNA is easier to convict a person and see how is innocent.

Go Patriots and Red Sox!!!
:Patriots: :Redsox:

[Mark_Henderson]

There are obviously death penalty "poster boys" like Ted Bundy and William Gacy, where even people who are philosophically opposed to the death penalty aren't going to lose much sleep over their execution.

The sticky question is who makes the call as to what constitutes the degree of heinousness and "absolute proof". The law already states that to be convicted, you need to be proven guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "to a moral certitude". The fact is, even with modern technology, if you have O.J. money and a gullible jury, you're more likely to buy reasonable doubt than if you have no resources & a public defender.

Given the inevitable inequities, I'd question what positives the death penalty accomplishes. It's not a deterrent; states that execute a lot of people don't have lower murder rates. For a murderer, the deterrent is the perceived probability of being caught, not the relative severity of the punishment. And, some of them probably have a death wish and would prefer lethal injection to life in prison.

The ONLY real argument in favor of the death penalty, IMO, is that it gives the surviving family of the victim some resolution to know that the killer no longer exists.

Personally, I think that the likelihood of the state executing innocent people outweighs this benefit. There's no shortage of things that could be done to make prisons more rehabilitative. It would probably be hard to make them less so. But, I don't think having the state kill people is of much value.