PDA

View Full Version : The Death Penalty



NJCardFan
06-28-2009, 12:08 PM
I'm guessing there have been numerous threads on this subject over time but I'm curious how some of you feel about the subject. Like abortion, this is a hot button topic. The views for and against are nearly split down the middle but the arguments for or against, IMO sometimes miss the mark. Now, I'm for it because I'm a believer that the punishment should fit the crime. But one argument against I often hear is that the death penalty isn't a deterrent. This is utter hogwash. For starters, the person being put down will never kill again so it deterred him/her. 2nd, what makes this argument bogus is that if that's the case then we shouldn't have jail time at all because jail doesn't appear to be a deterrent. Anyhoo, what's your take?

Bubba Dawg
06-28-2009, 12:53 PM
It's a tough choice for me. To be honest, the option of life without parole is what I would choose to implement but to not have the death penalty as a possible option would not be acceptable to me.

MrsSmith
06-28-2009, 01:14 PM
In some cases, I still think the death penalty is appropriate, but would be fine with life...true LIFE, not 40 years or 65 years.

One problem with the death penalty is that we may be killing someone who could eventually come to salvation. Another is that improved testing can lead to an overturned sentence...and putting someone to death for a crime they did not commit would be horrendous...despite my firm belief that God will put all right in the end.

stsinner
06-28-2009, 01:17 PM
Not only am I for it, but I think it should be public and back to hanging.. The deterrent effect of that would be excellent. This getting them hopped up on drugs before you administer the lethal dose crap is ridiculous.. That's like going to sleep and not waking up. If you beat a little kid to death or stab a woman or something like that, you should not be treated humanely. I'm just glad the prisons are playing along and allowing community time so that the other inmates have the opportunity to show the scumbags their opinion of their crime.

The reason I'm against life in prision is that prison in this country isn't something to dislike. It's like an all male country club-television, radio, magazines, a library, a weight room... I would support life sentences if they worked the inmates like dogs from sun up to sun down and made the time miserable for them, but sadly some felons welcome a stint in prison because it's 3 hots and a cot.

djones520
06-28-2009, 01:30 PM
Not only am I for it, but I think it should be public and back to hanging.. The deterrent effect of that would be excellent. This getting them hopped up on drugs before you administer the lethal dose crap is ridiculous.. That's like going to sleep and not waking up. If you beat a little kid to death or stab a woman or something like that, you should not be treated humanely. I'm just glad the prisons are playing along and allowing community time so that the other inmates have the opportunity to show the scumbags their opinion of their crime.

The reason I'm against life in prision is that prison in this country isn't something to dislike. It's like an all male country club-television, radio, magazines, a library, a weight room... I would support life sentences if they worked the inmates like dogs from sun up to sun down and made the time miserable for them, but sadly some felons welcome a stint in prison because it's 3 hots and a cot.

It's not quite like that. Ever watch Lock Up? Gives a pretty good look into prison life. Nothing I ever want to experience. Now for some of these folks, it may honestly be a leg up in life for them, but for the vast majority, I doubt it.


Now to the original point, I support the Death Penalty. The system isn't perfect, but I think it's appropriate in most cases, and should probably be used in others.

patriot45
06-28-2009, 01:45 PM
It's not quite like that. Ever watch Lock Up? Gives a pretty good look into prison life. Nothing I ever want to experience. Now for some of these folks, it may honestly be a leg up in life for them, but for the vast majority, I doubt it.


Now to the original point, I support the Death Penalty. The system isn't perfect, but I think it's appropriate in most cases, and should probably be used in others.

If you are caught red handed, definately done it,and all are in agreement, off them. Di it Quick though and start saving taxpayers money. Prisons soak up tons of cash. For some of them it is like home, I've watched those shows.

lacarnut
06-28-2009, 01:48 PM
Not only am I for it, but I think it should be public and back to hanging.. The deterrent effect of that would be excellent.
.

Sounds good to me. Firing squad would also work.

NJCardFan
06-28-2009, 03:04 PM
It's not quite like that. Ever watch Lock Up? Gives a pretty good look into prison life. Nothing I ever want to experience. Now for some of these folks, it may honestly be a leg up in life for them, but for the vast majority, I doubt it.


Now to the original point, I support the Death Penalty. The system isn't perfect, but I think it's appropriate in most cases, and should probably be used in others.
Um, please don't take what you see on television as gospel. Not all prisons are like San Quinton. Especially in the newer prisons. Prison is no longer punishment. It's a vacation. Most of the thugs try to do a little time to gain street cred. In fact, I've caught hell for doing my job(I'm a corrections officer). The inmates would file remedies on me and my fellow C.O.'s and we're accused of being too hard on them.

Rockntractor
06-28-2009, 03:21 PM
maybe if we waterboarded the person against that is against the death penalty the would change their mind.

stsinner
06-28-2009, 03:48 PM
Um, please don't take what you see on television as gospel. Not all prisons are like San Quinton. Especially in the newer prisons. Prison is no longer punishment. It's a vacation. Most of the thugs try to do a little time to gain street cred. In fact, I've caught hell for doing my job(I'm a corrections officer). The inmates would file remedies on me and my fellow C.O.'s and we're accused of being too hard on them.

I've got friends who are CO's, and they tell me that is sucks sometimes because the system always accuses the officer first, instead of the scumbag and they have to prove their innocence.. Sort of like having Internal Affairs always breathing down your neck. That sucks.

FlaGator
06-28-2009, 04:25 PM
As a rule I am against the death penalty. I understand why it is implemented in some crimes but its not something that I can morally defend if I were required to make a case for it.

Sonnabend
06-28-2009, 04:49 PM
Death penalty is too final. You cant apologise to a corpse...make one mistake and an innocent person dies.

(Oh sorry PoliCon, i forgot, you think there is no such thing as an innocent man. You'd just prefer to string them up and the hell with the actual truth of the matter....)

Mistakes like this (http://www.nytimes.com/1992/12/02/nyregion/rape-conviction-overturned-on-dna-tests.html)

or this


This has led some prosecutors, law enforcement officials, conservative politicians and others to support moratoriums on the death penalty, if not outright abolition. The staff of the CWC pioneered the investigation and litigation of wrongful convictions, relying a great deal on DNA testing. Their work proving the innocence of 11 men sitting on death row in the U.S. state of Illinois was a driving force behind former Governor George H. Ryan's decision to suspend executions in Illinois in January, 2001. LWOP makes sense.

Bubba Dawg
06-28-2009, 05:01 PM
There have definitely been innocent inmates sentenced to death, and most likely actually executed. If actual innocence is no guarantee of not being convicted, much less executed, then the society in which this occurs is nither just nor free.

LWOP is a better choice from my perspective.

Shannon
06-28-2009, 05:35 PM
With all the DNA testing out there I would think that it's highly unlikely to execute an innocent man nowadays. I'm all for the death penalty. It shouldn't take ten years either.

Bubba Dawg
06-28-2009, 06:05 PM
With all the DNA testing out there I would think that it's highly unlikely to execute an innocent man nowadays. I'm all for the death penalty. It shouldn't take ten years either.

It's the DNA evidence that is being used to get some of the death row inmates off death row.

The Innocence Project has these statistics:


Facts on Post-Conviction DNA Exonerations

There have been 240 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States.

• The first DNA exoneration took place in 1989. Exonerations have been won in 34 states; since 2000, there have been 171 exonerations.

• 17 of the 240 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row.

• The average length of time served by exonerees is 12 years. The total number of years served is approximately 2,982.

• The average age of exonerees at the time of their wrongful convictions was 26.

Races of the 240 exonerees:

142 African Americans
70 Caucasians
21 Latinos
2 Asian American
5 whose race is unknown

• The true suspects and/or perpetrators have been identified in 104 of the DNA exoneration cases.

• Since 1989, there have been tens of thousands of cases where prime suspects were identified and pursued—until DNA testing (prior to conviction) proved that they were wrongly accused.

• In more than 25 percent of cases in a National Institute of Justice study, suspects were excluded once DNA testing was conducted during the criminal investigation (the study, conducted in 1995, included 10,060 cases where testing was performed by FBI labs).

• About half of the people exonerated through DNA testing have been financially compensated. 27 states, the federal government, and the District of Columbia have passed laws to compensate people who were wrongfully incarcerated. Awards under these statutes vary from state to state.

• 22 percent of cases closed by the Innocence Project since 2004 were closed because of lost or missing evidence.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/351.php#

Shannon
06-28-2009, 06:09 PM
I know. There's an old case that's making news down here. I know that it happened in the past. I'm just saying that the likelihood of executing an innocent person should be slim to none now.

SarasotaRepub
06-28-2009, 07:04 PM
Works for me...

http://symonsez.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/sparky.jpg


ZAP! ;)

Bubba Dawg
06-28-2009, 07:08 PM
That's true if there's DNA evidence. The old cases where there were exonerations were ones in which DNA evidence was available and not used because it was not available at the time or else the prosecutor chose not to use it.

wilbur
06-28-2009, 07:35 PM
I actually agree with the Catholic church on this issue...

There is no excuse, in a society with the resources and means to lock a person up indefinitely with no reasonable risk to the rest of society, to execute people. There simply is no justification for it... at all. Its a vestige of our more primitive nature, that we are right to shed. Strip away all the pretenses of "justice" etc, and you will realize we keep the death penalty around simply for the joy and for the glee of ourselves and of those victimized... but those are not good enough reasons, in my opinion, to kill a person. In fact, those are exactly the wrong reasons to kill a person..

wilbur
06-28-2009, 07:42 PM
Not only am I for it, but I think it should be public and back to hanging.. The deterrent effect of that would be excellent. This getting them hopped up on drugs before you administer the lethal dose crap is ridiculous.. That's like going to sleep and not waking up. If you beat a little kid to death or stab a woman or something like that, you should not be treated humanely. I'm just glad the prisons are playing along and allowing community time so that the other inmates have the opportunity to show the scumbags their opinion of their crime.

The reason I'm against life in prision is that prison in this country isn't something to dislike. It's like an all male country club-television, radio, magazines, a library, a weight room... I would support life sentences if they worked the inmates like dogs from sun up to sun down and made the time miserable for them, but sadly some felons welcome a stint in prison because it's 3 hots and a cot.

Yea prison is a walk in the park... we should all be so lucky to spend some time there..... just like a country club..

And you must be a big admirer of the way they do things in the middle east.... perhaps you should move there?

Troll
06-28-2009, 08:24 PM
In my opinion, prison should be a luxury. It should be a luxury afforded to thieves, and people who need to be punished and/or rehabilitated.

I find instead that we're turning the thieves loose, letting the unrepentant murderers spend their lives in prison, and only putting the truly heinous to death...after 10-20 years of prison. We are 'trying' to rehabilitate the un-rehabilitate-able and turning those who can be rehabilitated loose after a night in the slam.

I am completely for the death penalty.

This may be an extreme case, but I'm sure you all remember the case of Joseph E. Duncan III.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shasta_Groene


His first recorded sex crime occured in 1978 in his hometown of Tacoma, Washington, when he was 15-years-old. In that incident he raped a 9-year-old boy at gunpoint, and the following year he was arrested driving a stolen car.


in 1980 (also in Tacoma, Washington), Duncan stole a number of guns from a neighbor and then abducted a 14 year old boy and sodomized him at gunpoint.


In 2004, Duncan was charged with groping the genitals of a six-year-old boy.


According to Shasta Groene's police interview, Duncan killed her mother, older brother and her mother's fiance and then took her and her brother away


Her captor tied her mother's hands with nylon zip ties, and did the same to her mother's fiance and her brother Slade...Duncan then bludgeoned the three to death


Both Shasta and Dylan were removed to other locations, where they were repeatedly raped and molested for six weeks.


In August 2005, California cold case investigators connected a single fingerprint to Duncan in an unsolved homicide. The case, cold since 1997, is the murder of 10-year-old Anthony Michael Martinez

There's lots more to read at the link, but back to the point.

Some people cannot be rehabilitated. Ever. It takes a special kind of sick to rape boys at gunpoint. It takes a special kind of sick to kidnap, rape and torture kids after killing their families. A thousand years in prison won't make people like this sorry for what they've done, because they were just born bad. If they were capable of remorse, they wouldn't be capable of the actions above.

With respect to those who feel differently, keeping people like this alive in prison is indefensible. They can't be sad or sorry, they can't be rehabilitated, they can never repay their debt to society, we're keeping them alive primarily to please our own sensibilities. I say give them a fair trial, one appeal, then turn them into chum. We have enough nonviolent leeches feeding at the taxpayer's teat without letting raping, homicidal maniacs do it too.

Constitutionally Speaking
06-28-2009, 08:58 PM
I voted for, but I think there needs to be DNA evidence to enact it.

Teetop
06-28-2009, 10:17 PM
Although, I am for the death penalty, I also know there are people put to death that are innocent, as well. It's not a perfect system, but it's better than the "progressive/liberal" veiwpoint. Let them all have luxury in prison, and not serve a long sentence....

If you're convicted of murder and the DNA proves it, you have a two year appeal. If it's the other way, twenty year appeal or life in prison.

(Dis-claimer; I am not an attorney, nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn last night...)

FeebMaster
06-28-2009, 11:35 PM
I don't trust the government enough to give them that kind of power.

Teetop
06-28-2009, 11:42 PM
I don't trust the government enough to give them that kind of power.

And what about trusting the government, with being in charge of health care?

FeebMaster
06-28-2009, 11:43 PM
And what about trusting the government, with being in charge of health care?

I don't trust them with that either.

Teetop
06-28-2009, 11:48 PM
I don't trust them with that either.

I don't trust them with anything. They have shown that they cannot logically thing or reason with us "little" people.

Rockntractor
06-29-2009, 12:04 AM
When President obama has finished his changes we will envy the freedoms of the chinese.

AlmostThere
06-29-2009, 02:32 AM
Assuming I were innocent of the charges and after being convicted I was facing LWP or the death penalty. If I saw little to no chance of appeal. , given my druthers, I would choose the death penalty every time. It wouldn't even be a close call.

Question:
We've got a very bad man locked up for the rest of his life and the death penalty is not an option. What is his motivation to NOT be the most evil bastard he can be while he is locked up? He is already facing the most harsh punishment, so what the hell.

Regardless of what Wilbur says, I doubt glee and joy play any role in sentencing someone to death. Actually making the argument that joy and glee play a part is pretty asinine.

Lars1701a
06-29-2009, 02:33 AM
I actually agree with the Catholic church on this issue...

There is no excuse, in a society with the resources and means to lock a person up indefinitely with no reasonable risk to the rest of society, to execute people. There simply is no justification for it... at all. Its a vestige of our more primitive nature, that we are right to shed. Strip away all the pretenses of "justice" etc, and you will realize we keep the death penalty around simply for the joy and for the glee of ourselves and of those victimized... but those are not good enough reasons, in my opinion, to kill a person. In fact, those are exactly the wrong reasons to kill a person..

Ya but its alright to kill an unborn baby :rolleyes:


You are a well educated douche bag but a douche bag none the less.

NJCardFan
06-29-2009, 02:45 AM
Yea prison is a walk in the park... we should all be so lucky to spend some time there..... just like a country club..

And you must be a big admirer of the way they do things in the middle east.... perhaps you should move there?
Wilbur, trust me. Don't argue with me about prison. You will lose. Believe me, it's hardly punishment. Just with healthcare alone I bet they have ti better than you.

Lars1701a
06-29-2009, 03:07 AM
Wilbur is a flaming roid on humanities asshole.


You will side with a Church you dont believe in to save murderers but you wont side with them for unborn babies. :rolleyes

FlaGator
06-29-2009, 06:08 AM
Assuming I were innocent of the charges and after being convicted I was facing LWP or the death penalty. If I saw little to no chance of appeal. , given my druthers, I would choose the death penalty every time. It wouldn't even be a close call.

Question:
We've got a very bad man locked up for the rest of his life and the death penalty is not an option. What is his motivation to NOT be the most evil bastard he can be while he is locked up? He is already facing the most harsh punishment, so what the hell.

Regardless of what Wilbur says, I doubt glee and joy play any role in sentencing someone to death. Actually making the argument that joy and glee play a part is pretty asinine.

And knowing that he is going to die for his crimes, what motivation is there for him not to be evil while on death row? Knowing that he will probably receive the death penalty for certain crimes what are his motives for not killing every body in a robbery or every cop who tries to take him in or every hostage that he has in a stand off? He's got nothing to lose.

FeebMaster
06-29-2009, 07:30 AM
I don't trust them with anything. They have shown that they cannot logically thing or reason with us "little" people.

I'm happy to see the anarchist population of CU rising.

I wonder if it will last beyond they next presidential election.

stsinner
06-29-2009, 09:14 AM
And knowing that he is going to die for his crimes, what motivation is there for him not to be evil while on death row? Knowing that he will probably receive the death penalty for certain crimes what are his motives for not killing every body in a robbery or every cop who tries to take him in or every hostage that he has in a stand off? He's got nothing to lose.

This is my argument FOR Christianity. In my opinion, as the US becomes more and more secular, as people more and more aren't educated to the fact that they'll one day have to answer for their actions while on Earth, they no longer have the deterrent of knowing that they'll face judgment, so why not kill that person who wronged you.. Why not steal that money from that vulnerable relative... I think that returning to our Christian roots and the foundation of this country would go a long way toward lowering crime rates. In fact, it's pretty obvious that it would help a great deal.

Gingersnap
06-29-2009, 09:56 AM
The newer techniques of evidence gathering, CCTV, and other technologies makes me more comfortable with the death penalty now.

The problem with LWOP is that evil people continue to prey on victims in prison only their victims are other prisoners and we don't seem to care much about that. In the absence of a death penalty some murderers keep on murdering and some rapists keep on raping. Just the victim pool has changed.

I would reserve the death penalty for serial killers and child killers.

What I'd really like to see is hard time - chain gangs and prison farms. No TVs, no weight rooms, no conjugal visitations. I'd like the prisoners to be too tired from productive labor to be raping each other in the showers.

Jfor
06-29-2009, 10:15 AM
The newer techniques of evidence gathering, CCTV, and other technologies makes me more comfortable with the death penalty now.

The problem with LWOP is that evil people continue to prey on victims in prison only their victims are other prisoners and we don't seem to care much about that. In the absence of a death penalty some murderers keep on murdering and some rapists keep on raping. Just the victim pool has changed.

I would reserve the death penalty for serial killers and child killers.

What I'd really like to see is hard time - chain gangs and prison farms. No TVs, no weight rooms, no conjugal visitations. I'd like the prisoners to be too tired from productive labor to be raping each other in the showers.

You mean like back in the old days when prisons had to grow their own food and make do with what the inmates produced? I remember when chain gangs were brought back here in Alabama. The outcry was very loud. Folks were against it saying it was cruel and unusual punishment. Sadly, it didn't last very long.

FeebMaster
06-29-2009, 10:56 AM
The newer techniques of evidence gathering, CCTV, and other technologies makes me more comfortable with the death penalty now.

The problem with LWOP is that evil people continue to prey on victims in prison only their victims are other prisoners and we don't seem to care much about that. In the absence of a death penalty some murderers keep on murdering and some rapists keep on raping. Just the victim pool has changed.

I would reserve the death penalty for serial killers and child killers.

What I'd really like to see is hard time - chain gangs and prison farms. No TVs, no weight rooms, no conjugal visitations. I'd like the prisoners to be too tired from productive labor to be raping each other in the showers.

New technologies don't make the government any more trustworthy:


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/us/18dna.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&emc=eta1

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/nyregion/10dna.html?_r=1

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-rejects-dna-access-claim/

Gingersnap
06-29-2009, 11:00 AM
New technologies don't make the government any more trustworthy:


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/us/18dna.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&emc=eta1

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/nyregion/10dna.html?_r=1

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-rejects-dna-access-claim/


No, but they make my decision-making as a potential juror better. I can't control the DAs or the cops but I can understand the confidence levels behind scientific analyzes.

wilbur
06-29-2009, 12:28 PM
This is my argument FOR Christianity. In my opinion, as the US becomes more and more secular, as people more and more aren't educated to the fact that they'll one day have to answer for their actions while on Earth, they no longer have the deterrent of knowing that they'll face judgment, so why not kill that person who wronged you.. Why not steal that money from that vulnerable relative... I think that returning to our Christian roots and the foundation of this country would go a long way toward lowering crime rates. In fact, it's pretty obvious that it would help a great deal.

That only works if you hold the self deprecating judeo-christian view of human nature.. that human nature is inherently evil and destructive, and all good things that we are capable of are brought to us by some externally imposed law... good comes to us from the outside and not from our nature. If one doesn't hold such a masochistic view of human nature, this idea that we require accountability after death to be good becomes weak indeed.

Be wary of those who seem to think though, that if there is no 'lawgiver' that immediately means the most natural thing for them to do is to commit atrocities on their fellow man. Should such a person ever realize the flimsy evidence for the existence of their lawgiver... they might just be someone to avoid for a while.

FlaGator
06-29-2009, 12:33 PM
That only works if you hold the self deprecating judeo-christian view of human nature.. that human nature is inherently evil and destructive, and all good things that we are capable of are triumphs of some externally imposed law... that comes to us from the outside and not as a result of our nature. If one doesn't hold such a masochistic view of human nature, this idea of requiring accountability after death becomes ludicrous.

Be wary of those who seem to think though, that if there is no 'lawgiver' that immediately means the most natural thing for them to do is to commit atrocities on their fellow man. Should such a person ever realize the flimsy evidence for the existence of their lawgiver... they might just be someone to avoid for a while.

Atheism proves human nature is evil. Go ask the Cambodians what they think of the human nature unleased by atheism.

YupItsMe
06-29-2009, 12:41 PM
I actually agree with the Catholic church on this issue...

There is no excuse, in a society with the resources and multitudes of couples wanting children, to execute babies. There simply is no justification for it... at all. Its a vestige of our more primitive nature, that we are right to shed. Strip away all the pretenses of "hardship, health, etc, and you will realize we keep abortion around simply for the joy and for the glee of ourselves and of those victimized... but those are not good enough reasons, in my opinion, to kill a baby. In fact, those are exactly the wrong reasons to kill a baby..



All fixed now.

noonwitch
06-29-2009, 12:48 PM
I'm against it, but I understand why people want it. I never want to be on a jury facing that choice, and in Michigan, the only way I will be is if it is a murder that finds it's way into federal court.

The one death penalty case in a Michigan federal court I know of came from GR. It was ugly, too. A guy kidnapped his girlfriend, and killed her by tying her up and throwing her in a lake in the Manistee National Forest. Her baby was never found. I would have hated to be on the jury in that case-it's a brutal crime.

I'm not going to mourn the guy when Terra Haute finally gets to give him the needle, but I still don't like the death penalty because 1. we are human and make mistakes (not wanting the wrong guy executed) and 2. I really hate the way it sometimes just brings out the worst in people. Like when Florida fried Bundy and all the people were outside of the prison with the signs and t-shirts saying "Burn, baby Burn" and so on.

AlmostThere
06-29-2009, 12:56 PM
And knowing that he is going to die for his crimes, what motivation is there for him not to be evil while on death row? Knowing that he will probably receive the death penalty for certain crimes what are his motives for not killing every body in a robbery or every cop who tries to take him in or every hostage that he has in a stand off? He's got nothing to lose.

If a man knows that certain actions will get him a death sentence, and if that sentence is swift but fairly applied, would he be more or less likely to commit a death penalty offense? I would think less likely. If I read it correctly, your position argues that a possible death sentence might induce a criminal to commit further crimes. My position argues that it might induce fewer crimes. No matter which one of us is right, the outcome we expect shouldn't be the reason for or against the death penalty, at least in my opinion.

As a society we make laws to maintain order. At the far end of the spectrum we draw a line in the sand that says if you cross this line, you will pay the ultimate price, forfeiture of your life. This punishment should be because of the extraordinarily grievous harm caused by this crime. We can leave social scientists to argue whether the punishment was more or less likely to illicit a certain behavior. In the mean time a man who has willfully chosen to step over the final line has been held to account.

wilbur
06-29-2009, 01:04 PM
Atheism proves human nature is evil. Go ask the Cambodians what they think of the human nature unleased by atheism.

This worn out old canard only sounds compelling if you fail to grasp the other implications of a naturalistic view of human nature.

Aside from the bad parts of human nature, things like equality, human rights, compassion, empathy and reciprocity, altruism, a thirst for knowledge, desires to cooperate, the formation of laws and societies are also end products of our nature.

They are not gifts bestowed upon us from the outside.

wilbur
06-29-2009, 01:17 PM
All fixed now.

The sword cuts both ways....

One can equally wonder why so many who have such a professed value for human life can so enthusiastically support the death penalty... or how one can be so protective of non-sentient fetuses, yet support wars that will certainly lead to the utter destruction of thousands of sentient innocent lives and untold suffering for thousands more.

I don't ever try and make such arguments though, because I do make an effort to comprehend those points of view. I understand that its not necessarily logically contradictory to be pro-life on abortion, and pro-war or pro-death penalty even though the premises that got a person to such beliefs might be unsound. Depending on how one arrives at those beliefs, they can all be explicable and consistent.

If you truly made an effort to understand opposing viewpoints, you would realize there is nothing strange or baffling about someone who both is pro-choice, and anti-death penalty. Both, at their core, can be (and are in this case) positions born from a libertarian/conservative view of government and the limits of authority it can/should be entrusted with.

Gingersnap
06-29-2009, 01:20 PM
This worn out old canard only sounds compelling if you fail to grasp the other implications of a naturalistic view of human nature.

Aside from the bad parts of human nature, things like equality, human rights, compassion, empathy and reciprocity, altruism, a thirst for knowledge, desires to cooperate, the formation of laws and societies are also end products of our nature.

They are not gifts bestowed upon us from the outside.

And so are infanticide, selective starvation, eco-destruction, deception, the imposition of authority through brute force, rape, theft, and so on. All of those behaviors are seen frequently in natural populations along with many others that are even worse. Appealing to the better angels of human nature via naturalism is a pretty poor argument for naturalism.

Now, back to the death penalty.

wilbur
06-29-2009, 01:22 PM
If a man knows that certain actions will get him a death sentence, and if that sentence is swift but fairly applied, would he be more or less likely to commit a death penalty offense? I would think less likely. If I read it correctly, your position argues that a possible death sentence might induce a criminal to commit further crimes. My position argues that it might induce fewer crimes. No matter which one of us is right, the outcome we expect shouldn't be the reason for or against the death penalty, at least in my opinion.

As a society we make laws to maintain order. At the far end of the spectrum we draw a line in the sand that says if you cross this line, you will pay the ultimate price, forfeiture of your life. This punishment should be because of the extraordinarily grievous harm caused by this crime. We can leave social scientists to argue whether the punishment was more or less likely to illicit a certain behavior. In the mean time a man who has willfully chosen to step over the final line has been held to account.

I don't think its possible to have a death penalty that will be a compelling crime deterrent in any nation that gives sufficient due process.

I'm sure in places where they have swift public executions for all kinds of things, and little means for appeals, the death penalty makes a wonderful deterrent... but we've made a decision that the horrific injustices that result from such a situation far outweigh any benefit it may have to deter crime.

wilbur
06-29-2009, 01:31 PM
And so are infanticide, selective starvation, eco-destruction, deception, the imposition of authority through brute force, rape, theft, and so on. All of those behaviors are seen frequently in natural populations along with many others that are even worse. Appealing to the better angels of human nature via naturalism is a pretty poor argument for naturalism.


I beg to differ. None of these things are surprising under naturalism.. nor is it surprising that, overall, we tend to value the things that make us more successful.

The hard work here is cut out for the theologian who wants to support the notion that all powerful, all knowing, all good god despite the existence of all the very bad things you mention. A world such as this one is very puzzling indeed, if such a being exists.

*Split this into a new thread if you think it needs to be.

linda22003
06-29-2009, 03:14 PM
You will side with a Church you dont believe in to save murderers but you wont side with them for unborn babies. :rolleyes

I'm consistent. I don't side with them on either issue. Since I'm not Catholic, it doesn't apply to me in any case.

NJCardFan
06-29-2009, 03:17 PM
Here's one reason why I'm all for it: When NJ took it off the table, now an inmate can take me out with no retribution. What's to stop some lifer from taking me out? What are they going to give him, life? Answer me that you namby pambys.

Gingersnap
06-29-2009, 03:29 PM
I beg to differ. None of these things are surprising under naturalism.. nor is it surprising that, overall, we tend to value the things that make us more successful.

The hard work here is cut out for the theologian who wants to support the notion that all powerful, all knowing, all good god despite the existence of all the very bad things you mention. A world such as this one is very puzzling indeed, if such a being exists.

*Split this into a new thread if you think it needs to be.

:rolleyes:

You didn't invent the Problem of Evil, wilbur, nor is this the place to discuss it. Christians who have been instructed in their own faith are not puzzled by this question because we have studied it and our own doctrine.

Let's get back to the death penalty.

wilbur
06-29-2009, 04:00 PM
Here's one reason why I'm all for it: When NJ took it off the table, now an inmate can take me out with no retribution. What's to stop some lifer from taking me out? What are they going to give him, life? Answer me that you namby pambys.

Solitary.

wilbur
06-29-2009, 04:10 PM
:rolleyes:

You didn't invent the Problem of Evil, wilbur, nor is this the place to discuss it. Christians who have been instructed in their own faith are not puzzled by this question because we have studied it and our own doctrine.

Let's get back to the death penalty.

Do me a favor next time if you want to stop a tangent, do not try and rebut the point first, before shutting it down... it only invites more discussion.... its taking a lot of will to let your train of thought go unchallenged :)

megimoo
06-29-2009, 08:21 PM
Do me a favor next time if you want to stop a tangent, do not try and rebut the point first, before shutting it down... it only invites more discussion.... its taking a lot of will to let your train of thought go unchallenged :)Ah yes but then she holds the keys don't ch know !

Robert Karl
06-29-2009, 08:27 PM
Death penalty? Sure, why not?

But the victim's family gets to decide the method of execution, and the perpetrator's family gets to pay for it.

FlaGator
06-29-2009, 09:06 PM
This worn out old canard only sounds compelling if you fail to grasp the other implications of a naturalistic view of human nature.

Aside from the bad parts of human nature, things like equality, human rights, compassion, empathy and reciprocity, altruism, a thirst for knowledge, desires to cooperate, the formation of laws and societies are also end products of our nature.

They are not gifts bestowed upon us from the outside.

It is just as true today as it was yesterday. When man becomes his own source for moral behavior then there is no limits whether natural or imagined to curb behavior. History proves this point again and again. There has never been a benevolent dictatorship that didn't have it's basis in a higher power. There are, however, many examples of godless dictatorships that killed and imprisoned on horrific scales. I believe that in reality there are no examples of beneficial godless governments. Look at what happened during the French revolution once God was removed as the foundation of their morality.

FlaGator
06-29-2009, 09:29 PM
If a man knows that certain actions will get him a death sentence, and if that sentence is swift but fairly applied, would he be more or less likely to commit a death penalty offense? I would think less likely. If I read it correctly, your position argues that a possible death sentence might induce a criminal to commit further crimes. My position argues that it might induce fewer crimes. No matter which one of us is right, the outcome we expect shouldn't be the reason for or against the death penalty, at least in my opinion.

As a society we make laws to maintain order. At the far end of the spectrum we draw a line in the sand that says if you cross this line, you will pay the ultimate price, forfeiture of your life. This punishment should be because of the extraordinarily grievous harm caused by this crime. We can leave social scientists to argue whether the punishment was more or less likely to illicit a certain behavior. In the mean time a man who has willfully chosen to step over the final line has been held to account.

Lately I've been doing a lot of reading of the works of N.T. Wright and he presents a complex but what I believe to be a valid argument against all forms of violence whether government sanctioned or not. I am unable to present my understanding of it a just a few lines but he views violence in light of the Cross and the resurrection. God did give governments the authority to take life as long as it does so in a just manner, to criminals whose crimes are of a nature to warrant death. However, as a follower of Christ I am equally authorized to speak out against it and to say that I believe that Christ wouldn't approve of it.

The examples I used in my reply to you were meant to outline some possibilities that may be consequences of the certainty of death for some crimes. Christ is God and as Creator and a perfect judge only he is guaranteed to render a verdict that is completely trustworthy and just. Because of man's imperfection and inability to remain free from bias and corruption our justice is flawed. To jail a man for life based on a flawed or corrupt perception is one thing but to take a man's life is another thing all together. As Sonna pointed out, you can't say your sorry to a dead man. Modern western justice was founded on the belief that it is better for 10 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be imprisoned. Somehow or another we seem to have got that turned around. Life, the sacred gift of God, has become cheap.

</soapbox> :)

NJCardFan
06-29-2009, 09:40 PM
Solitary.
Oh, well. Does me a whole lot of good doesn't it. You think some skid is afraid of solitary?

Rockntractor
06-29-2009, 09:43 PM
5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it; and at the hand of man, even at the hand of every man's brother, will I require the life of man.
. 6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made He man.

Genesis Chapter 9 verse 6,7

wilbur
06-29-2009, 09:56 PM
Oh, well. Does me a whole lot of good doesn't it. You think some skid is afraid of solitary?

We could get more creative with consequences, I'm sure, that do not involve killing.

BTW, sounds like prison is a pretty frightful place... having to worry about being killed by lifers and all... so is it a good place to be or not?

FlaGator
06-29-2009, 09:59 PM
5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it; and at the hand of man, even at the hand of every man's brother, will I require the life of man.
. 6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made He man.

Genesis Chapter 9 verse 6,7

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'
But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.
If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

Jesus Matthew 5:38-45

Rockntractor
06-29-2009, 10:03 PM
"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'
But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.
If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

Jesus Matthew 5:38-45

These are commands to individuals. Vigilantism is never condoned

Teetop
06-29-2009, 10:23 PM
I'm happy to see the anarchist population of CU rising.

I wonder if it will last beyond they next presidential election.

:confused:

OH! Nuance=bullshit. I get it now.... :rolleyes:

I'm not an anarchist, I am sick of being lied to by those in office!

They all do, it. Look at SnObama. The most open government?

The "Most Ethical Congress"?

What happened to SnObama's promise of putting a bill up for a few days, online, before he signed it into law?!???? :confused:

FlaGator
06-29-2009, 10:25 PM
These are commands to individuals. Vigilantism is never condoned

I believe that I stated that the state has the God given right to take life. As a Christian I can state that taking life is the wrong choice. Just because the state has the authority doesn't mean that it has to wield it. Does it make a lot of sense to say "I forgive my enemy but I want the state to kill him?" If someone did you wrong, say they killed your child and the state left it up for you to decide, life or death, which would you choose?

Rockntractor
06-29-2009, 10:39 PM
If the state told me to make the choice I would have to choose death. It would be the victims right to forgive and they could no longer do so. I would have to take God at his word and require the murderers blood in payment.

Rockntractor
06-29-2009, 10:41 PM
Matt Henry did a good job on this one.
4. Wilful murderers must be put to death. This is the sin which is here designed to be restrained by the terror of punishment (1.) God will punish murderers: At the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man, that is, "I will avenge the blood of the murdered upon the murderer." 2 Chron. xxiv. 22. When God requires the life of a man at the hand of him that took it away unjustly, the murderer cannot render that, and therefore must render his own in lieu of it, which is the only way left of making restitution. Note, The righteous God will certainly make inquisition for blood, though men cannot or do not. One time or other, in this world or in the next, he will both discover concealed murders, which are hidden from man's eye, and punish avowed and justified murders, which are too great for man's hand. (2.) The magistrate must punish murderers (v. 6): Whoso sheddeth man's blood, whether upon a sudden provocation or having premeditated it (for rash anger is heart-murder as well as malice prepense, Matt. v. 21, 22), by man shall his blood be shed, that is, by the magistrate, or whoever is appointed or allowed to be the avenger of blood. There are those who are ministers of God for this purpose, to be a protection to the innocent, by being a terror to the malicious and evildoers, and they must not bear the sword in vain, Rom. xiii. 4. Before the flood, as it should seem by the story of Cain, God took the punishment of murder into his own hands; but now he committed this judgment to men, to masters of families at first, and afterwards to the heads of countries, who ought to be faithful to the trust reposed in them. Note, Wilful murder ought always to be punished with death. It is a sin which the Lord would not pardon in a prince (2 Kings xxiv. 3, 4), and which therefore a prince should not pardon in a subject. To this law there is a reason annexed: For in the image of God made he man at first. Man is a creature dear to his Creator, and therefore ought to be so to us. God put honour upon him, let not us then put contempt upon him. Such remains of God's image are still even upon fallen man as that he who unjustly kills a man defaces the image of God and does dishonour to him. When God allowed men to kill their beasts, yet he forbade them to kill their slaves; for these are of a much more noble and excellent nature, not only God's creatures, but his image, Jam. iii. 9. All men have something of the image of God upon them; but magistrates have, besides, the image of his power, and the saints the image of his holiness, and therefore those who shed the blood of princes or saints incur a double guilt
http://www.apostolic-churches.net/bible/mhc/MHC01009.HTM

FlaGator
06-29-2009, 10:59 PM
If the state told me to make the choice I would have to choose death. It would be the victims right to forgive and they could no longer do so. I would have to take God at his word and require the murderers blood in payment.

But Christ said
For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

That seems pretty cut and dry. I wrote something on my blog a while back about forgiveness being a fruit of the spirit. The reason that I believe this is that according to the above quote forgiveness is a requirement of redemption and since we can do nothing on our own to earn salvation then God must change us when he gives us the gift of grace that allows us to forgive those who otherwise would be unforgivable.

Here is the piece I wrote
http://anotherpilgrim.com/blog/blog6.php/2009/05/08/the-meaning-of-forgiveness

It has a little more detail in explaining my views on this. I wrote it about a year ago but put in on my blog last month. Sorry for the shameless plug :D

FeebMaster
06-29-2009, 11:33 PM
:confused:

OH! Nuance=bullshit. I get it now.... :rolleyes:

I'm not an anarchist, I am sick of being lied to by those in office!

Oh. I thought you were serious when you said you didn't trust them with anything.


They all do, it. Look at SnObama. The most open government?

The "Most Ethical Congress"?

What happened to SnObama's promise of putting a bill up for a few days, online, before he signed it into law?!???? :confused:

Are you surprised? I'm not.

MrsSmith
06-29-2009, 11:33 PM
But Christ said
For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

That seems pretty cut and dry. I wrote something on my blog a while back about forgiveness being a fruit of the spirit. The reason that I believe this is that according to the above quote forgiveness is a requirement of redemption and since we can do nothing on our own to earn salvation then God must change us when he gives us the gift of grace that allows us to forgive those who otherwise would be unforgivable.

Here is the piece I wrote
http://anotherpilgrim.com/blog/blog6.php/2009/05/08/the-meaning-of-forgiveness

It has a little more detail in explaining my views on this. I wrote it about a year ago but put in on my blog last month. Sorry for the shameless plug :D

I think the difference here is the pronoun "YOU." If someone murdered you, you aren't here to forgive them, or vote on their punishment.


"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'
But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.
If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

Again, each of these commandments says, "You." Christ does not tell us to let an evil person strike our child, take our neighbor's cloak, or make our spouse walk the 2 miles, etc. He never tells us to abdicate our responsibility to our family, our neighbors, etc.

MrsSmith
06-29-2009, 11:37 PM
That only works if you hold the self deprecating judeo-christian view of human nature.. that human nature is inherently evil and destructive, and all good things that we are capable of are brought to us by some externally imposed law... good comes to us from the outside and not from our nature. If one doesn't hold such a masochistic view of human nature, this idea that we require accountability after death to be good becomes weak indeed.

Be wary of those who seem to think though, that if there is no 'lawgiver' that immediately means the most natural thing for them to do is to commit atrocities on their fellow man. Should such a person ever realize the flimsy evidence for the existence of their lawgiver... they might just be someone to avoid for a while.

Let's see...wrong, wrong, and wrong. Typical. :rolleyes:

Teetop
06-29-2009, 11:37 PM
But Christ said
For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

That seems pretty cut and dry. I wrote something on my blog a while back about forgiveness being a fruit of the spirit. The reason that I believe this is that according to the above quote forgiveness is a requirement of redemption and since we can do nothing on our own to earn salvation then God must change us when he gives us the gift of grace that allows us to forgive those who otherwise would be unforgivable.

Here is the piece I wrote
http://anotherpilgrim.com/blog/blog6.php/2009/05/08/the-meaning-of-forgiveness

It has a little more detail in explaining my views on this. I wrote it about a year ago but put in on my blog last month. Sorry for the shameless plug :D

Be honest, if it was you or "him/her", what would you do? You would kill them, as I would. The commandment says, "thou shall not murder", not kill. Protection is not murder.

Exodus;20:13

Deuteronomy;5:17

Rockntractor
06-29-2009, 11:49 PM
Let's see...wrong, wrong, and wrong. Typical. :rolleyes:

What do you expect? Just give wilbur a little time he's evolving.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/evolution.gif?t=1246333665

Teetop
06-29-2009, 11:55 PM
What do you expect? Just give wilbur a little time he's evolving.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/evolution.gif?t=1246333665

You give him/her/it too much credit;

http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/imgsep01/amoebaproteus450.jpg

wilbur
06-30-2009, 12:00 AM
Let's see...wrong, wrong, and wrong. Typical. :rolleyes:


Nuh-uh!

RobJohnson
06-30-2009, 12:47 AM
I know. There's an old case that's making news down here. I know that it happened in the past. I'm just saying that the likelihood of executing an innocent person should be slim to none now.

I agree.

There still is the very slim chance that the lawyers, cops or judge made a mistake or are on the "take"

Some don't understand how we could kill someone to prove to them that killing is wrong....but I'm not sure what they don't understand. :D

FlaGator
06-30-2009, 07:33 AM
I think the difference here is the pronoun "YOU." If someone murdered you, you aren't here to forgive them, or vote on their punishment.



Again, each of these commandments says, "You." Christ does not tell us to let an evil person strike our child, take our neighbor's cloak, or make our spouse walk the 2 miles, etc. He never tells us to abdicate our responsibility to our family, our neighbors, etc.

Please read all of my posts. I said that the state has been given the right by God to use the death penalty. I also added that as Christians we are told that to take life is wrong. I am certain that God uses the governement to exercise His justice, but He also used the Babylonians as a tool of justice against the Judeans. That doesn't make Babylon's actions righteous, it just means that God can even use unrighteous behavior to his purposes.

This same state that has God's authority is also the same state that gives authority to doctors to use the sword against the unborn. Is that a righteous act as well? It is coming from the state and the state has been given the option of the sword.

To your last point, if our families and neighbors are following in the ways of Christ isn't the Lord speaking to them also when he says "you"? Aren't they under the same obligations to turn the other cheek? I can kill in order to protect my wife, but I am under obligation to die instead of protecting myself? If my wife is attacked and with both shoot the attacker is she now in defiance of the Lord and I am complying because I defended her (which you imply is ok) but she defended herself and thus did not turn the other cheek?