NEWS: George Bush Strongly Supports Death Penalty

As worldwide support for the death penalty wanes, the white house has reported that George Bush still strongly supports the death Penalty in a statement issued just hours after convicted killer Kenneth Boyd was put to death by lethal injection in North Carolina. Boyd was the 1000 prisoner to be put to death in the USA since the re introduction of the death penalty in 1976. White House spokesman Scott McClellan announced that Bush strongly supports the death penalty because he believes it ultimately saves innocent lives.



Until there is irrefutable proof of a person guilt with full DNA and confessions then the death penalty can be a dangerous issue. I do not speak of the guilty ones but there is a percentage of people throughout the time since 1976 who have been proven innocent after their sentence was carried out and doubt cast on other cases.


Related News Links:
www.kltv.com
news.bbc.co.uk
www.commondreams.org

[edit on 2-12-2005 by Mayet]

How very Christ like of him...
anti that is...


Personally, I support the death penalty, but only in the most proven cases... otherwise, it is a better punishment to put them in regular prison population for life.



[edit on 2-12-2005 by LazarusTheLong]

This really isn't news, it's widely known that Bush has always been a strong supporter of the death penalty, as governor of Texas he signed a lot of death warrants.

While the death penalty may not be so popular in the rest of the world, it enjoys broad support among the U.S. population:

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. April 21-24, 2005. N=1,082 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.

.

"Do you favor or oppose the death penalty for persons convicted of murder?"

.

Favor% Oppose% Unsure%
4/21-24/05 65 29 6
5/02 65 26 9
4/01 63 28 9
6/00 63 27 10
1/00 64 27 9
8/98 69 27 4
8/96 77 19 4


www.pollingreport.com...

[edit on 12/2/2005 by djohnsto77]

Here's my guess:

This just throws out the window, the idea that God talks to Bush.

this sucks now i have to think about this because i originally thought it was right to put sure killers to death...but bush said its the right thing....now i cant be so sure lol.

on a serious note, ive done alot of research into this for a debate i did and well, the system is messed up when it comes to death penalty cases. that is irrelevent as far as this topic goes. this is just a matter of whether or not you think its right, which i, think in proven cases it is.

(would you believe a guy can be proven set in stone he killed people, and he will still get an auto appeal even if he doesnt ask for it? people complain how the cases cost so much money, that in fact is the systems fault. actually putting them to death cost less, but the trial is made so expensive because of the way the system works)

Originally posted by djohnsto77
This really isn't news, it's widely known that Bush has always been a strong supporter of the death penalty, as governor of Texas he signed a lot of death warrants.
While the death penalty may not be so popular in the rest of the world, it enjoys broad support among the U.S. population:

Exactly

I thought everyone knew this. Hell, during the first election I remember this being a concern, especially the young and handicapped that he had executed...How quick we forget.

I like your stats, it proves that most Americans have no reason to whine when they are lumped in with the likes of these countries.

4. Retentionist

Countries and territories which retain the death penalty for ordinary crimes

AFGHANISTAN, ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, BAHAMAS, BANGLADESH, BARBADOS, BELARUS, BELIZE, BOTSWANA, BURUNDI, CAMEROON, CHAD, CHINA, COMOROS, CONGO (Democratic Republic), CUBA, DOMINICA, EGYPT, EQUATORIAL GUINEA, ERITREA, ETHIOPIA, GABON, GHANA, GUATEMALA, GUINEA, GUYANA, INDIA, INDONESIA, IRAN, IRAQ, JAMAICA, JAPAN, JORDAN, KAZAKSTAN, KOREA (North), KOREA (South), KUWAIT, KYRGYZSTAN, LAOS, LEBANON, LESOTHO, LIBYA, MALAWI, MALAYSIA, MONGOLIA, NIGERIA, OMAN, PAKISTAN, PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY, PHILIPPINES, QATAR, RWANDA, SAINT CHRISTOPHER & NEVIS, SAINT LUCIA, SAINT VINCENT & GRENADINES, SAUDI ARABIA, SIERRA LEONE, SINGAPORE, SOMALIA, SUDAN, SWAZILAND, SYRIA, TAIWAN, TAJIKISTAN, TANZANIA, THAILAND, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, UGANDA, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UZBEKISTAN, VIET NAM, YEMEN, ZAMBIA, ZIMBABWE.

web.amnesty.org...

Not surprised. After reading about his papa in "George Bush The Unauthorized Biography" I am now convinced that the Bush Regime will be a synonym of the Hitler Regime.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
This really isn't news, it's widely known that Bush has always been a strong supporter of the death penalty, as governor of Texas he signed a lot of death warrants.

Not news to you possibly but can you say the same of the many other people worldwide reading the article?

Originally posted by bodebliss
Here's my guess:

This just throws out the window, the idea that God talks to Bush.

How so, bodebliss?
Just so that you can come to some understanding of what you have mentioned, quoted above, try these:
The death penalty in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament)
The death penalty/ capital punishment in the Chritian Scriptures (New Testament)
The Death Penalty Debate: Extensive Religious Section Included





seekerof

"The President strongly supports the death penalty because he believes, ultimately, it helps save innocent lives," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

and my favorite part

"When it's administered fairly and swiftly and surely, it serves as a deterrent and it saves innocent lives. And that's why the President has been a strong supporter of it."

Innocent lives ? the victims ? well they are gonna live anyways, the guilty ? well he is losing his life so what the .. ?
Do they even realize how dumb this sounds ?

Ohhhhh yeah wait, the "potential" victims if this man should live, right right
Yeah he is a big supporter of preventing things happening before they happen huh ? lol gimme an effin break.


[edit on 2-12-2005 by ImJaded]

He's talking about the death penalty as a deterrent to crime. If it truly is, then people who would have committed murder against innocent victims won't do it because of fear of the death penalty, thus, by this logic, innocent lives are saved.

Not too difficult to understand.

That doesn't work and it is crystal clear that it doesn't. Criminals are going to commit crimes no matter the punishment, why ? Because they simply don't care about the aftermath.

Look at Singapore's figures, they do it all the time, like it's for fun, they just hung yet another drug trafficker, he was all cool calm n collect before his hanging. He did not care and nor will the next nor the next and so on. Because they KNOW what they're doing and what the punishment is. Would U continue something knowing U would die for it ? I'm gonna assume and say no, these people know and yet they continue so what does that tell U ?

But hey if killing people is their solution to people messing up, cool.

*shrugs*

Originally posted by ImJaded
That doesn't work and it is crystal clear that it doesn't. Criminals are going to commit crimes no matter the punishment, why ? Because they simply don't care about the aftermath.

Look at Singapore's figures, they do it all the time, like it's for fun, they just hung yet another drug trafficker, he was all cool calm n collect before his hanging. He did not care and nor will the next nor the next and so on. Because they KNOW what they're doing and what the punishment is. Would U continue something knowing U would die for it ? I'm gonna assume and say no, these people know and yet they continue so what does that tell U ?

But hey if killing people is their solution to people messing up, cool.

*shrugs*

I think its ludicrous to compare the death penalty situation in Singapore to that of the United States. For starters, we don't execute people for bringing drugs into our country alone. Our death penalties are issued only after an often unanimous vote (varies by state I believe) by the same jury which has seen all the relevant facts of the case, and even then the presiding Judge can choose to ignore the Jury's suggestion and issue a life sentence. After that, the appeal process is so long and drawn out, with so many opportunities given to the condemned murderer, that they have a much better chance of dying on death row than actually being executed. Even after the appeals process has been fully exhausted, clemency can, and has in the past, be granted by a governor or the president.

Furthermore, our criminal justice system and the rights given to offenders are far better than that of Singapore. We also don't use the cain! So, I agree that bringing up Singapore is a good argument against the death penalty... in SINGAPORE! Not in the US, however.

All that being said, I'm not even going to say whether or not I support the death penalty. And believe me, you'd likely be surprised by my opinion on it.

Seekerof; how do those passages by Jesus indicate that he supported the death penalty when he never states that he does?

The website you pointed us to does nothing but make assumptions about what Jesus' true intentions were. In fact what he did in fact say concerning violence and death completely contradicts the idea of taking life for any reason. The most resounding theme in what he was saying is that only God has the right to take life, simply because only he can truly know the guilt of a man and thus judge him.

Romans 12:19-21

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave itto the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20 To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

But accordong to that web page this only applies to interpersonal relationship, and not to the state. This assertion is of course ridiculous because that state is not some abstract entitybut rather a collection of individuals therfore what he said must always apply.

I would also like to know how a religion that starts off with the capital punishment of the worlds most holy man, and whose early history is full of arbritary and cruel death sentences for its memebers can be reconciled with the idea that capital punishment is good or even lawful?

If you believe that the death penalty works, and it is a good idea then by all means argue its benefits. But you cannot justify it with a religion that has at its core the idea of turning the other cheek and non-violence. Any Christian that advocates violence is in my opinion living a contradiction, and is going against the very message it brings to the world.

As for Mosiac Law, that cannot be a justification for the death penalty under Christianity because as Jesus demonstrated time and time again there were many things about the old ways that he had come to challenge. The final Authority comes not from Moses but from Jesus.




[edit on 2-12-2005 by TheEXone]

Congratulations. You just piped Iran, China and Pakistan in executions this year.

Never mind the death of the old 'yins. Don't get too disheartened. You're still right up there with all the other countries that refused to ratify "The Rights of the Child”; China, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia. They all like killing their young too, and the good old USA is among the top for killing juveniles!


It'd bring a tear to a glass eye...

Originally posted by TheEXone
Seekerof; how do those passages by Jesus indicate that he supported the death penalty when he never states that he does?

I guess you missed that WWJD (What would Jesus do) given in one of those links?

Jesus=God?
You missed those God references also?






seekerof

Originally posted by kegs
They all like killing their young too, and the good old USA is among the top for killing juveniles!

Huh? The Supreme Court banned the execution of anyone under the age of 18 in March.

www.washingtonpost.com...

March 2005? Please tell me you mean before that. Seriously. I'd love to hear it was before that.

[edit on 2-12-2005 by kegs]

Originally posted by kegs
March 2005? Please tell me you mean before that. Seriously. I'd love to hear it was before that.

This year. Before that some states had the death penalty for 16 and 17 year olds. But only a total of 22 were executed since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976.

So you mean March. This year. 2005.




Semantics mean nothing when it comes to execution.


The list still stands. These are the countries you stand with on the death penalty. Like it or not. You do.