The Death Penalty

I am FOR the Death Penalty. It would make people responsible for their actions. I do believe in a fair trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but these days, too many people know that they can kill someone, get sentenced to 10 yrs, and be out on parol in 2 or 3, especially the ones who have lots of money. People would think twice before killing someone in cold blood if they knew they'll get to fry themselves.

[Edited on 11-3-2004 by quintar]

Is killing a rabid dog wrong?

The death penilty does one thing VERY well. It makes damn sure that the person does not harm anyone else.

You can say just give them life but even life without parole in most states is just 20 years. After 20 years you are released. And it does not stop you from killing or raping your pothead cellmate or exscaping prison and killing again.

Some humans are rabid, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, etc and no amount of bleeding heart liberalism is gonna change the fact.

We should just periodically congregate a portion of all of the capital offenders in one area and let them beat and rape the # out each other until there is no one left. How's that for a motivator to be an outstanding citizen?


Mr. M

All you pro-death penalty people: What do you propose to make it fair(er) to minorities...whites time and time again go to jail and blacks are killed. ?

I am not for the death penalty as far as a form of mass discipline. But I am for the death penalty for those that deserve revenge exacted upon them...

I used to be totally for the death penalty. More recently I just don't know.

I guess maybe, I'm just getting older and more emotional, sentimental about things, but I'm really not sure if killing somone for punishment is the right thing to do.

Originally posted by Shoktek
We shouldn't give anyone the right to decide if someone is to be given the death penalty unless there is a 100% foolproof way to do so fairly...and that is impossible.

As for if my child were murdered, I probably would feel like killing the person, but I wouldn't actually do it, or seek the death penalty...I don't think it would make anyone feel better, and the person who did it would have to think about it the rest of their life in a federal prison--they will suffer plenty in there for the crime, but not die.

And the teachings of Jesus were that you should never kill anyone. It clearly also says in the 10 commandments thou shalt not kill, and I dont think the government is given an exemption to that rule, as God will decide that person's fate.

Actual transliteration is "murder", not kill.
The same Bible makes it clear that the government has the sword, and not for no reason.
Christ did not come to do away with the law, but to fulfill it, and it is perfectly clear that capital punishment was justified and demanded by God. While we are to forgive, and while God has the final judgement on the sould, this in no way means that capital punishment is unbiblical

I am against capital punishment.

Teh best justice is not a swift and painless death, it is years and years of rotting in prison, with next to no civil liberties...followed by death by natural causes (slow, and frequently painful) in prison.

Thomas Crown, there is only one problem with your argument and that is that an individual from our ranks has to be the one who weilds the sword.

[Edited on 12-3-2004 by Lukefj]

Originally posted by Shoktek
All you pro-death penalty people: What do you propose to make it fair(er) to minorities...whites time and time again go to jail and blacks are killed. ?

Well I propose that the party, regardless if they're a minority or not, be put to death if found guilty.

It would seem that capitol punishment is rooted in religion, much like many of our laws. That seems to be how a lot of the supporters justify it, anyway. People keep falling back on the old 'eye for an eye' philosophy.

However, I agree with many of you here. The possibility for human error always exists, and taking that into consideration, there is always a possibility (no matter how small) that an error was made. In fact, errors HAVE been made, and innocent people have died.

I just dont think that its any other persons place to decide when someone else dies, and you can place any label you want on that. Call it murder, revenge, killing, whatever.

So the people that interject with religious philosophy should look at it this way: The person who did it will get what they 'deserve', won't they?

And what about if the person eventually asks for forgiveness, and god forgives them? What if they would have, but they got capital punishment, and never got a chance to reflect on thier crime and ask for forgiveness? Thats a religious paradox of sorts.



By the way, there is an excellent movie on the subject called 'The life of David Gale'.

In the U.S., all "law" is based upon our Christian foundation. Mind you, don't get law confused with statutes, codes and regulations.

As far as a paradox, no there is no paradox. Your forgiveness by God means that you've accepted His Son and that your soul is secure. That does not mean that you are absolved of responsibility or repercussons of wrongdoings. By your figuring, a Christian should not even have to go to court because of a crime, as all he has to do is ask forgiveness from his Father. Nope, again, studying the Bible for one's self, not getting soundbites hear and there, will clarify many things.

Originally posted by bolshevik
i dont think anyone is born evil (the term evil itself is simplistic to the point of absurdity) but that people become unlawful due to outside influence

People become unlawful through the choices they make via their free will. Unless you believe in the philosophy of humans being entirely directed by stimuli of their sensibilities, making them more or less automata then you have to accept some degree of free will. Thus with free will established individual responsiblity for your actions logically follows.

This is excused by relativist liberals using for example a criminal being a product of their environment, the reasonably evident fact of free will is ignored or played down.

Now having commited a crime via free will and needing accept little or no responsiblity results in a society where the victim is often or always suffers more than the perpetrator. How ever you look at that its just plain retarded.
Prisoners recieving a free education and not having to work when fulltime working law abiders may not be able to afford an education.

One thing G Bush has got right is there IS good and evil and it can clearly be defined by its actions.

For the question of blacks being more likely to get the DP than whites, once again if they commited the crime who cares? They have recieved just punishment. The question is why are whites getting let off?

The problem with liberals is its always for them a question of ultimate utopian justice which is unnatainable and often contradictory:
Social justice (welfare) doesnt work it steals in the name of justice and has done little to help poverty.
Affirmative action is racist in the name of anti-racism.

You cant in the current criminal justice system account for prejudice in the minds of jurors and prosecutors, and thanks to this you cant expect to attain equality between race when there is variation in sentencing. So by liberal sentencing liberals come full circle and get an end result of inequality between races in the criminal justice system.
Now if they had just accepted a flat rate death penalty on 1st degree murder they would never have encountered this problem.
Stupid liberals

As for innocents being killed well, its unfortunate but you just have to accept it in the same way we accept innocents are imprisoned.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
In the U.S., all "law" is based upon our Christian foundation. Mind you, don't get law confused with statutes, codes and regulations.

YOU ARE FREAKIN SCARY Thomas!!! I'm just curious about something, even though I think I know the answer anyway. When you use The Bible for evidence in supporting your argument, are you talking about the OT or NT??

By your figuring, a Christian should not even have to go to court because of a crime, as all he has to do is ask forgiveness from his Father. Nope, again, studying the Bible for one's self, not getting soundbites hear and there, will clarify many things.

Actually, anyone who does go to court or is accused for a crime should not, in the eyes of the Law, be seen as anything but a Man or Woman. The 'Law of Man' which is claiming judgment over this Man/Woman should not be concerned or influenced by their Spirituality or lack thereof. At the same time, the Christian should be aware of the fact that the 'Law of Man' is not the one to worry about when it comes to Judgment anyway.

If the 'Law of Man' is True and Just it should be the same as Gods Law if it too is True and Just. If the Law of Man is corrupt, and is wrong in it's Judgment, it is limited to punishing the Body only and not the soul. Personally, I would think a True Christian would know beyond any doubt that it's God's Law that will have the final word, and if True and Just, should be priority regardless to any 'Law of Man'.

Societies Laws are made by Man and may or may not be True or Just in their workings, just as man himself is not always True or Just in their workings. Therefore, unless you view Societies Laws to be the Highest Authority, they should not compromise your actions.

by Amuk
The death penalty does one thing VERY well. It makes damn sure that the person does not harm anyone else.

I'm certainly not going to argue the truth of that statement. However, if that is the best idea we can come up with it only proves the human race as the most unintelligent, unimaginative, uncreative & unadaptable creature to have ever lived. To have been blessed with so much potential both mentally & physically, yet fall so short in the way we live, would show only how pathetic, primitive and barbaric we really are.

We should be able to Protect others from harm without having to Premtively Identify, Locate and Destroy any and all possibilities which might harm others. As far as repeat offenses go, that is more the result of 'failure to protect' others from an already detained individual. That doesn't make sense, unless we admit that with all our combined effort and ability, we cannot contain a single person effectively, and therefore shouldn't be entrusted to protect anyone in the first place.

EDIT: Spelling Check....

[Edited on 13-3-2004 by mOjOm]

Biblical references are probably less relevant than understanding of brain chemistry.

I listened to a radio interview just a couple of days back. The subject considered that the death penalty would not be eliminated in the US till close to the turn of the century (2100 A.D.)

Roll on executions.

i'm for the death penalty. first of all god has to be excluded from this. and if you were a christian then wouldnt the death penalty make sense? becuase gods court is the only one that matters and blah blah. i have a plauqe hanging in my living room that says "if ye do well and suffer for it take it patiently- this is acceptable with god"

also the punishment wouldnt be "barbaric" or uncivilized if the crime wasnt uncivilized. you must understand that as long as there is someone out there who commits these crimes there has to be punishment. just like thier cant be world piece if even just 1 nation still wants to fight. heres a different quote for you thant the old eye for an eye. "fight fire with fire" if someone punches you, punch them back. if someone murders someone murder them back. you cant use the ol "god says thou shalt not kill" bull crap cause religion cant interfere with government matters. also you cant even prove god said such a thing or that god even exists. anyway yes there are mistakes made but havent we always sacrificed the few for the good of the whole?

matter of fact you should make all felony charges just have one penalty. DEATH. think about it. we have all seen movies about prison and watched the tv show oz. do people get reabilitated in prison? do they learn the error of their ways? no they rape each other and fight and cuss and in most cases get worse then when they went in. if there were such severe punishments one of two things would happen. 1. no one would commit crimes for fear of being killed. 2. they would become smarter at their crimes and not get caught. which one is more plausible?

i saw someone up there say "It's like hitting your child to punish them for hitting
- what exactly is that teaching??? "

well its teaching them that if they hit someone they will get hit back. no one wants to be hit therefore they will not hit someone. what does talking to them do? o no not the dreaded talking to!!! anything but that!

also what is with this lethal injection? they sterlize the needle! for the love of god the person is going to dye you dont have to worry about the damn needle. i'm not going to look it up but i think the injection cost about 84 dollars. a shotgun shell cost about 21 cents.

"We should be able to Protect others from harm without having to Premtively Identify, Locate and Destroy any and all possibilities which might harm others." by mojom.

i agree we SHOULD be able to protect people like that but its obvious we cant. therefore our current situation. if someone is attacking you what is the best way to make them stop? by turning the tables on them. if we wait for an attack that will not make the attack not happen. or make it anymore right. people are still going to kill and get killed. if i knew i was going to fight someone and i mean i knew. they were squared off with me and in my face i would definetly punch first. i wouldnt wait for him to hit me in the face. maybe you have some revolutionary way i dont know about.

maybe we should be considering why our society still seems to produce criminals instead of how we handle them. and no you cant blame how we punish the current criminals on why people become criminals in the first place. if we are so civilized why are we still killing each other in the first place. also who are you to say this is not the dark age. a person from the far distant future may refer to our time as a horrible stupid and dark time.

its like slavery. you look back on it and you say man. how could they do such a thing. well thats how it was then. if you were alive in their time you would also be guilty. how could people go to the bathroom without toliet paper? well if thats all you knew than thats how it is. unless you can think of a better way to punish criminals and no putting them in jail is not punishment a roof over your head, 3 meals a day a bed to sleep in. if that is punishment what the hell is being a homeless person? what the # are they being punished for.

Originally posted by The Fifth Column

People become unlawful through the choices they make via their free will. Unless you believe in the philosophy of humans being entirely directed by stimuli of their sensibilities, making them more or less automata then you have to accept some degree of free will. Thus with free will established individual responsiblity for your actions logically follows.

This is excused by relativist liberals using for example a criminal being a product of their environment, the reasonably evident fact of free will is ignored or played down.

Now having commited a crime via free will and needing accept little or no responsiblity results in a society where the victim is often or always suffers more than the perpetrator. How ever you look at that its just plain retarded.
Prisoners recieving a free education and not having to work when fulltime working law abiders may not be able to afford an education.

One thing G Bush has got right is there IS good and evil and it can clearly be defined by its actions.

For the question of blacks being more likely to get the DP than whites, once again if they commited the crime who cares? They have recieved just punishment. The question is why are whites getting let off?

The problem with liberals is its always for them a question of ultimate utopian justice which is unnatainable and often contradictory:
Social justice (welfare) doesnt work it steals in the name of justice and has done little to help poverty.
Affirmative action is racist in the name of anti-racism.

You cant in the current criminal justice system account for prejudice in the minds of jurors and prosecutors, and thanks to this you cant expect to attain equality between race when there is variation in sentencing. So by liberal sentencing liberals come full circle and get an end result of inequality between races in the criminal justice system.
Now if they had just accepted a flat rate death penalty on 1st degree murder they would never have encountered this problem.
Stupid liberals

As for innocents being killed well, its unfortunate but you just have to accept it in the same way we accept innocents are imprisoned.

there is a issue of free will i agree, but our ability to make informed, reasonable decision is at the mercy of experience and learned truths (or untruths as the case may be). im sure that you can look at the people around you and see how they influenced your socio-political beliefs; its the same with criminals.

to state otherwise is to argue that people are born evil and to me this sounds absurd - by definition wouldnt that require a gene for evilness?

the deviant mindset of criminals means that the education system in prisons is entirely necessary to provide people with the sound influences they lacked previously. this is the only way to rehabilitate people back into society. the only other option is for society to give up on people who are imprisoned. indeed, if people who commit crims are 'evil' then does that mean a teenager imprisoned for robbery should spend his entire life incarcerated?

i also cannot agree with your statement that social justice doesnt help the poor. the sole purpose of progressive taxation is to redistribute wealth through programmes such as housing benefit, single parents benefit, unmeployment benefit, state pensions and disability benefit. what are they if not beneficial to the poor?

your statement that taxation steals in the name of justice is interestin. have you read'anarchy, state and utopia' by Nozick? that idea is his central premise. i personally dont like that idea. i think that people have a moral responsibilty to help the rest of society whenever possible. im always puzzled at how rightwing people can be fiercly patriotic, yet at the same time be happy to sit back with their $millions whilst their fellow countrymen starve.

Originally posted by hmmm
i'm for the death penalty. first of all god has to be excluded from this. and if you were a christian then wouldnt the death penalty make sense? becuase gods court is the only one that matters and blah blah. i have a plauqe hanging in my living room that says "if ye do well and suffer for it take it patiently- this is acceptable with god"

also the punishment wouldnt be "barbaric" or uncivilized if the crime wasnt uncivilized. you must understand that as long as there is someone out there who commits these crimes there has to be punishment. just like thier cant be world piece if even just 1 nation still wants to fight. heres a different quote for you thant the old eye for an eye. "fight fire with fire" if someone punches you, punch them back. if someone murders someone murder them back. you cant use the ol "god says thou shalt not kill" bull crap cause religion cant interfere with government matters. also you cant even prove god said such a thing or that god even exists. anyway yes there are mistakes made but havent we always sacrificed the few for the good of the whole?

Ok, first of all, I'm with you 100% on removing God and/or Religious Policy from the situation. I was going in to that before only because it was addressed to TC. I totally agree that Religion shouldn't get twisted into Legal Matters.

The Barbaric thing wasn't about our punishments being barbaric. I mean the fact that the entire human race, with all this time of learning, and all our abilities should be able to confront the problems of Crimes within Society, namely murder, rape, etc., with a more intelligent, productive and beneficial way than simply the primative solution of 'Destroy It'. Just killing everybody for not doing what they should does work in removing them from the equation from then on, no arguement there. However, this is the same type of thinking that would lead one to believe that the best way to protect the Cats is to Destroy all the Dogs . I know that example is kinda goofy, but do you see the point behind it? While it would work in Protecting Cats from Dogs from then on, it's a very simple minded and Barbaric method to use, and I personally think Mankind can do better.

Fight Fire with Fire huh...Well, like your example, someone hits you and you hit back, is everything fair or the problem of attacking another solved now? I suppose you wouldn't complain and would totally fine with having one of your eyes plucked out as long as the same happened to me then, right? That's fair isn't it?

What if I give up an eye and a nose, are you ok with it then? Does any amount of my punishment make up for your loss? No, cause what you've lost, you can't get back from taking from another. Punishment, like what we are talking about doesn't achieve anything but a 'Duplicate' occurance of the original InJustice. People get severe bites by large dogs so we strive toward keeping people safe so they cannot get bit. The alternative would be to simply kill all Large Dogs with Deadly Biting capability. Both are valid options, but one method is designed to 'Protect' while the other is to 'Destroy', but both trying to achieve Safety.

matter of fact you should make all felony charges just have one penalty. DEATH. think about it. we have all seen movies about prison and watched the tv show oz. do people get reabilitated in prison? do they learn the error of their ways? no they rape each other and fight and cuss and in most cases get worse then when they went in. if there were such severe punishments one of two things would happen. 1. no one would commit crimes for fear of being killed. 2. they would become smarter at their crimes and not get caught. which one is more plausible?

Yeah, that worked well in the past didn't it? Public torture and punishment was very active than in our history, yet for some reason it didn't solve the problem then either. During public burnings it was common for the crowds to become wildly facinated with the suffering of another. In fact, on rare occasions the 'soon to be toasted' prisoner would actually plead a successfull Be-Heading somehow as to escape some of the horrific pain of burning. Upon hearing this the crowd, who are usually all just spectators and not the vicitims BTW, would feel so cheated out of thier Show of Death and Pain and Torture they would often riot in attempt to linch not only the original prisoner before he got off with just a quick death, but also the one who showed sympathy by giving him quick death instead of burning. Somehow, I doubt people have changed much and using Punishment and Horrific Torture as Entertainment or Public Display of Justice just doesn't seem the smartest way to Promote Peace.

i agree we SHOULD be able to protect people like that but its obvious we cant. therefore our current situation. if someone is attacking you what is the best way to make them stop? by turning the tables on them. if we wait for an attack that will not make the attack not happen. or make it anymore right. people are still going to kill and get killed. if i knew i was going to fight someone and i mean i knew. they were squared off with me and in my face i would definetly punch first. i wouldnt wait for him to hit me in the face. maybe you have some revolutionary way i dont know about.

We aren't talking about someone in the act of attacking or killing someone. We are talking about someone who IS already convicted and contained. By not killing them in an act of Revenge, calling it Justice, that doesn't mean we allow him to continue or repeat his crime again. History and current reality continues to prove that for whatever reason, people can either Make a Strong Defence or Provide a Strong Attack when it comes to Society and Laws. It sucks, but it's true. We just can't seem to balance the duality successfully, I wish it wasn't true either. Just look at Police Motto, 'To serve and protect'. Well, yah kinda I guess, but more like 'To Serve and Protect' & 'To Pursue and Arrest'. We just have to hope, as citizens, that they remember to do the first part too.

maybe we should be considering why our society still seems to produce criminals instead of how we handle them.

NOW YOU'RE THINKING!!!! That statement almost makes up for some of the spooky sh*t you posted before it.

The death penalty is NOT a deterent for crime. That is the one thing that it should do, but it does not.

I can not be for the death penalty because if you look at just the errors in the judicial system alone you too should be against it.

Punishment is not death, it is life, and a hard one at that. Would it not be better to let them live in sub-human conditions making them contribute something by working like slaves?

I think so.

I would just like to add...anyone who truely believes that the bible promotes "eye for an eye" and murder as revenge, therefore justifying it, would you be willing to commit this SIN and still be comfortable when you die that you will go to heaven? And giving the power of the sword etc. to the government basically means they have the right to use force to keep people in line, but not to execute people..any govt. members that have a part in someone's execution, I believe, have murdered...

There is a great story to differentiate between murder and justice in the old testiment.

But that applies to men rather than a function of man (i.e. the government). Although Christ came to "uphold" the Mosaic principles, he served to change it only for those who followed him.

Therefore, Christian are to love people and hate the sin. Making the death penalty wrong.