Help stop an execution (scheduled for July 12)

[abadsign]

a cut and paste on an urgent matter.

it doesn't matter where you live, your letters to this state's governor can make a difference.

http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/siteapps/advocacy/index.aspx?c=goJTI0OvElH&b=953489&template=x.ascx&action=7056
[FONT=arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif]
Please take action to prevent Rocky Barton from being executed in Ohio on Wednesday. Rocky shot his wife Kimbirli and then shot himself in the head with a shotgun, but survived. At the trial Mr. Barton asked to be executed and did not allow his defense team to present any mitigating evidence that might have spared him the death sentence.

On a mandatory appeal the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that there was no need to inquire about Barton's mental competence and that his statement asking for the death penalty was sufficient. Two justices dissented saying "It is difficult to imagine more compelling indicia of incompetence" than a defendant asking to be executed and "I do not believe that the facts of this case justify imposing a sentence of death. The murder that Barton committed was heinous, and his guilt is undeniable, but Barton's crime is not deathworthy... This case involves a hot-blooded domestic killing."

Please remind Governor Taft that just as the state makes every effort to stop a death row inmate from committing suicide, so too it must stop the state-assisted suicide of "volunteering."

[/FONT]http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/siteapps/advocacy/index.aspx?c=goJTI0OvElH&b=953489&template=x.ascx&action=7056

 

[Im_A]

a cut and paste on an urgent matter.

it doesn't matter where you live, your letters to this state's governor can make a difference.

http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/siteapps/advocacy/index.aspx?c=goJTI0OvElH&b=953489&template=x.ascx&action=7056
[FONT=arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif]
Please take action to prevent Rocky Barton from being executed in Ohio on Wednesday. Rocky shot his wife Kimbirli and then shot himself in the head with a shotgun, but survived. At the trial Mr. Barton asked to be executed and did not allow his defense team to present any mitigating evidence that might have spared him the death sentence.

On a mandatory appeal the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that there was no need to inquire about Barton's mental competence and that his statement asking for the death penalty was sufficient. Two justices dissented saying "It is difficult to imagine more compelling indicia of incompetence" than a defendant asking to be executed and "I do not believe that the facts of this case justify imposing a sentence of death. The murder that Barton committed was heinous, and his guilt is undeniable, but Barton's crime is not deathworthy... This case involves a hot-blooded domestic killing."

Please remind Governor Taft that just as the state makes every effort to stop a death row inmate from committing suicide, so too it must stop the state-assisted suicide of "volunteering."

[/FONT]http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/siteapps/advocacy/index.aspx?c=goJTI0OvElH&b=953489&template=x.ascx&action=7056

wow...i live in ohio myself. first time i've heard of this.

interesting situation tho.

i wonder tho, what way of giving justice is really applicable here? (hence the reason why i couldn't sign some petition or say i support the death of this man.)

one one hand, we have the state making some valid points. this man committed a crime that is worthy of the death penalty in ohio i assume for this to even be a possibility. a murder committed in cold blood and there must not have been any sure sign of insanity or anything, especially since now, the man is wanting to finish what he failed to succeed. sure it may be illegal to assist in suicide, but is it legal/illegal/justice to apply the law, cause the crime was still committed nevertheless.

and is it just to let this man live with this on him? is it just to either one, forsake the law, and let him do it to himself, or kill somebody else so he can have another reason to do it again?

in my opinion, a tough situation. i hope all that happens has a good reason in the eyes of God.

 

[abadsign]

Hmm.

Ohio claims it has the right to execute. Where does that right come from?

A person who lives in Ohio, or anywhere in America (or anywhere else), does not have the kill except in self-defense. In America, the government literally derives its legitimacy and authority to govern from the consent of the governed. But the people do not have the right to execute. Therefore the government does not have the right to execute, for it has nowhere else to derive that authority.

Alternatively, we, at least, can ask ourselves, who would Jesus execute?


Here's something to think about.
A list of all the countries that executed someone in 2005:

Bangladesh
Belarus
China
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Japan
Jordan
Kuwait
Libya
Mongolia
North Korea
Pakistan
Palestinian Authority
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
Somalia
Taiwan
United States of America
Uzbekistan
Viet Nam
Yemen

See anything odd there? A pattern unexpected?

By the way 94% of all the executions last year were carried out by just China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and US, combined.

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-stats2005-eng
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGACT500062006

 

[Im_A]

Hmm.

Ohio claims it has the right to execute. Where does that right come from?

A person who lives in Ohio, or anywhere in America (or anywhere else), does not have the kill except in self-defense. In America, the government literally derives its legitimacy and authority to govern from the consent of the governed. But the people do not have the right to execute. Therefore the government does not have the right to execute, for it has nowhere else to derive that authority.

Alternatively, we, at least, can ask ourselves, who would Jesus execute?


Here's something to think about.
A list of all the countries that executed someone in 2005:

Bangladesh
Belarus
China
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Japan
Jordan
Kuwait
Libya
Mongolia
North Korea
Pakistan
Palestinian Authority
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
Somalia
Taiwan
United States of America
Uzbekistan
Viet Nam
Yemen

See anything odd there? A pattern unexpected?

By the way 94% of all the executions last year were carried out by just China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and US, combined.

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-stats2005-eng
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGACT500062006

i wonder if Ohio and other countries has the right because the Federal government gives states the right to make those kind of desicion...so where does the federal goverment get the power? the people? God?

we may vote, or give them power, but we can't forget that we also vote for who represents us in Congress. we do it to ourselves in essence. we vote people who legislate such laws to administer that we cannot execute ourselves. that isn't the government's fault, it is ours. we vote for officials to put place laws for things that we don't want to do but believe it should be done and when the 51 plus percent votes for something...the majority wins in a democracy.

as much as i like our government and way of life, i think this stuff goes to show that a democracy such as ours, will never be perfect. but with the topic, we voted for everybody in. the fact that we can't execute the same power as the government, well who would want to? that's why we want/need to be governed. if that wasn't the case, we'd have anarchy (not meaning to derail the thread.)

so with this death penalty stuff, we get what we voted for. the minority feels misrepsented and the majority wins. maybe it will fip but i see no reason to blame the government. our government was started by a bunch of ousted Puritans, the "people" themselves started this country...the death penalty laws are not exempt...not matter the grave mortal issues it gives.

and if Christ would execute anyone, i think the whole WWJD thing is a bit useless personally. cause we can use verses to say Jesus would be against the death penalty. He stood up for Mary Magadalene. then again, He also let Himself (an innocent man), another criminal and a theif (to which for our society, stealing is worth the death penalty?) die and go through extreme capital punishment. i think we can see that Jesus let Rome govern and keep its laws, but Jesus wanted the Jewish government to do differently. kind of confliction of viewpoints if you ask for my personal opinion, thus no real reason to hope to find an answer in pondering the thought, "What Would Jesus Do?" plus i'm not Jewish...i'm a 21st century Gentile.

and the pattern you gave is a bit odd. but let's face it. eye for an eye isn't really ancient at all. those countries, either one, have a history with ancient teachings such as that, or two, have now lost it's ancient background to some degree, but maintaining a sense of committment to the ways that was established in their/our society. only a few countries as you proved, actually "evolved"/"changed"/"secularized."

btw, i'm not saying i support or against the death penalty. it's too big of a topic that i can't feel right to have one opinion on it.

God Bless you! <><

 

[abadsign]

i wonder if Ohio and other countries has the right because the Federal government gives states the right to make those kind of desicion...so where does the federal goverment get the power? the people? God?

as much as i like our government and way of life, i think this stuff goes to show that a democracy such as ours, will never be perfect. but with the topic, we voted for everybody in. the fact that we can't execute the same power as the government, well who would want to? that's why we want/need to be governed. if that wasn't the case, we'd have anarchy (not meaning to derail the thread.)

I think you misunderstood me. I'm not saying that we ought to have the right to execute instead of the government. I'm saying the government doesn't have the right to execute, because we don't have the right to execute, and essentially we are the government.

From the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.

Since the government only governs by our consent, it can only do what we give it the right to do. But if we do not have the right to kill (God says we don't, am I right?) then we cannot give anyone else the right to kill either. It would be like me saying, "here, I'm not allowed to kill this guy, take my gun and do it for me."

As for who was voted in, well, in Ohio, Bob Taft was voted in and he has the power to stop this execution with a single phone call, and commute that death sentence to life in prison. And we have the power to contact him and ask him to do just that. That was the point of the original link. I'm not complaining about majority rule, I'm just suggesting that we exercise our Constitutional right to petition him to do what's right.

only a few countries as you proved, actually "evolved"/"changed"/"secularized."

Only a few? Only 22 countries executed someone last year. There are almost 200 countries in the world. It looks like only a few haven't caught the human rights idea yet.

 

[non-religious]

I'm against the death penalty for a whole host of reasons, but one does have to appreciate the fact that democracy, which we all want and will go to war for, plays an integral part here. Also the party that seems to be voiceless in all of this is that of the victims family. I have a hard time understanding why a constituency will keep voting for a governor who will continue to implement the death penalty. There seems to be a bloodthirsty and vengeful voter out there who is comfortable with the knowledge that their state executes human beings.

However a crime was carried out by this individual and if it can be proved that he has a mental illness, which let's be honest hasn't stopped the mentally ill from being executed, then surely this has to be approached in a completely different way.

The point about Jesus on the cross alongside others who were being executed is an interesting one and something I have never really thought about (Cheers tattedsaint for pointing that out, you really got me thinking now )

 

[Im_A]

I think you misunderstood me. I'm not saying that we ought to have the right to execute instead of the government. I'm saying the government doesn't have the right to execute, because we don't have the right to execute, and essentially we are the government.

From the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.

Since the government only governs by our consent, it can only do what we give it the right to do. But if we do not have the right to kill (God says we don't, am I right?) then we cannot give anyone else the right to kill either. It would be like me saying, "here, I'm not allowed to kill this guy, take my gun and do it for me."

As for who was voted in, well, in Ohio, Bob Taft was voted in and he has the power to stop this execution with a single phone call, and commute that death sentence to life in prison. And we have the power to contact him and ask him to do just that. That was the point of the original link. I'm not complaining about majority rule, I'm just suggesting that we exercise our Constitutional right to petition him to do what's right.

would you vote for somebody who doesn't believe as you do? (hopefully you see my point here )

Only a few? Only 22 countries executed someone last year. There are almost 200 countries in the world. It looks like only a few haven't caught the human rights idea yet.

i apologize. i was thinking a bit more broader, instead of thinking of every little country i would maybe advice to get more statistics on ALL countries if it is out there, but i apologize for my generalization.

but let me ask you something.

ok let's say for a hypothetical example, we have John Doe(put in the man in the OP, or whoever you want) and Saddam Hussien on trial. many would believe Hussien should be put to death for his crimes and there are many crimes against humanity on this man's head and John Doe has committed a crime that is deemable by the death penalty, but nothing comparable to the likes of Hussein.

so for John Doe, we have many people protesting his death penalty. use your argument, prooftext of whatever verse you want to use of Christ, or whatever methodlogy you want to use to protest this death sentence of John Doe. then we have Hussien up the sentence. would your views change if you heard Saddam was going to be executed for the crimes he committed?

(i hope you understand why i'm using these two examples. )

 

[abadsign]

Well, it didn't work. Taft executed Barton last week. To anyone who did try to intervene for this man's life, thank you.

would you vote for somebody who doesn't believe as you do? (hopefully you see my point here )

In a two party system, you inevitably vote for someone who doesn't believe as you do... Honestly I don't see the point in this argument. Show me where you have the authority to kill someone in cold blood. If you can't, then you can't give someone else that authority with your vote.

i apologize. i was thinking a bit more broader, instead of thinking of every little country i would maybe advice to get more statistics on ALL countries if it is out there, but i apologize for my generalization.

I'm not sure what you mean. More statistics? That was complete. 22 countries executed someone last year. All the rest did not. Every Western nation, except for the USA, did not. One of Amnesty International's core objectives is ending the death penalty worldwide. So they do full accounting of all the countries who still execute.

Of those 22 countries, 19 of them (excluding Japan, Taiwan and the USA) are countries that most Americans would call "backwards" or "third world" or something like that. We would normally recognize their legal systems to be barbaric. Only because we do the same thing do we look away in this case. Civilized countries don't resort to barbaric punishment.

but let me ask you something.

John Doe, Saddam Hussein, it doesn't matter. Execution is wrong. An eye for an eye leaves us all blind, to pull out a cliche that I stand behind. What would be the point of executing Hussein? To satisfy our bloodlust, that's all. A life imprisoned would be a more deserved punishment. Execution ends punishment. Execution will let Hussein finally off the hook, to never think about his crimes again. His conscience will finally be free.

The more important fact is that as long as execution remains on the books, innocent people will be executed. There have been numerous instances of evidence being found that exonerates a person, and the so-called criminal is finally let free, though having spent decades in prison. A terrible loss, but at least now they are free. There have also been numerous instances of this happening... after the innocent person has been executed. There is no way to make up for that, no way to bring them back and free them. If one innocent person is executed, then the death penalty is wrong and must be repealed.

We know that innocent people have been executed.
http://www.justicedenied.org/executed.htm
So we know what we have to do.

 

[abadsign]

The point about Jesus on the cross alongside others who were being executed is an interesting one and something I have never really thought about (Cheers tattedsaint for pointing that out, you really got me thinking now )

Pontius Pilate would not have recognized Jesus as having any authority to intervene for those other men, anyway.

 

[Im_A]

Well, it didn't work. Taft executed Barton last week. To anyone who did try to intervene for this man's life, thank you.


In a two party system, you inevitably vote for someone who doesn't believe as you do... Honestly I don't see the point in this argument. Show me where you have the authority to kill someone in cold blood. If you can't, then you can't give someone else that authority with your vote.

your missing my point. the point is, you shouldn't be complaining about who the majority put in, you should be complaining about how the people are to vote in a man that chooses to administer something, YOU find evil.

you haven't been able to truly define the death penalty as cold blood, so your point of authority is pointless. what do you define as cold blood? what kind of action do you believe should be administered to someone who takes one life away?

I'm not sure what you mean. More statistics? That was complete. 22 countries executed someone last year. All the rest did not. Every Western nation, except for the USA, did not. One of Amnesty International's core objectives is ending the death penalty worldwide. So they do full accounting of all the countries who still execute.

Of those 22 countries, 19 of them (excluding Japan, Taiwan and the USA) are countries that most Americans would call "backwards" or "third world" or something like that. We would normally recognize their legal systems to be barbaric. Only because we do the same thing do we look away in this case. Civilized countries don't resort to barbaric punishment.



John Doe, Saddam Hussein, it doesn't matter. Execution is wrong. An eye for an eye leaves us all blind, to pull out a cliche that I stand behind. What would be the point of executing Hussein? To satisfy our bloodlust, that's all. A life imprisoned would be a more deserved punishment. Execution ends punishment. Execution will let Hussein finally off the hook, to never think about his crimes again. His conscience will finally be free.

The more important fact is that as long as execution remains on the books, innocent people will be executed. There have been numerous instances of evidence being found that exonerates a person, and the so-called criminal is finally let free, though having spent decades in prison. A terrible loss, but at least now they are free. There have also been numerous instances of this happening... after the innocent person has been executed. There is no way to make up for that, no way to bring them back and free them. If one innocent person is executed, then the death penalty is wrong and must be repealed.

We know that innocent people have been executed.
http://www.justicedenied.org/executed.htm
So we know what we have to do.

well at least your consistant in your views, but i don't see it as some lust for blood to execute any criminal. it doesn't take one to be for the death penalty to see that. they are trying to administer "justice". whether we agree with it or not is irrelevant, but there's no point in making pointless accusations to officials in positions that you aren't yourself in, and the innocents being put to death, well, in an imperfect justice system that relies on lawyers and jurors who have no education of law to prove the case, things like that are going to happen. i agree, it's a terrible autrocity to have happen, but it shows not point to prove death penalty as something evil, just cause the lawyers, jurors and the judge severely made a wrong judgement.

Pontius Pilate would not have recognized Jesus as having any authority to intervene for those other men, anyway.

this here is irrelevant. Christ is supposed to be Divine correct? His Godness would have to bow down to Pilate to administer "justice" to the people on the cross dieing with Him? either one Christ bowed down to mankind such as Pilate, even tho He is supposedly God, or Jesus didn't mix in with the ruling authority over the Jewish people and kept His matters with the Jewish governing and kept silent on the Roman Empire using the death penalty as the means for justice, but for some reason descided to stop the Jewish people to administer the death penalty to mary magaldene. kind of ironic eh?

 

[abadsign]

your missing my point.

I think I am. Tell me, are you getting my point about how a democratic government derives its authority?

Okay, could you explain in other words what you mean here, because I don't understand what you're trying to say:

you should be complaining about how the people are to vote in a man that chooses to administer something, YOU find evil.

I should be complaining about the democratic process? I don't think that's what you meant but that's what I'm getting.

the point is, you shouldn't be complaining about who the majority put in,

I'm not. I haven't once complained about Bob Taft in this thread. All I asked was for people to contact him and ask him to stop the execution. Elected officials have telephone numbers for a reason.

you haven't been able to truly define the death penalty as cold blood, so your point of authority is pointless. what do you define as cold blood? what kind of action do you believe should be administered to someone who takes one life away?

I didn't realize that "cold blood" wasn't obvious. Let's see. Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1991) defines cold blood as, "used in common parlance to designate a willful, deliberate, and premeditated homicide." The point of the term is to distinguish such a murder from a crime committed in the "heat of passion."

Any execution committed by the government is necessarily in cold blood, then, because there has to be a trial first, appeals process, a period of sitting in prison, etc. The judge is supposed to administer sentencing dispassionately anyway. So cold blood is inevitable here. Government-sanctioned execution is "willful, deliberate, and premeditated homocide," no doubt about it.

Now, what should be the sentencing? Well, in states and countries without the death penalty, life imprisonment is often used. I'm fine with that. The added benefit is that, until the convicted dies of old age, there is the possibility of exoneration by new evidence.

well at least your consistant in your views, but i don't see it as some lust for blood to execute any criminal. it doesn't take one to be for the death penalty to see that. they are trying to administer "justice"

This is "bloodthirsty and vengeful" justice, to use n-r's words earlier in the thread. If almost every other country on Earth recognizes that murder is not moral, it takes a special kind of barbarism to not get the memo. I think you're mistaken in concluding that just because people think it's justice, means it's not also bloodlust. These two things are not mutually exclusive, as Saudi public executions prove.

whether we agree with it or not is irrelevant,

Actually, that's the only thing that is relevant. We the people are the government.

but there's no point in making pointless accusations to officials in positions that you aren't yourself in,

Who's doing this? I think you need to reread what I've actually said.

and the innocents being put to death, well, in an imperfect justice system that relies on lawyers and jurors who have no education of law to prove the case, things like that are going to happen.

No, see, in countries without the death penalty, like the UK, the justice system is still imperfect but no innocent people die because of it. So this argument from imperfection is a red herring. We can be responsible and limit the results of our imperfection. Abolishing the death penalty would be that responsible thing to do.

i agree, it's a terrible autrocity to have happen, but it shows not point to prove death penalty as something evil, just cause the lawyers, jurors and the judge severely made a wrong judgement.

So what you're saying is... because people make mistakes, murder isn't wrong.

this here is irrelevant. Christ is supposed to be Divine correct? His Godness would have to bow down to Pilate to administer "justice" to the people on the cross dieing with Him? either one Christ bowed down to mankind such as Pilate, even tho He is supposedly God, or Jesus didn't mix in with the ruling authority over the Jewish people and kept His matters with the Jewish governing and kept silent on the Roman Empire using the death penalty as the means for justice, but for some reason descided to stop the Jewish people to administer the death penalty to mary magaldene. kind of ironic eh?

I don't see why you're second-guessing why Jesus did or did not do this or that. If you look at how he saved the prostitute, he didn't use divine powers. He simply spoke up for her and made the people stoning her feel guilty so they would quit. If he had done the same with Pilate, it wouldn't be "bowing down" (I don't know why you're saying that), it would just be saying "hey buddy, let them go." And Pilate would have said, "Nope." In issues of human law and justice, he acted consistently without using divine power. So I think it's unwarranted of you to second-guess and say he should have used divine powers to send a message to us about the death penalty.

He did just fine with the message "love thy neighbor as thyself." That utterly precludes the death penalty.

 

[Im_A]

I think I am. Tell me, are you getting my point about how a democratic government derives its authority?

Okay, could you explain in other words what you mean here, because I don't understand what you're trying to say:

I should be complaining about the democratic process? I don't think that's what you meant but that's what I'm getting.

I'm not. I haven't once complained about Bob Taft in this thread. All I asked was for people to contact him and ask him to stop the execution. Elected officials have telephone numbers for a reason.

but why should we contact Bob Taft? to stop an execution that he already let be set down through the Ohio Justice system?

yes, i'm saying complain about the democratic process. the people for voting in a man who is committing "evil" to allow this man to die, instead of petition him with phone calls that do no good to a man in power. if the people have the power and are the government then take it to the people...not the officials.

I didn't realize that "cold blood" wasn't obvious. Let's see. Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1991) defines cold blood as, "used in common parlance to designate a willful, deliberate, and premeditated homicide." The point of the term is to distinguish such a murder from a crime committed in the "heat of passion."

Any execution committed by the government is necessarily in cold blood, then, because there has to be a trial first, appeals process, a period of sitting in prison, etc. The judge is supposed to administer sentencing dispassionately anyway. So cold blood is inevitable here. Government-sanctioned execution is "willful, deliberate, and premeditated homocide," no doubt about it.

you know how many people are in death row? you know how many times appeals are made with nothing to gain from it? did this man sit in prison/jail for his actions after he survived, or was it just they sent him away to be dead, or do you even know?

Now, what should be the sentencing? Well, in states and countries without the death penalty, life imprisonment is often used. I'm fine with that. The added benefit is that, until the convicted dies of old age, there is the possibility of exoneration by new evidence.

i agree with this here. i favor life sentencing over death penalty. the only issues we have is over crowding of prisons and taxes to pay for people in prison, which is good and bad in my opinion. but i favor life setencing over death penalty any day.

This is "bloodthirsty and vengeful" justice, to use n-r's words earlier in the thread. If almost every other country on Earth recognizes that murder is not moral, it takes a special kind of barbarism to not get the memo. I think you're mistaken in concluding that just because people think it's justice, means it's not also bloodlust. These two things are not mutually exclusive, as Saudi public executions prove.

i don't see justice in the death sentence as it's main concern is to blood thirsty. what justifies letting a man survive after he/she brutally took another life away? Jesus's words? law terms? this issue is beyond that. it's beyond a thirst to take his blood as he did the other person. a crime is committed, and a fitting punishment has to be given. life in prisonment is either one, the fitting crime, or inhumane to let a man be tormented with his actions, or to let such a man infiltrate his evilness into other prisoners. where is the right punishment for this? this is where i see the death penalty as, not as some bloodthirsty justice system as you and others portray it as.

Actually, that's the only thing that is relevant. We the people are the government.

as i said earlier...take it to the people. they have phone numbers too ya know

Who's doing this? I think you need to reread what I've actually said.

i think you are but calling it bloodthirsty. that's not some praiseworthy title is it? and you've proved none of that. until you tell me that you know that man didn't have an appeal from any source, or if he never served prison time for this, i view your words "bloodthirsty" as pointless accusations. if you can prove that he had no appeal from anyone (which means including his family members) and that his condition after surviving would have granted him no ability to make an appeal, that he served no prison time or nothing, then i will agree with you that what was done in this case was bloodthirsty.

No, see, in countries without the death penalty, like the UK, the justice system is still imperfect but no innocent people die because of it. So this argument from imperfection is a red herring. We can be responsible and limit the results of our imperfection. Abolishing the death penalty would be that responsible thing to do.

So what you're saying is... because people make mistakes, murder isn't wrong.

i never said that. i just think that using it as some defense against the death penalty, is a red-herring in of itself...hence the justice system will never be perfect as we both agree.

I don't see why you're second-guessing why Jesus did or did not do this or that. If you look at how he saved the prostitute, he didn't use divine powers. He simply spoke up for her and made the people stoning her feel guilty so they would quit. If he had done the same with Pilate, it wouldn't be "bowing down" (I don't know why you're saying that), it would just be saying "hey buddy, let them go." And Pilate would have said, "Nope." In issues of human law and justice, he acted consistently without using divine power. So I think it's unwarranted of you to second-guess and say he should have used divine powers to send a message to us about the death penalty.

He did just fine with the message "love thy neighbor as thyself." That utterly precludes the death penalty.

i second guess it because, He descided to let one woman live, and not the ones on the cross. that says a lot in relation to Christ and His relation to Rome and the Jews. and since we believe Christ was divine, He had the power to do anything as He wanted to...just as the temptor/devil said He could. i understand the whoel story of the temptation of Christ and why Christ acted like that, but to let Mary Magadelene live when according to Jewish law, she committed a crime worthy to be stoned but saved her, He succumbed to the authority of Pilate and let a man who committed a crime worthy of death sentence be executed. it's me trying to understand Him through second guessing and thinking of these incidents, cause they don't make any sense when an all powerful being (supposedly) could have done the "just" thing and this is the man that we all stand on as proof of our views either for or against the death penalty, almost making me wonder if using Christ as a reason to not be for the death penalty is another one of those red-herrings, cause it doesn't make logical sense...at least to me.