Texas rejects EU executions plea

SteveAtheist · Sep 5, 2007

jsn112 said:
What if an innocent man rotted and died in his jail?

It could and almost certainly does happen. However, this person is still alive and can still have a life, albeit a restricted on. But, you did not understand my point. Death sentences are final and cannot be revoked. Life sentences are also eventually final, but there is a much greater amount of time in which to exhonerate an innocent person.

Meshavrischika · Sep 5, 2007

I'm not discrediting your opinion. You are more than welcome to your opinion and I hold you no higher or lower for it.

I am saying that if you do not want it practiced here or do not like it, you only have 2 methods for preventing it from being in your life.

The fact of the matter is, the people who live, work, love and die in this state have made a decision, and the EU has no say in it, just as we have no say over there. This is what I was intimating with my comment.

As for the caning incident... I stated it as I remembered it from the 80s-early 90s. It's been about 17 years. You may be right or wrong, I don't know... but I remember as a teenager thinking that being beaten for littering was awful harsh... so maybe I even misunderstood the news cast. Go figure.

Meshavrischika · Sep 5, 2007

And yet, is it not true the person would suffer longer and harder with a 20 year jail sentence than death?? Really. Losing your family, home, job, friends is not much to live for after a long sentence. Sorry.

bunced · Sep 5, 2007

Then by that criteria of suffering whilst still alive, surely that would fulfill the desires of many who are pro-capital punishment, in that they want the person guilty to suffer for what they have done?

jsn112 · Sep 5, 2007

SteveAtheist said:
It could and almost certainly does happen. However, this person is still alive and can still have a life, albeit a restricted on. But, you did not understand my point. Death sentences are final and cannot be revoked. Life sentences are also eventually final, but there is a much greater amount of time in which to exhonerate an innocent person.

Oh, I understood it quite clearly. I have already stated the reason that I am against death penalty. But I am not totally against though.

Meshavrischika · Sep 5, 2007

Not on my dollar. I'd rather feed the starving and heal the sick with it than pay for a murderer's life.

SteveAtheist · Sep 5, 2007

ElsanRandiMom said:
1) it eliminates a murderer from the planet... keeping him/her from murdering again

Death is not the only way to eliminate him/her from murdering again.

ElsanRandiMom said:
2) if it didn't involve 80 year appeal cycles it would possibly be a deterrant to criminals

In this statement, you admit that our current capital punishment system is not a deterrant.
You know that appeal cycles do not last 80 years, although I would agree that they last too long. Your assertion that a shorter appeals process would deter crime is unfounded. Why do you believe this? Is there evidence to support your claim?

ElsanRandiMom said:
3) it can give the family some sense of justice

So, this would satisfy an emotional need of the bereaved. Our laws, by definition, require a rational basis for them and satisfying emotional needs is not a rational basis. Also, you have admitted that some would be killed unjustly. Where is the justice for their families?

ElsanRandiMom said:
4) it would save money on keeping people who will never be productive members of society (again, if appeals didn't last 80 years)

Again, 80 years is a stretch. Your point here seems to be death to save money. Well, if you follow that to its natural conclusion, we could save much more money by killing those who are a larger finacial burden on the government. Maybe you are ok with this as well.

ElsanRandiMom said:
5) IMO it's justice - this not being open for debate because opinion is my right

This is to satisfy an emotional need, in this case, your need for justice. While your its not open to debate, it is not, in my opinion, the goverments job to carry out your version of justice, especially when it involves harming a person.

Since you have claimed to have given this much thought, I assumed that you would have very solid reasons for state administired death. I know that this is my opinion, and it differs from yours, but I do not think that you have given good reason to put people to death and risk an occasional innocent life being ended.

bunced · Sep 5, 2007

Removed because the debate has moved on

Thanks
D

SteveAtheist · Sep 5, 2007

ElsanRandiMom said:
And yet, is it not true the person would suffer longer and harder with a 20 year jail sentence than death?? Really. Losing your family, home, job, friends is not much to live for after a long sentence. Sorry.

That is exactly why exhonnorated people are compensated by the state after their release. In the case of the 20 year sentence, the injustice can be made up for. This is not the case if the unjustly accused has been put to death.

Meshavrischika · Sep 5, 2007

SteveAtheist said:
Death is not the only way to eliminate him/her from murdering again. You going to put them all in solitary?
In this statement, you admit that our current capital punishment system is not a deterrant.
You know that appeal cycles do not last 80 years, although I would agree that they last too long. Your assertion that a shorter appeals process would deter crime is unfounded. Why do you believe this? Is there evidence to support your claim?I was exaggerating on purpose. I know they don't last 80 years... but even 20 is too long IMHO.
So, this would satisfy an emotional need of the bereaved. Our laws, by definition, require a rational basis for them and satisfying emotional needs is not a rational basis. Also, you have admitted that some would be killed unjustly. Where is the justice for their families?
You asked my opinion, not for completely rational arguments on all points. Do we not offer restitution to people with damages? What are we going to offer these people? Certainly a person in jail for the remainder of their lives cannot pay them anything for their loss (not that their loved one will ever be replaced). Again, I fall back on the "life is not always fair" assertion for the minimal number of people who could possibly be innocent.
Again, 80 years is a stretch. Your point here seems to be death to save money. Well, if you follow that to its natural conclusion, we could save much more money by killing those who are a larger finacial burden on the government. Maybe you are ok with this as well.
Onto another topic with this one... I do not think wiping out the handicapped, etc. is okay. Trying to infer death row inmates and the infirm are the same is just.... ludicrous. It's not even close to the same thing. One is punishment, the other is a hitler-esque tactic.
This is to satisfy an emotional need, in this case, your need for justice. While your its not open to debate, it is not, in my opinion, the goverments job to carry out your version of justice, especially when it involves harming a person. But it is to carry out the justice of the people as a whole, and in Texas, those people have decided the death penalty is just and warranted in some cases. I didn't say I was not open to debate, just not open to being swayed. You can throw ANYTHING you want my direction and I will listen to you. I would hope you would do me the same courtesy as I will not change your opinion either apparently.
Since you have claimed to have given this much thought, I assumed that you would have very solid reasons for state administired death. I know that this is my opinion, and it differs from yours, but I do not think that you have given good reason to put people to death and risk an occasional innocent life being ended.

And I do not think your reason is valid for the removal of the penalty... so that makes two of us. Again, debate is great. Maybe one of us will sway someone else with our arguments and actually accomplish something.

SteveAtheist · Sep 5, 2007

ElsanRandiMom said:
And I do not think your reason is valid for the removal of the penalty... so that makes two of us. Again, debate is great. Maybe one of us will sway someone else with our arguments and actually accomplish something.

Agreed. I think that your mind is made up and that you are aware of the facts surrounding this issue and I respect your opinion as I believe it is well thought out.

I was at one time very pro death penalty (ironically enough this was when I was also a practicing Catholic) and my mind was changed simply by two arguments. The fact that capital punishment has not been shown to deter crime and that the possibility of carrying out a death sentence on an innocent person was enough to sway me. Debate is great indeed.

Getting back to the OP: I think that the EU has as much right to voice their opinion as any other country. We also have the right to choose to listen or not, just as other countries do when we offer our opinions.

Meshavrischika · Sep 5, 2007

Yes, expresing opinion is the EUs right, expecting it to be followed is another thing entirely.

Sphere · Sep 5, 2007

The legal aspects surrounding the death penalty have evolved the past few decades. 20 years ago it was common for the punishment to be handed out towards someone who was convicted on eyewitness testimony alone. Which always led the possibility that someone might be wrongly convicted / punished. Today in the year 2007, it rarely happens.

With the advancement of crime scene technology(I have a degree in this field), I believe the death penalty should always be an option. However, it should only apply to cases in which the confidence that person A committed the crime, is 100%. And there are ways to prove that now thanks to advances in DNA and trace evidence.

The death penalty doesn't deter crime, but it is the ultimate form of incapacitation. Certain people in correctional facility are far to dangerous to be kept alive, they pose a continuous threat to both their fellow inmates, and staff.

There are numerous examples here, such as HIV infected inmates setting their cells on fire and then cutting their arms and legs. When prison staff comes into the cell to extinguish the fire, they are vehemently resisted by the HIV positive inmate who is struggling with all his might to get his blood on them. Individuals like that, should be executed.

imind · Sep 5, 2007

jsn112 said:

exceptional arguement

ConvertMySocks · Sep 13, 2007

Criminology said:
There are numerous examples here, such as HIV infected inmates setting their cells on fire and then cutting their arms and legs. When prison staff comes into the cell to extinguish the fire, they are vehemently resisted by the HIV positive inmate who is struggling with all his might to get his blood on them. Individuals like that, should be executed.

or just left in their cells...?

it is a very sad situation

BlackAndy · Sep 13, 2007

ConvertMySocks said:
or just left in their cells...?

it is a very sad situation

but which is more cruel? do do away with someone immediately... or let them waste away for years until death? They both lead to the same fate.

(for the record, I am on the fence when it comes to capital punishment.)

rebel_conservative · Sep 13, 2007

BlackAndy said:
but which is more cruel? do do away with someone immediately... or let them waste away for years until death? They both lead to the same fate.

(for the record, I am on the fence when it comes to capital punishment.)

I meant left in the cell they chose to set fire to, why should the prison guards essentially risk their lives?

not sure, torn between justice and mercy on this one

I can't sit on the fence on this, I am 100% for death penalty for all rapists and any sexual offence involving a child. the merciful part of me says it should be quick and painless.

anyway, it is for Texas to do what it sees fit, not for Brussels to stick it's nose in

bunced · Sep 13, 2007

rebel_conservative said:
anyway, it is for Texas to do what it sees fit, not for Brussels to stick it's nose in

Could you not extrapolate that argument too and apply it to US foreign affairs. For example:

Let's not condemn the genocide in Darfur - it's a Sudanese business and not our role to stick our noses in
Let's not condemn the political situation in Zimbabwe - it's for them to sort out and not for us to stick our noses in
Let's not condemn Saddam Hussain for mass torture - it's an Iraqi justice system, necessary for the security of the state, and in any case, definitely none of our business
Let's not condemn China for human rights abuses - they make our products, so we need to keep it happy

Obviously we don't keep to these premises this because all these things rightly should be condemned. Many people feel that the Death Penalty should fall into the same category of a violation of human rights, so if so, they have every right to criticise and call for an outlawing of it, just as the US has every right to call for an end to human rights abuses in these countries.

Either that, or the US needs to give as well as take, and renounce it's position as a power who can call for change in other countries - you can't have it both ways

Sporky · Sep 13, 2007

im just sitting here wondering ,, what the EU and all the ppl who say the death penalty is inhumane whould have Texas or any other state do with all the ppl who have murdered ,,, tourtured ,, dismembered,,, raped,,,,, other humans or murdered children

if the UE is so concerned about what Texas Does maybe we ought to send all them all over there,,,,, there was a case here in california where a woman and unborn son was murdered by her husband first they found the fetus first it was all mangled etc form being in the rocks etc ,,,, then they found her it was the scott peterson case he was found gulity of the murder of his son and his wife he sitting on death row atm

now what would you say to Lacy petersons parents oh welll they shouldnt give him the death penalty because it s inhumane ,,,,,,,,, what about the two lives he took and the way he killed them isnt that inhumane,,,,, what should California do with scott peterson

if the death pealty is inhumane?

bunced · Sep 14, 2007

They'd put him in prison like they would any other killer.

Killing a life doesn't give back the first life. It also degrades the society which enacts the death penalty because it stoops to the level of criminals.

Finally, justice should never be based on emotionalism (what would you say . . . ) but on reason. And I think capital punishment is the most premeditated of all murders - Archbishop Desmond Tutu, I think, said that "to take a life when a life has been lost is revenge, not justice"

Texas rejects EU executions plea

Senior Member

for Thy greater honor and glory

for Thy greater honor and glory

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

for Thy greater honor and glory

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

for Thy greater honor and glory

Senior Member

for Thy greater honor and glory

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Member

Everyone is entitled to my opinion.

Baruch HaShem! Praise G-d!

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads