Death Penalty

[Shane Roach]

If I have done this, then I sincerely apologize. However, even after scanning back through every page, this was only the second time I have quoted your posts, so it could not have been me.

There have been many valid points made about the DP, and we should be careful not to confuse the debunking of an argument w/ castigating others.

You've still not addressed the questions I had. I'm not sure who has supposedly debunked whose arguments. I know that there is little in any of this mess about the death penalty itself and a lot of accusations of people having bad motives or some sort of flawed belief system one way or the other.

 

[k]

You've still not addressed the questions I had. I'm not sure who has supposedly debunked whose arguments. I know that there is little in any of this mess about the death penalty itself and a lot of accusations of people having bad motives or some sort of flawed belief system one way or the other.

Specifically, what questions?

 

[Shane Roach]

Did anyone even bother examining whether or not the statement, "revenge is an illegitimate consideration in crime and punishment," is a valid statement? If so, why? If not, why? If you believe in law at all, do we not force bad things on those who break it? How do we discern what is and is not cruel and unusual, or innapropriate punishment?.

This was in the first post you quoted of mine, one of the two you say you have quoted in total. It is on the previous page. It can hardly be more than an hour or so old.

About an hour and a half old as it turns out.

 

[If Not For Grace]

a

purely financial aspect

But it is highly unlikely someone put to death would be paroled. Thus the recidivism rate is very low.:o

 

[k]

This was in the first post you quoted of mine, one of the two you say you have quoted in total. It is on the previous page. It can hardly be more than an hour or so old.

About an hour and a half old as it turns out.

Revenge is the main motivator behind the DP. Some try to use the euphemism of "justice" yet nobody can give a clear defintion of what Justice is. That is enough to show it is not about "Justice" but revenge.

Putting people in prison for violent crimes is not a bad thing.

Murdering someone is cruel and unusual punishment...yeah...I would say taking a life is cruel. After all, isn't that what we tell murderers?

 

[Shane Roach]

Revenge is the main motivator behind the DP. Some try to use the euphemism of "justice" yet nobody can give a clear defintion of what Justice is. That is enough to show it is not about "Justice" but revenge.

Putting people in prison for violent crimes is not a bad thing.

Murdering someone is cruel and unusual punishment...yeah...I would say taking a life is cruel. After all, isn't that what we tell murderers?

That's all well and good, except you have not explained anything here, merely put forth your opinion. It's not a bad opinion as far as it goes, but I still don't see any cogent explanation of why I should just assume there is somehow something bad about the supposed vengeance factor, nor is there any real description of why it is ok to punish a murderer with a punishment significantly less severe than his crime.

Incidentally, people are not under an obligation to define words for you. Justice is in the dictionary. If you have a problem with the word itself, that is really a whole other kettle of fish. What exactly is it that you find confusing about the word?

 

[k]

That's all well and good, except you have not explained anything here, merely put forth your opinion. It's not a bad opinion as far as it goes, but I still don't see any cogent explanation of why I should just assume there is somehow something bad about the supposed vengeance factor, nor is there any real description of why it is ok to punish a murderer with a punishment significantly less severe than his crime.

Incidentally, people are not under an obligation to define words for you. Justice is in the dictionary. If you have a problem with the word itself, that is really a whole other kettle of fish. What exactly is it that you find confusing about the word?

Thanks for the feedback.

 

[Shane Roach]

Anytime.

 

[Beastt]

For instance, it's fairly common knowledge that nowadays gangs often utilize their underage members for certain criminal activities because they cannot be prosecuted as seriously under the present laws. Criminals are not blind and stupid. They react to the world around them.

Then perhaps it should be of interest to you that it has been shown time and again that the death penalty is ineffective as a deterrent.

As for Christ, no, He was not a criminal.

Not a criminal according to whom? According to the Romans, under whose law he was held responsible, he was a criminal. Just as Galileo was a criminal under church law for suggesting a heliocentric universe. And Galileo very nearly met the same fate as Jesus at the hands of the church.

Beyond that, truly, yours is yet another rather inscrutible post, as I have in all honesty NO idea what in the world you are trying to point out or prove.

When one is unable to look beyond their own opinions, beliefs and rather narrow views, such bewilderment is perhaps to be expected.

 

[Shane Roach]

Then perhaps it should be of interest to you that it has been shown time and again that the death penalty is ineffective as a deterrent.

Quite the contrary, every single person ever put to death has never commited another crime. Conversely, many people who have been spared have murdered again, even inside prisons where they are supposedly set so as not to harm others.

Not a criminal according to whom? According to the Romans, under whose law he was required to answer, he was a criminal. Just as Galileo was a criminal under church law for suggesting a heliocentric universe..

??? He was not a criminal according to the Roman who handed him over. I am no Roman legal scholar. Now that I have some idea what you are trying to do, I have to say it is rather rediculous. For one thing, Jesus Himself allowed this to happen in a way most of us simply have no option to control. Anyhow, whatever.

When one is unable to look beyond their own opinion, such bewilderment is perhaps to be expected.

You're accusing me of something here? Care to be more specific, or are you just making my point for me that this thread is mostly just about making blind religiously or politically motivated accusations?

 

[ballfan]

Revenge is the main motivator behind the DP.

Revenge is a factor in the DP. Its part of any kind of punishment. So for cold blooded murders you want your revenge by locking them up for the rest of their lives. Pretty much the same with the DP.

 

[Beastt]

Quite the contrary, every single person ever put to death has never commited another crime. Conversely, many people who have been spared have murdered again, even inside prisons where they are supposedly set so as not to harm others.

Perhaps the word "deterrent" means something different to you than what it does to most. The death penalty, used as a deterrent, suggests that people will be less likely to commit a crime because they fear the consequences. People don't fear the consequences after they have been carried out. And before the death penalty can be executed, someone must commit a capital crime -- usually committing murder. Would it not be preferrable to deter the crime than to carry out the death penalty only after an innocent has lost their life?

??? He was not a criminal according to the Roman who handed him over. I am no Roman legal scholar. Now that I have some idea what you are trying to do, I have to say it is rather rediculous. For one thing, Jesus Himself allowed this to happen in a way most of us simply have no option to control. Anyhow, whatever.

Me thinks you have limited yourself to seeing criminals only where you agree that their actions should be criminal. Certainly, he was put to death as punishment for his actions because his actions were deemed to be a violation of Roman law. Just because under some government systems law can be passed by a single individual and at a moment's notice, makes the violation of that law no less a crime under such a governmental system.

So while nothing Jesus did would be considered criminal under the laws you and I may be familiar with, he was certainly considered guilty of criminal activity under the laws by which his society was governed. That doesn't mean the law was fair, but if you ever walk into a courtroom expecting to see a system of fairness, you'll walk out as bewildered as you seem to be about my previous post.

You're accusing me of something here? Care to be more specific, or are you just making my point for me that this thread is mostly just about making blind religiously or politically motivated accusations?

I was simply agreeing with your own assertion concerning your inability to understand what was being said.

 

[Shane Roach]

Perhaps the word "deterrent" means something different to you than what it does to most. The death penalty, used as a deterrent, suggests that people will be less likely to commit a crime because they fear the consequences. People don't fear the consequences after they have been carried out. And before the death penalty can be executed, someone must commit a capital crime -- usually committing murder. Would it not be preferrable to deter the crime than to carry out the death penalty only after an innocent has lost their life?

Deterrence is deterrence. I think we can deter crime utilizing a whole host of tools, and I do not see the point in automatically considering the death penalty anathema. It is clear that it deters the person from repeat offense. That is enough for it to count as a form of deterrence.

Me thinks you have limited yourself to seeing criminals only where you agree that their actions should be criminal. Certainly, he was put to death as punishment for his actions because his actions were deemed to be a violation of Roman law. Just because under some government systems law can be passed by a single individual and at a moment's notice, makes the violation of that law no less a crime under such a governmental system

So while nothing Jesus did would be considered criminal under the laws you and I may be familiar with, he was certainly considered guilty of criminal activity under the laws by which his society was governed. That doesn't mean the law was fair, but if you ever walk into a courtroom expecting to see a system of fairness, you'll walk out as bewildered as you seem to be about my previous post.

Actually I am just going by what the story says. The Roman authority stated that he found no crime worthy of death in him.

I was simply agreeing with your own assertion concerning your inability to understand what was being said.

I find that hard to believe considering the implicit accusation that I somehow am unable to relate to other people's opinions. Maybe you should just come clean and admit what you did, and get on with whatever points you may have. I think at this point I could be forgiven for understanding this response of yours as purposefully misleading, given what you ACTUALLY said vs. what you now claim was your purpose.

 

[Beastt]

Deterrence is deterrence. I think we can deter crime utilizing a whole host of tools, and I do not see the point in automatically considering the death penalty anathema. It is clear that it deters the person from repeat offense. That is enough for it to count as a form of deterrence.

I guess I simply see no murders as a better solution than one execution for each murder. That way we avoid both the murder and the execution.

Actually I am just going by what the story says. The Roman authority stated that he found no crime worthy of death in him.

Obviously, their was someone in authority who did feel there were crimes worthy of the death penalty. Otherwise he'd not have been crucified. Whether or not he allowed his crucifixion is certainly arguable, as is the contention that if he did, he committed suicide. But that's another thread.

I find that hard to believe considering the implicit accusation that I somehow am unable to relate to other people's opinions. Maybe you should just come clean and admit what you did, and get on with whatever points you may have. I think at this point I could be forgiven for understanding this response of yours as purposefully misleading, given what you ACTUALLY said vs. what you now claim was your purpose.

Perhaps I was simply hinting as to the reasons you were unable to comprehend what was being said.

But I'm not looking for a fight. If you are, I might suggest a local bar as being a more appropriate setting for such an event.

 

[Shane Roach]

I guess I simply see no murders as a better solution to one murder per execution. That way we avoid both the murder and the execution.

It almost sounds as if you think doing away with the death penalty would cause murder to cease to occur, which is demonstrably not true. Here again, I am unclear about your point. Obviously, if there were a way to prevent all murder that would be wonderful. If you are saying that it is unjust to add another murder as a punishment for the first, I have already said I would find that acceptable if it were backed up with some sort of argumentation that explained why it is ok to sort of stand in the gap between for example, a murder victim's family and the murderer, and tell them they have no right to exact a vengeance equal to that which they themselves suffered. If you can demonstrate that you, or I, or others, have that right, and have a right to judge others for not agreeing that vengeance is totally illegitimate, then wonderful. It just seems that hordes of people disagree with that idea, and I see no good way forward.

Obviously, their was someone in authority who did feel there were crimes worthy of the death penalty. Otherwise he'd not have been crucified. Whether or not he allowed his crucifixion is certainly arguable, as is the contention that if he did, he committed suicide. But that's another thread.

I find it a little more straight forward. It is also possible for authorities to be corrupt.

Perhaps I was simply hinting as to the reasons you were unable to comprehend what was being said.

But I'm not looking for a fight. If you are, I might suggest a local bar as being a more fitting setting for such an event.

"I'm not looking for a fight, but you're a redneck idiot who should go to a bar and get drunk and get in a fistfight."

That's me paraphrasing your second (or is it third?) silly denial that you are insulting me coupled with yet another insult. Really, if anyone is paying any attention to this at all, which one hopes they are not, by now they have to be laughing their heads off at us both!

Do you want to discuss this actual topic or not?

 

[Scholar in training]

Arguments against the death penalty from a non-Christian.

1) If one innocent person is killed, that should be enough to not have the death penalty

While the matter of innocence is certainly an important one, it is not a good argument -- at least when used by itself -- against the death penalty.

Applied to other decisions involving life-and-death, the argument you propose becomes silly. Case in point:

If one innocent person is jailed, that should be reason enough to eliminate the prison system.

If one innocent person is killed in war, that should be reason enough to never go to war.

If one innocent person is convicted by a jury, that should be reason enough to eliminate the court system.

 

[Beastt]

It almost sounds as if you think doing away with the death penalty would cause murder to cease to occur, which is demonstrably not true. Here again, I am unclear about your point. Obviously, if there were a way to prevent all murder that would be wonderful. If you are saying that it is unjust to add another murder as a punishment for the first, I have already said I would find that acceptable if it were backed up with some sort of argumentation that explained why it is ok to sort of stand in the gap between for example, a murder victim's family and the murderer, and tell them they have no right to exact a vengeance equal to that which they themselves suffered. If you can demonstrate that you, or I, or others, have that right, and have a right to judge others for not agreeing that vengeance is totally illegitimate, then wonderful. It just seems that hordes of people disagree with that idea, and I see no good way forward.

I can see where my post might be construed this way. No, I don't have a way to completely stop murders. But exercizing vengeance is often the motive for the murder in the first place. I can see little good in then telling the family that they can extract vengeance when that was quite often, the original crime. Extracting vengeance, in my opinion, is simply contrary to a civilized society.

If we always allow a death for a death, then pretty soon, the problem goes away because it is an unending chain. As Ghandi said, "An eye for and eye and pretty soon, we're all blind".

I find it a little more straight forward. It is also possible for authorities to be corrupt.

Yes, even today. Perhaps you missed my post concerning the rate of wrongful executions and the rate of serious error in cases dealing with capital crimes. But the fact still remains that as far as the final athority in Jesus's case was concerned, he was a criminal and executed as a criminal. If he was innocent then count him among the 5% known error rate we have today and ask yourself if that is acceptable for a system that fails as a deterrent, passes the message that extracting vengeance is okay in a civilized society and wastes lives.

"I'm not looking for a fight, but you're a redneck idiot who should go to a bar and get drunk and get in a fistfight."

That's me paraphrasing your second (or is it third?) silly denial that you are insulting me coupled with yet another insult. Really, if anyone is paying any attention to this at all, which one hopes they are not, by now they have to be laughing their heads off at us both!

If you wish to feel insulted, I'll not stand in your way. I've offered explanations twice in a kind and civil manner. Accept them or not.

Do you want to discuss this actual topic or not?

A quick review will show that no one here really seemed dissatisfied with the ongoing discussion until you came along. Perhaps you would wish to consider starting your own thread with more restrictive criteria plainly stated in the OP. It's always an option open to you.

 

[Shane Roach]

I can see where my post might be construed this way. No, I don't have a way to completely stop murders. But exercizing vengeance is often the motive for the murder in the first place. I can see little good in then telling the family that they can extract vengeance when that was quite often, the original crime. Extracting vengeance, in my opinion, is simply contrary to a civilized society.

If we always allow a death for a death, then pretty soon, the problem goes away because it is an unending chain. As Ghandi said, "An eye for and eye and pretty soon, we're all blind".

Vengeance is actually rarely the motive for murder, and that rather over worked quote from Ghandi ignores that fact as well. There are examples of feuds where that cycle does indeed begin to feed itself, but by and large the pattern under our law is an unprovoked murder followed, after conviction, with a retributive murder. There is no cycle in this model. It is the cutting off of a rogue element in the society, and the fact that society actually organizes and STOPS the cycle of violence in favor of a method where there is only the possibility of one retributive murder, and then only if it can be demonstrated that a particular person is guilty, that separates present law from feuds. The death penalty, in this sense, is actually the very thing that ends the cycle. Refusing to implement the death penalty leaves the original victim "behind" in the count, so to speak, and although it is noble in my opinion for someone to forgive, there is the problem that a: the person who is the actual victim is not available to forgive and b: it is not fair, in my opinion, to judge the relatives and friends of the victim, piling more injustice on them by protecting the criminal and basically accusing them of being wrong for wanting revenge.

Yes, even today. Perhaps you missed my post concerning the rate of wrongful executions and the rate of serious error in cases dealing with capital crimes. But the fact still remains that as far as the final athority in Jesus's case was concerned, he was a criminal and executed as a criminal. If he was innocent then count him among the 5% known error rate we have today and ask yourself if that is acceptable for a system that fails as a deterrent, passes the message that extracting vengeance is okay in a civilized society and wastes lives.

I don't really find wrongful conviction acceptable with or without the death penalty. If I thought ending the death penalty pending reforms would work, I would be for it, but frankly a big part of what is wrong with our system is that it is driven by politics concerning things other than what the real problem is. The real conflict at this point actually revolves around two separate worldviews at this point, and everything from our wars to our justice system is colored and wounded now as this conflict works itself out.

Given that ongoing conflict, it seems impractical to simply ban punishment of crime. There is really no way to measure the harm of killing an innocent vs. letting many killers of innocents go without a matching punishment, but it seems clear to me that these two situations are both unacceptable, whichever you prefer to label the lesser of the two evils.

If you wish to feel insulted, I'll not stand in your way. I've offered explanations twice in a kind and civil manner. Accept them or not.

Oh, I think I have made it quite clear I do not accept them, and find your pretences are fairly obvioius.

A quick review will show that no one here really seemed dissatisfied with the ongoing discussion until you came along. Perhaps you would wish to consider starting your own thread with more restrictive criteria plainly stated in the OP. It's always an option open to you.

An even quicker review will reveal that that very trait of this thread, that is to say, that people were pleased to trade barbs without discussing the matter at hand, was precisely what I found objectionable about the thread. So it sort of goes without saying, since that is what I was commenting on, that yes indeed, I agree with you that you all were more than willing to just trade jabs and not discuss the subject rationally and politely.

Also, you are well outside your rights here to try to intimadate me or somehow trick or force me into not posting on a thread simply because you do not agree with what is being posted and cannot present an argument of your own. Once again, I ask you to keep your commentary to the subject at hand.

 

[hippie]

While the matter of innocence is certainly an important one, it is not a good argument -- at least when used by itself -- against the death penalty.

Applied to other decisions involving life-and-death, the argument you propose becomes silly. Case in point:

If one innocent person is jailed, that should be reason enough to eliminate the prison system.

If one innocent person is killed in war, that should be reason enough to never go to war.

If one innocent person is convicted by a jury, that should be reason enough to eliminate the court system.

You can think such absurdities all day long but the reality is that going to jail may be a travesty of justice and convicting an innocent person of a crime may be an injustice but those are repairable.
Killing an innocent person is not and as such is grounds to do away with the death penalty.

 

[Shane Roach]

You can think such absurdities all day long but the reality is that going to jail may be a travesty of justice and convicting an innocent person of a crime may be an injustice but those are repairable.
Killing an innocent person is not and as such is grounds to do away with the death penalty.

Being falsely jailed for years is NOT repairable.

It is debatable that it is even the lesser of two evils.

What it is NOT is an argument about the acceptability of a punishment, and your dodge of that issue speaks volumes about your real concerns.

Ask yourself why it is that NO ONE is concerned about the wrongful convictions in the first place! It is absurd, and some of the examples are absolutely obscene, in that evidence is supressed basically because it might make some lawyer or judge somewhere look bad.

There's no excuse for wrongful convictions. That needs to be fixed, not used as an escuse to foist your opinion about the death penalty off as some sort of moral absolute. The real moral absolute is that there should be no false convictions.