Death Penalty

[Law of Loud]

Being falsely jailed for years is NOT repairable.

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

Being falsely jailed for years is repairable, to some degree at least. That person will leave, hopefully find a job soon enough, and get about a life that was fairly wrecked. The death penalty is permanent, guilty or innocent.

If you honestly think it's better to die than to lose out on a part of your life, then something's a touch wrong with that opinion of yours.

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.

There's no way to fix the issue of wrongful convictions. That's a reality of any justice system.

On the other hand, the death penalty has a lot more problems than just wrongful convictions, just in its nature, that it is killing a man.

We can't do away with wrongful convictions, that's a reality.

But state-sanctioned murder can be done away with. Let's promote a culture of life.

God alone can give it. And God alone should take it away.

 

[LaserCool]

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.

Bravo!

 

[hippie]

Being falsely jailed for years is NOT repairable.

It is repairable because when it is discovered a living human being is released and, in most cases, recieves compensation. I don't think it's enough because you can't compensate someone for the loss of their time though.

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.

What are you talking about?!?! What real concerns? Dodging what issue?

 

[Shane Roach]

Being falsely jailed for years is repairable, to some degree at least. That person will leave, hopefully find a job soon enough, and get about a life that was fairly wrecked. The death penalty is permanent, guilty or innocent.

People do not get over child abuse. They don't get over broken hearts. They do not just get over wrongful convictions. You insisting that wrongful convictions are some sort of fact of life does not make it true. Even if it is true, it is no excuse for not working HARD to make it not happen, nor is it an excuse to do away with punishments that in some measure fit crimes.

If you honestly think it's better to die than to lose out on a part of your life, then something's a touch wrong with that opinion of yours.

Thanks for following in the footsteps of all your predecessors, making this personal almost immediately. I am not alone, by the way, in being a person who would find being imprisoned a fate worse than death. I have been in "prison" of a sort before by the way, and it is a mind grinding experience, and I did not even have to deal with the absolutely inexcuseably vile conditions in moder prisons where, for reasons entirely beyond my comprehension, apparently the prisoners themelves in many cases run the prison, setting the rules, and abusing and being abused in the most vile sorts of ways.

You think about THAT the next time you comfort yourself over how inevitable it is that people must be wrongfully convicted, or that there is absolutely no such thing as a fate worse than death, and feel like slinging a little mud around, eh?

God alone can give it. And God alone should take it away.

Obviously not true, since criminals do it before the state ever gets involved. After all, someone generally has killed someone when the police begin to try to solve the murder....

This is all just sloganeering. "State sanctioned murder". I really don't care what it is called anymore, the bottom line is that you are not judging me. I have already fully agreed that in a perfect world, the relatives or friends of the victim would take the noble road and forgive. The difference is I do not feel comfortable climbing up on the throne and surpassing even God Himself, who made it clear in the OT that the death penalty was not only acceptable, but was to be practiced so that innocent blood should not be shed in the land.

There is a difference between the guilty and the innocent. Just because a person is also a human being does not mean that there is no difference between the criminal who kills for his or her own motives, and a society that kills in order to exact the due penalty for such behavior. Ther is a difference between the victim and the murderer.

 

[Shane Roach]

It is repairable because when it is discovered a living human being is released and, in most cases, recieves compensation. I don't think it's enough because you can't compensate someone for the loss of their time though.

See the post above. You are expressing an opinion, and that is fine, but it is not a forgone conclusion that everyone would feel the way you do.

What are you talking about?!?! What real concerns? Dodging what issue?

What issue are we talking about? The death penalty, as opposed to wrongful convictions......

 

[hippie]

See the post above. You are expressing an opinion, and that is fine, but it is not a forgone conclusion that everyone would feel the way you do.

What!?!?!?! It's only an opinion that a person wronglfully convicted and imprisoned can be set free??? Where do you live that doesn't get the news? There are stories almost monthly about such things!!

What issue are we talking about? The death penalty, as opposed to wrongful convictions......

I've already given my opinion concerning the death penalty. It's morally rephrehensible

 

[Ganymede]

Against the death penalty. Why? Because killing people is wrong - Period.

 

[Shane Roach]

What!?!?!?! It's only an opinion that a person wronglfully convicted and imprisoned can be set free??? Where do you live that doesn't get the news? There are stories almost monthly about such things!!

Apparently you did not read the post above. It is an opinion that it is any sort of improvement of the system to do away with the death penalty for the reasons you state, specifically given that in many cases prison can be a fate worse than death in some people's experience.

I've already given my opinion concerning the death penalty. It's morally rephrehensible

Why? Just because you say so? Are the relatives and friends of the victims so beneath your consideration that their opinion has no bearing on the matter?

 

[Erock83]

Personally i’m not for the death penalty i think its an uncivilized and uncultured idea; however i don’t think really that is what any DP debate is really about, perhaps on the surface but not underpinning point of the debate, what i really comes down to is why are we just killing inmates, why because they did something some unspeakable that we as society can only forgive them by sacrificing there life(back the the uncivilized part), what i’m sorry but how can that in any way shape or from be even related to Christianity, well you guessed it can’t, what we need to do is forgive that person and have a system that does as well, no i’m not saying tell them they have been a bad boy/girl and let them go i’m say why don’t we spend money time and resources figuring out what motivates people to commit these acts and trying ways to rehabilitate these peoples find ways to suggest and motivate changes in behavior for the betterment of not only that person but society as a whole, this is something that the current prison system does not do it is the grown up equilivant of high school detention, monotonous pointless and a complete waste of tax payers money, it is time for change and radical change so not only in the DP but in the enter “correction” system period, we need to pull our heads out of the sand and stop worrying about the little things like the DP and worry about the big picture because if we don’t we are just going to lethal injection into more crime and more repeat criminals where in our narrow minded legal system will have no choice but to condemn more and more people to unfair, unjust and untimely deaths

 

[Shane Roach]

Against the death penalty. Why? Because killing people is wrong - Period.

No it's not. Period.

Seriously, what is this sort of thing supposed to prove? Obviously a whole drove of people disagree. The victim and the criminal are not identical to one another morally and ethically.

 

[Shane Roach]

Personally i’m not for the death penalty i think its an uncivilized and uncultured idea; however i don’t think really that is what any DP debate is really about, perhaps on the surface but not underpinning point of the debate, what i really comes down to is why are we just killing inmates, why because they did something some unspeakable that we as society can only forgive them by sacrificing there life(back the the uncivilized part), what i’m sorry but how can that in any way shape or from be even related to Christianity, well you guessed it can’t, what we need to do is forgive that person and have a system that does as well, no i’m not saying tell them they have been a bad boy/girl and let them go i’m say why don’t we spend money time and resources figuring out what motivates people to commit these acts and trying ways to rehabilitate these peoples find ways to suggest and motivate changes in behavior for the betterment of not only that person but society as a whole, this is something that the current prison system does not do it is the grown up equilivant of high school detention, monotonous pointless and a complete waste of tax payers money, it is time for change and radical change so not only in the DP but in the enter “correction” system period, we need to pull our heads out of the sand and stop worrying about the little things like the DP and worry about the big picture because if we don’t we are just going to lethal injection into more crime and more repeat criminals where in our narrow minded legal system will have no choice but to condemn more and more people to unfair, unjust and untimely deaths

Like many, you seem to concieve of the system as a being in itself. The only people in any position to "forgive" a murderer are the friends and relatives of the victims, and it is them, not others, whom you judge when you make these sorts of accusations.

As for your opinion on whether or not it is "Christian", all I can tell you is if it was such a horrid thing I do not see why it would have been included, even required, by God for His chosen people. I am afraid you are merely substituting your own judgement here. I certainly do not accept your authority to simply declare the death penalty anti-Christian.

 

[hippie]

Apparently you did not read the post above. It is an opinion that it is any sort of improvement of the system to do away with the death penalty for the reasons you state, specifically given that in many cases prison can be a fate worse than death in some people's experience.

So we should execute innocent people?

Why? Just because you say so? Are the relatives and friends of the victims so beneath your consideration that their opinion has no bearing on the matter?

So we should execute them because that is your opinion? Do ALL of the friends and families of the victims have to agree with you? Or are they so beneath your (deleted by hippie) attitude that they should not be taken into consideration?

 

[Beastt]

Vengeance is actually rarely the motive for murder,

Can you provide something of substance to support this claim?

and that rather over worked quote from Ghandi ignores that fact as well.

Perhaps the quote is "overworked", as you say, because many people see a lot of wisdom in its message. And until you can provide some support for your claim concerning motive, perhaps it would be best to refrain from referring to it as a "fact".

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.

Again, I think you need to provide some statistical support for your claim that the majority of homicides are unprovoked.

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.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that it stops the cycle one step further into the violence than is necessary. And it also tells people that vindictive retribution is acceptable.

The death penalty, in this sense, is actually the very thing that ends the cycle.

The cycle could just as well be ended through life in prison and with the blood of one less person on the hands of society. You can't make a very credible argument against violence when the answer you propose is additional violence.

Refusing to implement the death penalty leaves the original victim "behind" in the count, so to speak,...

We're talking about human lives here, not a basketball game. You can't "even the score" by continuing the killing.

...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.

Using that logic do you feel it would be appropriate to assault those convicted of assault? Would you be in favor of having them restrained while the victim of their assault then assaulted them? What about sexual assault? Where does it end?

If you're not in favor, then apparently you don't believe what you're saying about a persons right to vengeance or societies lack of right to restrict that vengeance to avoid futher violence.

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.

The problem revolves around the fact that careers are made or broken on the basis of conviction of those accused of capital crimes. Once the public hears that someone has been charged with a homicide, few want to consider the possibility that they may be innocent. Once charged in such a case, a fair trial is beyond the reach of the accused. Nothing you or I can do will change that. But we could at least stop killing innocents at a rate of at least 1 in 20. When you consider how few investigations continue beyond the point of execution, there is good reason to believe that the actual number of executed innocents is much higher. When you recognize that the system is malfunctioning to that degree, is it not prudent to at least place limitations on the damage?

Given that ongoing conflict, it seems impractical to simply ban punishment of crime.

Who here said anything about banning the punishment of crime? I've not seen that suggestion posted. What most seem to be getting at is that there are forms of punishment which still isolate society from the threat and leave potential for some degree of correction should the conviction be found to be in error.

There is really no way to measure the harm of killing an innocent vs. letting many killers of innocents go without a matching punishment,

Again, no one is suggesting that we just let murderers go. I find your need for a "matching punishment" indicative of a personal inability to avoid the need to seek revenge. Seeking revenge will bring you hatred, anger, violence and an escalation of each of those factors. But it will never put an end to the cycle. A criminal commits a murder and is convicted. The family wants revenge and revenge is granted through the death penalty. Do you really think it ends there? Do you not realize that there are family members of the convicted who will now seek their own revenge? Revenge needn't even be justified to be desired. And to demonstrate to the whole of society that seeking revenge is a worthy cause will never aid in countering violence because it rewards the desire to commit or seek violence.

but it seems clear to me that these two situations are both unacceptable, whichever you prefer to label the lesser of the two evils.

I'm not sure how there can be any question. Certainly the lesser of two evils is the one which allows someone who may have been convicted wrongfully to continue to live. Perhaps in time their case can be over-turned. This is supposed to be the function of the appeals system but it obviously fails when we later find that 5% of those executed were innocent. If they had not been executed, they could be attempting to rebuild their lives. But we've eliminated any potential to right the wrong done against them when we take their lives.

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

As you wish.

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.

Perhaps I missed the announcement placing you in charge of the forum. When multiple users are quite happy with the discussion as is, and then someone else pops in after nearly 100 posts and openly chastizes the entire active membership in the thread, perhaps they deserve a little of what they get. If you're unable to accept that, you now have the knowledge to avoid it in the future.

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.

I have no problem with you posting here. The problem is that you came into the thread like the proverbial bull in a china shop. Do you even start to comprehend the arrogance you displayed in your opening post here? My people skills are certainly lacking at times but it's nice to know that I'm far from the worst example. For that bit of knowledge, I suppose I owe you a word of thanks.

 

[Shane Roach]

So we should execute innocent people?

Ah, baiting. I already answered this.

So we should execute them because that is your opinion? Do ALL of the friends and families of the victims have to agree with you? Or are they so beneath your (deleted by hippie) attitude that they should not be taken into consideration?

I also already answered this, but it is a short thing to answer again. To my way of thinking it is a noble thing for those people to forgive, so if they do I do not insist that the death penalty be enforced over their objections.

 

[hippie]

Ah, baiting. I already answered this.

I'm really not trying to bait you on this. I just want to understand if you think it is acceptable to execute an innocent person?

 

[Beastt]

People do not get over child abuse. They don't get over broken hearts. They do not just get over wrongful convictions.

People get over wrongful imprisonment more often than they get over wrongful death.

You insisting that wrongful convictions are some sort of fact of life does not make it true.

I refer you to Page #5, Post #46 of this thread.

Even if it is true, it is no excuse for not working HARD to make it not happen, nor is it an excuse to do away with punishments that in some measure fit crimes.

Here you suggest that we work hard to prevent erroneous convictions, elsewhere in this thread, (Post #118), you admit that due to the reasons this occurs, it is unlikely that it can be fixed. Your need to have a punishment which will "fit crimes", is indicative of your own belief in the need for revenge. Revenge is not a positive desire and it will never yield positive results. What it will do is propagate the desire for continued revenge. The cycle, once started, is unending. It is best to stop it at the first opportunity rather than prolong the cycle.

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.

 

[Erock83]

Like many, you seem to concieve of the system as a being in itself. The only people in any position to "forgive" a murderer are the friends and relatives of the victims, and it is them, not others, whom you judge when you make these sorts of accusations.

As for your opinion on whether or not it is "Christian", all I can tell you is if it was such a horrid thing I do not see why it would have been included, even required, by God for His chosen people. I am afraid you are merely substituting your own judgement here. I certainly do not accept your authority to simply declare the death penalty anti-Christian.

ok fine i’ll give that point if you really want it, you can take it, put it on a gold plater and cook in the oven with your Christmas ham, it still does not negate the fact that there needs to be serious change in the correctional system, if you don’t want to start with the DP then cool why don’t we start with mandorty counseling and understanding of serial rapist, i don’t care where we start or how we start my friend just so long as there is a radical change in your paradigm in how we think about and deal with crime in society, thanks for completely ignoring what i was trying to say maybe now you will go back and read what i said the first time

 

[Shane Roach]

Can you provide something of substance to support this claim?


Perhaps the quote is "overworked", as you say, because many people see a lot of wisdom in its message. And until you can provide some support for your claim concerning motive, perhaps it would be best to refrain from referring to it as a "fact".


Again, I think you need to provide some statistical support for your claim that the majority of homicides are unprovoked.

I think it would be more correct to back up and have you substantiate your claim that it is. I will say that in the years I have known my father, who has worked as a criminal defense lawyer, an ADA, and a DA, I have yet to hear of a case where a murder was commited because someone else was first killed. It is rare, and if you think not, then feel free to show me I am wrong.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that it stops the cycle one step further into the violence than is necessary. And it also tells people that vindictive retribution is acceptable.

Necessary in whose eyes? Yours? Why? This goes back to the very first post I made that you have as yet failed to address. How do we decide what is and is not a proper punishment?

The cycle could just as well be ended through life in prison and with the blood of one less person on the hands of society. You can't make a very credible argument against violence when the answer you propose is additional violence.

I can't make it to you, but then again you are not the end all of public policy, nor for that matter am I. Still, if you are the one insisting the death penalty is wrong, is it asking that much for you to explain how and why?

We're talking about human lives here, not a basketball game. You can't "even the score" by continuing the killing.

Can't you? If it makes it easier for the relatives and friends of the victime, then perhaps it does. Or perhaps that's not even the point. Perhaps it is just unfair to let someone get away with such a thing without a punishment that fits the crime.

Using that logic do you feel it would be appropriate to assault those convicted of assault? Would you be in favor of having them restrained while the victim of their assault then assaulted them? What about sexual assault? Where does it end?

I am not opposed either to more direct punishment nor what we have today. I have to say though that dragging the entire legal code into this discussion seems pretty red-herring-esque to me.

If you're not in favor, then apparently you don't believe what you're saying about a persons right to vengeance or societies lack of right to restrict that vengeance to avoid futher violence.

Unfounded assertion following red herring. I might as well repeat that as yet you have in no way established how it is you claim moral superiority for your viewpoint, while simultaneously piling on responsibility after responsibility for ME to explain things to YOU.

I do not accept your assertion that I am responsible for all this. Rather, if you are going to judge all people who believe in the death penalty as immoral or unethical, you need to establish that yourself.

The problem revolves around the fact that careers are made or broken on the basis of conviction of those accused of capital crimes. Once the public hears that someone has been charged with a homicide, few want to consider the possibility that they may be innocent. Once charged in such a case, a fair trial is beyond the reach of the accused. Nothing you or I can do will change that. But we could at least stop killing innocents at a rate of at least 1 in 20. When you consider how few investigations continue beyond the point of execution, there is good reason to believe that the actual number of executed innocents is much higher. When you recognize that the system is malfunctioning to that degree, is it not prudent to at least place limitations on the damage?

I think I said it above, but to repeat, if I thought the system would take advantage of such a moritorium to fix things, I would be for it. As it is, it looks more like just one more step towards a system where authorities exercise direct control over people vs. listening to what people want and making a society of, by and for the people.

Who here said anything about banning the punishment of crime?

No one, least of all me. I said specifically a punishment that matches the crime.

Again, no one is suggesting that we just let murderers go. I find your need for a "matching punishment" indicative of an inability to seek revenge. Seeking revenge will bring you hatred, anger, violence and an escalation of each of those factors. But it will never put an end to the cycle. A criminal commits a murder and is convicted. The family wants revenge and revenge is granted through the death penalty. Do you really think it ends there? Do you not realize that there are family members of the convicted who will now seek their own revenge?

Fact is, families of murderers tend to want to appologize to the victim's families when they are presented with good evidence that their relative did indeed commit the murder. Even if they are angry, few seem to take matters into their own hands. You are inventing a problem here that does not exist.

I'm not sure how there can be any question. Certainly the lesser of two evils is the one which allows someone who may have been convicted wrongfully to continue to live. Perhaps in time their case can be over-turned. This is supposed to be the function of the appeals system but it obviously fails when we later find that 5% of those executed were innocent. If they had not been executed, they could be attempting to rebuild their lives. But we've eliminated any potential to right the wrong done against them when we take their lives.

"Certainly the lesser of two evils is the one which allows someone who may have been convicted wrongfully to continue to live." Of course.... who could argue with that? Unfortunately, that is not both the evils. The other one is that a person who commited a murder, even one that was witnessed and on tape and iron clad, never pays for that crime to the degree that it impacted his or her victime. Understand, when people give over their rights to the government to take care of criminal justice, and the government then abuses that trust to victimize again those who suffer at the hands of criminals, indeed that casts the criminal and the victim as one and the same value to society, that government begins to lose its legitimacy in the eyes of those it victimizes and judges wrongly.

I have to repeat, there is a difference between the innocent and the guilty.

Perhaps I missed the announcement placing you in charge of the forum. When multiple users are quite happy with the discussion as is, and then someone else pops in after nearly 100 posts and openly chastizes the entire active membership in the thread, perhaps they deserve a little of what they get. If you're unable to accept that, you now have the knowledge to avoid it in the future.

I didn't name a single name, but if the shoe fits...

I saw enough name calling and character assassination in this thread to warrant a comment on it. I have the right to comment on it. I think the political polarization that colors these sorts of discussions is counterproductive. You, for your part, merely started right out insulting me specifically and personally. Now you are desperately trying to change the subject or somehow shift the blame.

I didn't point a finger at you.

I have no problem with you posting here. The problem is that you came into the thread like the proverbial bull in a china shop. Do you even start to comprehend the arrogance you displayed in your opening post here? My people skills are certainly lacking at times but it's nice to know that I'm far from the worst example. For that bit of knowledge, I suppose I owe you a word of thanks.

And there's the proof in the pudding right there. One more personal attack. I don't think I have seen a single post by anyone opposed to the death penalty yet that doesn't take a pot shot at me, or at the very least anyone in general who does not agree wholeheartedly that the death penalty is universally wrong.

I am not even entirely pro death penalty and I get this treatment. Heh...

 

[Shane Roach]

ok fine i’ll give that point if you really want it, you can take it, put it on a gold plater and cook in the oven with your Christmas ham, it still does not negate the fact that there needs to be serious change in the correctional system, if you don’t want to start with the DP then cool why don’t we start with mandorty counseling and understanding of serial rapist, i don’t care where we start or how we start my friend just so long as there is a radical change in your paradigm in how we think about and deal with crime in society, thanks for completely ignoring what i was trying to say maybe now you will go back and read what i said the first time

I have a better idea. Why don't we spend the money we have for helping people on all the millions upon millions of people who have not commited a crime as of yet?

Is that so terribly irrational of me?

 

[Erock83]

I have a better idea. Why don't we spend the money we have for helping people on all the millions upon millions of people who have not commited a crime as of yet?

Is that so terribly irrational of me?

no not at all great idea, but then remans what are you going to do with all the people that we are treating like the class clown that hurled a spit wad at there 3rd period chem. teacher, i think you might be beginning to hear what i’m saying good job