Support for the death penalty

[VirOptimus]

My argument is that you should look at all the facts when debating this issue. As an atheist you find that argument weak? Do you speak for all atheists?

I speak for myself.

I have already said that an argument that a state must kill its citizsens to ensure the rights of suspects is weak sauce.

 

[rocknanchor]

I have no idea what you are trying to say? Can you just state it plainly?

Sure, leaving the painfully obvious portion of the will of God (Mark 3:35), I'll rephrase the other portion,

No Christian that is interested in God’s will logically join himself to something ‘better’.

"Better", as in expecting a Christian to turn his back on God's will to avail the merits of Capitol Punishment. See reference above.

 

[ZNP]

I speak for myself.

I have already said that an argument that a state must kill its citizsens to ensure the rights of suspects is weak sauce.

I am not making that argument. My argument is that in this debate I have yet to hear anyone point out the biggest benefit of the death penalty.

It is like saying that people do not need vitamin C because it doesn't cure Coronavirus. Yes it is true that it is not a cure for coronavirus but it does not follow that the human body does not benefit from vitamin C.

I think if you are going to have an opinion on this issue it should be informed of the facts. If 100% of the citizens are informed and then decide they don't want the death penalty in their state, country, then that is fine. Perfectly understandable.

 

[ZNP]

Sure, leaving the painfully obvious portion of the will of God (Mark 3:35), I'll rephrase the other portion,

"Better", as in expecting a Christian to turn his back on God's will to avail the merits of Capitol Punishment. See reference above.

The reference says that we need to do the will of God. What I need is a verse that shows that the death penalty is contrary to the will of God. Thanks (BTW I would find such a verse very compelling)

Also if you could explain how this contradiction with the OT does not in some way imply the God of the OT is immoral, that would also be helpful, thanks.

 

[BigV]

I have no problems with the death penalty for those who were truly guilty of their crimes.

The biggest challenge to the death penalty, in my view, is the number of people on death row who were exonerated.

List of exonerated death row inmates - Wikipedia

I also find it ironic that many Christians who are opposed to the death penalty end up supporting the US military action abroad, which is, essentially, a death penalty for many locals.

 

[ZNP]

On March 23, Colorado became the 22nd state in the US to repeal the death penalty. The punishment was only administered once since it was reinstated in the state in the 1970s, in a rape and murder case in 1997.

Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed the decision into law, which marks a growing trend for states to eliminate the use of capitol punishment. According to a 2019 poll, 60% of Americans said they would prefer life in prison over execution as the most severe form of punishment in the US.

All inmates with prior death sentences in Colorado have been commuted to life without parole.

 

[Tinker Grey]

It's "capital", folks.

 

[VirOptimus]

I am not making that argument. My argument is that in this debate I have yet to hear anyone point out the biggest benefit of the death penalty.

It is like saying that people do not need vitamin C because it doesn't cure Coronavirus. Yes it is true that it is not a cure for coronavirus but it does not follow that the human body does not benefit from vitamin C.

I think if you are going to have an opinion on this issue it should be informed of the facts. If 100% of the citizens are informed and then decide they don't want the death penalty in their state, country, then that is fine. Perfectly understandable.

Dude, I have heard all the arguments.

And that is the argument you have made in this thread.

 

[ZNP]

Dude, I have heard all the arguments.

And that is the argument you have made in this thread.

Please refer to Post #1 and the key claim I make.

"Every debate on the death penalty I have seen never presents the key benefit of the death penalty that I am aware of."

The purpose of this thread, and I'll repeat it for the third time because apparently there are a number of atheists (sorry but that is the case) who wish to redefine it, the purpose of this thread is to present support for the death penalty that I have not seen in the debates I have witnessed.

I am not arguing the the death penalty should be legalized, only that in those states and countries where it is being debated that they present all the facts for both sides of the argument.

Nowhere on this thread do I deny that innocent people (people who did not commit the crime for which they have been convicted) will be executed if you have the death penalty. I have already said that man has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and it is unreasonable to think that we could do this perfectly. I recognize that this alone can be a compelling argument against the death penalty.

 

[VirOptimus]

Please refer to Post #1 and the key claim I make.

"Every debate on the death penalty I have seen never presents the key benefit of the death penalty that I am aware of."

The purpose of this thread, and I'll repeat it for the third time because apparently there are a number of atheists (sorry but that is the case) who wish to redefine it, the purpose of this thread is to present support for the death penalty that I have not seen in the debates I have witnessed.

I am not arguing the the death penalty should be legalized, only that in those states and countries where it is being debated that they present all the facts for both sides of the argument.

Nowhere on this thread do I deny that innocent people (people who did not commit the crime for which they have been convicted) will be executed if you have the death penalty. I have already said that man has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and it is unreasonable to think that we could do this perfectly. I recognize that this alone can be a compelling argument against the death penalty.

And that ”support” is the one I have dismissed.

own up to your weak arguments.

 

[ZNP]

And that ”support” is the one I have dismissed.

own up to your weak arguments.

What is the weak argument, that all the evidence should be presented in a debate or that this evidence is not enough to convince you of the merits of the death penalty? I am making the first argument, not the second. Why is it that you are so insistent that evidence that supports the death penalty should not be presented in a debate over the death penalty?

 

[VirOptimus]

What is the weak argument, that all the evidence should be presented in a debate or that this evidence is not enough to convince you of the merits of the death penalty? I am making the first argument, not the second. Why is it that you are so insistent that evidence that supports the death penalty should not be presented in a debate over the death penalty?

Evidence? No, its just an (unsupported) statement. And its a stupid statement.

 

[Tinker Grey]

What is the weak argument, that all the evidence should be presented in a debate or that this evidence is not enough to convince you of the merits of the death penalty? I am making the first argument, not the second. Why is it that you are so insistent that evidence that supports the death penalty should not be presented in a debate over the death penalty?

I'm puzzled as to what you think you are arguing. I'd wager from the other responses that I'm not the only one.

Are you arguing that the death penalty is useful because it furthers the field of forensics?

 

[VirOptimus]

I'm puzzled as to what you think you are arguing. I'd wager from the other responses that I'm not the only one.

Are you arguing that the death penalty is useful because it furthers the field of forensics?

Thats how it seems.

 

[ZNP]

In NYC in 1970 we had a 0.7% rate of violent crime to the population, that rose to 1.2% in 1990 and 1991 and has since dropped to a low of 0.4%

That is a drop of 67% in 30 years.

Since DNA first was used in 1986 to convict a person of a crime, and the first conviction with DNA was 1987, challenges were made and laws passed in 1989, new techniques for commercially available DNA tests arrive in 1992.

The facts are in the history books, the question that is relevant is how much did DNA (and other forensic techniques) play a role in making sure guilty people are convicted and innocent people are not, and how relevant is that in reducing the crime rate.

We know that repeat offenders in violent crimes are down, significantly. Is this because we are catching and convicting the guilty party and taking them off the streets?

 

[VirOptimus]

In NYC in 1970 we had a 0.7% rate of violent crime to the population, that rose to 1.2% in 1990 and 1991 and has since dropped to a low of 0.4%

That is a drop of 67% in 30 years.

Since DNA first was used in 1986 to convict a person of a crime, and the first conviction with DNA was 1987, challenges were made and laws passed in 1989, new techniques for commercially available DNA tests arrive in 1992.

The facts are in the history books, the question that is relevant is how much did DNA (and other forensic techniques) play a role in making sure guilty people are convicted and innocent people are not, and how relevant is that in reducing the crime rate.

We know that repeat offenders in violent crimes are down, significantly. Is this because we are catching and convicting the guilty party and taking them off the streets?

You know, there is a lot of research done on what causes crime. You are woefully ignorant.

And you named the thread ”support for the death penalty” why?

 

[Arcangl86]

I'm puzzled as to what you think you are arguing. I'd wager from the other responses that I'm not the only one.

Are you arguing that the death penalty is useful because it furthers the field of forensics?

That's my read, and I think it's sort of a bizarre argument.

 

[ZNP]

I'm puzzled as to what you think you are arguing. I'd wager from the other responses that I'm not the only one.

Are you arguing that the death penalty is useful because it furthers the field of forensics?

I'm arguing that the death penalty motivates lawyers, police and scientists to find ways to prove innocence and guilt. I think that point is indisputable.

As a result of the improvements to forensics I am also arguing that over the last 120 years the percent of innocent people who are wrongfully accused and convicted (I see the wrongful accusation as a crime regardless of whether the person is ultimately convicted) has dropped spectacularly. 120 years ago being convicted of a crime was hardly evidence that you were guilty. Today it is much, much more likely that you are in fact guilty than it was 120 years ago and that can be completely attributed to forensics. You might argue that the laws have also helped but I believe the laws changed when the reality of our ability to get evidence changed.

I am also arguing that if you are going to debate whether or not to do away with the death penalty that the benefits we have received from death penalty cases (most notably fingerprints and DNA though I could give a very long list) should be part of the debate.

For example, a very powerful argument against the Death penalty is that innocent people will be executed by the state. This is a hypothetical argument that is very strongly supported with statistical evidence. If that argument is legitimate, and I feel it is, then the argument that hundreds of thousands of people have benefited from the discoveries made while trying to solve a death penalty case should also be included.

 

[VirOptimus]

I'm arguing that the death penalty motivates lawyers, police and scientists to find ways to prove innocence and guilt. I think that point is indisputable.

As a result of the improvements to forensics I am also arguing that over the last 120 years the percent of innocent people who are wrongfully accused and convicted (I see the wrongful accusation as a crime regardless of whether the person is ultimately convicted) has dropped spectacularly. 120 years ago being convicted of a crime was hardly evidence that you were guilty. Today it is much, much more likely that you are in fact guilty than it was 120 years ago and that can be completely attributed to forensics. You might argue that the laws have also helped but I believe the laws changed when the reality of our ability to get evidence changed.

I am also arguing that if you are going to debate whether or not to do away with the death penalty that the benefits we have received from death penalty cases (most notably fingerprints and DNA though I could give a very long list) should be part of the debate.

For example, a very powerful argument against the Death penalty is that innocent people will be executed by the state. This is a hypothetical argument that is very strongly supported with statistical evidence. If that argument is legitimate, and I feel it is, then the argument that hundreds of thousands of people have benefited from the discoveries made while trying to solve a death penalty case should also be included.

This is so stupid.

Thats like saying that because of the research done on human subjects in concentration camp could be used in medicine concentration camps are good.

 

[ZNP]

You know, there is a lot of research done on what causes crime. You are woefully ignorant.

And you named the thread ”support for the death penalty” why?

Yes I know there is a lot of research and this post was far too brief to be comprehensive. But I also know that it is a valid hypothesis that improving the criminal justices ability to catch and convict the actual perpetrator of a violent crime can explain the drop in the rate of violent crime.