The Death Penalty

[garrett7855]

Expat-thanks-you know what for. In Sentinal's defense, I have to admit that he may have some small reason to think I might be "stupid".

However, let me restate-"convince me"!

I'm not being facetious when I tell you I'm uncertain on this issue. I know some of my posts tend toward being a bit on the 'tongue in cheek' side, but this issue is one where jokes are not appropriate.

Was I disappointed when The Oklahoma City Bomber went to meet his maker in Terre Haute? Hardly! I'd have gladly done the deed myself!

On the other hand, no innocent person should be put to death by the state.

It strikes me that my problem lies more with the degree of certainty used in the penal and judicial systems, not
the morality of capital punishment.

[Robertson223]

I find the statement " the bible is 100% for the death penalty" quite extraordinary considering it has been the source of such quotes as:
"thee who has not sinned, cast the first stone" and "turn the other cheek". In garrett7855's words, sentinal has to "convince me" on that particular point.

However, this is easy for me to say, coming from a country (Britain) that, compared to the US, has a low murder rate, and so not only has my life never been threatened, I have never personally known a murder victim. Of course I see this as a true blessing and I am truely greatful. But the fact that Britian has such a low murder rate and does not use capital punishment brings us back the the topic "is capital punishment a deterrent?".

I understand that there are the strong sentiments of the families of the murder victims, and not being in their position I do not pretend to comprehend their feelings intense anger and distress over losing a loved one. I also know that in the case of capital punishment, we need to be realtistic and that these airy-fairy ideals of mine might not work in reality.... but i still can't help hoping that they would.

Wouldn't it be so much better if we could break out of the cycle of murder and revenge and rise above it? In my oppinion, it is truely noble to resist our natural human temptation to seek revenge. And, as Ghandi said "an eye for and eye and the world goes blind".

As a Christian, I prefere to focus on the teachings of the New Testament in which Jesus rejects this "eye for an eye" statement for "turn the other cheek".

[USA50]

I am new to this board, and I want to begin by saying that I will address points as they are delivered in as logical a manner as I can. I invite anyone responding to me to do the same courtesy…<br>
Here are the issues indented, and my responses..
Let's start with the general liberal views. They
believe that it is wrong to put a convicted criminal to
death. In contrast, they also believe that it is okay
to take the life of an unborn child. I don't get it.

As a human being who is also a Liberal I believe it is wrong to put a criminal to death. I do not believe it is ok to take the life of an unborn child, an unborn child being one defined as within development period established. If you want to discuss abortion of a FETUS, that’s different. Conservatives are keen on using/changing terminology in this issue to suit their purposes. If an embryo/fetus is unable to survive outside its mother’s body, it is not a child, and an abortion is not killing. The embryo/fetus is an integral/dependent element of the mother’s body over which she has final say.

Next, let's look at the general Conservative views.
Conservatives believe that it is okay to take the life
of a convicted criminal. Conservatives also believe
that it is wrong to take the life of an unborn child.
This makes more sense to me. At least the person
being put to death here has been convicted of doing
something very wrong.

Where does this business about the sanctity of a fetus/embryo life come from? Perhaps from religion? What does Christianity espouse…Thou shalt not KILL? What’s the moral imperative to kill a criminal – as opposed (and it would have to be a very strong argument) to the stated imperative NOT to kill? “Capital punishment” is not even punishment; it is the instantaneous termination of consciousness and life and thereby terminates any sensation of punishment. If by punishment the intent is the mental torture which may precede termination, then you violate the Constitution by imposing a cruel and unusual punishment – torture is not allowed or the policy of the US.

And capital punishment is not an ‘example’ to others. Something executed in private state seclusion means nothing to other criminals. That, though, is not a reason then to make it public and thus ‘effective’. What are capital crimes are committed mostly in the heat of the moment, and almost all crimes are committed by people who think they won’t be caught – criminals are stupid and illogical; you cannot deter them with a logic that is devised to deter good, thinking people from crime. Besides, there is no proof that it deters.

By trying to always link capital punishment with abortion you try to make a case which logically does not follow: execution is killing, aborting an unviable embryo/fetus (NOT a ‘child’) is not killing.


Is it still right to take another person's life?

I have already answered this question… and I think you have too..

Is it an eye for an eye or thou shall not kill?

See?... the religious thing really does reflect on it from your perspective. It might be better if this discussion eliminated religion; it is perfectly possible to discuss the ethics and morality of anything without the introduction of religion. If it is not, then logic and reason have no place in the world.

With the growing uncertainty in the legal system can
we be sure we won't be putting an innocent person
to death? The number of people that are convicted
only to be found innocent (sometimes after years in
prison) seems to be on the rise.

We can never be sure – the legal system is one of best approximations based on evidence and the way evidence is handled; it is not a system of truth. Such a system cannot ethically or morally deal in dispensing death.


On the other hand, if we repeal the death penalty,
will we make would be murderers less fearful of
committing such crimes?

I addressed this above.

[MO]

I do not believe it is ok to take the life of an unborn child, an unborn child being one defined as within development period established. If you want to discuss abortion of a FETUS, that’s different.

That's just semantics! Fetus means baby. Even viable babies are aborted in the US.

If an embryo/fetus is unable to survive outside its mother’s body, it is not a child, and an abortion is not killing. The embryo/fetus is an integral/dependent element of the mother’s body over which she has final say.

A newborn or even a two year old can not survive without a mother. Should she decide if the child should live or die at that point? I would challenge you to find a cell biologist who would say that a "fetus" is not a human life.

If your Bible says "Thou shall not kill" you have a badly translated version. The commandment is "Thou shall not MURDER." There is a big difference! If you are against capital punishment I would advise you to not hit people over the head with the Bible. The Bible is full of pro-capital punishment positions.

[USA50]

Mo, does Curly know where you are? There is a definable and definite difference between ‘baby’ and ‘embryo/fetus’, one of the reasons there have always been separate words. A toddler is not a ‘baby’ – how far you gonna stretch word links to stumble over a point? I admire your courage in bringing out the word ‘semantics’ because that’s the game that was started by conservatives originally on this issue by being disingenuous enough to blur definitions. Viable babies are not legally aborted in the US.

A newborn or two year old can breathe and cry and receive food and drink from external sources, and eliminate waste just like you and me – THAT is the meaning of viable. There you go again, semanitcs… Anyone who deprives a ‘viable’ human of life support is guilty of murder; I think you know that, you just refuse to see distinctions where distinctions lie. Why don’t you and I debate the fetus-is-not-a-human-life deal while I go searching all the cell biologists? Besides, if you think as you imply that NO cell biologist would agree, I think you may have gone too far.

My Bible is in English, translated from ancient Middle Eastern and Greek texts, AND modified in English many times before it got to the 20th century. But, my Bible is just and interesting book of stories compiled by choice by some Middle Eastern ancients (just like yours); it does not, and need not, bear on any discussion of ethics and morality. Besides it is a New Standard Version from 1952 which says at Exodus 20:2-17 “You shall not KILL.” How ‘bout that?

I try to rely on logic, reason, and rationality, and if you would care to venture into those, I would be glad to discuss anything with you.

[lordjulius7]

Robertson, as a fellow Englishman, I must say that your analysis is incomplete. The murder rate in Britain rose sharply the same year capital punishment was abolished and continued to rise at a level far beyond that from before abolition. Thus, our experience is compelling proof that capital punishment DOES provide a deterrent.

[USA50]

In conjunction with the ever present linking of abortion (Vote Pro Life) and capital punishment, I am respectfully asking my conservative friends to mount a campaign with ads, banners, and bumper stickers which proclaim:

VOTE PRO DEATH

If you will have one way, why not the other?

[commonsense]

nospace said:

DEATH PENALTY should be issued by those effected by the crime!

If you are stupid enough to try raping or killing my wife or son - watch EVERY LAST shadow - I WILL BE in one of them and I will assure you that you will not face the chair or death penalty!

Your own mother will not recognize you when I am done with you!

I do not need anyone to throw the switch and tax payers won't have that massive administrative bill to pay!

My family is MY Responsibility - and I am very responsible when it comes to their well being!

"Very well said"

[AgentOrange]

" Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord Allah "

[TaraMess03]

I am totally for the death penalty, I strongly belive in eye for an eye. I don't believe that people should be able to live after they have taken someones life intinally. I feel this strongly because this is a personal issue for me. My brother and his best friend were murdered. My brother was murdered for trying to defend himself from a teenager trying to steal his car. And only because this boy is eight-teen and has no past criminal record he will get away easy. Do you think its fair? That my dead brother doesn't get justice for this shitty hate-crime that was committed against him. Not only did he kill my brother but he killed my brothers best friend. I don't think its fair that my brother didn't get to live his life to the fullest. I don't think its fair my brother died at the age of 20 and now his beloved son will not be able to have his father around to raise him. I think that these punk kids should pay for their actions they feel no remorse for what they have done. Why should they get to live? They took a father away from his son and took a brother away from his sister and took a son away from his mother.

[guestvito]

lordjulius7 said:

Robertson, as a fellow Englishman, I must say that your analysis is incomplete. The murder rate in Britain rose sharply the same year capital punishment was abolished and continued to rise at a level far beyond that from before abolition. Thus, our experience is compelling proof that capital punishment DOES provide a deterrent.

Even if this is true it is compelling proof of nothing. I could just as easily say that the fact that the US (with the death penalty) has a far higher murder rate than Britain (without it) proves that there is no deterrence. Both of these arguments are based on single statistics taken out of context. Practically every carefully structured and controlled study has failed to demonstrate any deterrence.

[Ogilvy]

While reading Seamus Heaney's New Verse translation of Beowulf, I was surprised to find several poignant passages pertaining to God and religion. The author was a devout Christian who mentions God many times in his poem. The Geats are portrayed as believing strongly in fate and God, and even when Beowulf slays Grendel, he attributes his deed to God's will, which struck me as very beautiful.

Here are the sections that I found particularly thoughtful.

The treasure had been won,
bought and paid for by Beowulf's death.
Both had reached the end of the road
through the life they had been lent

Before long
the battle-dodgers abandoned the wood,
the ones who had let down their lord earlier,
the tail-turners, ten of them together.
When he needed them most, they had made off.
Now they were ashamed and came behind shields,
in their battle-outfits, to where the old man lay.
They watched Wiglaf, sitting worn out,
a comrade shoulder to shoulder with his lord,
trying in vain to bring him round with water.
Much as he wanted to, there was no way
he could preserve his lord's life on earth
or alter in the least the Almighty's will.
What God judged right would rule what happened
to every man, as it does to this day.

I am not a very religious man, but as far as my beliefs go, they are much the same as the author of Beowulf, whoever he was, though I do not believe in fate.

I do believe, however, that God has in a way lent each of us our lives, and that it is a sin to destroy them before their time has come. And only God can decide that.

[Ogilvy]

And yes, I realize that you can also interpret Beowulf to be supportive of the death penalty. It is one of the great masterpieces of literature, as there are passages that can be interpreted in many different ways. It's main themes, however, are universal-loyalty, bravery, humility. Virtues which our society a thousand years later still admires.

One could say that Grendel could symbolize the criminal, and Beowulf the executioner-it was God's will that Grendel be punished. I would shy away from interpreting that very literally, however, as then we would be back at the colonial witch trials. But in that specific incident within the poem it could be interpreted as being God's punishment.

On the other hand, you could also say that it was not God's punishment-merely that God had decided that Grendel's time on the earth had reached its end, regardless of what crimes he had committed. In fact, the poem says that God could very well have decided that it was Beowulf's time to die and not Grendel's.

[mardaf317]

An intelligent discussion of the topic has to take into consideration of all of the sides of the debate. In basic terms I am certainly for the death penalty. Everyone is. If a person commits a heinous act, they deserve to die. Especially violent rape. Torture. Murder. These crimes deserve to have the perpetrators die. Only the most passive of the world would disagree. Only those who are willing to give up their life rather than take another's life.

Potential of killing an not-guilty citizen is a singificant problem with the death penalty. There are those who would hide evidence that is exculpatory because of potential of losing a case. This is wrong. But it unfortunately is human nature. Humans are selfish. There are also those on the other side who hide evidence of guilt for the same reason, make up lies and try to decieve the jury for their own benefit as well.

At what point does the death penalty become wrong? If you are against the death penalty, follow me in this. If a man commits rape then mutilates the body of the woman and leaves her to die. She lives and identifies her attacker. Her testimony is backed up by the dna evidence in the case. Hell, he even admits it and "spits in our faces." Should this man be put to death? According to death penalty opponents, no. He has rights even if he isn't a good person. Some who are religious (or other) may say that they forgive the rapist/attempted murder and don't want to see the life taken. Even the victim or the victims family may fall on this side. The state shouldn't be in the "killing business."

What about if the woman, near death gets a hold of the knife and kills the man? Was that OK? Following logical (though I'm sure absurd) arguments, no that isn't OK because the man still has rights. She didn't give him a trial or his due process. Though the rape did in fact occur, he is only accused of the rape and not covicted. This is rediculous, but realisticlly, its a valid argument if you are against the death penalty because "thou shalt not kill" (of course the quote is not "kill" but rather "murder"). Would anyone really argue what I did here? No. Almost anyone (see above for those who won't) would agree that the woman had the right to take this mans life in "self defense."

What if the man has hi-jacked her car? Can she kill him then? Or does she have to wait until he actually commits a bad crime?

Most people (see above about pascivists) would agree that as soon as the woman realizes that she is in mortal peril, it is OK for her to kill the man in self defense.

Why is it then that in a case like above, the person shouldn't be executed? They should. Why should there be any "dignity" for this "human being"? Because we're better than that? For those who commit crimes that destroy humans, and there are many on death row and in the general prison population who have, death is the best alternative from a societal point of view.

Going back to the problem of executing innocent "men", there should be better safeguards in place than we have now. There has to be a "smoking gun" in order to impose the death penalty. There has to be no doubt, not just a reasonalbe doubt. Scott Peterson, OJ Simpson - reasonalbe doubt, no death penalty. DC Snipers, no doubt. Death penalty for their heinous crimes.

Finally the biggest problem with the death penalty is lawyers. Those who sell their souls for the fabulous money they receive. Lawyers who lie (both sides, though more on the defense) and fabricate stories to get evil people off because they "deserve the best defense".

Rambling Done for now.

[ItWillNeverWork]

So because self defence is acceptable, non defensive killing should also be? im not sure im following your logic on that one.