Ty Webb;502362 wrote:Not only am I in favor of the death penalty....I am in favor of extending it

-If you rape or molest a child,you get the death penalty
-They need to bring back the electric chair and public hangings

I knew sooner or later Ty would come around to the Belly side of reality.....

I respect your opinion Ty and agree .... public hanging is a little harsh but paided seating and beer and hot dog could help in the operation of prison cost....

Ty Webb;502362 wrote: -They need to bring back the electric chair and public hangings

Again, from personal experience, Old Sparky is not that great. I remember stories from my father on executions using the chair, and they were pretty graphic. Lethal injection is the way to go, if done properly. (That is key).

fan_from_texas;502406 wrote:Exactly. Deterrence is a bit of a non-issue for me. If deterrence were the goal, then convicting/punishing innocent people would work just as well, assuming no one knew the difference.

I don't find deterrence/cost to be big issues for the death penalty. If you're solely seeking to maximize social utility, I can understand the argument, but then I think you run into all sorts of other problems (e.g., sacrificing the innocent for the greater good). If you view punishment as primarily retributive/leveling the playing field/honoring personal choices (which is how I view it), then I don't see any real issue here.

To the extent that life in prison is more of a punishment, I'm open to being persuaded to go that route. Like I said, I don't have strong feelings on the issue, but I haven't yet been persuaded that the death penalty is somehow morally reprehensible.

I tend to think the death penalty in its current form is inadequate on both consequentialist/deterrant grounds as well as retributativist grounds. I mean suppose you fly a plain into a building and kill 3,000 people, many of whom die horribly graphic deaths....it doesn't seem as if a nearly painless death via lethal injection is a proper retribution in my eyes. You might say that the max penalty you can give someone is death, but what about the pain and suffering that the people endured in addition to their death?

I tend to think some kind of torture would satisfy deterrence and retribution, the underlying competing goals of punishment, much more than death by lethal injection. JMO.

^^^ What?

I Wear Pants;502469 wrote:^^^ What?

He's calling for more bloodlust lol

BS, I generally agree that torture best meets these goals. But there are other competing interests: e.g., at some base level torture starts to negatively impact the torturer as well as the torturee, and we want to be careful not to become the animals we're trying to punish. There may be ways around it, but it starts to get a little dicey. Also, on some base level, I'm comfortable with saying that certain actions are not morally permissible, period. Napalming little kids is wrong, period. Cutting open pregnant women is wrong, period. When we find ourselves attempting to provide arguments on some of these issues, we start to dehumanize.

Certain forms of Geneva Convention "torture" are okay in mind in certain instances, and I'd be open to using them to punish/deter. Many are not okay under any circumstance, regardless of the perceived possible benefits. It's tough to draw the line precisely, and people far smarter than I disagree over it. So I'm comfortable with the existing of some delineation, even if I'm not exactly sure where we draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable torture.

The way I see it is this. I agree that, in many cases, people deserve to DIE. But who are we do deal that death? What makes us worthy of dealing death? That is God's job. The ONLY way I can be OK with it is if the person who is dealing death can answer for himself/herself to God.

God: "Why did you kill John Doe?"
Person: "Because he killed my wife."

ernest_t_bass;502499 wrote:The way I see it is this. I agree that, in many cases, people deserve to DIE. But who are we do deal that death? What makes us worthy of dealing death? That is God's job. The ONLY way I can be OK with it is if the person who is dealing death can answer for himself/herself to God.

God: "Why did you kill John Doe?"
Person: "Because he killed my wife."

What about people who don't believe in god?

I guess I might be okay with it in cases where the person has legitimately admitted guilt (on their own and not in trying to get a lighter sentence) and requests the death penalty. That's about the only situation I can see where I would be okay with it.

I'm for it. I think some crimes are so henious that the people need to be eliminated. If you watch lockup at all (or gangland), the people serving life terms usually just commit more crimes in prison because they have nothing to live for anymore. I don't think a prison should be a housing unit for someone's whole life. IF you have a life sentence with no chance of parole, mine as well off them, imo.

ernest_t_bass;502278 wrote:The way I see it, Belly... who are we to pass judgement (death) to these people, if we consider ourselves to be true believers of Christ (IF we are... which I claim to be). When I look at it that way, I cannot see how I may pass that sort of judgement on someone......

I just don't see how it is my right to say that you DESERVE to die. That is God's decision, not mine.

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience." - Romans 13:1-5

Just sayin'...

For it, just make sure the person is guilty and death by.... (method of choice)

Sent from my Sprint HTC EVO 4G using Tapatalk

ernest_t_bass;502316 wrote:God is the ultimate judge. Now, if a perp is in the middle of raping, is caught and killed on spot, I see that differently. I just don't feel that "killing" should be a part of our justice system.

That is why in the worst cases of murder in the face of obvious guilt and lack of remorse we send the guilty off to the Ultimate judge.

majorspark;502671 wrote:That is why in the worst cases of murder in the face of obvious guilt and lack of remorse we send the guilty off to the Ultimate judge.

Hence Romans 13.

majorspark;502671 wrote:That is why in the worst cases of murder in the face of obvious guilt and lack of remorse we send the guilty off to the Ultimate judge.

Doesn't seem like justice was done here on earth if while on death row they receive witness testimony of their Lord Jesus Christ and accept him as their Savior and are washed with His Blood and redeemed and guaranteed everlasting life with him upon his death. Just a quicker route to paradise and left with hours to pray and be with the Lord all day awaiting his death while sitting in his cell in prison.

I've done some work with death row inmates and there are a great many deeply religious men who have been found guilty and sentenced to death for horrific acts of violence.

ernest_t_bass;502499 wrote:The way I see it is this. I agree that, in many cases, people deserve to DIE. But who are we do deal that death? What makes us worthy of dealing death? That is God's job. The ONLY way I can be OK with it is if the person who is dealing death can answer for himself/herself to God.

God: "Why did you kill John Doe?"
Person: "Because he killed my wife."

Yeah, and what if there is no god? Then your fucked with that argument. I am for it, anything involving kids bring em out back and shoot them in the dome

BoatShoes;502713 wrote:Doesn't seem like justice was done here on earth if while on death row they receive witness testimony of their Lord Jesus Christ and accept him as their Savior and are washed with His Blood and redeemed and guaranteed everlasting life with him upon his death. Just a quicker route to paradise and left with hours to pray and be with the Lord all day awaiting his death while sitting in his cell in prison.

That's an interesting way to look at it. I've never thought of that before.

Completely against the Death Penalty. A life sentence with no chance of parole is much more of a punishment than execution - it lasts longer.

fan_from_texas;502483 wrote:BS, I generally agree that torture best meets these goals. But there are other competing interests: e.g., at some base level torture starts to negatively impact the torturer as well as the torturee, and we want to be careful not to become the animals we're trying to punish. There may be ways around it, but it starts to get a little dicey. Also, on some base level, I'm comfortable with saying that certain actions are not morally permissible, period. Napalming little kids is wrong, period. Cutting open pregnant women is wrong, period. When we find ourselves attempting to provide arguments on some of these issues, we start to dehumanize.

Certain forms of Geneva Convention "torture" are okay in mind in certain instances, and I'd be open to using them to punish/deter. Many are not okay under any circumstance, regardless of the perceived possible benefits. It's tough to draw the line precisely, and people far smarter than I disagree over it. So I'm comfortable with the existing of some delineation, even if I'm not exactly sure where we draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable torture.

I can see your point on the dehumanization effect. Nonetheless, we have allowed many of our brave young and women to experience the dehumanizing nature of war in the name of overriding national interests. And, war is hell, as the saying goes. Also, even back to the days of Aristotle human kind has accepted the concept of the sociopath...those who just want to see the world burn; men who don't share that underlying since of commonality and humanity.

A system of justice that incorporated some form of ghastly torture might provide a social function for sociopaths...kind of like Dexter. It may provide an outlet for a dehumanized human by his nature to push forward the interests of the state.

Also, you hear people suggest this kind of justice system off hand all of the time. For instance I remember my mother saying when i was younger that Timothy McVeigh ought to be blown up just like his victims were...and yet he died relatively painlessly believing his actions were justified.

Against it. but a life sentence should mean a life sentence. Some of the extras given the to inmates should be taken away as well.

I Wear Pants;502390 wrote:Well yeah but I still haven't seen a satisfactory answer to "what about all the innocent people that we kill?". I think last I read there have been twenty some found innocent after they were executed since the 70s. That's absurd. Then throw in that life without parole is much less expensive (not to mention if we find them innocent later we can just let them out instead of saying "oops").

It's okay to kill innocent people as long as you mean well by eliminating the worst of mankind. Really, what is a few innocents when you can get a thrill out of seeing others that deserve it die?

It's all good until until someone is in that situation.

If I couldn't bring myself to administer the punishment, and I couldn't I can't ask someone else to do it.

Prescott;506439 wrote:If I couldn't bring myself to administer the punishment, and I couldn't I can't ask someone else to do it.

What if you did not have to ask and someone else was willing to administer the punishment?

I can't look at it that way. Obviously, someone has to kill another human being not in act of self-defense. I can't ask anyone else to do that.

majorspark;506445 wrote:What if you did not have to ask and someone else was willing to administer the punishment?

That person is probably pretty fucked in the head. (Much like you'd have to be for late term abortions).

I find it interesting that there is a pretty large correlation between people thinking that abortion is murder and people thinking the death penalty is the best thing since sliced bread. Sanctity of life my ass.