Who is "you" in your question derek? Is it FFT?

derek bomar wrote: how can you be pro death penalty and anti abortion? you can't be for killing people in one respect and against it in another...even if the baby hasn't done anything wrong and the murderer killed someone...who are you to say who lives and dies?

Agreed. The same can be said about being anti-death penalty and pro choice...either way, it's an interesting dichotomy to ponder.

fish82 wrote:

derek bomar wrote: how can you be pro death penalty and anti abortion? you can't be for killing people in one respect and against it in another...even if the baby hasn't done anything wrong and the murderer killed someone...who are you to say who lives and dies?

Agreed. The same can be said about being anti-death penalty and pro choice...either way, it's an interesting dichotomy to ponder.

Yeah, I think this would be an interesting point to flip this question.

...I see it as conflicting only if religion is used as a basis for the decision. If there is not a religious foundation to the premise there are differences in abortion and the death penalty that make them nothing alike.

Ahh, so that's the cruxt of it!

Against it.

Pretty much for the exact same reasons Eeers gave.

fan_from_texas wrote:
(I realize that the argument on the other side of this is that executing someone is not reversible, while imprisoning them wrongly is. I don't buy that--wrongfully imprisoning someone isn't nearly as bad, but it's still not something that can ever be undone. I don't think that justifies not imprisoning people).

You just answered the question. You cannot reverse the death penalty once it is carried out. As long as the person is alive they have a chance to prove their innocence. Being alive is always better than dead.

Are people who are pro-death penalty willing to sacrifice their lives for the good of the system?

"...Are people who are pro-death penalty willing to sacrifice their lives for the good of the system? "

I am against the death penalty and believe there are people willing to sacrifice their lives for the good of the system.

derek bomar wrote: how can you be pro death penalty and anti abortion? you can't be for killing people in one respect and against it in another...even if the baby hasn't done anything wrong and the murderer killed someone...who are you to say who lives and dies?

You sure can. Just and moral people can tell the difference.

Did you read what this creep Biros did? This man admitted his crimes and was given many fair hearings. Is a baby in the womb allowed a fair trial before a jury of its peers to determine its fate? A baby in the womb is the very essence of innocence.

We as a society justify killing in other instances. Say someone breaks into your house and means you harm. You use deadly force against him and end his life. The local authorites will rule that the killing was justified.

When our country sends its soldiers into war we justifiy the killing that they undertake in battle. Just and moral people can and do make decisions on what killing is justified.

I would argue that the death penalty places a higher value on human life than not having one at all. By this I mean that the price to be paid for taking the innocent life of someone in a heinous crime is the life of the criminal that took the life.

eersandbeers wrote:

believer wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:How is it acceptable to execute an innocent person? Even one, ever?

We need to keep the death penalty as an option and trust that our system of justice actually works. I like the track record.

It has been proven that it doesn't work many times. There have been over a hundred released from death row. Imagine how many innocent have died at the hands of our system of "justice."

I am against the death penalty for this reason. Not because I care about the guilty.

Well said eers, couldn't have said it better myself. Because so many innocent people have paid the price for crimes that they never committed, I simply cannot support the death penalty.

Try putting yourself in that situation. Assume you were convicted of a crime that you did not commit. That alone is heinous enough, but at least you have all the time in the world (in prison) to work on exonerating yourself. When you are dead, well, you're dead!

Sage wrote: Unequivocally against it. We don't have the right to decide life and death.

AND THE PERSON THAT KILLS..???.........the GUY doing the killing has [size=x-large]NO rights[/size].???? EYE FOR AN EYE..!!!!!

BigAppleBuckeye wrote:

eersandbeers wrote:

believer wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:How is it acceptable to execute an innocent person? Even one, ever?

We need to keep the death penalty as an option and trust that our system of justice actually works. I like the track record.

It has been proven that it doesn't work many times. There have been over a hundred released from death row. Imagine how many innocent have died at the hands of our system of "justice."

I am against the death penalty for this reason. Not because I care about the guilty.

Well said eers, couldn't have said it better myself. Because so many innocent people have paid the price for crimes that they never committed, I simply cannot support the death penalty.

Try putting yourself in that situation. Assume you were convicted of a crime that you did not commit. That alone is heinous enough, but at least you have all the time in the world (in prison) to work on exonerating yourself. When you are dead, well, you're dead!

Not buying it.

Every system has the chance for potential errors (as already noted). That doesn't mean you simply jettison the system.

One of the reasons it's so expensive, and takes so long before people are executed are the safeguards and appeals processes in place. The key is to fine tune these, not eliminate the system.

As for the abortion-death penalty argument: it's simply bogus. A baby has done nothing to warrant being killed before it has a chance to live. Someone on death row has almost certainly "earned" the right to be there.

No conundrum whatsoever.

An Eye for an Eye is the biggest load of horse manure i've ever encountered.

Solves nothing, absolutely nothing.

And if you think it is a deterrent, you're kidding yourselves.

Writerbuckeye wrote: Someone on death row has almost certainly "earned" the right to be there.

Wrong. Every single person that was proven innocent and RELEASED from death row did not have the "right" to be there.

derek bomar wrote: how can you be pro death penalty and anti abortion? you can't be for killing people in one respect and against it in another...even if the baby hasn't done anything wrong and the murderer killed someone...who are you to say who lives and dies?

I'm not against all killing. I'm against unjustified murder, which I (and most people throughout history) differentiate from justified and lawful killing. Are you suggesting that anyone who opposes the murder of an unborn baby should similarly be a pacifist and opposed to all military action anywhere whatsoever? That's a nonsensical stretch.

I'm not against killing.* I'm against murder, which is unjustified killing.


*I don't particularly endorse killing, either, nor do I think it's usually very effective as a means of solving problems, though in certain situations such as WW2, I think it's necessary.

For it.

eersandbeers wrote: You just answered the question. You cannot reverse the death penalty once it is carried out. As long as the person is alive they have a chance to prove their innocence. Being alive is always better than dead.

Are people who are pro-death penalty willing to sacrifice their lives for the good of the system?

You can't reverse a prison sentence once it's carried out, either--the person still spent time behind bars, and that can't be erased. Once something is done, it's very hard to find situations in which that thing can be "reversed." I don't think that means we shouldn't mete out any punishment for fear of punishing an innocent person. I think it's important to have safeguards in the system (like numerous appeals), and to ensure that it is procedurally sound (which we generally do).

cbus4life wrote: An Eye for an Eye is the biggest load of horse manure i've ever encountered.

Solves nothing, absolutely nothing.

And if you think it is a deterrent, you're kidding yourselves.

solving nothing.... dude what kind of crack you smokin.!

derek bomar wrote: you can't be for killing people in one respect and against it in another

How about self-defense?

...even if the baby hasn't done anything wrong and the murderer killed someone...who are you to say who lives and dies?

Kind of a big distinction to just gloss over, isn't it?

Riders12 wrote: solving nothing.... dude what kind of crack you smokin.!

If severity of punishment served as a deterrent, the crime rates in medieval times would have been nearly zero. Not the case.

tk421 wrote: For it and should be quicker. No more waiting 10+ years.

+1,000

being released from death row just shows the system works(appeals). no different than the amount of people who have been released or havent been released that were sentenced to life, yet we arent debating life sentences. i am sure several people died in prison who were innocent. if 0 people were released from death row, the system would not be working like it should be.

although its not death penalty related, there would still be 4 cops alive today if a convicted prisoner wasnt released.

fan_from_texas wrote:

derek bomar wrote: how can you be pro death penalty and anti abortion? you can't be for killing people in one respect and against it in another...even if the baby hasn't done anything wrong and the murderer killed someone...who are you to say who lives and dies?

I'm not against all killing. I'm against unjustified murder, which I (and most people throughout history) differentiate from justified and lawful killing. Are you suggesting that anyone who opposes the murder of an unborn baby should similarly be a pacifist and opposed to all military action anywhere whatsoever? That's a nonsensical stretch.

I'm not against killing.* I'm against murder, which is unjustified killing.


*I don't particularly endorse killing, either, nor do I think it's usually very effective as a means of solving problems, though in certain situations such as WW2, I think it's necessary.

you can rationalize it all you want, but we're taking someones life - the only way I can rationalize taking some elses life is in self defense (which war falls under) - putting someone to death isn't self defense, it's vengeance

and you can't say the death penalty can be considered self defense in the sense that it prevents people from committing murder...that's just crap

derek bomar wrote:you can rationalize it all you want, but we're taking someones life - the only way I can rationalize taking some elses life is in self defense (which war falls under) - putting someone to death isn't self defense, it's vengeance

I'm not arguing that it's self-defense. I am arguing that it is justified killing in that it's meting out society's determination of justice. If society wants to change its mind and remove the dealth penalty, I don't have problems with that, either. I'm fairly agnostic on the issue, but I detest bad arguments on either side (deterrent, selective, pro-life, etc.). It doesn't take much work to differentiate murdering the defenseless unborn from executing those who have intentionally and viciously wronged society in horrific ways. The sort of "if pro-life then can't be pro-death penalty" argument was something I heard people make in high school, but I haven't heard anyone seriously suggest that as a rationale in a long, long time. On so many levels it doesn't make any sense.

There are some good arguments against the death penalty: the effects it has on society to be so stuck on vengeance; the fact that it's more expensive and doesn't serve as much of a deterrent; the fact that it allows us to "play God," etc. The "pro-life can't be pro-death penalty" argument just doesn't make the grade.