Against it, for the primary reason that innocent people have been executed and even with advances in technology there will always be human error.....

And I don't believe any man has the right to take another man's life. That's left to God. And yes i realize that the evidence may point to guilt, but two wrongs don't make a right.

fan_from_texas wrote:

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.

I'm not really religious, but I honestly don't think any of us outside of self defense should be able to say who lives and dies. I understand they may deserve to, but we shouldn't do it. It isn't right. God can/will take care of it. One life is just as precious as another, and you can't judge which one is more valuable (even if they're a disturbed person who rapes little people)

What I always find amusing is when Christians completely ignore Christ's message of forgivness and "turn the other cheek" and cry out for VENGEANCE on a murderer...

That's basically my problem with Christianity. Not the religion itself but the way the followers are so arrogant in their belief, at the same time blatanly disregard the message....

Strapping Young Lad wrote: What I always find amusing is when Christians completely ignore Christ's message of forgivness and "turn the other cheek" and cry out for VENGEANCE on a murderer...

That's basically my problem with Christianity. Not the religion itself but the way the followers are so arrogant in their belief, at the same time blatanly disregard the message....

You do understand that the bible supports capital punishment (and no, not the "eye for an eye" part), right? Clearly not.

You might want to actually understand the message before accusing others of disregarding it.

derek bomar wrote: I'm not really religious, but I honestly don't think any of us outside of self defense should be able to say who lives and dies. I understand they may deserve to, but we shouldn't do it. It isn't right. God can/will take care of it. One life is just as precious as another, and you can't judge which one is more valuable (even if they're a disturbed person who rapes little people)

There are a number of good justifications--self-defense, necessity, duress, etc.

I guess we fundamentally disagree on this point. In my mind, it isn't about determining which life is more valuable; it's about treating someone with dignity by providing them with the foreknown consequences to their decisions. To do otherwise is to insult the dignity and humanity of the aggressor, to substitute ourselves as the paternalist who determines what they really want. That doesn't sit well with me.

Like I said, we apparently disagree on some fundamental level.

queencitybuckeye wrote:

Strapping Young Lad wrote: What I always find amusing is when Christians completely ignore Christ's message of forgivness and "turn the other cheek" and cry out for VENGEANCE on a murderer...

That's basically my problem with Christianity. Not the religion itself but the way the followers are so arrogant in their belief, at the same time blatanly disregard the message....

You do understand that the bible supports capital punishment (and no, not the "eye for an eye" part), right? Clearly not.

You might want to actually understand the message before accusing others of disregarding it.

That was going to be my second point. The only thing worse than Christians misunderstanding their doctrine is a non-Christian who in his self-assured misunderstanding attempts to take Christians to task for what he perceives to be their hypocritical actions.

fan_from_texas wrote:

derek bomar wrote: I'm not really religious, but I honestly don't think any of us outside of self defense should be able to say who lives and dies. I understand they may deserve to, but we shouldn't do it. It isn't right. God can/will take care of it. One life is just as precious as another, and you can't judge which one is more valuable (even if they're a disturbed person who rapes little people)

There are a number of good justifications--self-defense, necessity, duress, etc.

I guess we fundamentally disagree on this point. In my mind, it isn't about determining which life is more valuable; it's about treating someone with dignity by providing them with the foreknown consequences to their decisions. To do otherwise is to insult the dignity and humanity of the aggressor, to substitute ourselves as the paternalist who determines what they really want. That doesn't sit well with me.

Like I said, we apparently disagree on some fundamental level.

whats wrong with them knowing the consequence will be rotting in a jail cell? Why do they need to die?

derek bomar wrote: whats wrong with them knowing the consequence will be rotting in a jail cell? Why do they need to die?

Nothing's wrong with it, and they don't need to die. I'm not 'for' executing people. I just don't see any reason to oppose capital punishment wholesale.

fan_from_texas wrote:

derek bomar wrote: whats wrong with them knowing the consequence will be rotting in a jail cell? Why do they need to die?

Nothing's wrong with it, and they don't need to die. I'm not 'for' executing people. I just don't see any reason to oppose capital punishment wholesale.

And my point is, if it's not a necessity, we shouldn't do it

Gardens35 wrote: Kenneth Biros was executed earlier today as a result of his conviction for murdering Tami Engstrom of Hubbard, Ohio in 1991. The following is part of an article I read earlier this week. It's very graphic.









"...Kenneth spared no effort in disposing of her body in grisly fashion. Her head and right breast were hacked off. Her naked torso had been eviscerated, the anus, rectum, bowels, bladder, and sex organs removed as well. Later investigators discovered Tami's intestines, black leather coat, and shoe in a swampy area near a set of railroad tracks Biros had led them to. Tami's blood was all over the gravel and the tracks themselves. Most of the rest of her was discovered in the other dumping area (some parts of her were found in Ohio, some in Pennsylvania), part of her liver was discovered in the trunk of his car. The coroner determined that she suffered 91 injuries and stab wounds before she died, and five more after death."


She was a 22 year old married mother of one.

I think the death penalty is very appropriate here.

I would have to strongly agree with Gardens35. Kenneth Biros should never be given another chance to do that to another human being.

To use the new and popular expression for message board use...

"SMH, SMH"

Romans12:17 Never pay back evil for evil to ANYONE.

1 Thesolonians 5:15 See that no one pays back evil for evil.

Thou shalt not Kill

Matthew 5:22 ...if you are angry with someone, you are subject to judgement

When this subject comes up, i see alot of people get angry and support capital punishment out of vengeance more than out of justice.

VERY weak interpretations, particularly the Matthew reference. Capital punishment is not borne from anger, but from justice.

You've convinced me. Fry em' up, as they say. Wasn't it Jesus who first said that?

Strapping Young Lad wrote: Romans12:17 Never pay back evil for evil to ANYONE.
1 Thesolonians 5:15 See that no one pays back evil for evil.
Thou shalt not Kill
Matthew 5:22 ...if you are angry with someone, you are subject to judgement
When this subject comes up, i see alot of people get angry and support capital punishment out of vengeance more than out of justice.

1. I have a feeling that you're about to be inundated with various Biblical quotes.

2.Generally, people who are sentenced to death are usually done so by a group of peers (jury recommends) that have no personal affiliation to the victim/perpetrator.
So, it's not like the family/friends of a victim are the ones that get to decide if a perp dies or not. All they can do is give a victims impact statement. In the statement they can be positive or negative about the perps future life. That is all they can do according to the rule of law.
The judge then carries out the sentence to the best of his/her ability. The judge does not have to abide by the recommendation by the jury.
If there is a conflict of interest anywhere during the court/lawful process, members are ejected, a new judge is put in, or the trial is moved.
But you know this.

...........

YAY!!!! Love the change!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree that justice is the origin of capital punishment, but like i said my primary reason for opposition is that innocent people have been fried up.

To me that seems like the opposite of justice. So can we say that our system of CP is just??? And by just I mean in every single instance.

If not in every instance are we still doing justice??? Or is it permissible to cook up a wrong one here and there...

PS Please refrain from shooting any more Bible verse at me, I concede you're knowledge of Bible verses over mine.

Strapping Young Lad wrote: I agree that justice is the origin of capital punishment, but like i said my primary reason for opposition is that innocent people have been fried up.

To me that seems like the opposite of justice. So can we say that our system of CP is just??? And by just I mean in every single instance.

If not in every instance are we still doing justice??? Or is it permissible to cook up a wrong one here and there...

Is our system of locking people up just? And by "just" I mean in every single instance. If not in every instance are we still doing justice?

The questions go both ways. It's up to you to distinguish irreplaceable time lost behind bars from irreplaceable life lost. Both are bad; neither can be after-the-fact remedied. It comes down to whether you think the death penalty is so qualitatively different from other punishments that we must exempt it. My general sense is that because we've been using it for thousands of years, I'm not convinced that it is so entirely abhorrent and qualitatively different that we need to eliminate it entirely for fear of making a mistake.

So a few slip through the cracks...big farking deal. Most of them probably deserved it for something else they did anyway.

When we start to do something about all the guilty ones that walk on some stupid technicality, (a significantly higher number than those wrongly convicted I'll wager) then I'll start giving a shit about the innocent ones that cook.

We are the melting pot of the world. We have people from probably every country on Earth that come here, every religion, some with one god, some with the same god, and some with multiple gods, and we want to determine if the death penalty should be allowed based on what a book says? We have other countries now threatening execution to gays. Other nations chop hands off of those convicted of theft, or other various crimes. Prisons across the world are exactly what they should be, dirt, disgust, nasty buildings where someone is left to suffer while living out the rest of their life, and here, we give them state of the art. lets give them televisions, fitness centers, etc. We use prisons for rehabilitation practices, and we can't even take care of our own damn people who aren't convicted criminals in this country! Anyone that is convicted of premeditated murder should be executed, period. If you plot to kill your spouse to reap the benefits of their life insurance policy, if you plot to kill a young girl for purposes of forcing sex upon her, and not wanting her to be a witness to your identity, if you set up a robbery, and its botched, and you pull the trigger killing someone, any of these scenarios, plus some, you should be executed.

What about this. What if the person who committed the crime doesn't believe in God? How can we use the system of what the Bible states is wrong or right to determine what happens to a person who doesn't even believe in it? "Well Ted Bundy, we are well aware that you don't believe in God, but you should start now, because he just saved your life."

Why don't we leave it up to the family involved as to what happens to the murderer? I mean, if we don't want to go through with the punishment, why don't we leave it up to the family involved to decide what to do, and let them pull the trigger, or prepare the injection? Afterall, we let the criminal get a second chance with god, I'm sure he would allow the family a second chance after getting redemption for what happened to their lost one, and some may not even want to follow through with the plan.

Its crazy to me that someone busted for selling crack for a second or third time can face the same penalty as a person that is committed of murder.

I honestly don't know what to believe anymore. Dating back in time, executions have been conducted for all sorts of reasons. Treason, murder, for purpose of overthrowing the government, for setting an example, etc. Not all of those nations, countries, rulers involved in these things were corruptive people, some of them believed in the higher powers.

Just for clarification.... executions/death penalties existed long before the Bible.
So, IMHO, that argument is invalid.

fish82 wrote: So a few slip through the cracks...big farking deal. Most of them probably deserved it for something else they did anyway.

When we start to do something about all the guilty ones that walk on some stupid technicality, (a significantly higher number than those wrongly convicted I'll wager) then I'll start giving a shit about the innocent ones that cook.

You can't be serious.

Disgusting. Yea, no big deal that innocent people are executed at times.

100% FOR IT.

fish82 wrote: So a few slip through the cracks...big farking deal. Most of them probably deserved it for something else they did anyway.

When we start to do something about all the guilty ones that walk on some stupid technicality, (a significantly higher number than those wrongly convicted I'll wager) then I'll start giving a shit about the innocent ones that cook.

There's that good conservative Christian view. God bless you.

As for the justice thing, of course, the argument goes both ways as innocents have spent time in jail. Personally, I believe the prison system is unjust if a person is wrongly convicted and imprisoned. I also believe the system is overall a failure and should focus more rehabilitation than punishment.

But I'll ask you. Would you rather be falesly imprisoned or mistakenly put to death???

Now, I know the Mach man answerto this. "I'd rather be put to death, no question". But if you were really in the position, would you give up and accept your death or would you fight and hold out hope that you'd be reprieved.

There hasn't been a fool-proof system created yet. We're close right now, I believe, with all the DNA stuff and new technologies coming out everyday it seems.
We can only get better and better, and since we're really good right now, comparatively, I'd rather keep the system we've got in place.

I doubt if anything on this message board will change my mind on this. Since there hasn't been an argument yet that has. And most of the arguments in the past few days are just regurgitated questions that most of us have heard all our lives, I doubt that anybody will have an epiphany anytime soon.
But, I do like to read new opinions, reworded or not, it makes for an interesting debate, regardless.