no matter if crime is so evil are you against the death penalty no matter what? are you for the death penalty with reservations ?
Printable View
no matter if crime is so evil are you against the death penalty no matter what? are you for the death penalty with reservations ?
Some people just need killing.
I have reservations anout its gratuitous use. That can get out of hand in a hurry, & the state really needs to be sure about who they're killing & why. But my biggest reservation is the method of execution. I'm a proponant of death by dissection. I see no reason to destroy the transplantable body parts by poisoning or cooking in place with electricity. Hanging or beheading would work better, but it would still be a big hurry-up at the harvest. Not personally giving a shit about anybody else's "eeewwww" factor, I say just strap 'em down on a table & start cutting. Non-vitals first, including stuff like corneas, skin, etc... When you get to the heart, lungs, liver, & whatnot, then get in a hurry.
Good point; I think I can be persuaded to endorse death by dissection. Utility and "just desserts" are supporting reasons that come to mind.
My main issue with the death penalty is with what counts in law as standards of sufficient proof. Chief Wiggam said, "I'd rather a dozen guilty men go free than get up and chase them." Well that doesn't exactly express my concern, but you get the idea. Way too many people who have been locked up for years are now being released based on modern DNA forensics. Judges and juries, even those with the best intentions, all too often have not seen reasonable doubt in cases where doubt should have existed. By and large the general populace is poorly educated in the standards of proof. Just look at what passes for proof in the arguments of some who post on these boards. Do you want dozen russtafas making life and death decisions? I don't.
Whereas I have nothing per se against the death penalty and I agree with Hippiefried that there are some people who need killing, I also think it's extremely difficult to decide who needs killing.
Here's a side issue for crimes less serious than treason or murder. In the fairly recent past, a century or two in U.S. military history, flogging was an acceptable penalty for breaching orders. It seems to me far preferable to a long duration in the clink. What exactly is the source of our modern abhorrence with this and similar practices? Anyone? If freedom is the thing we value the most, why are we so quick to take it away for the most minor infractions (like three strikes on marijuana possession)?
If freedom is the thing we value the most, why are we so quick to take it away for the most minor infractions
Does that mean you value freedom over life? You condemn the murder of one person by another person, but support murder if it is being done by your state. If killing people is wrong, it is always wrong, because killing is irreversible and not comparable to robbery, deception or other crimes.
And if it was a simple matter, you would not hesitate to send all convicted murderers to their death. However, when you have a case where a woman, say, murders her husband after years of abuse you decide to grade murder in the way you grade football or basketball teams, and say -well for this murder we give life imprisonment rather than death, even though the act ended another life. Some people argue peadophiles who murder their victims should go; others that murdering a police officer should mean death, and so on -why, as soon as they can, do people start amending the punishment? To suit their moral anxiety?
Judicial reasoning used to argue that capital punishment was a deterrent; that it was a just punishment to fit the crime. Unfortunately, when families of the victims are allowed to speak, in some cases they do not want justice, but revenge.
When six men were arrested in Birmingham in 1975 following the bombing of two pubs in which 21 people died and 162 were injured, it was, in effect, revenge on the city's Irish community -the men, all of whom were Irish and found guilty and sentenced to life, were innocent -would all six have been executed in the mood of the UK at that time? Probably, even though the police force knew they were innocent. That is not justice, that is revenge.
The UK is officially a Christian state, and it is a fundamendal tenet of the faith that Jesus died on the Cross to expiate the sins of humankind -with the message: let this death be the last violent act of one man against another; and this, in part, has been fundamental to the belief that capital punishment is inhumane as a form of punishment. The judgement of a murder, after all, is not about the victim or the perpetrator, but you, as a person, as that part of society being called upon to choose between life and death. Faced with the reality of death, choose life.
maybe exile to an island is the answer then there is no blood on the hands
True enough, if in the premise the phrase "killing people is wrong" is interpreted as meaning "killing people is always wrong." But that interpretation just reduces the claim to a tautology. I can't disagree with a tautology. But, "if killing some people sometimes is right, then it's not always wrong to kill people," is also a tautology and it would be silly not to agree with it. Consequently we depart at the premise. Of course the theological argument doesn't really work because there are no gods. The twist that judgements of others are self judgments and therefore we all need to choose life over death needs to be fleshed out more before I buy into it. It's pretty unclear. But our disagreement is theoretical. In practice I don't believe human standards of proof are up to what would be required of the death penalty; the finality of the "proof" doesn't equate with the finality of the penalty. Perhaps only in pure, non-applied mathematics (and certainly therefore not in jurisprudence) is proof of such finality possible.Quote:
If killing people is wrong, it is always wrong.
the death penalty should never be used anywhere
it is just state sanctioned murder
to many have been executed or on death row only to be found to be innocent
IN Australia it cost a lot of money to keep some one in prison and these prisons keep filling up,so there have to be more prisons built
What's the point of building prisons in a penal colony?
Just joking :)
well for one i am prepared to keep paying
maybe we need to be looking at why so many are needing to be locked up not just long term but short term as well
Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
our family tree has been checked on both sides can't find a convict anywhere
Damn i wanted some claim to fame :dancing::dancing::dancing:
Or if they're even "needing" to be locked up at all. There are other penalties a State could impose other than confiscating someone's freedom, which is an expensive thing to do. Fines, service, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by zocco
their are to many now with mental illnisses etc being locked up in prisons now
what is happening with them when they are let out?
just my opinion but our whole judicial system needs to be looked at and refreshed totally
but then of course for more who wants to pay for everything
I opened this thread with trepidation - fearing to find lots baying for blood. I am pleased to see our community, thus far, tilts largely against state sanctioned murder.
You and the ironic statements again..............................Quote:
Originally Posted by russtafa
Look at what happened in Australia - Britain sent the convicts there and those convicts turned around and perpetrated their criminal acts on others less able to defend themseves. I like Carlin's solution though:
‪4 Groups that Gotta Go - George Carlin‬‏ - YouTube
Looks pretty evenly split, 2 against, 1 undecided, 2 for. Tough decision to make, but I believe there are beasts in our society that are deserved. As an example someone that tortures, rapes and kills an innocent. If you have overwhelming evidence, I side with death.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
Ohio still has the Death penalty. I support it.
just lock criminals away and leave them to do what they will with each other
I'm opposed to the death penalty on three grounds.
- the risk of putting any innocent person to death is simply not acceptable, far too many sad examples over the years.
- any country which professes to be Christian or to uphold Christian values should not revert to the Old Testament stance of "an eye for an eye". That is revenge, not justice.
- I find the concept of judicial murder every bit as repulsive as the crime of murder itself.
I am for the death penalty on reservations.Quote:
Originally Posted by russtafa
I am torn on this issue. I can understand what Robert says about putting to death an innocent person but on the other hand there are so many evil, very evil people that,, well,, need to be killed. I think of some of the abusers I ran into as a young person and I do have evil thoughts of wanting them dead. Whether I could really see that happen, I probably couldn't,,, I get upset when I see a dead animal run over by a car.
So you don't like native americans much, Yvonne? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Yvonne183
Seriously, I can't agree with your statement that people, evil though they may be, "need to be killed". For what purpose? If they're locked away for life and the public is protected, what additional measurable benefit does society actually gain by strangling, frying or gassing them? And yes, I am picking on the most violent and gruesome methods to make a point.
she meant grey squirrels!Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
keep squirrels red!
I've searched, but I can't find a pic of a squirrel in a Liverpool shirt, sorry. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by SammiValentine
This'll have to do.....
get down to formby la !
I too oppose the death penalty. The first of Robert's reasons is sufficient.Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
The second argument does seem to establish reasonable expectations from "Christian" nations that claim consistency with the principles of Christianity. The U.S. (my home) is, however, not a Christian nation and so the argument doesn't really apply.
Arguments likening the death penalty to revenge I find pretty weak, on the grounds that "justice" IS in fact sometimes "revenge." "Justice" derives from "to make even." When you justify your margins you're evening them out so that you can lay a ruler along them and touch each line of print. Just laws are laws that promote equality and level the playing fields. When those laws are broken the balance is disturbed. The aim of just jurisprudence is to restore balance, as much as is possible.
There is no absolute evil, no sin and no divine or metaphysically moral imperative that says this person needs to be killed. Nor is there any such imperative that stipulates killing is wrong. In this universe, on this planet humans do all the stipulating. The need to impose penalties comes from the need to restore balance to broken lives. Only we can know what actions will most closely approximate such a restoration. The argument that there is no absolute need to kill a murderers is no more or less valid than the argument that it is absolutely wrong to kill a murderer. The argument that there is no purpose to killing a murderer ignores the purpose of justice__to even things out. The argument that there is a purpose to killing a murderer, presumes that that purpose is a sufficient cause for right action. None of these arguments really help decide the question.
But luckily, we only need one argument that works. The finality of death penalty requires certitude of guilt, which we almost never have.
murder goes against Christian teachings so it is wrong to take a killers life
Jesus was executed for sedition. But regardless, I have a problem taking seriously, righteous indignation about state execution by a nation who claims their "moral authority" from human sacrifice. :)
I don't like the idea of vengeance (or as it's so euphemistically stated these days, "justice for the victim") as a primary reason for execution. But there are people who go out of their way to forfeit any claim to be thought of as people. They're not worth the trouble or danger to keep them alive.
To repeat: "Some people just need killing."
any country which professes to be Christian or to uphold Christian values should not revert to the Old Testament stance of "an eye for an eye". That is revenge, not justice
The concept of 'an for an eye' was not meant as a literal act, but proportionality, to 'balance' out a crime -if A steals a goat from B, he should either get his goat back, or another goat. This works fine until murder is committed -there is a long and complex tradition of 'blood revenge' among the Bedouin of Arabia, who realised a long time ago that if someone from Tribe a kills someone from Tribe B in revenge for a former killing, and if this killing is not considered just by Tribe B, an endless cycle of 'revenge' killings would then ensure and, theoretically or actually leave noone left apart from some innocent children and their grandparents. So qualifying acts were then introduced -contrition and remorse on the part of the perpetrator, the award of precious belongings from the murderer's tribe to the victim -in an age and economy where giving up these things would be a genuine loss- and so on. Unfortunately, in the modern age, a rise in population and particularly gun ownership has meant that 'blood revenge' in Upper Egypt, Iraq and Syria is probably beyond the strict -and accepted- morals that were practised by the 'noble' Bedu of yore.
More pertinent, is that taking another life causes great trauma -most serving soldiers will tell you this, very few ever relish killing another person, and those that do are usually considered a bit unhinged by their comrades.
The burden of proof in murder trials is of critical importance -it may be that OJ Simpson did murder his wife and her boyfriend, but the evidence presented in court did not satisfy the jury; by contrast, African Americans accused of murder tend to be found guilty on the evidence even when it may be one item -of clothing, of a sighting by a witness, and so on.
Trish, I asked you if you think Freedom is more important than Life...the difference between Justice and Revenge is that one is considered to be a balanced assessment of disputed claims, often by a disinterested third party, where revenge is retaliation and usually considered an emotional, even an irrational act -as when someone takes revenge on another without first confirming that the victim was responsible- and therefore, Justice and Revenge are wholly different.
All the major religions of the world are against the death penalty
I am just curious then. If a man was to enter your home and he killed your family and was standing in front of you, would you not want to kill him? Or would you just rush to the nearest phone and call the police?
How about if your country was being attacked, would you not kill the invading people's? Let's say the attacking soldiers stopped their attack, would you hope for the police to arrest them and bring them to justice and given life sentences or would you kill them before they did any more damage?
What I was saying is that there will be times when one will have to kill someone whether it be on a personal level, being a soldier or being the state. I am sorry but if Hitler was to have not killed himself he should have been executed.
I am not a christian so I don't care what the bible says.
Whether execution is a deterrent or not is nothing I care about. I do believe in vengeance and anyone that does real evil should be put to death. No other opinion can sway me.
Every country of the world puts people to death, even the UK is murdering Libyans as I type this, the Libyans are not even getting a trial, they are just being murdered from the skies. Even if the Libyans were doing really evil things, according to death penalty opponents they should not be murdered for their evil.
The estimated cost per year for a lifer in the UK is around £40,000 whereas for the same year, 2008 in the US the maximum for someone 'closely guarded' was $32, 547; I think in Australia in the late 80s it was $A40,000. Not sure how these are worked out, presumably its not just the individual cost of food, but a computation of the total cost of the prison divided by one life sentence. In addition the length of stay varies from one state to another in Australia and the US, as well as different countries. Another difference in cost is whether or not the prisoner has special needs -those on whole life tariffs need medical care when they get older, may have special dietary needs, and so on. I read somewhere the US as a whole spends more on prisons than it does on education (excluding privately-funded universities and presumably schools).
Yvonne the thread is about punishment, not the crime. You can think of any number of truly gruesome situations, and situations in which people react as events happen, murder as a form of self-defence is different from a pre-meditated, planned event but the end result, someone dies, is what generates the trial, and as I suggested earlier, it is because circumstances now matter that there are different grades of murder -in the case of war, because Christians ought to be pacificists, there was a prohibition on warfare until St Augustine came up with the concept/excuse of a 'Just War'....the issue facing soldiers tends to be moral as legally most states and some -but not all -international law allows soldiers to kill with impunity- I think this is a different thread; it is the response to the crime that this thread is concerned with.
it costs 79 thousand a year to keep someone in prison
Robert said it eloquently. I fully endorse this.Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
Well I would disagree with anyone who says capitol punishment is not a Christian value. You can find as many quotes and verses supporting it as opposing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
Ref:
Mat. 15:3-4
Mark 7:8-11
Rev. 13:10
1 Tim. 1:8-9
Rom. 13:4
Rev. 16:5-6
Rev. 11:5
Rev. 13:10
To me it comes down to the level of proof. The bar has to be set so high before the decision is made to take someones life.
One has to keep in mind that this "law" was written by a society that stoned women for adultery. Although "an eye for an eye" could be and was extended metaphorically it could be and was also taken literally by the justice givers of the time.Quote:
The concept of 'an for an eye' was not meant as a literal act, but proportionality, to 'balance' out a crime
Any sort of retribution (from vandalism to murder) carried out by individuals, families, tribes and clans can lead to an "endless cycle" of escalating crimes. This is not an argument against capital punishment but merely an argument that the punishments need to be decided by and carried out by a body to whom all parties have ceded jurisdiction.
I'm not sure where you're going with this. If a murderer values his life more than his freedom, then imprisonment falls short of restoring the balance. If the murderer values freedom more than life, then imprisonment goes too far. Imprisonment restores balance only if the murder[er] values his life and his freedom equally. Life for a life seems to work better, if balance is were the only concern.Quote:
Trish, I asked you if you think Freedom is more important than Life...
I noticed you use the word "usually" here (italics are mine). I used a similar[] qualification when claiming justice is sometimes revenge. The main concern of both is to re-establish a balance, to make things even in so far as it is possible. In my mind the difference between the two, when there is a difference, is whether or not the attempted balancing act is done by a body to whom most (hopefully all) of the involved parties have ceded jurisdiction.Quote:
the difference between Justice and Revenge is that one is considered to be a balanced assessment of disputed claims, often by a disinterested third party, where revenge is retaliation and usually considered an emotional, even an irrational act -as when someone takes revenge on another without first confirming that the victim was responsible-
Others have used the phrase, "state sanctioned murder" to argue against capital punishment. This is an example of question begging. It is an attempt to define capital punishment as murder without providing any argument for why anyone should accept such a definition.
I think I will grant this argument. The larger point, I assume, being that capital punishment brutalizes society. I think this is probably right (though I've seen no research on it) and insofar as brutalization is undesirable, the argument seems to work. (Of course we want to be very careful here. Are first shooter video games less brutalizing to society as a whole than the sanction of capital punishment?)Quote:
More pertinent, is that taking another life causes great trauma
And of course we've agreed on this one from the beginning of the thread.Quote:
The burden of proof in murder trials is of critical importance
As I said before, a theorem requires only one proof. Just because I object to some arguments against capital punishment, it doesn't follow that I'm for capital punishment. For me, any one of these last two are sufficient to bar the practice.
Matthew 15:3-10 is what my mom would call a doosey. Capital punishment for not honoring your parents. It seems to me some ancient king, fearful of being usurped by his sons, had his scribes put that one in the mouth of God. And in Matthew 15:3-4 we have Jesus sanctimoniously calling the Pharisees hypocrites for not following this ancient (even by Christ's standards) commandment. Jesus by the way preached the Golden Rule, turn the other cheek etc. etc. So who's the hypocrite? So much for the Biblical argument for or against.
P.S. But here's another interpretation that saves Christ's reputation. The Pharisees were generally unaccepting of Christ's teachings, saying they followed the written word of God, which at the time was the Old Testament. Far from endorsing capital punishment for not honoring your parents, Jesus was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees who claimed to subscribe to the Old Testament and at the same time ignored this particular commandment. I'm not a bible scholar (nor do I care to be) so perhaps someone else can say whether this interpretation holds water.
I don't have the time or the inclination to dispense with all of Faldur's biblical references. But if any one of them indisputably condones capital punishment then it throws the entire New Testament into disrepute by introducing a contradiction to the passages where it very clearly prescribes against killing and violence. On the other hand, if all of them are disputable, then they're all ... disputable.
so what is to be done with repeat violent offenders? i am all for putting them out the middle of nowhere and leaving them there and in Australia we have a lot of the middle of nowhere
Do what the Church does to repeat offeders, have them confess their sins, mumble some incantation and absolve them.
I don't have the time or the inclination to dispense with all of Faldur's biblical references... Trish, Lets get one thing perfectly clear.. You can find as many quotes and verses supporting it as opposing.. Faldur, I think my statement spoke for itself, I did not say the bible supported the death penalty, I stated you can find as many supporting arguments as opposing. When Jesus stated in Rev 13:10, "He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.", I think you can consider this as a supporting statement.
To make a hand-waving statement "The Golden Rule!", (or another on the hit parade is "the greatest commandment" in Mathew), is a display of ignorance of who Jesus was. I encourage you to read about Jesus's involvement in battle of Jericho.
I disagree that religion belongs anywhere in the debate of "Caesar's laws". It is a choice if you make it a moral guide in your decision process. But at the end of the day its man's decision to make, yes or no.