Texas may enact capital punishment for sex offenders

[Mathematician]

That's the problem with the death penalty, fry the ******* and get it over with, no more appealing forever and ever.

Are you willing to have 10 more innocent people die because you wanted to hurry the appeals and court process? 20? 50?

 

[Aqualung]

I certainly agree that the constitution is the law of the land... that being said, the constitution allows for the death penalty as it has been interpreted by the Supreme court... so where is the debate?

Whether the supreme court can interpret like that. The constitution says that the government needs due process to take a life, and I think that nobody ever has due process to take a person's life, and that the supreme court has massively overstepped their bounds and the bounds of a federal constitutional republic by allowing it.

 

[Aqualung]

Are you willing to have 10 more innocent people die because you wanted to hurry the appeals and court process? 20? 50?

Plus, it restricts due process even more, handing even more illegitamit power to the government to take the lives of their people.

 

[bflydad]

Whether the supreme court can interpret like that. The constitution says that the government needs due process to take a life, and I think that nobody ever has due process to take a person's life, and that the supreme court has massively overstepped their bounds and the bounds of a federal constitutional republic by allowing it.

I am unsure of whather I am in favor or opposed to the death penalty. However, since the Fifth Amendment specifically states, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime...". Therefore, the Constitution explicitly assumes that there are certain crimes for which the death penalty is appropriate. The argument against the death penalty via the Constitution is the Eighth Amendment ("...nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted") and was used to outlaw capital punishment against individuals who were under 18 when the crime was committed.

With that said, if we are going to have the death penalty as a form of deterrment, then I think we should take a lesson from Iraq. After Saddam was found guilty, he was given one chance for appeal and after the original sentence was upheld he was executed within 30 days. In this case, the costs are much less and the determent value (i.e. the likelihood other people will see what happened and not due the same thing) is much greater.

With that said, and since this is a religious forum I have to stick it in, I do believe that when we as community execute someone, we each take a little bit of that kharma onto our souls. Now we can argue whether it is bad kharma for ending a life or good kharma for protecting our community but either way I think we as a community and as individuals need to accept personal responsibility.

Lastly, the following democracies still retain the death penalty: United States, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

'Bout time.

It'd be better if we could find a way to do it without all the costly appeals.

EDIT: I'm definately not an advocate of rushing convicts through an appeals process. I'd rather see the appeals process reduced to one rather than three, all funded by the state. No need to rush something that isn't available. Perhaps the family of the convict should be held accountable for court fees and appeals.

 

[Aqualung]

I am unsure of whather I am in favor or opposed to the death penalty. However, since the Fifth Amendment specifically states, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime...". Therefore, the Constitution explicitly assumes that there are certain crimes for which the death penalty is appropriate. The argument against the death penalty via the Constitution is the Eighth Amendment ("...nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted") and was used to outlaw capital punishment against individuals who were under 18 when the crime was committed.

I agree that the constitution says that. I have no beef with that. Debates, however, are generally more productive (and more fun) if people debate what ought to be instead of what is.

With that said, if we are going to have the death penalty as a form of deterrment, then I think we should take a lesson from Iraq. After Saddam was found guilty, he was given one chance for appeal and after the original sentence was upheld he was executed within 30 days. In this case, the costs are much less and the determent value (i.e. the likelihood other people will see what happened and not due the same thing) is much greater.

That's true. A lot of the time and money comes from the general nature of the american legal system, in which appeals are based on technicalities, and it takes a lot of time and money to hold other trials to see if so-and-so acted according to law in a search, or whatever.

 

[jamaesi]

I hope the lawmakers who passed this felt good about themselves and patted themselves on the back and went home to a steak dinner.

However I could not sleep at night had I done this and completely ignored things that need to be done that will prevent this cycle of abuse happening over and over again- killing people does not help this in the least.

 

[jamaesi]

I made a post about this topic over a year ago. I still feel the same way. The thread was "Should we execute child molesters."

I'm quoting my post (18) from that thread.

It feels like a pander. A FeelGood law. One where they people who sign it and support it and pass it can go home to their steak dinners and pat themselves on the back for a job well done and never worry their little heads again with fixing the real problems. Of fixing a society that teaches "boys will be boys," or teaching children it's okay to say 'no' to adults, or teaching there are better ways to deal with problems than inflicting them on the minds and bodies and souls of others, or to help the poor women and single mothers so they don't feel like they have to have violent and shady men in their lives, or with therapy and treatments for poor victims who can't afford them, or fix child protection services, or train authorities to better deal with severely tramautised victims, or to correct a society that thinks that lynch mobs are the best way to deal with problems, or to fix this terrible Blame The Victim mentality? They so bravely voted for death- when will they work on the roots of these problems?

What about victims? What about those close to the victim who now get to choose between calling their child a liar and hateful and keeping a family member, a friend, a boyfriend alive? What about the victims who sincerely don't want to get anyone in trouble- that usually isn't their intent- knowing the blood will be on their hands? What about those close to the person who want to see them get help and not killed? What about a child molester who will now kill just to make sure they won't get caught?

What about treatment for the paedophiles and child molesters who truly want and crave and need help and change and therapy and compassion and kindness? Will those who say "hang them high" help work for programs and institutions where these people can get help without fear for their lives?



There is a need for punishment for terrible crimes. There is a need to protect children. There are needs for change.

Murder isn't a solution. It's a cover-up. it's sicking to see it touted in a "civilised society."

 

[Comprehend]

Whether the supreme court can interpret like that. The constitution says that the government needs due process to take a life, and I think that nobody ever has due process to take a person's life, and that the supreme court has massively overstepped their bounds and the bounds of a federal constitutional republic by allowing it.

ok... I think you are wrong... I have 200 plus years of stare decisis in the US and at least 500 years of British Common law on my side as well as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam (I am not sure about the other religions). What do you have?

Your opinion doesn't really count for much. Due process isn't just what one decides that it is, it has been shaped for hundreds of years to come to what it is now. There has never been much of a debate in any society regarding whether the state has the power to put people to death. Do you have any reasoning behind your opinion?

 

[Aqualung]

ok... I think you are wrong... I have 200 plus years of stare decisis in the US and at least 500 years of British Common law on my side as well as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam (I am not sure about the other religions). What do you have?

Again, I think it's funner to debate what ought to be, not what is. Are you saying that it ought to be because it always has been in the past? That's an is/ought fallacy.

If you would rather debate what is, find somebody else, because I agree with what is. I don't agree, however, that that is how it ought to be, and if you cannot or will not seperate the two, we again have nothing to debate.

Your opinion doesn't really count for much.

I'm sorry. I'll try to remember that next time anybody asks for my opinion.

 

[Jessica Magan]

I believe in keeping repeat offenders locked up for life.

I'm really not to keen on supporting a child rapist. Providing him with shelter and three squares a day when there are in fact children starving on our streets everyday. I would much rather have my tax dollars going toward the children. The psychiatric community has repeatedly stated that these offenders cannot be rehabilitated and will hurt more children with every chance we give them. Why take that risk?

 

[Sunstone]

I think it's possible some child predators who would not otherwise kill their victims will now kill their victims to avoid having a witness to their crime -- since the stakes of being convicted of raping a child are now so much higher.

As for the state having the right to take the life of one of its citizens, I believe the state should not have that right. I simply don't like the state having that much power over people. States tend to abuse whatever powers you give them.

 

[Kungfuzed]

There's alot of controversy over whether or not child molesters can be rehabilitated. Prison is certainly no place to be rehabilitated. I really don't believe that their crimes are solely due to a few bad choices in life. There must be some sort of mental condition that causes this. Normal people don't want to have sex with children. Yet, is there anything, any program, or doctor, or phsyciatrist that can cure them? If they were cured how would you proove it? From what I've learned it seems like a psycological addiction, like gambling, except alot worse.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Unless there are some costs that I am missing it’s been explained to me (I may be mistaken) that it costs tax payers $22,000 a year to keep a man in jail. How much can it cost an executioner to man a power switch and for the juice to electrify a chair?

Court costs, costs of appeals, lawer fees, costs of making the best effort to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the person you are about to kill is guilty, fees here, fees thier, which makes it cheaper in the long run just to leave them in jail.

That's the problem with the death penalty, fry the ******* and get it over with, no more appealing forever and ever.

Personally, I would rather pay the extra in taxes just so the legal system can make more attempts to make sure the convicted person really is guilty. Thier have been plenty of innocents killed, which is why it the long lines of appeals and trails have been added.

 

[Comprehend]

Again, I think it's funner to debate what ought to be, not what is.

in that case, I wouldn't base my argument on the constition as you did. If you are going to base your argument on the constitution we look at the document and how it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court, and in that case you would just be wrong as a matter of fact.

Are you saying that it ought to be because it always has been in the past? That's an is/ought fallacy.

nope. in the case of constitutional interpretation, it is called Stare Decisis and it's how our legal system works in real life.

You cited the constitution as your reason behind your argument. I was just responding to it. I didn't know you wanted to discuss a philosophical argument.

If you would rather debate what is, find somebody else, because I agree with what is. I don't agree, however, that that is how it ought to be, and if you cannot or will not seperate the two, we again have nothing to debate.

you said the government didn't have the right, now you admit that it does. I can't read your mind, I had no idea you meant that the government *shouldn't* have the right....

My undergrad degree was philosophy, I think I can handle a hypothetical situation, it helps when you point out that you are addressing how things should be rather than how they are though. (I missed it if you did point it out).

I'm sorry. I'll try to remember that next time anybody asks for my opinion.

I didn't mean in general.... sheesh.

I meant in the context of how the Constitution should be interpreted obviously and in that case, only the opinions of the people wearing robes really matters. It had nothing at all to do with you, just the way the legal system works.

 

[Aqualung]

in that case, I wouldn't base my argument on the constition as you did.

I wasn't. I was saying we were under the Constitution, not a social contract in a broader sense.

If you are going to base your argument on the constitution we look at the document and how it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court,

Or, we could debate whether or not the supreme court interpretation was valid. Again, this is an is/ought problem. You are saying that because the supreme court DID interpret it that way, that any argument saying that this interpretation shouldn't have happened is simply wrong. Which I contend.

nope. in the case of constitutional interpretation, it is called Stare Decisis and it's how our legal system works in real life.

Again, is/ought.

you said the government didn't have the right,

No, I said that no government should ever have that right. Then you said, that it DID have that right, taking that to prove that I am wrong. You are arguing ought from is. I am simply arguing ought. I know how the government is. It allows capital punishment. I know, further, that the government is like this due to the constitution and to supreme court interpretation (not a social contract). Furthermore, I don't care about any of this, because I would rather debate how things ought to be. Ought the government to be allowed to kill its citizens, NOTWITHSTANDING current law, social norms, etc.?

My undergrad degree was philosophy, I think I can handle a hypothetical situation, it helps when you point out that you are addressing how things should be rather than how they are though. (I missed it if you did point it out).

I believe I did. I might not have. Who knows? But I hope I've made it clear by now.

I meant in the context of how the Constitution should be interpreted

Again, though, you are addressing an is/ought problem. You say SHOULD, and then back this up with IS. You say the constitution SHOULD be interpreted this way, and the government SHOULD be allowed to kill its citizens, because it always has been like this.

obviously and in that case, only the opinions of the people wearing robes really matters.

But should that be so? Should they be the only ones to determine if that can happen?

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

http://reporter-news.com/abil/nw_state/article/0,1874,ABIL_7974_5492572,00.html



The real culture of death continues to infest our prison system: capital punishment.

The only thing that surprises me about this piece of news is that it hasn't happened sooner. With it, America's culture of fear continues to deepen. As long as we continue to respond to evil with evil, we will not escape this any time soon, and we will continue to blindly wonder why we have so much violence in this society.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for fitting the punishment to the crime. But America, can we please make these decisions with our intellect and not our fears?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

But America, can we please make these decisions with our intellect and not our fears?

Not if we continue to be a democracy.

 

[charles brough]

It certainly makes a person feel good to save people from the gas chamber, but other than that halo they then envision above their heads, just why is it that they can claim "high moral ground?" Most of us humans feel a responsibility to the general public so that we are anxious to get rid of those who exploit other people. After all, it is not as though we all need to have all those who would prey upon us as well! There is not a single one of them that is not due to die anyway. We all do die! Let's protect the ones who do NOT harm others. That is the compassionate way to deal with them.

Also, perhaps those who would keep prisoners in jail for the rest of their lives are perfectly willing to pay the heavy cost themselves---even of keeping one such killer or sex abuser alive. Or do they just want others to pay it? Already, we are crowding the Earth so fiercely that we have become obsessed with the environmental problems caused entirely by our sheer numbers here---and yet we are asked to bear another totally unnecessary burden.

What do these over-soliticious people do when their dog or cat gets old and his quality of life hits bottom? Do they let the animal live on and on in misery? Do they drive out into the country and push the poor thing out the door? Or do they take it to the vet and have it "put to sleep"? They certainly do not leave the choice up to the animal! Well, criminals are animals and they deserve as good as do our pets! Of course the criminal will choose life in jail before execution. It is the instinct to live. If we make the decision ourselves for the cat or dog, we should do the same with the criminal. After all, society must be in charge and make good decisions.

One thing that keeps the criminal's will to live is the though of the execution techniques. The real crime is the unending uncertainty and the years of waiting to find out. And the idea of being strapped down and given a shot or electricuted makes the poor guy like pitiful. It is a degrading, humiliating process for a man. Human beings should not be "put to sleep" like pets! Even criminals are human beings and deserve to die with dignity. They should be given a chance to stand up and face death---to be STANDING in the face of death. Death should be quick and sure by the firing squad.

Quick and sure executions for those who are a danger to society would relieve a huge percentage of our population who live in fear. The women who is raped, for example, lives in fear that the rapist will be released and come back to attack her for reporting the crime and testifying. This is repeated for every type of crime. The "bleeding hearts" show no concern for those victims. Quick executions would also bring resolution to the families of all who are concerned---including the relatives of the criminal. Then people could go on with their lives.

The reason why executing prisoners is controversial is that all our secular ideals are capable of being carried to extreme and many of them are. Humanism can go so far that people sweep the ground wherever they go so as not to step on some animal or instect and kill it. Everything can become carried to such an extreme that it makes no sense and becomes destructive.

Another reason is that the Ten Commandments seem to be against execution. But what is the Aramec word for "kill"? Is it the same as "murder"? There is, after all, a big difference! Executing a criminal is "killing" while the selfish "murder" of a rival for money is an execution-deserving crime.

But don't take the Bible as an excuse for over-humanistic ways! It is litterally filled with the killing of others---especially the Old Testament, the killing of whole cities of people including women and children and on God's command! Even in the New Testament God "brings not peace but a sword." Even the Apostles wore swords. They would kill to defend themselves and one did use his sword in the tussel when Christ was arrested.

So, don't look for the Bible for support there.

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

 

[angellous_evangellous]

But what is the Aramec word for "kill"? Is it the same as "murder"?

No. The word for "kill" is not the same for "murder."

I don't have my lexicons with me at the moment, but I know that in both Hebrew and Greek a different word is used for "muder" and "kill."

I though that I posted the answer to this question online a few months ago, but I can't find it.