The Death Penalty

[lilithu]

I'm sorry, you DO forfeit your "right to life" when you take that right from someone else.

We disagree.

I'm not saying that, but I do expect you to admit that we are paying for those who ARE guilty who are just buying time and using tax payers money to defer their punishment as long as they can.

Of course. But the way I was taught in school, our legal system believes that it's better to let 10 guilty men go free than to punish 1 innocent man. I still believe that. I will accept the extra expense in order to guard against the execution of innocent people.

They do make around 60 cents an hour, sometime less, sometimes more, but not by much. And not everyone in prison gets a job, they have waiting lists to get one. Paying them less than a dollar an hour is to, in some way, compensate for the fact that they are living rent and bill free off the taxpayers. It helps to fund the prison in whatever way they can by not having to hire outside workers to come in and do those jobs that the prisoners are doing. It may not do the best at truly compensating, but that is what they do. The pay they do get gets them the ability to buy their luxuries like cigarettes, coffee, playing cards, shoot...they can even special order electronics such as walkmans and televisions and headphones (all specially made clear ones that nothing can be hidden in). So, they have not only the basics provided for them, but the normal luxuries they might normally have on the outside. How is that punishment?

I'm all for prison reform. At the moment, more than 1 in 100 American adults is behind bars. There is something wrong with our prison system.

 

[Draka]

Then please explain why so many killers take their victims across state lines or find victims in states that do not have the death penalty?
Seems you two are grossly uninformed/misinformed.

Your own point proves our point. The killer still kills.

Hmmm, seems they'd have a much harder time doing that if the death penalty was nation-wide instead of state by state.

You know, it's sad, but I've seen several cases where someone is kidnapped and taken for a short drive across state lines to be killed just to avoid the death penalty. If they couldn't do that...then perhaps they might not have killed in the first place. We GIVE them the opportunity to kill by NOT having uniformly applied laws in this country so they can just skip to another state to commit the crime they want to and they know they'll get a lesser sentence.

 

[Storm]

SARCASM
It's amazing how concerned yall are now for the possibility that violent offenders in prison might be murdered.
SARCASM

1) Not all inmates are violent offenders

2) Supporting the death penalty doesn't mean you believe that everyone who deserves prison deserves death.

3) Guards, hello.

 

[Aqualung]

As I have said more than once, one can give up a "right". Any right.

One can give up their right to life by commiting suicide, or by allowing somebody else to kill them. But one does not give up the fundamental right to life any other way. As Lilithu said, the right to life is different, precisely because, once taken, it can NEVER be restored. Thus, the ONLY person who has the right to deny the right to life is that specific person (having the right to commit suicide). They are the ONLY one who has that choice. Yes, they screwed up when they killed somebody else, and they should be punished. But nobody else has the right to take away their right to life just because they did it somebody else.

You know, it's real nice to know that some people have such reverence and honor for the lives of such people as Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy. Especially when such people don't give two freakin hoots about your life or the lives of your families. :sarcastic

I don't know why you're being sarcastic. Honoring life is one of the greatest ideals to strive for.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Lemuel Smith. Go to google, look up the name, read the story.

Then you'll know why the death penalty is necessary.

 

[Poisonshady313]

One can give up their right to life by commiting suicide, or by allowing somebody else to kill them. But one does not give up the fundamental right to life any other way. As Lilithu said, the right to life is different, precisely because, once taken, it can NEVER be restored. Thus, the ONLY person who has the right to deny the right to life is that specific person (having the right to commit suicide). They are the ONLY one who has that choice. Yes, they screwed up when they killed somebody else, and they should be punished. But nobody else has the right to take away their right to life just because they did it somebody else.

Ever hear of suicide by cop? Doing something so stupid (i.e. shooting at a cop) as to necessitate a cop killing you....

Murder is basically suicide by State.

One who merits the death penalty is the one who denied his own right to life to himself. It's their own personal death wish. Who is the State to say no?

 

[lilithu]

Then why is the stance that they do not agree with the whole "right to life" not good enough for them if merely claiming the stance "right to life" is good enough for you?

BECAUSE Storm and I were STARTING with the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Storm is the one who brought the DoI up. If you say that you do not accept that humans have an unalienable Right to Life, then so be it. TVOR says he doesn't accept it and I have nothing to say to him about it. But if you do acknowledge that Right, as stated in the DoI, then the onus is on you to explain why there should be exceptions made for some people.

Is it not YOUR PERSONAL OPINION that they have the "right to life"?

Go back and actually read the posts. The argument here is Storm's assertion that life in prison is more inhumane than the death penalty. To which my response was that it was not up to her to decide whether or not it was more more inhumane. I have not questioned anyone's right to voice their opinion on the right to life.

 

[McBell]

Many people use the Bible to justify the use of the death penalty.
The most common verse used for the death penalty is Leviticus 24:20-21.

Death was the punishment of striking or even reviling a parent (Exodus 21:15; Exodus 21:17);
blasphemy (Leviticus 24:14; Leviticus 24:16; Leviticus 24:23);
Sabbath-breaking (Numbers 15:32-36);
witchcraft (Exodus 22:18);
adultery (Leviticus 20:10);
rape (Deuteronomy 22:25);
incestuous and unnatural connection (Leviticus 20:11; Leviticus 20:14; Leviticus 20:16);
man stealing (Exodus 21:16),
and idolatry (Leviticus 20:2).
​

There are several different methods used in the Bible to execute the capital punishment:

burning (Genesis 38:24; Leviticus 20:14; Daniel 3:6),
hanging (Numbers 25:4; Deuteronomy 21:22; Deuteronomy 21:23; Joshua 8:29; 2 Samuel 21:12; Esther 7:9; Esther 7:10),
crucifying (Matthew 20:19; Matthew 27:35),
beheading (Genesis 40:19; Mark 6:16; Mark 6:27),
slaying with the sword (1 Samuel 15:33; Acts 12:2),
stoning (Leviticus 24:14; Deuteronomy 13:10; Acts 7:59),
cutting in pieces (Daniel 2:5; Matthew 24:51),
sawing asunder (Hebrews 11:37),
exposing to wild beasts (Daniel 6:16; Daniel 6:24; 1 Corinthians 15:32),
bruising in mortars (Proverbs 27:22),
casting headlong from a rock (2 Chronicles 25:12),
and even casting into the sea (Matthew 18:6).
​

So it is clear to see how, from these verses, how people can us the bible to justify capital punishment. As Senator James Donovan said,

• "Where would Christianity be if Jesus got eight to fifteen years with time off for good behavior?"

 

[Aqualung]

Ever hear of suicide by cop? Doing something so stupid (i.e. shooting at a cop) as to necessitate a cop killing you....

I've heard that it's okay for a cop to shoot you if the cop is in danger of losing his life, but when a person sets up a dichotomy wherein it is "My life or yours!" each party is justified in protecting his right to life. Once a person is in prison, there is no such dichotomy.

One who merits the death penalty is the one who denied his own right to life to himself. It's their own personal death wish. Who is the State to say no?

If one requests the death penalty, I think it should be honored. But who is the jury to suggest it by force of law against the consent o fthe inmate?

 

[lilithu]

Can someone please supply numbers for this epidemic of prison murders that you're so concerned about?

 

[Aqualung]

[/INDENT]So it is clear to see how, from these verses, how people can us the bible to justify capital punishment. As Senator James Donovan said,

• "Where would Christianity be if Jesus got eight to fifteen years with time off for good behavior?"

If God is perfect, then it makes sense that God's laws would be perfect. But man is not perfect. God, being perfect, has the perfect ability to do things that man (and man's governments), not being perfect, have no ground for. God didn't set up our legal system the way he set up the legal system of the Israelites.

 

[Storm]

God didn't set up our legal system the way he set up the legal system of the Israelites.

Maybe not, but He certainly showed He's not opposed to the death penalty.

 

[McBell]

BECAUSE Storm and I were STARTING with the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Storm is the one who brought the DoI up. If you say that you do not accept that humans have an unalienable Right to Life, then so be it. TVOR says he doesn't accept it and I have nothing to say to him about it. But if you do acknowledge that Right, as stated in the DoI, then the onus is on you to explain why there should be exceptions made for some people.

Yet you did not address the issue at hand.
If your claiming it is fine, and you do not need to provide anything to support your opinion, then why cannot the opposite claim be just as fine with the same lack of need for support?

Or are you now changing your "do not need to support my opinion" stance?

Go back and actually read the posts. The argument here is Storm's assertion that life in prison is more inhumane than the death penalty. To which my response was that it was not up to her to decide whether or not it was more more inhumane. I have not questioned anyone's right to voice their opinion on the right to life.

Then how is it up to you to decide that it is more humane than the death penalty?
You cannot have it both ways.

 

[McBell]

Can someone please supply numbers for this epidemic of prison murders that you're so concerned about?

Nice try, but the fact is that even one murder in prison shows your statement that life imprison prevents killers from killing.

 

[McBell]

If God is perfect, then it makes sense that God's laws would be perfect. But man is not perfect. God, being perfect, has the perfect ability to do things that man (and man's governments), not being perfect, have no ground for. God didn't set up our legal system the way he set up the legal system of the Israelites.

I find it both interesting and rather irritating how you and Lilithu constantly go out of your way to miss the point when said point does not agree with your opinion.

 

[Aqualung]

Maybe not, but He certainly showed He's not opposed to the death penalty.

Yeah, but he showed he's not against the death penalty as a penalty that HE specified for crimes HE described. Being as he didn't set up OUR legal system, there's no way we can possibly claim that he approves of the death penalty in all the different places it's employed in this society. Even if he does agree, he hasn't given us the law to be able to follow through on that.

 

[lilithu]

No, but it does illustrate the point that sometimes rights SHOULDN'T be restored.

Perhaps, that still doesn't change the fact that life CAN'T be restored.

Is it? Part of my stance is that a quick death is more humane than life in our prisons. Seems pretty relevant to me.

It's irrelevant because prisons can and SHOULD be reformed.

Sorry, but it sounds like you're trying to weasel out of your need to support your argument, too. Your position is not a given.

Of course it's not a given. But you were the one who brought up the DoI. See my post to Mestemia.

And I'm sorry to do this, but iirc, you support abortion rights. The right to life is not absolute.

Did you think this would be a devastating argument? I believe in the inherent worth and dignity of every PERSON. Define person.

You know, a little civility goes a long way.

Yes, it does. I see no place where I've been uncivil to you. Only you claiming that I have.

 

[Aqualung]

I find it both interesting and rather irritating how you and Lilithu constantly go out of your way to miss the point when said point does not agree with your opinion.

Perhaps you should work on stating your point more clearly or put more effort into reading my responses. I neither thought I was off topic nor tried to dodge the issue, which means either I didn't understand your post or you didn't understand mine.

Actually, reading back on your post, it seemed like yours was completely off topic (after all, what do the practices of a culture thousands of years ago have to do with the practice of this culture?) - I was merely trying to salvage a bit of tangential on-topicness.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Really?

Is it the "serial killer" thing.... or is it all murderers that you feel this way about... and does this "value" judgement apply to any other crimes.

Thanks for answering buddy!
S

Scott -

I know that this is a dissapointment to you, but it is an honest answer.

I do make a clear distinction between a person that abducts and kills a child, a serial killer, or a person that kills for money or pleasure - and a person that kills by accident (i.e. drunken driving, negligence, etc.) or a person that commits a single killing in a moment of rage.

I know that I don't need to say this, but I will anyway - you have my deepest respect - we just don't happen to agree on this issue.

 

[McBell]

Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates

Deterrence