capital punishment? waht do u think?

[willemvanoranje]

in Europe there's no death penalty and crime rates are lower than in the USA...

 

[Roundman]

Originally posted by General Porkins
Give them a lifetime in prison and a chance for reconciliation.

Murderers (people who don't kill out of self-defense) don't deserve a chance for reconcilliation. The children who he murdered will never get a chance to do anything. Why did he deserve one. John Wayne Gacy is the reason that I think that a society needs the death penalty as an option.

 

[Roundman]

Originally posted by Cactus_Jack
Nope a child killer is still a person. Not a very nice person but he is still a person all the same.

yes, the person is still technically a human. However,that doesn't mean much to me. I don't believe that there are natural rights. People only have rights in the framework of a society. When people step radically away from the boundries (say, by murdering dozens of children) of the framework they lose their rights given to them as a member of that society.

No one has answered my "litmus test" question: Would you support Hitler's execution if he were imprisoned for his crimes?

 

[Laughing Gull]

in regards to my previous comments, I'd like to add that I think the executioners should be mean and spikey robots of some sort or a pack of hungry wild dogs. maybe throw the guy in an arena with his "executioners"with no possible exits and a couple small rocks for a little false hope. they could sell tickets and the procedes could go back into the community.

 

[cgannon64]

@ Pro-Capital Punishment Posters: Are you willing to continue the current system, knowing that an innocent person could die?

Oh, and Immortal summed up the best point. Killing someone is such a grave decision that it shouldn't, IMO, be in the hands of men.

 

[luiz]

I agree that some people deserve painfull death(like Hitler, Roundman) and I don't cry when a child murderer is executed. However, for the death penalty to be fair, the judgement must be very long to prove beyond all possible doubt that the accused is guilty. This makes the whole proccess too expensive, and so I believe that forced labour is the pragmatic solution to the issue.

 

[Laughing Gull]

Originally posted by cgannon64
@ Pro-Capital Punishment Posters: Are you willing to continue the current system, knowing that an innocent person could die?

Oh, and Immortal summed up the best point. Killing someone is such a grave decision that it shouldn't, IMO, be in the hands of men.

re: innocent
they shouldn't be sentenced to death unless DNA evidence supports the other evidence.

re: hands of men

precisely why my pack of wild dogs idea seems like a good way to go.

 

[Roundman]

Originally posted by cgannon64
@ Pro-Capital Punishment Posters: Are you willing to continue the current system, knowing that an innocent person could die?

To me, the accidental execution of an innocent is the worst thing about the death penalty. I'd modify the system to ensure that only those with clear cut evidence against them (like having a few dozen bodies buried through their house, pictures of the accused killing the victim, etc) would get the death sentence. However, I'd limit the appeals of those who would finally receive the death sentence, to ensure that the execution was completed ithin a year of sentencing. For those without 100% proof, the maximum sentence would be life, no parole. Again, I'd create a special judiciary to determine whether or not there is enough evidence to even begin a capital criminal trial.

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by Roundman
No one has answered my "litmus test" question: Would you support Hitler's execution if he were imprisoned for his crimes?

no i wouldn't. life imprisonment.

 

[Roundman]

Originally posted by bobgote
no i wouldn't. life imprisonment.

Are you a pacifist?

 

[zulu9812]

Originally posted by taper
Exodus 21:12 - "Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death"

Don't see how Christian morals prevent capitol punishment

sorry to go back a bit, but I felt this was important

Exodus is First Testament, right? Most biblical scholars are in agreement that messages from the First Testament take a back seat to any conflicting messages in the Second Testament. So in this instance, Jesus' messages of forgiveness and redemption takes precedence over "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth"

 

[zulu9812]

Originally posted by Roundman
No one addressed my point about an obvious criminal, like the John Wayne Gayce example, where there is no chance that he is innocent

Whether or not someone is clearly guilty does not matter. I see any form of absolute, final punishment as being wrong. To execute any criminal is to admit that we, the state, have failed both him and his victims. Him, because we acknowledge we did nothing or were unable to reform him, or even prevent his crime at an earlier stage. His victims, because we acknowledge we are unwilling or unable to prevent anyone else doing it in the future.

 

[Roundman]

Originally posted by zulu9812
Whether or not someone is clearly guilty does not matter. I see any form of absolute, final punishment as being wrong.

Why?

To execute any criminal is to admit that we, the state, have failed both him and his victims. Him, because we acknowledge we did nothing or were unable to reform him, or even prevent his crime at an earlier stage. His victims, because we acknowledge we are unwilling or unable to prevent anyone else doing it in the future.

Our society is not perfect, and it will never be perfect. That fact has no relation to how someone should get punished for an action, unless you believe that societal factors are so strong that we do not have free will (if you believe that, then how do you believe in democracy?) Heinous criminals don't deserve the chance to be reformed; they removed that right when they purposefully took an innocent life. To give them the right to be reformed (something that I think is impossible anyway, especially for a serial killer!) is a betrayal to the victim.

 

[Smidlee]

Originally posted by naervod
Whatever happened to separation of church and state? To me, any argument that uses the Bible is not valid, as our government and laws should not be based on the Bible, a religious text. Basing or laws around the Bible would be a direct violation of the separation of church and state.

first Separation of church and state is Bible doctrine ,it not in the constitution even thought there a hint of it in the first amendment. you can go too extreme on the separation of church and state which is being done by politics today( remember church are people and voters too). the separation of church and state is made by Jesus himself( also in the old testament made it clear the king was never to play the role as priest). Notice Jesus never give any commandments or orders to the Roman Empire and sometimes seems to contradict old testsment law ( ex. eye for an eye ,etc.) but his commandments applies to the church which would be going to many different governments and cultures ( especially the Roman empire) around the world. Jesus didn't start a rebel movement againest the roman empire so he commanded the church to go the extra mile ( it had to do with roman law) . So "TURN THE OTHER CHEEK" applies to the church only BUT NOT GIVEN TO A GOVERNMENT like some of the laws given to the NATION Isreal (Exodus 21:12 was the governments/king role). there is only one who can bring the church and government together in rightousness ,that Christ Jesus himself ( he is both priest and king)

another interest thing i learn in history ( 19 th cenetury)was someone i read about (i wish i remember his name ) has study bible prophecy and came to the conclusion that before the end times ( because of the mass murdering)could begin the death penalty would have to be done away with or atleast to no affect. It seems he predicted right.

 

[Cactus_Jack]

Originally posted by Roundman


yes, the person is still technically a human. However,that doesn't mean much to me. I don't believe that there are natural rights. People only have rights in the framework of a society. When people step radically away from the boundries (say, by murdering dozens of children) of the framework they lose their rights given to them as a member of that society.

No one has answered my "litmus test" question: Would you support Hitler's execution if he were imprisoned for his crimes?

I wouldnt call for his execution, but i wouldnt feel that strong if he was i wouldnt be crying in my sleep. Its pointless though as killing hitler wouldnt bring back thoses he killed.

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by Roundman
Are you a pacifist?

kinda sorta not really. with relation to war, i think it is a last resort, but a valid last resort. with regards to capital punishment, i just don't think it's right to take the life of another in cold blood no matter what their crime is.

 

[Smidlee]

the church role in society is to represent the Mercy and the grace of God.
the governments role in society is to represent the Justice and Judgement of God. Because of this God gave to government the right to execute death penalty to anyone who sheds innocent blood. ( this is one of the seven thing GOD HATES proverbs 6:17)God will judge any Government according how they execute Justice since they respresents Him.

 

[Sims2789]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
1)In regards to the first point, I suggest you take less cheese and opium before bedtime. Such bemusing dreams are not really related to my model.

2)In regards to the second, the solution is to fix the system, rather than wring hands and gnash teeth over it being broken. The means to provide proper proof are there, and the prospective models for emulation are not limited to the flawed US system. Using technology and other means, establish full guilt, allow one appeal to be heard the next day, and if it fails, hang them after two days. Gacy, Bundy, McVeigh, Dahmer, Manson - all lived or have lived far too long.

it still happened. in Greece, some of the more attractive female slaves were forced to be prostitutes. slaves get mistreated by their masters. i suggest you watch Sparticus to see what i mean. here are the problems with slavery. my "bemused dreams" were a reality, except they obviously didn't have strap-ons in the Clasical times.

anyway, slavery happens illegally in the US. the Californian government asked the US government to stop slaves from being imported in San Francisco harbors. the Feds, under Bush, said that they didn't have the money. most of those slaves are women from Indo-China that are forced to be prostitutes.

1) most importantly, it violates basic human rights and the slaves are traumitized thourghout their lives.

2) my nation lost over 600,000 soliders(Federalists[official] only, Confederates also had high deaths) but we also lost countless civilians. my Great-great-great Grandfather fought for the Confederacy, i'm sad to say, and he deserted and moved to Texas to escape the cruelty of the Home Gaurd and the advancing Federal Army. have you seen what Richmond looked like after the Federaists captured it? it looked like Berlin did after the Soviets captured it in WW2. all[well, mostly] because of slavery.

3) least importantly, it is cheaper to use a robot than a slave. factories are almost fully automated. so why waste so-called "human resources" when we don't need to.

4) what if you were a slave?

 

[taper]

I have another question for all those that oppose the death penalty. Have any of you known someone who has been murdered? One of my sister's friends was brutally beaten to death by her boyfriend a few months ago. Unfortunately my state does not have the death penalty, but this is certainly a case deserving of it.

 

[Skullbones]

Originally posted by taper
I have another question for all those that oppose the death penalty. Have any of you known someone who has been murdered? One of my sister's friends was brutally beaten to death by her boyfriend a few months ago. Unfortunately my state does not have the death penalty, but this is certainly a case deserving of it.

Since when was the justice system about revenge and not protecting people and society. Oh wait... nevermind.