I do not support the death penalty. PERIOD.

I CERTAINLY DO NOT SUPPORT IT FOR SOMEONE WHO COMMITS A CRIME OTHER THAN MURDER. WHO'S WITH ME?

Its more expensive than life in prison and it doesn't deter crimes. Plus if your of color your more likely to get it.

Personally I support Life with Hard Labor for heinous offenders.

Prison in Alaska shoveling snow or in Death Valley digging holes is fine with me.

Depends on the case. Proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is one bad dude or dudeess, I have to consider it.

life without parole is worse, and quite fitting, given how the prison population treats criminals like that.

Me, I'll take the alive baby any day. Therapy and a supportive family can bring a traumatized child back into the fold of love.

BUT, if the rapist KNOWS he will be executed if convicted, WHY, in terms of a sociopath's reasoning, would he leave the victim/witness alive?

right at this moment, and I've said I'm of two minds depending on the situation, but is there any proof a rapist kills their infant targets? Or proof that they'd be less inclined? Everyone's assuming that, but I've seen nothing to support it.

And your opinion is your opinion; don't be chastizing others for theirs. And thanks.

Children that age would certainly be able to identify and testify against their rapist. Maybe you think child rapists think sympathetically about their victims, but I do not. My take is that nine times out of ten, they would kill the victim to prevent (the rapist's) sorry ass from seeing the gas chamber.

And yes, this is JMHO. I am not chastising you for your pro death penalty position.

I'm not chastizing you for it, just an observation.

It's a subject we could all talk about endlessly, and never the twain might/could/should meet.

I oppose that as well as state sponsored execution.

The criminally insane need to be removed from the population to protect people.

However, I don't condone the state practicing revenge. I do advocate that the state provide security for the population.

The state can do that without raping children or executing criminals (or presumed criminals)

You know, like... "dissapearing" them...

Sorry, I have no compassion for child rapists. None. I don't value their lives.

about the act of dehumanization.

Lots of child rapists claim to be sorry as well, and they are prime examples of people who dehumanize others.

So it goes.

I think devaluation of human life is actually the issue here. You are jealous of others who do it and want to get in on the action yourself. But you enjoy the cover of righteousness to act out your brutal fantasies.

I think the world needs to be protected from the actualization of your world view. You advocate brutality to stop brutality.

It's insane, and it should be criminal to act on it.

Should we have mercy killings so child rape don't have to live with their shame?

:shrug:

It would almost guarantee that the rapist would murder the child.

Just an guess.

Unless the edit of the OP took out something of relevance, I'm not seeing how being opposed to the death penalty for a crime in any way condones or says committing such a crime is "okay."

even if there was, it would be abused.

There is certainly no such legal standard

Haven't we killed enough innocents already?

That's blood on our hands, after all. Isn't that why we invaded Iraq? Truth, Justice and the American way?

The apologists will tell you Saddam deserved it.

No, we should leave the killing up to the animals. Civilized States have no need or desire to kill caged human criminals. Do they?

I used to be a fairly violent person. I used to do things to people that would make you shudder and vomit. I don't want to be that person anymore, and I've spent 20 odd years trying to be a better person. Trust me, it's easy to give in to that desire for revenge (and let's be clear, the DP is all about revenge, and has nothing to do with justice). For me, if I give in to that to that desire what's to stop me from giving in to it again...and again...and again? Each death would just get easier and easier to accept...all in the name of justice, mind you. I don't know about you, but your simplistic appeal to emotion just doesn't cut it anymore, at least not for me.

Do you want the State deciding who lives and who dies? Because if you accept it once, it'll be done again, and not always for the so-called deserving reasons you think may fit. You're falling prey to the very same appeal to emotion that you're now playing against us.

Can you kill? I know I could. And that's why I'm against the death penalty. It's a road I never want to travel, regardless of the crime.

I have tremendous respect for you, but your reply is truly disappointing.

an angry bone in my body anymore, but I've never been a violent person, not to that extent. Temper, yes, but not violent.

No, I can't kill, but if someone has done something so heinous that it doesn't even qualify to think about, why is that person worthy of thinking about?

Again, if they confess, and it's determined they committed the crime through DNA, they should pay. That might make their families feel better, too.

Eye for an eye? Maybe.

You just don't want to, or can't, admit it. Though you come close to examining it in yourself with your last line. It also proves to me that it's all about exactly what I said...revenge, not justice.

Also, there are many, many families of murdered people who are still against the death penalty. So maybe it won't make them feel better.

Be honest, what you're advocating is murder to satisfy a bloodlust. You're just transposing your own onto the victim's family to avoid looking at it as a part of your own being.

why is that person worthy of thinking about?

As I stated above, it's not about him...it's about us.

Without anesthesia and with a dull butter knife

Once that shit starts, it won't stop.

Er, wait . . .

:yoiks:

:rofl:

But there is a very small number of reprobates that don't deserve to live in the same world and draw the same breath as good, normal folks.

you are comfortable with allowing the state to make that decision?

Me? Absolutely not.

There are way too many cases of politics, racism, and just plain laziness involved in putting people onto death row who did not belong there. One innocent person on death row is unacceptable.

The death penalty only seems to be sought in certain cases which only reinforces the idea that some people's lives are worth more than others. Not acceptable in a supposedly egalitarian society.

As for the truly guilty life in prison should do just fine. Besides, the death penalty is nothing more than legalized murder and it drops the rest of us down to the level of the degenerate in the first place.

I'm not willing to go there.

Regards

It is not clearly absurd to say that there are some people whom it would not be immoral for the state to murder (equally, it's not absurd to say that there is no-one whom it would not be immoral for the state to murder).

But it is clearly wrong to say that the state should murder anyone, even those people, because there's no way you can murder anyone without sometimes murdering the wrong people.

If you ever have a divine being to run the justice system, get back to me. For as long as it's being run by fallible mortals, the death penalty should clearly never, ever be applied, whether or not there are some people who deserve it.

Who's with me?

:rofl:

Especially for child rapists, first degree murder, and treason!

Hang Ye Scurvy Dogs From the Yardarm!

Rocks and Shoals, my friend, Rocks and Shoals!

:nopity:

:eyes:

No one is entitled to take another's life. Not even society.

They are scum and need to be eliminated.

labeling groups of people as "inhuman". That's not been a very pleasant road in the past.

out of 1,000 guilty, it is not acceptable. One innocent murdered by the state is too high a price to pay.

Serial killers and child rapists can be incarcerated for their entire lives, eliminating them from society. I see no reason to risk killing an innocent person.

Mass or serial murderers, and in EXTREME cases, treason...

Dealing the DP for child rape would only result in rapist's killing the victim/witness.

I think life in prison is a FAR more severe penalty. Period.

There were two murders in downtown Garland, TX last weekend, and one of the suspects took a media interview at the jail.

He said he had no remorse and when asked "what about the victims' families?"

"FUCK 'EM"

Also, the real possibility of innocent people being convicted and executed, is why I have an anti-death penalty position.

But someone who has confessed to the police, confessed to the media, is someone who probably can not be rehabilitated.

That way we are not reduced to his vile, murderous level.

It's about getting rid of them. As I said upthread, I have friends who were murdered, and I'm not willing to waste one red cent of my tax money on feeding their killers. Not when there are so many millions of people who are hungry and homeless and have never hurt anyone.

there were a way to make our legal system entirely non-classist and non-racist (HAH!), then in that case, I would think that euthanizing any human who thought it was ever OK to kill another human in any situation that wasn't self-defense would be exactly right-on. But how far are we from that?

The only thing that society can reasonably do is to remove those can cannot abide by its laws. If someone has committed an offense so foul that it would not be worth trying to rehabilitate them (e.g. Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, etc.), then there are plenty of isolated islands that they can be shipped to and told to fend for themselves.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

That's what the Brits did

;-)

a must read! :thumbsup:

was prostitutes and pickpockets.

I do not support the death penalty. Too often mistakes are made in the judicial system and it doesn't deter crime.

An acquaintance of mine was killed by Gacy and a neighbor's stepbrothers were thought to be Gacy's first victims. Gacy was executed and I felt no joy at his death, I would have preferred that he sat in a jail cell and lived to a ripe old age...dreading every day he was there, reflecting on how many lives he destroyed.

Cheers


Edited: The boys I am referring to are the Schussler boys. They were murdered along with their friend by the last name of Peterson. They are thought to be among the first victims of Gacy by investigating detectives.

How horrible to have known victims of that maniac. :hug:

and no one is ever going to win the Presidency with either of those positions in the near future.

(I would consider an exception for those that commit murder while in prison as a possible exception as it may indeed be the only situation that would actually provide a deterrent)


I support progressive Democrats who head to the center for the General Election.

....is very happy that you are not in charge of deciding these issues.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/77.php

Cheers

"On February 23, 1983, ten year old Jeanine Nicarico disappeared from her home. When her sister came home, she found the front door ripped off of its hinges and her little sister gone. Rolando Cruz, then a teenager, was eventually picked up, charged, and convicted for raping and killing Nicarico. He was sentenced to death, as was his co-defendant Alejandro Hernandez. A jury could not come to a verdict on a third defendant........

On November 3, 1995, after both men had served, respectively, nearly 12 years on death row, both cases were dismissed and Cruz and Hernandez were set free. The court acquitted Cruz and dismissed Hernandez's case on the basis of the recanted testimony, the DNA evidence, and the lack of any corroborated evidence against them."

Dick Cheney's intel gatherers sure could've used a bright bulb like you. :eyes:

....sorry if you were just made aware of it.



Cheers

...interesting choice.

flaw (flô)

1. An imperfection, often concealed, that impairs soundness

2. A defect or shortcoming in something intangible

3. A defect in a legal document that can render it invalid.

To make or become defective.



Cheers

That some cases go badly is not a reason to scrap the idea entirely.

It's applied unevenly and there's room for too many mistakes to be made. Who knows how many innocent people have been put to death? Also, I don't think the state should be given the power to take a person's life.

except perhaps for war criminals who have committed mass murder if you know what I'm saying

I didn't even support it for Saddam Hussein, but I am glad to hear that you are on the right side of this issue.


However, again, it does not effect my feeling for Obama. I support same sex marriage, nothing less, yet no one is going to get elected who openly supports that right now. Baby steps, baby steps. Obama has done a great job so far in this general election.

but rather he who shall be called *

child rapists, if that's what you're referring to.

What do you suggest?

most of the rest of the world gets by without the death penalty.

And if the death penalty really were an effective deterrent, then a country that has it ought to have a low murder rate, right? I guess we must have the lowest murder rate in the world.

Never mind.

some should be kept alive for experimental surgeries and testing

just kidding

I heard that from a Louisiana police officer at Starbucks. He also thought police officers should be allowed to perform summary executions of repeat felons, when caught in the act... right on the roadside.

I thought he was kidding, till I looked into his eyes.

Yeah... too much room for error in adjudication. The death penalty should be abolished, no question about it.

* Afghanistan
* Antigua and Barbuda
* Bahamas
* Bahrain
* Bangladesh
* Barbados
* Belarus
* Belize
* Botswana
* Burundi
* Cameroon
* Chad
* China (People's Republic)
* Comoros
* Congo (Democratic Republic)
* Cuba
* Dominica
* Egypt
* Equatorial Guinea
* Eritrea
* Ethiopia
* Gabon
* Ghana
* Guatemala
* Guinea
* Guyana
* India
* Indonesia
* Iran
* Iraq
* Jamaica
* Japan
* Jordan
* Korea, North
* Korea, South
* Kuwait
* Laos
* Lebanon
* Lesotho
* Libya
* Malawi
* Malaysia
* Mongolia
* Nigeria
* Oman
* Pakistan
* Palestinian Authority
* Qatar
* St. Kitts and Nevis
* St. Lucia
* St. Vincent and the Grenadines
* Saudi Arabia
* Sierra Leone
* Singapore
* Somalia
* Sudan
* Swaziland
* Syria
* Taiwan
* Tajikistan
* Tanzania
* Thailand
* Trinidad and Tobago
* Uganda
* United Arab Emirates
* Vietnam
* Yemen
* Zambia
* Zimbabwe

Conspicuously absent are our G8 partners, the nations that are traditionally held up as "modern Western democracies". Maybe someday we'll be a modern Western democracy too, but I'm not going to hold my breath...

I don't think his judgment in this matter is politically driven.

If he had more exposure to the kinds of illegal tactics and shenanigans law enforcement employs, he'd be more cognizant of the error rate... less inclined to support the death penalty.

They withhold evidence, manufacture evidence and set people up for prosecution... using the system for purposes not intended by the law...

ALL. THE. TIME.

yup

It was so fraught with problems that the Governor overturned every pending execution back in 2000. So he does have some experience with the issue.

I disagree with Obama on this but I understand what he's up against running for President. They excoriated Dukakis with this issue back when he was running.

I'm with you 100%.

supposed to be the other way around :rofl:


GOBAMA!

for your opinion on the death penalty. Said you might have him on ignore so I wanted you to know. :)

important. I admire everyone who stands up and states their mind on this issue. We do not need the death penalty period. Though you have never been afraid to state your mind and I admire how strong you have stood in your support of Hillary as well. She is a great candidate, great politician, and great woman.

I do believe some crimes warrant the ultimate punishment though. I also understand why some people are against it.

I'm opposed to the death penalty for any crimes. I've never seen a non-emotionally based, convincing argument in favor of its application.

It comes down to this: some of us support putting down dogs who bite people, right? Even if the person survived and was fine. They make the argument that once a biter, always a biter.

Well, I don't buy that. For dogs. Dogs are animals and fundamentally innocent, and nowhere near as cruel as humans. But if they have rabies, then, yeah, put 'em down, because rabies is a terrible thing and it's kinder.

I was bitten by a family dog as a kid, and I still would have laid my own life down for her - fortunately my parents were saner than that and I didn't have to. :) I knew she was provoked.

But for the guy who smothered my childhood friend with a pillow even though she trusted him (they were a couple; they were drunk; they were having some dumbass fight over drugs), or the guy who stalked my other friend for five blocks before raping and strangling her, or the kid who shot at some other kid on the street and missed him and hit my other friend in the heart while he waited for the bus on a Sunday afternoon...?

Humans are smarter than animals. All of us in the US have been pretty well schooled in lots of Judeo-Christian notions about right and wrong, ranging in sophistication from "an eye for an eye..." to "do unto others...."

Sorry, I want people who DON'T GET THAT put down. I don't want to run into them on the street. I don't want to share a world with them. I have no compassion left over for them (I've known too many people who never hurt anyone and yet still wound up in prison or on the street and hungry, and that's where all my compassion goes right now, because I"m human and it's a finite amount).

Take a life, give up your own. I don't think that's unduly harsh. I really, really don't.

I think if you can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt (DNA evidence, multiple witnesses, security camers) to have taken human life in circumstances other than immediate self-defense or defense of others, well, see ya, world's better off without ya.

Obama was a driving force behind the DP moratorium in IL, because he just read the newspapers and knew that there were way too many cases where black men confessed to all sorts of shit because white cops were wiring their balls to radiators.

(Yes, for the record, I advocate "putting down" those cops as well. I'd pull the switch myself. :D)

Which is why we let judges and not politicians make these decisions. And Obama will appoint the kind of judges that voted the right way on this case.

there is a hell of alot more money in having the death penalty than there is in having a murderer living out his/her life behind bars.

If the majority wants the death penalty then, why f*ck around put the murderer to death 7 to 10 days after the guilty verdict. (period)

If you are afraid of doing it within seven to ten days after the guilty verdict you do not really want the death penalty, you are only pretending that you do.

Not putting the murderer to death within ten days you are opening up, all kinds of ways for lawyers to become richer by having the death penalty in place.

The death penalty, BIG DECISION for us all to make, but, we must make it one way or the other, but, in this country lawyers are getting rich by the victims death and thats just not the way it should be.

No one should make money off an Innocent persons death, NO ONE!

My two cents.

K&R

I do not support the death penalty under any circumstances.

from the King James Bible: "Thou Shalt Not Kill".

Enough said.

Mark.

Read the next chapter.
12He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.

Matthew 26:52

Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.


We could do this all day and night. Tit for tat scripture. And it would all be stupid bullshit.

If you want context, read the whole Bible. Then read it again. And then discuss it with your pastor, your family, your friends. Then read other people's take on scripture. Study the history of Christian attitudes and the application of scripture on social issues like the death penalty in the centuries since the canonization of the Bible. Then reflect on your own experiences, ideas, values and beliefs. Lather, rinse, repeat as necessary. And so on and so on.

"Context" when it comes to Christian scripture is not the quick fix many of us would like it to be. There is no convenient shelter to be found in quoting a line or two from the Bible as the sole defense of a position on any issue, because anyone with access to Google can throw five or more verses up to oppose your view with a few quick keystrokes and 60 seconds of their time and energy.

Surely we can do better than this.

later by different people from different cultures. I might as well cite the phone book in return.

In order to get a coherent reading of exodus, where it says "thou shall not kill " (btw murder is the usual translation) and then goes on to give orders for when to execute people, it is illogical to interpret execution as falling under the command not to murder.

You can try to make an academic argument out of this, but it won't work. For the very reason you point out above. The Bible is a collection of writings of many different men, from different cultures, over a significant span of time, hand-picked by another group of men and assembled into a politically correct (for the time) mixture of history, folklore and religious teaching.

If you want to push the issue on a purely chronological basis - as in "your bit of scripture was written sooner after the transcribing of the Ten Commandments than mine was" - have at it. You win that battle, I surrender without a fight. Given our agreement on the aforementioned point about the history of the Bible, though, I'm sure you will understand that it is a pyrrhic victory for you. Because if the only "context" I have to go on is the chronological order of Biblical scripture, I have no problem taking my cues directly from Jesus (Christ, that is) in the New Testament. Which will mean disavowing many things that were said and done chronologically earlier, by different men of a different culture, according to scripture.

I believe that Christianity at its core - not in a sound-byte ready bit of scripture here and there - is radically nonviolent and provides no comprehensive justification for the death penalty. Under any circumstances.

The Bible is probably one of the most complex set of books ever published, which have lots of conflicting messages in them. You're right - it says on one hand "don't kill" and then on the other hand even something like working on the religious day and you should be put to death.

My statement was not meant to be an interpretation of the whole Bible. When Christianity is "marketed", things like the Ten Commandments, a few "major" Old Testament stories are told and Jesus's main message in the New Testament are the messages put forward, and the inconvenient bits like being stoned for not being a virgin on your wedding night, or wearing cotton and polyester at the same time... and being stoned to death for that too - those bits are left out. Hence people will hear the message of "Thou shalt not kill" and Jesus's mention of "turn the other cheek" when commenting on an "eye for an eye" and run with that message.

I'm not a literal believer in the whole Bible, I call myself a Christian, I believe that Jesus gave us a new covenant that supersedes that given in the Old Testament that overrides the things of stoning and what not. There's evidence both ways about Jesus and the Old Testament. My belief is that the Old Testament is Gods Word for times gone past, and is good for learning from and that the New Testament is Gods Word now. I'm not a biblical scholar, I don't know my bible inside out and I probably never will. I'll probably always have conflicts with my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ over my personal interpretation of the Bible.

As my original post stated, I'm a firm believer in the 6th commandment. I didn't mention any other Bible passage.

Is this enough said now?

Thanks for listening, Mark.

convicted people. Whether it be murder or child rape, people can and have been wrongfully convicted. If these people get life in prison and the error is discovered, they can be freed. If they are executed, then the error can never be corrected.

who rape children.

Two wrongs do NOT make a right. I did not agree with the execution of Saddam Hussein, and I certainly don't agree with executing someone who doesn't commit murder. Anyone who DOES agree with it should watch Ani Difranco discuss it on her DVD "Render" and should listen to the song "Crime For Crime" also by Ani Difranco:

Crime for Crime lyrics:

the big day has come
the bell is sounding
i run my hands through my hair one last time
outside the prison walls
the town is gathering
people are trading crime for crime

everyone needs to see the prisoner
they need to make it even easier
they see me as a symbol, and not a human being
that way they can kill me
say it's not murder, it's a metaphor
we are killing off our own failure
and starting clean

standing in the gallows
everyone turned my way
i hear a voice ask me
if I've got any last words to say
and i'm looking out over the field of familiar eyes
somewhere in a woman's arms a baby cries

i think guilt and innocence
they are a matter of degree
what might be justice to you
might not be justice to me
i went to far, i'm sorry
i guess now i'm going home
so let any amongst you cast the first stone
now we've got all these complicated machines
so no one person ever has to have blood on their hands
we've got complex organizations
and if everyone just does their job
no one person has to understand

you might be the wrong colour
you might be too poor
justice isn't something just anyone can afford
you might not pull the trigger
you might be out in the car
and you might get a lethal injection
'cause we take a metaphor that far

the big day has come
the bell is sounding
i run my hands through my hair one last time
outside the prison walls
the town has gathered
people are trading crime for crime
people are trading crime for crime
people are still trading crime for crime



********


That being said. I support Obama. If I withdrew support from every politician who even so much as thought of the death penalty I would quickly run out of names to endorse. So GoBama!

Such a candidate is a sure loser in the USA.

Your position on the proper position for an "electable" presidential candidate is clear now.

I'm just curious....do you personally support the death penalty?

Some people are so heinous they have no right to live.

I mean that.

We may disagree, but I still appreciate your willingness to respond to questions like mine off the cuff.

:)

Haven't seen you around in a long time. I'm pleasantly surprised we agree here. :hi:

You shouldn't be so surprised. As I recall, we have agreed on many other occasions during the past few years.

;)


I've really enjoyed your posts on this subject. And it is always really nice to cross paths with you, my friend.

:hi:

in all circumstances. As Gandhi said when asked about Western civilization, "I think it would be an excellent idea."

Check out which countries have abolished the death penalty and which ones still employ it. It's pretty shameful company we keep.

link

I am a strong supporter of the Innocence Project - which has worked for the exoneration of a number of people not only wrongly convicted but WRONGLY ON DEATH ROW. And while most of their clients are poor, and black, and male, not all. Suburban white women can get ensnared by the legal process too.

Spend a few years wrongly imprisoned- wrong, awful, hellish.
Get executed for a crime you didn't commit? unspeakable.

No qualifiers. No ifs, ands or buts.

We should not be doing this. Capital punishment is beneath us as a nation.

Putting someone to death should not be the most solemn act of a civilized country. It sets a bad example.

--IMM

Reasons:

- although I see child rape and murder as both equally heinous (though one is less final,) I am morally against taking one's life

- There can never be equal application, and there are arbitrary standards

- Countries that don't have it do fine

- I don't think the state or government should have that power

- It doesn't bring the victim back

for the vast, vast majority of cases prison in appropriate.
and it never should occur when there is even a shadow of a doubt of the guilt of the accused.

Killing prisoners is wrong, as is torturing them.

...

I'm against it because I don't think it works but I won't be "lighting candles" for those executed either.

For one, many mistakes are made in rape cases, which means innocent people would be executed (this is also true now in murder cases, but why extend the error to include other crimes).

Second, and maybe most importantly, the rapist would kill the victim to prevent her/him from testifying, because THE RAPIST WOULD HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE, AND EVERYTHING TO GAIN, BY DOING SO.

But, there is no one on this planet who is qualified to make that call.