Death Penalty

[Little Horn]

Originally Posted by MemphisMasenko

I didn't mean that they should go unpunished, Its not like we are punishing criminals by killing them, believe me its just the easy way out for them and then it sorta becomes a special award.

I never said that this was your train of thought. I was asking a question. Where do you draw the line? When does it get a point that we let God handle it?

I'm assuming that you are a Christian. How is killing them an easy way out? Would they not go to hell? Is hell not a place of eternal suffering?

Originally Posted by MemphisMasenko

Let God take care of it, it doesn't sound ridiculous. Just shove them I don't care 13 to a cell or however they will fit in a cell and let them fight, crap their pants, sleep on top of another for 50+ years untill they die however it might be and then let God handle it, it doesn't sound really ridiculous.

This is very "Christian" of you. Well let them suffer in this life as well as the next.

[MemphisMasenko]

Originally Posted by Atrocious

Killing someone after they killed one time instead of giving them 10 years and then probation for 18 months, then after that they kill again.

I think the death penalty would come in handy.

I don't think serial killers or just spur of the moment meant to kill, killers would get just 10 years and 18 months probation.
And if they do I still say let them live their normal lives while they can untill God takes care of it.
Though 25yrs to life in jail is much prefered.

[Locke]

Well, we actually had a debate on the subject in Government class this year, and I learned a lto about this issue. First off, I'm pro-death penalty,but only to a point. What do I mean by this? Read on.

Well, by a Biblical standard, to which I adhere to, the death penalty is the only fair and just punishment to those who have taken the life of another( self-defense or accidents have the own subjective punishments based on situation and mitigating circumstances). It'd be nice to have death penalty for such serious criminals as rapists, but I don't see that ever happening here in a America. Now, don't get me wrong: I'm not some insane religious lunatic looking to off another sinner. In fact, for the purpose of our government today, I would have to stand against the death penalty. Why? Because of several key reasons:

1.) The death penalty is NOT a deterrent to any crime, murder or lesser. Don't believe me? Look at the official FBI reports, compiled from police reports across the country. With almost no exception, death penalty states have more murders than non-death penalty states. On an average, death penalty states beat out non-death penalty states by a fairly large margin. In fact, criminolgists, those who make their life to study the cause and effect of crime, agree that death penalty is not a deterrent to crime(84% of them in a poll by www.deathpenaltyinfo.org).

2.) The system is inefficient and imperfect. Face it, when a couple hundred million people get together, government is going to run slow. Death penalty cases, appeals and all, take abhorently large amounts of court time and state money. The actual execution either is not or should not be that expensive(bullets are pretty cheap, so is rope, and there have been shootings and hangings since the execution moratorium back in the 70's). It's the appeals that murder our time and budget. Now, this is not to advocate the removal of appeals; we need appeals to ensure the safety of the system. Even with them, just over a hundred convicted death row inmates have been exonorated here in America. There are probably more innocents who have been killed. It is American policy that it is better for a guilty man to go free than a innocent be punished, which is still a losing battle to obtain.

3.) Publicity leads to more of the same, be it through "copycat killers" who do their best to follow the MO of a famous killing, or merely through another regular murder that had little to do with the original MO. Both have been shown to occur when big crimes get into the media. In fact, Grant McClellan, a former prosecutor of New York, said that, "Some criminologists claim they have statistically proven that when an execution is publicized, more murders occur in the day and weeks that follow. A good example is in the Lindbergh kidnapping. A number of states adopted the death penalty for crime like this, but figures showed kidnapping increased. Publicity may encourage crime instead of preventing it."

I've probably got more to say, and some sources to back this up, but I'm tired. You can bother me about this later.

[1wdc]

Its actually cheaper to keep someone in prison for their entire life (with paper work and case fees) then it is to kill them.

Not only that but if they are still alive in prison and down the road we find out they were innocent wouldn't it be a good thing that they were alive and that we could give them at least some of their life back (with a pile of cash)?

Also I would think more people would hate being contained in the same building for 40 years over being in their a month and then being killed.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by 1wdc

Its actually cheaper to keep someone in prison for their entire life (with paper work and case fees) then it is to kill them.

Not only that but if they are still alive in prison and down the road we find out they were innocent wouldn't it be a good thing that they were alive and that we could give them at least some of their life back (with a pile of cash)?

Also I would think more people would hate being contained in the same building for 40 years over being in their a month and then being killed.

Thank you for reiterating half of what I just said, and nothing else.

While there are innocent people on death row who never get released, there are also innocent people with life imprisonment that never get released. Fact is, people aren't perfect, so it's going to happen. However, you shouldn't make that a main point, it's too easy to attack. Also, it really depends on the prison. Some prisons have better accomodations than a 4 star hotel. Some are little better than rat nests. Some people want to go out quick, some prefer to stay alive. Also, they don't "stay a month" and then get killed. Even without appeals it can take years to get a setence carried out. With smart defense attourneys, even decades aren't unheard of. In fact, not that many people are actually executed each year, sometimes less than 20 people of the hundreds on death row. Instead, they are able to get life imprisonment, they may die before the sentence is carried out, or they may get their case re-opened. Fact is, the death penalty isn't a whole lot different from life imprisonment. If we used life without parole(none of this 25-to-life stuff), we'd pretty much accomplish the same punishment. The system just doesn't work well enough in America to do the death penalty, because we'd need a dictatorship to make it work any faster. The only reason to have the death penalty as punishment is because it is the proper Biblical punishment. As it is though, not everyone in America is Christian, so I certainly can't say, if I was a lawmaker, "Yeah, the death penalty is flawed beyond belief, but I'm going to do it because God says so." If personal beliefs started to dictate(now, I'm not against legislating morality, but there has to be a line too) government policy, the system would collapse. The Consititution was written to be a system fair for everyone, no matter what they believed. So, if a lawmaker tries to do that, he should be voted out in the next election. That's not what a lawmaker is there to do.

[ShotgunSnipist]

Personallly, I think it would just be better to be dead then to spend the rest of life in a dirty, grimy, dank, stone walled prison.

[nathanlawliet]

I'm for the death penalty as long as the government doesn't abuse it and kill whoever they wish like Bush would do if he were a dictator.

I think it's good if they only use it on really bad people like the BTK Serial Killer that they caught in 2005 I think.. Then people like him are out of our lives permanently. No risk of them breaking out of jail and killing more innocent people.

Of course, I suppose it'd be better if people tried to help these murderers and other maniacs first and make them normal people, maybe THEN put them in jail or something..

[putis]

Originally Posted by nathanlawliet

if they only use it on really bad people like the BTK Serial Killer that they caught in 2005 I think..

It was 2005, but he was sentenced to life in prison, not executed.

Quite a few of the well known serial murderers did not receive the death penalty.

Originally Posted by nathanlawliet

Of course, I suppose it'd be better if people tried to help these murderers and other maniacs first and make them normal people, maybe THEN put them in jail or something..

[Locke]

Originally Posted by nathanlawliet

I'm for the death penalty as long as the government doesn't abuse it and kill whoever they wish like Bush would do if he were a dictator.

I think it's good if they only use it on really bad people like the BTK Serial Killer that they caught in 2005 I think.. Then people like him are out of our lives permanently. No risk of them breaking out of jail and killing more innocent people.

Of course, I suppose it'd be better if people tried to help these murderers and other maniacs first and make them normal people, maybe THEN put them in jail or something..

Politics aside, Bush can't make decisions like that. Even if he tried, the other branches would be on him like a hawk, especially the democrats that consider him some sort of anti-Christ for upholding standing American policy and exercising powers that have actually been given to him. When he flexes presidential muscle, people won't have any of it, but when it would take God himself to get something done or even forsee the magnitude of the problem(Katrina being an excellent example), people say he doesn't do enoughh. But I'm not here to talk about politics, so let's move on.

So then, you're saying that something about the amount of press a murder gets should influence the punishment? Or the number of people killed? The death of one person is no different than the death of a hundred, when it comes to punishment. You can't kill the guy a hundred times, so unless you advocate that those who commit one murder get life without parole, and those who commit more get death, then I don't quite get where you're coming from.

Most of these "maniacs" are beyond help, certainly not from any doctor. Now, there have been famous cases of such 180's-Ted Bundy became a Christian before his execution and openly stated that he had changed, but deserved death for his actions-but this is most certainly not the norm. If someone can become comfortable with killing another human being, then they probably won't just snap right back; police go through mandatory counseling after killing anyone in the line of duty. The best thing we can do for them is to keep them away from society. Now, there is nothing wrong with trying, and people can change, but it is most certainly not an everyday occurance.

[putis]

Originally Posted by Locke

Most of these "maniacs" are beyond help, certainly not from any doctor.

We can't know unless we try. To condemn someone to death because you can't understand them is infinitely more cruel than anything that person has done.

Originally Posted by Locke

Now, there have been famous cases of such 180's-Ted Bundy became a Christian before his execution and openly stated that he had changed, but deserved death for his actions-but this is most certainly not the norm.

As did Berkowitz, who still sits in prison.

Serial murder is such a small percentage of the larger 'violent crimes' category. To have it as a major factor for or against the death penalty doesn't make much sense.

Also, Bundy did anything and everything he could to not get the chair, or put it off as long as possible, including feigning a religious revelation.

[MemphisMasenko]

Originally Posted by floorpuncher

I never said that this was your train of thought. I was asking a question. Where do you draw the line? When does it get a point that we let God handle it?

I draw the line where at a point when people are deciding to kill someone without breaking a sweat or shredding a tear of having a drop of blood on them.
If I was in a situation like that then I would let God handle it.
And if it was anyone related to me or be it me that was did wrong in justice I still wouldn't decide to kill the perpetrator.

Originally Posted by floorpuncher

I'm assuming that you are a Christian. How is killing them an easy way out? Would they not go to hell? Is hell not a place of eternal suffering?

Yes.................suffering in the soul and deep down inside for years is a far better punishment and then maybe going to hell to die body and soul than just going to hell and be non existent in both body and soul.
Criminals feel pain for years and years to come unless God decides to end it for them.

p.s. I don't believe people even suffers in hell.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by putis

We can't know unless we try. To condemn someone to death because you can't understand them is infinitely more cruel than anything that person has done.

As did Berkowitz, who still sits in prison.

Serial murder is such a small percentage of the larger 'violent crimes' category. To have it as a major factor for or against the death penalty doesn't make much sense.

Also, Bundy did anything and everything he could to not get the chair, or put it off as long as possible, including feigning a religious revelation.

Which is EXACTLY what I said, and I quote, "Now, there is nothing wrong with trying, and people can change, but it is most certainly not an everyday occurance." Now, unless the person has an actually psychological disorder, they should be sent right to prison, as there's little a psych ward could do for them. Keep them in prison, away from others, and from there try to reach them, be it through science or through religion. Both usually fail though. And don't forget, most death row inmates have plenty of time to change.

I have a feeling neither of us understand each other. I'm saying that the severity of the murder(s) should not influence the penalty. Now, there are circumstances under which accomodations should be made: self-defense should be fully excused, and the mentally insane or those under EXTREME mental duress cannot be held fully accountable. Accidental murder, manslaughter, should also recieve a lighter punishment, because intent is everything as far as punishment. If a man knocked over a power tool at the top floor of a building by accident and it killed someone on the ground, he is not fully, though still partially or even largely accountable for their death. That's what I'm trying to say: the severity of the murder is irrelevant, the intent is important. What are you trying to say?

Originally Posted by MemphisMasenko

Yes.................suffering in the soul and deep down inside for years is a far better punishment and then maybe going to hell to die body and soul than just going to hell and be non existent in both body and soul.
Criminals feel pain for years and years to come unless God decides to end it for them.

p.s. I don't believe people even suffers in hell.

Well, do criminals, murderers in particular, feel pain for years and years? Most don't feel remorse for their crimes, for one reason or another. If they did, we'd have more of them turning themselves in. Criminals don't often feel pain for years, sadly enough; you'd be deluding yourself if you though humanity contained a scrap of goodness. You're a Christian, you ought to know about how sin perverts humanity, the human condition and whatnot, right? Also, did you know that Christ spoke far more about the horrors of Hell than the glory of Heaven? Books such as Revelation are clear that Hell is not a nice place to be; the place of final judgement, the lake of fire(not Sheol or Hades), is described as a place of eternal punishment. Now, that may be manifested from either a lack of or the full wrath of God poured upon the sufferers, but they are nonetheless sufferers. A good God must be just, and a just God must punish. At the same time, God shows grace and mercy upon those He chooses, those known as Christians, "Little Christs." Suffering on earth is not a likely outcome the average murderer, but suffering in Hell is unquestionable, from a Christian perspective.

[MemphisMasenko]

Originally Posted by Locke

Well, do criminals, murderers in particular, feel pain for years and years? Most don't feel remorse for their crimes, for one reason or another. If they did, we'd have more of them turning themselves in.

Of course not maybe the most that you are accusing that do not feel pain probably feel bad for even being caught and now feel bad because they can't commit anymore crimes and have the power that they once had.
ever thought about that?
A damaged pride can do alot of suffering too..

Originally Posted by Locke

Criminals don't often feel pain for years, sadly enough; you'd be deluding yourself if you though humanity contained a scrap of goodness.

Of course the world that we live in doesn't have as much people with sunshine and rainbows.
Just like you would be deluding yourself to believe that most criminals enjoy prison. They may use it to make themselves look tough or to do business but they don't enjoy that.....seriously.

Originally Posted by Locke

You're a Christian, you ought to know about how sin perverts humanity, the human condition and whatnot, right? Also, did you know that Christ spoke far more about the horrors of Hell than the glory of Heaven? Books such as Revelation are clear that Hell is not a nice place to be; the place of final judgment, the lake of fire(not Sheol or Hades), is described as a place of eternal punishment. Now, that may be manifested from either a lack of or the full wrath of God poured upon the sufferers, but they are nonetheless sufferers. A good God must be just, and a just God must punish. At the same time, God shows grace and mercy upon those He chooses, those known as Christians, "Little Christs." Suffering on earth is not a likely outcome the average murderer, but suffering in Hell is unquestionable, from a Christian perspective.

So sue me cause not all Christians are the same.........I believe that Hell is a horrible place that the soul couldn't withstand it all and die very quickly in the end. I'm not a strictly by the bible kind of person as you seem to be, if that was the case and I was strictly by the bible kind of person then I would be an active person against same sex too.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by MemphisMasenko

Of course not maybe the most that you are accusing that do not feel pain probably feel bad for even being caught and now feel bad because they can't commit anymore crimes and have the power that they once had.
ever thought about that?
A damaged pride can do alot of suffering too..

Of course the world that we live in doesn't have as much people with sunshine and rainbows.
Just like you would be deluding yourself to believe that most criminals enjoy prison. They may use it to make themselves look tough or to do business but they don't enjoy that.....seriously.

So sue me cause not all Christians are the same.........I believe that Hell is a horrible place that the soul couldn