Death Penalty

[Locke]

Originally Posted by MemphisMasenko

Oh yeah that celebrity governer decided to kill him. And he did be held accountable for his actions but he was actually be productive and spreading a positive message outside of prison to the youth about staying out of the streets. Unlike that Son of Sam killer who just went Christian and went around his prison proclaiming that he is Christian by being the prison minister, that didn't reach outside the prison and probably didn't reach the whole prison big difference there. And you know what is wack about death row anyway as you have said that they just rot in death row anyways so they might as well serve life sentences; I rather pay taxes knowing that it helps keep a criminal alive but secure in confinement than feed the criminal with my tax money for 10 years so they can all the sudden kill him or her.

So, you're saying that the relative impact of the person has an influence on how changed they are? In my opinion, both were changed, and neither is better than the other.

I find this hilarious: in my first post, I said that from a practical standpoint, from that of a lawmaker, I oppose the death penalty. It is onlt from a Biblical standpoint that a death penalty makes sense, or in small communities much like the early Israelites. America's justice system simply can't handle the strain put on by the death penalty, especially when it provides no inherent benefit. Switching to life without parole tends to reduce court time, government spending, and the actual number of murders.

Let me see if I get this straight: you'd rather pay room and board for the rest of a criminal's natural life instead of for a shorter period? That aside, the cost of prison is negligable when compared to court costs and court time. That's where it really hits. Some states have actually done estimates to how much they could save, and some have savings in the high hundreds of millions; it's often 1.5-3 million more per death penalty charge as opposed to life imprisionment. Way more than the cost to keep them alive or kill them.

[putis]

Originally Posted by Locke

I don't hold much stock in psychology. Most people will never even understand themselves, really, so for others to be able to figure them out seems ludicrous to me. And I do disagree with such founders as Freud in their conclusion; man is an animal, but he is not an animal. In other words, we may be closely related to other animals, but we have human dignity and should not debase ourselves.

Which is a mitgating factor in the degree of punishment, but not to whether or not to punish.

Ahh. That explains it. Carry on.

[MemphisMasenko]

Originally Posted by Locke

So, you're saying that the relative impact of the person has an influence on how changed they are? In my opinion, both were changed, and neither is better than the other.

I find this hilarious: in my first post, I said that from a practical standpoint, from that of a lawmaker, I oppose the death penalty. It is onlt from a Biblical standpoint that a death penalty makes sense, or in small communities much like the early Israelites. America's justice system simply can't handle the strain put on by the death penalty, especially when it provides no inherent benefit. Switching to life without parole tends to reduce court time, government spending, and the actual number of murders.

Let me see if I get this straight: you'd rather pay room and board for the rest of a criminal's natural life instead of for a shorter period? That aside, the cost of prison is negligable when compared to court costs and court time. That's where it really hits. Some states have actually done estimates to how much they could save, and some have savings in the high hundreds of millions; it's often 1.5-3 million more per death penalty charge as opposed to life imprisionment. Way more than the cost to keep them alive or kill them.

That is ok you find it hilarious.
And yes I still would pay to keep criminals alive.
People still pay high prices for gas and drive around to work or other places knowing good and well that it is cheaper to take the bus or ride a bike or walk to get where they want.
So if paying high prices to drive is still legit
Then so is paying a higher price to keep somebody alive for as long as they can live.

[David]

Originally Posted by Little Horn

But does God not also tell us that death is not only a justifiable punishment for murder but also the required one in Genesis?

But flesh with the life thereof, [which is] the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Genesis 9:4-6

god has nothing to do with our government.

the death penalty is wrong for many reasons and should be abolished.

it costs tax payers more in court costs than it does to simply imprison a defendant.

innocent people get put on death row and are sometimes executed.

juries are ignorant.

our judiciary system is racist.

the defense attorneys are terrible in most cases.

and it's never ok to kill another human being.

the government also has nothing better to do.

check out this site... it's full of fun statistics to support my claims http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=1328

also... the death penalty isn't fair in the sense that it's so inconsistent. if you're in the south, you're way more likely to be sentenced to death for the same crime if committed in the northeast.

also if your judges are less likely to vote for death, you could commit the same crime someone else did 8 years ago and get off with life without parole.

also... for those of you who bring religion into this, Jesus forgives and grants a second chance right?

[ProOne]

One of the guys that was in my graduating class(1992) is currently sitting on Georgia's death row after killing his parents and sister a year after graduation. He was sentenced to death in 1995. I checked the death row info online a couple of weeks ago, and he still has yet to be executed.

Personally, I feel the execution should fit the crime, i.e. a slow painful death of a murder victim should require a slow painful death for the convict. Any one that kills or molests a child (since in some instances a child molestation conviction can be considered a capital crime in some states) should have an execution like at the end of "Braveheart."

Also, let's speed up the execution process. No more 10, 15, 20 years of a guy sitting on death row. Once someone is convicted, give them one year to appeal the conviction, then let's get on with the show.

Speaking of show - no more executions behind closed doors. I want public executions. I'm not saying they should be on the evening news, but why not PPV? The ppv revenues might offset some of the expense of executing these suckers. If the execution of serial killer Ted Bundy had been on PPV, I'm sure that the state of Florida would have raked in millions since he left a trail from the Northwest all the way to the Sunshine State. Or better yet, execution sports like in the movie "The Running Man" with the Governator. The condemned could wear an outfit sponsored by Reebok, or Microsoft, or GM, or Rockstar Games, maker of the Grand Theft Auto video games. How about a demolition derby made up of convicts driving Ford Pintos or any other car that has a serious design flaw that could seriously injure or kill someone in the vehicle?

I know that the United States is one of the last countries in the Western World to still participate in executions, but if we're going to do, let's really do it well.

[MemphisMasenko]

Originally Posted by ProOne

Personally, I feel the execution should fit the crime, i.e. a slow painful death of a murder victim should require a slow painful death for the convict. Any one that kills or molests a child (since in some instances a child molestation conviction can be considered a capital crime in some states) should have an execution like at the end of "Braveheart."

Also, let's speed up the execution process. No more 10, 15, 20 years of a guy sitting on death row. Once someone is convicted, give them one year to appeal the conviction, then let's get on with the show.

Speaking of show - no more executions behind closed doors. I want public executions. I'm not saying they should be on the evening news, but why not PPV? The ppv revenues might offset some of the expense of executing these suckers. If the execution of serial killer Ted Bundy had been on PPV, I'm sure that the state of Florida would have raked in millions since he left a trail from the Northwest all the way to the Sunshine State. Or better yet, execution sports like in the movie "The Running Man" with the Governator. The condemned could wear an outfit sponsored by Reebok, or Microsoft, or GM, or Rockstar Games, maker of the Grand Theft Auto video games. How about a demolition derby made up of convicts driving Ford Pintos or any other car that has a serious design flaw that could seriously injure or kill someone in the vehicle?

I know that the United States is one of the last countries in the Western World to still participate in executions, but if we're going to do, let's really do it well.

LOL I like your imagination though the electric chair is painfull yet primative, lethal injection is painless besides a little pinch and short.
If you want executions sorta similar I might suggest but I'm not really sure that you go to the Middle East and see them die from stones as well.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by David

god has nothing to do with our government.

the death penalty is wrong for many reasons and should be abolished.

juries are ignorant.

our judiciary system is racist.

the defense attorneys are terrible in most cases.

and it's never ok to kill another human being.

the government also has nothing better to do.

check out this site... it's full of fun statistics to support my claims http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=1328

also... for those of you who bring religion into this, Jesus forgives and grants a second chance right?

Lies. You do know that most of the Founding Fathers were either Christians or Deists, or at least had a respect for God, right? In fact, the Christian idea of individual responibility and value shows up time and time again in our concept of government, as opposed to the ideals of classical republicanism, democracy, or any other popular form of government. Christian ideals influenced the way our government is structured, like it or not.

Our jury system hasn't been racist or blatantly ignorant since the moratorium on executions back in the 70's. Surely, the problem can't be completely fixed, because people are stupid, but the system has been reworked to better accomodate these collective stupidities.

Where do you get this? Now, granted, most state employed defense attourneys are not as motivated as hired ones, but neither they nor any other defense attourney can be generalized as "bad." Some are good, some aren't, though those who are stuck to a fixed rate per case, as state hired ones often are, will do the bare minimum to get by, rather like "12 Angry Men."

Well now, I'd have to disagree with you on this. Never? What if: a robber threatens to kill you, you have a weapon you know will kill him, but if you don't use it, you will die. Would you willingly die, or kill him? Common sense and survival instinct alone say kill him. If you consider Christian morality at all valid(which you alude to at the end, but I'll get to that), then killing is justified as a punishment. The reference escapes me, but in the Bible two men fought, and one of them blasphemed God in the fight. He was immediately seized by his fellow neighbors, and held until the priests recieved an answer from God as to his fate. His fate? Death. So, clear example of a (Christian) morality allowing death as punishment-the Jewish law is quite clear on the offense for which death *must* be given.

Where do you get this? The government certainly has nothing better to do than this, but not in the way you mean it. The primary goal of government is to secure our natural rights(life, liberty, and property being the most basic of them, according to John Locke), to protect those entered into a social contract with it by tacit or express consent. So, the government should seek any method to protect its citizens as a first priority. However, the government is not just wasting time and money because it wants to kill people.

Ah, now this is the difference between grace and justice. God is both, as he will justly punish, but he also extends grace to those known as Christians; those who follow him gain reward, those who do not are punished. Now, the government is not in the business of giving grace. That's not why it's here. It's called the justice system for a reason; it deals out justice. Grace and second chances have no place in our government, especially if the government is to be as far from Christianity as possible, as some wish it to be.

Originally Posted by ProOne

One of the guys that was in my graduating class(1992) is currently sitting on Georgia's death row after killing his parents and sister a year after graduation. He was sentenced to death in 1995. I checked the death row info online a couple of weeks ago, and he still has yet to be executed.

Personally, I feel the execution should fit the crime, i.e. a slow painful death of a murder victim should require a slow painful death for the convict. Any one that kills or molests a child (since in some instances a child molestation conviction can be considered a capital crime in some states) should have an execution like at the end of "Braveheart."

Also, let's speed up the execution process. No more 10, 15, 20 years of a guy sitting on death row. Once someone is convicted, give them one year to appeal the conviction, then let's get on with the show.

Speaking of show - no more executions behind closed doors. I want public executions. I'm not saying they should be on the evening news, but why not PPV? The ppv revenues might offset some of the expense of executing these suckers. If the execution of serial killer Ted Bundy had been on PPV, I'm sure that the state of Florida would have raked in millions since he left a trail from the Northwest all the way to the Sunshine State. Or better yet, execution sports like in the movie "The Running Man" with the Governator. The condemned could wear an outfit sponsored by Reebok, or Microsoft, or GM, or Rockstar Games, maker of the Grand Theft Auto video games. How about a demolition derby made up of convicts driving Ford Pintos or any other car that has a serious design flaw that could seriously injure or kill someone in the vehicle?

I know that the United States is one of the last countries in the Western World to still participate in executions, but if we're going to do, let's really do it well.

I would have to disagree: the punishment should fit the type of crime, but as I've stated before, the degree is irrelevant to the punishment. Justice has a certain degree of subjectivity, but only as much as we add the human element to it. There's no need to add more than is necessary. Also, if the system was sped up, the appeals would lose all force-these lawyers battle back and forth over seemingly minor issues that can actually overturn the entire decision. Sometimes it can take decades to resolve the issues, but there have been people found innocent even after that long. The system is designed to be inefficient, because anything less would only harm the innocent along with the guilty. The official philosphy of our justice system is that it is better for a guilty man to go free than an innocent man be punished. If we were to fix the system, more innocent people would be punished, thus, it is better to remove the death penalty entirely, as both an inefficient and an efficient system do not work in America; an efficient system only works in an absolutely perfect world, and an inefficient system cannot handle volumes of peole such as live in America today.

I won't even dignify this with a proper response, as it reflects the barbaric shows of ancient Rome, where they would have deadly plays(imagine Hamlet, but everyone actually dies) or have wild animals rip the convicts to shreds, and all this for enjoyment and profit.

[David]

did you go on the website I linked you to? anyway... you say that I have to accept christrian traditions because our founding fathers were, and that our government is structured on their ideals, but to some extent, all government are structured the same. All governments have laws that protect certain rights. Our founding fathers chose those guidelines because they work, not because they're part of their chosen religion. The Christian traditions were not made on arbitrarily. Whether god made decided that's how we should live or not, they're still around because they work. It has nothing to do with the bible.

anyway... the bible has nothing to do with this, The death penalty is pointless to us as a country, and a culture.

When someone is executed, it only serves as closure to some victims' families. Not every family member of a victim needs to see the murderer die to feel better. Those people understand that the death of another human solves nothing, and that they can only find closure within themselves.

There are no good reasons to keep the death penalty other than tradition. Tradition alone is not a good enough reason to kill a human being.

If my life is immediately threatened, you can be sure I would try to defend myself. If that includes killing the assailant, then so be it. I would regret taking their life though. If at all possible I wouldn't kill them, I'd try to keep them from killing me by other means. It's also different to kill someone who's an immediate threat to you than it is to kill a prisoner.

It's not cost effective, even in a 100% efficient system, the court costs will still cost about $200,000 than it would to just give them life without parole.

Statistics show that defense attorneys are more likely to be bared or punished in some form for misconduct.

Jury members who have been surveyed admitted that they decided what the sentence should be before the sentencing phase of the trial. And some of them thought that the death penalty was absolutely required if the defendant was found guilty of a heinous crime. Others didn't know that mitigating evidence was to be payed attention to in regards of sentencing.

The death penalty doesn't even do what it should do, and keep us safe. The only way it would keep us safe is by deterring future crime. However, the death penalty is not a deterrent. There are three reasons to kill someone. Profit, compassion, and compulsion. If someone does it for profit, they're already convinced that they will not be caught. When an offense it made by compassion (emotion), it's because someone is so pissed off, that they're willing to kill another person, and no law is going to make someone that angry think about the consequences. It's just about the same with crimes of compulsion, these are the kinds of murders like when someone kills another human being just for the fun. This kind of murderer is already too sick to weight the consequences of his actions.

there's probably something i'm missing... are there any other reasons to keep the death penalty other than tradition?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by David

did you go on the website I linked you to? anyway... you say that I have to accept christrian traditions because our founding fathers were, and that our government is structured on their ideals, but to some extent, all government are structured the same. All governments have laws that protect certain rights. Our founding fathers chose those guidelines because they work, not because they're part of their chosen religion. The Christian traditions were not made on arbitrarily. Whether god made decided that's how we should live or not, they're still around because they work. It has nothing to do with the bible.

anyway... the bible has nothing to do with this, The death penalty is pointless to us as a country, and a culture.

When someone is executed, it only serves as closure to some victims' families. Not every family member of a victim needs to see the murderer die to feel better. Those people understand that the death of another human solves nothing, and that they can only find closure within themselves.

There are no good reasons to keep the death penalty other than tradition. Tradition alone is not a good enough reason to kill a human being.

If my life is immediately threatened, you can be sure I would try to defend myself. If that includes killing the assailant, then so be it. I would regret taking their life though. If at all possible I wouldn't kill them, I'd try to keep them from killing me by other means. It's also different to kill someone who's an immediate threat to you than it is to kill a prisoner.

It's not cost effective, even in a 100% efficient system, the court costs will still cost about $200,000 than it would to just give them life without parole.

Jury members who have been surveyed admitted that they decided what the sentence should be before the sentencing phase of the trial. And some of them thought that the death penalty was absolutely required if the defendant was found guilty of a heinous crime. Others didn't know that mitigating evidence was to be payed attention to in regards of sentencing.

The death penalty doesn't even do what it should do, and keep us safe. The only way it would keep us safe is by deterring future crime. However, the death penalty is not a deterrent. There are three reasons to kill someone. Profit, compassion, and compulsion. If someone does it for profit, they're already convinced that they will not be caught. When an offense it made by compassion (emotion), it's because someone is so pissed off, that they're willing to kill another person, and no law is going to make someone that angry think about the consequences. It's just about the same with crimes of compulsion, these are the kinds of murders like when someone kills another human being just for the fun. This kind of murderer is already too sick to weight the consequences of his actions.

there's probably something i'm missing... are there any other reasons to keep the death penalty other than tradition?

Been there before, but yes, I did. In fact, in Government class we had a three day debate over the deterrent effect of the death penalty. Our side (against) won. And I don't know how many times I'm going to end up saying this, but I am AGAINST the death penalty; I just think that people here have the wrong reasons; ig you go up against pro-death penalty people they'll nitpick over more details than I have. Consider this a friendly gesture. ^_^

I did not say that you had to "accept Christian traditions." I said that Christian though influenced the very founding of our government, the political philosophies merged to make out current system; have you, perchance, ever studied political philosphy? That's what I'm drawing on, how Christian though of the day was used to influence basic concepts of government to create a whole new system of government not yet seen to the world. And if the ideas came from the Bible, the Bible, by simple definition, has something to do with what we're talking about. If its concepts influence the political philosphies, then it becomes a relevant issue, to the extent of that influence.

I find this generalization interesting. America is too big to make a sweeping generalization such as this: I doubt all Americans would agree with this, and no small number either. Perhaps not a majority, but close.

Oh, there is one VERY good reason to keep the death penalty: it shows that we as a nation value justice and order, and that there are certain things we don't stand for. There would be more, but they are all mitigated by the fact that we really don't carry out that many executions in the first place.

Well, of course. You're a normal human being, that is a normal human response. Most of us aren't psychotic killers looking for another opportunity to off someone.

In an absolutely efficient system, no mistake would be made; court would be bypassed entirely. It would be a merger not unlike Minority Report meets perfect theocracy(and believe me, there have been some very unperfect theocracies).

Two questions: when and who? When was this statistic taken, and how many people. Oh, and while we're at it, who actually executed it?

Did I ever say the death penalty is a deterrent? No. I even said a bit back that the death penalty is a woeful deterrent, by both pure numbers and by criminologist's majority view. I spent days studying and more days arguing this in debate, it's pretty much an indefensible claim. The only time the death penalty would be a deterrent would be in that perfect world, in which all crimes are guaranteed to be punished swiftly and surely. No, the death penalty is a punishement. The justly deserved reward of a murderer. However, that punishment is too difficult to reliably and justly administer in America, so for that alone it should be discarded from our system. We simply can't handle it properlym, be it because of inefficiency or too much efficiency.

*ahem* It's "passion," not "compassion." That aside, that's absolutely true(heck, we used that as one of our main points in the debate), but irrelevant because deterrency is a joke when it comes to the death penalty; the only way it could become a deterrent would for it to be swift and sure. Not gonna happen in America, and really, in most other places, period.

[David]

I don't mean to attack your claims... I just tried to point out what I knew about why the death penalty sucks.

I gave a speech on it yesterday, and when I saw it on the boards I jumped on it. I probably should have paid more attention to what you said. I wasn't trying to refute everything you said, simply use it to bounce off of.

those statistics about the juries were from the capital jury project. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Jury_Project

it was founded in the 90's and is on-going.

all the statistics I used I got from here http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...Misperceptions

I'm not simply trying to claim that the death penalty is wrong because the pro-death argument is flawed.

like I said, I'm arguing based on how the death penalty is no benefit to us as a society. I do mention the other side's arguments however, only to refute the idea that there is something good about the death penalty.

[Little Horn]

Bottom line... Religion can not be used as an excuse against the death penalty. The Bible is riddled with references to the death penalty as punishment.

Numbers 15:32-36 - For working on the sabbath
Leviticus 20:15 - Bestiality
Leviticus 20:11 - Incest
Exodus 22:20 - Following Another Religion
Deuteronomy 22:25 - Raping an Engaged Woman

I can keep going if need be...

The point is that arguing religious principles is futile. If anything, according to the Bible we don't kill enough people for their crimes...

[Locke]

Actually...Paul would have a different view. Paul said that for him-in other words, for any Christian in this case-all things were lawful, but not all things were beneficial. God will not condemn His children for their actions; that is up to local governing authorities. Thus, we are to live by the law of the land where it does not contradict God directly(such as idol worship). Also, we know for a fact that Jesus worked on the Sabbath(healing) and was condemned by the religious leaders for it, but rebuked them. The Old Testament law is a book full of good morals, but Christ has forgiven us for any sins we may commit. They no longer condemn us because Christ took the condemnation for us. Now, the only problem with this is that not everyone on Earth is a Christian, so they haven't all recieved this grace. But those that aren't have their own rules and laws they follow, and according to I Peter, we are to let them do what they do, for it is their nature.