the death penalty
i disagree with the death penalty for several reasons.
it's not a deterrant. in one study, murder rates actually rose after an execution. it was as if the stae were saying, "it's okay to kill. we do."
there but for the grace of god go i. the only reasons i'm not a murderer are good genes and good environment.
this is the only first world country which is backwards enough to still have the death penalty.
people of color are more likely to get the death penalty than whites. it's a severe form of discrimination .
it's irreversible. if a person is proven innocent after they are killed, you can't bring them back.
what do you think?I believe that the death penalty should be enforced, and I also believe that these convicted people should not be permitted to sit in jail fighting appeal after appeal. Once the state finds them guilty just do it and save the taxpayers some money, after all the jury of their peers found them guilty on the facts presented at trial.
It costs about 35cents for a bullet but hundreds of thousands of dollars to house those convicted while they appeal.
I also disagree with parole. If you are sentenced to 20 years or whatever, you should serve the whole thing.Once a jury of your peers has judged you guilty, if you are sentenced to die it should be carried out immediately. The Law has been served.
As for parole the sentence should be carried out and parole out of the question. Rehab is good but no reason for early release from the sentence should be entertained. "If you can't do the time, you shouldn't do the crime." It's that simple. Let the guilty beware.Dave, how do you feel about a woman's right to choose? Life is sacred, right?
I am torn on this topic. The church sees an unborn fetis as a person, but science and the courts believes that until the fetis exits the womb and begins breathing the fetis has no rights.
On the other hand, I also believe that a woman has the right to control her body too.
What about a person who is a registered organ donor and has registered through a living will DNR. Do not recussitate, do they not have the right to end it if they know that it is hopeless and that their organs might benefit another?Absolutely (DNR). At least you're not an right to life abortion opponent who supports capital punishment.
Ralph I try to support what in my heart I feel is right no matter whether it is popular or not.
You are absolutely correct, it is not a deterrent, people of color are more likely to end up on death row than whites and for what? The taxpayer then must pickup the tab until the person is executed and then, it could be the person is innocent. It is in my opinion, sanction murder.
I have provided proof that in Texas at least the racial makeup of those on death row is fairly even. Blacks have the most then Whites and then Hispanics. Lets say that people of color are more likely to end up on death row, I would then ask why?
same reason black patients in nursing homes get more bedsores than white patients(JAMA, jy 13, 2011). even in this day and age, blacks get substandard treatment. of course it's not that simple, but it's a good starting place for discussion.
I don't think comparing individuals on death row to nursing home patients is the best way to go. Here is a question you might ask, where do homicides occur most? Is it rural areas, the suburbs or inner city's? What are the racial makeups of those areas? You said people of color are more likely to receive the death penalty and I proved that in Texas that isn't true, do you have an answer?
they are not killed in higher raw numbers, but are killed at a higher rate compared to their number in the population. for example, if you had 90 white people and 10 black people and killed 5 of each, you would have killed just over 5% of the whites, and 50% of the blacks. which group suffered more? they each lost 5 people, but that's not the whole story.
so if you are forced to live in an area where desperation abounds, you are more likely to commit a desperate act. no surprise there.Basically you are saying they are committing the acts but shouldn't suffer the consequence because there are fewer of them.
this is just my opinion, but i think if a white and a black person commit the same crime, the black person will tend to get a stiffer sentence. this is born out in the instance of crack cocaine, used more by black people, spawning stiffer sentences than other cocaine favored by whites. crack cocaine sentences have since been reduced, for the very reason that they were inequitable.
First, let me tell you that I am a retired Investigator/Prosecutor and, coming from a large Irish Catholic family in Buffalo, New York, had/have many relatives in Law Enforcement. My friends remain cops, ex-cops, retired cops, judges and lawyers of all stripes. I even married a cop and am now "dating" a former cop and attorney.
When the death penalty was being debated in Albany in the late '70's I was awarded an internship working for the Senator whose life mission was to re-institute the death penalty in New York State.
Then - a miracle happened (sarcasm). I went to Law School in Texas. The first person to be executed there after the Supremes across the country ban on same was lifted, a lovely fellow kindly referred to as "The Candyman Killer." (Couldn't remember his real name if I tried.)
This thing put poison in "Pixy Stix" on Hallowe'en. He murdered his two children (for the insurance money) and a neighbor child to (attempt to) cover his tracks. If anyone deserved the needle it was him.
I was in Houston, about 70 miles south of Huntsville where they kill 'em. At first - FIRST slime they should kill. As time passed, however, I became a little squeamish about the whole thing.
Final position? Held to this day? No capital punishment. None. Life at VERY hard labor on an island with other killers? Fine. No capital punishment.
If I wasn't 100% FOR it I determined I couldn't abide it. When I went home, my Senator almost had a heart attack. I had been so in favor of it and then I wasn't - just like that. When faced with its reality, I couldn't do it, hence my change of heart.You don't spend 30 years in Law Enforcement and remain a "compassionate person" - especially when dealing with fathers who murder their own children for insurance proceeds.
You try it. See how "compassionate" your Liberal bent remains...i value my compassion. if my job jeopardized my compassion i would change jobs like my friend, bob, did. as a policeman he said, "i got tired of sitting around waiting for people to scew up." he went back to school and became a physical therapist.
Thank you - I remember what he looked like and clearly remember my revulsion at what he did and for what reason. His name? That went by the wayside after having locked up so many downright evil people. Perhaps some commenters have never worked in "the system."
Considering that I did and do - I think I'm clearly the exception amongst my peers - I can't be for it if I'm 1% leery of it. I do get beaten up by my cohorts & question my position from time to time - especially when children are involved.
In general I am against the death penalty because it is still possible to get it wrong and have an innocent man put to death. Two accounts spring to mind.
The last man hung in NSW turned out to be innocent. He was thought to have killed a guard in a prison break out. As it turned out the dead guard was most likely killed by another guard.
There was a man accused and sentenced for the murder of his wife. They had been on a hunting holiday. The man said that his wife died when she thumped the butt of the rifle she was cleaning onto the cabin floor. The rifle went off and she coped the full blast. An accident. The police lab tried without success to get the rifle to do what this man claimed it was capable of doing. The man was obviously guilty. The jury with the evidence on hand thought so. A decade later there was a similar accident with the same make of rife and the man was vindicated. He had lost a decade of his life in prison for a crime he did not commit but at least he was alive.
On the other hand, I am not keen on the Bali nine. They shouldn't have broken the law in Indonesia. I can't see how they could possibly be innocent and if the Indonesians want to shoot a bunch of drug mules from Australia that seems fair enough. It is their country after all and their justice system. I am primarily against the death penalty coming back to Australia. I can't really impose on other countries my own sense of moral value.I do! Especially for child rapists and child murders! Get them off the planet.
I know where you are coming from. You just have to be 100 per cent certain that the person in the dock actually did these things.
Rod: If a jury of their peers finds them guilty there should be no second guessing, no what if's or maybe's, it must be a certainty therefore no room for appeal. Execute them immediately and it's done, swiftly and simply done.
Juries make plenty of mistakes. So do judges and state-provided public defenders. Police and prosecutors don't disclose exculpatory evidence. Police labs, including the FBI lab, do sloppy and innacurate work. And worst of all witness identifications are sometimes wrong. The result: innocent people are executed or spend lifetimes in prison.
Ralph I hear what you are saying, and truly these things do happen. Juries merely form their opinion on the evidence presented in the case, and yes if the water is muddied, they will goof up. But all in all if the facts presented are also the truth, there can be no doubt, and I say execute, without predjudice and get the job done quickly.
eye witness identifications are notoriously OFTEN wrong.
Ralf and Cathylynn, you both have good points. Keeping a prisoner alive means that if you discover there has been a mistake at least you can give them some portion of their life back. Juries basically consist of people unable to get out of jury duty. Now that is something to think about. Also judges are out to make a name for themselves. I have come across judges that have let offenders off with a slap on the wrist over political correctness, the kind of offenders that really should be locked away for a long time because of what they have done, and no doubt there are other judges with other prejudices.
These are the ones I am 1% leery about my non-death penalty position. At minimum they should be put in the General Population and let the other guys deal with them. I always ask for this. No "segregation" for these animals. "Living" in Gen Pop is worse than death for them.
The argument that a bad environment creates killers and a good environment doesn't is a little flawed, actually it is way flawed. The race argument isn't that great either, in Texas which has the death penalty and uses it a lot the stats show Blacks,Whites and Hispanics are pretty evenly divided. http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/racial.htm
i checked your link. whites, blacks, and hispanics are executed in about equal numbers. given that there are less blacks in the population, this supports my contention thta they are executed at higher rates.
They are executed at higher numbers but that doesn't mean they are not guilty. If I say 10% are actually innocent of the crimes they are sentenced to death for they are still the majority of death row inmates. That 10% is a very generous number by the way.
After rereading your posting I am struck by the fact that everything you wrote is simply emotion except your last statement. You say its not a deterrent but how could you know? How many people might kill someone if there is no death penalty? We will never know. You are correct that once somebody had been executed we can't bring them back, so that's one thing at least.
seems easy for us to say but if my daughter was raped and killed I would not rest til he was fried. If 13% are innocent on death row that is just the small price to kill the remaining guilty ones. We have no death penalty in Canada and frankly it embarrasses me. I believe it is necessary and does make a difference. But then again I would be there to push the button if I could, I make no apologizes for what I believe in.
If my daughter were to be raped and killed, I would lose all right to be called a civilised human being.
I think in those circumstances that would be understandable and forgiveable.
I don't think it would give the whole of society the right to give up on being civilised.Most civilized countries dropped the death penalty long ago. No reason to be ashamed of Canada. You should be proud.
The USA dropped the death penalty then picked it up again. One of the people against the death penalty was Humphrey Bogart. There is no death penalty in Australia. Canada does have a lot to offer. I would love to visit Canada some day.
The only TRUE reason to get rid of the Death Penalty is this:
Whereas governments are nothing more than individuals acting;
Whereas individuals are not allowed to kill except in self-defense;
Therefore the death penalty is not allowed.
All other arguments (the utilitarian ones you cite) imply that IF the death penalty WERE a deterrent, then it would OK.
This is not right.I agree wholeheartedly. The idea that what is supposedly the most fair and reasonable society cannot find a better way to curb murder or deal with violent crime but to do such an unthinkable act themselves is beyond my conscience. The idea that one can be proven innocent after they are executed is not consistent with the ideals of justice as put forth by our founding fathers, nor is it consistent with the Christian perspective of helping those who are the most troubled. Although it would be a stretch to call myself a Christian, I do believe in God and I do not believe it is our job to sanction such extreme judgement as to administer the killing of those we feel have betrayed society in some way. I feel the same way about war and I do not believe we have such a right just as the murderer has not such a right to murder.
So - should we not have fought in WWII v. Hitler and Japan?
I'll leave Korea and Viet Nam out of it - those were political wars and fall into the Iraq & Afghanistan category for me.
Barring injustice by the government.
I would support no death penalty if those who really do object to the state killing monsters, if they would take the place of the victims before they become victims.and just how do you suggest someone could do this? your answer doesn't make sense. also, calling someone a monster is dehumanizing and unassertive. people who want to have the right to kill other people often dehumanize the others by name-calling among other things.
If people behave like monsters then they aren't dehumanized they are simply characterized for what they are.
If those that see the death penality as wrong when they hear a crime is being committed rush down their and take the place of the person or persons being held, beaten, or killed it's not hard when you want to provide your point.if i behave like a kitten, that does not make me a kitten. i am still a person. people can behave like monsters. they cannot be monsters.
If you behave like A MONSTER you will no doubt be regarded as a monster. The murderers that are locked up by the state are monsters in the words of a few hubbers here. Certainly I agree. I also agree that repeat offenders of the murderer variety are worse because they are seasoned monsters. And I do not have a soft spot for rapists, etc. But what happens when the state accidentally kills an innocent man? Does this not put the state into the category of MONSTER, too? Just a thought.
- Emile Rposted 12 years ago
0I do support the death penalty, in theory. But I would support abolishing it. I've seen several cases that it was used and I knew enough about the cases to know it was neither fair, or just.
yes, people who have such a low IQ they could not possibly have understood their crimes and people who were out of their minds and out of touch with reality when they "transgressed" have been put to death.
Everyone that commits a crime doesn't have a low IQ in fact many crimmals have gone on to work for the FBI.
The evil some of them do in the darkness is to shocking to even tell the public-Monsters.You are correct. Most "regular" people have no idea of the evil monsters that roam our streets - we don't tell them - they'd never leave their homes.
about 1 of every hundred people is a sociopath and another 1 of every hundred is a sadist. i'm sure we run into them at the grocery from time to time.
i never heard of a cover-up about crime. in fact, the more horrific a crime is, the more press it gets. most people believe "it won't happen to me.," just as they do with illness. it's a psychological defense mechanism. besides, you supposedly have superior knowledge on human depravity. do you leave your home? i believe you are using hyperbole.
The youngest person to be excecting in the country was a 14 year old black kid (of course it happened in the 40's down south). I agree as a deterant, it doesn't work. It's definately not cost effective. There are monsters and serial killers who've been exectuted (McVey and the Beltway shooter to name a couple) and these people deserved it. If Bin Laden was captured and tried and exectuted, would anyone bat an eye?
i would be for life in prison for bin laden and am disappointed that they killed him.
the only reason we're all not serial killers is that we happenned to have been lucky to be born to good-enough parents. if anyone deserves to be killed, we all do. no one is any better than anyone else.
I don't think a persons IQ has anything to do with them being a criminal, plus if a person who is considered to have a low IQ does commit a crime we have programs available to test weather they truly knew that they did something wrong or not, if they do not know the difference they are put in a group home instead of a prison. I also disagree with the fact that we aren't serial killers because we were raised by good parents. I think it is a psychological thing myself, some are just not capable of controlling their anger or feelings therefore they lash out on some unexpecting person and kill them, If we are raised in a loving home by loving parents it does not mean that we can control our rage. I'm sorry but I feel like if you want to abolish the death penalty we need to figure out another way to pay for prisons and jails other than tax payer money. Most jails and prisons are already overcrowded as it is. We need to enforce this death penalty on those who have been found guilty without a doubt and put them to death immediatly. I don't feel by doing this we are telling the world that it is okay to kill, I feel we are telling them that if you kill, you too will be killed. Many countries do harsher punishments than us. If you sell drugs in some countires you are put to death, if you steal you hand is cut off, etc.
so if you're born unable to control your rage, you're not unlucky, you're deserving of the death penalty?
yes, there are worse places than the US. that doesn't make our system good.I didn't not say you are born unable to control you rage, I said it is harder for some to control thier rage. And I don't think that there are worse places than the US I think there are places that are more capable than the US to handle crimes. I agree with capital punishment, I believe that theives should have a hand cut off etc. We want people to not commit crimes then we should punish them accordingly. That is just my perspective.
After you steal two things you dont have any hands left. If we go to the middle east version of capital punishment. atleast thats what I got from it
"i don't feel by doing this we are telling the world that it is okay to kill." no, we are showing them that it is okay. example is the strongest teacher. you cannot tell someone killing is not okay, then kill someone. they will get the message of what you do, not of what you say.
I think if you KILL a person then you should be KILLED, I also think we need to make a machine that will butt rape a person if they rape ANYONE, they should feel as violated as they made victim feel, I feel like if we are going to imprison someone they should sit in a cell, no tv, bread, water, and beans for meals, If you want to banish the death penalty then we need to bring back constant solitary confinement! A criminal should not get to live for free, eat better than me, while I work my ass off.
oh I sooo beg to differ!!! There are people that are better than others. To insinuate that Mother Teresa was no better than say Charles Manson, or any other decent moral person is no better than a thousand other depraved, heartless, lascivious people is just ABSURD!!!!
i'm fairly sure that part of what motivated mother theresa is that she thought she was no better than anyone else. people are different in market worth - what they produce - but no different in core worth - what they are - human beings. equality between people is the basis of practice in social work. by disagreeing with it, you are taking on a whole field of experts.
Not only that. I was reading about one case where it had been 25 years since the crime had been committed. The guy had spent years doing good things to try to steer kids away from crime and gangs. He wasn't the same person who had been sentenced. I couldn't see the sense in the punishment for the person he had become.
I agree, maybe they should just commutted his sentence to life so he can go on to get his message out.
How about the Boy Scout Leader and all around Good Guy who was a serial murderer/torcherer in his 20's? Should he have been set free just because he found Jesus? No - absolutely not.
As a deterant I say the death penalty does work. There have been where people have refuse to commit certain crimes or go beyond a certain point because of the death penalty.
Someone who has caused harm to others and now a changed person should now just forget about the horror the caused as I'm sure the victims relatives would be only to glad to hear that and I've seen reported a number of crimmals having found God while behind bars so I guess we should let them all go.Evil can and does live on this planet:
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/fly-cre … I734RV9JA9
http://article.wn.com/view/2011/01/22/T … st_arrest/
Saturday, February 7, 2009
jew Spokeswoman Brags About Controlling America
http://kentuckyannatruenews.blogspot.co … lling.html
Wikipedia has a 2009 year percentage breakdown of crimes by States in the US but
what troubles me is I'm I suspose to feel good that the percentage is lower here, or
over there?
NO-NOT FOR ME-THE ONLY PERCENTAGE ACCEPTABLE FOR ME IS
ZERO ACROSS THE BOARD. I'm not satisfied with a percentage of forcible rape, Robbery
etc. People have a right to live their life without people causing them harm.
Murder Capital of the World
by Laura Carlsen http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/08-7
--------------------------------
A child tortured and kill by some old grown male will never graduate will never attend high school will never feel the warmt of the Sun like you and I do right now because this monster - like so many others like him gave these family members the death penalty.
--------------
[From the article ]
and drove them to a secluded area of the Lolo National Forest in Montana. There, Defendant set up camp.
Defendant held D.G. and Sh.G. at the campsite for almost seven weeks. He threatened to kill them with the shotgun if they tried to leave. During that time, Defendant repeatedly and savagely abused both children. He made video recordings of some of the abuse and stored the recordings on an electronic micro drive, which police later recovered. On or about June 22, 2005, Defendant killed D.G. by shooting the boy with the shotgun.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44046148/ns … c-content/lock him up and throw away the key. don't make me a murderer by killing him in ny name.
The key doesn't always get thrown away and in time some of the lifers are back on the street again and someone/s again suffers and dies why because of how it makes us look?
you claim to be a christian who views all humans as brothers. christ and the apostles were against vengeance by christians (romans 12:19-21, matthew 5:38-48, matthew 18:21-35). how do you not see the death penalty as vengeance?
The bible also talked about obeying the law of the land.
Cathylynn99 history has shown us that men can be cruel, hateful creatures and just look at what motives a lot of people from not committing horrible acts-The choice to go to Heaven or to HELL. Just asking people will you please be nice isn't going to cut it for a lot of people and when they are not afraid of the law then what on Earth is going to stop them?what you are referring to is this: christ said render unto ceasar what is ceasar's and render unto god what is god's. he was talking about paying your taxes. ceasar's picture was on the coin christ used as an example. if there is a god, only he knows enough to make life and death decisions. when the men of the town were going to stone a prostitue to death, christ said, "he who is without sin can cast the first stone." this speaks volumes about what christ thought about his land's current justice system. he was against it, as i am against the current US system.
At some point and time death was apart of those that came before us so long ago.
1.Leviticus 20:11
And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 20:10-12 (in Context) Leviticus 20 (Whole Chapter)
2.Leviticus 20:12
And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 20:11-13 (in Context) Leviticus 20 (Whole Chapter)
3.Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 20:12-14 (in Context) Leviticus 20 (Whole Chapter)
Exodus 14:13
And Moses said unto the people, Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation of the LORD, which he will shew to you to day: for the Egyptians whom ye have seen to day, ye shall see them again no more for ever.
Exodus 14:12-14 (in Context) Exodus 14 (Whole Chapter)
I always found this passage distorted:
4.Matthew 22:21
They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
Matthew 22:20-22 (in Context) Matthew 22 (Whole Chapter)
Because everything belonged to God-Even Caesar.so you pick and choose what parts of the bible make sense to you. have you ever asked yourself why you choose to quote verses condemning people for consensual sex - something the US does not see fit to punish people for at all?
Everyone picks and chooses there verses out of the bible I not sure why you even made that statement.
What US does or doesn't do Doesn't measure up to what God does. You've referenced the bible but you're deciding what you will and will not accept out of the bible.
The bible has lots of experience with death before you or I and it will have plenty more after you and I because come rain or shine-Everyone Dies.i've referenced the bible (did you even read the citations in my post?) because you claim to be a christian. i am not claiming to be a christian. even when i was, i believed christ when he said, "behold, the old has passed away. all things are become new." this is interpreted to mean that the legalistic old testament was meant to give way to christ's way of forgiveness. the old testament says not to eat pork, for example, along with killing half the world. the god of the old testament even at times demanded genocide. christ opened the door to a new covenant where loving your neighbor was more important than following an outdated legal code.
people who follow laws out of fear of punishment only follow them until these folks think up a way they hope to get away with whatever they wish. conscience, empathy and compassion keep most folks on the straight and narrow. for folks who never develop these positive traits, the best we can hope for is to contain them
The death penalty is not applied as a deterrent...The death penalty is an appropriate punishment for those outrageous crimes committed against humanity...Do you really think that sentencing a convicted felon to life in a Country Club prison is appropiate..?...Read some of the transcripts from the Nuremberg trials if you want to see pure evil on this earth and how justice was appropriately meted out to those monsters on the approval of a young United Nations...That justice, for the most part, was the death penalty.
I would have no compunction whatsoever putting to death duly tried and convicted child rapists, drug dealers that traffic with our children, cold-blooded murderers, and treasonous spies...Victims cry from the grave for justice...The death penalty is justice.europe has come a long way since nuremburg and no longer uses the death penalty. the US needs to catch up.
prison is no country club. days are boring and repetitive. food is unhealthy. privacy is non-existent. health care is abysmal. everyone locked up there is out to get you. my husband is for the death penalty because he thinks it's more humane than prison.
you are using justice as a synonym for vengeance. justice, in my view, is protecting the public from criminals. i believe anyone convicted of forcible rape more than once should get life without parole. once could be a mistake. twice is a pattern.
on the other hand, non-violent criminals should not get jail time. they should be required to do restitution and community service. not only is this economical, it would help toward correcting the very high rate of incarceration in this country."ONE could be a mistake?" Lady you have no idea of the evil in this World.
i had a patient who raped a nun in a park. he served his time and never ran afoul of the law again.
I am going to have to disagree, I am for the death penalty and I personaly thing that the time from their sentencing to the time of their last appeal needs to be shortened. Lawyers have learned ways of stretching out their clients appeals to the point where instead of being put to death they end up spending life in prison. I feel that if we wanted them to be there for life we would have sentenced them that way. I also think that our crime rate would decrease if we enforced the death penalty the way it was meant to be.
a study showed that the death penalty does not work to prevent crime.
there have been serveral studies showing that it does, so who's to say which one is right? It is ultimatley going to come down to personal belief.
a 2009 study in the journal of criminal justice and criminology found that 88% of the top criminologists in the country, basing their opinions on all the scientific evidence available, think that the death penalty is NOT a deterrent. they believe that the focus on the death penalty is preventing real solutions from being found.
again, you are only using one study to base your argument on. And again I will say that it is going to just break down to a persons personal belief
just one UBERstudy. some studies carry more weight than others. (and that makes two studies counting the one i refer to in the question.) for you it comes down to personal belief and evidence be damned. lots of people think that way. i mean, there are still smart people who don't believe global warming is caused by CO2 we put in the atmosphere. i happen to be a scientist, perfectly capable of weighing evidence and basing my arguments on logic, not just my personal bias. all people are equal, but all opinions are not equal.
Be a cop or Prosecutor for a week and your "science" will be thrown out the window.
i have worked in ER with victims of violent crime. i have declared a gunshot victim dead. (you have to examine the person closely to do that.) i'm not saying it doesn't make me angry and disgusted. i'm saying, when you make decisions in the heat of anger, they aren't always the best.
iloveglee, tell me more about the studies you have heard about.
killing the red handed guilty . is not justice its not revenge . its punishment . it certainly stops repeat offenders. monsters don't deserve forgiveness or pity in my view .
raylife in prison without parole also stops repeat offenders and is CHEAPER than administering the death penalty.
what makes you so sure that you know who deserves the punishment of the death penalty? you are no better than anyone else. the only reason you or i haven't murdered anyone is sheer luck. given the right circumstances, we would be murderers. should we be put to death, too? isn't the death penalty just heaping bad luck on someone who already has it in spades?the death penalty can be cheaper, it only got expensive because people felt we needed a more humane way to do it. And I'm sorry but I don't feel I should work my ass off for someone to get to sit in a cell, have clothing, food, and entertainment for free
Don't forget better health care than WE have to PAY for...
i've had several patients go to jail. they did not get good health care. a diabetic got no insulin for the few days he was in and was released with a blood sugar of 600 (that'll put you in the hospital). charges were later dropped. another almost died because his meds were refused. he was in for disturbing the peace. i tried calling the judge to get him his meds. my calls were unanswered. another patient was allowed to remain in a dangerous situation considering her health problem. health care in prison is abysmal. if you're paying for this kind of health care for yourself, stop, or at least protest.
Cathylynn - I take exception to your remark that I would have murdered someone if it were not for sheer luck. Luck has nothing to do with it. I would like to think that I would not murder anyone, but who knows what I would be capable of if anyone were to kill of abuse a member of my family? But then, wouldn't that be classed as 'justifiable homicide'?
Cathylynn: Justifiable how? Murder is murder. Makes no difference the circumstances. If you take another person's life, even by accident, they are just as dead, therefore you deserve to die too. To see it any other way is wrong. Claiming some sort of mental defect or insanity at the time of committing a homocide, is wrong. Alcohol, drugs, no excuse should be permitted. You kill, you pay with your life, and no pleas for lieniancy either. You die there and then, and my God have mercy upon your soul.
then i guess we must kill the executioner and then kill the guy who kills him and on and on.
With Lethal Injection, The way of the day. with three needles each with a solution in them, nobody knows which one holds the lethal dosage. Therefore no one holds guilt for the deed.
I would say all three are guilty, just for participating in the process. In its position on capital punishment the US is among a small minority of civilized nations. Of course all the other countries could be wrong and the US could be right. But the prevailing view is worth considering on moral issues, if not always decisive as in the case of Nazi Germany. There is much in the Bible that, in my opinion, makes no sense in today's world considering advances in science and morality--e.g., slavery is generally considered immoral, women are now allowed to vote and are equal before the law in most countries, and so forth.
I don't see it that way. Only one has the lethal dose and none of the three knows who has what.
Therefore,as any one could hold the lethal dose, they are all guilty.
Wrong! none are guilty. They did not load the injector with the solution they are only asked or ordered to participate.
so if three people stab me under orders from a mob boss, we don't know which stab killed me and they were just following orders, perhaps on pain of their own death if they failed, so none are guilty?
In war innocent get killed. in your scenario the M.E. can establish the fatal blow. One would be the murderer, the other two accomplices. One dies the other two jailed for life.
It's OK officer,I did not load the gun therefore I didn't kill him!
Hm,not very likely.
its not luck its choice ,i come from a military family i broke the tradition . i hope to never kill a person. i think people die inside when they take a life. but if a monster rapes and murders my child , ill gladly become the monster that kills them back. cus they deserved it.
raychoice is an illusion, one which i, too, happily enjoy, except in matters of great philosophical importance. i live my life as if i have choice, but know better than that when it comes to judging the actions of others. that doesn't mean i pamper folks when i don't like their actions. it just means that i know i'm no better than them and have no basis for hating them. i just hate what they do and stear clear of it as far as possible.
choice is an illusion, one which i, too, happily enjoy, except in matters of great philosophical importance. i live my life as if i have choice, but know better than that when it comes to judging the actions of others.
choice is a pleasant illusion. i live my life as if i had choice, but when it comes to judging others, i know better.
- adeaugustusposted 12 years ago0
Death penalty, is a very stupid decision that i would never for once support, from my perspective, what has happened has happened, killing the person responsible for such incidence doesnt reverse the issue, so must we kill each other to show a sign of sympathy or wht? it is a bad thing instead the correction center should be implmented.
This is a very interesing post and makes a good debate. I think there are two sides to consider here. One is, if a peron commits a horrendous crime he/she needs to be punished. The person knows they are committing the crime - unless they are insane, but then that needs to be proved by a bunch of professionals. The other aspect is, removing that person from society so that they are no longer a risk. We can all sit and say one thing or the other and have our own personal views, but in my opinion, putting someone to death is not a punishment, it's letting them off. After the initial 'killing', they are no longer aware that they have committed a crime, they are dead and gone. They can't think or feel anything any more. No. Death is too good for them. If you consider the mass killers who take their own lives after they have done their evil deed, how many of us feel cheated out of bringing the scum to justice? But what is justice? Is it punishment, or just removing them from society and taking away their libery?
In my humble opinion, it should be both. None of us have the right to take a life (whether you're religious or not)but I know that if someone murdered or abused one of my loved ones I'd want them to suffer and be reminded of their crime for as long as they drew breath. Call me sadistic or whatever, but I think these scum should be left in a cell with just enough bread and water to keep them alive, and let them rot in their own excrement until they die of 'natural' causes. That way they would have time to reflect on their crime, and maybe feel some remorse."Call me sadistic or whatever, but I think these scum should be left in a cell with just enough bread and water to keep them alive, and let them rot in their own excrement until they die of 'natural' causes. " I agree with this, to an extent, I still beleive the whole eye for and eye thing, but if we aren't going to use the death penalty the way it should be used then we should definatly treat them like the scum they are.
As I have said earlier, courts do get it wrong even to this day. Mistakes have been made with DNA samples. Mix ups in busy labs. People are not perfect. Before DNA could be used and it was all about blood types mistakes were made. Just because you have the same blood type as the killer doesn't mean you are the killer though it may look bad for you. People have been freed from prison in the USA when it was discovered that their DNA did not match the blood or other sample found at the crime scene. People have been sentenced to death, killed by the state only to have it known years later that, though they might not have been little angels, they were actually innocent of the offense they were killed over.
BRILLAINT! (I was also for Stalin's idea of putting Hitler in a cage suspended from a ceiling - high enough that those who lost loved ones couldn't actually touch or kill him, but low enough that they could hurl insults and rotten tomatoes. Oh - & he'd be naked as a jaybird, also.)
34th Bomber Group, Tojo was hung in 1948 for war crimes. He was hung by Americans. The people of Japan did not protest because he had failed his emperor. What did not appeal to the Japanese was that the hanging took place behind high walls. Many a Japanese wanted to witness the execution so as to be satisfied that it really did happen.
Hitler knew bad things would happen to him if caught by the Russians so he took the coward's way out.
I think give the sinners time to change. If that fails . . .
i've been enjoying the debate. aside from several instances of name-calling, it has kept a reasonable, assertive, adult tone. i'm proud of my fellow hubbers. i'm a little disappointed that some folks post and then don't come back to find my answers to their posts. sorry i haven't answered everyone, but i don't want to repeat myself. if you read the whole forum, you'll probably find more than you want to know about what i think about your post. i'll still check in from time to time. have a great night.
Once we come up with the perfect society...where fully grown adults do not murder children...then we can move to the next step of not having the "Death Penalty" !
you have the cart before the horse. doing away with the death penalty is a step towards the "perfect society". if the government doesn't feel free to kill people, individuals will have a harder time justifying killing.
we also need to convince parents to stop hitting their children, turning the kids into angry, anxious folks who are more likely to commit crimes compared to kids who are not hit.Not necessarily...I know which end of the horse I'm staring at...and with all due respect...it is the one that is based in "reality". Saying that doing away with the death penalty...will help individuals have a harder time justifying killing...is wishful thinking that equates to what comes out of the end I'm currently staring at...from my perspective of sitting on the cart.
Pray tell me...what would defer people from killing in the first place? Harsh languauge? Detention after class? Skipping their desert? A slap on the wrist? Taking away their TV priviledge? What will discourage people from killing, robbing, hurting...and other manners of transgressions...without a definitive response for their actions?most folks try to do what's right just because they're decent. you do, don't you?
for those few who lack a conscience, the threat of being locked up is potent. i used to date smart sociopath. he refused to own a gun because he knew if he had one, he might use it and end up where his high school principle said he would - in jail.the idea that the death penalty allows people to justify killing is based on a scientific study. you would know that if you read the whole forum instead of just popping in and popping off. i would call that reality based. on what are you basing your opinion?
Again - ONE "scientific study." Not good enough. How 'bout a cite?
Dating the sociopath? Your principal is your "pal." If that is an example of your education - I suggest you do not have the credentials you have claimed. Might be wrong...doesn't sound as if you read the whole forum. 2nd study cited above - 2009 in journal of criminology and criminal justice - read about it above. it's convincing. first study referred to in the question heard on NPR in the early 90's.
i have an MD and am board certified in internal medicine. studies in the social sciences tend to be softer than those in, say, physics, but are the best we have. i suggest we go with the best we have. after all, it's a life and death issue.well, you are a lawyer. did anyone ever question your credentials because you married someone who sure sounds like a sociopath? they can be very charming. yes, i've read some of your hubs. i'm sure you wouldn't appreciate such a question either. and i'm sure you learned something from your marriage worth sharing. i have a hub on avoiding abusive relationships that you might find worthwhile.
the sociopath is not my "pal" and has been barred from contacting me since 1987. you certainly are a lawyer. you go for the jugular, whether your accusations are true or not. i have lawyer friends. they will go to any ridiculous length to win an argument.
let me get this straight...when someone feels something passionately as you (because you replied to my same comment twice)...if someone does not agree with you on "your" forum thread...that is "popping-off"? Oh, brother...what a wonderful mix of ideas and discussions this forum is. And by the way...I r4ead your first post on here. Where does it justify a study with scientific analysis?
calling someone's ideas horse excrement is popping off. i have no problem with being disagreed with, if it's done in a fair way.
Somehow...I think you were able to overcome my simple and commonly used disparaging reference to the topic you posed as debate...which puts the government...not ones own actions...as responsible for the causes of murder.
- ahorsebackposted 12 years ago0
While all the liberals here stroke each others egos and drink the fine wine of idealism I will inject this slightly jaded idea at you all. I believe that everyone of YOU should be the victim of a violent crime !..... No really , I dont! But I do believe you have to be one , to truly understand how incapable our system is to attain justice for the victims . You would see, as in all things having to do with violence and mayhem in crime, that our system treats the rights of the criminally twisted perpetrators with more delicacy tham the victims. The whole touchy feely application of rights to those people accused of extremely violent crimes has replaced the victims rights. While the liberal minds here stroke the kittens of twisted empathy , victims suffer for decades and even lifetimes with the REALITIES of dealing with the after effects of violent crime. The "death penalty" you all hate so much is ,in reality , only practiced in token amounts by almost all states compared to the amount of violence in the streets . Plea bargains , reduced charges , and faulty , inept prosecution , or the liberal antics of judges with personal agendas are more apt to be applied today in this system ! And as for your use of "statistics" , we all know how each of you create our own numbers to justify your causes.
i have been beaten and sexually assaulted. i still do not believe in the death penalty.
I'm not a biblical scholar, but I thought "thou shall not kill" was one of the ten commandments. So, how can any Christians support the death penalty? Does "eye for an eye" overrule that commandment? I'm confused. Please help me understand.
Good question. There are a fair number of contradictory things in the Bible.
- ahorsebackposted 12 years ago0
Is the death penalty or any law created by man to be judged by biblical wording only? Is it only a black and white issue? Either or ? No! Man created the death penalty ,not the bible. Violent crime , non-rehabitual mentality in twisted criminal minds has to be dealt with in one fasion or the other! What do you do ...let them all out? Give them an Island?
The Death Penalty is 100% effective. Ted Bundy has not butchered any Girl Scouts since they fried.
And of course there have been no further serial killers since Bundy, have there?
Ted Bundy made sure he murdered his final victim in a state in the USA where there was the death penalty. He was a known serial killer by then and had a death wish. The death wish went away during the ten years or so waiting to be executed. It is possible that there were and are victims of Bundy never recovered so for some families there is still no closure. On the day of execution Bundy claimed he knew the location of victims whose bodies were yet to be found by the authorities and that he was willing to give up this information if the death sentence was changed to a for life sentence.
- ahorsebackposted 12 years ago0
There is a difference between a deterant and punishment . No ! Ted bundy wasn't executed to stop serial killers , get real , he was executed for his crimes against humanity. There are some monsters in humanity that deserve death because they will never change. I wish America would stop the token numbers of capital punishments and increase them !
cooldad said: "I'm not a biblical scholar, but I thought "thou shall not kill" was one of the ten commandments. So, how can any Christians support the death penalty? Does "eye for an eye" overrule that commandment? I'm confused. Please help me understand."
Hope this helps a little in your query...I'm not a biblical scholar either though...but I have listened to a bunch of them. "Thou Shall Not Kill"...the actual Hebrew translation of "Kill' from back then and then updated to today
is though shall not "Murder".
And the definition of Murder as we closely associate it to is: "Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with "malice aforethought". As far as...the "eye for an eye" is from the old testament and in the chapter of verses that appears...it is pertaining more directly to someone bearing false witness against another. If someone is found guilty of that then "Eye for an eye, tooth for tooth"...that person should receive same judgement against them."eye for an eye' is mentioned three times in the books of the law of the old testament. in one instance, manlypoetryman's explanation applies. the biblical scholar i heard said that the "eye for an eye" doctrine was a positive change in the way things had been done. before the doctrine, folks were being killed for stealing, for example. the doctrine didn't allow worse to be done to the guilty than their offense. it's part of the evolution of a continuously more fair justice system.
Stoning a woman to death for adultery was at one time common practice. Jesus apparently stopped a woman from being thus stoned. It wasn't that he thought her innocent. He just thought there was a better way to live.
Right now the USA and many other countries are heading into tough times. Hard economics that produce a greater division between poor and rich also produce riots and unrest and, yes, more serial killers. Riots broke out recently in England and there were some deaths. In Australia people will freeze next winter because they will not be able to warm themselves with heaters. The cost of electricity because of the incompetence of governments going back at least two decades are responsible. Having or not having the death penalty will make no difference to countries and then individuals in financial crisis. There will be those who will lash out and telling them they will be killed for killing won't make a jot of difference. Helping to make sure things don't get too desperate even for the dirt poor will help.Serial killers facing the death penalty have been interviewed and have said that they were not deterred in any way from committing their crimes by this penalty. Some even said that they suspected that sooner or later they would be caught.
I hear folks saying the Death Penalty is not a deterent-BUT IF THAT WERE TRUE-IF THAT WERE TRUE WHY-WHY DO EVERY JOKER WITH A GUN, KNIFE, PIECE OF ROPE USES IT TO GET WHAT THEY WANT FOR 1,000s OF YEARS.
When someone breaks into your home are you going to intimdate them with a Q-Tip? Will That cause them to start shaking in their boots and yes there are a few crazies that aren't satisfied until they are put down BUT in a situation where someone is coming after to me and I fire on them and even miss them I'm betting they will be heading out of my house to higher ground which once agains proves just the threat of death IS A DETERENT.Span Star, the immediate threat of death is different from the death sentence. A lot of hardened crims who won't run into a bullet will still do the crimes regardless of any deterrent that will get them that bullet in the end anyway. The less people have the less they have to lose and the less likely they are not going to lose it.
I disagree-The Threat of Death no matter where it comes from is the one factor that causes people to think. Just look at how evidence is gathered where no other method works-"You either tell us where you buried the body or it's the dealth Penalty-telling them I'll take your mattress away doesn't work or I'll beat you up doesn't work BUT SO MANY CASES WERE SOLVED BECAUSE OF THE THREAT OF DEATH. IT IS CRAZY FOR ME TO SEE THE THREAT OF DEATH USED BY THESE CREATURES THAT DON'T DESERvE TO BE WALKING AROUND WITH CIVILIZED PEOPLE- BEING TREATED A HELL OF A LOT BEETTER THEN THE VICTIMS THEY TERRORIZED, TORTURED AND KILL.ED
BUT YOU PEOPLE LIKE YOURSELF THAT DO SEEM TO HAVE LITTLE CARE FOR WHAT THESE PEOPLE SUFFERED AT THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE YOU'RE PROTECTING. After struggling that woman and murdering her kids have we given this thug comfortable commondations, are they treated well?-(Frankly I Don't Give A....)Giving a ... is what makes us human, treating people like animals is why they act like animals in the first place - it is harder to see that an attitude is part of the cause than just fire off at the result as if it has nothing to do with you.
Frankly I find that statement "treating people like animals is why they act like animals" IS BULL!
Not long ago and he's not the only one-He murder a young couple on a dark and lonely that was giving him a ride as he had is thumb out. When they parked off to the side be he claimed he had to used the rest room he shot both of them killing the male and thinking he had kill the young lady. When the police finally caught up with him HIS REASON FOR KILLING THEM WAS SIMPLY BECAUSE HE WANTED TO SEE HOW SOMEONE DIES- THAT COMMEND YOU'D JUST MADE ABOUT BEING TREATED LIKE ANIMALS IS CRAP.No matter how many more cases you bring up you are not addressing the question. Most of these cases happen because the perpetrator has been mistreated or is a social misfit - just as are those who get over-excited about killing other people by execution.
Claiming my comments are 'bull' and 'crap' is playground debating at the level of a moron, if you have trouble understanding the link between cause and effect it is because you lack the ability to reason.Since you brought the words moron you up then it stands to reason that anyone spending their time supporting the scum that has no regard for other people's life is no doubt a moron.
Some so ignorant that they don't even understand the problem comes from the very people they support.,i've reported you both (spanstar and recommend1) to hubpages for personally attacking each other in such a mean way. i'll miss recommend1's support if he is banned from the forums, but fair is fair, and both sides are hitting below the belt.
I believe you should reread the post as I didn't see any names mentioned or directed towards each other directly. The read as general statements so that's for making accusations that don't exist.
so you think you are very clever at skirting the rules. it's obvious that you are coming as close to the abuse line as you can. this sort of talk adds nothing to the debate.
above i asked you to supply a little info on the studies you referred to. now that would add to the debate.
Related Discussions
- 56
How do you feel about the death penalty for repeat offenders.
by mandybeau 14 years ago
Big fan of the Guillotine for these Guys, Happy to operate it, I personally don;t see why we need to keep this pondscum alive, costing our Governments a fortune in food med. exps, dentistry.New zealand has quite a few that need putting out of their respective misery. I am certain that the civil...
- 63
Death penalty
by richtwf 13 years ago
Do you believe in the death penalty?
- 105
Is the Death Penalty a Deterrent?
by Don W 12 years ago
In jurisdictions that maintain capital punishment are the rates of aggravated murder and felony murder lower than in jurisdictions where capital punishment has been banned?
- 20
What are your views on the death penalty?
by danielleantosz 11 years ago
What are your views on the death penalty?While I do believe that some people should be put to death, the risk of sending an innocent person to death is too great. I think either the requirements for the death penalty should be higher or is should be banned. What do you think?
- 193
The death penalty SHOULD be abolished
by KyleBear 12 years ago
I've been advocating against death penalty since the beginning of time. Here are reasons why I believe it should be abolished.Please do feel free to share your views here too. This thread is about communicating and exchanging views. I hope I don't get angry readers this time.1. Justice does not...
- 35
The Death penalty AS Discussion
by ga anderson 5 years ago
I cannot support the death penalty. My primary reason is that it is a decision that cannot be reversed. Oops, "I made a mistake ... too late, there is no correction."To be sure I do believe there are instances in which the criminal surely deserves the death penalty. Hells bells, in some...