The Death Penalty

1. 61

   w scott bowlinposted 14 years ago

   Does anyone have any thoughts about the death penalty, and the "eye for an eye" concept?

   replyreport
   1. 64

      prettydarkhorseposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      it is not advisable because justice is not absolute, i mean that sometimes decisions of the court can be wrong, look at those who are vindicated after many years after, and what if they have been metted out death penalty, you can never retrieve back their life, isnt it?
      
      An eye for an eye is a sick concept.

      replyreport
   2. 70

      pylos26posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah...No government has a right to deliberately kill its people.

      replyreport
   3. 60

      PeytonFarquharposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      As much as certain groups would like it to be so, religious concepts such as the "eye," have zip to do with the death penalty because the criminal justice system is not run according to the Christian bible.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Much of it is!  Or was anyway.   Most of our criminal laws (in the USA anyway) were originally based on Biblical concepts.
         Non-criminal laws too.   The basis for filing bankruptcy, etc.,  is in the Bible.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Brenda:
            So is slavery, debauchery, mass murder, rape and various and sundry other criminal acts ordered by the biblical god thing...or did that skip your "perusal?"

            replyreport
   4. 60

      qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Scott:
      I wrote a "hub" on "televised executions" ya might want to read.
      I think they should be televised and I will throw a tailgate party for all who accept an invite to watch.
      
      <snipped>

      replyreport
      1. 70

         Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         

         replyreport
   5. 74

      IntimatEvolutionposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I am not for spending any tax dollars on public murder.

      replyreport
   6. 71

      waynetposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      An eye should have another eye to be friends with and the death penalty, how can you take a penalty if you're dead?

      replyreport
   7. 60

      qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Scott:
      This question has been covered extensively in the forum.
      If yer interested read my "hub:" "Televised Executions."
      
      http://hubpages.com/hub/qwark28
      
      Tell us your thoughts on this question.

      replyreport
   8. 61

      Nvcarolposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      For all who are against the death penalty, What about John Gacy, Charles Manson, Dahmer, all the others who took multiple lives?

      replyreport
      1. 76

         Uninvited Writerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Dahmer died in prison. Gacey will probably die in prison if he isn't dead already. Manson will die in prison.

         replyreport
   9. 61

      DonLeoposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I being in the death penalty. What I don't accept is having someone on death row for years. If a person is sentenced to death, that person should allowed 1 appeal and the sentence should be cared out no later then a year. As far as an eye for an eye Im kind of back an forth with that if some kills another just because they have to regards for another life than that person should be put to death, no questions ask. But there are cases where people are kill by accident and wrongful accused. Thats were the 1 appeal and the time period of a year comes in.

      replyreport
   10. 60

       SettleEstateLIposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       It is possible that someone facing the death penalty may leave behind an estate.  If you are the executor, there will be challenges ahead.  I recommend reading the estate settlement guides at SettleEstate.com .

       replyreport
2. 66

   TheGlassSpiderposted 14 years ago

   "An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind."
   
   Wasn't that Ghandi? I always thought that was such a great statement.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Spider:
      ..but remember, "a one eyed man in the valley of the blind....is KING!"

      replyreport
      1. 66

         TheGlassSpiderposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I guess that's what's going on here in the world, huh?
         
         Who said that?

         replyreport
3. 0

   sneakorocksolidposted 14 years ago

   Well here in Texas we have drive-thru service and we're serious! Don't kill people and you won't get killed!
   
   I'm opposed to any killing state or woman sponsored. The problem with the state we don't have a viable alternative. We should have a prison colony on the Aluetian islands where escape is imposible and let them finish their lives away from the rest of us and that should include sex offenders.
   
   Woman sponsored killing requires better parenting with a good foundation in manners and moral behavior. That should especially apply to boys who should provide leadership and not exploitation.

   replyreport
   1. 66

      TheGlassSpiderposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      This is a genuine question, and not meant to be sarcastic in any way:
      
      What is "woman sponsored killing"?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         sneakorocksolidposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         My answer was serious, I meant every word! To answer your question it's "abortion". I'm against all killing period and I'm serious about my proposed solutions too!

         replyreport
         1. 66

            TheGlassSpiderposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Oh! *slaps forehead* I know your answer was serious. I wasn't trying to make fun in away...I've never heard it called that.
            
            Thank you for clearing that up.

            replyreport
4. 0

   Brenda Durhamposted 14 years ago

   No it hasn't been skipped.
   But I will tell you this----the God who created all things has every right to do with it (and us) whatever He decides to do.
   
   And while it's sometimes difficult for even Christians to explain many of the things in the Bible,  the simplest thing I can tell you is to quote something I saw another hubber tell someone the other day---
   
   You're stuck in the Old Testament.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Brenda:
      ...and you are "stuck" in it all!
      The NT is just as corrupt a writing as is the OT.
      I'm sure you have no idea what I'm referring to.  :-)

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Probably not.  And I think I'm glad.

         replyreport
5. 0

   Brenda Durhamposted 14 years ago

   My response was to qwark.
   Sorry to confuse posts.

   replyreport
6. 0

   lyricsingrayposted 14 years ago

   In Canada we do not have the death penalty.  I wish we did.  There is no rehabilitation of any kind in jail.

   replyreport
7. 61

   Colebabieposted 14 years ago

   I think that it is easy to believe a certain way until something happens in your life that changes, or shapes the way you think.

   replyreport
8. 0

   Brenda Durhamposted 14 years ago

   The "eye for an eye" concept is simply about responsibility for one's actions.  Humans have to have rules, have to be bound somehow by the "law";  otherwise there's only chaos in the finality of it all.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Unfortunately, in society today, there is little of self-responsibility learned or absorbed. And, the reason for that is because those who practice a religious mystic view during their life, are the ones making most of the mistakes, damaging society, as a whole.
      
      Religion itself is detrimental to society and has become even more dangerous now. It's sad and it's pathetic. People are told that people are born evil? This is absurd.
      
      The BIBLE claims all humans are sinners. Sinners are evil.
      
      This in and of itself is wrong. A newborn baby cannot be evil. It cannot be judged for anything when it's a newborn. A child isn't evil until it is taught the difference between good and evil, then it makes a decision to be one or the other.
      
      So, the simple fact that the Bible claims that all humans are sinners/evil, is a lie.
      
      It goes beyond any common-sense.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Cags:
         proud of ya!
         Tell it as it is!
         Couldn't agree more! :-)

         replyreport
      2. 0

         Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I think I understand what you mean.
         
         I'll say that not all Christians believe in the concept of "total depravity" in the way that you probably are referring to.
         
         I do believe, as the Bible says, that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God", and yes we're either sinners, or sinners who're born-again.
         
         But not babies.  You're right in that babies are innocent until they come to an "age of accountability".
         
         Are you maybe referring also to the Roman Catholic belief that babies who aren't baptized via the RCC will go to hell if they die as babies?

         replyreport
         1. 70

            Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Common-sense dictates that a newborn isn't a sinner, that therefore contradicts the bible claim all are sinners. That makes it a lie. That is my point.
            
            This is irrelevant, because I'm not religious, hence I am of the understanding that hell isn't real. It's an imaginary place created by those who want to control people.
            
            Hence, why Jesus was opposed to the church? He knew religion was fake, and the bible you read from is fake. His work was incorporated many years after he was executed? Why is that?
            
            His work wasn't part of Religion, at anytime during his life. He spoke about not following a false deity? How many times?
            
            Jesus' teachings were not religious, they were coded by the religious language, so he could do his work. The only working vocabulary of language was religious/spiritual leaders who were tyrannts, slave owners and control freaks. Jesus knew it, he saw thru the deception, which is the real reason for his execution.
            
            The bible states that he died for our sins. When the fact is he died because he threatened the existence of religion and it's false god.

            replyreport
      3. 0

         sneakorocksolidposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Well the innocents of a child are never drawn into question but, only one was born perfect and we choose to follow or not follow his example. Calling the Bibles lessons a ""lie is just another gross distortion of the truth. If you want proper social reform then you need to work with the real and honest reformers, Christians, everyone else just gum-up the works with retoric.

         replyreport
         1. 70

            Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            All babies that are born are not evil. Being less than perfect is fine. Accept it and move on.
            
            Maybe if you read my other posts here. Calling the bible a lie is a gross ditortion? Really? Go read my other posts.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               sneakorocksolidposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Ok, I read them what did I miss? You offer a secular solution to a moral delema. That only works assuming all people naturally know right from wrong and there lies the flaw in your theory.

               replyreport
               1. 70

                  Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  That only works assuming all people naturally know right from wrong? That statement in and of itself is foolish.
                  
                  For the pure and simple facts of life - morals are passed down from generation to generation, ages to ages and culture to culture.
                  
                  If everyone followed or were to teach their children, the moral value, I stated- then everything else eventually takes shape.
                  
                  Don't look at immediate, look further down the road, because that's where it changes.
                  
                  Morality is taught, it isn't natural.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     sneakorocksolidposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     You're right they don't but, when dealing with people I've always found it easier starting out tough with people then backing off rather than being easy and trying to toughen up.

                     replyreport
                     1. 70

                        Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        But, that doesn't change the fact of what I said would change the world. People are adaptable, we're human beings, our potential is only limited by the limitations we set on ourselves.
                        
                        To teach a child the their actions is to be a benefit to society, is moral and sound. This isn't a choice contest? There is no wrong answer, because our actions, if self-responsible, will only benefit society and not harm it.
                        
                        The point is to teach them this simple moral basis, then it changes what the future holds for humanity as a whole.
                        
                        It's the right thing to do, so all the negative aspect of society can fall to the wayside. Killings, poverty, starvation, abusive husbands, rapists, and all others would be weeded out over time.
                        
                        Right?

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           sneakorocksolidposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           Absolutly right! There are more ways to skin a cat than mine getting the job done is whats important.

                           replyreport
9. 60

   qwarkposted 14 years ago

   A general statement:
   I want the perpetrator of a heinous, premeditated, violent crime which kills an innocent human being, to understand, to the deepest levels of his consciousness, before and during his execution, what his victim endured before life ebbed from his fear filled, tortured, mind and body.
   Execute them in the same manner they executed their victim....and televise their execution!

   replyreport
10. 70

    Cagsilposted 14 years ago

    As for the death penalty- In a civilized society, the death penalty has no use or need. However, living in America - which is supposed to be the most advanced society in the world - we know our society is anything but civilized, regardless of what politicians claim it to be.
    
    The problem is a lack of knowledge and understanding of life. Which does have a moral sense, that should be taught, but isn't taught. Other people, display their own moral character for living. Their actions dictate morality.
    
    Nothing else matters.
    
    For instance, a thought, isn't moral or immoral, it's the action for which you do upon the thought and whether or not your actions benefit or harm society, as a whole.
    
    If your chosen action is against that of humanity, that is dishonesty, deceitful, untrustworthy or harmful to others, then your action is immoral - wrong or bad, because when you do act - your actions harm someone.
    
    If your chosen action is beneficial to that of humanity, then your actions are moral - right or good, because when you do act - your actions help or benefit someone else.
    
    Those are the simplistic nature of morals. And, yes it is that cut and dry, should society want to evolve pass the insanity presently a plague on society.
    
    People live by that one simple fact of life, then things would be just fine.

    replyreport
11. 0

    Brenda Durhamposted 14 years ago

    Ah, but it can't be that simplistic.
    
    Because there are differing definitions of what is "harmful" or "beneficial" to others, morally.
    
    Which is why we have to have a definite source of what's to be considered right and wrong.

    replyreport
    1. 70

       Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       But, there should not be separate definitions for what is "beneficial" or "harmful", everyone should look at it the same. We are ALL Human beings. We are in control of our own lives, because we actively live our life, through conscious thought and actions. How those actions impact society and the individual, is morally right or wrong, if following what I've said.
       
       Because, if everyone did look at it the same. We wouldn't have any problems on the planet. Plain and simple. Truth!
       
       If every single person abided by that simple moral code of ethic, there would be no problems in the world. Nowhere.
       
       Poverty would die. Starvation would be eliminated. Greed wouldn't be detrimental to society, because greed can be a motivational tools for self-interest, which helps aid self-growth, which leads to self-confidence and a love for others. Because, to control greed, you must understand it and how to use it in a selfless manner, for which, aids society.

       replyreport
12. 93

    habeeposted 14 years ago

    I am opposed to the death penalty AND to abortion. I don't think mankind should have the ability to take another human life. I am for life imprisonment without parole, however. There are things worse than death.

    replyreport
    1. 70

       Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       If you're going to house the criminals and treat them better than the homeless citizens...how is this fair?
       
       Do you think all prisons should be privately owned and operated? Are you prepared to put your life on the line and let business run our prison system? Do you think they'll have your best interests at heart?
       
       I'm just curious.

       replyreport
    2. 66

       TheGlassSpiderposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       I see where you're coming from on this one, habee...The only thing that really sticks in my craw is that under that kind of system, the tax-payer ends up literally *paying* for someone's crime while the criminal ends up taken care of and entitled to medical care.
       
       Kinda bugs me. Although the death penalty bugs me too. Just no satisfactory answer.

       replyreport
13. 0

    Brenda Durhamposted 14 years ago

    Use greed in a selfless manner?
    
    I hope you're kidding.

    replyreport
    1. 70

       Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       You only took a portion of what I said, therefore you put it out of context.

       replyreport
14. 60

    Jeramiposted 14 years ago

    Whether I was innocent or not and was convicted of a crime that carried either the death penalty or a life sentence without parole I would rather have death. I think that life in prison is a cruel and unusual punishment.
       When a Wolfe comes into your corral killing your cattle do you shoo it away. or put it in a cage and feed and water it until it dies of natural causes.
        When briar's come up next to your tomato plants do we carefully transplant them.
        If a man rapes and kills your wife or children do you want him to spend a few of years in jail before he is released and  does that to someone elses wife or daughter?

    replyreport
    1. 60

       qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Jerami:
       If my child or loved one was murdered, I would dedicate my life to ridding the planet of that worthless piece of "scat." If the state didnt do it, there is no doubt about it..I would!

       replyreport
       1. 60

          Jeramiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             And from my prospective if someone did that to your family I would throw the switch out not out of need to punish but out of necessity to rid society of that animistic behavior. If it happened to my family I might also derive some pleasure  from throwing the switch

          replyreport
15. 70

    Cagsilposted 14 years ago

    Okay, Thank you.

    replyreport
16. 56

    lovelypaperposted 14 years ago

    I believe in the death penalty for exceptionally evil murderers.

    replyreport
17. 69

    Rod Marsdenposted 14 years ago

    The last man to be officially executed, get the death penalty in NSW, Australia turned out to be innocent of the crime. He was supposed to have shot a guard while escaping prison. It turned out that he only had a hand gun on him and the guard had been shot by a bullet from a rifle. Anyway, once you hang a man or execute him some other way there is no taking it back. Once you are dead you are dead.
    
    I saw a documentary once about this guy who was sent up for shooting his wife with a hunting rifle. He claimed that she had accidentally shot herself. He said that she was cleaning her rifle and the butt of the rifle had slammed hard against the floor of the cabin where they were staying. The result was she coped a bullet in the face. Well, forensics tried many times to get the rifle to do what this fellow claimed it had done but without any luck so he went to trial and was convicted. Ten years later a similar incident occurred with the same make of rifle. This time the experts were able to get the offending rifle to fire by slamming the butt hard against the floor. Word came to the convicted man's lawyer and his case was revisited. He was released from prison having his original story confirmed. Now if this man had been given the death penalty he might well have been executed before the new evidence arrived. An innocent man might have died over what was really an accident and not an accident of his own making.
    
    If the government, any government is to impose the death penalty all I say is be sure, be very sure the perp is definitely guilty.

    replyreport
18. 0

    A Texanposted 14 years ago

    Anyone executed for killing has never killed anyone else, seems the death penalty works well!

    replyreport
19. 71

    waynetposted 14 years ago

    The death penalty sounds good, just have to make sure they get the right person to make it justified!

    replyreport
    1. 0

       A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Nahhhhhhhhh, guy probably did something to deserve it!

       replyreport
    2. 69

       Rod Marsdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Yes do make sure it is the right person. I agree with waynet on that one. The life that gets saved by someone's pains taking work might be your own.

       replyreport
20. 59

    fiona_33posted 14 years ago

    In some cases, i think it is absolutely right. It costs a lot of money to keep people in prison for the rest of their lives. Why should we as taxpayers pay for monsters to live?

    replyreport
    1. 0

       china manposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Because we taxpayers are the society that creates them and we should be responsible for our own mistakes.  We should also look at the society more carefully to identify what in us causes these things in the first place, killing the evidence is sweeping the problems with society under the carpet, with the body.

       replyreport
21. 60

    mikelongposted 14 years ago

    My thoughts on the death penalty come from a different point of view...
    
    From members of the Aryan prison gangs to the Mexican Mafia....if found guilty of murder they should not only be put on death row, but executions should be handled promptly.
    
    These groups multiply and further corrupt our society, within and without these places of incarceration....a message should be sent...no tolerance... If you are part of an organization that promotes death, then you should be put to death....  Blood in...Blood out..funded by the people of this nation....
    
    But, of course, one has to be found guilty first.....intimidation tainting trials is not an uncommon issue.....

    replyreport
22. 76

    barryrutherfordposted 14 years ago

    I have posted a couple of hubs on the death penalty.  For those who say life imprisonment costs more. Research the costs of a capital punishment case.  The costs are much higher...

    replyreport
    1. 60

       qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       BArry:
       Yes!
       Because the system gives them years and years to appeal to higher courts...while feeding bedding and entertaining them!
       Did the murdered get to appeal?...sure while screaming, frightened and unheard.
       Mikel has it right...if found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt...."old Sparky" at sunrise the next morning!
       If televised, you are invited to my tailgate party!
       I wanna watch the sparks fly!

       replyreport
23. 67

    awareposted 14 years ago

    its ugly i know . becoming a monster  in order to kill a monster. for revenge disguised as justice. but if you kill  a loved one of mine . my soul im sure to sell.  and the kiss of death that is punishment  ill plant firmly on a murders lips.
    that my friend is poetry .

    replyreport
24. 0

    Lecieposted 14 years ago

    before i was born my aunts husband gunned her down. he then walked into the police station to turn himself in. his attorney had him plea insanity. he did less than ten years in a mental hospital and lives less than 50 miles from me. i dread the thought of coming face to face with him. he robbed me of my aunt. my mom rarely talks about her but when she does she only has nice things to say about her. i wish i could've had a chance to meet her. yes i wish they would have executed that sob.
    my sisters boyfriend raped his daughter and spent 10 years in prison. now that he's out the court has said, as the father he has visitation rights to my nephew. my nephew has met this creep and is terrified of him. he constantly cries at the very thought of having to visit him. seeing my nephew in so much pain makes me want to execute this guy myself. he has had drug issues as well as assualt charges, sexual assault and rape. i wish i could protect my nephew. too bad the court has failed to.

    replyreport