jump to last post 1-14 of 14 discussions (88 posts)

Is the death penalty legitimate?

  1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
    weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago

    In another thread, someone accused me of being inconsistent, with my commentary about rights being inherent to the individual, not provided by, enumerated by, or dependent upon government or legislation.   

    When I said that a person CAN be deprived of life by a jury, I was accused of being totally inconsistent about individual rights.   

    So, this is to debate that point. 

    If Greek One has the guts to play the buffoon again, that is.  Says I'm just too dumb and silly to win such a debate.   

    Well, show us your fantastic intellect, then.

    1. Greek One profile image73
      Greek Oneposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Why are you getting so mad for?

      We were discussing the inalienable rights of man and what the government should and shouldn't be able to do.  That's a fair topics for anyone who believes in liberty and freedom... and it's been discussed for more than a few hundred years now.

      I never called you either dumb or silly... but all of a sudden I am a 'buffoon'' and a moron'  Can't topics be discussed with so much acrimony? I'm a 40 year old with a wife, kid, a mortgage and a total of $4.35 in Adsense revenue for the year... i have enough acrimony.

      Discussion is fine,  have no desire to 'debate' anything... let alone if its a viscous war of words.  Yuo win dude, whatever you say

      1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
        weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        No, you accused me very indecently, of something I did NOT do.   I am defending my integrity, the one thing I value above all others.   I asked you very simply if you wanted to debate the matter or just pontificate.   You chose the latter, and did so very disagreeably, and then tried to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty.

        1. Greek One profile image73
          Greek Oneposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          If i accused you of something that you did not do, then please feel free to say "But Greek One, your wrong.. show me when I did that"

          I've been wrong before, I can take being wrong again

          1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
            weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            You have your c hance to prove yourself.   Answer the question.

            1. Greek One profile image73
              Greek Oneposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              lol... dude.. i don't want to 'prove' anything, I was just trying to have a conversation lol

              1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
                weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                You were having a "conversation" by saying this?????

                "there is no need for a debate... you are very clearly against the government committing the 'crime' of taxing its citizens, but not against it establishing laws and procedures to murder them in certain circumstances.

                The any rationalization for your hypocrisy and inconsistency is just that... rationalization.."

                No, that's no "conversation", that's an accusation, a false one, coupled with a very, very big insult.

      2. weholdthesetruths profile image60
        weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Certainly, it's a fair topic.   That's why I asked if you were up to debating it, rather just unloading a bunch of tripe at me.

    2. qwark profile image59
      qwarkposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Hahaha....
      I've written a "hub" about my opinion on the death penalty.

      I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO READ IT!

      I'm Just offering my opinion by referencing it:  smile:

      If you should, just happen to read it, pls leave a comment. TY

      http://hubpages.com/hub/qwark28

      Qwark

  2. weholdthesetruths profile image60
    weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago

    I said:  "Yes, I do believe that under certain circumstances, individuals, by their choice of crimes against others, give up their rights, and that they can be rescinded, not by the government, but only by a unanimous jury of their peers."

    And you said: 

    "What?!?!?!

    Your consistency of approach was admirable (although mostly disagreeable) up to here.

    I must admit that it is surprisingly painful to see a champion of the inalienable, God-given rights of man, especially the right to life, willingly give up to the state the right to take away one of a person's most important possessions.

    Evidently a people in a free and democratic society do not have the right, through their elected representatives, to establish programs to help one another.... but they can create a big bad government which can set up a court system and laws which will take away the God-given right to life."

    Please note your first falsehood.   I clearly, very clearly said "not by government but by a jury of your peers".   

    And then you accused me of saying precisely the opposite. 

    "I must admit that it is surprisingly painful to see a champion of the inalienable, God-given rights of man, especially the right to life, willingly give up to the state the right to take away one of a person's most important possessions."

    Please note, I didn't give the decision to the state.  I gave it to a jury of your peers, who had to be unanimous.  BTW, that's the Constution, not actually my doing.  I'm just pointing out that your intellectual consistency is nil.

    1. DTR0005 profile image82
      DTR0005posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Ok - ok - all government is bad, Obama is evil - a socialist, a Kenyan national. States rights trump the Fed, the Articles of Confederation are where it's at - public hanging after a guilty verdict would be cheap and great entertainment.. Ok.. we all agree.... Next rant please...

  3. weholdthesetruths profile image60
    weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago

    So the question is:  Does a jury have the right to rescind an individual's rights?

    1. Greek One profile image73
      Greek Oneposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Of course it does

      1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
        weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Then what's your argument?   I said your right to life can be rescinded by a jury of your peers.   The Constitution definitely agrees, as it states clearly that your right to life, liberty and property cannot be taken without a trial by a jury of your peers. 

        Where am I even "radical" in saying this?

        1. Greek One profile image73
          Greek Oneposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          I never called you a 'radical'

          My point is this.  Your position if I am not mistaken is that we all have certain rights that we are born with.  Not 'benefits', not 'cool things that the government lets us have', not 'gifts that are loaned to us by government.. but INALIENABLE RIGHTS.

          Accordingly, you seem to consistently condemn government whenever elected officials seek to establish social programs they believe in the public good as an infringement upon these rights.

          Yet when it comes to capital punishment, all of a sudden, the legislative branch can pass laws allowing for the murder of citizens under certain circumstances, and the judiciary can set up trials that will prosecute and condemn people to death.It doesn't matter if the verdict is by jury of peers.. im not arguing whether the Constitution allows it... the point is an individuals God-given INALIENABLE right to life is being taken away.

          1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
            weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            you agreed, without reservation, that your "inalienable right" to liberty can be taken by a jury of your peers.    Seems you're wholly inconsistent here.   

            Can a jury take your rights or not?   If so, then agreeing with that concept is not contradictory in any fashion.   

            Seems then, your whole argument is that life is separate from liberty and all the other things you're deprived of when convicted of a crime.    Unless you have some seriously good argument, I see no reason to think it is.    I note that death sentences are rare as hen's teeth at a coyote convention, being reserved for those people who are such a threat to society that preservation of other people's lives or liberty calls for their removal from the living.

            1. Greek One profile image73
              Greek Oneposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              I do indeed think that a jury/state does have the legal right to take away the liberty of someone, because, as the old saying goes, the right of someone to wave their fist stops where my nose begins.  We have a right to protect ourselves.

              Similarly, if what you said was indeed the case, that the death sentence was reserved for those people who are such a threat to society that it is required to preserve other people's lives or liberty, then yes, a case can be made that we do have the right to protect ourselves via capital punishment.

              However, although the taking of one's freedoms and liberty (through incarceration) can be justified on the basis of protecting our rights from those may violate them, with the ability to pass TRUE life sentences (ie life sentences with no chance of parole), the protection of society can't be used as justification for a jury/the state or whomever, ending someone God-given right to life.

              1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
                weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                That's just your opinion.   That's how you want it to be.   Fine. 

                Your reaction, your lying about me and what I think... that was all unjustifed, then, wasn't it? 

                If you agree that a jury can take someone's rights, then taking those rights is taking those rights, once you don't have them, you don't have them.    The basis for your argument is unsound, however.   But no state can take anyone's right to life.  It has to be decided by a JURY, not the state.   

                You objected to the idea that a jury can take your right to life.   Yet, you agreed wholly that a jury can take your rights.   Your right to life is in reality, no different and not separate any more than your right to vote or carry a gun or travel or any of those other rights which are rescinded upon conviction by a jury. 

                Believing that a jury can legitimately remove your right to live is no way a conflict with believing in one's "inalienable" rights.   You agreed that those "inalienable" rights can and should be rescinded by a jury.   You are the one who is inconsistent....  Not me.   Nor does my belief in the correctness of the death penalty in any way conflict with the notion of God given rights and the limitations of government.   

                It is you who is inconsistent in argument.

                1. junko profile image79
                  junkoposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  weholdthesetruth: before you Quit for the night I left you a message on AnnCee thread Obama AWOL, I'll wait a while for your reply. If you already replied disregard this comment

                  1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
                    weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Take your lies and stuff 'em.   I have no use for people who will tell bald faced lies, especially when trying to personally slander someone.

                2. Greek One profile image73
                  Greek Oneposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  A person's inalienable freedom and liberty..to life, or whatever, does not extend to the ability to violate the rights of others. 

                  The ability of a court system to deprive a citizen of their liberties, life or whatever lies solely in, and is limited by,  the protection of the rights of others.

                  I agree that someones right to life is in reality, no different than their other rights.  The point is that since we can protect the rights of others by incarcerating people who would violate the rights of others, there is no justification for capital punishment and the taking of someone's life.  Imprisonment and the suspension of a person's other rights is sufficient protection.. and the law is only justified in limiting a person's freedom to the extent it is necessary to do so.  It is not acceptable to say that since we are justified to limit some of a person's liberties for our protection, we are justified to take all their rights away, even if our protection is not at risk.

                  1. Castlepaloma profile image54
                    Castlepalomaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Greek one

                    I stand beside Greek One on this topic of Capital Punishment

                    Capital Punishment only shows us to kill some to prove to us that killing is wrong -is hypocritical. It has proven worldwide that countries with Capital Punishment have the higher murder rate than the Countries who do not have Capital Punishment.

                    Twist any way you want it is not religious (thou shall not kill) or non religion ethical or moral and in addition Capital Punishment has not proven to work

                  2. weholdthesetruths profile image60
                    weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    This is vapid.   If you take someone's rights, you take ALL their rights.   There is no middle ground.   Either your rights are intact, or they aren't.    Once it becomes up to a jury to decide if someone's rights are to be taken, that person no longer owns ANY right, period, if any rights are taken.   Liberty is the ability to make your own decisions, and once that's taken, you have no rights.  None.  Zilch.  Zip.   You are no longer a sovereign person, you have been judged unworthy of your rights and they have been stripped from you. 

                    That's why our constitution places limitations on how prisoners are treated.   Not because these people have rights, but because they DO NOT, and it is there as a restraint on the behavior of society.

  4. Cagsil profile image61
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    Is the death penalty legitimate?

    In a civilized society then there would be no need for it to exist. However, since society, as a whole, isn't civilized, then it is needed to prevent a single individual from doing more damage to society than necessary.

    If this is supposed to be an argument whether or not the right to life can be taken away from an individual by government, either state or federal, then the answer is yes.

    Any individual who causes too much damage to society in an overall view, then forfeits their individual right through their own actions.

    The survival of the human species versus that of one life is what is weighed. In the best interests of humanity(society), then that individual is to be dealt with severely.

    It would be no different if the person killed two people or one thousand people, the death penalty would apply. The problem is that the death penalty isn't applied properly, nor is it used as it should be. It has been left up to the discretion of the A.D.A or D.A. of the specific place where the individual is tried and whether or not it is in fact a Law in said State. If it is tried in a Federal Court, then it can be applied regardless of what State it occurred.

    1. melodyandes profile image60
      melodyandesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I agree.

  5. barryrutherford profile image63
    barryrutherfordposted 6 years ago

    I have posted heaps of hubbs on this topic for those that want to read more than 140 characters

  6. lovemychris profile image76
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    Well now, let's see....you have the right to kill someone with a gun--sanctioned by the gvt, you have the right to kill someone with a lethal injection--ordered by the gvt, you have a right to invade Iraq-- perpetrated by the gvt,which resulted in huge numbers of death, but you have a problem with abortion--desired by an individual.

    I would say it is you who are against individual liberty. No joke.

    1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
      BillyDRitchieposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      What is truly sad is that LMC can't differentiate between murderers / enemies of our nation and defenseless unborn children who have harmed no one.

      1. aguasilver profile image80
        aguasilverposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Very well said, good point.

        1. lovemychris profile image76
          lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          How is a young child anyone's enemy?

          1. aguasilver profile image80
            aguasilverposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            A child is nobody's enemy (excepting when some despot has given them an AK47 and forced them to fight)so nobody should be killing them, especially not doctors who are supposedly committed to saving life.

            So, when a child threatens somebody, we possibly have the right to kill it in extreme circumstances, but not perhaps for lifestyle choice reasons.

            Or is that somehow now permissible?

            1. lovemychris profile image76
              lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Children have nothing to do with politics and startings wars. They are killed everyday in them.
              They are "collateral damage".
              Children get shot by gun-fire everyday, whether they be 5 or 16. Many neighborhoods in America are worse war zones than Afghanistan or Iraq.
              People say Oh well--that's the price of freedom. I still demand my right to a gun.
              Yet, whan a woman wants to end a pregnancy, you demonize her and tell her she has no right to do so.

              Therefore, I say people are very selective in whom they deem worthy of rights.
              Gun rights...go right ahead!
              War....go right ahead.....USA USA USA
              Abortion....not so much.

              1. aguasilver profile image80
                aguasilverposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Trifle emotional if you don't mind me saying, abortion is perfectly legal in your society so why would you accuse people of demonizing women for having one?

                Now freedom of speech (also perfectly legal) allows those who view abortion as wrong to express that opinion as well, albeit they are legally restricted from doing more than protest abortion, and I grant you that many of those who protest abortion will do so in a graphic manner, which may be viewed by those who support abortion as demonizing those women who have abortions.

                But that is a personal perception by those people, or maybe a defense against subliminal instinct, concerning the killing of progeny, who is to say?

                Certainly many women I have spoken with have regretted their abortions in hindsight, and needed to deal with those feelings before they could resume a normal life.

                But something that is legal is legal.

                Yet it still denies all rights to an unborn child in favor of the mother who makes a lifestyle choice to kill her progeny.

                Lifestyle choices are hardly comparable to children being killed in wars and accounted as collateral damage, wars kill people, and personally I am against all killing, legal or not.

                As for your gun law rant, most killing is done by illegal guns, and in any case I live in a country where personal gun ownership is denied its citizens.

                Of course the criminals still have guns, but mainly they seem to use cleavers to kill their enemies.

                Maybe we should ban meat cleavers?

                1. lovemychris profile image76
                  lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Where did you see the word ban in my "rant"?
                  Typical-- adding things that aren't there, to act like I'm trying to take something away from you.

                  And I would say that bombing abortion clinics, stalking doctors and patients, threatening them and their families, and walking into a church and shooting someone point blank in the head are  a little more than "protesting"...and the protesting is bad enough!
                  It's not imagined that women are demonized.....sl*t, c*nt, baby-killer---that's demonizing for real.
                  And said with a look and tone that would kill.

                  That is as far away from Christ-like as I can imagine. It is hate...pure, un-adulterated hate. And until you've felt it, you won't understand.

                  1. aguasilver profile image80
                    aguasilverposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    You are right, you did not say ban, apologies, what you did write gave me the impression you would ban guns.

                    I would also say that bombing abortion clinics, stalking doctors and patients, threatening them and their families, and walking into a church and shooting someone point blank in the head are  a little more than "protesting", indeed they are all illegal acts and people get jail time when they do them.

                    "sl*t, c*nt, baby-killer---that's demonizing for real."

                    Actually it's just foul language by ignorant people who should be ignored.

                    It definitely has NO part in calling itself Christ like or even Christian.

                    Anybody who needs to resort to such language has a low mentality and is short of social skills, they certainly do not warrant serious consideration, however, as I said earlier, the women who may hear these insults are possibly subconsciously aware that what they are about to do is wrong, they certainly seem to realize it later when it is too late, so without condoning these ignorant actions, maybe it does raise a point of discussion.

                    Perhaps if women wanting to abort were given equal realistic information about what they intended, from both sides, they may reconsider their intended action.

                    This is an emotive issue, and (unfortunately) one I have first hand experience of from many angles, and yes I do have a hub on it, indeed it was (I think) the first hub I produced.

                    I am NOT the enemy, nor attacking you, but when we make statements that are rash, we spread the deception and further define the battle lines, we need to stop the battles to stop the wars.

                    John

      2. lovemychris profile image76
        lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        --Like children killed in war, and children killed by gun-shot every day.
        What is your difference?
        Once they are here, they don't matter?

        You still maintain the right to have guns and war, which kill innocents all the time....you are selective in who has rights.

        1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
          weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Same lack of logic.    Same dedication to not  being truthful.

      3. weholdthesetruths profile image60
        weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        No, LMC just lies.  That's all.   

        Let's look:
        Well now, let's see....you have the right to kill someone with a gun--sanctioned by the gvt,

        False.

        you have the right to kill someone with a lethal injection--ordered by the gvt,

        False

        you have a right to invade Iraq-- perpetrated by the gvt,

        So twisted and irrational it isn't even relevant.   These kind of delusional ravings don't qualify as an argument.

        which resulted in huge numbers of death, but you have a problem with abortion--desired by an individual.

        Seems to prefer that Saddam continue his endless killing and deprivation of his people.    All totally bind, thoughtless, and idiotic.    An insult to any intelligent person, as if we're all so stupid we can't see through the idiocy, and so talks to us like we're imbeciles, using a patently stupid and demeaning lack of reason.

        1. lovemychris profile image76
          lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Your posts just RADIATE love. ahahahaha.

          God is love.
          Ergo:.........try and finish the rest.

          1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
            weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            My posts reflect reality.    You just keep getting uglier and uglier in your demented leftist rage.

            1. lovemychris profile image76
              lovemychrisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Pebble, meet boulder.

            2. profile image0
              kimberlyslyricsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              roll

        2. Castlepaloma profile image54
          Castlepalomaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Nobody in my family or relative that I know of, has any criminal record or committed suicide or murder or even been a war trooper. My simple laws in my relationship circle is to be honest and do not harm self or other.

          When it come to discussion over the topic or website about guns, war troops and Capital punishment. I almost get called every negative thing under the Sun.

          Most Americans do not believe that the death penalty is a deterrent to murder. Most American does not want war. Most U.S. police chiefs do not believe that the death penalty significantly reduces the numbers of murders. "In no state has the number of murders diminished after legalizing the death penalty."

          Yet the USA has 25 % of the world’s prison. If people want capital punishment seriously, drag back with your cold dead hands and vote Bush back. Because from the Guinness Book of World Records, 2002: Bush the Governor of Texas had the most capital punishment executions, not to mention the cost of ongoing Iraq war next to world war 2. Also American lead in murder and war record kills also.

          Please, I ask you American in the area of violence and murder policy. Is this true democracy and is it working for you?

          I have one solution if you really care to hear

  7. Will Apse profile image93
    Will Apseposted 6 years ago

    Killing criminals makes the criminally inclined upright citizen feel better.

    Always dump the bad stuff on someone else.

  8. aguasilver profile image80
    aguasilverposted 6 years ago

    The question is not whether the death penalty is effective (and it could be argued it was as the murderer kills no more) but whether it is legitimate.

    In a society where laws are made, consensus should rule as to the application of those laws, for a law can be broken yet remain unpunished if the consensus of a jury decides to issue a not guilty plea.

    The law in itself is a guideline, not an absolute, and so, for instance, if I killed a man who was well known as an abuser and molester, the jury, if aware of that knowledge CANNOT be ordered to find me guilty, the judge may recommend it, but the consensus can override his judgement.

    Now is that legitimate?

    Yes, and no.

    In the increasingly subjective world we live in, the argument can be made that nobody has the right to interfere with anyone else's right to do as they wish.

    This admittedly takes the subjectivity and rights issue to the limit, but it is a limit that could be reached unless we determine previously where the limit should be set that stops this subjectivity ruling over all.

    So we either have rules, or we do not, and if we do not, then anybody is entitled to kill whoever they like, and be killed by whoever decides to do so.

    Whose rules do we apply? and what gives them the right to apply those rules.

    It sounds good to say democracy declares where the line is drawn, however democracy is  not in force everywhere and some countries are majority ruled by theocracy, others by atheists, or communists....despots, dictators..... ruling elites or military oppressors.

    The bible tells us that God decrees that all murderers shall be put to death.

    So please tell me who has the right to decide who lives and who dies?

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image86
      Jeff Berndtposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      "The question is not whether the death penalty is effective (and it could be argued it was as the murderer kills no more) but whether it is legitimate."

      This assumes that the person executed was in fact guilty of the crime he was convicted of. We've seen many cases of convicted murderers exonerated by DNA evidence. According to the Innocence Project, there have been 267 post-conviction DNA exonerations in United States history.

      That's two hundred and sixty-seven cases--that we know about!--in which an innocent person has been convicted, served time, and in some cases, was in danger of being executed for a crime they did not commit.

      And in the meantime, the actual murderer is still out there, not being brought to justice. I'm not going to be comfortable with the death penalty until a whole lot of problems in our court system are fixed.

      "The bible tells us that God decrees that all murderers shall be put to death."
      So the hell what? The Bible is not the governing document of the United States.

      1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
        weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        That doesn't answer the question at all.    You're arguing about the accuracy of a jury, not answering the question.

        You see, if you undermine the jury system, then you basically call any ability to punish... to a halt.   If the jury system is so bad, so horrible, then there is no means of convicting criminals, and thus, no means of enforcing law, and we have anarchy. 

        Is that your goal?   That seems to be your purpose and to what your argument is pointed.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image86
          Jeff Berndtposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          "If the jury system is so bad, so horrible, then there is no means of convicting criminals, and thus, no means of enforcing law, and we have anarchy. 
          Is that your goal?   That seems to be your purpose and to what your argument is pointed."
          Nonsense.

          Here's the point: If you lock someone up falsely, you can let them back out again when you discover your mistake. If you execute someone falsely, you can't bring them back to life. Granted, you can't give them back the time they spent falsely imprisoned, but you can restore their liberty. You can't restore life.

          Nice strawman, but it doesn't hold up.

      2. aguasilver profile image80
        aguasilverposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Again, we are confusing the issue, put a murderer to death and you get no more murders, now the fact that the judicial system may be deficient in identifying the correct person as the murderer is shameful, and indeed needs correction, and possibly the fact that we now have DNA 'proof' of guilt or innocence could be incorporated into this, as most murders are not premeditated and therefore it is reasonable to expect that some DNA evidence would be present at a crime scene, indeed unless you went out to kill properly dressed to leave no evidence (i.e. in crime scene overalls) it would be nigh impossible NOT to leave a trace of DNA for detectives to find.

        Next:
        "The Bible is not the governing document of the United States"

        Possibly not (and possibly part of the problem) but your laws were formed upon the basis of the bible, and your real problems have started since you entered into the wide subjective pathway, changing laws (away from biblical principals)to reflect the subjective liberal ethos that a small minority have inserted in your system.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image54
          Castlepalomaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          aguasilver

          I hear many American tell me that a murderer should be put to death because to keep them in jail for life, cost tax prayer too much money.

          A solution for example can be like they did before the USA 1930s. Put prisoners to work making produce products for their keep. Only base on their good behavior they get a bit of freedom like - read a book or something like that.

          What do you think?

          1. aguasilver profile image80
            aguasilverposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I think it is inhumane to keep a human being imprisoned for life with no hope of release, and for murder that needs to be the solution if you are not going to put them to death, and ensure that they will not murder again.

            But we need to differentiate between levels of murderer.

            Murder is unlawful killing, but again in our society that is a subjective matter, and (for instance) had I killed Adolf Hitler in 1935 I would have been a murderer in any respect, after 1939 I would have been a hero in the free world and yet still a murderer in Germany, so there are degrees of unlawful killing, for in 1939 I would be acting lawfully on the command of my nation, yet unlawfully according to German law.

            So (for instance) the woman who discovers her husband raping their daughter and kills him, is unlikely to kill again, whereas the junkie needing cash to buy a fix, who kills someone, even by accident, is just as likely to kill again, unless they find sobriety and a new life in jail.... so who decides on who should live and who should die? - my original question and still unanswered.

            This subject is so multi faceted that maybe I will do a hub on it, for to date every time I pose a question, someone asks another, rather than answering the first.

            To answer yours, yes using criminals for slave labor can prove effective, but murderers (and rapists and other proven irredeemable folk)are beyond that, slave labor should be restricted to those who will one day be re-integrated into society, and used as a penalty that will discourage them returning to their criminology, for those who can never be released or reformed, death is the more humane option.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image54
              Castlepalomaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              I give a lot of solution to American and most of them just get ignore wail the vicious circle continues and murder worsen by Capital punishment.

              Is it Christ like or even Christian like to have Capital Punishment, If seem Jesus was pro life and quoted – the one who has not sin, cast the first stone. OT had a HELL stone throwing killing  over a lot of stupid things. Being spiritual non religious I find Capital Punishment, unethical and proven not to work,

              1. aguasilver profile image80
                aguasilverposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Christ came to fulfill the law, not abolish it, and God requires that murder is punished by death.

                Genesis 9:5-6 (Amplified Bible)

                And surely for your lifeblood I will require an accounting; from every beast I will require it; and from man, from every man [who spills another's lifeblood] I will require a reckoning.

                Whoever sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God He made man.

                Christ never did away with the commandments of God, He simply annulled the commandments of men, which had been added to Gods commands.

                1. Castlepaloma profile image54
                  Castlepalomaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  You mean you still apply OT laws to man's laws today?

                  Or

                  What part of Thou shall not kill, do you do not understand in the up dated laws NT? IT only means you can kill an animal for food

                  1. aguasilver profile image80
                    aguasilverposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Which part of:

                    Christ never did away with the commandments of God, He simply annulled the commandments of men, which had been added to Gods commands.

                    Did you not understand?

                    Matthew 5:20-22 (Amplified Bible)

                    For I tell you, unless your righteousness (your uprightness and your right standing with God) is more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

                    You have heard that it was said to the men of old, You shall not kill, and whoever kills shall be liable to and unable to escape the punishment imposed by the court.

                    But I say to you that everyone who continues to be angry with his brother or harbors malice (enmity of heart) against him shall be liable to and unable to escape the punishment imposed by the court; and whoever speaks contemptuously and insultingly to his brother shall be liable to and unable to escape the punishment imposed by the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, You cursed fool! [You empty-headed idiot!] shall be liable to and unable to escape the hell (Gehenna) of fire.

                    I would say that this rather reinforces, even takes us to a higher plain of understanding about 'Thou shalt not kill' which in any case was defined as 'unlawfully' kill, not a prohibition against killing.

        2. Jeff Berndt profile image86
          Jeff Berndtposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          "put a murderer to death and you get no more murders,"
          True.
          Put an innocent man to death and you get at least one more murder, and no justice at all, since you stop looking for the actual murderer.

          "the fact that the judicial system may be deficient in identifying the correct person as the murderer is shameful, and indeed needs correction,"
          Exactly. When we can really say that convicted = guilty, without fear that we'll be proven wrong, without fear that innocent poor or minorities get railroaded while guilty rich/majorities get acquitted, then maybe we can bring the death penalty back to the table. But as of now, the court system is too prejudiced against the poor and minorities, and the death penalty, when used, is unequally applied.

          "but your laws were formed upon the basis of the bible,"
          No, they weren't. Stop perpetuating this falsehood. Many conservatives like to use this falsehood (whether they genuinely believe it to be true or whether they're deliberately misrepresenting history) to make it seem good to enshrine theology in law. But it ain't so, no matter how many times you repeat it. If you repeat a lie often enough, some people may begin to believe it, but it will never become true.

          "your real problems have started since you entered into the wide subjective pathway, changing laws (away from biblical principals)"
          Heh, this is funny, this naive nostalgia for a golden age that never was. You're free to keep believing that everything was great back when everyone went to church on Sunday and we didn't have none of these un-Christian people asserting their rights if you want to, but it just. Wasn't. So.

          1. aguasilver profile image80
            aguasilverposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Agreed, we need to get conclusive in finding murderers.



            Also agreed, the law is lazy and prejudicial, the police look for the usual suspects and ill educated, black and hispanic young men from dysfunctional family's who have needed to join gangs just to survive their teen years are easy targets, plus the ethos is... they are guilty of something so what the heck.

            But all of your replies are simply highlighting the problems that liberal thinking has created, and the topic was about whether the law for the death penalty was legitimate, and my stance remains the same, it is legitimate to put to death someone who kills unlawfully, but they must be judged according to the circumstances of the murder.

            Whether it is practicable and fairly applied is a whole other topic.



            So would you contend. that when your laws were charted, the Ten Commandments had no influence upon the men making those laws?

            I accept that your laws are based in case law and precedent, (which is why a small vocal liberal minority can effect a change in the laws unreflective of the  (soporific) majority desires) but all law has a basis, and as England had control of you at your establishment, I think it fair to say that British Law was your foundation, and British law is very biblically influenced.

            Unfortunately in a relatively short period, you threw the baby out with the bathwater,



            Nothing wrong with folk exerting their rights, that is what democracy thrives upon, it's when they demand that others lose their 'rights' that it goes sour, and BTW 'rights' are a misnomer, we have 'privileges' not rights, no matter what folk call them, our rights are privileges, for as long as some politician or lawyer can manage to get them suspended or eroded.

            I actually think we are almost on the same page, but from different stances. I am not political in that I have not voted for about 30 years, and view all politicians as weasels not to be trusted, so I have no axes to grind, to me left or right, liberal or conservative, they all just want power and money, so they are all a waste of time.

  9. barryrutherford profile image63
    barryrutherfordposted 6 years ago

    I have posted a few well researched hubs on the topic for those that r interested

  10. dingdondingdon profile image59
    dingdondingdonposted 6 years ago

    The idea of giving any government the power to kill people without recourse is one that makes me extremely uncomfortable.

  11. Karanda profile image82
    Karandaposted 6 years ago

    Teach by example. A society that says it is okay to kill in certain circumstances, says to that society it is okay to kill.

    Anyone can have what they see as a valid reason to take another's life.

  12. habee profile image96
    habeeposted 6 years ago

    I love America, but our justice system is f'd up. I'll provide a couple of real examples that I've personally known about:

    1. A young "nobody" sells pot to an adult and gets jail time, boot camp, and 5 years of probation. Sell cocaine to a minor, have sex with her, and get her drunk, but be an important middle-aged member of the community, and never even have to go to court. This man was caught red-handed, yet the record of the arrest mysteriously vanished.

    2. Kill someone and serve 7 years. Counterfit money and serve 20 years.

    3. The man who molested my daughter when she was a child served only 6 months in the local jail, and it was his second offense.

    What's the motto? Kill someone or molest a helpless child, but don't mess with the government's money. When it comes to crime and punishment, there are just too many variables - how good your lawyer is, who the judge is, and in many locales, who you are.

    As for the death penalty, I'm against it. I fully support life imprisonment with no chance of parole, however. My view here isn't because I'm a liberal - I'm not. It's because I'm a Christian. I don't think I could ever kill a human being. If it meant protecting my family, I could shoot to immobolize the assailant and render him helpless, but I wouldn't want the shot to be fatal.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image54
      Castlepalomaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      habee

      Well, I am with you on this on this topic of Capital punishment, on this thread most people would not'.

      I may feel like killing anyone who harms my daughter at first, deep down I know this would make me a hypocrite. Killing never stops killing or harm and in the long run it only increases murder.

      Yet, most American are with you habee on Capital Punishment

      1. Americans do not believe that the death penalty is a deterrent to murder.

      2. Most U.S. police chiefs do not believe that the death penalty significantly reduces the numbers of murders.

      3."In no state has the number of murders diminished after legalizing the death penalty."

      4. Most States in the USA do not have Capital Punishment

      5.Worldwide countries without Capital Punishment have lower crime rates

    2. Jeff Berndt profile image86
      Jeff Berndtposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      "If it meant protecting my family, I could shoot to immobolize the assailant and render him helpless, but I wouldn't want the shot to be fatal."

      Habee, I'm surprised at you. As someone who knows about firearms, you should know that there is no such thing as "shoot to wound."

      If you shoot at someone, you'd best be prepared for them to die at your hands. 'Cos if you hit them, that's probably what will happen.

      At the same time, I agree with everything else you said in that post.

      1. Cagsil profile image61
        Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        As a person who knows about firearms, she knows where to shot someone so as to wound them.
        Untrue.

      2. Castlepaloma profile image54
        Castlepalomaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Jeff Berndt

        No criminals has attack me or any member of my family, just some odd petty thief. If America attacks Canada, me and my family you see a high pile of American amputees that will really slow them down and make them think twice

  13. lovemychris profile image76
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    Here is one example of what it means when you take women's choices away: Freedom? I don't think so. Laws to control and suppress our own lives!

    Published Monday March 7, 2011
    Heartache shared to help others

    By Martha Stoddard
    WORLD-HERALD bureau
    « Metro/Region

    LINCOLN — Danielle Deaver would have stood on her head in a freezer if it could have saved her baby’s life.

    But extreme measures wouldn’t have mattered for the Grand Island, Neb., woman and the child she carried last year.

    That baby was doomed when Deaver’s water broke the day after Thanksgiving.

    It was a new Nebraska abortion law, though, that turned an unbearable situation into one that Deaver, 34, and her husband, Robb, 40, called torturous.

    Their baby was given less than a 10 percent chance of surviving delivery; less than a 2 percent chance of ever managing basic functions, like eating.

    “The odds were awful,” Danielle Deaver said. “It just wasn’t there.”

    But devastating as that blow had been, what followed turned out to be at least as excruciating.

    The Deavers thought over the possibilities and made a decision. They didn’t want to continue putting their unborn baby through what they feared was agony, so they asked the doctors to induce labor early.

    But they were soon told the Nebraska abortion law stood in their way.

    Deaver finally went into labor on her own on Dec. 7. The baby, named Elizabeth, was born the next day at 3 p.m., weighing 1 pound, 10 ounces.

    The Deavers took turns holding her while she gasped for air. But her undeveloped lungs could not inflate and no ventilator could have made a difference.

    Elizabeth was pronounced dead at 3:15 p.m. The Deavers cremated her and had a family service.

    “We should have been able to make this decision,” Danielle Deaver said. “This was not about abortion or politics or anything. This was about two parents being able to make an excruciating decision.”

    Deaver was forced to risk her own health and endure mental anguish, while the fetus also had to suffer.

    Dr. LeRoy Carhart, who runs the Abortion and Contraception Clinic of Bellevue, said he had predicted there would be cases such as the Deavers’ under the new law. He said he has had to refer other women out of state for later-term abortions.

    Danielle Deaver said the law is too unyielding.

    “The outcome of my pregnancy, that choice was made by God,” she said. “How to handle the end of my pregnancy, that choice should have been mine, and it wasn’t because of a law.”

    1. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Complete irrelevant to the topic at hand. hmm

    2. aguasilver profile image80
      aguasilverposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with Cagsil, we have taken this off topic, but I also agree with you in this case, the parents with medical advice and confirmation should have the right to over rule the law in such instances, even if it means getting a judge out of bed at 3am to make the ruling.

      I suggest we continue in a new topic. in order not to subvert this topic, which is in itself a serious and needed discussion.

  14. stclairjack profile image80
    stclairjackposted 6 years ago

    my opinion on the subject being worth only what an opinion is worth,... here we go,....

    i'm sooooo pro-life that i piss of pro lifers,... i oppose abortion to be moraly wrong and not in the best interest of preserving man kind and our respective cultures,....i'm soo damn pro-life that i make no exception for rape or incest,... the only exception i accept is in the deffence of the mothers life,.... meaning that death would be certain and emminant,.... i oppose the death penalty not only because i believe it to be moraly wrong, but also because it apears to me to be very in-efficiant.

    please excuse my poor spelling,...

    by the time you pay for lawyers and the apeals proc. the added security and med costs,...... it costs more to execute someone in this country than it does to house them in maximum security for 40+ years.... look it up.... no, i will not post links,... google it like i did.

    the jurry system is flawed because it consists of human beings who are ALL flawed,... subject to our human faults and failings,... thats why its the worst system out there,... until you compare it to everything else (paraphrasing churchill)
    the man made jurry system makes mistakes, therefore we have the apeals proc.... and so on,..

    ....so inocent people go to prison, and inocent people sit on death row,... the idea that the state will kill someone at 5 minutes past midnight,... on my behalf,.... sickens me,.... the idea that even one of them might have been inocent of the crime for which they were executed terrifies me.

    however, in the USA, capital punishment, like abortion is the law of the land,... and so,.... i propose,...

    if you are going to kill the criminal, do so by public hanging, on the courthouse lawn, in the county in wich the crime occoured, and do it at 2pm on a sunday, televised manditorily,... all chanels.

    the people of this nation,.... the good god fearing old testament quoting christian people of this country,... should have to see it.

    and since god says its ok, he wont mind giving up his sunday afternoon to it.

    it should not be done at midnight or just before dawn, it should be done in broad daylight,.... like were not ashamed or ambarassed,....yes?

    i've never done anything in the dark of night i wanted the rest of the world to see,... been pruod of a few of those things but still didnt want an audience! ha!

    so if you want capital punishment, lets do it propperly, and make sure you bring the kids,... we'll sell beer and pretzles.

    1. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Sounds like the George Carlin skit. tongue

      1. stclairjack profile image80
        stclairjackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        huge carlin fan myself,.... if i pirated him i apologize,.... if i meerly sounded like him,...... I'M NOT WORTHY,..... I'M NOT WORTHY!

        thnx- jack

    2. Castlepaloma profile image54
      Castlepalomaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      stclairjack

      They are not allowed to show actually death on TV only in fiction form, some death gets slid in. I am almost pro life with chicken and veal because if the public watched how they were killed and prepare, it would put most people off.

      I have mix feeling about abortion, I would prefer the one child law like in China to lower abortion before being unloved by blood family.

      I'm generally pro life too, when we show how all life is important and loved, thing like suicide deaths in which are greater than murder, wars and terrorist combined will decrease also.

      Don't understand your gun stuff , yet your pro life make me a little surprised eight ball.

      1. stclairjack profile image80
        stclairjackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        my "gun stuff" is based out of view of the gun as a tool, an instrument with wich i might acomplish something,... like a wrench,... i can bash a fellows head in with a wrench,.... man can metaphoricaly build an atom bomb with a wrench and a calculator,.... its mankinds intent that drives us,.... and that intent can enlighten or enslave us.

        the cathys out there will understand when i say that intent is what your priest is interested in when you go to confesion.

        the DA will be very interested in intent when he/she puts you on trial.... as will that flawed jurry of your suposed peers.

        i agree that when most see how a chicken is dispatched in the factory setting it can turn you vegan in a hurry,.... myself included,... but i tend to eat what i kill as often as possible,.... and the lives of the animals that i take are greatly repected and apreciated,.... and certainly arent subjected to the suffering of the caged bird that hangs in a tyson cut plant.

        far to many people are far too removed from thier food sources,... as evidenced by insane quotes that hit my in box every day asserting that some dumb california blond said we should kill animals, we should get our meet at the store like everyone else,.... wow.

        i have a date wating on me at the local pub so i'm off the air till later,... enjoy the chat,... will pick it back up asap.

 
working