I honestly dont get how "some" Christians are against the death penalty. I dont mean this in a judgemental point of view, but sheer confusion.
Dont they want as many people as they can to get to Heaven?? Isnt it Christians' responsibility, to influence Christ in everyone. What about the whole repent-repent-repent, and accept Jesus as youre loving saviour- before you die. If this is justified by the short days before execution- still elusive.
Can you give me some scripture to support your beliefs?
Seriously trying to get educated here. I am not trying to be snarky either ( I dont know what that would gain).
One of the many reasons I'm against the death penalty has to do with killing an unbeliever and therefore essentially being the judge who sent them to hell. I prefer nature to take it's course or someone else to have the responsibility for that.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
you took the words right out of my mouth, sen't where and our prison system are overflowing with these kinds of criminals when will people learn prisons are not a deterant for crimes.....
I think people are really confused about their feelings on capital punishment. The reason for this, I think, is because they get lost in details that are convincing of the pro and con stances. 1 out of 7 (or so) death row inmates have been aquitted or had charges against them dropped. That doesn't mean all of them are innocent. No one can prove all the people being put to death are guilty...and no one can prove all the people being aquitted are innocent. And no one can prove that all those people aquitted of murder on the first trial are actually innocent. And so on.
The main question is "is the death penalty a moral and just punishment in some cases?" If the answer is no, then there's nothing more to discuss. But if the answer is yes, then you have to ask how can we decrease the human error factor in these cases? The answer cannot be "we abolish the death penalty".
So the question is not "how can we prove this and that?", it becomes a question of "how do we deal with human error in the justice system?" There's no way to eliminate it, but you can't just say "well then fuck the whole system all together". You can't say "we can't know for sure this guy raped this woman, so we can't send him to jail". That's not fair to the victim. We can't define laws by thinking in absolutes like that. We have to come up with a way to make things as fair as possible for both the victim and the accused. That's what the appeals process is for, and generally, it works well. It works in favor of the guilty and the innocent, but statistically speaking, it is highly unlikely that you will be convicted of a crime you didn't commit, and even more unlikely that you'll be executed.
Having said that, I am against the death penalty because I do think it is immoral. If there is a non-violent way to bring justice, I'll always favor that over a violent method.
I think people are really confused about their feelings on capital punishment. The reason for this, I think, is because they get lost in details that are convincing of the pro and con stances. 1 out of 7 (or so) death row inmates have been aquitted or had charges against them dropped. That doesn't mean all of them are innocent. No one can prove all the people being put to death are guilty...and no one can prove all the people being aquitted are innocent. And no one can prove that all those people aquitted of murder on the first trial are actually innocent. And so on.
The main question is "is the death penalty a moral and just punishment in some cases?" If the answer is no, then there's nothing more to discuss. But if the answer is yes, then you have to ask how can we decrease the human error factor in these cases? The answer cannot be "we abolish the death penalty".
So the question is not "how can we prove this and that?", it becomes a question of "how do we deal with human error in the justice system?" There's no way to eliminate it, but you can't just say "well then fuck the whole system all together". You can't say "we can't know for sure this guy raped this woman, so we can't send him to jail". That's not fair to the victim. We can't define laws by thinking in absolutes like that. We have to come up with a way to make things as fair as possible for both the victim and the accused. That's what the appeals process is for, and generally, it works well. It works in favor of the guilty and the innocent, but statistically speaking, it is highly unlikely that you will be convicted of a crime you didn't commit, and even more unlikely that you'll be executed.
Having said that, I am against the death penalty because I do think it is immoral. If there is a non-violent way to bring justice, I'll always favor that over a violent method.
you make all good points so what would be a good way of justice.....
you make all good points so what would be a good way of justice.....
I think life in prison with no possibility of parole is a perfectly good substitute. I don't think murderers should have the chance to redeem themselves as some people do though. The reason for that is because the person they killed has no chance for redemption for anything.
you took the words right out of my mouth, sen't where and our prison system are overflowing with these kinds of criminals when will people learn prisons are not a deterant for crimes.....
The death penalty is not a deterant either.
I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
In my opinion, yes..for the sickest in our society who do such evil, if they aren't destroyed like they should be, they are off the hook..IMO..
Bit naive? Yes...Bit cold hearted yes...But I am not going to hide it and prance around pretending not to be in these situations. Too many people already do...As I said, if there is DNA, confessions, killing just to kill, then I think enough RESPONSIBILITY has been shown to justify the end..
DNA has been planted...theres lots of police officers in the KKK....confessions have been forced...so you really dont' know for sure if someone is 100% guilty...so the question is....are you okay with killing some innocents in order to kill the ones you feel deserve to die??? And if you do...what % is acceptable.....5%, 4% 3%...whats the number....because its not 0%..never be.
Second thing you should think of...aren't you just as bad as the murderer...your killing him/her? ...course most people that want revenge will just blow this off....so don't think you'll attempt thought on this. Revenge is natural...but it has to be put in check...
I live in Texas...and tell you.....I've heard the "Kill them all and let God sort them out" too many times when discussing this subject with my fellow Texans. Course they're all white christians....
DNA has been planted...theres lots of police officers in the KKK....confessions have been forced...so you really dont' know for sure if someone is 100% guilty...so the question is....are you okay with killing some innocents in order to kill the ones you feel deserve to die??? And if you do...what % is acceptable.....5%, 4% 3%...whats the number....because its not 0%..never be.
Second thing you should think of...aren't you just as bad as the murderer...your killing him/her? ...course most people that want revenge will just blow this off....so don't think you'll attempt thought on this. Revenge is natural...but it has to be put in check...
I live in Texas...and tell you.....I've heard the "Kill them all and let God sort them out" too many times when discussing this subject with my fellow Texans. Course they're all white christians....
We live in a world where we feel it is okay to kill innocents in order to kill the ones that deserve it...Iraq, Afghanistan. It is common place and has been for some time now. We have to accept it, and that is a cruel and shitty reality. There are plenty of justifications for murder that obviously should not result in the death penalty being metted out as a punishment, however for the Ramirezes and Bundy's, what is the point of letting them live? Do you honestly feel they can be helped and rehabilitated as is the goal of what prison is supposed to be? Would you want them as your neighbour even if they never killed again?
DNA can be planted, agreed, forced confessions, agreed...but isn't sending someone to life in maximum security cruel as well if thier innocent? What is the point of prison at all if there is never 100% certainty that someone is guilty?
Stix and Stones may break my bones, but More than Words will never hurt me.
Or better yet they can even be treated and helped.
at who's expence and do we also pay for the treatment of the victims family surely family's need phycho help also to deal with their suffering and please i'm not saying your way is wrong just when is enough/enough...
The video I posted earlier answers many of these questions, it's also very entertaining.
A woman that survived the holocaust and has some degree in this stuff explains:
There are 3 types of motivations for killing, profit, passion and compulsion.
Profit: Organized crime, criminals that do not believe they will ever be caught, and hence capital punishment is not a detterant.
Passion: Guy finds his wife cheating on him, freaks out and kills somebody, the consequences never enter his mind because he is flipping-out (Flip: to lose one's mind or composure -- often used with out)
Compulsion: E.g. Dahmer, Bundy, Manson, etc.. people who's psyche is twisted and feel they need to do something. Dahmer admitted his guilt in court and when asked why he did it, he said he didn't know, he tried to stop, but he couldn't.
In no way does the death penalty deter murder. Watch the video, it will answer many of your questions.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Deterence is always going to fail with regards to crime, there will always be crime, whether it goes up one year down the next has many explanations without having to go into deterence. ie. socioeconomic..The death penalty may not deter, but it will deter the one who it is used upon, to many that is good enough..jail can be argued has no deterent value either, recidivism rates much like the crime rate fluctuate one year to the next, there is no steady path for the long term..
My original stance from the beginning was subject to the sociopath/psychopaths who commit heinous crimes with no chance of rehab no remorse etc...The rest of the crime committed in our society is a crap shoot as to what to do with people in the CJS, many modes have been tested since Common Law was implemented, and many modes have failed. There as of yet is no fool proof way to stop crime in general and IMO there never will be.
People who argue about the rights of the offender on death row so easily forget the rights of the victims, the media only focuses on the bad guy, they don't care about who they hurt...a killer's crime will sell more print than a victims legacy
Stix and Stones may break my bones, but More than Words will never hurt me.
Deterence is always going to fail with regards to crime, there will always be crime, whether it goes up one year down the next has many explanations without having to go into deterence. ie. socioeconomic..The death penalty may not deter, but it will deter the one who it is used upon, to many that is good enough..jail can be argued has no deterent value either, recidivism rates much like the crime rate fluctuate one year to the next, there is no steady path for the long term..
My original stance from the beginning was subject to the sociopath/psychopaths who commit heinous crimes with no chance of rehab no remorse etc...The rest of the crime committed in our society is a crap shoot as to what to do with people in the CJS, many modes have been tested since Common Law was implemented, and many modes have failed. There as of yet is no fool proof way to stop crime in general and IMO there never will be.
People who argue about the rights of the offender on death row so easily forget the rights of the victims, the media only focuses on the bad guy, they don't care about who they hurt...a killer's crime will sell more print than a victims legacy
Personally I don't give a shit about the real criminals. It's the victims on death row I care about, such as Alan Gell who I mentioned earlier.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Exactly. I think even finding ONE innocent on Death Row is enough to halt the penality.
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
The stats show that capitol punishment clearly is ineffective as a deterrent. Honestly, I would rather be served with a death penalty than the prospect of spending the remainder of my life in prison either in solitary confinement (which I think should be used in place of execuation). Execution is done with a prick of a needle and a quick and painless death. Not incredibly intimidating. Chances are those who are brutal enough to commit a crime worthy of execution, likely does not fear such a fate anyways. I don't see how the Republicans can be pro-life in terms of abortion but feel completely at ease executing.
Capital Punishment has its role where appropriate. I can't really comment on this case specifically as I know nothing about it, but come on, do people who fuck little kids, rape and murder the innocent all with a smile on thier face and no remorse have a right to live at our expense?
it is cheaper to imprison them for life than to execute them.
We live in a world where we feel it is okay to kill innocents in order to kill the ones that deserve it...Iraq, Afghanistan. It is common place and has been for some time now. We have to accept it, and that is a cruel and shitty reality. There are plenty of justifications for murder that obviously should not result in the death penalty being metted out as a punishment, however for the Ramirezes and Bundy's, what is the point of letting them live? Do you honestly feel they can be helped and rehabilitated as is the goal of what prison is supposed to be? Would you want them as your neighbour even if they never killed again?
DNA can be planted, agreed, forced confessions, agreed...but isn't sending someone to life in maximum security cruel as well if thier innocent? What is the point of prison at all if there is never 100% certainty that someone is guilty?
no, id not want them as my neighbor. but if feel perfectly safe and happy knowing they are locked up and can hurt nobody but their own kind in prison.
that's all you've got? i thought you didnt like spending your money to keep murderers imprisoned? you're willing to spend even more to have them killed when it would be just as easy to lock them up and throw away the key?
I'd rather give them all nice padded rooms and straight-jackets.
We put criminals in with other criminals. Their perspective of society fits right in there and they never fully learn how to interact with other people properly. Some time in seclusion might fix that. Probably not though.
Murderers are a bit more complicated. They should be put through a clock-work orange type thing.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
that's all you've got? i thought you didnt like spending your money to keep murderers imprisoned? you're willing to spend even more to have them killed when it would be just as easy to lock them up and throw away the key?
My point is all the appeals given is pointless...Once AGAIN if they are guilty without a shadow of a doubt what is the point of appeals? Keeping them on death row for 10 years is a total waste of our money when they can be done with essentially once the verdict is handed down.
Stix and Stones may break my bones, but More than Words will never hurt me.
My point is all the appeals given is pointless...Once AGAIN if they are guilty without a shadow of a doubt what is the point of appeals? Keeping them on death row for 10 years is a total waste of our money when they can be done with essentially once the verdict is handed down.
becos they are rarely proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. that's what the appeals are for... to determine that.
so at what point in the appeal process can one be actually considered guilty? can there ever be guilt in a conclusive way?
Sure, if you've got the guy on film and he left his DNA all over the place and there are a few eyewitnesses and he confesses. How often do you suppose that happens?
One of those things isn't enough. DNA evidence can be tampered with, and simple mistakes can be made ... it's better than a lot of evidence, but in and of itself it's not always conclusive. Eyewitnesses are wrong all the time, for a variety of reasons. Confessions, as we saw a couple of weeks ago with that nut in Thailand, aren't always reliable, and even if they were, people typically confess to avoid the death penalty. If we start killing the ones who admit guilt, we're not going to get many confessions, which means we'll be paying to send every single murder case to trial. That's going to cost a fortune and clog the court system even worse than it is now. Video evidence can be reliable, but the image quality from most surveillance cameras is poor, and given the ease with which digital images can be tampered with, it's far from foolproof.
I certainly don't want crazed killers wandering the streets, but I don't think killing them accomplishes anything and it diminishes us.
Take a look around at The Innocence Project and think what could have happened to these people without a lengthy appeals process.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Comments
One of the many reasons I'm against the death penalty has to do with killing an unbeliever and therefore essentially being the judge who sent them to hell. I prefer nature to take it's course or someone else to have the responsibility for that.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
The main question is "is the death penalty a moral and just punishment in some cases?" If the answer is no, then there's nothing more to discuss. But if the answer is yes, then you have to ask how can we decrease the human error factor in these cases? The answer cannot be "we abolish the death penalty".
So the question is not "how can we prove this and that?", it becomes a question of "how do we deal with human error in the justice system?" There's no way to eliminate it, but you can't just say "well then fuck the whole system all together". You can't say "we can't know for sure this guy raped this woman, so we can't send him to jail". That's not fair to the victim. We can't define laws by thinking in absolutes like that. We have to come up with a way to make things as fair as possible for both the victim and the accused. That's what the appeals process is for, and generally, it works well. It works in favor of the guilty and the innocent, but statistically speaking, it is highly unlikely that you will be convicted of a crime you didn't commit, and even more unlikely that you'll be executed.
Having said that, I am against the death penalty because I do think it is immoral. If there is a non-violent way to bring justice, I'll always favor that over a violent method.
I think life in prison with no possibility of parole is a perfectly good substitute. I don't think murderers should have the chance to redeem themselves as some people do though. The reason for that is because the person they killed has no chance for redemption for anything.
The death penalty is not a deterant either.
DNA has been planted...theres lots of police officers in the KKK....confessions have been forced...so you really dont' know for sure if someone is 100% guilty...so the question is....are you okay with killing some innocents in order to kill the ones you feel deserve to die??? And if you do...what % is acceptable.....5%, 4% 3%...whats the number....because its not 0%..never be.
Second thing you should think of...aren't you just as bad as the murderer...your killing him/her? ...course most people that want revenge will just blow this off....so don't think you'll attempt thought on this. Revenge is natural...but it has to be put in check...
I live in Texas...and tell you.....I've heard the "Kill them all and let God sort them out" too many times when discussing this subject with my fellow Texans. Course they're all white christians....
Do you honestly believe a sociopath can be treated and helped?
We live in a world where we feel it is okay to kill innocents in order to kill the ones that deserve it...Iraq, Afghanistan. It is common place and has been for some time now. We have to accept it, and that is a cruel and shitty reality. There are plenty of justifications for murder that obviously should not result in the death penalty being metted out as a punishment, however for the Ramirezes and Bundy's, what is the point of letting them live? Do you honestly feel they can be helped and rehabilitated as is the goal of what prison is supposed to be? Would you want them as your neighbour even if they never killed again?
DNA can be planted, agreed, forced confessions, agreed...but isn't sending someone to life in maximum security cruel as well if thier innocent? What is the point of prison at all if there is never 100% certainty that someone is guilty?
A woman that survived the holocaust and has some degree in this stuff explains:
There are 3 types of motivations for killing, profit, passion and compulsion.
Profit: Organized crime, criminals that do not believe they will ever be caught, and hence capital punishment is not a detterant.
Passion: Guy finds his wife cheating on him, freaks out and kills somebody, the consequences never enter his mind because he is flipping-out (Flip: to lose one's mind or composure -- often used with out)
Compulsion: E.g. Dahmer, Bundy, Manson, etc.. people who's psyche is twisted and feel they need to do something. Dahmer admitted his guilt in court and when asked why he did it, he said he didn't know, he tried to stop, but he couldn't.
In no way does the death penalty deter murder. Watch the video, it will answer many of your questions.
My original stance from the beginning was subject to the sociopath/psychopaths who commit heinous crimes with no chance of rehab no remorse etc...The rest of the crime committed in our society is a crap shoot as to what to do with people in the CJS, many modes have been tested since Common Law was implemented, and many modes have failed. There as of yet is no fool proof way to stop crime in general and IMO there never will be.
People who argue about the rights of the offender on death row so easily forget the rights of the victims, the media only focuses on the bad guy, they don't care about who they hurt...a killer's crime will sell more print than a victims legacy
Personally I don't give a shit about the real criminals. It's the victims on death row I care about, such as Alan Gell who I mentioned earlier.
it is cheaper to imprison them for life than to execute them.
no, id not want them as my neighbor. but if feel perfectly safe and happy knowing they are locked up and can hurt nobody but their own kind in prison.
that in itself is a whole new problem
that's all you've got? i thought you didnt like spending your money to keep murderers imprisoned? you're willing to spend even more to have them killed when it would be just as easy to lock them up and throw away the key?
We put criminals in with other criminals. Their perspective of society fits right in there and they never fully learn how to interact with other people properly. Some time in seclusion might fix that. Probably not though.
Murderers are a bit more complicated. They should be put through a clock-work orange type thing.
My point is all the appeals given is pointless...Once AGAIN if they are guilty without a shadow of a doubt what is the point of appeals? Keeping them on death row for 10 years is a total waste of our money when they can be done with essentially once the verdict is handed down.
becos they are rarely proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. that's what the appeals are for... to determine that.
so at what point in the appeal process can one be actually considered guilty? can there ever be guilt in a conclusive way?
One of those things isn't enough. DNA evidence can be tampered with, and simple mistakes can be made ... it's better than a lot of evidence, but in and of itself it's not always conclusive. Eyewitnesses are wrong all the time, for a variety of reasons. Confessions, as we saw a couple of weeks ago with that nut in Thailand, aren't always reliable, and even if they were, people typically confess to avoid the death penalty. If we start killing the ones who admit guilt, we're not going to get many confessions, which means we'll be paying to send every single murder case to trial. That's going to cost a fortune and clog the court system even worse than it is now. Video evidence can be reliable, but the image quality from most surveillance cameras is poor, and given the ease with which digital images can be tampered with, it's far from foolproof.
I certainly don't want crazed killers wandering the streets, but I don't think killing them accomplishes anything and it diminishes us.
Take a look around at The Innocence Project and think what could have happened to these people without a lengthy appeals process.