User not logged in - login - register
Home Calendar Books School Tool Photo Gallery Message Boards Users Statistics Advertise Site Info
go to bottom | |
 Message Boards » » The reason I support the death penalty... Page 1 [2], Prev  
Gamecat
All American
17913 Posts
user info
edit post

...is because I believe in emotionally-charged exceptions to "2 wrongs make a right."

3/23/2008 11:13:59 PM

aikimann
All American
900 Posts
user info
edit post

I believe in the death penalty, but don't believe the government should be allowed to put people to death.
If someone commits mass murder, or some other heinous crime, then I see no reason we should waste our tax dollars feeding and taking care of that person until they're dead. However, there have been so many cases where people on death row are set free, because of DNA evidence, etc, I just don't trust the government to do it right. And with innocent lives at stake, we can't take that risk.

I don't trust the government to deliver my mail properly let alone decide if someone should be put to death.

3/23/2008 11:42:54 PM

BridgetSPK
#1 Sir Purr Fan
31378 Posts
user info
edit post

^Excellent post! I agree.

But I do trust the government to deliver my mail properly.

And I want to add that I'm not strictly concerned with innocent lives. Even when people are guilty, I don't trust our justice system to decide who dies. Too often, the guy with the most expensive lawyer and the most "sympathetic" face lives, and everyone else gets the chair. That's not fair.

[Edited on March 24, 2008 at 2:09 AM. Reason : add]

3/24/2008 2:05:24 AM

Mr. Joshua
we want chilly willy
43823 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"I just don't trust the government to do it right."


Exactly. I don't want to put the power of execution in the hands of people who are one step above the DMV.

3/24/2008 2:38:58 AM

theDuke866
All American
52078 Posts
user info
edit post

I support the death penalty, but it's not really a hot button issue for me either way, and I definitely see the other sides of the issue.

My 2 reasons are as follows:

1. Most importantly, net preservation of innocent life (i.e., the GrumpyGOP argument). I'm not especially concerned with what's "fair" (either in terms of which guilty people get life without parole and which guilty people get the chair, or in terms of the possibility of executing an innocent person) nearly as much as I'm concerned with what approach saves the greatest number of innocent lives.

In other words, say we execute 10 people, and 9 of them were guilty of murder, with 1 innocent man...but if we hadn't whacked them, say those 9 murderers (either after parole or while incarcerated) murder 2 more innocent people. In my book, we did the right thing by pricking those murderers in the arm, because we scored a net positive in innocent lives saved.

2. They fucking deserve it.

3/24/2008 3:35:46 AM

IRSeriousCat
All American
6091 Posts
user info
edit post

wow, i wish i could view the world so objectively firm.

3/24/2008 9:08:49 AM

FroshKiller
All American
51464 Posts
user info
edit post

All I know is that according to the Declaration of Independence, the Framers held it self-evident that all men have the inalienable right to life.

[Edited on March 24, 2008 at 9:33 AM. Reason : ...]

3/24/2008 9:26:16 AM

nutsmackr
All American
46641 Posts
user info
edit post

psst...that is the Declaration of Independence.

3/24/2008 9:27:15 AM

FroshKiller
All American
51464 Posts
user info
edit post

[thx]

3/24/2008 9:33:20 AM

Oeuvre
All American
6651 Posts
user info
edit post

^^^ THAT MUST MEAN WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE IMMORTAL!


THOSE FRAMERS THEY WERE GENIUSES!

[Edited on March 24, 2008 at 9:34 AM. Reason : .]

3/24/2008 9:34:27 AM

FroshKiller
All American
51464 Posts
user info
edit post

man said rights are endowed on us by our creator

the lord giveth, and the lord taketh away

[Edited on March 24, 2008 at 9:36 AM. Reason : okay to kill if you have a mandate, i guess]

3/24/2008 9:35:52 AM

GoldenViper
All American
16056 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"In other words, say we execute 10 people, and 9 of them were guilty of murder, with 1 innocent man...but if we hadn't whacked them, say those 9 murderers (either after parole or while incarcerated) murder 2 more innocent people. In my book, we did the right thing by pricking those murderers in the arm, because we scored a net positive in innocent lives saved."


Yuck.

If you think you have to kill innocent people for the best outcome, you're doing not being creative enough. At best, it should be an explicitly temporary measure put in place while researching better options.

3/24/2008 11:48:36 AM

Oeuvre
All American
6651 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"you're doing not being creative enough. "


You're being just as creative with your language

3/24/2008 11:53:32 AM

Honkeyball
All American
1684 Posts
user info
edit post


Everybody wins.

[Edited on March 24, 2008 at 11:54 AM. Reason : .]

3/24/2008 11:53:34 AM

theDuke866
All American
52078 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"At best, it should be an explicitly temporary measure put in place while researching better options.
"


yeah, there might be better potential options out there

3/24/2008 12:01:14 PM

Pupils DiL8t
All American
4412 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"if you take a life, your life should be taken."


I could see this as an argument both for and against the death penalty.

4/7/2008 6:09:56 PM

mathman
All American
1631 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"man said rights are endowed on us by our creator

the lord giveth, and the lord taketh away"


yes, and government is sanctioned by God so there is really no problem with the government killing people.

Of course I think that every effort should be made to prevent the innocent from being wrongly executed.

^there is no moral equivalence between the murder and the executioner. Perhaps a good analogy to clear up your thinking: When a police man shoots a criminal it is different than when a criminal shoots a police man. Sure both shot a gun with the intent of bodily harm, but one has a right to do so while the other is merely attempting to use force to continue to violate the will of society as implemented through the law man. Some of you think that the law is just a matter of definition so to say that the police has the law behind him is no argument at all. But, for those of us who believe in an absolute standard of right and wrong the distinction could not be any clearer.

Granted this distinction is blurred by corrupt police. My policeman is ideal.

4/7/2008 6:27:32 PM

Pupils DiL8t
All American
4412 Posts
user info
edit post

^
Granted. Arguments regarding relative versus absolute morality give me a headache.

4/7/2008 6:30:43 PM

moron
All American
32622 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"yes, and government is sanctioned by God so there is really no problem with the government killing people.

Of course I think that every effort should be made to prevent the innocent from being wrongly executed.

"


Does this apply to all gov. or just our gov.? Where does that fit on this "absolute" scale of right/wrong?

4/7/2008 6:38:09 PM

mathman
All American
1631 Posts
user info
edit post

^ I think all governments. But, to clarify I do think that we have to defy the government when they violate God's law. That said, if you think God's law is to never kill anyone then it would obviously lead you to be against the death penalty. I for one do not believe that, God did command folks to kill enemies in various times and places. So some killing must be sanctioned by God. When and where is the difficult question. Supper is ready I must go.

4/7/2008 7:14:26 PM

moron
All American
32622 Posts
user info
edit post

^ For someone who believes in an absolute standard of right and wrong, you sure do seem to have a lot of uncertainty in what that standard is.

That's an extremely dangerous position to take, to me.

4/7/2008 7:17:02 PM

mathman
All American
1631 Posts
user info
edit post

^really? I would hope you would applaud caution. What I am saying is that there exists an absolute truth, what is in debate (from my perspective) is if we can find and interpret that truth reliably.

My point was that it is incorrect to assume that the fact that the government is killing some criminal as a punishment for their transgressions against society is not automatically equivalent to taking it out of God's hands. I think that was the intent of FroshKiller's post. To reword it, we shouldn't kill anybody because that is only for God to do. My point is only that government can be a proxy for God in this matter.

I do not wish to argue the nuances as to which crime and what burden of proof is requisite for the dispensing of the ultimate punishment.

I would hope you would appreciate that I still have not made up my mind on this issue entirely. You might sway me to join the picket line out on Western some day.

[Edited on April 7, 2008 at 10:26 PM. Reason : .]

4/7/2008 10:24:54 PM

Dentaldamn
All American
9974 Posts
user info
edit post

I always assume that people in prison find out what the other inmates have done.

I also assume theres a group of people just going around beating the shit out of child rapists and the such.

4/7/2008 10:45:04 PM

moron
All American
32622 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"My point is only that government can be a proxy for God in this matter."


Except when that gov. is defying the will of God, as you said earlier though, right?

If we're executing an innocent person, is that not against the will of God? If someone is on death row instead of getting life in prison because of their race, is THAT the will of God?

To me, it seems ludicrous to presume that the gov. EVER acts or is working for the will of God, or to cherry pick which governments and in which situations the will of God is being executed. As you have already realized, it's literally impossible to know. So considering that you can't actually know the will of God, and it's bad practice to presume the gov is acting with God's will when it executes someone (is the gov. acting in God's will when it utilizes eminent domain? or wastes tax payer money on $THING_YOU_DISAGREE_WITH ?) it seems like it would be prudent to pick some other standard, that doesn't rely on something no one can agree on.

And when I said it was a dangerous position before, what I meant was that it's dangerous to pretend that something is being done for God's purpose, and to even fight for it, when you or anyone can't even define it. It seems like a belief that lends itself to fanaticism.

4/7/2008 10:45:29 PM

BridgetSPK
#1 Sir Purr Fan
31378 Posts
user info
edit post

^^You're kind of touching on a problem I have with life in prison.

If an inmate is serving life and has no chance of getting out, I imagine he or she may be more difficult to handle than someone who is trying to behave well in the hopes they may somebody get out.

In other words, I support life in prison instead of the death penalty, but I feel really bad for the people who have to deal with the lifers...

[Edited on April 8, 2008 at 3:43 AM. Reason : sss]

4/8/2008 3:42:36 AM

Wyloch
All American
4237 Posts
user info
edit post

We really ought to switch to an eye-for-an-eye. Do the exact same thing to these "people" as they did to that women. I'm not even trolling.

4/12/2008 3:49:05 PM

mathman
All American
1631 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"moron
Except when that gov. is defying the will of God, as you said earlier though, right?
"


Yes. I would try to follow God's law in that instance.

Quote :
"moron
If we're executing an innocent person, is that not against the will of God? If someone is on death row instead of getting life in prison because of their race, is THAT the will of God?
"


I'm not sure. I'm not God. I'd like to say that it was against His will, but I don't have the whole picture. There might be purpose in his unjust execution.

Quote :
"moron
To me, it seems ludicrous to presume that the gov. EVER acts or is working for the will of God, or to cherry pick which governments and in which situations the will of God is being executed. As you have already realized, it's literally impossible to know. So considering that you can't actually know the will of God, and it's bad practice to presume the gov is acting with God's will when it executes someone (is the gov. acting in God's will when it utilizes eminent domain? or wastes tax payer money on $THING_YOU_DISAGREE_WITH ?) it seems like it would be prudent to pick some other standard, that doesn't rely on something no one can agree on.
"


I think that most governments should be respected, again with the caveat that when the government
violates God's law then I have no choice but to commit civil disobedience. On the other hand, if it is possible to follow the law of the land I think that we should because God said He institutes government. So I'm not "cherry picking governments", I am telling you it is the duty of Christians to obey government in as much as we can. For a counter example, if the government bans praying or witnessing then we cannot obey that law.

There is something subtle about our current system. We are the government, at least indirectly, so it is not as static a situation as when the Scriptures were written. Since we can influence policy I think it is a natural stance for the Christian to desire the government's laws to line up with God's laws in general. I don't mean that everyone should be a Christian, I just speak to general moral laws like the right to life, sanctity of marriage, protecting the poor from unfair loan practices, treating people equally without respect to race or gender, etc...

Does Scripture make a rock solid case for the death penalty? I'm not sure. Perhaps. But, my real point was that you cannot just rule out the death penalty from the get-go because

Quote :
"the lord giveth, and the lord taketh away"



Quote :
"moron
And when I said it was a dangerous position before, what I meant was that it's dangerous to pretend that something is being done for God's purpose, and to even fight for it, when you or anyone can't even define it. It seems like a belief that lends itself to fanaticism.
"


The debate need not center around God's will. I simply wish to argue that God's will allows for this option. Now is it the best option? That is the question.

If I had to guess, I'd suspect increasing the percentage of the population that carries a firearm would probably do more to deter crime.

4/12/2008 8:06:21 PM

Kurtis636
All American
14984 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"People don't cease being people when they kill or torture others. They're still remarkably similar to you and me."


I disagree. "People" like this are, to me anyway, subhuman. Committing actions like these don't make you less than human, it simply proves that you already were.

4/13/2008 6:15:14 PM

agentlion
All American
13936 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
""moron
If we're executing an innocent person, is that not against the will of God? If someone is on death row instead of getting life in prison because of their race, is THAT the will of God?
"

mathman
I'm not sure. I'm not God. I'd like to say that it was against His will, but I don't have the whole picture. There might be purpose in his unjust execution.
"


dude, God is all about killing some innocents. As long as the greater good is served, I'm sure he doesn't mind
Quote :
"1 Samuel 15 1 Samuel said to Saul, "I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. 2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' ""


Quote :
"Ezekiel 35:7-9 I will make Mount Seir utterly desolate, killing off all who try to escape and any who return. I will fill your mountains with the dead. Your hills, your valleys, and your streams will be filled with people slaughtered by the sword. I will make you desolate forever. Your cities will never be rebuilt. Then you will know that I am the LORD."


Quote :
"Exodus 32:26-29 (Moses) stood at the entrance to the camp and shouted, "All of you who are on the LORD's side, come over here and join me." And all the Levites came. He told them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Strap on your swords! Go back and forth from one end of the camp to the other, killing even your brothers, friends, and neighbors." The Levites obeyed Moses, and about three thousand people died that day. Then Moses told the Levites, "Today you have been ordained for the service of the LORD, for you obeyed him even though it meant killing your own sons and brothers. Because of this, he will now give you a great blessing." "

etc, etc

so yeah, i doubt any of these people are "innocent". Some of them might be gay (Leviticus 20:13), adulterers (Leviticus 20:10), fortunetellers (Leviticus 20:27), non-Christian (Exodus 22:19), false prophets (Zechariah13:3), from a town where another person is not Christian (Deuteronomy 13:13-19), were not virgins when they were married (Deuteronomy 22:20-21), have worked on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:12), assholes (2 Kings 2:23-24), had a bad father (Isaiah 14:21), or just be unfortunate enough to the the eldest son (Exodus 12:29-30). So don't worry about any "innocents" on death row. They are probably all sinner's deserving of death in God's eye

4/13/2008 7:01:56 PM

The Judge
Suspended
3405 Posts
user info
edit post

If God wants them dead, they will be fucking dead, you can take that to the bank

4/13/2008 10:52:00 PM

Dentaldamn
All American
9974 Posts
user info
edit post

fo real.

why are we killing people when it seems God will do it for us.

save some monies

4/15/2008 8:38:22 AM

marko
Tom Joad
72298 Posts
user info
edit post

the death penalty should be applied to white collar crimes

4/15/2008 3:00:10 PM

rufus
All American
3583 Posts
user info
edit post

^racist!

4/16/2008 12:32:59 AM

moron
All American
32622 Posts
user info
edit post

It’s back

We’re a more barbaric nation today

7/14/2020 10:55:52 AM

GrumpyGOP
yovo yovo bonsoir
17925 Posts
user info
edit post

Daniel Lewis Lee is a fine example of the kind of person we should be executing. Here we have a person with a lengthy history of violence, who was let off for one murder and then went on to commit three more, whose crimes were premeditated and whose motives were vile. There is no chance that he will ever be able to be productively returned to society. Every day we kept him alive was a day in which he could kill other people - fellow inmates, guards, or, if he managed to escape, civilians. There is, as far as I know, no hint of police or judicial misconduct, no opposition to his execution on any grounds other than "It might hurt."

This guy is practically a poster child for the sane and correct use of the death penalty in this country, though for me, that title will continue to belong to Dylann Roof his number comes up. There's a lot to be fixed about American capital punishment - cases where it never should have been an option, legitimate claims to inherent bias in the judicial system - but it ain't Dan Lee.

[Edited on July 14, 2020 at 11:12 AM. Reason : ]

7/14/2020 11:11:58 AM

utowncha
All American
652 Posts
user info
edit post

at least now they are just overdosing them on a single common drug

[Edited on July 14, 2020 at 12:06 PM. Reason : .]

7/14/2020 12:04:56 PM

moron
All American
32622 Posts
user info
edit post

^^ the victims family was against it and said the execution in their mind tarnished the legacy of their dead daughter.

We’ve treaded these arguments a million times but the trump era magnifies they importance of examining which power the gov should have. Trump has called for executing journalists and protestors, are we now saying if enough people agreed these people should be killed the government should have that power?

7/14/2020 12:25:56 PM

daaave
All American
1054 Posts
user info
edit post

^^^
where do you propose the line be drawn?

v I agree with you. I would just like to hear where grumpy draws the line between murderable and non-murderable.

[Edited on July 14, 2020 at 12:58 PM. Reason : .]

7/14/2020 12:30:16 PM

Pupils DiL8t
All American
4412 Posts
user info
edit post

Counterpoint: or the state could not execute its prisoners.

7/14/2020 12:32:06 PM

GrumpyGOP
yovo yovo bonsoir
17925 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"the victims family was against it and said the execution in their mind tarnished the legacy of their dead daughter."


The purpose of punishment, capital or otherwise, is not to satisfy the feelings of the victims or their families. It should always be first, foremost, and perhaps only for the prevention of crime.

Some of you are already turgid with excitement about discussing the death penalty's lack of deterrent value, but note the key distinction between "deterrence" and "prevention." Executions may not deter others from committing crimes, but they damn sure prevent the executed person from doing any more.

I have two basic standards for whether a criminal should be considered for execution:

1) There are certain indicators that the individual would, given the opportunity, continue to commit, direct, or inspire crimes of a gravity on par with those of which they have been convicted. These indicators might be participation in organized crime or terrorist groups, or an evident mental defect leading to compulsion to commit certain crimes (such as serial killers or sexual predators), lack of remorse, etc.
2) The crime of which they have been convicted is so serious that the net damage of its recurrence outweighs the damage of an execution. You can easily get into the philosophical weeds here, but I think that for I, and most people, a dead murderer is preferable to a dead victim. I'd go further and say that a dead child molester is better than a half dozen abused kids with an increased likelihood of becoming abusers themselves, but you get the idea.

Quote :
"We’ve treaded these arguments a million times but the trump era magnifies they importance of examining which power the gov should have."


The ultimate rationale for the existence of a state is for it to retain a monopoly on violence. Nobody seriously argues that the state can never kill anybody; they'll always allow that soldiers can kill invaders, or cops can shoot active shooters, or some such. This is a "We've agreed you're a whore, now we're just haggling over the price" situation.

Quote :
"Trump has called for executing journalists and protestors, are we now saying if enough people agreed these people should be killed the government should have that power?"


I'm not even sure what to do with this. If enough people agreed, the government would have that power, and "should" wouldn't be much use. The "should" is in the convincing people. I try to convince people that we should execute white supremacist repeat-offending murderers and, if it should come up, that we shouldn't execute journalists and protesters.

7/14/2020 2:16:55 PM

 Message Boards » The Soap Box » The reason I support the death penalty... Page 1 [2], Prev  
go to top | |
Admin Options : move topic | lock topic

© 2020 by The Wolf Web - All Rights Reserved.
The material located at this site is not endorsed, sponsored or provided by or on behalf of North Carolina State University.
Powered by CrazyWeb v2.37 - our disclaimer.