No. According to Christianity, for God, it is a two way process (you have to ask as well as forgive people who hurt you), but Christians are demanded to forgive others whether they are sorry or not. So God is not required to forgive but humans are.
Also, there’s no way you can say you forgive someone if you have them sentenced to death for their offense against you. If you give them the small mercy of being allowed to rot in prison until they die instead, I would say you can truly forgive them.
Sorry, didn’t realize I was addressing the Pope.
pwned! that’s not a good rebuttal. btw im not even christian. 
I’m just deferring to an expert. I’m not even going to ask for a cite.
[QUOTE=Chris Rock]
If OJ drove a BUS…he wouldn’t even be OJ, he’d be ‘Orenthal the Bus Driving Murderer.’
[/QUOTE]
xxx
Let’s run with that analogy as it applies to this case -
In the 18th century “a gay time” would entail a formal ball with powdered wigs. Would all future parties have to be that kind of party? No. We’d take the intent to be that which people of current time felt was a fun party.
So my question remains if “unusual” and “cruel” must mean what was considered “unusual” and “cruel” then forevermore, even if those standards have changed? Must we dance in powdered wigs because George Washington did? If part of the document said citizen are entitled to excellent dental care should we all get wooden dentures because that was what considered such care then?
Magiver, there have been several points being discussed and you seem unable to keep any of them separated in your mind.
[ul]
[li]Is the death penalty Constitutional?[/li][li]Is it an effective deterrent?[/li][li]Does it protect other elements of society from a perpetrator?[/li][li]If there are any benefits are they worth the costs, in terms of executing those not guilty, and in terms of dollars and cents, given the nature of the legal process?[/li][li]Is vengeance an appropriate motivation for the justice system?[/li][/ul]
I don’t know about the first one, but am trying to clarify my understanding of others’ positions.
I have provided good evidence that it is not an effective deterrent. Which you responded to by discussed the next question on the list.
I made no comment yet on the degree of benefit that the death penalty provides in protecting others from the murderer in the future compared to life in prison. I accept that it is non-zero.
Like others who have posted here, I believe that as a practical matter the death penalty is not worth it and should be done away with.
I do not believe that the state should be in the business of dispensing vengeance; it should be worried about justice and protecting its citizens in a cost-effective manner. (Including the harms of excessive punishments as part of the costs.)
Three strikes is Constitutional. I have no knowledge on whether it is or is not an effective deterrent. I doubt the benefit to society is worth the cost for all third strikes and I doubt the benefits are worth its costs. But I’d be open to seeing the data.
Definitely it does. But for those who think the death penalty is more of a deterrent, then this effect is greater. Bottom line is the greater the deterrent effect of a penalty, the greater the chances of a person trying to avoid it.
However, I don’t think the penalty itself has that great a deterrent effect. Criminals (especially murderers) in most cases aren’t performing rational cost-benefit analyses of each individual criminal act, and the perceived chance of being caught and convicted has, I think, a far greater impact anyway.
I don’t think that any sentencing is a deterrent, whether it’s prison, probation or death. People still commit crimes and they always will.
I don’t think that prison is a way to rehabilitate anyone. If they were drastically reformed in terms of their design, they might be able to do it. As they are now, they cannot. As long as the prison population are all interacting with each other and maintaining their thug criminal culture, of brutality and “respect” earned through fear, nobody will really rehabilitate in prison.
The real goal of any punishment is basically to make sure that the criminal cannot continue to harm others.
Wouldn’t that suggest capital punishment for every offense that harms others?