You have to prove that the death penalty actually reduces the murder rate, in order to make claims like the above. Good luck with that.
Shouldn’t the same standard be applied to incarceration?
I’d probably go with the first three but not the last. Desertion implies a military draft, and I do not favor that.
I’d add raping or sexually abusing a child to the list.
Great, wonderfully. Crime has gone down massively for the last twenty years.
While Jesus Himself did not speak directly on the issue, the thief next to him said in Luke 23:41:
And Paul of Tarsus said:
Even in extreme wartime conditions like World War II or the Southern Rebellion? And volunteers too can desert.
So why did you say that in the Bible, JESUS supported the death penalty? He did nothing of the sort. :dubious: And Paul was not Jesus, Qin.
Christ spoke of forgiveness, not blood-thirst, or revenge.
But statistically, executing people raises the murder rate. Which isn’t surprising since it reflects both a social norm that accepts killing helpless people, and promotes the idea that killing is a valid solution to problems..
I don’t think you quite understand my point though. I don’t think the offenders are unable to be improved. I think that we just don’t try to improve them, but that we should. I think compassion demands it of us.
It’s really quite more than that. I found this radio program about it to be really moving, and IMHO it is worth an hour of anyone’s time to listen to it.
http://being.publicradio.org/programs/truth/
You do have one thing right, however, which is that the point was not punishment. As far as I can tell, the point was for a society to forgive. Not on an individual level, but as a society. Precisely what punitive solutions to crime do not.
He then at best did not speak out on the issue, but as Scripture as a whole is inspired by God, other parts indicate that God supports, indeed ordained capital punishment.
[/QUOTE]
We should personally forgive murderers but at the same time not refrain from justice.
I don’t believe that’s a logical position, unless we’re willing to take the words of any person appearing in the Bible as being accurate. I’m pretty sure Satan makes a cameo appearance as well, but that wouldn’t make his words therefore the words of God.
Even trying to put myself into the shoes of a Christian, it may well be that words of the Bible are not there because they are God directly speaking through the person in question, but rather, because they are meant to be *wrong *examples for us to learn from. Or that they are the words of a Christian, whose life God deems important, but who is nevertheless incorrect about an issue.
The death penalty is not a deterrent as it is currently implemented. That doesn’t mean a streamlined appeals process that increased the chances of someone being put to death for a capital crime wouldn’t be a deterrent.
On a related note, if you respond to a probability satement like “1 in 1000” with “what if you are the one” you understanding of probability eliminates you from rational discourse.
On another related note, the use of probability statements like “1 in 1000” in reference to capital punishment findings eliminates you from rational discourse because of a complete lack of understanding of how that “1 in 1000” might be distributed.
It’s poor people who get wrongly sent to death row, and it is poor people who get wrongly convicted of murder when the death penalty is used as a threat to encourage people to take a plea resulting in life sentences. It isn’t something one can make a rational, probability based decision when one knows full well that one is not going to be in the position of the person railroaded.
The ultimate stupidity: Thinking it could never happen to you.
So it costs more in this system to implement the death penalty than life imprisonment…thank you for putting me on the track for learning that. I should know that before I give economic practicality as a reason “for” the death penalty.
**MrDrib, **my professor is going to hear about this Ashanti menstrual taboo business.
Not saying I agree with anyone.
I connected anti death penalty in meat eaters with hypocracy. “If you want to keep scum alive in prison on principals, stop eating other sentient beings on principals” is what I’m saying.
Animal life **is **as important as human life. I’m in the minority in feeling this? How stupid are we if we think we can just exploit all the other life forms and keep going our merry myopic way. If justice is not as important to us as full bellies, it should be. “Should” is not good enough Marley? Ok, then justice MUST apply to all, not just human. If you think different, then you must be too smart for your own good.
Suffering is suffering Mr. Dribble. Killing is killing. It doesn’t matter who. And enough of this (baby voice) "plants are alive and we kill them. Please spare me.
I’m not a hysterical fanatical anything. I eat meat too.
People get so blown up with their big brains they lose sight of principals.
I don’t care about rehabilitation, deterrents or any of that. Rehabilitation is for those who want it. Deterrents are for people who are sane.
The death penalty, is…how can I explain it.
Let me explain what I mean when *** *** say “death penalty.” Maybe I use the wrong terms. I am thinking of the IDEA of dispatching a tainted element in the pursuit of a perfect ideal rather than the real, current, social uhh…institution. I don’t have all that data to discuss it properly in that context. Hell, I didn’t even know about the cost.
I am discussing it in philosophical/moral terms. My point is, when one pinpoint of life in the universe has chosen to destroy other pinpoints of light in the universe, caused suffering, etc., and ***we know which ***pinpoint of light did it, the issue becomes amoral. Dispatch. Push button. Shoot em up. This is not barbaric. This is humane.
Our huge, impersonal society makes this argument possible. We get to argue while other people do the dirty work. I like the death penalty. Would I be able to look em in the eye and pull the switch? I’m not sure. You hate the death penalty. Would you be able to feed Jeffrey Dahmer or (insert your worst nightmare) from your own hand? Attend to his toilet needs? Ask yourself.
Remember you’re not dealing w/some new rehabilitated version. The scum is still the scum, he’s just your responsibility.
We understand what you’re saying. It doesn’t make sense, so it doesn’t work in this argument.
Yes, you’re in a very small minority on that.
This is neither philosophical nor moral. It’s pretty much just made up. The issue does not become amoral just because you assert it is. People who argue for executions on the grounds of revenge or for safety are very wrong as far as I’m concerned, but it’s an argument. Saying it’s no longer a moral issue just because is not an argument. It’s nonsense. (And for that matter, if this actually applies equally to animals and destroying a human life is so horrible, you should stop eating meat. If not, it seems you don’t care about the principle very much, which raises the question of why anybody else should.)
I agree but you illustrate my point when you think that those are equivalent statements.
The poor should cease to be poor if the are that worried about false conviction. I know lots of poor people who are just trying to get by who don’t use being poor as an excuse to stretch the bounds of legality.
I grew up in poverty, joined the military to fund education and I’m now solidly upper-middle class. I have no tolerance for blaming bad behavior on being poor.
Wow - you really don’t understand, do you? Because if you do, you are equating being wrongly convicted with bad behavior…
The relevant point isn’t that poverty leads to crime; it is that because of the structure of the legal system, you are less likely to be falsely convicted of a capital offense if you are wealthy.
At that point, surely, a person’s previous decisions become irrelevant. Having people falsely convicted of capital offenses is a bad thing. Even if, as you say, poor people choose to remain poor, then I don’t think even you would want to say that should carry a greater risk of wrongful conviction and execution.
Or maybe you do want to say that. Wouldn’t surprise me, to be honest.
Ah, yes, people can just decide to not be poor. :rolleyes:
Because it’s impossible to subdue a violent criminal without hurting them ?
Says you.
Learn to fucking read.
No, I think people are confusing correlation with causality. The police don’t say “let’s go get a poor person and frame him so we can close this case”.
I’m saying that using poverty as an excuse to skirt the legalities of society carries risks and when someone makes that choice they assume that risk.
I’m saying that choosing a life of crime is what brings the risk of false convictions and using being poor to justify that life of crime is BS.