No, but we may be worse because we killed them. I don’t miss many of the people we have executed over the years. Did they* deserve to live*? I don’t know. Do we? I don’t know what “deserve to live” means.
And they consider that just. Can you prove them wrong?
Deserve’s got nothing to do with it.
Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.
I’ll give it a whirl, you do-nothing Maia.
The DP didnt come back; it never went away. Cases pre Furman were struck down. States changed their laws and carried on executing prisoners.
These and some other quotes leave me confused. The posters seem to be demanding that we respect the sanctity of life and should not engage in the arbitrary taking of life. The DP seems to make us murderers. I would respect them much more if they would demand that ALL life be equally respected. Abortion (in some cases) is simply the willful taking of an inconvenient life. And the fetus hasnt accumulated a life history of villainry.
Now, I support abortion but recognize it for what it is…the taking of what the German medical community used to call ‘life unworthy of life’.
Well not quite: most of the Massachusetts public supported life without parole. The jury was non-representative as they had to be “Death qualified”. NYT: [INDENT][INDENT] The most recent poll, conducted last month for The Boston Globe, found that just 15 percent of city residents wanted him executed. Statewide, 19 percent did. By contrast, 60 percent of Americans wanted Mr. Tsarnaev to get the death penalty, according to a CBS News poll last month. [/INDENT][/INDENT] Hey, feel free to support the death penalty. Just don’t pretend you represent some sort of overwhelming consensus. You do not.
The problem with martyrs is that they encourage more mayhem, which is the opposite of deterrence. I happen to agree though that vengeance is a constitutionally legitimate motive for the death penalty: I don’t bow to it, but I can understand that others would. Most take a dim view of retribution though, which is why the concept gets prettied up with phrases like “Justice”, vague with intention.
Observation: Most of MA might not want Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to receive the death penalty. But it was tried in a federal court and the jury was charged with enforcing federal law. I personally oppose the death penalty as practiced in the US as a matter of policy, but I believe I could sentence someone to death if given sufficient evidence.
The abortion issue is not a problem for me. It is between the mother, her doctor and her unborn child. It’s not my decision to make.
How are you going about asking the unborn child their opinion as to whether or not they’d like to live?
Why is ending the life of an unborn child more acceptable than ending the life of a confessed murderer?
Because the one is my decision to make, and the other is not, it’s the mother’s. It’s also not yours to make.
…so why say it’s a decision “between the mother, her doctor and her unborn child” if the opinions of two of those parties don’t matter?
And why does a mother have more right to terminate a pregnancy than the state has to execute a murderer?
Jesus, how did this come up? I believe it is a choice to be made by the Mother.
And, just to drag things out towards having the thread shut down, if abortion is killing a human being, why the exemptions for rape and incest?
The argument has been raised that the death penalty is tantamount to murder. If that is true, then it raises the question of why abortion isn’t also murder, and why it’s more acceptable to terminate the life of an innocent pre-birth human than that of an admitted murderer.
For the record, I am completely pro-abortion; I simply desire a consistent answer to the question of whether willfully killing a human being in a lawful fashion makes us murderers or not.
It’s my opinion that a mother and her unborn child have a special relationship that other human beings do not. I am content to let the mother decide. You of course have to leap in there and decide for her, being omnipotent and all.
No one wants to force a woman to have an abortion, but may want to prevent her from having one.
That is why it is called pro choice. 
I would say that if the guy is innocent, the executioner(s), judge and jury are murderers.
My sole reason for opposing the death penalty is that the jury may be mistaken, and some day it might be me in that situation.
Even if, like this guy, “We know he did it”, it sets a precedent. Everyone who voted guilty on a jury is certain that the guy did it.
Fetuses don’t have brain waves until well into the 3rd trimester. By my reckoning, when you are brain dead, you ain’t exactly human.
Then you would not be following instructions and if your position was found before the trail you would quite rightly be excluded from the jury. The standard is reasonable.
Were you to apply a standard of any POSSIBLE doubt no one would ever be convicted of a crime, because there is always some ludicrous but possible scenario of innocence you could come up with.
[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
Fetuses don’t have brain waves until well into the 3rd trimester.
[/QUOTE]
Well, that’s not true. Fetal brain activity is clearly formed around weeks 24-26, which is not “well into the third trimester.”
Willingham’s guilt is neither blatant or obvious by any honest examination of the facts by a reasonable and intelligent person.