The Death Penalty

[DawnL]

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Murder = The crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.
Execute = To put to death especially in compliance with a legal sentence.
There is a difference between the two.

Gee, the Big book doesn't say:  "Thou shalt not murder" or "Thou shalt not execute" it says, "Thou shalt not KILL".

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary: Kill = to deprive of life in any manner"

And execute can also mean a bullet in the back of the head in an alley as in execution-style killing.

There is NO difference between the two.  Thanks for playing, please try again.

Dawn

[DawnL]

If execution is to be a viable deterant...

Please, study after study has shown that the death penalty is NO deterence to murder and other violent crimes.  Let's be clear, it isn't about deterance, it's about retribution.

Dawn

[Leigh]

Gee, the Big book doesn't say: "Thou shalt not murder" or "Thou shalt not execute" it says, "Thou shalt not KILL".

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary: Kill = to deprive of life in any manner"

If you were starving and needed to survive would you "kill" an animal.

Killing is killing isn't it?  Or, does it mater wether if we see what is killed as senient or not.

I would "kill" to survive--food or physical safety, it matters not. 

If a person has "killed" once wouldn't it be safe to think they may do so again?  If they did, then I feel that I/we/society are guilty of murder also.  We condoned it by releaseing some who should have been "killed"

[DawnL]

If you were starving and needed to survive would you "kill" an animal.
Killing is killing isn't it?  Or, does it mater wether if we see what is killed as senient or not.

If a person has "killed" once wouldn't it be safe to think they may do so again?  If they did, then I feel that I/we/society are guilty of murder also.  We condoned it by releaseing some who should have been "killed"

In regards to killing, we're talking about people, and that is what the Biblical quote references.  Whether killing animals that may have a higher consciousness like whales or primates is right or wrong is another discussion, but I think you know that. 

I do think some people who kill will kill again and I don't advocate being soft on these people.  If you take a life, you should go to prison and stay there until you die, no exceptions.

Dawn

[DawnL]

The biblical quote makes no reference that it only applied to people killing people.  Besides this is a matter of survival.  If you just let a murderer out, it may be YOU they kill next.  If you let them stay in prison, they may be no room left for any more murderers who may go out and kill YOU.  If they need to build more prisons, guess who pays for it?  YOU.
Melissa

Uh no.  The Bible is talking about people because God gives man dominion over all living things--I'm not saying I buy into this stuff but that is what the book says.  And yes, we have to pay for prisons.  We also have to pay to kill people and that often costs more than throwing them in jail and throwing away the keys.  This guy in California had 25 years of appeals!  What do you think that cost?  We'll only save money if we throw away the current system and just hang 'em high.  But it's already been proven that the current system has killed several innocent people.  Do you really want that blood on your hands?  The whole death penalty thing is just a knee-jerk reaction to violence that solves nothing and killing somebody, even with a needle is a violent act in itself.  I only quote the Bible because this country is supposedly built on Christian principles, especially as proclaimed by the current "pro-life" administration and yet the Christian answer to crime is murder?  Can you spell I-R-O-N-Y?  Hypocrasy?

Just for the record, I'm an deist and a pacifist.

Dawn

[MaryEllen]

It's obvious that nobody here is going to change their mind either in favor of the death penalty or against it. Many here have stated that it wrong to kill no matter what the reason even giving biblical references to support their position.  I'd like to put a new spin on this discussion. Many years ago I was given some training by our government, put on a plane, flown halfway around the world and with M 16 in hand was told to go out and kill people. This we did. What should be done with us? Should we be given life in prison or executed because we killed people?  What about our young men and women serving today in Iraq?. Is it wrong for them to be killing those who are trying to kill them? There is a radical element in the near east whose sole purpose in life is to exterminate us from the face of this earth. Is it wrong for us to be killing them or should we just turn the other cheek and tell them we love them? Should we just round them up and put them in prison for life?  What???
This is a violent world we live in. Make no mistake about it. It's kill or be killed.
Just one more reason I believe in the death penalty.

[Dennis]

You're right, MaryEllen, most if not all of us have our views about the death penalty and won't change them because they are basic moral principles to us. I commend the community at Susan's for keeping the discussions on a civilized level.

As to the question about soldiers, I think there's a line where it's wrong (Nuremberg defense was, for example where that line was crossed), but it's also important to realize that the people pulling the triggers are not the people holding the guns. Although you can't hide extreme moral wrongs behind the excuse "I was following orders", most times, where the right or wrong of a war isn't all that clear, it's not the foot soldier's fault if it turns out when more information comes to light that it was immoral. It's the people who had that information in the first place.

Dennis

[Leigh]

most times, where the right or wrong of a war isn't all that clear, it's not the foot soldier's fault if it turns out when more information comes to light that it was immoral. It's the people who had that information in the first place.

Were you talking about Vietnam or Irag?  Describes both in my view!

[Dennis]

Any war. World war II (from the German perspective), Vietnam (from American perspective), Iraq (from American perspective), for example. You have to assess culpability in light of what was known by whom at the time. I don't think buddy-grunt goes into a lot of analysis about it, but when it comes to, say hunting down Jews in the streets and herding them into cattlecars to be gassed in your own country, you should use your own mind and think 'hey, this doesn't seem right'.

I don't think the soldiers who fought in Vietnam had anything like as obvious a sign that things might not be right, and I don't think the soldiers in the current engagement have had.

Edit: I'm not saying whether a war is right or wrong, I'm talking about moral culpability of the individual person in a war.

Dennis

[Shelley]

Murder = The crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

Execute = To put to death especially in compliance with a legal sentence.

I believe the coalition of the willing entered Iraq and challenged Sadam Hussein's executions that he claims were conducted legally by the state.

Gee, the Big book doesn't say:  "Thou shalt not murder" or "Thou shalt not execute" it says, "Thou shalt not KILL".

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary: Kill = to deprive of life in any manner"

And execute can also mean a bullet in the back of the head in an alley as in execution-style killing.

There is NO difference between the two.  Thanks for playing, please try again.

I agree Dawn. As to whether we can afford to pay for our prisons.

Two points

1) Are we executing because of the cost of not executing.

2) Is it not the cost of participating in a civilised society.

Shelley

[DawnL]

While we were talking about the death penalty, there are clear exceptions to the principle of "thou shalt not kill."

Most clear is self-defence when faced with a life or death situation.  Even as a pacifist, I recognize this and would kill myself if faced with this circumstance.  The law recognizes that this extends to the defense of familiy and children.  Peace and police officers operate under unique circumstances in that they must occasionally kill to protect the lives of others.

...most times, where the right or wrong of a war isn't all that clear, it's not the foot soldier's fault if it turns out when more information comes to light that it was immoral. It's the people who had that information in the first place.

War is another special situation.  In some cases, it represents a case of national self-defence.  In others, it is an "extension of diplomacy by other means" and then becomes immoral in my opinion.  Iraq and Vietman are such situations but as was well stated by Dennis, the culpability does not extend to foot soldiers acting on orders unless those orders are exceeded as was the case in Mai Lai.  History has shown that Vietnam was largely a war of hubris and ego.  Now that any sense of self-defence in the case of Iraq (no WMD or links to 911 were found) has evaporated, I doubt history will treat the Bush Administration any better.  Ironically, Bush led this charge as a battle against terrorists and has instead created more terrorists and people ready to die for Allah than existed before the war.  We are not safer: violence begats more violence. 

Dawn

[Dennis]

Good thing they didn't kill this guy:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051215/ap_on_re_us/inmate_dna_evidence

Anyone know if Ohio has the death penalty or if it was the lack of it that saved his life?

Dennis

[jan c]

the point made that the Old Testament reads "thou shalt not kill" and then, later on, outlines just how a murderer shall be put to death merely illustrates the whole problem with that religion. Contraindication. Basic illogism. You either believe a PERSON should not kill or you  do not. Any 'argument' to the contrary is not an argument, it is merely an emotional (hysterical?) reaction.
Now if there is an old testament God, Dude can take you out at any time, RIGHT? Making this form of human 'justice' sort of beside the point. Get it?

[Alexandra]

I used to support the death penalty . . . but now with the number of death row inmates freed by DNA on the rise, I'm against it period.

[rana]

Looking at the results, it seems that more people support the death penalty than oppose it.

Personally I believe that in some situations it is justified.

The state has the power and the right to execute wrong doers if necessary.  "Render unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's" applies here.

A problem with sentencing people to lengthy prison terms is that down the track they seem to be reduced for all sorts of reasons. 

If a person is executed there is no way he can reoffend

The arguments in this thread both for and against are well set out and compelling - it just shows how difficult this question is

[Valerie]

So, now I think this issue has been thoroughly debated to "death".

Well...almost.....

For instance, if my daughter was killed and I was finally given the
chance to pull the switch (in the case of electrocution) or pull the
trigger (in the case of a firing squad) or other method.  I would
probably do that.

I'm still curious to know what others would do if their child/parent/SO or other loved one (loved one, as in, not a distant relative or casual aquaintance) was guilty of murder....

[Sarah Louise]

If they had done the things that the California man had done, I would vote for the death penalty.

[Kimberly]

Death does not beget life.

However when you murder you (functionally) betray the sanctity of life. You deserve death.

If someone murders someone I love, they are in deep ->-bleeped-<-.
If someone I love murders someone else, well that sucks.
If I murder someone else, kill me.

An eye for an eye.

But in the same vein the reason must be accounted for, else you have a whole chain of death (I kill you, your relative kills me, my relative them, et cetera ad nauseam.)... this is known as a blood feud. What good ultimatly comes out of it? ... nothing.

So why on earth do I support such? ... I've been murdered enough times to feel that the murderer should not get off skot free (aka "Scot and lot", I think.).

Ashes and dust and death and darkness.

[Kendall]

If someone killed one of my loved ones out of cold blood, you bet I would want their life ended. Taking another's innocent life is not a way to deal with any situation, except as justice for doing so first. Only in a time of war, law enforcement under strict conditions, self defense, and execution for barbaric murderous (doing the act or leading others to do so) proven cases should it be allowed.

This is not a kind world where murder does not exist. I know a few people that have family members that have been murdered. The only punishment should be death, with science as good as it is now (better at proving guilt then any prior time in the history of the word) as it is in many states, and should be IMO.

[Dennis]

It is a world where they get the wrong person or where it is pretty clearly unjust in some circumstances:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184992,00.html

Dennis