Susan's Place Transgender Resources

I'm curious given the recent hanging of an Australian citizen in Singapore (for trafficing 400grams of heroine) whether there is an opinion amongst those at Susan's that this is right or wrong.

I personally do not condone the death penalty for any crime. I cannot come to terms with the idea of carrying this penalty on another human being. Taking the life of another is not right. Lock them up for the rest of their lives but do not take their lives. Some will probably argue an eye for an eye but still I cannot condone judicial murder.

Shelley

As an ex police officer I find it very disturbing.  If I worked under the kind of law that executed an individual for drugs I couldnt in good faith arrest anyone for those offenses.  Conversely, who in their right mind would take that chance knowing how psychotic the laws are in that country.  As to the death penalty for killers, tough call.  A man who murders a small girl to keep her from identifying him as the one who murdered her mother (recent in news), I would say the penalty fits the crime.
Kristina

I think the death penalty is a barbaric ritual that has no place in modern society.  What a huge hypocrasy in any country with Christian roots to punish killing by killing.  Life without possibility of parole should be the penalty for murder.

Dawn

I agree with Dawn. One of my objections (but not the only one) to it is the number of wrongful convictions that we've had in Canada and the US. Bad enough to wrongfully take years away from a person's life. To take their life as well is an irreparable harm.

Dennis

Well no one ever said I fit in with the norm.

You would not be able to imagine the novel ways I would end someones life for rape or child molestaton.

If the verdict was death I would go for a specified time period before execution but when it was up--no further extensions.

QuoteWell no one ever said I fit in with the norm.

Yep I have to say that is one thing that  I would accuse you of Leigh.

(Ducking)

Shelley

I agree with the death penalty, but I think it needs to be carried out in a reasonable time frame.  Twenty to thirty years later is meaningless.  There should be time for one appeal then carry out the sentence.

I think it is poor to expect society in general to pay for this person to be kept in jail forever, the cost of keeping just one prisioner in jail is way too high..

Sarah

Quote from: Sarah Louise on December 02, 2005, 09:44:56 AM
I think it is poor to expect society in general to pay for this person to be kept in jail forever, the cost of keeping just one prisioner in jail is way too high..
Sarah

That is one of the costs of maintaining a civil society.  It often costs more in legal expenses (appeals, etc) to put someone to death than to jail them for life.  Sorry, that doesn't fly and while Leigh may want to personally deal with some of these people herself, the state is held to a higher standard and cannot undertake torture or cruel and unusual punishments.  That's one of those funny details in the Constitution that makes us a supposed beacon of civil liberties.  If murder is wrong, murder is wrong, be it by an individual or the state.  Most of all, having discovered with DNA testing that mistakes were made, the state needs to drop this butchery now.

Dawn

              I have a different take on this than most.  I am strongly for the death penalty for a different reason than most and I have a solution to what I see as the problem.

              I am for the death penalty for those committing terrible murders because the victims have those that love them.

              If your 15 yo daughter were rapped, tortured and murdered, maybe cut into pieces and dumped in a field.  how would you feel when 10 years later you turn on the TV and he is smiling from prison being interviewed by Oprah?  Or you go to the book store and see a table of his books with his face on every one?   Or he does good in prison working with youth or whatever so the governor pardons him?  You open the local paper to see he was beat up in prison with a description of what he did to your daughter all over again? Don't say this does not happen because it does.  Death brings closure for the living victims. I don't care about deterence, barbarism or anything else, the living victims come first. The fact that there are mistakes is a seperate issue that needs to be delt with. I am sure 20% of traffic tickets are undeserved so lets stop fining people, no lets train the traffic officers better. I am sure many will use that sentence to rebut by saying I am comparing a fine to an execution but it is the same law principle, once you get a ticket and are found guilty and appeal that is it.  Address the racism and incompetent legal system and fix it. All the mistakes that DNA testing found are not happening now because of DNA testing.    Duhhh....

                 My solution is to have a "living death" sentence.  After a fair period for mandatory appeals etc, maybe 5 years, those with this sentence cannot be heard from again unless there is a compelling public interest decided by a panel of judges.  No visitors, no interviews, no prison news of them released. A gag order is in place so those released who knew the murderer cannot write a book or whatever. Basicly it is a done deal like an excecution but with out the state murder. No it is not cruel and unusual to take away a murderer's freedoms. If you think that was what the constitution means then you must not know much about history. Just my view, fire away.

beth

I voted no simply because justice is not preferct. Up here in Canada we have had a number of cases overturned 10, 15, or even 25 years after the crime when new evidence came to light showing the accused was not guilty. You can't un-do the death penalty.

On the other hand, the present system if justice is a joke. The first tennent of justice should be restitution - making good to the victum for the crime - that is not done anymore. The second tennent should be punishment - in most parts of North America, "punsihment" is a joke and many criminals enjoy a higher standard of living and a more comfortable life than they did outside of detention. At the very least, criminals should have to work as hard as the rest of us and "earn their keep". If life is easier in The Big House why would anyone be worried about going back?

The best argument against the death penality that I have heard "When Cain killed Able God exiled him, God didn't kill him." What better reference could you have. All death penalities loving Religious fundies should read their bible. Mankind kills, god exiles. We should all try to be more God like.

QuoteThat is one of the costs of maintaining a civil society.

QuoteMankind kills, god exiles

That's it two wrongs don't make a right.

Shelley

I voted no.

As Jane pointed out, here in Canada we have had a lot of people serving lengthy jail terms freed from prison after it was proved through DNA that they were innocent.

I think that in many countries right now all the prosecution has to do is prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty.  However when it comes to a death sentence I would vote yes if it was proved beyond "any" doubt.

Life in prison needs to be changed as well.  It may be expensive to keep a murderer in jail, but if that person were kept in jail for the rest of their life until death, with just the dare essentials to live, that way they could wallow in their own despair it would mean something.

Steph

I'd have to agree with Leigh on this one. It might not be a deterent for others committing crimes of violence but it would sure keep the a**hole in question from doing it again. For those of you quoting the Bible as to what God would do in regards to punishment for murder, you should read a little deeper. In the Old Testament, one of the ten commandents says that "Thou Shalt Not Kill". However should you decide to do so, the Bible is quite clear on what should happen to you. There are several references as to the death penalty. One that comes to mind is in the book of Numbers chapter 35 verses 16 to 21. Check it out.

I find it touching that all of the people who are in favour of the death penalty have such faith in the legal system.

That said, I work in it and I don't. I have had one client that I knew was wrongfully convicted. I may have had more. That was the only one I knew about, but the rules of evidence prohibited me from proving it.

Also, the circumstances of most offences aren't the extremes. Most of them are pretty pathetic individuals pr they do have extenuating circumstances, but can't afford a lawyer who could help them bring it out. And it does cost more to off them than to keep them alive. It's also a worse punishment to keep them alive than to put them out of their misery. So perhaps I'm more cruel than those who want to put them down. I want to see the bastards live with what they did.

Also, the death penalty tends to be given for offences that offend those in power. It's the underprivileged that get it. You don't see child molesters given the death penalty. You see cop killers given the death penalty, though. Just look at the race of most people on death row in the States. Doesn't mean that black people are worse than white people. It means they are differentially enforced against.

I'm glad Canada doesn't have it. I couldn't bear practicing criminal law if my client's life were on the line.

Dennis

I voted Yes for murder. If you take a life you owe a life. I am however for a lengthy appeal system to help weed out mistakes but if it is a clear cut case, they need to be put down. I am reminded of a case which was over turned by the Rose Bird court in California. The Perp along with his girlfriend kidnapped and raped a woman from a convienance store, stabbed her multiple times and the perp was quoted as haveing said "Why won't this bit## die. Rose Bird overturned the death penalty conviction stating that she could not find premeditation as required by the death penalty statute.

1) The Statute needs a better defintition
2) Cases like that should always result in a death penalty.

Cassie

If you kill the killer you have stooped to their level and you become what they are, a killer, and thus you are no better than the killer--you are part of this, your hand is on the needle.  This moral relativism is one reason the United States is rapidly loosing credibility around the world as the exemplar of justice.  Cut it any way you want.  If you demand the death penalty, then you have blood on your hands. 

Dawn

I voted no on the death penalty.

Execution by the State of another human is simply wrong.  It goes against what society is trying to teach.  It can not be undone.

And if I am not mistaken, life without parole makes an inmate much more dangerous for the guards.  The inmate has nothing to lose by contuing to murder while in prison.

Isolate them.  Separate them from the general prison population.  Do whatever to severely limit their contact with the world.  Make it unpleasant.

Chaunte


The following may sound like I am joking, but I am serious about this...

Assume that an individual is found guilty of murder.  Violent.  Brutal.  Absolutely no doubt about it whatsoever.

Should this person lose the right to be called "human," and simply be an animal of the genus and species homo-sapien sapien?  If so, then don't we put down mad animals?

 

QuoteIf you demand the death penalty, then you have blood on your hands. 

          There have been thousands, yes thousands of second murders. By second murders I mean murderers convicted of murder, who went to prison then were released and then comitted another murder and were convicted again.  Who has the blood of those thousands on their hands?  Capitol punishment would have absolutely saved these thousands, no theory, no religion, no doubt, just a fact.

beth

The stats I've read have said it's very rare for someone to kill again. Where did you get yours Beth?

Dennis

                I read an atricle in the paper a couple of years back only dealing with california and it was around 1200 just in calif during a specific amount of time.  I just googled for 5 minutes and found this,


Obviously, those executed can't murder again. "Of the roughly 52,000 state prison inmates serving time for murder in 1984, an estimated 810 had previously been convicted of murder and had killed 821 persons following their previous murder convictions. Executing each of these inmates would have saved 821 lives." (41, 1 Stanford Law Review, 11/88, pg. 153)  Using a 75% murder clearance rate, it is most probable that the actual number of lives saved would have been 1026, or fifty times the number legally executed that year. This suggests that some 10,000 persons have been murdered, since 1971, by those who had previously committed additional murders (JFA). See B.5.

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html#B.Deterrence

I am sure the number over the past 75 years is astounding.


beth

           Those figures work out to 1.5%, low but it adds up.




beth

Quote from: beth on December 02, 2005, 11:28:28 PM
There have been thousands, yes thousands of second murders. By second murders I mean murderers convicted of murder, who went to prison then were released and then comitted another murder and were convicted again.

Life in prison, period.  No parole, period.  No second murder, period.  Our lawmakers just need to write that law.  I'm happy to report that ... has no death penalty, but the lawmakers decided Life = 25 years.  Dumb.

Dawn

(edited for clarity)

Quote from: DawnL on December 03, 2005, 05:58:17 AM
Life in prison, period.  No parole, period.  No second murder, period.  Our lawmakers just need to write that law.  Wisconsin has no death penalty I'm happy to report but the lawmakers for some reason decided life = 25 years.  Dumb.

That I could agree with. I however can not accept the death penality.

headlines

HUDSON, Ohio - Two small bodies found buried off Interstate 80 with duct-tape crosses over them were identified Saturday as the New Hampshire siblings killed by their father 2 1/2 years ago, authorities announced.

Do you honestly feel that the death penalty is not deserved?

If you think it is not then I am certainly glad that I am not your child.

Leigh

Quote from: Leigh on December 03, 2005, 07:59:30 PM
headlinesHUDSON, Ohio - Two small bodies found buried off Interstate 80 with duct-tape crosses over them were identified Saturday as the New Hampshire siblings killed by their father 2 1/2 years ago, authorities announced.
Do you honestly feel that the death penalty is not deserved?
If you think it is not then I am certainly glad that I am not your child.

a) this is an awful crime

b) the death penalty does NOT resurrect these two children

Okay, how should we decide what crime is heinous enough to deserve the death penalty?

Catch your partner in bed...bang...bang--should you die?

Run over a child and drag them for a quarter of a mile because you're drunk--should you die? This death penalty will NEVER be given in this case.

Kill a child as a paranoid schizophrenic because they messed up your medication--should you die?

You think that just because a crime looks ugly you have a right to commit murder? 

THOU SHALT NOT KILL!  By that premise, we make murder and wrongful homicides a crime but the state can kill people at will?  It's wrong, hypocritical, and barbaric.

If you were the child here, you'd be dead and unable to continue the discussion.

Dawn

Quote from: Leigh on December 03, 2005, 07:59:30 PM
headlines

HUDSON, Ohio - Two small bodies found buried off Interstate 80 with duct-tape crosses over them were identified Saturday as the New Hampshire siblings killed by their father 2 1/2 years ago, authorities announced.

Do you honestly feel that the death penalty is not deserved?



If you think it is not then I am certainly glad that I am not your child.

The death penalty would most certainly be deserved in this case. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, the goblin committed suicide in prison about six months after he was incarcerated. (Personally, I think he had some help)

For those who think that execution is too harsh or barbaric a punishment, I would say this. The Bible states in several instances that murderers shall be put to death. Is God a barbarian? A couple of examples.
Numbers 35;  16-21.  Exodus 21: 12-14

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/numbers/numbers35.htm

http://www.augustana.edu/religion/lutherproject/TemporalAuthority/ScripturalLinks/Exodus%2021.21-24.htm     

Have we really evolved into a kinder, gentler, peace loving species?  No, we have not! The human animal is a predator. Whether we like it or not, that's the way it is. There are those who say, we have risen above that, but the basic instinct to kill is still there and always will be.

I firmly believe in the death penalty. Maybe I'm a product of the environments I have lived in. I don't know but this is the way I feel about the subject.

MaryEllen

Quote from: MaryEllen on December 04, 2005, 04:42:22 PM
For those who think that execution is too harsh or barbaric a punishment, I would say this. The Bible states in several instances that murderers shall be put to death. Is God a barbarian? A couple of examples.
Numbers 35;  16-21.  Exodus 21: 12-14

In actuality, the only murder that the Christian God directly dealt with he exiled the murder, didn't kill or imprison him, then God protected the murderer from revenge stating that anyone who killed him would receive his punishment 7 times over. In the first death penalty case Christ dealt with, he stopped the crowd from stoning the woman to death for adultery.  Remember Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. So we have one example here by the Christian God, and one by Christ. Both go contrary to the death penalty.

You need to read your New testament again because that is the law that applies to Christians. Christ came to replace the old law, and to provide a way to the Christian God for the non-jewish people in the world. Most so called Christian preachers hold on to the old testament law for the control it gives them over their congregations.

Yes some people need to be locked up for the rest of their life to protect society. That being said society does not have the right to remove the gift of life which whatever divinity you believe in granted to humanity and the chance that the person in question could have eventually found their salvation and perhaps even managed to atone for their crime.

Guess I'll dive into this one, too.   

First I'll ask a question of everyone, and if you don't answer on the thread, at least think deeply about it when you go about your day. 

To those of you who oppose the death penalty--- Would you still oppose it if you or one of your loved ones were brutally murdered ? (and I'm hoping no one here has had to experience that)

To those who support the death penalty--- Would you also support it if one of your loved ones was found facing it?  (again, hoping no one's had this happen!) 

The reason I ask is because people generally are quick to form a decision based on principle, yet haven't considered what such a reality would look like for them.  It's a nightmare no matter which side you're viewing it from. 

Beth, I noticed the information you obtained came from a pro-death penalty web-site.  I tend to be more cautious with getting statistics from sources that slant one way or the other. Anti-death penalty advocates woiuld use your information to show that in states where capital punishment is an option, it is not a deterrent. 

From what I have seen, the death penalty is not fair.  There is no set standard for who gets it and who does not.  Here in FL, 2 brothers got the death penalty, even though only one held the gun.  They were robbing I believe it was a conveniece store, and one brother purportedly shot and killed the clerk.  The other brother had no clue that that was going to happen, and didn't aid in the killing, but because he was there, he recived the death sentence as well.  Don't ask for the news article, as I don't have one.  I've been to death-row before, and seen these guys in the visiting area, and the man I was visiting told me their story. 

If you're poor you pretty much get the death penalty if you're eligible for it, unless a high-profile attorney will represent you pro-bono.  If you've got the cash flow, you can pretty much rest assured that even if you're eligible for the death sentence, you won't get it. 

Let me tell you, these guys don't like sitting around waiting for 20 and 30 years either. But if anyone is going to propose a quicker appeals process, they first need to correct the system.  As someone else said, DNA evidence has proven people innocent long after the fact.  Also from what I have seen, most of the guys on death row are too poor to afford a private attorney, so they are forced to accept whatever state-appointed attorney is tossed their way.  In many cases, they botch things up (not meeting filing deadlines, things like that), which serves to prolong the process. 

Who is the death penalty really punishing?  If you got the death penalty, would it punish you? Or would it cause anguish for the many who love you--your sons, daughters, sisters, brothers, parents, SO's?  So here we have one injustice commited in the murder of an innocent person, and that person's family has to suffer the loss.  And then we have a state-sanctioned killing and several dozen other people now have to suffer the loss of one they loved.  And the perpetrator?  He's dead, for cryin' out loud, he could care less.  How is this punishiment? 

It's not---it's revenge. Let's face it: it feels real damn good to give people what we think they deserve, and it feels even better when the government supports this.  Much as I disagree with Leigh, she hit the nail on the head and I respect her for not sugar-coating what she really thinks, or trying to give it another name. 

Where the Bible is concerned, Susan, you got it right with both the Old and New Testament examples.  Also remember what Christ says in the 5th chapter of Matthew, where He is practically re-writing Old Testament law.  Partcularly I'll point out verses 21 and 22: "You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, 'You shall not murder' and 'whoever murders shall be liable to judgement'.  But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment..."

Still, I don't believe that quoting verses of scripture back and forth will help anyone. People on both sides of the fence can hunt and peck for verses that support their view. What is important to consider is the nature of God.  For what I'm about to say next anyone, of course, can listen and comment. But I am specifically addressing Christians because it is Christians who believe they are goin' to Heaven on God's ticket, and it is that specifically which I address. I don't want anyone else to think I'm preachin' at them.   

So Christians, listen up:  Bible hunt-and-peck aside, as a whole, what does it reveal about God's nature?  Bottom line is, we are all sinners, the wages of sin is death, Christ came to atone for sinners, we don't go to hell.  If God truly gave us exactly what we deserve, where would we be? His nature is grace---As Christians, we ought to be examples of grace in this world.  Not one of us has the right claim that one sin is better or worse than another.  If you rob a bank, and I steal a dollar from my mom's purse, we are both equally as guilty under God, and deserving of the same fate, which through Christ all people have been spared from. This goes for Christians and non-Christians. Don't be surprised if the very people you would condemn here on earth are your neighbors in the afterlife. 

OK, preachin's done  :) .... 

Personally, as you all have guessed by now, I'm not a proponent of capital punishment.  If someone killed me, I would not want for that person to receive the death penalrty.

If somone killed someone I love, I would have to seriously fight the urge to go out and kill 'em myself.  My first instinct would be to do as much damage as possible. 

But I'm not a wild animal.  Instinct must be tempered by thought and reasoning, rationale.  I know that if I did hurt or kill someone, even out of revenge for another death, I would immediately regret it.  My true nature is to affirm life and growth. 

If someone killed even my most treasured loved one,though my heart be shattered and though my anger be near to consuming me alive, I would ask the judge not to impose the death sentence. And yes, I have thought about this many, many times over the past several years.

And if it were a loved one who was faced with the death penalty...let's go one step further and say that a loved one killed another loved one.... my heart would be doubly shattered and my anger would be in danger of consuming me, and I would be sick to my stomache....and I would (eventually!) sit down and write a letter to, or visit in prison, the guilty one.  This too, I have thought about frequently over the years. 

There's no easy or simple answer to this, no matter which position you take. We're so quick to judge people here on this site just because they have a different opinion than we do.  I hope none of us ever has to serve as juror for a murder trial. 

Valerie

Quote from: Valerie on December 05, 2005, 07:05:32 AM
Guess I'll dive into this one, too.   

First I'll ask a question of everyone, and if you don't answer on the thread, at least think deeply about it when you go about your day. 

To those of you who oppose the death penalty--- Would you still oppose it if you or one of your loved ones were brutally murdered ? (and I'm hoping no one here has had to experience that)

To those who support the death penalty--- Would you also support it if one of your loved ones was found facing it?  (again, hoping no one's had this happen!)... <cut>

 Valerie

While I am not a religious person, by any stretch of the imagination, I can see where one could be after reading Valerie's post.  This is one of the best replies I have read here at Susan's.

Your insight is very refreshing, thanks for that Val

Steph

Well said Valerie. And in answer to your question, if someone I loved were killed, I would not support the death penalty, but I would have to restrain myself from going out and killing them myself. If I were killed, I would not want the death penalty imposed.

When I have been a victim of a crime (break and enter), although I wanted to go out and hang the little buggers by certain body parts when it happened, by the time I found out who it was, I did not support a harsh sentence, and was willing to support alternative measures other than jail. Although I couldn't actually do that. I found out who it was through solicitor-client privilege, so they never were caught, because I couldn't turn them in.

Dennis

I would hope that I too would have a similar reaction Dennis but I guess until in the position you can only guess.

Shelley

Visited a friend this weekend and saw the bumpersticker on her vehicle:

"When Jesus said to love your enemies, I think He probably meant don't kill them." 

If the evidence points in their direction...fry 'em up like bacon!

Tookie is a racist. He killed for no other reason than the person was white. Given the chance would he do it again? If he isn't eliminated from society than yes he will. If he had murdered someone who was TG, I wonder how many in this community would change their votes. It's a matter of perspective. It is one thing to look at these things from a philosophical standpoint, but from the point of reality and were it intersects with your own life I think perspectives tend to change.

If someone is inclined to murder as Tookie is, the only solution is to insure that they never see the light of day. Perhaps if courts years later weren't inclined to let such people go because gosh gee their really a nice guy I would not be so inclined to call for the death penalty. But unless you can gaurantee that such people will never be realeased the only certain solution is the final solution.

Cassie

Two very good points Cassie but I can't get past the fact that if it is wrong to murder how can the state commit it and it be right. I know that in individual cases it appears justified but it's still wrong to take the life of another in my mind.

Shelley

There is a tradition amongst various "primitive" tribes that if a person kills a family member that killers life belongs to the family and it is up to them what punishment the perpetrator should endure. Perhaps there is wisdom in this.

Cassie

Quote from: Cassandra on December 13, 2005, 01:28:15 PM
Tookie is a racist. He killed for no other reason than the person was white. Given the chance would he do it again? If he isn't eliminated from society than yes he will. If he had murdered someone who was TG, I wonder how many in this community would change their votes. It's a matter of perspective. It is one thing to look at these things from a philosophical standpoint, but from the point of reality and were it intersects with your own life I think perspectives tend to change.

If someone is inclined to murder as Tookie is, the only solution is to insure that they never see the light of day. Perhaps if courts years later weren't inclined to let such people go because gosh gee their really a nice guy I would not be so inclined to call for the death penalty. But unless you can gaurantee that such people will never be realeased the only certain solution is the final solution.

Cassie

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.

The state of California did the right thing in executing "Tookie". The only gripe I have is that it took so long to do it. I totally agree with Cassandra. He was an animal and deserved to die.

Quote from: Harper on December 12, 2005, 10:02:03 PM
Time is ticking away for Tookie, four hours and counting.

These executions solve nothing. Just imagine the family of the victimes waiting how many years to see the sentence carried out. State sponsored killing only begets more violence.

If execution is to be a viable deterant, it needs to be swift and sure.  Tookie waited - what - 25 years?  Waiting for the executioner's axe for one score and five is, in my opinion, unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment.  Under this format, the death penalty is not a viable deterent to crime.  This present format teaches the criminal public to play and work the system to stave off the needle.

How much money was spent for each appeal?    One reason former Gov. Cuomo did not sign the death penalty into law was that it was not ecconomical.  It was far less expensive to confine a criminal to life in prision than to pay for all the appeals.

In a tribal situation, executing a member for some terrible act can be justified by the act placing the entire tribe at risk.  We have far greater resources than any tribe to isolate any criminal from society.  I would rather spend my money there - as life imprisonment - than pay the cost for accidentally executing one innocent person.

Chaunte

Quote from: Cassandra on December 13, 2005, 07:20:27 PM
There is a tradition amongst various "primitive" tribes that if a person kills a family member that killers life belongs to the family and it is up to them what punishment the perpetrator should endure. Perhaps there is wisdom in this.

Yeah they do stuff like that in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan--oh and the Mafia--they do stuff like that, but seeings how we are supposed to be a decent civilized bunch of people with a Constitution and a Bill of Rights and all that, I'm guessing we're supposed to be above all that.  If you want to be "primitive", you'll need to find yourself a jungle, some grass huts, and some other "primitives" to hang out with.  Watch your back though...

Dawn

Quote from: MaryEllen on December 13, 2005, 07:24:29 PM
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

Quote from: Chaunte on December 13, 2005, 07:37:01 PM
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

Quote from: DawnL on December 13, 2005, 07:45:31 PM
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"

Quote from: Leigh on December 13, 2005, 11:09:00 PM
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

Quote from: melissa_girl on December 14, 2005, 10:28:45 AM
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

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.

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

Quote from: Dennis on December 14, 2005, 08:02:56 PM
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!

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

QuoteMurder = 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.

QuoteGee, 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

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.

Quote from: Dennis on December 14, 2005, 08:02:56 PM
...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

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

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?

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.

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

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

Well...almost.....

QuoteFor 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....

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

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.

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.

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

Dennis

Only two people addressed my question, and of the two, only one actually answered it.  Sarah-Louise, thank you for your honesty.

If someone you love was found guilty of murder, would you or would you not advocate that they be put to death?

If you're going to talk about a hot button topic, you cannot be afraid to ask yourself the difficult questions.

Valerie

Quote from: Valerie on February 25, 2006, 12:40:01 PM
Only two people addressed my question, and of the two, only one actually answered it.
...

Quote from: Kimberly on February 23, 2006, 12:12:08 AM...
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.
...

Ok, so it wasn't eloquently put but I DID answer it.

:P


P.s. in case it was not clear, treat everyone the same. That is just the way it works. You cannot special case something like this and retain any justice. (Next up is the rich can murder with impunity, etc. Oh wait...)

I agree with the death penalty but only if there is forensic(sp?) evidence that CLEARLY links the accused of the crime. Or if there are 3 or more crediable eye witnesses to link the accused to the crime. In this day and age you should have to have that in order to say that the person should die. Other than that, I think the people should be locked away in prison.

Quote from: Lessa on February 26, 2006, 03:29:30 PM
Or if there are 3 or more crediable eye witnesses

Not to second guess your opinion, but "eye witnesses" are among the least reliable evidence to convict a criminal with. Not only are eyewitnesses often wrong, they can be manipulated by others, or be manipulative themselves. Better to have a compelling amount of unrefutable evidence like DNA, fingerprints and videotape. 

Quote from: Alexandra on February 26, 2006, 11:38:49 PM
Not to second guess your opinion, but "eye witnesses" are among the least reliable evidence to convict a criminal with. Not only are eyewitnesses often wrong, they can be manipulated by others, or be manipulative themselves. Better to have a compelling amount of unrefutable evidence like DNA, fingerprints and videotape. 

I totally agree that Forensic evidence is better, but I think if the 3 or more eye witnesses don't know eachother, don't know the victom and come forword willing with the info I think that would be enough to give some one the death sentence.

One argument against the death penalty that I heard -  was that because the death penalty was an option - courts were reluctant to find the accused guilty, but would be more prepared to bring down a guilty verdict if the sentence would be 20 years or so in prison.

And on a unrelated matter (sort of), an argument against the death penalty is that "studies have shown" that it has no use as a deterrent.
I have been unable to track down any of these studies & suspect they may be a myth put out by groups opposed to the death penalty.  I would be interested if anybody could show me a link to these "studies"

I am anti-death penalty...it doesn't make anything better to kill someone.  I am for life imprisonment for those who take the life of another.

In general, I am against the death penalty

However...

Rape/incest.  Serial killers.  THese perps should be executed just as we put down a sick animal.  IMO, somone who commits these acts loses the title of being human and becomes simpy an animal with the genes/species of homo-sapien.  This is one area where I would favor abortion.  (No, I am NOT in favor of removing a woman's right to choose.)

Chaunte

I'm not in favor of the death penalty.  No human being should die by the hands of another human being, for it's cruel and totally wrong.
tinkerbell