Death Sentence

[Guest funkyfool416]

What is everones view on the death sentence? Do you think that it should be allowed? Is it considered cruel and unusual punishment which is against our constitution? If you think there should be a death penalty, what should be the minimum age allowed to suffer the consequence?

I think that the government is hypocrytical with the death sentence. They tell you that you aren't allowed to commit murder, yet isnt that exactly what the government is doing to you as your punishment...murder?

What about the tax money that is spent each year to house prison inmates? Does a murder deserve to have the americal people pay for them to stay alive?

Is it a worse punishment to be put to death or is it worse to spend life in prison?

It is just interesting to me to see people opinions on this matter.

[Snow]

Originally posted by funkyfool416@Jan 6 2006, 05:39 PM

I think that the government is hypocrytical with the death sentence. They tell you that you aren't allowed to commit murder, yet isnt that exactly what the government is doing to you as your punishment...murder? 

←

Er, no.

Murder would be unlawful killing as opposed to the death sentence which is lawful killing.

[LionHeart]

I think the death penalty is a good thing. I think it is a waste of tax dollars to house mass murderers. I don't think it can be called murder to execute a murderer. It would be called justice. You must look at it from the victim's point of view and also the point of view of the victim's family. What exactly is someone doing when they take a person's life? They are literally taking away everything that person has or ever will have. They are also robbing that person of their chance to prove theirself. Not to mention what is taken from that person's family. And for what? Most of the time it's either love or money. Someone is willing to rob someone of everything they have to satisfy their own selfishness and gain either love or money for theirself. Murder is selfishness in the worst extreme.

Yes I think someone who intentionally goes to this extreme is worthy of death. However they should definitely be given the benefit of the doubt. But that's just me. (but then I think hackers are worthy of death also)

However, if they are going to execute someone, they had better make dang sure that person is guilty. I think many lawyers are guilty of murder. Many of them, when they handle a case, are not concerned about justice, they are only concerned about winning so they can improve their name. And they are willing to legally murder someone to satisfy this selfish ambition. I think the justice system needs an overhaul. I think we need to find a way to make so that lawyers don't get paid according to haw many cases they have won. Perhaps they should have a set pay scale so that money is not all they see when they take a case.

I know if I was a lawyer, if solid evidence was uncovered that proved my client guilty, I would drop the case. This is probably why I would fail as a lawyer.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by funkyfool416@Jan 6 2006, 06:39 PM

What is everones view on the death sentence? Do you think that it should be allowed? Is it considered cruel and unusual punishment which is against our constitution? If you think there should be a death penalty, what should be the minimum age allowed to suffer the consequence?

I think that the government is hypocrytical with the death sentence. They tell you that you aren't allowed to commit murder, yet isnt that exactly what the government is doing to you as your punishment...murder? 

What about the tax money that is spent each year to house prison inmates? Does a murder deserve to have the americal people pay for them to stay alive?

Is it a worse punishment to be put to death or is it worse to spend life in prison?

It is just interesting to me to see people opinions on this matter.

←

The reality of society is that if you are not willing to do more to stop a crime than a criminal is willing to do to get away with it then you can never have justice. This is the primary reason that there is very little deterrent to crime in our country.

Justice has two obligations. First is to protect the innocent. The second is to punish the guilty. It makes no sense to punish the innocent or to protect the guilty.

I was once in a discussion where a person stated that they believed that it was better to let 99 guilty go free than it is to punish one that is innocent. This makes no sense to me. If one guilty is set free or one innocent punished justice has not been served. But ask yourself this question. Is society better off letting 99 murders free to murder again or putting to death one innocent person? It would seem that for the sake of society that we would be better off erroring on the side of punishment - except that the first obligation of the law is to protect innocent. And that is the rub, more that are innocent would remain safe if society made certain no murder would ever be allowed to murder again.

The Traveler

[Guest funkyfool416]

Originally posted by Traveler@Jan 6 2006, 11:52 PM

Justice has two obligations.  First is to protect the innocent.  The second is to punish the guilty.  It makes no sense to punish the innocent or to protect the guilty.

Wow. I really like that. I guess i see it a little differently after that. I guess i never thought of it like that.

[Aristotle]

I support the death penalty. If public executions where held, there would be fewer murders committed. I also believe if a man rapes a woman, he should be castrated.

[LionHeart]

Originally posted by Aristotle@Jan 7 2006, 12:42 AM

I support the death penalty.  If public executions where held, there would be fewer murders committed.  I also believe if a man rapes a woman, he should be castrated.

←

I absolutely agree.

I also like a little saying by Ron White. "In Texas, we have the death penalty and we use it. That's right, if you kill someone in Texas, we will kill you back."

[lisajo]

Originally posted by funkyfool416@Jan 6 2006, 05:39 PM

What is everones view on the death sentence? Do you think that it should be allowed? Is it considered cruel and unusual punishment which is against our constitution? If you think there should be a death penalty, what should be the minimum age allowed to suffer the consequence?

I think that the government is hypocrytical with the death sentence. They tell you that you aren't allowed to commit murder, yet isnt that exactly what the government is doing to you as your punishment...murder? 

What about the tax money that is spent each year to house prison inmates? Does a murder deserve to have the americal people pay for them to stay alive?

Is it a worse punishment to be put to death or is it worse to spend life in prison?

It is just interesting to me to see people opinions on this matter.

←

BLAH BLAH BLAH!!! didn't we already do this subject?

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by funkyfool416@Jan 6 2006, 06:39 PM

What is everones view on the death sentence? Do you think that it should be allowed? Is it considered cruel and unusual punishment which is against our constitution? If you think there should be a death penalty, what should be the minimum age allowed to suffer the consequence?

My main difficulty with the death penalty is that wealthy fair-skinned types seldom get it, while men of color but not means, disproportionately do get it. It may not be inherently wrong, but the way our states carry it out has the appearance of being out of balance.

I think that the government is hypocrytical with the death sentence. They tell you that you aren't allowed to commit murder, yet isnt that exactly what the government is doing to you as your punishment...murder?

Yes, and it raises up armies for defense--armies charged with killing people. Except that there was a death penalty in the Mosaic Law, and God's people were often ordered to fight against the immoral Canaanites. So, that "no murder" command seems to be geared towards people killing out of criminality, anger, or negligence.

What about the tax money that is spent each year to house prison inmates? Does a murder deserve to have the americal people pay for them to stay alive?

It's cheaper to house them than to execute them. On the other hand, should we continue to keep alive individuals so dangerous, the present a threat to the correctional workers who manage them (the really bad guys)?

Is it a worse punishment to be put to death or is it worse to spend life in prison?

Yes. Lifers still have prison chaplains that can point them to God.

[dwellingmissy]

now i think that the death penalty is 50/50. i'm british so don't really understand how it works in the states with laws ect, however i think they need it here in the uk!!! I recently finished a training course and we breifly spoke about psycho's n how its part of the brain that is damaged and that's why they do wot there doin. Prison is meant to rehabilitate offenders to come back in the world and live in the correct social manner. So if thats the case I think pedophiles and serial killers and rapists SHOULD be hung drawn and quarted if their brain is damaged how r they going to be rehabilitated????? it is a waste of money housin these people in prison and yes people say let them live with the guilt! they dont have a conciounce so they not bothered with guilt. I say yes for the death sentance then god can judge them quicker!!

i no as christians we dont belive in an eye for an eye and all that but the sociaty we have to live in and ajust to today is discusting and the justice system in the uk is backwards!

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by LionHeart+Jan 7 2006, 12:21 AM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Aristotle@Jan 7 2006, 12:42 AM

I support the death penalty.  If public executions where held, there would be fewer murders committed.  I also believe if a man rapes a woman, he should be castrated.

←

I absolutely agree.

I also like a little saying by Ron White. "In Texas, we have the death penalty and we use it. That's right, if you kill someone in Texas, we will kill you back."

←

Another like-minded person. ;-)

And I believe the death sentence should be carried out quickly...not leave someone behind bars for the taxpayers to support. If the crime has been proven, and through DNA, the murderer is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, I don't think an appeal is warranted or justified.

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by dwellingmissy@Jan 7 2006, 05:37 AM

Prison is meant to rehabilitate offenders to come back in the world and live in the correct social manner.

←

Unfortunately, here in the U.S., prisoners aren't rehabilitated in prison, which is why there are repeat offenders. One doesn't change until one is ready to change, and oftentimes it's after a crime has been committed and prison time is served. Young people don't have a chance in the prison system...usually they are exposed to more corruption, with prison gangs and corrupt officials.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Aristotle@Jan 7 2006, 08:37 AM

Unfortunately, here in the U.S., prisoners aren't rehabilitated in prison, which is why there are repeat offenders.  One doesn't change until one is ready to change, and oftentimes it's after a crime has been committed and prison time is served.  Young people don't have a chance in the prison system...usually they are exposed to more corruption, with prison gangs and corrupt officials.

←

I do not agree:

25 years ago I was living in Seattle when I met a businessman that was an international broker. He would broker international deals in products from raw good to manufactured goods between businesses of different nationalities. He was quite wealthy. Prior to living in Seattle he lived in South America because living there have him advantages in his business. He moved to Seattle when kidnapers took a wealthy business man that live next door to him and in the gun battle over 100 rounds found their way into his home where he, his wife and children feared for their lives.

He told me something interesting. He said that only Coke executives were able to do business in South America without fear. The reason was the Coke Company hired a small army of mercenaries. The story was that this small army did research on the kidnapers and then met with the leaders in some cantina in a small village that went something like this.

The lead mercenary would open a photo album while he was saying, “Do not take any Coke executive because under no circumstance will we negotiate their release but this is what we will do.” Opening the book they show pictures of family and friends of the kidnapers and saying, “We will kill everyone starting with your parents, wife, children cozens, ants, uncles – all these people until we find you or until someone tells us where you are. Then we will come and kill you. We do not even care if you were involved or not – we will kill you anyway. If you were not involved, you can try telling us who it was and then maybe we will not kill you – we will decide that when the time comes. But we will not negotiate ever and we will not stop killing your friends and family until you are dead.

Over the years I have watched the Coke Company. They just do not have problems doing business internationally that other companies do. I personally believe that crime takes place in our country (society) for two reasons. First, is that as a society we are willing to tolerate crime – we are more interested in blame than in stopping crime, therefore our courts and legal system are more geared toward finding someone or something to blame or shifting the blame somewhere else than we are about ending crime (protecting innocent and punishing guilty). Second, our society considers telling on someone (ratting them out) a greater crime than committing any real crime in the first place. We only tell on our enemies – never our family or friends. Well maybe there are some exceptions but for the most part we will tolerate some minor crimes especially among close family and friends – that is as long as it does not hurt us directly.

The Traveler

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Traveler@Jan 7 2006, 12:09 PM

I personally believe that crime takes place in our country (society) for two reasons.  First, is that as a society we are willing to tolerate crime – we are more interested in blame than in stopping crime, therefore our courts and legal system are more geared toward finding someone or something to blame or shifting the blame somewhere else than we are about ending crime (protecting innocent and punishing guilty).  Second, our society considers telling on someone (ratting them out) a greater crime than committing any real crime in the first place.  We only tell on our enemies – never our family or friends.  Well maybe there are some exceptions but for the most part we will tolerate some minor crimes especially among close family and friends – that is as long as it does not hurt us directly.

The Traveler

←

I agree with the last paragraph of your post, and I would even add another reason: Crime exits and is prevalent in this country because of corrupt public officials working hand in hand with gangs and the mafia. Hence, no rehab for the kids who have been set up.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by funkyfool416+Jan 6 2006, 10:03 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Traveler@Jan 6 2006, 11:52 PM

Justice has two obligations.  First is to protect the innocent.  The second is to punish the guilty.  It makes no sense to punish the innocent or to protect the guilty.

Wow. I really like that. I guess i see it a little differently after that. I guess i never thought of it like that.

←

I suggest you read the book "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat. This is a short book inspired by the founders of the USA. This book has changed my outlook on the Law forever.

The Traveler

[Guest funkyfool416]

"I suggest you read the book "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat. This is a short book inspired by the founders of the USA. This book has changed my outlook on the Law forever.

The Traveler"

lol maybe Ill read it....not likely though. I dont read much. But thank you for all of your input. I disagree with the castration thing but everyone is entitled to their own opinion I guess. Oh and lisajo...whats your prob?

[Justlooking]

Exd 21:12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.

Exd 21:15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

Exd 21:16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

Exd 21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

Exd 21:29 But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.

Exd 22:19 Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.

Exd 31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it [is] holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth [any] work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

Lev 19:20 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that [is] a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.

Lev 20:2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever [he be] of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth [any] of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.

Lev 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man's wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Lev 20:11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

Lev 20:12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood [shall be] upon them.

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

Lev 20:15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.

Lev 20:16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

Lev 20:27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood [shall be] upon them.

Lev 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, [and] all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name [of the LORD], shall be put to death.

Deu 13:5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn [you] away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.

Deu 22:20 But if this thing be true, [and the tokens of] virginity be not found for the damsel: 21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Deu 22:22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, [both] the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

Deu 22:23 If a damsel [that is] a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, [being] in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

Deu 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: 26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; [there is] in the damsel no sin [worthy] of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so [is] this matter:

These are the things in the bible that warrent the death penalty. Not all government have this exact code, but basically these things will kill you spiritually anyway since we reap what we sow.

[sgallan]

Do you think that it should be allowed?

If it is 100% certain that the killer did it - 99.9999999% isn't good enough - then I can see it. However, given that people on death roll have been found innocent through DNA suggests that we don't hold to that 100% standard. Therefore - like Illinois did - I can see the rationale for a moratorium on the death penalty until we can assure innocents are not put to death.

[sgallan]

I do have to add though..... for those against abortion, bout for Capital Punishment..... no matter how you spin it.... I do not consider you as having any moral high ground if you do not hold to the 100% standard.

[Aristotle]

If one is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (DNA testing), I believe it is a waste of the taxpayers' money to keep the prisoner incarcerated.

Murder is as morally reprehensible as abortion.

[Behunin]

Originally posted by sgallan@Jan 8 2006, 09:42 PM

Do you think that it should be allowed?

If it is 100% certain that the killer did it - 99.9999999% isn't good enough - then I can see it. However, given that people on death roll have been found innocent through DNA suggests that we don't hold to that 100% standard. Therefore - like Illinois did - I can see the rationale for a moratorium on the death penalty until we can assure innocents are not put to death.

←

I agree. Once it is absolutely proven that the accused killer is in the the guilty party, then the death penalty is just. Not only just, but the only way the murderer can approach repentance.

[Prend1]

I don't care what anyone says but I am against abortion and the death penatly. I feel that it is not man's place to kill...only God's.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by sgallan@Jan 8 2006, 08:42 PM

Do you think that it should be allowed?

If it is 100% certain that the killer did it - 99.9999999% isn't good enough - then I can see it. However, given that people on death roll have been found innocent through DNA suggests that we don't hold to that 100% standard. Therefore - like Illinois did - I can see the rationale for a moratorium on the death penalty until we can assure innocents are not put to death.

←

I believe this kind of thinking is nuts. Allow me to illustrate. There is some risk of life to many things. Just getting in a car for a trip or walking along a street. However, there is an obligation in society to protect its citizens. Are you and your children safer in a society that out of 1000 cases punished one person that should not have been convicted and punished - or are we better if we let 999 murders and rapers off scott free in our society to do what they do best?

In truth it is unjust to let one crime go unpunished or to punish one innocent person. But I wonder about erroring and the concept of encouraging murders to continue in fear of punishing one innocent person. I think we are better taking out one innocent person than letting murders try again - even if the innocent person is me - I would rather give my life to protect my family than to let a murder do his thing with my family as the target - or even your family for that matter.

I do not believe in encouraging crime even at the risk of society making a mistake on a rare occasions. As flawed as our courts are, I still believe in them. If a person is convicted in court they are guilty - if they are not convicted they are innocent - that is our law. Please do not take this right for courts by juries away. Especially under this nonsense that they can't always get it right. That we find better ways of establishing evidence is a good thing but let us not forget the rights and powers of trial by jury

The Traveler

[sgallan]

or are we better if we let 999 murders and rapers off scott free in our society to do what they do best?

I didn't say that. I said you don't put them to death unless you are 100% certain. Because if they are innocent that is what is known as murder.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by sgallan@Jan 9 2006, 07:37 AM

or are we better if we let 999 murders and rapers off scott free in our society to do what they do best?

I didn't say that. I said you don't put them to death unless you are 100% certain. Because if they are innocent that is what is known as murder.

←

Wise prison chaplains do not take strong positions on this topic (unless they're against). And, quite frankly, I'm ambivalent. However, from a Judeo-Christian perspective, the 100% accuracy standard was never realistic or achievable. Yet, the Mosaic Law called for execution. So, I'm not certain one can argue from a strictly religious standpoint against state-sponsored executions.

On the other hand, my own concern is that there seems to be pretty clear indications that the darker your skin color and the skimpier your bank account the more likely you are to be a victim of a mistaken decision. In contrast, wealthy light-colored folk who are as guilty as they get can often present a calm "professional" court demeanor, and can afford lawyers who know how to muddy the facts, so that they end up serving life or less.