Abortion and the Death Penalty

[salmarnirecho]

I cannot fully understand the logic of people who are simulatneously for the death penalty and against abortion. Both are murder (I'm assuming the stance that abortion is). An argument I hear a lot is that a fetus is innocent and a killer is not. He compromises his rights in the murder of another human being. So why aren't our rights compromised if we execute him? It seems that it's vigilante justice, just on a larger scale. I don't get how you can be for one form of murder, and against another.

[Machu505]

Personally, I do not support abortion, but I recognize a woman's right to make her own decisions. I'm also against the death penalty; life in prison would be worse than just dying.

[open mind]

on a purely moral level i think both practices are repulsive.......but i'm reasonable enough to see that making most things illegal doesn't stop them from happening, and that it usually ends up causing problems worse then the original one, so i don't really support making abortion illegal. i am all for abolishing the death penalty though.

[xmadeofstonex]

Abortion is a red herring. People who choose candidates to vote for based upon their stance on abortion are idiots.

Basically whether abortion is legal or not people are still going to get abortions, in countries where abortions are illegal they still have the same rate of abortions as we do in the United States so in my eyes it's an irrelevant thing.

[GiggsOho]

I don't see why people get so up in arms about the death penalty. If you don't do anything heinous, you won't have to worry about it. Putting someone for life in prison is just wasted taxpayer's money.

[open mind]

I don't see why people get so up in arms about the death penalty. If you don't do anything heinous, you won't have to worry about it. Putting someone for life in prison is just wasted taxpayer's money.

punishing someone for killing by killing them is the height of hypocrisy......and it costs more to execute someone then it does to keep them in prison for life.

[GiggsOho]

punishing someone for killing by killing them is the height of hypocrisy......and it costs more to execute someone then it does to keep them in prison for life.


So do what, rehabilitate them with poorly-funded state-psych programs, and then have them hit the streets and do the same exact thing? Oh, yeah, that's a great alternative. But at least we won't be hypocritical.

[Susanna]

I don't see why people get so up in arms about the death penalty. If you don't do anything heinous, you won't have to worry about it. Putting someone for life in prison is just wasted taxpayer's money.
It is no ones place to cast the stone of death upon another human being. Who are we to make that call? The United States is one of the few countries left in the world who utilize the death penalty. It has been recognized across the world by nations of various economic statuses that the practice of capitol punishment is barbaric, unnecessary, and/or inhumane. In a country that prides itself on it's morality and intelligence, why do we still act like a "third world" country?

Many cringe at stoning someone or beheading them but will agree to sticking a needle in someone's arm and taking their life. What's the difference? It's cleaner and more humane by appearance but in actuality it is really not all that humane. Lethal injection is performed with a series of injections. The first is a muscle relaxant which makes the pain invisible to our eyes.

Why do you think that capitol punishment is a good route?

[captainhampton]

punishing someone for killing by killing them is the height of hypocrisy......and it costs more to execute someone then it does to keep them in prison for life.

So do what, rehabilitate them with poorly-funded state-psych programs, and then have them hit the streets and do the same exact thing? Oh, yeah, that's a great alternative. But at least we won't be hypocritical.

I agree with some of both points. I'd have no problem getting rid of the death penalty if life sentences mean life sentences. Giving sentences without the possibility of parole can be just as effective. that said, there are too many times where violent offenders are "rehabilitated" and then let back on our streets only to commit crimes again.

[Broken Parachute]

I don't see why people get so up in arms about the death penalty. If you don't do anything heinous, you won't have to worry about it. Putting someone for life in prison is just wasted taxpayer's money.Actually, it costs more to execute a prisoner than it does to put them in prison for life.

Edit: Sorry, it was already said.

[GiggsOho]

It is no ones place to cast the stone of death upon another human being. Who are we to make that call? The United States is one of the few countries left in the world who utilize the death penalty. It has been recognized across the world by nations of various economic statuses that the practice of capitol punishment is barbaric, unnecessary, and/or inhumane. In a country that prides itself on it's morality and intelligence, why do we still act like a "third world" country?

Many cringe at stoning someone or beheading them but will agree to sticking a needle in someone's arm and taking their life. What's the difference? It's cleaner and more humane by appearance but in actuality it is really not all that humane. Lethal injection is performed with a series of injections. The first is a muscle relaxant which makes the pain invisible to our eyes.

Why do you think that capitol punishment is a good route?

Because I don't think someone has the right to life if they themselves don't respect the fragility of it. You steal life, you should have yours stolen. Eye for an eye, call it barbaric, but I think pre-meditated murder is just as barbaric. I can see saying that is hypocritical, but like I said, if you don't respect the sanctity of life, than you really don't deserve yours.

Now, before everyone turns that last sentence into an abortion argument, I think as a man, I have no freakin' idea what it's like to bear a child, so I feel I don't have the need to rule on whether or not it's legal.

Furthermore, everyone saying "it's so inhumane," Well, wasn't the actual murder itsself pretty inhumane to begin with?

Actually, it costs more to execute a prisoner than it does to put them in prison for life.

Edit: Sorry, it was already said.

Can I see some evidence? I'm not trying to be difficult, I just want to see it. A bunch of states just eliminated it, which I have no problem with, because they weren't using it. No sense in dumping taxpayer money into a stagnant part of the justice system. But as to whether or not it's more/less expensive, I couldn't say off the top of my head.

[Broken Parachute]

Can I see some evidence? I'm not trying to be difficult, I just want to see it. A bunch of states just eliminated it, which I have no problem with, because they weren't using it. No sense in dumping taxpayer money into a stagnant part of the justice system. But as to whether or not it's more/less expensive, I couldn't say off the top of my head.I never believed it was true until I did some research on it.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108#FromDPIC

[bluecrunchy]

I agree with the initial post. Logically, you can't be for one and against the other.

[GiggsOho]

I never believed it was true until I did some research on it.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108#FromDPIC


Wow, I had no idea the figures were that high, I thought states were just dumping it because they weren't using it, not because of the amount dumped into the actual criminal procedures.


While life-w/o-parole cases are cheaper in trial, the prison system in this country is rapidly growing out of control; that's not news. So I don't necessarily agree with that being the right alternative. So you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

Another sign our country is totally fucked.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Personally, I do not support abortion, but I recognize a woman's right to make her own decisions. I'm also against the death penalty; life in prison would be worse than just dying.
What he said.

[xmadeofstonex]

It costs more to execute someone due to the appeals process, which is pretty much necessary if you're going to have the death penatly.


The only way I'm OK with capital punishment is if DNA later proves someone who has been put to death innocent, then the prosecutor, the judge, and all the jurors have to be put to death as well.

[Susanna]

Because I don't think someone has the right to life if they themselves don't respect the fragility of it. You steal life, you should have yours stolen. Eye for an eye, call it barbaric, but I think pre-meditated murder is just as barbaric. I can see saying that is hypocritical, but like I said, if you don't respect the sanctity of life, than you really don't deserve yours.

Now, before everyone turns that last sentence into an abortion argument, I think as a man, I have no freakin' idea what it's like to bear a child, so I feel I don't have the need to rule on whether or not it's legal.

Furthermore, everyone saying "it's so inhumane," Well, wasn't the actual murder itsself pretty inhumane to begin with?

Yes, it is inhumane to kill another person. The murderer has made heinous choices and has done severe wrong. What makes taking their life any better than what they did? They deserve to be punished severely; however, I believe it to be a better punishment to spend your life in prision. You said that you "don't think someone has the right to life if they themselves don't respect the fragility of it". My question to you is that if they don't respect the fragility of it what makes you think that they are going to care if there are put to death? Some of the worst murders have Antisocial Personality Disorder. I would venture to argue that due to the symptoms of this illness, such as being disconnected from reality and living in an often depressed or delusional state, a significant amount of these murders would have little regard pertaining to their own safety or their life.

I approach life in general with a very strong moral compass based on the emotions of myself and others. I very much believe in what I call the "ripple effect". For example: the original murder took the victim away from their family, friends, co-workers, etc. This caused a ripple effect of grief, pain, and mourning throughout all of these people. The murderer is now found guilty and is put to death. The murderers family, friends, co-workers, etc are now suffering from the same pain that the victim's group did. Before you use the logic of "well at least the murderer did something to warrant this", remember that pain is pain and heartache is heartache. That logic doesn't make the pain of the murders loved ones go away. So twice the amount of people had to suffer and experience this heart wrenching loss and for what? So that the state could say that they rid society of this problem? Life without parole has the same effect. They are unable to commit the same crime again, they have the potential to grow, learn, and change to some degree while in prison, and perhaps after enough years they will even begin to feel remorse.

I find it incredibly difficult to understand the logic behind the support of capitol punishment. We are human beings with emotions, desires, and the ability to place faith in someone and let them be forgiven, let's remember this in our decision processes rather than just saying "an eye for an eye". That is such a sad way to look at the world; such a rigid life.

[xmadeofstonex]

Also, death penalty is fucking barbaric, most of the people who commit murder are rarely in the right frame of mind, either permanent mental disorder or extreme stress if it's a crime of passion.

[thespearkid]

I don't know who said this but there's a quote that sums up my views of the death penalty pretty well; "I simply don't trust the government enough to give them the power to kill me." My views on abortion are sort of conflicted though. On the one hand, everybody has the right to life but on the other hand, giving the government to ability to tell someone what they can and can't do with their bodies sets a dangerous precedence.

[GiggsOho]

Yes, it is inhumane to kill another person. The murderer has made heinous choices and has done severe wrong. What makes taking their life any better than what they did? They deserve to be punished severely; however, I believe it to be a better punishment to spend your life in prision. You said that you "don't think someone has the right to life if they themselves don't respect the fragility of it". My question to you is that if they don't respect the fragility of it what makes you think that they are going to care if there are put to death? Some of the worst murders have Antisocial Personality Disorder. I would venture to argue that due to the symptoms of this illness, such as being disconnected from reality and living in an often depressed or delusional state, a significant amount of these murders would have little regard pertaining to their own safety or their life.

I approach life in general with a very strong moral compass based on the emotions of myself and others. I very much believe in what I call the "ripple effect". For example: the original murder took the victim away from their family, friends, co-workers, etc. This caused a ripple effect of grief, pain, and mourning throughout all of these people. The murderer is now found guilty and is put to death. The murderers family, friends, co-workers, etc are now suffering from the same pain that the victim's group did. Before you use the logic of "well at least the murderer did something to warrant this", remember that pain is pain and heartache is heartache. That logic doesn't make the pain of the murders loved ones go away. So twice the amount of people had to suffer and experience this heart wrenching loss and for what? So that the state could say that they rid society of this problem? Life without parole has the same effect. They are unable to commit the same crime again, they have the potential to grow, learn, and change to some degree while in prison, and perhaps after enough years they will even begin to feel remorse.

I find it incredibly difficult to understand the logic behind the support of capitol punishment. We are human beings with emotions, desires, and the ability to place faith in someone and let them be forgiven, let's remember this in our decision processes rather than just saying "an eye for an eye". That is such a sad way to look at the world; such a rigid life.

For the first part, I understand what you are saying; someone commits a crime and says "yeah, kill me, that's what I want." Whatever makes them suffer is the best option, which could be determined by a case-by-case basis, but unfortunately, that's not exactly how it works. I think keeping them alive is just a burden. I'm sorry, if I'm the parent of the victim, I could give a flying fuck if the murderer's family has to suffer. Maybe it's just me, and I'm selfish in my own right when it comes to this, but I just don't care if the murderer's family is upset that their murderous family member is going to die.

The second part, you have more hope than I do. I used to think people could rehabilitate those who commit these crimes, but you see too many stories of "the warning signs where there, why was so-and-so let back into society to commit these heinous crimes?" I think those stories are the saddest of all, because they could have been avoided.

I don't know who said this but there's a quote that sums up my views of the death penalty pretty well; "I simply don't trust the government enough to give them the power to kill me." My views on abortion are sort of conflicted though. On the one hand, everybody has the right to life but on the other hand, giving the government to ability to tell someone what they can and can't do with their bodies sets a dangerous precedence.

If you don't put yourself in the situation where the gov't has to make that decision, it shouldn't matter.

[lauren<3s music]

Abortion is much more than what you break it down to be. It is the fundamental principal that the government should not have a say in your personal medical decisions. First, it's abortion then birth control, then what? The irony of it all is the party who supposedly is for "less government" is the one demanding interventions into family's medical decisions.

Oh and I'm also for the death penalty. I believe that some crimes absolutely warrant death because there is no hope of rehabilitation. If there is no hope of releasing them back into society, then why should we pay to keep them alive?

[Susanna]

For the first part, I understand what you are saying; someone commits a crime and says "yeah, kill me, that's what I want." Whatever makes them suffer is the best option, which could be determined by a case-by-case basis, but unfortunately, that's not exactly how it works. I think keeping them alive is just a burden. I'm sorry, if I'm the parent of the victim, I could give a flying fuck if the murderer's family has to suffer. Maybe it's just me, and I'm selfish in my own right when it comes to this, but I just don't care if the murderer's family is upset that their murderous family member is going to die.
I can say with some certainty that if someone murdered my mom or my boyfriend that I would not want them to die. I would gain nothing by the death of this person. I would live with the knowledge that the family of this person is now experiencing the same tragedy that I am. I'm not a vindictive person so that doesn't appeal to me at all.
The second part, you have more hope than I do. I used to think people could rehabilitate those who commit these crimes, but you see too many stories of "the warning signs where there, why was so-and-so let back into society to commit these heinous crimes?" I think those stories are the saddest of all, because they could have been avoided.
I love living a life full of hope. It makes it a little less of a scary world. When we lose our hope we lose our desire to change things in a positive way and without positive change we are but animals. Also, I agree with the latter part, those are very tragic cases. I personally am for a firm life without parole system. Parole should never be an option with premeditated heinous murders.

[Susanna]

Oh and I'm also for the death penalty. I believe that some crimes absolutely warrant death because there is no hope of rehabilitation. If there is no hope of releasing them back into society, then why should we pay to keep them alive?
Why should we pay to kill them? As stated earlier in this thread, capitol punishment costs as much or more than housing the criminal for life. Why is it necessary to execute them?

[Broken Parachute]

Abortion is much more than what you break it down to be. It is the fundamental principal that the government should not have a say in your personal medical decisions. First, it's abortion then birth control, then what? The irony of it all is the party who supposedly is for "less government" is the one demanding interventions into family's medical decisions.It's more of a moral thing than anything. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. One could argue abortion takes away the right to life. Another could argue life was never there to begin with. It's really a lose/lose situation with no end in sight, so I don't trouble myself with it despite being against it.

Oh and I'm also for the death penalty. I believe that some crimes absolutely warrant death because there is no hope of rehabilitation. If there is no hope of releasing them back into society, then why should we pay to keep them alive?Our justice system is far from perfect. Mistakes are made all the time.

[GiggsOho]

I can say with some certainty that if someone murdered my mom or my boyfriend that I would not want them to die. I would gain nothing by the death of this person. I would live with the knowledge that the family of this person is now experiencing the same tragedy that I am. I'm not a vindictive person so that doesn't appeal to me at all.

I love living a life full of hope. It makes it a little less of a scary world. When we lose our hope we lose our desire to change things in a positive way and without positive change we are but animals. Also, I agree with the latter part, those are very tragic cases. I personally am for a firm life without parole system. Parole should never be an option with premeditated heinous murders.


You are totally entitled to live your life like that, but I think we just are going to have agree to disagree. I like that you have so much hope, which I do as well, just not in this aspect of justice. Hope gets thrown out the window when people don't realize and respect the fragility of life in the first place. While I can without-a-doubt say I would feel vindication if the murderer was killed, if such a heinous crime occurred in my life, but I wouldn't feel vindictive toward the family if the family was genuinely upset. They didn't commit the crime. I also am fully aware that a death sentence wouldn't bring the victim back.

But, again, I don't have a suggestion on how to make it better. I do believe the death penalty is a vicious, vindictive cycle; and maybe there is a better answer to it in the future. I just don't think there is anything out there right now that answers the question of how to deal with these crimes.

[lauren<3s music]

Why should we pay to kill them? As stated earlier in this thread, capitol punishment costs as much or more than housing the criminal for life. Why is it necessary to execute them?

I just don't think that certain criminals deserve the right to live. Regardless of how awful you make their existence in prison, they still get to wake up every morning and that's a right certain people shouldn't have.

[Susanna]

You are totally entitled to live your life like that, but I think we just are going to have agree to disagree. I like that you have so much hope, which I do as well, just not in this aspect of justice. Hope gets thrown out the window when people don't realize and respect the fragility of life in the first place. While I can without-a-doubt say I would feel vindication if the murderer was killed, if such a heinous crime occurred in my life, but I wouldn't feel vindictive toward the family if the family was genuinely upset. They didn't commit the crime. I also am fully aware that a death sentence wouldn't bring the victim back.

But, again, I don't have a suggestion on how to make it better. I do believe the death penalty is a vicious, vindictive cycle; and maybe there is a better answer to it in the future. I just don't think there is anything out there right now that answers the question of how to deal with these crimes.
Yes, agree to disagree. While I disagree with your general view of the death penalty, I can understand why you feel that way-- the majority of the US seems to. We would have these discussions in class and it was always fascinating watching people defend their beliefs one way or the other.

I hope that there is a better option in the future. I feel that there must be away. It just doesn't seem that in many people's minds capitol punishment is in the forefront of the issues to be addressed.

[lauren<3s music]

It's more of a moral thing than anything. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. One could argue abortion takes away the right to life. Another could argue life was never there to begin with. It's really a lose/lose situation with no end in sight, so I don't trouble myself with it despite being against it.

Our justice system is far from perfect. Mistakes are made all the time.

But it's not the government's right to determine what is moral and what isn't. There's that whole separation of church and state thing. Leave it to the individuals to determine what is right for them according to their beliefs.

Agreed. I think the death penalty's implementation would need to be much more stringent than it is now.

[kchubb]

the death penalty does not concern "morals." its not a question of money, rehabilitation, retribution, etc. it comes down to what that person deserves. some people that we exicute don't deserve it... i can agree with that, but there are people that do. an argument put forth by justice Scalia presented a case where an 8 year old girl was raped but 4 men and then sufficated with her own underwear. in my opinion they deserve to die. Not in an eye for an eye way, but what they did deserves death... for nothing more than thats what an act like that warrents. Hitler and Stalin deserved to die... bundy deserved to die... there should be no other factor than that.

[Susanna]

I just don't think that certain criminals deserve the right to live. Regardless of how awful you make their existence in prison, they still get to wake up every morning and that's a right certain people shouldn't have.
We all have the right to live, no matter the crimes we have committed. It is certainly no one else's call to say that a single person does not deserve to wake up in the morning. They do not deserve to be in the community as they are a threat to the general well being but they do not lose their natural born right to life.

[GiggsOho]

Yes, agree to disagree. While I disagree with your general view of the death penalty, I can understand why you feel that way-- the majority of the US seems to. We would have these discussions in class and it was always fascinating watching people defend their beliefs one way or the other.

I hope that there is a better option in the future. I feel that there must be away. It just doesn't seem that in many people's minds capitol punishment is in the forefront of the issues to be addressed.


Unforunately, I agree with that, though. With all the other BS going on in this country (economy in the shitter, energy concerns, Iraq & the threat of terrorism...), this is an issue that's just going to have to chill until we can dig ourselves out of this chasm that we are in.

[Susanna]

the death penalty does not concern "morals." its not a question of money, rehabilitation, retribution, etc. it comes down to what that person deserves. some people that we exicute don't deserve it... i can agree with that, but there are people that do. an argument put forth by justice Scalia presented a case where an 8 year old girl was raped but 4 men and then sufficated with her own underwear. in my opinion they deserve to die. Not in an eye for an eye way, but what they did deserves death... for nothing more than thats what an act like that warrents. Hitler and Stalin deserved to die... bundy deserved to die... there should be no other factor than that.
What gives anyone the right to make the call on who deserves to die? They deserve to be imprisoned for life without parole but they do not deserve to die. In my eyes, no one deserves to die unnaturally.

[Susanna]

Unforunately, I agree with that, though. With all the other BS going on in this country (economy in the shitter, energy concerns, Iraq & the threat of terrorism...), this is an issue that's just going to have to chill until we can dig ourselves out of this chasm that we are in.
I think that wont happen for a long time to come. Our country is in distress right now and this is an issue that will take a lot of time, energy, and effort to resolve and, unfortunately, our country is not in the position to heal this problem.

[thespearkid]

If you don't put yourself in the situation where the gov't has to make that decision, it shouldn't matter.
It's not that simple. It doesn't really matter if I do anything that warrants the death penalty. It only matters in twelve people decide that I PROBABLY did something. Everyday you hear about people who were kept in prison for years only to have their cases overturned by DNA evidence or someone else's confession. Imagine if they had been given the death penalty.

[lauren<3s music]

We all have the right to live, no matter the crimes we have committed. It is certainly no one else's call to say that a single person does not deserve to wake up in the morning. They do not deserve to be in the community as they are a threat to the general well being but they do not lose their natural born right to life.

I guess we have to agree to disagree. I think if someone commits an awful crime, and you can confirm it 100%, what's the point in letting them live? Why do they deserve to after torturing and killing an innocent person just for fun? Whatever aspect of humanity they had went out the window in my mind so I guess i just really don't understand. Sorry.

Edit: I really don't understand so i'd love for you to share why. Maybe then I'll get it?

[doubletrue]

i have no problem with the death penalty. how is it not deserved in circumstances of brutal murders that were pre-meditated?

[doubletrue]

I guess we have to agree to disagree. I think if someone commits an awful crime, and you can confirm it 100%, what's the point in letting them live? Why do they deserve to after torturing and killing an innocent person just for fun? Whatever aspect of humanity they had went out the window in my mind so I guess i just really don't understand. Sorry

it's refreshing to have someone agree with on this :-)

[lauren<3s music]

What gives anyone the right to make the call on who deserves to die? They deserve to be imprisoned for life without parole but they do not deserve to die. In my eyes, no one deserves to die unnaturally.

That's my point (sort of). If you murder someone in a brutal manner why should you have a happier ending then an innocent person?

[Susanna]

I guess we have to agree to disagree. I think if someone commits an awful crime, and you can confirm it 100%, what's the point in letting them live? Why do they deserve to after torturing and killing an innocent person just for fun? Whatever aspect of humanity they had went out the window in my mind so I guess i just really don't understand. Sorry
I understand where you are coming from. I just have a hard time understanding how it is possible to look at someone, no matter how awful the crime is, and say "You no longer deserve to live. I am going to kill you now." I am in no way saying that it is alright to kill and torture someone and that you should be without punishment. Life without parole is a huge punishment and, personally, a rougher, more severe punishment. Imagine living in a hellish place day after day with nothing much to occupy you besides the thoughts in your mind. That versus having it all ended for you. I don't believe in an afterlife so the former sounds like a much worse punishment.

[lauren<3s music]

I understand where you are coming from. I just have a hard time understanding how it is possible to look at someone, no matter how awful the crime is, and say "You no longer deserve to live. I am going to kill you now." I am in no way saying that it is alright to kill and torture someone and that you should be without punishment. Life without parole is a huge punishment and, personally, a rougher, more severe punishment. Imagine living in a hellish place day after day with nothing much to occupy you besides the thoughts in your mind. That versus having it all ended for you. I don't believe in an afterlife so the former sounds like a much worse punishment.

Maybe that's why. I do believe in an afterlife in some form of heaven or hell so rather than extending their time here I'd much rather send them onto their more severe punishment.

[kchubb]

We all have the right to live, no matter the crimes we have committed. It is certainly no one else's call to say that a single person does not deserve to wake up in the morning. They do not deserve to be in the community as they are a threat to the general well being but they do not lose their natural born right to life.

it is no one else's decision... it's theirs... and by making they choice they made they made that decision.

[thespearkid]

I guess we have to agree to disagree. I think if someone commits an awful crime, and you can confirm it 100%, what's the point in letting them live? Why do they deserve to after torturing and killing an innocent person just for fun? Whatever aspect of humanity they had went out the window in my mind so I guess i just really don't understand. Sorry.

Edit: I really don't understand so i'd love for you to share why. Maybe then I'll get it?
The difficult part is attaining the 100% confirmation. Honestly, I think that anyone who commits a murder deserves to die but to give the state the authority to carry out a death sentence is too risky. Who knows how many innocent people have already been killed due to the death penalty?

[lauren<3s music]

The difficult part is attaining the 100% confirmation. Honestly, I think that anyone who commits a murder deserves to die but to give the state the authority to carry out a death sentence is too risky. Who knows how many innocent people have already been killed due to the death penalty?

DNA. and i mean test it in triplicate. I would NEVER advocate for the death penalty no matter how awful unless there was solid evidence.

[Susanna]

That's my point (sort of). If you murder someone in a brutal manner why should you have a happier ending then an innocent person?
See my above post. How is being driven nuts in the monotony of jail a happier ending? I sympathize greatly with the victims and recognize and respect the horrible end they have faced. I just think that if you do not care about your life to begin with then why is dying such an awful punishment? You are assuming that they think of death the same way as you. I would argue that most, if not all, of the people you are talking about murdering have a mental illness to some degree to be emotionally capable of murder. Most people with a severe mental illness in the vein of these murders (ie. "sociopaths" and "psychopaths") have very little respect for their lives and are living in a strangely demented state of being; death doesn't sound that bad to people like that. A lot of this is just generalizations and a bit extreme but you should remember that just because you view your life as precious and significant doesn't mean they do. You wouldn't kill someone because you respect the life of that person, they didn't hold the same respect. What makes you think that they'd hold the same respect you have for your life?

[Susanna]

it is no one else's decision... it's theirs... and by making they choice they made they made that decision.
Well that's silly logic. They are making the decision to kill someone with the knowledge that they will die if they do this. Who made the law that they will die if they kill someone? Someone did. So don't argue that it is no one else's decision. Someone obviously decided that this will be the overlying rule.
Maybe that's why. I do believe in an afterlife in some form of heaven or hell so rather than extending their time here I'd much rather send them onto their more severe punishment.
If you are using that as your basis, why don't we argue about what happens if hypothetically there is no afterlife? I don't think spirituality should play a decision in this. There is no proof that there is an afterlife and there is no proof that there isn't. I just think that keeping them around is better. They have to face what they've done, live in the same tiny cell for the rest of their lives, etc. If there is an afterlife then when they die after many years in this hell called jail they will still receive the punishment in Hell. Let them receive the punishment on Earth and in Hell. If there is not an afterlife then you just ended it all for them and they received very little punishment at all.

[Susanna]

And for my third post in a row...

Here is a link for anyone interested in which countries maintain the death penalty and which years the rest outlawed it.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html

[thespearkid]

DNA. and i mean test it in triplicate. I would NEVER advocate for the death penalty no matter how awful unless there was solid evidence.
But in the American Justice System, you don't need 100% confirmation to convict someone. All you need is twelve people saying that, more than likely, you committed a crime. I'm not trying to berate our Justice System (I think it's wonderful) but with the way it's designed, there's just no way to be sure everyone we send to the chair is definitely guilty. The instant gratification of 100 different murderers means nothing if even just one innocent person is killed.

[Susanna]

For anyone who is interested, here is a breakdown of the number of executions per state up to 2006 as well as an explanation of exactly how lethal injection works.

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=166269

[LiesWithinUs]

I agree with the initial post. Logically, you can't be for one and against the other.

Logically, you cannot if you believe both are people. I find the debate on the death penalty more complicated than abortion since I do not consider a fetus a person. I'm against capital punishment though, at least rationally.

[MaxMarginal]

Abortion is a red herring. People who choose candidates to vote for based upon their stance on abortion are idiots.

Basically whether abortion is legal or not people are still going to get abortions, in countries where abortions are illegal they still have the same rate of abortions as we do in the United States so in my eyes it's an irrelevant thing.

Not safe ones.

[MaxMarginal]

Regardless of where you stand on the death penalty, we can't be executing people when their are death penalty convictions being overturned because of false eyewitness ID, snitch testimony, and inadequate legal counsel for indigent defense (including the case of one man whose public defender slept through large portions of the trial.)

This guy (http://www.thejusticeproject.org/profiles/bloodsworth/) was the first man on death row to be exonerated by DNA. This guy was not so lucky (http://www.thelastworddocumentary.com/synopsis.php) (this documentary has a really dumb intro.)

I'm opposed to the death penalty on principle, but even those who aren't can't in good conscience execute people when so many convictions are being overturned, esp. in Texas which leads the country in both executions and exonerations. (http://ipoftexas.org/about-us/texas-exoneree-council/)

[Biliard]

Just to throw this out there and give a different perspective on the death penalty.

I wish I could remember the philosopher's name and exact quote, but I am at work and do not have the book handy. The basic sentiment was, we do not punish a man for his crimes but to act as a deterrent to others.

Please, take this simply as food for thought and not my view on the matter.

[MaxMarginal]

I think there are studies that suggest that it does work as a deterrent, and ones that suggest that it doesn't, with the latter outnumbering the former. Too lazy to go research, blah.

[catscradle]

just to throw it into the conversation, there has also been several studies that have shown the disproportionate conviction rate of blacks to whites for similar crimes. This disparity in conviction rates has lead to several moratoriums on the death penalty in several states. So, it can be safe to argue that the death penalty is an inherently racist institution.

i'm too lazy to find them right now, but a quick google search will probably show a decent amount of quality links.

[open mind]

So do what, rehabilitate them with poorly-funded state-psych programs, and then have them hit the streets and do the same exact thing? Oh, yeah, that's a great alternative. But at least we won't be hypocritical.

life in prison means you don't hit the streets again.......even if you do get released you spend your life on parole and if you fuck up (commiting a misdeamenor is enough) you go right back to doing your life sentence.
here's an idea......let's better fund those state-psych programs so at least some portion of the people released from prison are at less risk of re-offending.

[open mind]

Just to throw this out there and give a different perspective on the death penalty.

I wish I could remember the philosopher's name and exact quote, but I am at work and do not have the book handy. The basic sentiment was, we do not punish a man for his crimes but to act as a deterrent to others.

Please, take this simply as food for thought and not my view on the matter.

the murder rates aren't all that different between states that do have the death penalty and those that don't......so the death penalty is not an effective deterant.

[open mind]

I guess we have to agree to disagree. I think if someone commits an awful crime, and you can confirm it 100%, what's the point in letting them live? Why do they deserve to after torturing and killing an innocent person just for fun? Whatever aspect of humanity they had went out the window in my mind so I guess i just really don't understand. Sorry.

Edit: I really don't understand so i'd love for you to share why. Maybe then I'll get it?

people who've been put to death and/or who are on death row aren't confirmed to be 100% guilty, the law only requires they be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
opposing the death penalty isn't about what someone deserves or not, it's about refusing to stoop to such a moral low level just because someone else has.

[handlikesecret]

i'm for the death penalty. it's spelled out in the Bible, and being a Christian, that's where it's all spelled out for me. but i also believe there has to be conclusive evidence, and yes, i know there isn't always.

[open mind]

i'm for the death penalty. it's spelled out in the Bible, and being a Christian, that's where it's all spelled out for me. but i also believe there has to be conclusive evidence, and yes, i know there isn't always.

it's spelled out in the old testament, but being a christian should mean that the new testament is the most important part of your religion. the new testament is filled with statements involving the importance of not judging your fellow man and loving everyone, even the worst of your enemies. so don't point to the bible as justification for your unchristian opinions.

[handlikesecret]

it's spelled out in the old testament, but being a christian should mean that the new testament is the most important part of your religion. the new testament is filled with statements involving the importance of not judging your fellow man and loving everyone, even the worst of your enemies. so don't point to the bible as justification for your unchristian opinions.
i don't need justification if that's where i get it in the first place.

[open mind]

i don't need justification if that's where i get it in the first place.

the only way you can say you base your opinions on the death penalty from what the says bible is if you ignore the new testament.........and doing so would be ignoring what christ said.........which doesn't really make sense if you're serious about your faith.

[handlikesecret]

the only way you can say you base your opinions on the death penalty from what the says bible is if you ignore the new testament.........and doing so would be ignoring what christ said.........which doesn't really make sense if you're serious about your faith.
but that's not what Christ was all about, He showed us that the law is not the way to get to Heaven, it's to show us how we can never follow it, so we need a savior. and i believe that there is a penalty for murder, like anything else, and death happens to be that penalty.

[open mind]

but that's not what Christ was all about, He showed us that the law is not the way to get to Heaven, it's to show us how we can never follow it, so we need a savior. and i believe that there is a penalty for murder, like anything else, and death happens to be that penalty.

thou shalt not kill.
eye for an eye does not mean you automattically have to do the same thing that's done to you or others.
what law are you talking about? the governments law? gods law? it's obvious that christ didn't say following your government is the path to heaven, as for gods law your interpretation is flawed, yes we need a savior, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to follow the law as best we can.

[handlikesecret]

thou shalt not kill.
eye for an eye does not mean you automattically have to do the same thing that's done to you or others.
what law are you talking about? the governments law? gods law? it's obvious that god didn't say following your government is the path to heaven, as for gods law your interpretation is flawed, yes we need a savior, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to follow the law.
exactly. but He also spelled out the law concerning murder, along with every other sin. now you're contradicting what you said earlier about following Jesus, rather than the old testament.

you're interpretation about what Jesus meant by "don't judge" is a bit flawed. we can't condone such horrible crimes simply because someone accuses us of "judging" them. they committed the sin/crime, they reap the consequences.

[open mind]

exactly. but He also spelled out the law concerning murder, along with every other sin. now you're contradicting what you said earlier about following Jesus, rather than the old testament.

you're interpretation about what Jesus meant by "don't judge" is a bit flawed. we can't condone such horrible crimes simply because someone accuses us of "judging" them. they committed the sin/crime, they reap the consequences.

please show me where in the bible jesus specifically endorses the death penalty (it's ironic that he himself received it don't you think?)
there is a subtle difference between judging and punishment and tough love and healing.

[Susanna]

The argument for or against the death penalty should not be based on the Bible. We have a seperation between Church and state for a reason.

[open mind]

The argument for or against the death penalty should not be based on the Bible. We have a seperation between Church and state for a reason.

i agree.
intertwining religion and government does a disservice to the goals of both institutions.

[se1046]

The argument for or against the death penalty should not be based on the Bible. We have a seperation between Church and state for a reason.

There is no separation of church and state. The government makes laws that directly affect churches and the beliefs of religious people. As a moral stance abortion should be outlawed though. The death penalty isn't there to murder someone, it's there to try to prevent a serious crime from being committed. How much good is it doing? Not much.

[Susanna]

There is no separation of church and state. The government makes laws that directly affect churches and the beliefs of religious people. As a moral stance abortion should be outlawed though. The death penalty isn't there to murder someone, it's there to try to prevent a serious crime from being committed. How much good is it doing? Not much.
Technically there is a seperation. If one was to go in front of congress and attempt to pass something regarding the dismantling of the death penalty and used the Bible and God as their sole reasoning, the motion would not pass due to the fact that the decisions of our government are not supposed to be based on Church law or teachings.
What laws have been made that directly affect churches and religious people? I am curious.

[open mind]

There is no separation of church and state. The government makes laws that directly affect churches and the beliefs of religious people. As a moral stance abortion should be outlawed though. The death penalty isn't there to murder someone, it's there to try to prevent a serious crime from being committed. How much good is it doing? Not much.

i don't know about you but the governments laws don't really affect my religious beliefs.
moral stances are fine and dandy, as long as they take into account the reality we live in.......outlawing abortion would have no real effect on stopping them from occuring, it would just result in a rise in unsafe, back alley abortions, make criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens, and give commited, life long criminals another industry to profit from.
just because abortion is a legal option it doesn't mean you have to take it.

[Machu505]

i don't know about you but the governments laws don't really affect my religious beliefs.
moral stances are fine and dandy, as long as they take into account the reality we live in.......outlawing abortion would have no real effect on stopping them from occuring, it would just result in a rise in unsafe, back alley abortions, make criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens, and give commited, life long criminals another industry to profit from.
just because abortion is a legal option it doesn't mean you have to take it.

This.

[se1046]

i don't know about you but the governments laws don't really affect my religious beliefs.
moral stances are fine and dandy, as long as they take into account the reality we live in.......outlawing abortion would have no real effect on stopping them from occuring, it would just result in a rise in unsafe, back alley abortions, make criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens, and give commited, life long criminals another industry to profit from.
just because abortion is a legal option it doesn't mean you have to take it.

I just think it's funny that a guy like huckabee is asked if he believes in a 6 day creation but i have not heard obama asked that at all even though he claims to be a "christian". I also think it's funny that I cannot be taught creation in school even though evolution is not a proven scientific fact. Teacher's are fired if they even talk about God to someone.

Let me rephrase what I said about abortion. I think it should be outlawed unless there is a direct threat to the health of the mother and an abortion is the only way to save her life. I do think abortion is murder and it's a tough thing to face. There is no easy conclusion to come to over it. No matter how you look at it I don't ever see it becoming outlawed.

[open mind]

I just think it's funny that a guy like huckabee is asked if he believes in a 6 day creation but i have not heard obama asked that at all even though he claims to be a "christian". I also think it's funny that I cannot be taught creation in school even though evolution is not a proven scientific fact. Teacher's are fired if they even talk about God to someone.

Let me rephrase what I said about abortion. I think it should be outlawed unless there is a direct threat to the health of the mother and an abortion is the only way to save her life. I do think abortion is murder and it's a tough thing to face. There is no easy conclusion to come to over it. No matter how you look at it I don't ever see it becoming outlawed.

you've gotta be mentally deficient to believe in a 6 day creation. i don't believe in the 6 day creation (because genesis wasn't meant to be taken literally) but i'm most definitely a christian.
i believe evolution is simply creation explained in literal terms......so they're essentially one and the same.
my point is that outlawing abortion will have next to no effect on how often they're performed, but it will cause a whole host of other problems (both legal and spiritual).....so it's silly to call for it.

[PaulsRightNut]

eh I think thats like comparing apples and oranges. But I understand what you're saying.

[tambam]

I don't consider abortion murder, so I don't put the two things on the same level at all.

[Siren Silently]

The second part, you have more hope than I do. I used to think people could rehabilitate those who commit these crimes, but you see too many stories of "the warning signs where there, why was so-and-so let back into society to commit these heinous crimes?" I think those stories are the saddest of all, because they could have been avoided.


I'm fairly certain they don't release murderers or rapist back into society. Rehabilitation is more effective when we're talking about drug users/dealers, thieves and any number of not so serious crimes.

I also think it's funny that I cannot be taught creation in school even though evolution is not a proven scientific fact. Teacher's are fired if they even talk about God to someone.


Evolution is the most comprehensive theory of science, nothing else has been nearly as extensively tested or hypothesized. Most of the evidence on Earth seems to point towards the existence of evolution in one from or another. On the other hand Creationism is just a huge crock of shit, and if it were true it would open plenty of loopholes that would make teaching it in an objective manner impossible. Firstly, the most prominent would be the Christian bias; because apparently creationist get offended if you were to suggest a god that took on an alternate form (i.e FSM).

[GiggsOho]

I'm fairly certain they don't release murderers or rapist back into society. Rehabilitation is more effective when we're talking about drug users/dealers, thieves and any number of not so serious crimes.


Do a Google search on how many articles you can find with the headline that sounds something like "rapist let back into society." and see how they are related to second offenders.

[open mind]

Evolution is the most comprehensive theory of science, nothing else has been nearly as extensively tested or hypothesized. Most of the evidence on Earth seems to point towards the existence of evolution in one from or another. On the other hand Creationism is just a huge crock of shit, and if it were true it would open plenty of loopholes that would make teaching it in an objective manner impossible. Firstly, the most prominent would be the Christian bias; because apparently creationist get offended if you were to suggest a god that took on an alternate form (i.e FSM).

i hate to keep bringing religion and evolution into a death penalty/abortion thread but you couldn't have evolution without an initial creation. i'm not saying evolution is wrong or that the bible is wrong, but that they're both essentially right........you just shouldn't take the days referred to in genesis as literal days, once you do that you'll see that the bible auctually backs up evolution because it says life first started in the sea, then the land, and then finally man.

[Siren Silently]

i hate to keep bringing religion and evolution into a death penalty/abortion thread but you couldn't have evolution without an initial creation. i'm not saying evolution is wrong or that the bible is wrong, but that they're both essentially right........you just shouldn't take the days referred to in genesis as literal days, once you do that you'll see that the bible auctually backs up evolution because it says life first started in the sea, then the land, and then finally man.

I will concede your point because I really don't feel like typing a whole lot. So even if life was absolutely started by some creator of impressive power, what credible evidence does the Bible present that can prove without reasonable doubt that it is infact the Judeo-Christian god who created the planets, the stars, the universe, the humans, the organisms, etc... Your going to have to give me a lot more empirical evidence than 'the bibles says life started in the sea, then land and finally man' if you were to make such a bold claim. For christsakes I could say the Greek mythology story of creation is correct because it suggests that earth is not infinitely old and that it was created.

Do a Google search on how many articles you can find with the headline that sounds something like "rapist let back into society." and see how they are related to second offenders.

I may have been wrong about the rapist, but it doesn't change my stance of viewing rehabilitation as a mean to intervene and prevent further crimes from criminals that will be subsequently released back into society. In addition, how many of these rapists were actually rehabilitated to an adequate state? These programs are poorly funded and executed and if the government thinks by investing minimal money and doing a shit job they will obtain amazing supernatural results they are horribly mistaken. Most of the time these criminals just sit and rot there in jail and end up far worse than when they entered. Rehabilitation is a process that can be used if, and only if the government is fully willing to invest the money necessary to actually benefit from it. Otherwise our other options are A. Save some money, forgo an attempt at rehabilitation and just let them go when they have served their time or B. Just keep them locked up forever.

[GiggsOho]

I may have been wrong about the rapist, but it doesn't change my stance of viewing rehabilitation as a mean to intervene and prevent further crimes from criminals that will be subsequently released back into society. In addition, how many of these rapists were actually rehabilitated to an adequate state? These programs are poorly funded and executed and if the government thinks by investing minimal money and doing a shit job they will obtain amazing supernatural results they are horribly mistaken. Most of the time these criminals just sit and rot there in jail and end up far worse than when they entered. Rehabilitation is a process that can be used if, and only if the government is fully willing to invest the money necessary to actually benefit from it. Otherwise our other options are A. Save some money, forgo an attempt at rehabilitation and just let them go when they have served their time or B. Just keep them locked up forever.

Honestly, government has bigger issues right now.

[Siren Silently]

Honestly, government has bigger issues right now.

Economy, war on Iraq? They seem strangely perpetuated by the failures of this administration. But even if we look past this issue now, it's not going to to go away; our prison systems are terribly inefficient and overcrowded.

[GiggsOho]

Economy, war on Iraq? They seem strangely perpetuated by the failures of this administration. But even if we look past this issue now, it's not going to to go away; our prison systems are terribly inefficient and overcrowded.


Yeah, if you read the entire thread you would have known I'm aware. Maybe you should go back and read it all, I give my reasoning for my opinions, and actually come around on some things.

[Siren Silently]

Yeah, if you read the entire thread you would have known I'm aware. Maybe you should go back and read it all, I give my reasoning for my opinions, and actually come around on some things.

Haha, 6 pages is too much. I just like hawking the last page looking for arguments.

[open mind]

I will concede your point because I really don't feel like typing a whole lot. So even if life was absolutely started by some creator of impressive power, what credible evidence does the Bible present that can prove without reasonable doubt that it is infact the Judeo-Christian god who created the planets, the stars, the universe, the humans, the organisms, etc... Your going to have to give me a lot more empirical evidence than 'the bibles says life started in the sea, then land and finally man' if you were to make such a bold claim. For christsakes I could say the Greek mythology story of creation is correct because it suggests that earth is not infinitely old and that it was created.

i'd rather not make this another thread that gets turned into a religion debate (we have the god debate thread for that).....i just wanted to point out that you can't logically proclaim the entire account of creation that the bible gives as just a "crock of shit".

[Biliard]

the murder rates aren't all that different between states that do have the death penalty and those that don't......so the death penalty is not an effective deterant.

As I would imagine the case to be.

[se1046]

As I would imagine the case to be.

Actually the states that have the death penalty in place have higher murder rates.

[shit stroll]

Actually the states that have the death penalty in place have higher murder rates.
link please.

when someone is about to kill someone, they're not going to stop and think "man, i better not due this, i might get the death penalty if i'm caught". likewise, they're not going to be like "hey, the death penalty is abolished, it's ok for me to kill this person".

[doubletrue]

Actually the states that have the death penalty in place have higher murder rates.

i would like to see some proof of that. i would guess that the difference is small between death penalty states and non-death penalty states.

the death penalty could be a deterant if executions actually take place in a timely manner, or if at all. many death row inmates die before the state actually gets a chance to execute them. i support appeals and all, but waiting 20+ years to execute an inmate is ridiculous.

[catscradle]

link please.

when someone is about to kill someone, they're not going to stop and think "man, i better not due this, i might get the death penalty if i'm caught". likewise, they're not going to be like "hey, the death penalty is abolished, it's ok for me to kill this person".

...or they're thinking they're going to get away with it and not get caught regardless of the punishment, or they simply don't care about the punishment and simply want to kill who they are attempting to murder.

i would like to see some proof of that. i would guess that the difference is small between death penalty states and non-death penalty states.

the death penalty could be a deterant if executions actually take place in a timely manner, or if at all. many death row inmates die before the state actually gets a chance to execute them. i support appeals and all, but waiting 20+ years to execute an inmate is ridiculous.
wouldn't you rather have a guilty man live than an innocent man die? i sure as hell wouldn't like to be the innocent man who gets put to death.

[sandra92]

I'm against both abortion and death penalty ..
I only agree with abortion in special cases such as sexual abuse .