The Death Penalty

Kidan, the difference between you and I is where we place our emphasis. You place yours on killing the guilty, whereas mine is on not killing the innocent. To me, even if there is the slightest avoidable chance that an innocent man or woman will lose their life, then we should avoid it, regardless of inconveniences. I found this site that gives the issue a very clear and unbiased view..worth a read or two. I know you consider innocent people being released from death row a success, but with the push for death penalty expansion and decreasing of wait time on death row, there's going to be more and more risk of making the worst mistake of all.
 
see, I see it as I place my emphasis on punishing the guilty, while you place your emphasis on not punishing the guilty on the slim chance that someone might be punished unfairly.




the decrease in death penalty wait times, is usually in cases where there are a number (3+ for Texas) of credible witnesses. So if 3 people see you walk up and shot someone, you get to go to the front of the execution line.

to me, that makes a whole lot of sense.
 
Those cases were the few that people found were wrong before they were killed. But what about the guys that were put to death and were really innocent. I thought if they made the mistake of putting these people on death row who were innocent. How many innocent men have been killed. U don't really know because once their dead u think its over.
It shows that the justice system doesn't work.
Could I use a bad example and say O.J. Simpson.
 
I don't think its fair to assume you are saving more lives by getting rid of the death penalty. Do you guys think crime will dissapear with less consequence? I think the less that are sentence to death, the more crime/murders that will happen. It is sad that innocent people can potentially be found guilty and killed, but what about the people we know are innocent, and are killed by murderers? Do you care about thier lives?
 
Amnisty International.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]What do you say to the argument that the death penalty is an important tool for a state to fight crime?

Too many governments believe that they can solve urgent social or political problems by executing a few or even hundreds of their prisoners. Too many citizens in too many countries are still unaware that the death penalty offers society not further protection but further brutalization.

Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments. The most recent survey of research findings on the relation between the death penalty and homicide rates, conducted for the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 1996 , concluded: "...research has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment. Such proof is unlikely to be forthcoming. The evidence as a whole still gives no positive support to the deterrent hypothesis".

It is incorrect to assume that people who commit such serious crimes as murder do so after rationally calculating the consequences. Often murders are committed in moments when emotion overcomes reason or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Some people who commit violent crime are highly unstable or mentally ill -- the execution of Larry Robison, diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, in the USA on 21 January 2000 is just one such example. In none of these cases can the fear of the death penalty be expected to deter. Moreover, those who do commit premeditated serious crimes may decide to proceed despite the risks in the belief that they will not be caught. The key to deterrence in such cases is to increase the likelihood of detection, arrest and conviction.

The fact that no clear evidence exists to show that the death penalty has a unique deterrent effect points to the futility and danger of relying on the deterrence hypothesis as a basis for public policy on the death penalty. The death penalty is a harsh punishment, but it is not harsh on crime.

Isn't it necessary to execute certain prisoners in order to prevent them from repeating their crimes?

Unlike imprisonment, the death penalty entails the risk of judicial errors which can never be corrected. There will always be a risk that some prisoners who were innocent will be executed. The death penalty will not prevent them from repeating a crime which they did not commit in the first place.

It is also impossible to determine whether those executed would actually have repeated the crimes of which they were convicted. Execution entails taking the lives of prisoners to prevent hypothetical future crimes many of which would never have been committed anyway. It negates the the principle of rehabilitation of offenders.

There are those who argue that imprisonment alone has not prevented individuals who have been imprisoned from offending again once set free. The answer is to review the parole procedures in place with a view to preventing relapses into crime. The answer is certainly not to increase the number of executions.

Surely a person who commits an horrendous crime or who kills another individual deserves to die?

An execution cannot be used to condemn killing. Such an act by the state is the mirror image of the criminal's willingness to use physical violence against a victim. Additionally, all criminal justice systems are vulnerable to discrimination and error. No system is or could conceivably be capable of deciding fairly, consistently and infallibly who should live and who should die. Expediency, discretionary decisions and prevailing public opinion may influence the proceedings from the initial arrest to the last-minute decision on clemency.

Central to human rights is that they are inalienable -- they are accorded equally to every individual regardless of their status, ethnicity, religion or origin. They may not be taken away from anyone regardless of the crimes a person has committed. Human rights apply to the worst of us as well as to the best of us, which is why they are there to protect all of us. They save us from ourselves.

In addition experience demonstrates that whenever the death penalty is used some people will be killed while others who have committed similar or even worse crimes may be spared. The prisoners executed are not necessarily only those who committed the worst crimes, but also those who were too poor to hire skilled lawyers to defend them or those who faced harsher prosecutors or judges.
Click to expand...
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (JoBlow @ July 14 2004,4:09)]Those cases were the few that people found were wrong before they were killed. But what about the guys that were put to death and were really innocent. I thought if they made the mistake of putting these people on death row who were innocent. How many innocent men have been killed. U don't really know because once their dead u think its over.
It shows that the justice system doesn't work.
Could I use a bad example and say O.J. Simpson.
Click to expand...
Honestly, though I know this is a cynical view, I don't think the dead innocent would be pronounced innocent in many cases...that's the kind of thing you would want to remain covered up. Sad, isn't it?
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Kidan @ July 14 2004,3:35)]see, I see it as I place my emphasis on punishing the guilty,  while you place your emphasis on not punishing the guilty on the slim chance that someone might be punished unfairly.




the decrease in death penalty wait times, is usually in cases where there are a number  (3+ for Texas) of credible witnesses.  So if 3 people see you walk up and shot someone, you get to go to the front of the execution line.

to me, that makes a whole lot of sense.
Click to expand...
Eh...see, we could go on forever..but it all comes down to the different perspectives we have on the issue. You see sense in decreasing wait times on death row with 3+ witnesses, I do not, because there is still risk of the victim being innocent, however slim. Witnesses are often unreliable, and anyways, where did they come up with the number 3? What if there's 2, but they were right next to the person? I think policies like that don't make much sense, but that's just me. We're obviously both well rooted in our viewpoints, so let us move on to new ground at least.
 
unfortunately theres not much new ground for this concept. we'd just be going point/counterpoint until we get tired of posting.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Kidan @ July 14 2004,8:39)]unfortunately theres not much new ground for this concept.  we'd just be going point/counterpoint until we get tired of posting.
Click to expand...
Heh, yeah exactly. And I think the tired of posting point is nearing.....
 
Jesus forgave a woman who was about to be stoned ("He who is without sin etc.."). So then why shouldn't we forgive someone who is about to receive the death penalty?

Thou Shalt Not Kill remember?!?!?
Love your neighbor as yourself remember?!?!?
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Mr.Bill @ July 13 2004,12:22)]
Click to expand...
The Topic: The Death Penalty, Your thoughts?

The initial post:

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]It occured to be last night that I should ask you guys about your thoughts on the death penalty. Good/Bad?

Discuss.
Click to expand...

I replied to that post.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Jesus forgave a woman who was about to be stoned ("He who is without sin etc.."). So then why shouldn't we forgive someone who is about to receive the death penalty?
Click to expand...

Jesus wasn't going to condemn the prostitute to death because:

1. Both parties had to be put to death, not just one or the other. The pharisees obviously took the time to catch her in the act but let the man get away. He was just as guilty. This leads to point 2:

2. The intent of the pharisees was not to see that justice was done, rather, to test Jesus. This in no way goes to seeing that breaking Gods laws will see Gods justices served. It was self serving of the pharisees, not glorifing to God, and they knew it.


Forgiveness does not exempt people from facing consequences of their actions. And loving your neighbour means ensuring that people do face the consequences of their actions.
 
^so your saying if someone repents for what they did, you should still go through and give them the death sentence?

In Mathew 12 (verse seven I think) Jesus also said I desire mercy not sacrifice.

Then theres the parable of the lenders

I think if they repent we should forgive them. But I guess that is being too idealistic/impractical. You can't really write a law saying that. If I had to choose between all or nothing, death penalty, or no death penalty. I would vote for death penalty. I don't think I have ever heard of a repentant criminal on death row anyway. (oklahoma city bombing guy)
 
master yes. Regardless of whether or not they repent, they still must face the consequences.


Think of it this way. Someone robs a bank. Gets caught. Sentenced to 10 years in prison.

At his sentencing, he says "Hey, you know, I realize what I did was wrong, and am really sorry. Forgive me."

Do we not send him to prison? Does he not still owe the fine to society for breaking the laws?


Just because Christ paid the price that God demands for our sins, does not mean we are not required to pay the price that society demands for our sins.
 
jo, we're not discussing eternal rewards/punishment. we're discussing temporal justice for the victims of crimes.

There final reward/punishment really has no bearing here.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]At his sentencing, he says "Hey, you know, I realize what I did was wrong, and am really sorry.  Forgive me."  

Do we not send him to prison?
Click to expand...
I don't think Jesus would. I don't think I would
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Just because Christ paid the price that God demands for our sins, does not mean we are not required to pay the price that society demands for our sins.
Click to expand...
price that society demands- meaning not Christians, or would you include Christians in society? Doesn't Jesus teach that if a man steals our shirt, we should also give him our coat? (Matthew 5:38-41)
 
Yes that is what Christ teaches us, but that is for Christians.

Besides, you're missing an important point here.  Whenever Christ spoke that way, He was speaking on a personal level.  YOU turn the other check when YOU are slapped.  YOU give your coat when YOUR shirt is stolen.

The rules for society are different.  When a theif is going to jail, it's not so that the theif will not hurt YOU or hurt society, it's so that the theif will not hurt someone else.


Remember that we are to be pacisfists on the personal level, and aggresively protective on the community level.


Ensuring that criminals pay their debt to society, is being protective on the communal level.
 
Lets say ideally there is a Christian society on a island somewhere.(that might be scary) Do you think if everyone was Christian, the ideal laws would still put a man in jail who repented?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top