Christianity and the Death Penalty

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Christianity and the Death Penalty

Postby cartervj » Fri Nov 29, 2013 8:45 pm

struggling with the word accident

and if you really look, a drunk driver killing someone usually gets MORE time than one that meant to kill someone
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7335
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL


Re: Christianity and the Death Penalty

Postby Glimmerjim » Fri Nov 29, 2013 9:01 pm

cartervj wrote:struggling with the word accident

and if you really look, a drunk driver killing someone usually gets MORE time than one that meant to kill someone

I've seen that, carter. It's all about politics for a DA I guess. What do you tell the cop? "Well, yes, I may have been drunk, but I planned to run her over!"

The sticky part about drunk driving is that yes, you are obviously putting your own and other's lives in danger by doing so. And when sober you would never consider doing such a thing. But after imbibing a "mind-altering drug", your mind....is.....altered. And the more altered you are the more dangerous and the less rational you are. I'm not justifying it in the least, or even minimalizing it....it's just an odd set of circumstances. Perhaps some day we'll have vehicle technology, not easily gotten around like the breath gizmo, that makes them impossible to start if impaired. Be fine with me. Save me a lot on gas, too! Just kidding!!!

NEWS UPDATE! :lol3: In today's paper there was an article about how the auto manufacturer's are feverishly working to develop such a system.
Last edited by Glimmerjim on Sun Dec 01, 2013 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10839
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Christianity and the Death Penalty

Postby assateague » Fri Nov 29, 2013 9:55 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
assateague wrote:
ctdeathfrombelow wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
assateague wrote: Did she mean to do it, as the homicidal maniac did? Does she know that intentional killing is wrong, as the mentally retarded murderer does not?

It's not flippant in the least. You were speaking to the "why", as was I. But then you just changed it to the "outcome".

Is the "why" the sane for the maniac, the retarded guy, and the mother? No. But in 2 cases it was intentional, and in one case it was an accident. Surely you can see the difference there.


assateague wrote: I don't care why they do it. I don't care if someone is retarded and has the mind of a 2 year old.

:huh:

The difference is malicious intent.....


No, it's not. The difference is an awareness and acting on of what is RIGHT. The maniac knows, but doesn't care about what is right. The retarded guy isn't aware of, or cannot comprehend, what is right. The woman both is aware of and acts on what is right, but she had an accident.

If you want to change GJ's example to read "...and she was drunk", then yep, I'm all for the death penalty. You get behind the wheel drunk and kill somebody, you get the death penalty.

Yes, I am serious. No, I am not being flippant.


Answer only if you want to AT......but you have NEVER gotten behind the wheel of a vehicle after having perhaps one beer too many?
Further, why does it matter if you kill someone while driving drunk? When driving drunk, you have performed the exact same actions with the exact same possible outcomes whether you killed anyone or not. So you, obviously, also advocate the Death Penalty for all DUI's? Or, if not, then you feel the Death Penalty should be based not on intention, not on responsibility, not on malice or lack of, but strictly on luck.



Yes, I have. But had I ever killed someone while doing it, I probably would've wished the state killed me for it, rather than live with myself. I guess that's a big difference between us- I don't base my definition of right and wrong on what I do or don't do, but rather on what is Right, and what is Wrong. It matters not if I do it, or if I would want to be punished for doing. Moral relativism is crap.

And no. You're punished for your actions. DRIVING drunk is not the same as KILLING someone while driving drunk, and should not be treated the same. Unless you're advocating for getting rid of "attempted murder" and just making it all "murder", death or not, I can't help but think you believe the same as I do.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Christianity and the Death Penalty

Postby blackduckdog2 » Fri Nov 29, 2013 11:19 pm

The only person I will ever entrust with the death penalty is ME. I would have to hear all the evidence and then decide for myself. At that point, I have no doubt I would give a thumbs down on any number of hard cases. And I'd feel obliged to pull the trigger, swing the axe, whatever the condemned chose……myself. That's the only way I'm on board. I trust no one else with this sort of power
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Christianity and the Death Penalty

Postby Glimmerjim » Fri Nov 29, 2013 11:54 pm

assateague wrote:
ctdeathfrombelow wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
assateague wrote: Did she mean to do it, as the homicidal maniac did? Does she know that intentional killing is wrong, as the mentally retarded murderer does not?

It's not flippant in the least. You were speaking to the "why", as was I. But then you just changed it to the "outcome".

Is the "why" the sane for the maniac, the retarded guy, and the mother? No. But in 2 cases it was intentional, and in one case it was an accident. Surely you can see the difference there.


assateague wrote: I don't care why they do it. I don't care if someone is retarded and has the mind of a 2 year old.

:huh:

The difference is malicious intent.....


No, it's not. The difference is an awareness and acting on of what is RIGHT. The maniac knows, but doesn't care about what is right. The retarded guy isn't aware of, or cannot comprehend, what is right. The woman both is aware of and acts on what is right, but she had an accident.

If you want to change GJ's example to read "...and she was drunk", then yep, I'm all for the death penalty. You get behind the wheel drunk and kill somebody, you get the death penalty.

Yes, I am serious. No, I am not being flippant.


Glimmerjim wrote: Answer only if you want to AT......but you have NEVER gotten behind the wheel of a vehicle after having perhaps one beer too many?
Further, why does it matter if you kill someone while driving drunk? When driving drunk, you have performed the exact same actions with the exact same possible outcomes whether you killed anyone or not. So you, obviously, also advocate the Death Penalty for all DUI's? Or, if not, then you feel the Death Penalty should be based not on intention, not on responsibility, not on malice or lack of, but strictly on luck.



assateague wrote: Yes, I have. But had I ever killed someone while doing it, I probably would've wished the state killed me for it, rather than live with myself. I guess that's a big difference between us- I don't base my definition of right and wrong on what I do or don't do, but rather on what is Right, and what is Wrong. It matters not if I do it, or if I would want to be punished for doing. Moral relativism is crap.

And no. You're punished for your actions. DRIVING drunk is not the same as KILLING someone while driving drunk, and should not be treated the same. Unless you're advocating for getting rid of "attempted murder" and just making it all "murder", death or not, I can't help but think you believe the same as I do.

Thanks for your honesty. I have also and have seriously regretted it. At one time I drank beer so regularly that I really was convinced that I could drive just as well with a BAC slightly over the limit. True or not I don't know. I KNOW I golfed better!
You are correct, however, in saying that there is a major difference in our philosophies. I suppose, in considering it, that I do believe that the punishment should be exactly the same for murder and attempted murder. It is what is in the mind of the perpetrator that makes an action heinous or not, not simply the outcome. The fact that he can't do it well means nothing except a lack of competency to me. You just vehemently argued that point in the case of the nurse running over the children. The outcome would have been the same if she was delivering her children to pre-school and missed a stop sign or if she had just had her children taken away by the court system, slammed a rig full of crank and aimed for the kids. The only difference was what was in her mind.
Moral relativism.......we've once again hit that wall. There are those who believe in black and white, and those who believe in infinite shades of gray. I wouldn't call your position "crap", but I think we know where we each stand on that issue.
I do base my definition of right and wrong on what I do, or to say it better I try to base what I do on my definition of right and wrong. And I will loudly proclaim that I base my actions on MY perception of right and wrong, not someone, or something, else's. Not to say that I don't have plenty to learn about negative repurcussions resulting from things I would consider positive, or vice versa, but even when I change my mind I still base my decisions on MY philosophies. I don't carry a card, or a book, to tell me what is right and wrong when I am unsure. I make my best decision and live with the consequences.
If there is a God that is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong, I would like to think that he would be more proud of his creation if it was capable of learning and determining right and wrong than if it was capable of following his rule book. I certainly know that would be the case in how I would consider my children's decisions.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10839
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Christianity and the Death Penalty

Postby SpinnerMan » Sat Nov 30, 2013 8:22 am

blackduckdog2 wrote:The only person I will ever entrust with the death penalty is ME. I would have to hear all the evidence and then decide for myself. At that point, I have no doubt I would give a thumbs down on any number of hard cases. And I'd feel obliged to pull the trigger, swing the axe, whatever the condemned chose……myself. That's the only way I'm on board. I trust no one else with this sort of power

Who would you trust with life without possibility of parole? For me, I think that is far more likely to be abused. It's psychologically easier to throw them in a hole and forget about them. Death, you can't stick your head in the sand. A jury, the public, a judge, the cops, everybody involved takes it at least an order of magnitude more seriously. Perfection is not an option, but to make the system better, buy taking death of the table :no: That makes it so much worse. It addresses none of the flaws that put a man not proven guilty beyond a negligible doubt on death row. If he had been given life without parole, few people would have cared that much. We can always "fix" it which is silly if he rots in prison until he dies or loses decades of his life and is released as an old man, not because he is innocent, but because he's an old man and the people he killed are long forgotten by the public, so we feel good about releasing a man that has now got some publicity and people have gotten emotionally invested and want to believe he is a good man.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16197
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Christianity and the Death Penalty

Postby blackduckdog2 » Sat Nov 30, 2013 10:33 am

SpinnerMan wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:The only person I will ever entrust with the death penalty is ME. I would have to hear all the evidence and then decide for myself. At that point, I have no doubt I would give a thumbs down on any number of hard cases. And I'd feel obliged to pull the trigger, swing the axe, whatever the condemned chose……myself. That's the only way I'm on board. I trust no one else with this sort of power

Who would you trust with life without possibility of parole? For me, I think that is far more likely to be abused. It's psychologically easier to throw them in a hole and forget about them. Death, you can't stick your head in the sand. A jury, the public, a judge, the cops, everybody involved takes it at least an order of magnitude more seriously. Perfection is not an option, but to make the system better, buy taking death of the table :no: That makes it so much worse. It addresses none of the flaws that put a man not proven guilty beyond a negligible doubt on death row. If he had been given life without parole, few people would have cared that much. We can always "fix" it which is silly if he rots in prison until he dies or loses decades of his life and is released as an old man, not because he is innocent, but because he's an old man and the people he killed are long forgotten by the public, so we feel good about releasing a man that has now got some publicity and people have gotten emotionally invested and want to believe he is a good man.

If we could raise the dead, I'd be right there with you
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Christianity and the Death Penalty

Postby SpinnerMan » Sat Nov 30, 2013 11:33 am

blackduckdog2 wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:The only person I will ever entrust with the death penalty is ME. I would have to hear all the evidence and then decide for myself. At that point, I have no doubt I would give a thumbs down on any number of hard cases. And I'd feel obliged to pull the trigger, swing the axe, whatever the condemned chose……myself. That's the only way I'm on board. I trust no one else with this sort of power

Who would you trust with life without possibility of parole? For me, I think that is far more likely to be abused. It's psychologically easier to throw them in a hole and forget about them. Death, you can't stick your head in the sand. A jury, the public, a judge, the cops, everybody involved takes it at least an order of magnitude more seriously. Perfection is not an option, but to make the system better, buy taking death of the table :no: That makes it so much worse. It addresses none of the flaws that put a man not proven guilty beyond a negligible doubt on death row. If he had been given life without parole, few people would have cared that much. We can always "fix" it which is silly if he rots in prison until he dies or loses decades of his life and is released as an old man, not because he is innocent, but because he's an old man and the people he killed are long forgotten by the public, so we feel good about releasing a man that has now got some publicity and people have gotten emotionally invested and want to believe he is a good man.

If we could raise the dead, I'd be right there with you

Right back at you. That's why we must maximize the deterrent for murder so that we can minimize the number of innocent people killed. There are two types of errors. One is government kills someone that they should not. The other is government fails to deter a death that they could have deterred. This is why I think traffic laws are so horrible because we could probably save 1,000's of lives per year with a serious effort to deter accidents. This is also why my uncle who served significant time in jail for DUI should be executed if he kills someone if he is driving drunk and is involved in an accident that results in someone's death and why he should have served the time he served and why if he is caught again in the future should serve a lot more.

I have a simple premise. Dead is dead. Accident, murder, ... They are all the same to first order. Yes, second order, there are society impacts that are quite different, but to an individual his untimely death by the actions of another is the same to that person regardless of the intent of the person.

However, for the narrow issue of murder and the appropriate punishment. I'm a firm believer in give them liberty or give them death. On the practical side, people simply don't care if an innocent person rots in jail for 80 years. If an 18 year old gets life without parole, few people will care and he can rot. If he gets death, many people will care and he will get the best defense that he can possibly get unlike a crappy defense if it is "only" life in jail that he faces. All the people that oppose the death penalty will donate to his "cause" while if it's "just" life, then there is no driver to "save his life" even though society may decide to take the totality of his life away from him even if they are too big of a coward to step up and do it and do it by throwing him in a hole and forgetting about him until he dies.

Far more people will innocent people die in jail and far more innocent people will be killed outside of jail if the maximum penalty is life and not death, especially a quick (~ 2 years for appeals, etc.) and certain death if convinced of murder or repeat violent offenders or demonstrated dangers to society like repeat DUIs.

We have made progress on the DUI with stiffer penalties and other things. We need to work on the other reckless driving like excessive speeding and red light running. We also need to get serious about our penalties for violent crimes. For example, felons in possession while it is potentially a stiff penalty, it is often not enforced and it should be enforced 100% of the time. If you get out after that and are found with another weapon, well sorry, your time on this earth has expired and you need to pray for your soul. We need to allow room for people to make mistakes and bad choices, but there needs to be some hard lines where if you cross, you are too much of a menace to society that that is that and that does not mean rot in a hole for decades. I think the maximum sentence for anything should not be measured in decades. No one should ever spend that amount of time in jail. It would not be my choice, but I would agree to a 10 year sentence for murder for a first offense and death for a second. Although, if you commit two separate acts of murder, you get death even if you haven't served any time before the second conviction. OJ - 2 murders/1 act. New Haven many murders / 2 acts - 1 his mom and 2 all the kids. And I would include attempted murder the same way. First time you murder or try, OK if we are too wimpy to do the right thing, the second time they try to murder someone, that's it. And if they are so horribly unlucky that they get convicted wrongfully of two separate acts, well, you know, some people just can't catch a break.

My career is about saving people's lives. It is about replacing coal with a better alternative. While coal has saved far more lives than it has cost, we can do better, a lot better. Natural gas is a lot better and fracking is a godsend. Nuclear, I believe is simply too psychologically scary and too easily corrupted by government. I'm not convinced it really has a big future and nothing else can compete with coal, except now natural gas because of fracking. The number of lives saved will be huge.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16197
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Christianity and the Death Penalty

Postby Glimmerjim » Sat Nov 30, 2013 12:04 pm

blackduckdog2 wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:The only person I will ever entrust with the death penalty is ME. I would have to hear all the evidence and then decide for myself. At that point, I have no doubt I would give a thumbs down on any number of hard cases. And I'd feel obliged to pull the trigger, swing the axe, whatever the condemned chose……myself. That's the only way I'm on board. I trust no one else with this sort of power

Who would you trust with life without possibility of parole? For me, I think that is far more likely to be abused. It's psychologically easier to throw them in a hole and forget about them. Death, you can't stick your head in the sand. A jury, the public, a judge, the cops, everybody involved takes it at least an order of magnitude more seriously. Perfection is not an option, but to make the system better, buy taking death of the table :no: That makes it so much worse. It addresses none of the flaws that put a man not proven guilty beyond a negligible doubt on death row. If he had been given life without parole, few people would have cared that much. We can always "fix" it which is silly if he rots in prison until he dies or loses decades of his life and is released as an old man, not because he is innocent, but because he's an old man and the people he killed are long forgotten by the public, so we feel good about releasing a man that has now got some publicity and people have gotten emotionally invested and want to believe he is a good man.

If we could raise the dead, I'd be right there with you

Exactly. You didn't address the "oops", or more likely, manipulated cases at all, Spinner. That is the essence of the quandary, if you believe there is one. I think the only way that can be honestly addressed is to say that it doesn't happen often, and the occassional "oopsy daisy" is worth it. In response to that I'll ask again....would it be worth it if the one execution of an innocent in your state in 20 years was your son?
I agree that technology has lessened the odds of mistakes, and will probably continue to do so. However, a push to make the Death Penalty more efficient, more timely, and less costly would not only up the odds again, it would make them not "newsworthy", as I am sure they pretty much already are in Texas. Being not newsworthy, they would not be as subject to review or consideration, and would more than likely be much more prone to abuse. "Dead men tell no tales of police of judicial misconduct."
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10839
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Christianity and the Death Penalty

Postby SpinnerMan » Sat Nov 30, 2013 4:16 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:The only person I will ever entrust with the death penalty is ME. I would have to hear all the evidence and then decide for myself. At that point, I have no doubt I would give a thumbs down on any number of hard cases. And I'd feel obliged to pull the trigger, swing the axe, whatever the condemned chose……myself. That's the only way I'm on board. I trust no one else with this sort of power

Who would you trust with life without possibility of parole? For me, I think that is far more likely to be abused. It's psychologically easier to throw them in a hole and forget about them. Death, you can't stick your head in the sand. A jury, the public, a judge, the cops, everybody involved takes it at least an order of magnitude more seriously. Perfection is not an option, but to make the system better, buy taking death of the table :no: That makes it so much worse. It addresses none of the flaws that put a man not proven guilty beyond a negligible doubt on death row. If he had been given life without parole, few people would have cared that much. We can always "fix" it which is silly if he rots in prison until he dies or loses decades of his life and is released as an old man, not because he is innocent, but because he's an old man and the people he killed are long forgotten by the public, so we feel good about releasing a man that has now got some publicity and people have gotten emotionally invested and want to believe he is a good man.

If we could raise the dead, I'd be right there with you

Exactly. You didn't address the "oops", or more likely, manipulated cases at all, Spinner. That is the essence of the quandary, if you believe there is one. I think the only way that can be honestly addressed is to say that it doesn't happen often, and the occassional "oopsy daisy" is worth it. In response to that I'll ask again....would it be worth it if the one execution of an innocent in your state in 20 years was your son?
I agree that technology has lessened the odds of mistakes, and will probably continue to do so. However, a push to make the Death Penalty more efficient, more timely, and less costly would not only up the odds again, it would make them not "newsworthy", as I am sure they pretty much already are in Texas. Being not newsworthy, they would not be as subject to review or consideration, and would more than likely be much more prone to abuse. "Dead men tell no tales of police of judicial misconduct."

I addressed them. Maybe not to your satisfaction. This is why we should have ZERO tolerance for lying under oath and related crimes intended to manipulate the justice system and not just in murder but in all cases including everything from bankruptcy, divorce, child custody. Everything it should be a very serious crime to try and mislead the court by providing false information.

Also we should be very harsh with political prosecutions like George Zimmerman, Tom Daley, etc. The accused must always get the benefit of the doubt from everybody including the prosecutor.

Oops go both ways as well. You cannot focus on one type of error and disregard the other if you wish to minimize the number of innocent lives lost. For good reason, we tilt the scale strongly toward allowing murderers to go free and kill more innocent people and already set too money guilty people free to kill more than we will ever execute innocent people.

Your Texas example, there is nothing a San Fran liberal anti-death penalty lawyer would love to do than prove the Texas executed a clearly innocent man. The cynic in me says even more than they would love to get him off death row and set him free.

However, I would also add a stiff penalty. If you lied and that lie had the intent of causing someone's death, that IS murder by any definition of the word. If a prosecutor willfully withheld exculpatory evidence in order to take a man's life, that IS murder by any definition.

Since people on your side of things were so quick to give Clinton a pass for his criminal activity, I think you neglect to realize how serious people on my side are about enforcing and punishing ALL criminal activity. We believe in our system of a very high bar to prove guilty and how serious and important our justice system is and how there should be no tolerance for people trying to manipulate it. Cops get the benefit of the doubt, but when they commit a crime, particularly in their official capacity, they should be punished very harshly.

The problem is that we still have the gut reaction lynch mob mentality and we saw that from our President and the George Zimmerman case. He didn't deserve the benefit of the doubt because he killed someone the President could identify with on a totally superficial way. That is how an oops is far more likely to happen and when a Harvard trained lawyer participates in stirring the emotions and not protecting the justice system and the foundation presumption of innocence, I see why you are very skeptical.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16197
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Christianity and the Death Penalty

Postby blackduckdog2 » Sat Nov 30, 2013 4:39 pm

I just can't get on board with your premise that the best way to ensure justice is ramping up the penalties, in the hopes that everyone will take the issue more seriously somehow, and do their due diligence, which they might not have done had the penalty been a lesser one. I can think of too many scenarios where having the accused swiftly tried and executed might forestall a messy and politically inconvenient investigation into the deeper realities of the situation. If having a fall guy is great, having a dead one is through the roof. It's an interesting theory, Spinner, but I don't think it has very much practical application.
OK, now this is baiting a bit, but if I were to play your part in this discussion, I'd suggest that we apply the death penalty in ALL criminal cases, no matter how insignificant, so that the accused will be sure to get a fair trial. That would be pushing the premise to its extremes (which I think is very seldom actually valid) in order to prove or disprove its merits. :hammer: :hammer:
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Christianity and the Death Penalty

Postby assateague » Sat Nov 30, 2013 6:07 pm

But what about the point Spinner raised- if you compare the number of innocent people executed by the state with the number of innocent people executed by criminals the state did NOT execute, I suspect the numbers would be mind-numbingly skewed.

And I thought liberals were all about the "greater good"? I mean, who cares if 10 million lose their health insurance so 11 million others can get it?
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Christianity and the Death Penalty

Postby blackduckdog2 » Sat Nov 30, 2013 7:46 pm

assateague wrote:But what about the point Spinner raised- if you compare the number of innocent people executed by the state with the number of innocent people executed by criminals the state did NOT execute, I suspect the numbers would be mind-numbingly skewed.

And I thought liberals were all about the "greater good"? I mean, who cares if 10 million lose their health insurance so 11 million others can get it?

Let's not pretend conservatives don't believe in the greater good…………. a major component of this argument is that conservatives are willing to accept a number of wrongful executions for the "good" of the cause.
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Christianity and the Death Penalty

Postby Indaswamp » Sat Nov 30, 2013 7:50 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:The only person I will ever entrust with the death penalty is ME. I would have to hear all the evidence and then decide for myself. At that point, I have no doubt I would give a thumbs down on any number of hard cases. And I'd feel obliged to pull the trigger, swing the axe, whatever the condemned chose……myself. That's the only way I'm on board. I trust no one else with this sort of power

Who would you trust with life without possibility of parole? For me, I think that is far more likely to be abused. It's psychologically easier to throw them in a hole and forget about them. Death, you can't stick your head in the sand. A jury, the public, a judge, the cops, everybody involved takes it at least an order of magnitude more seriously. Perfection is not an option, but to make the system better, buy taking death of the table :no: That makes it so much worse. It addresses none of the flaws that put a man not proven guilty beyond a negligible doubt on death row. If he had been given life without parole, few people would have cared that much. We can always "fix" it which is silly if he rots in prison until he dies or loses decades of his life and is released as an old man, not because he is innocent, but because he's an old man and the people he killed are long forgotten by the public, so we feel good about releasing a man that has now got some publicity and people have gotten emotionally invested and want to believe he is a good man.

If we could raise the dead, I'd be right there with you

Exactly. You didn't address the "oops", or more likely, manipulated cases at all, Spinner. That is the essence of the quandary, if you believe there is one. I think the only way that can be honestly addressed is to say that it doesn't happen often, and the occassional "oopsy daisy" is worth it. In response to that I'll ask again....would it be worth it if the one execution of an innocent in your state in 20 years was your son?
I agree that technology has lessened the odds of mistakes, and will probably continue to do so. However, a push to make the Death Penalty more efficient, more timely, and less costly would not only up the odds again, it would make them not "newsworthy", as I am sure they pretty much already are in Texas. Being not newsworthy, they would not be as subject to review or consideration, and would more than likely be much more prone to abuse. "Dead men tell no tales of police of judicial misconduct."

I addressed them. Maybe not to your satisfaction. This is why we should have ZERO tolerance for lying under oath and related crimes intended to manipulate the justice system and not just in murder but in all cases including everything from bankruptcy, divorce, child custody. Everything it should be a very serious crime to try and mislead the court by providing false information.

Also we should be very harsh with political prosecutions like George Zimmerman, Tom Daley, etc. The accused must always get the benefit of the doubt from everybody including the prosecutor.

Oops go both ways as well. You cannot focus on one type of error and disregard the other if you wish to minimize the number of innocent lives lost. For good reason, we tilt the scale strongly toward allowing murderers to go free and kill more innocent people and already set too money guilty people free to kill more than we will ever execute innocent people.

Your Texas example, there is nothing a San Fran liberal anti-death penalty lawyer would love to do than prove the Texas executed a clearly innocent man. The cynic in me says even more than they would love to get him off death row and set him free.

However, I would also add a stiff penalty. If you lied and that lie had the intent of causing someone's death, that IS murder by any definition of the word. If a prosecutor willfully withheld exculpatory evidence in order to take a man's life, that IS murder by any definition.

Since people on your side of things were so quick to give Clinton a pass for his criminal activity, I think you neglect to realize how serious people on my side are about enforcing and punishing ALL criminal activity. We believe in our system of a very high bar to prove guilty and how serious and important our justice system is and how there should be no tolerance for people trying to manipulate it. Cops get the benefit of the doubt, but when they commit a crime, particularly in their official capacity, they should be punished very harshly.

The problem is that we still have the gut reaction lynch mob mentality and we saw that from our President and the George Zimmerman case. He didn't deserve the benefit of the doubt because he killed someone the President could identify with on a totally superficial way. That is how an oops is far more likely to happen and when a Harvard trained lawyer participates in stirring the emotions and not protecting the justice system and the foundation presumption of innocence, I see why you are very skeptical.

I agree. and we should start with the banks and financial institutions. Robo-signing anyone???
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 57501
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Christianity and the Death Penalty

Postby Glimmerjim » Sat Nov 30, 2013 8:02 pm

assateague wrote:But what about the point Spinner raised- if you compare the number of innocent people executed by the state with the number of innocent people executed by criminals the state did NOT execute, I suspect the numbers would be mind-numbingly skewed.


That is obviously true, guys. EVERY person that murders is someone that was not executed by the state prior to their crime. Your (I think) opinion is that if the state were quicker to execute, with more crimes resulting in the Death Penalty, there would be fewer homicides of innocents. My point is that there would be more State-sanctioned homicides of the innocent. That would be a tragedy in itself. But I think the bigger picture is that if we adopt a position of being less reluctant to kill, the nation as a whole will be less reluctant to kill. Taking the life of someone is a grave task (no pun etc). We are already immersed in one of the most violent First World societies in existence. For the State to take the position that life should be taken regularly, as a preventative measure, seems to me to be a counter-intuitive step. It would immediately place us on a par with a LOT of less developed countries.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10839
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Christianity and the Death Penalty

Postby SpinnerMan » Sun Dec 01, 2013 7:54 am

blackduckdog2 wrote:
assateague wrote:But what about the point Spinner raised- if you compare the number of innocent people executed by the state with the number of innocent people executed by criminals the state did NOT execute, I suspect the numbers would be mind-numbingly skewed.

And I thought liberals were all about the "greater good"? I mean, who cares if 10 million lose their health insurance so 11 million others can get it?

Let's not pretend conservatives don't believe in the greater good…………. a major component of this argument is that conservatives are willing to accept a number of wrongful executions for the "good" of the cause.

The ONLY way to ensure that someone does not wrongfully die in jail is for no one to go to jail. It's not a greater good argument. It is an acceptance of the obvious. Conservatives simply acknowledge and accept reality. Liberals, well, not so much. They are Utopians. Christian conservatives only believe in one Utopia and it is not here on Earth.

The other part is that liberals seem obsessed about not wrongfully executing someone, but seem to not have the appropriate (my opinion obviously) level outrage over putting someone in jail and letting them rot for what could be nearly a century at the extreme. Give me liberty or give me death. This is not something that is strong in the 21st century liberals and I suspect this is why. They have a much greater fear of death than Christian conservatives and that's probably not surprising. While Christian conservatives don't want to die, we know that that is not the end. Liberals seem to be very willing to sacrifice liberty if they think they can avoid even a miniscule risk of death.

I do believe that this issue does get at a lot of the core differences between conservatives and liberals. And a big part of that is Utopianism versus Realism.

If we execute people for crimes, sooner or later someone will be executed that should not have. Indisputable fact.

Liberals - do not execute anyone

Conservatives - it is the appropriate punishment and we should set a very high bar for conviction like everything else and like everything else we should be serious about enforcing the laws and rules and procedures and impose very tough punishment to deter those who break those because of the potential harm from their actions.

The liberal policy is a bumper sticker. The conservative policy is much more thought out and nuanced. The liberals feel good about themselves for their position. The conservatives are focused on the results in the real world. The liberal policy changes based on the emotions of the situation - kill someone they love and death is not good enough. The conservative policy does not change even when it is someone they despise. The liberal position is perpetually fluid, unstable, and cannot be nailed down. The conservative policy is stable, evolutionary, and happily written down and debated. For the liberal, this is an emotional issue. For the conservative, this is a practical issue. The liberal in California wants to for the conservative in Texas to bend to their will. The conservative in Texas just wants to laugh at the folly of the liberal in California, but has to fight back because the liberal in California insists on using the power of Washington to impose the will of California on Texas.

Basically, we have completely different world views and are in large part not even speaking the same language and can't even comprehend the thought processes behind them. Because we are so wildly different, this is why the conservative wants a small decentralized government and why the liberal wants a powerful centralized government.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16197
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Christianity and the Death Penalty

Postby blackduckdog2 » Sun Dec 01, 2013 10:28 am

SpinnerMan wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
assateague wrote:But what about the point Spinner raised- if you compare the number of innocent people executed by the state with the number of innocent people executed by criminals the state did NOT execute, I suspect the numbers would be mind-numbingly skewed.

And I thought liberals were all about the "greater good"? I mean, who cares if 10 million lose their health insurance so 11 million others can get it?

Let's not pretend conservatives don't believe in the greater good…………. a major component of this argument is that conservatives are willing to accept a number of wrongful executions for the "good" of the cause.

The ONLY way to ensure that someone does not wrongfully die in jail is for no one to go to jail. It's not a greater good argument.
Well of course it's a "greater good" argument….. In fact, it's the very definition of a "greater good" argument! If you're willing to accept that you will wrongly execute a lesser number of "good guys" because the effect of executing a greater number of "bad guys" is something you deem good for society at large, well, you just might be a "Greater Good" believer. And nothing to be ashamed of, I might add
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Christianity and the Death Penalty

Postby Dingbatter 2 » Sun Dec 01, 2013 11:24 am

In it's pure form, the death penalty is not and never has been a deterrent but a punishment. You murder someone, you get murdered back. The problem is that the punishment is not swift so there really is no punishment. Most death row inmates may as well have life imprisonment.

Christians have been killing each other and everyone else since the beginning of their religion, as have most other religions. We go to war and pray for our troops to kill the other guy, his family, friends, children, every living thing associated with him because he is "evil". Christians think Muslims are evil, Muslims think Christians are evil. Protestants think Catholics are evil, Catholics think Protestants are evil. Sunni's think Shiites are evil while Shiites think Sunni's are evil. The same old story. Religion by and large is rooted in ignorance, fear, and death. All religious faiths have a closet full of bloody skeletons. The death penalty is one.

I try to keep things simple. To me there are human beings and there are Homo sapiens. To be a human being is not a right but a privilege. You must live and work in the society that you are a member of, and abide by the customs of that society to be a human being. Once you step across that line, and you slaughter innocents then you are no longer a human being, but a Homo sapien , a savage, an animal, and you should be treated like one. Not abused or tortured, but dealt with just like we would deal with any animal. Either put them down or put them in a cage. As for death row and the death penalty, I really doubt there are many in there that had a spotless record before they killed someone. Death row by and large is full of Homo sapiens and not human beings.
"When I get to heaven, tie me to a tree
For I'll begin to roam and soon you'll know where I will be..."
Dingbatter 2
hunter
 
Posts: 1189
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:44 pm

Re: Christianity and the Death Penalty

Postby SpinnerMan » Sun Dec 01, 2013 11:35 am

blackduckdog2 wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
assateague wrote:But what about the point Spinner raised- if you compare the number of innocent people executed by the state with the number of innocent people executed by criminals the state did NOT execute, I suspect the numbers would be mind-numbingly skewed.

And I thought liberals were all about the "greater good"? I mean, who cares if 10 million lose their health insurance so 11 million others can get it?

Let's not pretend conservatives don't believe in the greater good…………. a major component of this argument is that conservatives are willing to accept a number of wrongful executions for the "good" of the cause.

The ONLY way to ensure that someone does not wrongfully die in jail is for no one to go to jail. It's not a greater good argument.
Well of course it's a "greater good" argument….. In fact, it's the very definition of a "greater good" argument! If you're willing to accept that you will wrongly execute a lesser number of "good guys" because the effect of executing a greater number of "bad guys" is something you deem good for society at large, well, you just might be a "Greater Good" believer. And nothing to be ashamed of, I might add

The threshold for conviction is far beyond what would maximize the greater good in terms of the number of innocent people killed. A trial by jury is not the best way to ensure complex technical issues are appropriate considered. Now if you want to say that these restrictions that are largely based on the fear of government abuse are greater good arguments, I will agree with that.

However, when talking about death penalty versus life without possibility of parole, I am making a moral argument. I think it is cowardly and immoral to put an 18 year old murderer in jail until he dies as opposed execute him upon completion of a reasonable level of review in the appeals process. If you proved to me 100% without a doubt that the greater good was served by letting that 18 year old kid rot, or by taking him in the town square and torturing him to death or many other punishments, I would reject them.

I do however believe that it does serve the greater good given that cruel and unusual punishment is off of the table and there are no summary executions. A vicious totalitarian regime can easily have a much lower murder rate than a free society where the accused is presumed innocent and gets all the benefit of the doubt. AFTER we have applied many moral constraints that I believe you would agree are not greater good arguments, but will accept that they are if you want to call them that, only then with such seriously limiting constraints firmly in place am I seeking what is the greater good.

Unfortunately I see too many of those constraints either broken or far too loose for our justice system to be function effectively and the vast majority have faith in the outcomes. Many of which we agree. My solution being we work in tighten those constraints firmly and not lessening the punishment for horrific crimes. Lesser punishment because of lesser faith in the system does not resolve the critical component of any justice system which is that in general it is just and people have faith that that is true.

Never forget that in our system, the guilty normally gets away with no punishment for his crime. I do not wish to change that. I think that is how it should be. We are talking about those that 12 jurors unanimously agree to punish and what that punishment should be. If anything, an even larger fraction will get away with their crimes in my ideal system. If that is a greater good argument, it is not a very good one. I think you are focused to narrowly.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16197
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Christianity and the Death Penalty

Postby Glimmerjim » Sun Dec 01, 2013 12:06 pm

Dingbatter 2 wrote: Christians have been killing each other and everyone else since the beginning of their religion, as have most other religions. We go to war and pray for our troops to kill the other guy, his family, friends, children, every living thing associated with him because he is "evil". Christians think Muslims are evil, Muslims think Christians are evil. Protestants think Catholics are evil, Catholics think Protestants are evil. Sunni's think Shiites are evil while Shiites think Sunni's are evil. The same old story. Religion by and large is rooted in ignorance, fear, and death. All religious faiths have a closet full of bloody skeletons. The death penalty is one.

I don't disagree, Dingbatter, but I am way curious to see the reaction to this. There has been a sense of ennui around here that is completely enervating. I much prefer the site when rocks and grenades are flying back and forth! :lol3: I am hoping it's just because it's duck season.
Dingbatter 2 wrote: "When I get to heaven, tie me to a tree
For I'll begin to roam and soon you'll know where I will be..."

I was interested in where your sig line came from and looked it up. Marvin Lee. Watched a few videos. Way cool! I'm an instant fan! :thumbsup: And trust me, it's not my normally preferred form of music!
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10839
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Christianity and the Death Penalty

Postby WTN10 » Sun Dec 01, 2013 4:17 pm

Dingbatter 2 wrote:In it's pure form, the death penalty is not and never has been a deterrent but a punishment. You murder someone, you get murdered back. The problem is that the punishment is not swift so there really is no punishment. Most death row inmates may as well have life imprisonment.

Christians have been killing each other and everyone else since the beginning of their religion, as have most other religions. We go to war and pray for our troops to kill the other guy, his family, friends, children, every living thing associated with him because he is "evil". Christians think Muslims are evil, Muslims think Christians are evil. Protestants think Catholics are evil, Catholics think Protestants are evil. Sunni's think Shiites are evil while Shiites think Sunni's are evil. The same old story. Religion by and large is rooted in ignorance, fear, and death. All religious faiths have a closet full of bloody skeletons. The death penalty is one.

I try to keep things simple. To me there are human beings and there are Homo sapiens. To be a human being is not a right but a privilege. You must live and work in the society that you are a member of, and abide by the customs of that society to be a human being. Once you step across that line, and you slaughter innocents then you are no longer a human being, but a Homo sapien , a savage, an animal, and you should be treated like one. Not abused or tortured, but dealt with just like we would deal with any animal. Either put them down or put them in a cage. As for death row and the death penalty, I really doubt there are many in there that had a spotless record before they killed someone. Death row by and large is full of Homo sapiens and not human beings.


Pretty much the most ignorant diatribe against religion one could concoct. It is as overly simplistic, as it is uninformed. We are all now dumber for having heard it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
2014 Season Totals:
Mallards: 243
Redheads: 114
Woodducks: 119
Grebes: 36
Blue Geese: 134
Snow Geese: 178
Hawks: 4
User avatar
WTN10
hunter
 
Posts: 14036
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:02 pm
Location: Western Tunisia

Re: Christianity and the Death Penalty

Postby clampdaddy » Sun Dec 01, 2013 4:57 pm

Dingbatter 2 wrote:In it's pure form, the death penalty is not and never has been a deterrent but a punishment.......


If it weren't for fear of prison or death, I can think of a few instances in my life where I would've offed somebody.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3635
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Christianity and the Death Penalty

Postby boney fingers » Sun Dec 01, 2013 5:10 pm

Dingbatter 2 wrote:In it's pure form, the death penalty is not and never has been a deterrent but a punishment. You murder someone, you get murdered back. The problem is that the punishment is not swift so there really is no punishment. Most death row inmates may as well have life imprisonment.

Christians have been killing each other and everyone else since the beginning of their religion, as have most other religions. We go to war and pray for our troops to kill the other guy, his family, friends, children, every living thing associated with him because he is "evil". Christians think Muslims are evil, Muslims think Christians are evil. Protestants think Catholics are evil, Catholics think Protestants are evil. Sunni's think Shiites are evil while Shiites think Sunni's are evil. The same old story. Religion by and large is rooted in ignorance, fear, and death. All religious faiths have a closet full of bloody skeletons. The death penalty is one.

I try to keep things simple. To me there are human beings and there are Homo sapiens. To be a human being is not a right but a privilege. You must live and work in the society that you are a member of, and abide by the customs of that society to be a human being. Once you step across that line, and you slaughter innocents then you are no longer a human being, but a Homo sapien , a savage, an animal, and you should be treated like one. Not abused or tortured, but dealt with just like we would deal with any animal. Either put them down or put them in a cage. As for death row and the death penalty, I really doubt there are many in there that had a spotless record before they killed someone. Death row by and large is full of Homo sapiens and not human beings.



The irony of it all, is that without religion, then there is no right or wrong. Without a higher power, the concept of right and wrong is meaningless.
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: Christianity and the Death Penalty

Postby assateague » Sun Dec 01, 2013 5:11 pm

Here we go again.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Christianity and the Death Penalty

Postby Dingbatter 2 » Sun Dec 01, 2013 5:15 pm

boney fingers wrote:
Dingbatter 2 wrote:In it's pure form, the death penalty is not and never has been a deterrent but a punishment. You murder someone, you get murdered back. The problem is that the punishment is not swift so there really is no punishment. Most death row inmates may as well have life imprisonment.

Christians have been killing each other and everyone else since the beginning of their religion, as have most other religions. We go to war and pray for our troops to kill the other guy, his family, friends, children, every living thing associated with him because he is "evil". Christians think Muslims are evil, Muslims think Christians are evil. Protestants think Catholics are evil, Catholics think Protestants are evil. Sunni's think Shiites are evil while Shiites think Sunni's are evil. The same old story. Religion by and large is rooted in ignorance, fear, and death. All religious faiths have a closet full of bloody skeletons. The death penalty is one.

I try to keep things simple. To me there are human beings and there are Homo sapiens. To be a human being is not a right but a privilege. You must live and work in the society that you are a member of, and abide by the customs of that society to be a human being. Once you step across that line, and you slaughter innocents then you are no longer a human being, but a Homo sapien , a savage, an animal, and you should be treated like one. Not abused or tortured, but dealt with just like we would deal with any animal. Either put them down or put them in a cage. As for death row and the death penalty, I really doubt there are many in there that had a spotless record before they killed someone. Death row by and large is full of Homo sapiens and not human beings.



The irony of it all, is that without religion, then there is no right or wrong. Without a higher power, the concept of right and wrong is meaningless.


Religion has been around since we left the cave and we still can't figure out what is right or wrong. I think it has gotten worse. Right now two of the worlds greatest religions are facing off and getting ready for a war that most likely will send us back to the cave, that is if we are lucky to have a cave to go back too. This may be shaping up to be a "death penalty" on steriods!
:help:
"When I get to heaven, tie me to a tree
For I'll begin to roam and soon you'll know where I will be..."
Dingbatter 2
hunter
 
Posts: 1189
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:44 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests