Death Penalty is Justified

[FJO]

Sorry, but some crimes deserve the ultimate punishment.

I would consider abolishing the death penalty if the following were allowed. The punishment would be to break up a 400 lb boulder with a small hammer. after that, they would have to crazy glue the boulder back together. If they stop, they don't get fed.

Rinse and repeat until they die.

That would likely afoul of the 8th Amendment. When it comes to the death penalty, society has the right punish, but it shouldn't have a right to vengeance.

It's a trade, one for the other. Yes, there would have to be some remedy via the 8th amendment, but considering the Constitution itself allows for the DP, it would have to be changed anyway if people truly wanted to ban it constitutionally.

Replace "death" with "perpetual rock breaking/gluing" and all would be well.

That being said, again for some crimes, the bastard has to die. 3 hots and a cot isn't punishment enough, even if you supermax the bastard (and some bleeding hearts have an issue with even supermax).

Finally, vengeance always has to play a part, particularly in murder cases, because the survivors of the victims need to be satisfied.

I consider the total loss of one's freedom and liberty to be a far more fitting punishment than death.

Death penalty by today's standards is nothing more than lying down for a nap and not to wake up.

A life is gone. Wasted.

How about REDEMPTION? Is it possible? Is it Christian to get eye for an eye or is is Old Testament and/or Islamic barbarism?

Redemption is for the guy who jacked a liquor store without hurting anyone, or the drug addict who robbed a house without hurting anyone, or even a guy or woman who killed in a fit of passion. People who kill in the commission of another crime, or ill a cop, or kill multiple people don't deserve redemption, or if they want it, they can ask for it while they wait for their needle.

Obviously you have no idea what the word "REDEMPTION" means.

It is not something that is given, it is something tat comes from within.

When you put a person in prison for whatever horrendous crime, you put that person in the care of the Department of CORRECTION, Put him/her to be corrected.

Your attitude indicates that you think this is a futile excercise. Nobody can be corrected. Nobody will ever come out of the system any differently from what they were going in.

Think about it, How would you feel if one of your relatives were charged and convicted of a crime which in your opinion deserves the ultimate punishment?

 

[martybegan]

That would likely afoul of the 8th Amendment. When it comes to the death penalty, society has the right punish, but it shouldn't have a right to vengeance.

It's a trade, one for the other. Yes, there would have to be some remedy via the 8th amendment, but considering the Constitution itself allows for the DP, it would have to be changed anyway if people truly wanted to ban it constitutionally.

Replace "death" with "perpetual rock breaking/gluing" and all would be well.

That being said, again for some crimes, the bastard has to die. 3 hots and a cot isn't punishment enough, even if you supermax the bastard (and some bleeding hearts have an issue with even supermax).

Finally, vengeance always has to play a part, particularly in murder cases, because the survivors of the victims need to be satisfied.

I consider the total loss of one's freedom and liberty to be a far more fitting punishment than death.

Death penalty by today's standards is nothing more than lying down for a nap and not to wake up.

A life is gone. Wasted.

How about REDEMPTION? Is it possible? Is it Christian to get eye for an eye or is is Old Testament and/or Islamic barbarism?

Redemption is for the guy who jacked a liquor store without hurting anyone, or the drug addict who robbed a house without hurting anyone, or even a guy or woman who killed in a fit of passion. People who kill in the commission of another crime, or ill a cop, or kill multiple people don't deserve redemption, or if they want it, they can ask for it while they wait for their needle.

Obviously you have no idea what the word "REDEMPTION" means.

It is not something that is given, it is something tat comes from within.

When you put a person in prison for whatever horrendous crime, you put that person in the care of the Department of CORRECTION, Put him/her to be corrected.

Your attitude indicates that you think this is a futile excercise. Nobody can be corrected. Nobody will ever come out of the system any differently from what they were going in.

Think about it, How would you feel if one of your relatives were charged and convicted of a crime which in your opinion deserves the ultimate punishment?

Some people can be corrected, however once you kill intentionally, or kill a cop, or kill multiple people, you don't deserve a chance at correction, and any redemption you get can be behind bars for the rest of your (natural or shortened) life.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

No, the death penalty isn't justified in my opinion.

Sorry, but some crimes deserve the ultimate punishment.

I would consider abolishing the death penalty if the following were allowed. The punishment would be to break up a 400 lb boulder with a small hammer. after that, they would have to crazy glue the boulder back together. If they stop, they don't get fed.

Rinse and repeat until they die.

That would likely afoul of the 8th Amendment. When it comes to the death penalty, society has the right punish, but it shouldn't have a right to vengeance.

It's a trade, one for the other. Yes, there would have to be some remedy via the 8th amendment, but considering the Constitution itself allows for the DP, it would have to be changed anyway if people truly wanted to ban it constitutionally.

Replace "death" with "perpetual rock breaking/gluing" and all would be well.

That being said, again for some crimes, the bastard has to die. 3 hots and a cot isn't punishment enough, even if you supermax the bastard (and some bleeding hearts have an issue with even supermax).

Finally, vengeance always has to play a part, particularly in murder cases, because the survivors of the victims need to be satisfied.

I consider the total loss of one's freedom and liberty to be a far more fitting punishment than death.

Human beings are the most adapable mammals on earth. They adapt to incarceration. They become institutionalized and are quite happy in prison.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

That would likely afoul of the 8th Amendment. When it comes to the death penalty, society has the right punish, but it shouldn't have a right to vengeance.

It's a trade, one for the other. Yes, there would have to be some remedy via the 8th amendment, but considering the Constitution itself allows for the DP, it would have to be changed anyway if people truly wanted to ban it constitutionally.

Replace "death" with "perpetual rock breaking/gluing" and all would be well.

That being said, again for some crimes, the bastard has to die. 3 hots and a cot isn't punishment enough, even if you supermax the bastard (and some bleeding hearts have an issue with even supermax).

Finally, vengeance always has to play a part, particularly in murder cases, because the survivors of the victims need to be satisfied.

I consider the total loss of one's freedom and liberty to be a far more fitting punishment than death.

Death penalty by today's standards is nothing more than lying down for a nap and not to wake up.

A life is gone. Wasted.

How about REDEMPTION? Is it possible? Is it Christian to get eye for an eye or is is Old Testament and/or Islamic barbarism?

Redemption is for the guy who jacked a liquor store without hurting anyone, or the drug addict who robbed a house without hurting anyone, or even a guy or woman who killed in a fit of passion. People who kill in the commission of another crime, or ill a cop, or kill multiple people don't deserve redemption, or if they want it, they can ask for it while they wait for their needle.

Obviously you have no idea what the word "REDEMPTION" means.

It is not something that is given, it is something tat comes from within.

When you put a person in prison for whatever horrendous crime, you put that person in the care of the Department of CORRECTION, Put him/her to be corrected.

Your attitude indicates that you think this is a futile excercise. Nobody can be corrected. Nobody will ever come out of the system any differently from what they were going in.

Think about it, How would you feel if one of your relatives were charged and convicted of a crime which in your opinion deserves the ultimate punishment?

How would you feel if one of your relatives killed multiple people? Suppose your brother were a serial killer? How would you deal with knowing that your own brother had the bodies of children buried under his house?

 

[Pogo]

It's a trade, one for the other. Yes, there would have to be some remedy via the 8th amendment, but considering the Constitution itself allows for the DP, it would have to be changed anyway if people truly wanted to ban it constitutionally.

Replace "death" with "perpetual rock breaking/gluing" and all would be well.

That being said, again for some crimes, the bastard has to die. 3 hots and a cot isn't punishment enough, even if you supermax the bastard (and some bleeding hearts have an issue with even supermax).

Finally, vengeance always has to play a part, particularly in murder cases, because the survivors of the victims need to be satisfied.

I consider the total loss of one's freedom and liberty to be a far more fitting punishment than death.

Death penalty by today's standards is nothing more than lying down for a nap and not to wake up.

A life is gone. Wasted.

How about REDEMPTION? Is it possible? Is it Christian to get eye for an eye or is is Old Testament and/or Islamic barbarism?

Redemption is for the guy who jacked a liquor store without hurting anyone, or the drug addict who robbed a house without hurting anyone, or even a guy or woman who killed in a fit of passion. People who kill in the commission of another crime, or ill a cop, or kill multiple people don't deserve redemption, or if they want it, they can ask for it while they wait for their needle.

Obviously you have no idea what the word "REDEMPTION" means.

It is not something that is given, it is something tat comes from within.

When you put a person in prison for whatever horrendous crime, you put that person in the care of the Department of CORRECTION, Put him/her to be corrected.

Your attitude indicates that you think this is a futile excercise. Nobody can be corrected. Nobody will ever come out of the system any differently from what they were going in.

Think about it, How would you feel if one of your relatives were charged and convicted of a crime which in your opinion deserves the ultimate punishment?

Some people can be corrected, however once you kill intentionally, or kill a cop, or kill multiple people, you don't deserve a chance at correction, and any redemption you get can be behind bars for the rest of your (natural or shortened) life.

Ah, now God checks in. Domini domini, yeah yeah take a number, Mr God.

I always flash back to, of all things, a movie scene. Generally I don't care for movies but every now and then one hits the sweet spot...

In the movie "Witness" where a cop is hiding out on an Amish farm a young boy comes upon the cop's gun and picks it up. He's discovered in that act by an elder who asks him, "would you shoot a man with that gun?"

The boy responds, "I would only shoot the bad man".

The wise elder responds, "YOU can see inside that man's heart?"

 

[Pogo]

It's a trade, one for the other. Yes, there would have to be some remedy via the 8th amendment, but considering the Constitution itself allows for the DP, it would have to be changed anyway if people truly wanted to ban it constitutionally.

Actually it's already banned Constitutionally, BY that very Amendment. Though admittedly not singled out. I believe that's part of the arguments against recent lethal injections, for one.

Perhaps I missed the part of the Constitution that "allows for the DP". Maybe you can quote that part?

Finally, vengeance always has to play a part, particularly in murder cases, because the survivors of the victims need to be satisfied.

That's a classic circular reasoning and as such, illegitimate argument.

 

[martybegan]

I consider the total loss of one's freedom and liberty to be a far more fitting punishment than death.

Death penalty by today's standards is nothing more than lying down for a nap and not to wake up.

A life is gone. Wasted.

How about REDEMPTION? Is it possible? Is it Christian to get eye for an eye or is is Old Testament and/or Islamic barbarism?

Redemption is for the guy who jacked a liquor store without hurting anyone, or the drug addict who robbed a house without hurting anyone, or even a guy or woman who killed in a fit of passion. People who kill in the commission of another crime, or ill a cop, or kill multiple people don't deserve redemption, or if they want it, they can ask for it while they wait for their needle.

Obviously you have no idea what the word "REDEMPTION" means.

It is not something that is given, it is something tat comes from within.

When you put a person in prison for whatever horrendous crime, you put that person in the care of the Department of CORRECTION, Put him/her to be corrected.

Your attitude indicates that you think this is a futile excercise. Nobody can be corrected. Nobody will ever come out of the system any differently from what they were going in.

Think about it, How would you feel if one of your relatives were charged and convicted of a crime which in your opinion deserves the ultimate punishment?

Some people can be corrected, however once you kill intentionally, or kill a cop, or kill multiple people, you don't deserve a chance at correction, and any redemption you get can be behind bars for the rest of your (natural or shortened) life.

Ah, now God checks in. Domini domini, yeah yeah take a number, Mr God.

I always flash back to, of all things, a movie scene. Generally I don't care for movies but every now and then one hits the sweet spot...

In the movie "Witness" where a cop is hiding out on an Amish farm a young boy comes upon the cop's gun and picks it up. He's discovered in that act by an elder who asks him, "would you shoot a man with that gun?"

The boy responds, "I would only shoot the bad man".

The wise elder responds, "YOU can see inside that man's heart?"

I'll take "assholes who use hyperbole for $1000 Alex"

 

[Pogo]

Actually, pro-life folks believing in the death penalty are still pro life.

Yuh huh. And we have always been at war with Oceania. Doubleplusgood logic, comrade.

 

[martybegan]

It's a trade, one for the other. Yes, there would have to be some remedy via the 8th amendment, but considering the Constitution itself allows for the DP, it would have to be changed anyway if people truly wanted to ban it constitutionally.

Actually it's already banned Constitutionally, BY that very Amendment. Though admittedly not singled out. I believe that's part of the arguments against recent lethal injections, for one.

Perhaps I missed the part of the Constitution that "allows for the DP". Maybe you can quote that part?

Finally, vengeance always has to play a part, particularly in murder cases, because the survivors of the victims need to be satisfied.

That's a classic circular reasoning and as such, illegitimate argument.

View attachment 124445​

No, the death penalty is actually specifically noted in the constitution as part of the 5th amendment. You can deny life to a person as along as due process is followed.

And my 2nd point is in no way circular logic.

 

[Pogo]

It's a trade, one for the other. Yes, there would have to be some remedy via the 8th amendment, but considering the Constitution itself allows for the DP, it would have to be changed anyway if people truly wanted to ban it constitutionally.

Actually it's already banned Constitutionally, BY that very Amendment. Though admittedly not singled out. I believe that's part of the arguments against recent lethal injections, for one.

Perhaps I missed the part of the Constitution that "allows for the DP". Maybe you can quote that part?

Finally, vengeance always has to play a part, particularly in murder cases, because the survivors of the victims need to be satisfied.

That's a classic circular reasoning and as such, illegitimate argument.

View attachment 124445​

No, the death penalty is actually specifically noted in the constitution as part of the 5th amendment. You can deny life to a person as along as due process is followed.

And my 2nd point is in no way circular logic.

Of course it is. Classically. Could be a go-to example right up there with "the bible is the word of God becaue the bible says so". You just said "there must be vengeance because victims need vengeance". Nothing in that statement gives a justification for it. Furthermore you're purporting to speak for said victims, just as you're purporting to speak for "God" in bestowing powers of life and death upon the State.

Since you can't (or won't) quote the Fifth, here it is:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.​

Doesn't say anything about "the State may play God" there. It just says whatever it does must follow due process.

 

[Seawytch]

No, the death penalty isn't justified in my opinion.

Sorry, but some crimes deserve the ultimate punishment.

I would consider abolishing the death penalty if the following were allowed. The punishment would be to break up a 400 lb boulder with a small hammer. after that, they would have to crazy glue the boulder back together. If they stop, they don't get fed.

Rinse and repeat until they die.

That would likely afoul of the 8th Amendment. When it comes to the death penalty, society has the right punish, but it shouldn't have a right to vengeance.

What I find most ironic is "small government" conservatives supporting giving government the ultimate power of life and death over an individual.

As a fan of small government, I am wary of the state having such a power.

I wouldn't have a problem with the death penalty if it weren't so reliant on a horribly flawed and racist justice system.

 

[OKTexas]

I consider the total loss of one's freedom and liberty to be a far more fitting punishment than death.

Death penalty by today's standards is nothing more than lying down for a nap and not to wake up.

A life is gone. Wasted.

How about REDEMPTION? Is it possible? Is it Christian to get eye for an eye or is is Old Testament and/or Islamic barbarism?

Redemption is for the guy who jacked a liquor store without hurting anyone, or the drug addict who robbed a house without hurting anyone, or even a guy or woman who killed in a fit of passion. People who kill in the commission of another crime, or ill a cop, or kill multiple people don't deserve redemption, or if they want it, they can ask for it while they wait for their needle.

Obviously you have no idea what the word "REDEMPTION" means.

It is not something that is given, it is something tat comes from within.

When you put a person in prison for whatever horrendous crime, you put that person in the care of the Department of CORRECTION, Put him/her to be corrected.

Your attitude indicates that you think this is a futile excercise. Nobody can be corrected. Nobody will ever come out of the system any differently from what they were going in.

Think about it, How would you feel if one of your relatives were charged and convicted of a crime which in your opinion deserves the ultimate punishment?

Some people can be corrected, however once you kill intentionally, or kill a cop, or kill multiple people, you don't deserve a chance at correction, and any redemption you get can be behind bars for the rest of your (natural or shortened) life.

Ah, now God checks in. Domini domini, yeah yeah take a number, Mr God.

I always flash back to, of all things, a movie scene. Generally I don't care for movies but every now and then one hits the sweet spot...

In the movie "Witness" where a cop is hiding out on an Amish farm a young boy comes upon the cop's gun and picks it up. He's discovered in that act by an elder who asks him, "would you shoot a man with that gun?"

The boy responds, "I would only shoot the bad man".

The wise elder responds, "YOU can see inside that man's heart?"

Yeah you can, when they butcher teenagers with a machete. That's just one example.

.

 

[OKTexas]

It's a trade, one for the other. Yes, there would have to be some remedy via the 8th amendment, but considering the Constitution itself allows for the DP, it would have to be changed anyway if people truly wanted to ban it constitutionally.

Actually it's already banned Constitutionally, BY that very Amendment. Though admittedly not singled out. I believe that's part of the arguments against recent lethal injections, for one.

Perhaps I missed the part of the Constitution that "allows for the DP". Maybe you can quote that part?

Finally, vengeance always has to play a part, particularly in murder cases, because the survivors of the victims need to be satisfied.

That's a classic circular reasoning and as such, illegitimate argument.

View attachment 124445​

Take a peek at the 5th and 14th Amendments.

.

 

[Chuz Life]

Their is no hypocrisy in being opposed to abortion and in supporting the death penalty at the same time. That is unless you are seriously confused and you (wrongly) think that "pro-life" means to value all life and that even eating a salad is murder.

The rest of us (normal minded people) know that it's about the Constitution and the protections for innocent human beings (persons.)

The Constitution clearly says that no persons can be deprived of their life except through "due process."

Convicted criminals are afforded that process and aborted children are not. There is some hypocrisy for you.

Personally, I see the death penalty as society's right to "self defense." I don't care how "pro-life" anyone is, we all retain the right to defend ourselves and to defend the (especially human) lives around us and that includes the use of deadly force.

Again, as a defense of innocent lives.

 

[martybegan]

It's a trade, one for the other. Yes, there would have to be some remedy via the 8th amendment, but considering the Constitution itself allows for the DP, it would have to be changed anyway if people truly wanted to ban it constitutionally.

Actually it's already banned Constitutionally, BY that very Amendment. Though admittedly not singled out. I believe that's part of the arguments against recent lethal injections, for one.

Perhaps I missed the part of the Constitution that "allows for the DP". Maybe you can quote that part?

Finally, vengeance always has to play a part, particularly in murder cases, because the survivors of the victims need to be satisfied.

That's a classic circular reasoning and as such, illegitimate argument.

View attachment 124445​

No, the death penalty is actually specifically noted in the constitution as part of the 5th amendment. You can deny life to a person as along as due process is followed.

And my 2nd point is in no way circular logic.

Of course it is. Classically. Could be a go-to example right up there with "the bible is the word of God becaue the bible says so". You just said "there must be vengeance because victims need vengeance". Nothing in that statement gives a justification for it. Furthermore you're purporting to speak for said victims, just as you're purporting to speak for "God" in bestowing powers of life and death upon the State.

Since you can't (or won't) quote the Fifth, here it is:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.​

Doesn't say anything about "the State may play God" there. It just says whatever it does must follow due process.

It's not need. it's want. And we are talking survivors, not victims because we are talking murder. The whole purpose of a criminal justice system is to take vengeance out of the hands of the people, and placing it in the hands of the State. Remove it from the equation, or dilute it without the consent of the people, and you break the compact.

What part of "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" does not reverberate through your head?

The depriving someone of life, and require due process. That seems to give the government the right to take a life to me.

 

[martybegan]

No, the death penalty isn't justified in my opinion.

Sorry, but some crimes deserve the ultimate punishment.

I would consider abolishing the death penalty if the following were allowed. The punishment would be to break up a 400 lb boulder with a small hammer. after that, they would have to crazy glue the boulder back together. If they stop, they don't get fed.

Rinse and repeat until they die.

That would likely afoul of the 8th Amendment. When it comes to the death penalty, society has the right punish, but it shouldn't have a right to vengeance.

What I find most ironic is "small government" conservatives supporting giving government the ultimate power of life and death over an individual.

As a fan of small government, I am wary of the state having such a power.

I wouldn't have a problem with the death penalty if it weren't so reliant on a horribly flawed and racist justice system.

But incarcerating someone for 60 years using the same system is OK with you?

 

[The Original Tree]

I naively assume that every one of the posters who supports the death penalty, opposes abortion.

When they allow trials for the unborn to determine if they have a right to life, then we can talk about The Justice of putting a Murderer to Death vs. The Justice of Killing The Unborn Innocent.

 

[The Original Tree]

When these inmates rock and squirm on the gurney when receiving lethal injection....it their fear of Satan's face. They are going down to hell when they struggle. Most have zero remorse. They are savages. Catches up to them on judgement day.


States Find Other Execution Methods After Difficulties With Lethal Injection

Death penalty is no punishment. There is anywhere between one and twenty years between conviction and execution. In the meantime the scum gets three square meals a day, lives in air conditioned room, watches TV and points his/her bloody middle to society.

let them live and PUNISH them, Make them work at hard labor 12 hours a day, Give them nothing but bread and water, Give them no food if they don't work,

If they and their scum living lawyers bitch about cruel and unusual punishment remind them that what got them to where they are was far more cruel and unusual.

Don't execute them. Let them live and SUFFER.

Now that we have DNA to verify guilt, we should be able to eliminate all of these appeals. Maybe cut waiting times to 5 years, and then the guillotine.

 

[Pogo]

Their is no hypocrisy in being opposed to abortion and in supporting the death penalty at the same time. That is unless you are seriously confused and you (wrongly) think that "pro-life" means to value all life and that even eating a salad is murder.

Don't know who brought up "abortion" or "pro-life" but it kinda does mean that. See also Ahimsa.

Always nice to see a poster quote the voices in his head because he can't be bothered to use the quote button. That's cute. Me, I brought up the term "pro-death". Guess you don't wanna touch that one though.

The rest of us (normal minded people) know that it's about the Constitution and the protections for innocent human beings (persons.)

The Constitution clearly says that no persons can be deprived of their life except through "due process."

Convicted criminals are afforded that process and aborted children are not. There is some hypocrisy for you.

Personally, I see the death penalty as society's right to "self defense." I don't care how "pro-life" anyone is, we all retain the right to defend ourselves and to defend the (especially human) lives around us and that includes the use of deadly force.

Again, as a defense of innocent lives.

Please to quote us the part of the Constitution that refers to "innocents". TIA.

 

[Chuz Life]

Their is no hypocrisy in being opposed to abortion and in supporting the death penalty at the same time. That is unless you are seriously confused and you (wrongly) think that "pro-life" means to value all life and that even eating a salad is murder.

Don't know who brought up "abortion" or "pro-life" but it kinda does mean that. See also Ahimsa.

Always nice to see a poster quote the voices in his head because he can't be bothered to use the quote button. That's cute. Me, I brought up the term "pro-death". Guess you don't wanna touch that one though.

The rest of us (normal minded people) know that it's about the Constitution and the protections for innocent human beings (persons.)

The Constitution clearly says that no persons can be deprived of their life except through "due process."

Convicted criminals are afforded that process and aborted children are not. There is some hypocrisy for you.

Personally, I see the death penalty as society's right to "self defense." I don't care how "pro-life" anyone is, we all retain the right to defend ourselves and to defend the (especially human) lives around us and that includes the use of deadly force.

Again, as a defense of innocent lives.

Please to quote us the part of the Constitution that refers to "innocents". TIA.

Like the Original Tree said:

"When they allow trials for the unborn to determine if they have a right to life, then we can talk about The Justice of putting a Murderer to Death vs. The Justice of Killing The Unborn Innocent."

Nailed it!