How Can One Be Simultaneously "Pro-Life" AND Pro-Death Penalty?

[PoliticalChic]

Interesting question though, which I think the innocence / guilt thing sidesteps a bit too neatly.

If the jury says someone is guilty, the law provides that they can be executed. The law also says that a woman can have an abortion. I guess as always it comes down to whether one agrees with a particular law, which generally comes back to a moralistic / religious standpoint.

1. The period during which abortion is legal is, I believe, related to the time the foetus is viable....
So, Bob, if science pushes back the time of viability, should the law, at some point elimate the right to abortion?

2.This may be as different direction from the OP, but the punishment of the guilty is an obligation of a just society.

It is of more than passing interest to me that the death penalty for murder is the only law repeated in all five of the books of the old testament.
The death penalty is a value, values are eternal, as opposed to customs or traditions, such as stoning for adultery.

For the record, there are 39 books in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament. I believe you are referring to the Books of Moses (aka The Torah or The Laws of Moses).

Maybe someone caught this and mentioned it after your post. I have not yet finished reading the thread.

Immie

Immie....
This is the operative line that you missed: "...the death penalty for murder is the only law repeated in all five of the books of the old testament. "

There are five books.

 

[Immanuel]

There are too many cases of mistaken identity where the innocent victim has spent years and even decades locked up behind bars enduring God knows what sort of unthinkable acts. Only to get a "Oops...we're sorry." from the guvment.

I smell more Far RW claptrap.

Funny.

You claim to see a conflict between supporting the death penalty and opposing abortion, yet you see no problem with your position that innocent people sometimes get put to death when we use the death penalty, yet you have no problem with killing children who are definitely innocent.

name cases where its been **proven** a innocent person was executed under american law ????

It happens.

Executed Innocents

"The criminal justice system can and does fail to distinguish the innocent from the guilty, and the implications for capital punishment are ghastly." -- from a discussion on the Internet in January, 1997.

The pioneering academic study of innocent prisoners convicted of capital crimes was an article in the November, 1987 Stanford Law Review by Professors Hugo Bedau and Michael Radelet. They found that 23 innocent prisoners, from the beginning of the century through the publication date of the study, had been executed. Bedau and Radelet later expanded and updated their research, notably in a book we highly recommend to J readers, In Spite Of Innocence.

I didn't read all of it, but it looks like an excellent article.

Immie

 

[PoliticalChic]

Interesting question though, which I think the innocence / guilt thing sidesteps a bit too neatly.

If the jury says someone is guilty, the law provides that they can be executed. The law also says that a woman can have an abortion. I guess as always it comes down to whether one agrees with a particular law, which generally comes back to a moralistic / religious standpoint.

1. The period during which abortion is legal is, I believe, related to the time the foetus is viable....
So, Bob, if science pushes back the time of viability, should the law, at some point elimate the right to abortion?

2.This may be as different direction from the OP, but the punishment of the guilty is an obligation of a just society.

It is of more than passing interest to me that the death penalty for murder is the only law repeated in all five of the books of the old testament.
The death penalty is a value, values are eternal, as opposed to customs or traditions, such as stoning for adultery.

For the record, there are 39 books in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament. I believe you are referring to the Books of Moses (aka The Torah or The Laws of Moses).

Maybe someone caught this and mentioned it after your post. I have not yet finished reading the thread.

Immie

Oops...my bad....I should have said the Five Books of Moses.

 

[Immanuel]

1. The period during which abortion is legal is, I believe, related to the time the foetus is viable....
So, Bob, if science pushes back the time of viability, should the law, at some point elimate the right to abortion?

2.This may be as different direction from the OP, but the punishment of the guilty is an obligation of a just society.

It is of more than passing interest to me that the death penalty for murder is the only law repeated in all five of the books of the old testament.
The death penalty is a value, values are eternal, as opposed to customs or traditions, such as stoning for adultery.

For the record, there are 39 books in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament. I believe you are referring to the Books of Moses (aka The Torah or The Laws of Moses).

Maybe someone caught this and mentioned it after your post. I have not yet finished reading the thread.

Immie

Immie....
This is the operative line that you missed: "...the death penalty for murder is the only law repeated in all five of the books of the old testament. "

There are five books.

Really? When was the last time you opened your Bible?

Here is the operative word that you wrote and seemed not to understand... all

Do you realize that there are actually 39 books in the Old Testament? I can name them for you if you like:

Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Ester
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon aka Song of Songs
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi

Those are all the books of the Old Testament.

Would you like a list of all 27 books of the New Testament as well.

Immie

 

[PoliticalChic]

Perhaps the reason some people are pro life and pro death penalty at the same time is the difference between one life never having been given a chance to succeed or fail and a life given the chance to succeed or fail but decided to fuck it all up and destroy many other lives in the process.

People are not perfect, judges, juries, prosecution and defense attorneys are not perfect - but those who put themselves in the position of being considered a suspect might not have been considered a suspect at all if they had kept their nose clean in the first place.

There are too many cases of mistaken identity where the innocent victim has spent years and even decades locked up behind bars enduring God knows what sort of unthinkable acts. Only to get a "Oops...we're sorry." from the guvment.

I smell more Far RW claptrap.

I very much agree with you here which is why I went from being outright pro-death penalty to someone who thinks it needs to be reserved for the most egregious crimes and those for which there is no doubt as to who it was that committed the crime. For instance, I think Charles Manson should be pushing up daisies today, but unless there is no doubt at all, and I am not even talking about reasonable doubt, then nix the death penalty.

Immie

Have you seen the studies that conclude that a robust death penalty application results in fewer deaths of innocent folks?

How does that factor in to what I see as an obligation to protect society?


"In the early 1980s, the return of the death penalty was associated with a drop in the number of murders. In the mid-to-late 1980s, when the number of executions stabilized at about 20 per year, the number of murders increased. Throughout the 1990s, our society increased the number of executions, and the number of murders plummeted. Since 2001, there has been a decline in executions and an increase in murders.

It is possible that this correlated relationship could be mere coincidence, so we did a regression analysis on the 26-year relationship. The association was significant at the .00005 level, which meant the odds against the pattern being simply a random happening are about 18,000 to one. Further analysis revealed that each execution seems to be associated with 71 fewer murders in the year the execution took place."

Capital Punishment Works - WSJ.com


Protect the innocent.

 

[Immanuel]

1. The period during which abortion is legal is, I believe, related to the time the foetus is viable....
So, Bob, if science pushes back the time of viability, should the law, at some point elimate the right to abortion?

2.This may be as different direction from the OP, but the punishment of the guilty is an obligation of a just society.

It is of more than passing interest to me that the death penalty for murder is the only law repeated in all five of the books of the old testament.
The death penalty is a value, values are eternal, as opposed to customs or traditions, such as stoning for adultery.

For the record, there are 39 books in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament. I believe you are referring to the Books of Moses (aka The Torah or The Laws of Moses).

Maybe someone caught this and mentioned it after your post. I have not yet finished reading the thread.

Immie

Oops...my bad....I should have said the Five Books of Moses.

Okay!!!! Forget my last response then, because now I agree with you.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

There are too many cases of mistaken identity where the innocent victim has spent years and even decades locked up behind bars enduring God knows what sort of unthinkable acts. Only to get a "Oops...we're sorry." from the guvment.

I smell more Far RW claptrap.

I very much agree with you here which is why I went from being outright pro-death penalty to someone who thinks it needs to be reserved for the most egregious crimes and those for which there is no doubt as to who it was that committed the crime. For instance, I think Charles Manson should be pushing up daisies today, but unless there is no doubt at all, and I am not even talking about reasonable doubt, then nix the death penalty.

Immie

Have you seen the studies that conclude that a robust death penalty application results in fewer deaths of innocent folks?

How does that factor in to what I see as an obligation to protect society?


"In the early 1980s, the return of the death penalty was associated with a drop in the number of murders. In the mid-to-late 1980s, when the number of executions stabilized at about 20 per year, the number of murders increased. Throughout the 1990s, our society increased the number of executions, and the number of murders plummeted. Since 2001, there has been a decline in executions and an increase in murders.

It is possible that this correlated relationship could be mere coincidence, so we did a regression analysis on the 26-year relationship. The association was significant at the .00005 level, which meant the odds against the pattern being simply a random happening are about 18,000 to one. Further analysis revealed that each execution seems to be associated with 71 fewer murders in the year the execution took place."

Capital Punishment Works - WSJ.com


Protect the innocent.

I am not sure if I have seen the studies you are speaking about but let me ask you this. If you are an innocent woman on death row, are you going to be happy with the fact that even though you are innocent they are going to execute you and as far as society is concerned this is a good thing because it will deter future crimes?

I can tell you that I would not be thrilled to know that I was an innocent man helping society out in this manner.

Immie

 

[PoliticalChic]

I very much agree with you here which is why I went from being outright pro-death penalty to someone who thinks it needs to be reserved for the most egregious crimes and those for which there is no doubt as to who it was that committed the crime. For instance, I think Charles Manson should be pushing up daisies today, but unless there is no doubt at all, and I am not even talking about reasonable doubt, then nix the death penalty.

Immie

Have you seen the studies that conclude that a robust death penalty application results in fewer deaths of innocent folks?

How does that factor in to what I see as an obligation to protect society?


"In the early 1980s, the return of the death penalty was associated with a drop in the number of murders. In the mid-to-late 1980s, when the number of executions stabilized at about 20 per year, the number of murders increased. Throughout the 1990s, our society increased the number of executions, and the number of murders plummeted. Since 2001, there has been a decline in executions and an increase in murders.

It is possible that this correlated relationship could be mere coincidence, so we did a regression analysis on the 26-year relationship. The association was significant at the .00005 level, which meant the odds against the pattern being simply a random happening are about 18,000 to one. Further analysis revealed that each execution seems to be associated with 71 fewer murders in the year the execution took place."

Capital Punishment Works - WSJ.com


Protect the innocent.

I am not sure if I have seen the studies you are speaking about but let me ask you this. If you are an innocent woman on death row, are you going to be happy with the fact that even though you are innocent they are going to execute you and as far as society is concerned this is a good thing because it will deter future crimes?

I can tell you that I would not be thrilled to know that I was an innocent man helping society out in this manner.

Immie

Let me ask you, why are your sympathies with that poor individual, who has has the benefit of numerous re-hearings, and an average of about two decades striving for justice....

...rather than 71 of your brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers who have had no hearing nor societal oversights, but are put to death by some miscreant.

Why? Why do you ignore their sufferings, and that of their loved ones???

We are only human, and as such, do our best to insure justice.
Beyond that, if the analysis above is correct, there should be no hesitation.
Agree?

 

[Immanuel]

Have you seen the studies that conclude that a robust death penalty application results in fewer deaths of innocent folks?

How does that factor in to what I see as an obligation to protect society?


"In the early 1980s, the return of the death penalty was associated with a drop in the number of murders. In the mid-to-late 1980s, when the number of executions stabilized at about 20 per year, the number of murders increased. Throughout the 1990s, our society increased the number of executions, and the number of murders plummeted. Since 2001, there has been a decline in executions and an increase in murders.

It is possible that this correlated relationship could be mere coincidence, so we did a regression analysis on the 26-year relationship. The association was significant at the .00005 level, which meant the odds against the pattern being simply a random happening are about 18,000 to one. Further analysis revealed that each execution seems to be associated with 71 fewer murders in the year the execution took place."

Capital Punishment Works - WSJ.com


Protect the innocent.

I am not sure if I have seen the studies you are speaking about but let me ask you this. If you are an innocent woman on death row, are you going to be happy with the fact that even though you are innocent they are going to execute you and as far as society is concerned this is a good thing because it will deter future crimes?

I can tell you that I would not be thrilled to know that I was an innocent man helping society out in this manner.

Immie

Let me ask you, why are your sympathies with that poor individual, who has has the benefit of numerous re-hearings, and an average of about two decades striving for justice....

...rather than 71 of your brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers who have had no hearing nor societal oversights, but are put to death by some miscreant.

Why? Why do you ignore their sufferings, and that of their loved ones???

We are only human, and as such, do our best to insure justice.
Beyond that, if the analysis above is correct, there should be no hesitation.
Agree?

No, I do not agree.

Better to let a thousand guilty men go free than to imprison/execute a single innocent man.

We are only human... which also means that we suffer prosecutors who want to make a name for themselves politically and don't really care a hell of a lot who suffers because of their greed.

By the way, you didn't answer my question.

Immie

 

[PoliticalChic]

I am not sure if I have seen the studies you are speaking about but let me ask you this. If you are an innocent woman on death row, are you going to be happy with the fact that even though you are innocent they are going to execute you and as far as society is concerned this is a good thing because it will deter future crimes?

I can tell you that I would not be thrilled to know that I was an innocent man helping society out in this manner.

Immie

Let me ask you, why are your sympathies with that poor individual, who has has the benefit of numerous re-hearings, and an average of about two decades striving for justice....

...rather than 71 of your brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers who have had no hearing nor societal oversights, but are put to death by some miscreant.

Why? Why do you ignore their sufferings, and that of their loved ones???

We are only human, and as such, do our best to insure justice.
Beyond that, if the analysis above is correct, there should be no hesitation.
Agree?

No, I do not agree.

Better to let a thousand guilty men go free than to imprison/execute a single innocent man.

We are only human... which also means that we suffer prosecutors who want to make a name for themselves politically and don't really care a hell of a lot who suffers because of their greed.

By the way, you didn't answer my question.

Immie

"Better to let a thousand guilty men go free...."

This is why I come to the USMB...to be amazed by the insanity of the other side.
Within the parameters of our discussion, you are saying

'Better to allow the deaths of 71,000 innocent men, women and children...."


Mad, simply mad. Folks who think the way you do are a danger to a just society.


BTW, I did answer your question...just not the way you wished me to.

 

[Immanuel]

Let me ask you, why are your sympathies with that poor individual, who has has the benefit of numerous re-hearings, and an average of about two decades striving for justice....

...rather than 71 of your brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers who have had no hearing nor societal oversights, but are put to death by some miscreant.

Why? Why do you ignore their sufferings, and that of their loved ones???

We are only human, and as such, do our best to insure justice.
Beyond that, if the analysis above is correct, there should be no hesitation.
Agree?

No, I do not agree.

Better to let a thousand guilty men go free than to imprison/execute a single innocent man.

We are only human... which also means that we suffer prosecutors who want to make a name for themselves politically and don't really care a hell of a lot who suffers because of their greed.

By the way, you didn't answer my question.

Immie

"Better to let a thousand guilty men go free...."

This is why I come to the USMB...to be amazed by the insanity of the other side.
Within the parameters of our discussion, you are saying

'Better to allow the deaths of 71,000 innocent men, women and children...."


Mad, simply mad. Folks who think the way you do are a danger to a just society.


BTW, I did answer your question...just not the way you wished me to.

No you did not. You avoided my question and asked one of your own, which I answered freely and politely... unlike you.

Immie

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, I do not agree.

Better to let a thousand guilty men go free than to imprison/execute a single innocent man.

We are only human... which also means that we suffer prosecutors who want to make a name for themselves politically and don't really care a hell of a lot who suffers because of their greed.

By the way, you didn't answer my question.

Immie

"Better to let a thousand guilty men go free...."

This is why I come to the USMB...to be amazed by the insanity of the other side.
Within the parameters of our discussion, you are saying

'Better to allow the deaths of 71,000 innocent men, women and children...."


Mad, simply mad. Folks who think the way you do are a danger to a just society.


BTW, I did answer your question...just not the way you wished me to.

No you did not. You avoided my question and asked one of your own, which I answered freely and politely... unlike you.

Immie

Your question is an absurd deflection from the point....the death penalty saves lives, but folks who spealk as you do refuse to take the responsibility necessary to protect society.

 

[Immanuel]

"Better to let a thousand guilty men go free...."

This is why I come to the USMB...to be amazed by the insanity of the other side.
Within the parameters of our discussion, you are saying

'Better to allow the deaths of 71,000 innocent men, women and children...."


Mad, simply mad. Folks who think the way you do are a danger to a just society.


BTW, I did answer your question...just not the way you wished me to.

No you did not. You avoided my question and asked one of your own, which I answered freely and politely... unlike you.

Immie

Your question is an absurd deflection from the point....the death penalty saves lives, but folks who spealk as you do refuse to take the responsibility necessary to protect society.

No, you are absurdly deflecting from the point. You can't bear to admit that you would not care to be the innocent woman who is helping society by being executed for a crime you did not commit. Only an idiot would be willing to do that.

Protecting society? Are you frigging insane? It protects society to execute the innocent?

You are crazy.

Immie

 

[PoliticalChic]

No you did not. You avoided my question and asked one of your own, which I answered freely and politely... unlike you.

Immie

Your question is an absurd deflection from the point....the death penalty saves lives, but folks who spealk as you do refuse to take the responsibility necessary to protect society.

No, you are absurdly deflecting from the point. You can't bear to admit that you would not care to be the innocent woman who is helping society by being executed for a crime you did not commit. Only an idiot would be willing to do that.

Protecting society? Are you frigging insane? It protects society to execute the innocent?

You are crazy.

Immie

Let me explain why yours is a childish argument at best.

As in most debates, there is an unspoken assumption....here, it is that you or I might be in said position, i.e., suspected of a capital offense.

Now, I don't know about you, but I'm willing to bet that neither I nor any of the folks in my circle of acquaintances, will ever...ever....be in that position.

But folks like you, it seems, are unable to make the leap which separates the fact as stated above, from the far, far greater posibility that you or I or a loved one, will be in the victim category.

A just society must do its best to limit that category.

And you have made the point re: how limited your mathematical ability is, in stating that you would rather see 71,000 innocents, that is the victim category, die, than chance....chance....putting to death one 'innocent.'

You have all the discrimination of Don Quixote.
Wise up.

 

[Immanuel]

Your question is an absurd deflection from the point....the death penalty saves lives, but folks who spealk as you do refuse to take the responsibility necessary to protect society.

No, you are absurdly deflecting from the point. You can't bear to admit that you would not care to be the innocent woman who is helping society by being executed for a crime you did not commit. Only an idiot would be willing to do that.

Protecting society? Are you frigging insane? It protects society to execute the innocent?

You are crazy.

Immie

Let me explain why yours is a childish argument at best.

As in most debates, there is an unspoken assumption....here, it is that you or I might be in said position, i.e., suspected of a capital offense.

Now, I don't know about you, but I'm willing to bet that neither I nor any of the folks in my circle of acquaintances, will ever...ever....be in that position.

But folks like you, it seems, are unable to make the leap which separates the fact as stated above, from the far, far greater posibility that you or I or a loved one, will be in the victim category.

A just society must do its best to limit that category.

And you have made the point re: how limited your mathematical ability is, in stating that you would rather see 71,000 innocents, that is the victim category, die, than chance....chance....putting to death one 'innocent.'

You have all the discrimination of Don Quixote.
Wise up.

In other words, you don't have the courage to back up your convictions. Thank you.

Immie

 

[kaz]

Isn't that THE definition of cognitive dissonance?

Please advise.

I'm pro-choice and against the death penalty, but I still don't get the question. What contradiction is there between protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty? Explain.

 

[JohnA]

Funny.

You claim to see a conflict between supporting the death penalty and opposing abortion, yet you see no problem with your position that innocent people sometimes get put to death when we use the death penalty, yet you have no problem with killing children who are definitely innocent.

name cases where its been **proven** a innocent person was executed under american law ????

You do not want to go there.

Trust me.

no let it all hang out GO THERE

THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE

 

[Ravi]

Isn't that THE definition of cognitive dissonance?

Please advise.

It's pretty easy. They want the government to control life and death.

 

[JohnA]

Funny.

You claim to see a conflict between supporting the death penalty and opposing abortion, yet you see no problem with your position that innocent people sometimes get put to death when we use the death penalty, yet you have no problem with killing children who are definitely innocent.

name cases where its been **proven** a innocent person was executed under american law ????

It happens.

Executed Innocents

"The criminal justice system can and does fail to distinguish the innocent from the guilty, and the implications for capital punishment are ghastly." -- from a discussion on the Internet in January, 1997.

The pioneering academic study of innocent prisoners convicted of capital crimes was an article in the November, 1987 Stanford Law Review by Professors Hugo Bedau and Michael Radelet. They found that 23 innocent prisoners, from the beginning of the century through the publication date of the study, had been executed. Bedau and Radelet later expanded and updated their research, notably in a book we highly recommend to J readers, In Spite Of Innocence.

I didn't read all of it, but it looks like an excellent article.

Immie

The articule was written by a person who is obviously biased
there is evidence of mistakes by the prosecution and defence lawyers that happens often no body is perfect ( case in point the OJ TRIAL )
the defendant lies sometimes so do witness , prosecution lawyers , and defence attorneys all lie ***sometimes *
in the case of the witness who came foreword long time after the trail and said he *saw a man running down a alley *
he could be telling the truth .
he could be lying .

was the confession beaten out of the accused the truth, or was it just made in fear

was it beaten out of him or is that that defence excuse ???
so it goes on and on ....
a lot of doubt in the articule even thou i accept a innocent person could have been executed there is no direct prove that somebody WAS .

SOME HAVE BEEN PROVEN WRONGLY CONVICTED AND PARDONED

doesnt prove that others have been wrongly convicted and executed

I believe the death penalty should always be there as a obtion not neccasarily applied in every case

SUITABLE CRIMES OF MURDER WHERE CONVICTION COULD MEAN THE DEATH PENALTY
IMO

MORE THAT ONE VICTIM
LAW OFFICER
CHILD
EXTREME VIOLENCE..
WHILE COMMIITING ANOTHER CRIME ( ROBBERY )



all others life sentence could be appropiate .

 

[Immanuel]

name cases where its been **proven** a innocent person was executed under american law ????

It happens.

Executed Innocents

The pioneering academic study of innocent prisoners convicted of capital crimes was an article in the November, 1987 Stanford Law Review by Professors Hugo Bedau and Michael Radelet. They found that 23 innocent prisoners, from the beginning of the century through the publication date of the study, had been executed. Bedau and Radelet later expanded and updated their research, notably in a book we highly recommend to J readers, In Spite Of Innocence.

I didn't read all of it, but it looks like an excellent article.

Immie

The articule was written by a person who is obviously biased
there is evidence of mistakes by the prosecution and defence lawyers that happens often no body is perfect ( case in point the OJ TRIAL )
the defendant lies sometimes so do witness , prosecution lawyers , and defence attorneys all lie ***sometimes *
in the case of the witness who came foreword long time after the trail and said he *saw a man running down a alley *
he could be telling the truth .
he could be lying .

was the confession beaten out of the accused the truth, or was it just made in fear

was it beaten out of him or is that that defence excuse ???
so it goes on and on ....
a lot of doubt in the articule even thou i accept a innocent person could have been executed there is no direct prove that somebody WAS .

SOME HAVE BEEN PROVEN WRONGLY CONVICTED AND PARDONED

doesnt prove that others have been wrongly convicted and executed

I believe the death penalty should always be there as a obtion not neccasarily applied in every case

SUITABLE CRIMES OF MURDER WHERE CONVICTION COULD MEAN THE DEATH PENALTY
IMO

MORE THAT ONE VICTIM
LAW OFFICER
CHILD
EXTREME VIOLENCE..
WHILE COMMIITING ANOTHER CRIME ( ROBBERY )



all others life sentence could be appropiate .

I too believe the death penalty should be available.

But, I am very concerned about the possibility of gung-ho prosecutors that wrongly convict innocent people.

Twenty three innocent people convicted and executed is too many. Twenty three too many if you ask me.

You say nobody is perfect and I would agree with you. However, in that case, then through all the appeals everyone of those 23 convictions should have been overturned and the victim released. Yes, I say victim, because that is exactly what they are.

Thanks for your pleasant reply and your insight.

Immie