How many of you are Pro-Death Penalty but Against Abortion?

[Big Fitz]

How can the death penalty be murder?

When an innocent gets executed.

How often does that happen? If it is more than 1% of all executions ever done, I'd be shocked.

 

[AllieBaba]

It doesn't matter anyway. If you execute an innocent after a trial, it's an accident. It's not murder anymore than backing over a kid in your driveway is murder.

 

[Big Fitz]

Death penalty: Killing people to teach them that killing is wrong.

Just cleaning the scum out of the gene pool. Sound economics as well if practiced correctly vs. keeping people in prison for 50+ years.

Actually, it is big government at its finest.

So you're saying back in the 1800's when the death penalty was meted out quite regularly for crime of say cattle rustling, armed robbery and other similar imprisonable acts, it was big government? Even in the US Territories where there were barely enough people to FORM a government let alone a big one?

I detect an opportunistic flaw in your logic.

How about colonial governments favoring it instead of rehabilitation? The point is, incarceration is a luxury. Those with limited means and dangerous criminals with a good chance of recidivism are best dealt with in this manner. If convicted there's over a 99% chance (assuming a just legal system which often is NOT the case in other non-english based systems) that the person was not incorrectly found guilty. Let's hear it for Appeals!

No system is perfect, but you must err on the side of the innocent NON-CRIMINAL populace, not the criminal.

 

[California Girl]

I'm personally against abortion.... in that, I consider it murder of an innocent. Having said that, I will not inflict my personal view on others so I'll accept (begrudingly) that other women are at liberty to decide otherwise.

With the DP, I am pro - within very strict limits. I support it for those who murder children, LEOs (because they risk their lives to protect us and it seems to me that we owe them the ultimate punishment for those that kill LEOs), I support it for the most heinous crimes. However, I do not support it when the criminal is in some way mentally challenged, in that I do not include those who are high on drugs or alcohol - they made that choice, they can live with the consequences. However, if someone has the IQ of a child, then we cannot hold them to the same standard as an adult. I also disagree with children being tried as adults - no matter how awful their crime, the mind of a child is not equipped to make adult decisions.

 

[kwc57]

Aren't they both killing a human?

I'd like your thoughts on this, it's something I've always wondered how people think about the two.

I didn't vote because I don't think any of the options represent my view. Am I pro-choice? Yes, because I don't believe the government should legislate the reproductive rights of a woman. That being said, I would have a hard time encouraging or endorsing someone I knew to pick abortion as an option. Death penalty? Hells yeah! Do I think it is a deterrent that will stop other people from engaging in capital offenses? No. Do I think it is a just penalty and will deter that person from ever committing another capital offense? Yes.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Death penalty: Killing people to teach them that killing is wrong.

Death penalty: Executing people so they cannot kill again.

 

[kwc57]

Just cleaning the scum out of the gene pool. Sound economics as well if practiced correctly vs. keeping people in prison for 50+ years.

Actually, it is big government at its finest.

How is the death penalty 'big government at its finest'?

And why would Ravi care. Ravi never met a big ol social gubmint she didn't like.

 

[Ravi]

Just cleaning the scum out of the gene pool. Sound economics as well if practiced correctly vs. keeping people in prison for 50+ years.

Actually, it is big government at its finest.

So you're saying back in the 1800's when the death penalty was meted out quite regularly for crime of say cattle rustling, armed robbery and other similar imprisonable acts, it was big government? Even in the US Territories where there were barely enough people to FORM a government let alone a big one?

I detect an opportunistic flaw in your logic.

How about colonial governments favoring it instead of rehabilitation? The point is, incarceration is a luxury. Those with limited means and dangerous criminals with a good chance of recidivism are best dealt with in this manner. If convicted there's over a 99% chance (assuming a just legal system which often is NOT the case in other non-english based systems) that the person was not incorrectly found guilty. Let's hear it for Appeals!

No system is perfect, but you must err on the side of the innocent NON-CRIMINAL populace, not the criminal.

Yes, that is what I'm saying. I am puzzled that you even needed the clarification.

Maybe I should have called it big brother, but really, there is no difference.

The state (or city, federal government, what have you) having the authority to take someone's life is big government.

 

[Big Fitz]

I'm personally against abortion.... in that, I consider it murder of an innocent. Having said that, I will not inflict my personal view on others so I'll accept (begrudingly) that other women are at liberty to decide otherwise.

With the DP, I am pro - within very strict limits. I support it for those who murder children, LEOs (because they risk their lives to protect us and it seems to me that we owe them the ultimate punishment for those that kill LEOs), I support it for the most heinous crimes. However, I do not support it when the criminal is in some way mentally challenged, in that I do not include those who are high on drugs or alcohol - they made that choice, they can live with the consequences. However, if someone has the IQ of a child, then we cannot hold them to the same standard as an adult. I also disagree with children being tried as adults - no matter how awful their crime, the mind of a child is not equipped to make adult decisions.

If you have a perpetrator who's non compos mentis you should't be executing them. Obviously they are sick. But if you are competent to stand trial by your peers, are found guilty of a heinous crime like the ones you mention, you SHOULD be able to face the death penalty.

Where I skew away is that I feel that 'life in prison, no parole' is cruel and unusual as well as an expensive and dangerous luxury that we should just commute to death. Why risk escape, the expense and the endangerment of other prisoner's lives as well as the prison employees with someone you are never ever EVER going to let out. Wouldn't it be better to just create Oubliettes and be done with it if we're going to go that route?

No, it's better to be honest with yourself, and have the intestinal fortitude to pull the lever and hang the sonovabitch if there is no way you'd ever let them out of a cell again. Be done with it and go on with life.

The added benefit is that sends an example to others who have criminal intent in mind that such a punishment is liable to be applied to them when caught and tried. This unto itself is a deterrent, the same way right to conceal carry states deter crime better than those with no right to conceal carry.

It is a net positive when used appropriately and judiciously with safeguards in place for mistakes that COULD have been made.

 

[Mr_Rockhead]

How can the death penalty be murder?

Well, killing someone, be it legal or not, is murder, isn't it?

Or should I have called it something else?

Maybe I used the wrong wording?

How about "putting to death" someone?

Be it a baby in the womb, or someone that commited a crime.

Is one right, and one wrong? Or both wrong?


thanks, I changed my wording on the OP.

I believe homicide is the term used to identify when one person is killed by another.

For example, when a person is put to death by the death penalty, I believe the cause of death is listed as homicide.

Murder is a term used for an illegal form of homicide.

So, in your examples, I believe you are talking about homicide because both forms of killing are legal.

 

[Big Fitz]

Actually, it is big government at its finest.

So you're saying back in the 1800's when the death penalty was meted out quite regularly for crime of say cattle rustling, armed robbery and other similar imprisonable acts, it was big government? Even in the US Territories where there were barely enough people to FORM a government let alone a big one?

I detect an opportunistic flaw in your logic.

How about colonial governments favoring it instead of rehabilitation? The point is, incarceration is a luxury. Those with limited means and dangerous criminals with a good chance of recidivism are best dealt with in this manner. If convicted there's over a 99% chance (assuming a just legal system which often is NOT the case in other non-english based systems) that the person was not incorrectly found guilty. Let's hear it for Appeals!

No system is perfect, but you must err on the side of the innocent NON-CRIMINAL populace, not the criminal.

Yes, that is what I'm saying. I am puzzled that you even needed the clarification.

Maybe I should have called it big brother, but really, there is no difference.

The state (or city, federal government, what have you) having the authority to take someone's life is big government.

Okay....? Well I guess you own up to your logical fallacy that death penalty equals big government. You're still wrong, but you own up.

 

[Ravi]

No system is perfect, but you must err on the side of the innocent NON-CRIMINAL populace, not the criminal.

I am quoting this separately because I didn't see it the first time.

To err on the side of the innocent, non-criminal populace would mean forbidding the death penalty. Any one executed person that was not guilty is a travesty of justice.

 

[xsited1]

Actually, it is big government at its finest.

How is the death penalty 'big government at its finest'?

And why would Ravi care. Ravi never met a big ol social gubmint she didn't like.

True. I'm sure she's all over this like Oprah on a baked ham. But, of course, it's not 'big government at its finest'. Not even close. The Judicial Branch is separate and she knows this. Just more trolling.

 

[Ravi]

Actually, it is big government at its finest.

How is the death penalty 'big government at its finest'?

And why would Ravi care. Ravi never met a big ol social gubmint she didn't like.

Why do you feel the need to say things about me that aren't true?

 

[xsited1]

How is the death penalty 'big government at its finest'?

And why would Ravi care. Ravi never met a big ol social gubmint she didn't like.

Why do you feel the need to say things about me that aren't true?

Yet another great troll response! Most trolls would leave this alone, but you've upped the ante so to speak and responded in kind. Nice.

 

[syrenn]

Aren't they both killing a human?

I'd like your thoughts on this, it's something I've always wondered how people think about the two.

In MY opinion.

A fetus is not a "life" until it can be a stand alone life outside a host body. Removing it is not taking a life.

I am all for KILLING criminals. I have no problem with taking their lives.

I consider fetal cells human cells but criminals animals...

 

[Two Thumbs]

Aren't they both killing a human?

I'd like your thoughts on this, it's something I've always wondered how people think about the two.

Abortion is the murder of an innocent child. It didn't do anything to deserve to be killed in such a horrific and painful fashion.

I'd be against the death penalty is prison sucked.

As it is right now, the only difference between prison and the outside world is someone else turns the lights off for them and they have a better life expectancy in jail or prison.

 

[Big Fitz]

No system is perfect, but you must err on the side of the innocent NON-CRIMINAL populace, not the criminal.

I am quoting this separately because I didn't see it the first time.

To err on the side of the innocent, non-criminal populace would mean forbidding the death penalty. Any one executed person that was not guilty is a travesty of justice.

Highly assumptive and incorrect.

If you had a serial killer that you were unable to keep locked up and the populace safe from, you have a responsibility to put that motherfucker down and fast.

Why is it the serial killer has more rights than his victims? We euthenize dogs who bite once. Hell, we have groups in society that preach the right to kill themselves! They shoot horses, don't they?

You need to seriously check your scruples. They're not lining up well with the actual logistical application of them.

 

[xsited1]

Aren't they both killing a human?

I'd like your thoughts on this, it's something I've always wondered how people think about the two.

In MY opinion.

A fetus is not a "life" until it can be a stand alone life outside a host body. Removing it is not taking a life.

I am all for KILLING criminals. I have no problem with taking their lives.

I consider fetal cells human cells but criminals animals...

What do you mean by 'stand alone life outside a host body'?

 

[Ravi]

How is the death penalty 'big government at its finest'?

And why would Ravi care. Ravi never met a big ol social gubmint she didn't like.

True. I'm sure she's all over this like Oprah on a baked ham. But, of course, it's not 'big government at its finest'. Not even close. The Judicial Branch is separate and she knows this. Just more trolling.

The Judicial branch metes out punishment that is lawful. They don't make the laws themselves.

Maybe you are trying to make some other point and flailing?