Is the death penalty wrong?

[ajwps]

Please don't give people a false impression of Christianity. Many Christians do not believe in your "life for a life" philosophy.

Do you speak for MANY Christians? Who did you say you represented?

 

[ajwps]

I can not support the taking of another’s life in any fashion other than self defense.

My advice is not to become a paid state executioner.

Or you may save your non-support when you are called to a criminal capital murder case.

There is a famous case when Norman Mailer, writer, got a condemned man off of death row because of his intellect. The man was freed because of Mailer's efforts and subsequently the condemned man killed another innocent. Do you support Mailer's efforts as well?

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/repeat_murder.htm

1981 - New York Daily News
Norman Mailer Makes a Bad Character Evaluation

Jack Henry Abbott was a convicted murderer and would-be writer whose case was championed by Norman Mailer. Less than six weeks after Abbott's 1981 release from a Utah prison, while on a parole promoted and partly sponsored by Mailer, Abbott killed an actor and playwright who was working as a waiter at an New York City restaurant. As the Utah killer Gary Gilmore awaited the firing squad and it became known that the New York author Norman Mailer was completing a rhapsody to Gilmore's penal journey, another swaggering Utah con named Jack Henry Abbott wrote to Mailer, assuring him that there was no way such a city slicker as he could know much of anything about the brutal realities of The Life and offering to give him a useful crash course. The hard-case Abbott had spent years in solitary, and his letters raged with raw animal pain, and in this damaged man Mailer imagined he had found an epically American frontiersman outlaw saint. In 1980, the thoroughly infatuated Mailer persuaded the New York Review of Books to publish a selection of Abbott's prison letters. These were spotted by an editor at Random House, who proceeded to envision a soulful book-length collection of authentic screams from the abyss. At this same time, Jack Henry Abbott was coming up for parole, and Norman Mailer stood for him. In June 1981, as Abbott's "In the Belly of the Beast" approached publication to what it was understood were going to be warm reviews, Mailer brought Abbott to New York, settled him into a Bowery halfway house, engaged him as a $150-a-week research assistant and introduced him around to the quality folks. There were network TV appearances. There was a spread in People magazine. There were champagne toasts from New York City's leading literary lights. Abbott, 37 years old, a man who had been behind bars since age 12, was an overnight star. All the fancies and nellies and swells had forgotten one fundamental thing about Jack Henry Abbott. He was a junkyard dog. Awesome, the reviewers agreed. Brilliant. Fiercely visionary. Less dazzled readers perhaps found typical Abbott to be quite flabbergastingly puerile ("I have been twisted by justice the way other men can be twisted by love . . . I can never be happy with the petty desires this bourgeois society has branded into my flesh, my sensuous being"), but the reviewers were all charmed to find themselves a major new writer. Mailer and Random House's Scott Meredith fussed over their noble savage. Both were "touched by his childlike sense of wonder," they happily told everyone; he didn't even know how to buy toothpaste at the drugstore. After a few weeks, he was worldly enough to enjoy occasional furloughs from the halfway house and to go out spending the $15,000 Random House had advanced him. Late on the night of Saturday the 18th of July, he had two women on his arm and they were drinking in a Second Ave. bar called the Binibon, and here did Jack Henry Abbott collide with Richard Adan. Adan was one of that legion of young New York actors who waited tables between breaks. He was 22 years old, newly married, full of promise. The quarrel with tonight's gaunt, walrus-mustached customer was a small one, having to do with whether or not the Binibon's washroom was available to patrons or strictly to employees, but in the end both combatants agreed to take it outside. Abbott was the one with a knife in his waistband, and Adan was dead on the sidewalk a few minutes later. By the next day Abbott had fled the city.

 

[deaddude]

My advice is not to become a paid state executioner.

Or you may save your non-support when you are called to a criminal capital murder case.

There is a famous case when Norman Mailer, writer, got a condemned man off of death row because of his intellect. The man was freed because of Mailer's efforts and subsequently the condemned man killed another innocent. Do you support Mailer's efforts as well?

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/repeat_murder.htm

There are many things that I would die for, none for which I would kill

Ghandi

Ajwps I don't support the death penalty. I do support prison sentences. So I support Mailer getting Abbott off death row, but not getting him out of prison.

 

[ajwps]

Ghandi

Ajwps I don't support the death penalty. I do support prison sentences. So I support Mailer getting Abbott off death row, but not getting him out of prison.

You quote that ' there are many things I would die for but none for which I would KILL.'

Dude you must have an understanding of what human life really consists and why you are against execution as an option. Everything mankind believes about life is based on religious texts which say that (we) humans have special status and a thing called a soul.

As beings that have the same characteristics of all animal life, humanity must be above the level of the beast which kills to eat. You may want to personally believe you do not want to take another human life because of a preconceived notion about taking a life. But the reality is, everyone dies sooner or later and the murder of one human being by another must seek justice either here or in some hereafter.

Until civilization becomes civilized, execution violates neither man's laws or the laws of the bibles most people accept.

Nothing is lost when a human being dies. The same circumstances exist before conception as after what you consider human death. Everything continues in its own plane of existence right here in this timeless dimension in which we assume we exist.

Very metaphysical.

 

[pegwinn]

How about talking all death row inmates, including women and hardened criminals and inducting them into the United States Marine Corp.

Place them on the front line in Iraq and Afghanastan with the regular army behind them to encourage them from running away by the use of live fire at anyone demonstrating their cowardice.

Nature and Allah will take the natural course of events with these folks. Those who are innocent will be saved by the love of Jesus.

Are you nuts? You wanna pollute my beloved Corps with this vermin? Nah, just kill them and move on.

 

[pegwinn]

Today's justice system has been corrupted to the point of insanity by trial attorneys. Justice should be a search for truth. If the accused is guilty, then the truth is just that. Defense attorneys no longer search for the truth. They go into court and spout whatever nonsense they can think of in order to get their client acquitted, even if their client is guilty. They are aided in this insanity by our current jury system. A lot of jurors aren't smart enough to see through the BS the defense attorneys throw up on the wall, or smart enough to properly judge the difference between reasonable and unreasonable doubt.

They need to enpanel a jury of judges instead of laymen. That kind of jury would be able to reasonably discern the truth from BS. There would then be enough confidence in a verdict to enforce the death penalty.

I would make a couple other changes to the death penalty system: First, you get 2 appeals. If you lose your second appeal, you would be executed immediately. Second, that execution (preferably hanging, but firing squad would be a suitable alternative) would take place in the public square outside the courtroom where you lost your appeal. It would also be televised. The death penalty might actually become a deterrent if applied in that manner.

Not bad at all. You might read this and this as well.

 

[ajwps]

Are you nuts? You wanna pollute my beloved Corps with this vermin? Nah, just kill them and move on.

pegwinn you totally misunderstood. I did not say mix or pollute your beloved Marine Corp with the death row inmates but simply to dress them as soldiers, place them in their own dvisions and put them SEPARATELY out in the front of the regular army and marines.

Without the ability to run away, they would either have to fight or die. They would be the ones taking the hits while the regular divisions would be behind them keeping them out front or die running back out of the front lines.

Or do you want your beloved Marines to be the ones to be blown up by roadside bombs or shot from ambush or killed by shoulder held rockets and mortars?

The Germans of WW2 used the sub-human inducted armies of the Poles, Slavs, Hungarians and many others to fight up front and take the hits from the allied armies.

Its called justifiable allocation of resources.

No I am not nuts.

 

[pegwinn]

Just checkin. The use of the word inducted got me. Whew. I still say kill em here since they are not worth the logistical cost to feed and transport. OK, we are standing down from red alert now. BTW, the Soviets had "penal battalions" as well using KGB cadre to ensure that they marched forward with wooden rifles (no bullets).

pegwinn you totally misunderstood. I did not say mix or pollute your beloved Marine Corp with the death row inmates but simply to dress them as soldiers, place them in their own dvisions and put them SEPARATELY out in the front of the regular army and marines.

Without the ability to run away, they would either have to fight or die. They would be the ones taking the hits while the regular divisions would be behind them keeping them out front or die running back out of the front lines.

Or do you want your beloved Marines to be the ones to be blown up by roadside bombs or shot from ambush or killed by shoulder held rockets and mortars?

The Germans of WW2 used the sub-human inducted armies of the Poles, Slavs, Hungarians and many others to fight up front and take the hits from the allied armies.

Its called justifiable allocation of resources.

No I am not nuts.

 

[hylandrdet]

How about talking all death row inmates, including women and hardened criminals and inducting them into the United States Marine Corp.

Place them on the front line in Iraq and Afghanastan with the regular army behind them to encourage them from running away by the use of live fire at anyone demonstrating their cowardice.

Nature and Allah will take the natural course of events with these folks. Those who are innocent will be saved by the love of Jesus.

21st century Gladiators...hmm sounds charming. You are aware that the gladiators of the Roman empire were crimminals, right? You also understand that if they prove their worth, in the arena, they were to be set free... right?

So what you're saying is that we should let them fight in Iraq and should they be lucky and survive, these killers should be set free to possibly kill again/

It's one thing to die in a "falling asleep" scenario; which is lethal injection; it's another to be dying, screaming in pain, because your intestines are hanging out of your abdominal region, then having an insurgent slowly driving his knife into you.

Total Freedom will be the only incentive that will motivate such criminals to fight; otherwise, they're better off being executed.

I'd said it before, I'll say it again; it is the court room system itself that needs to be overhauled, not the death penalty. Don't hate the messenger; hate the people who'd sent that message!

 

[Mr. P]

First, I am not 'Mr. P', but his Daughter.

I believe that the death penalty can in no way be justified. What entitles anyone to take the life of another human being? Is that not why the person who could possibly be receiving the death penalty is guilty in the first place? For murder. By sentencing someone to death we are committing the same crime as they have.
Furthermore, If you had committed a terrible crime and were facing inevitable punishment for it, which would you choose: to live a life in jail with no future, wasting away, lonely and miserable, haunted with a constant reminder of what you have done for the rest of your life? Or would you prefer to just get it all over with and skip the suffering?
I would say that having to live with what you have done would be the worst punishment you could receive.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

First, I am not 'Mr. P', but his Daughter.

I believe that the death penalty can in no way be justified. What entitles anyone to take the life of another human being? Is that not why the person who could possibly be receiving the death penalty is guilty in the first place? For murder. By sentencing someone to death we are committing the same crime as they have.
Furthermore, If you had committed a terrible crime and were facing inevitable punishment for it, which would you choose: to live a life in jail with no future, wasting away, lonely and miserable, haunted with a constant reminder of what you have done for the rest of your life? Or would you prefer to just get it all over with and skip the suffering?
I would say that having to live with what you have done would be the worst punishment you could receive.

Hi, "Little P", and welcome to the board. Now, let me tell you how wrong you are. :tng:

You say that putting a murderer to death is the same thing as someone who murders another person on the street. Not quite. Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer, "Son of Sam", Henry Lee Lucas, etc. None of their victims knew they were going to be murdered, it was done in cold blood. These were senseless crimes that make most of us ask what made them think they had the right to take another life.

When they commited these crimes they knew that, if caught, their punishment might very well be death. When a judge and jury decide that a persons punishment is death, they know how they are going to die, the day they are going to die, roughly the exact time they are going to die, and most important why they are going to die.

A lot of people might very well choose death over life in prison. I know some that wouldn't. What you would choose and what I would choose as opposed to someone like John Wayne Gacy are two different things. You and I have a conscience. How much wringing of hands do you think Jeffery Dahmer did over the things he had done? Do you think Charles Manson has any trouble sleeping at night? All the names I have listed are serial killers who show no regret for what they have done. They are (or were) a menace to society and punishing them with a constant reminder of what they did would most likely only stroke their own ego more that it would punish them.

All this said, I will add that I only support the death penalty in cases such as these, where the person is a threat to people in general. A case like Scott Peterson, for instance, I would have supported life in prison, though I will also say I'm walking a thin line on that one. Either way, I'm not shedding any tears for the piece of crap.

I'm sure none of this will change your mind, but maybe you can see why some support the death penalty.

 

[Mr. P]

Hi, "Little P", and welcome to the board. Now, let me tell you how wrong you are. :tng:

You say that putting a murderer to death is the same thing as someone who murders another person on the street. Not quite. Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer, "Son of Sam", Henry Lee Lucas, etc. None of their victims knew they were going to be murdered, it was done in cold blood. These were senseless crimes that make most of us ask what made them think they had the right to take another life.

When they commited these crimes they knew that, if caught, their punishment might very well be death. When a judge and jury decide that a persons punishment is death, they know how they are going to die, the day they are going to die, roughly the exact time they are going to die, and most important why they are going to die.

A lot of people might very well choose death over life in prison. I know some that wouldn't. What you would choose and what I would choose as opposed to someone like John Wayne Gacy are two different things. You and I have a conscience. How much wringing of hands do you think Jeffery Dahmer did over the things he had done? Do you think Charles Manson has any trouble sleeping at night? All the names I have listed are serial killers who show no regret for what they have done. They are (or were) a menace to society and punishing them with a constant reminder of what they did would most likely only stroke their own ego more that it would punish them.

All this said, I will add that I only support the death penalty in cases such as these, where the person is a threat to people in general. A case like Scott Peterson, for instance, I would have supported life in prison, though I will also say I'm walking a thin line on that one. Either way, I'm not shedding any tears for the piece of crap.

I'm sure none of this will change your mind, but maybe you can see why some support the death penalty.

This is "Little P." again
This is true, they may not feel much remorse for what they have done.

My main arguement is that no one can play God.

 

[no1tovote4]

This is "Little P." again
This is true, they may not feel much remorse for what they have done.

My main arguement is that no one can play God.

I personally disagree with the Death Penalty for different reasons than yours. It is not playing God to take the life of a person as a penalty for their action. They know that their action has particular consequences that may include the Death Penalty, it is clear that they choose that action regardless of this knowledge. Just as somebody chooses to jump from planes with parachutes with clear knowledge that action may have consequences these people chose actions with knowledge of the consequences.

I personally don't think that the Death Penalty is enough of a punishment. I personally would rather die sleeping than spend my entire life alone and imprisoned. I think that Supermax should be expanded to those that commit such heinous crimes, that they be in their cell 24/7 except one outing per week to an excercise cage until the day they die of more natural causes because I believe that is far more of a punishment than dying and would cost less money.

 

[pegwinn]

I personally disagree with the Death Penalty for different reasons than yours. It is not playing God to take the life of a person as a penalty for their action. They know that their action has particular consequences that may include the Death Penalty, it is clear that they choose that action regardless of this knowledge. Just as somebody chooses to jump from planes with parachutes with clear knowledge that action may have consequences these people chose actions with knowledge of the consequences.

I personally don't think that the Death Penalty is enough of a punishment. I personally would rather die sleeping than spend my entire life alone and imprisoned. I think that Supermax should be expanded to those that commit such heinous crimes, that they be in their cell 24/7 except one outing per week to an excercise cage until the day they die of more natural causes because I believe that is far more of a punishment than dying and would cost less money.

I could in theory support that except for two small details. First is cost. Second is that ten years down the road someone may change up the rules and free the pigs. Better to streamline the appeals process and kill em as quickly as possible one guilt is determined. We could use your plan and provide them with a suicide pill to be taken when they choose. Might lower the cost over time?

 

[no1tovote4]

I could in theory support that except for two small details. First is cost. Second is that ten years down the road someone may change up the rules and free the pigs. Better to streamline the appeals process and kill em as quickly as possible one guilt is determined. We could use your plan and provide them with a suicide pill to be taken when they choose. Might lower the cost over time?

I can see how you might worry about them being freed, but not the cost. It costs three times the amount to kill them than to let them sit and rot. I prefer the savings, and the extended punishment, to the cost of the Death Penalty.

 

[no1tovote4]

We could use your plan and provide them with a suicide pill to be taken when they choose. Might lower the cost over time?

I can live with this as well. I just want to streamline the cost at the same time as giving the maximum of punishment. At this point rehabilitation is worthless they will never be allowed into society again.

 

[pegwinn]

I can see how you might worry about them being freed, but not the cost. It costs three times the amount to kill them than to let them sit and rot. I prefer the savings, and the extended punishment, to the cost of the Death Penalty.

The current cost to kill is directly related to the appeals process. Lets streamline the process. Instead of being heard sequencially, lets put em in line by severity of sentence. Death row appeals go first, then life appeals etc. Also, limit the appeals by time and the number of courts to hear it. Should knock enough time off the process to balance the cost.

 

[no1tovote4]

The current cost to kill is directly related to the appeals process. Lets streamline the process. Instead of being heard sequencially, lets put em in line by severity of sentence. Death row appeals go first, then life appeals etc. Also, limit the appeals by time and the number of courts to hear it. Should knock enough time off the process to balance the cost.

Nah, too often we find that people are released after later evidence shows they didn't do it. Killing them quicker will make it so that many lawsuits would simply cost even more. I still think it would be cheaper to put them in Supermax.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

This is "Little P." again
This is true, they may not feel much remorse for what they have done.

My main arguement is that no one can play God.

Playing God can be tagged to a lot of things. If someone makes a medical breakthrough that increases life expectancy or cures a disease, that is playing God.

You also have to remember, even God turned a woman into a pillar of salt just for looking back.

 

[Bonnie]

Playing God can be tagged to a lot of things. If someone makes a medical breakthrough that increases life expectancy or cures a disease, that is playing God.

You also have to remember, even God turned a woman into a pillar of salt just for looking back.

Yes God is loving, but he is also just and meters out punishment when it truly warrants it, just as parents do to their children.