The Death Penalty

[SanguineSolitude]

UOTE(DarthHookah @ Dec 15 2006, 06:35 PM) *
"You realize that in 36 states in America you can be fired for being gay." shame on those states.
that is unbelieveable.


not shame on them. Good for them. Employers should have the choice who they want working for them. Virginia is one of the states who can honestly say they take part in this. Its bad enough that you can get in trouble if your male to female ratio is bad. Now you have to have a straight to gay ratio. Its ridiculous, if I want the government telling me who I can hire then I will move to France."



i completely agree with you on this point. i mean if i dont want to hire gays, blacks, mexicans, jews, muslims, etc. and only want to focus on hiring blonde haired blue eyed people with high cheekbones and the proper facial features. why shouldnt i be able to. in fact... why cant i make a country like that. who was that one guy who was all for that?

im fine with you being a bigot, but youre viewpoint is rather offensive. to suggest that being gay is a good reason for being fired, is ludicrous. What on earth does gayness have to do with ones ability to do a job. why does it matter. what effect does 2 men kissing have on you, other than offend your values whatever that means. If 2 men want to kiss in public, have at it. If you dont wanna see it look away. Gays, straights, men, women, and people of different races and religions all should be treated equally. im sorry you dont see it that way.

when im feeling particularly cynicall, i sometimes wish i could restructure society so that it was the decent straight and gay people who were forcing their belief system on the religious right. you know telling them they cant heckle people outside of abortion clinics, wage wars without reason, and cant pass laws that discriminate against all the "differents." Heck the beliefs of nonsecular straights and gays dont harm anyone on the religious right, while their beliefs actively seek to limit freedoms in defense of their false god and hypocritical book.


DEATH PENALTY.
under a utilitarian system of justice, which is largely what ours is supposed to be based on, there is only one defense for killing as a punishment. That defense is if it stops others from commiting that crime. This is not the current case, therefore we should abandon it.

in addition, some people have been saying how expensive it is to keep people in jail all their lives. Well its more expensive to put them through the appeals system (which is neccessary) and actually execute them. Its all a vengeful old testament style punishment. History has always shown that an eye for an eye system is pointless. It doesnt stop anyone from doing a serious crime, and it punishes alot of people whose crime doesnt merit that level of punishment. All it does is try to make the family of the victim "feel better." but how? That since their father is dead, they can feel better knowing that the father of anotehr family is also dead. As Ghandi said "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." And this is true.

I find it funny that the religious right backs the death penalty. In addition to the whole commandment against killing, wasnt it jesus who came not to judge the world, but to forgive it. Providing many lines that talk about forgiveness, acceptance, etc. Jesus was about ending the cycle of violence, but thats not important to conservative christians since thats the not the message they wanted Jesus to say. So turn the other cheek, becomes oppress all gay people in Jesus's name... and you wonder why us atheists laugh at your religious claims. Edited December 19, 2006 by SanguineSolitude

[fizzgig]

Oh my, well said! BRAVO! I lean on the fence about the death penalty and the arguments presented in this discussion gently pushed me to think it should be banned. You just gave me an almighty shove! Very good and well articulated argument. Well spoken thru and thru.

[Scalliwag]

Good point Sangy on how anyone that claims to be a Christian can be so pro death penalty. I mean if they really do believe in God and that He is the creator, and that Jesus said something about whoever is without sin cast the first stone and about showing mercy, etc. then they should not be so quick to try and handle God's work for him.
When the soldiers came to crucify Jesus, Peter cut off one of their ears and Jesus put it back. I would think all of these examples would teach people that he can handle his own business and that they just need to worry about keeping their house in order.

It's not that I don't believe there are good Christians but I believe there are more people that claim to be Christians that are so weak in their beliefs that even they don't really know what the hell they believe.
But the bible covers a lot of these people. It talks about beware of false prophets, to me those would be just about anyone that has made themselves rich preaching like Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, Anal Roberts, and the rest of their ilk. So I do know enough not to dismiss the people that do honestly try to be Christians, but don't try to bullshit everybody into believing that Jesus would be for the death penalty. I would love to hear the argument to support that.

And Steve, in a way any time you try and make an argument or use any verbal reasoning in a sense you are doing the job of a lawyer It's kinda funny to think about it in that sense but it's true.... you try and make your case.

[Lakemonster]

I find it funny that the religious right backs the death penalty. In addition to the whole commandment against killing, wasnt it jesus who came not to judge the world, but to forgive it. Providing many lines that talk about forgiveness, acceptance, etc. Jesus was about ending the cycle of violence, but thats not important to conservative christians since thats the not the message they wanted Jesus to say. So turn the other cheek, becomes oppress all gay people in Jesus's name... and you wonder why us atheists laugh at your religious claims.

Um....

Jesus said that he came not to bring peace, but a sword.

He also said that "if any man does not have a sword, then he should sell his cloak and buy one."

2 sides to that one.

[cypherkk]

Someone posted this on the other page " I would rather see 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent punished. "

Interestingly I would rather see 100 innocent men punished than 1 guilty man go free.

where is there any justice at all if 100 men were released from their punishment so only 1 man could be free from punishment? certainly neither produce justice. but, I believe that there is more justice in punishing those guilty than not punishing innocence.

Besides, who is truly innocent. Maybe that innocent person hasn't committed the crime he was being punished for, but chances are they are guilty of some crime even multiple crimes against your fellow humans or the legal system. How often has everyone descrimated against someone for their perception of someone else. Of, descriminating against non-conformity to how you see, how everyone else should be.

Lets face it there is only one crime: Getting caught.

[Scalliwag]

I find it funny that the religious right backs the death penalty. In addition to the whole commandment against killing, wasnt it jesus who came not to judge the world, but to forgive it. Providing many lines that talk about forgiveness, acceptance, etc. Jesus was about ending the cycle of violence, but thats not important to conservative christians since thats the not the message they wanted Jesus to say. So turn the other cheek, becomes oppress all gay people in Jesus's name... and you wonder why us atheists laugh at your religious claims.

Um....

Jesus said that he came not to bring peace, but a sword.

He also said that "if any man does not have a sword, then he should sell his cloak and buy one."

2 sides to that one.

So was he just trying to confuse everybody or what? I mean was the whore guilty of being a whore and being stoned to death as the law stated? Hell, she was just caught in the act after all. Surely there is a reasoning for him saying that? Or else there are two completely different points he was trying to get across?

[Scalliwag]

Someone posted this on the other page " I would rather see 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent punished. "

Interestingly I would rather see 100 innocent men punished than 1 guilty man go free.

where is there any justice at all if 100 men were released from their punishment so only 1 man could be free from punishment? certainly neither produce justice. but, I believe that there is more justice in punishing those guilty than not punishing innocence.

Besides, who is truly innocent. Maybe that innocent person hasn't committed the crime he was being punished for, but chances are they are guilty of some crime even multiple crimes against your fellow humans or the legal system. How often has everyone descrimated against someone for their perception of someone else. Of, descriminating against non-conformity to how you see, how everyone else should be.

Lets face it there is only one crime: Getting caught.

Hell, with that argument then I guess everybody should kill themselves since we are all guilty of something? A very humorous perspective Between you guys and Shinerbock I am really getting confused on justice and religion....

[Lakemonster]

The whore was guilty. Christs only suggestion to her accusers was they might be blameless of sin before throwing the stone. I'd have loved to know what he wrote in the sand....

Wouldnt have surprised me in the least if one of the accusers was a patron of hers in the past...... or others had extramarital affairs.

I am not without sin. myself, but I am blameless of being a sexual predator. I am blameless of being a murderer. I am blameless of being a terrorist. I would have no moral hangups about ending a persons life who has committed acts like these.

It is confusing.... but I think I have gotten the picture with all the cryptic statements Christ made that contradicted themselves.... its a principle.

"Live for Peace, Plan for War."

[Scalliwag]

Well, I am all for the death penalty, I just have serious doubts that Jesus would from everything I have read. If God wants to take somebody out I think he is more than capable enough. Not only that but if you are a Christian and believe in heaven and hell and eternity that you would know that no one is going to "get away" with their crimes or their sins.

I am not a predator or a murderer either but I know the bible says something about one sin not being better or worse than another. So there is yet another thing I would think makes the death penalty a very non-Christian position.
A lot of bad things are done in the name of religion that I do not believe were condoned by the religions as much as followers selectively use the contents of the teachings to support their actions.
The KKK call themselves Christians and have a long diatribe to support their arguments.... and leave out a helluva lot that crushes their arguments. The Christian Crusades were anything but Christian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

Some of the Christian cults have led to horrible events such as the Jonestown massacre. The first terrorist to blow up a building in the U.S. was Tim McVeigh and a lot of people do not know that he thought he was doing God's will.
All of the things I have seen done in the name of religion have made me very leery of religious people. I have a hard time believing that killing sinners is doing God's work for him.

[rattler]

I have very mixed feelings about this issue. Is it the right thing to do? I don't know. Just because I lost my family member does it mean that thier family should lose thiers? The true punishment in the death penalty is not to the executed, but to their family members who are left behind to grieve. It's a hard complex question to answer. On the other hand if someone were to murder my wife or children the court system would not have the chance to impose the death sentance if I was able to get my hands on them.

[stevehookah]

Death penalty is always a good idea.

Until it's you or your own under the needle..

I read a story where a woman was killed for being raped. She had no 'witnesses', and since she reported it she was an admitted adultress. So the 'court' found her guilty of 'dishonour', and she was hung from a crane.

Better her than me I suppose.
-that is the attitude I read here- Edited December 22, 2006 by stevehookah

[Hookah_Bob3]

I have one thing to say:
If you willingly take the life of another, you forfeit your right to live. If you will take something that no one has the right to take, then it is only appropriate for you to have it taken from you.

I don't understand how anyone can be against the eradication of some of the world's worst criminals. It makes no sense whatsoever. And as for the "it costs more to go through appeals for 10 years and then be executed than to keep them in prison" well, that's just more reason to give a certain number of appeals instead of unlimited. It costs around 23000 per year to house each and every criminal..We have a whole lot of criminals, so that's a whole lot more money. Anyway, enough of my ramblings.

Kill the bastards that deserve to be killed.

One more thing, it's not 95% guilty/innocent in death row, I'd be surprised it if was more than 1 in 100

[LilTank13]

Personally, I am all for the death penalty. The thing that no one has mentioned about our great system of reforming criminals is that it happens to be thousands of criminals "living" together in closed confines. Does this not sound like a system that would teach criminals to be better criminals? My cousin has been to jail twice, and just got out of jail after seven years. Seeing as he has had numerous trips to jail, has he been reformed? Furthermore, what kind of life is there for the supposed reformed? What kind of job can a convicted fellon do when they are released? What is the probability of a convicted fellon being hired regardless of qualification? After that being said, what is left besides a further life of crime/welfare? Granted, I am glad that he has decided he doesn't want to go back, and is trying to turn his life around. He is rather proud and making great strides to get back on his feet, but has stated my previous argument to me many times. Tell me there is little cost to taxpayers.

I also find it humerous how everyone brings God into this, as well as the Bible. As if we are supposed to sit back and wait for how many years for a convicted criminal to get theirs? As some (seemingly most on here) believe, they would never get theirs in that case, if there is no God. These statements basically work to eliminate everything our admittedly bad judicial system is. Forgive me for this in advance, seeing as I do believe in God, but wasn't the Bible written by men about God? How many times has it been re-interpreted? The last statement was not ment to be sarcastic, I don't know much about it. That is why my talk of the Bible ends here.

It is a tradgedy that some innocent are convicted and sentenced to death. BUT, I totally agree that it takes WAAAAYYYY too long to get things done. The appeals system is so long and drawn out, as well as the actual getting around to the actual death part, many die "waiting" to die. I am all for "innocent until proven guilty", but 20 years of appeals is ridiculous. If someone saw you do it, sorry for you.

And before anyone says anything about my family, yes I feel if my cousin was convicted of a crime worthy of the death penalty, he should recieve it. I absolutely love the movie Boondock Saints and wish there were people like them everywhere. As said at the end of the movie- (paraphrased of course) I have nothing to worry about.

[Sonthert]

The law supercedes the bible, so the bible has no place in our governement or in this discussion, in my opinion. The founding fathers said that the constitution shall not be superceded by any document, that was clearly removing religious texts from the picture. Compare the ten commandments to modern law...not ten laws correspondingly, are there? Adultery is a bad one, but legal in many (all?) states. (It also plugs holes in the marriage is a religious institution, but thats another thread).

Death penalty is great, I support it, but I am dismayed. If there is a disportionate number of people on death row whom are poor, I am concerned.

People seem to have forgotten that one of the cornerstones of American justice is that it is better to let 100 guilty men go free that to convict one innocent man. Why is that? The justice system is, by definition, there to punish criminals. It isn'y to protect us. It never has been. Thats why guns are legal and should remain legal. Innocent people wrongly convicted obviously violate that basic definition. The rights of an innocent American must be protected. If innocent people are going to jail, then anyone of us could go to jail without doing anything wrong. Thats not right. There is a corrosive effect that unfortunately follows convicting innocent people. If a person has committed a crime , but nobody is caught for that crime, it still hangs over the head of the criminal. If he is arrested, obviously that has the best outcome. Of course, if he commits a crime and then somebody else is arrested for it, it emboldens him and encourages him to commit more crime. I knew a guy who was in this position. He finally straightened out, but when he was 16, he robbed a store and then some other Mexican guy got arrested and convicted. He said that more than anything, that encouraged him to commit more crimes, because he felt "Too smart to get caught."

Straw poll: how many of you guys who voted "I support the death penalty." Also think prison terms should be longer? The reason its costing so much to house so many prisoners is that people have been supporting increasing prison sentences, which is further crowding the prisons. Does it really make sense that a 20 year sentence is twice as much punishment as 10 years? To a prisoner, it probably makes no difference, but it costs us alot more money! Prison is NOT a deterent nor rehabilitation. It has never worked in that capacity and it never will. It is a punishment, like going to bed without your dessert. If you accept that prison and justice isn't anything more that punishment, it does a much better job. Enough jail prisoners who were paroled will come out and say "Jail helped me." It may have, but thats NOT the point of it.

When the felony of "grand theft" was "created" in legal terms, a model T Ford cost around $800. The amount that constituted grand theft was commonly $500. Now its $250 in some places, upto $1000 in others. The jail term associated with grand theft has also ballooned from 3 years in the 1930s to as much as 7 years now. If we took grand theft's threshold of $500, roughly 62.5% of the cost of the basic automobile. Whats a basic automobile now? $12,000? Thats $7500 that should proportionally make the felony. Some people are people who say longer prison sentences! Keep the criminals off the street! We need a death penalty! We don't want to spend so much on incarceration. Make up your minds! Do you want longer jail sentences or not to have to spend so much on prison inmates? You can't have both. Just on grand theft alone, you have multiplied the number of people being convicted by 30 (assuming an even distribution of crimes and values of property stolen). and multiplied the jail sentences by 2.33 or there are 70 times as many people in prison for grand theft as there were when the law was introduced. There is a mathmatical way to calculate how many it really would be, but I don't want to go fetch a math book. Lets say its really 50 times as many. Yeah, it costs alot!

That being said, I think we need to create a habitual criminal death penalty. 13 Points means death penalty. 1 Point for small crimes. 2 points for small felonies, 3-6 for larger felonies. Get to 13, you get it, no matter what.