Against the Death Penalty?

[abirdrrl]

Those who oppose the death penalty help increase the number of murders.

It that moral or just?

Then why do states with the death penalty have higher murder rates than states without the death penalty?

Trying to stop violence with violence is not effective.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Then why do states with the death penalty have higher murder rates than states without the death penalty?

Trying to stop violence with violence is not effective.

I have no idea if that is true, but it defintely is not relevant.

The last I had heard Washington D.C. had the highest murder rate followed by Detroit.

I can guarantee you that no one who has been executed has committed another murder.

This is not true for those given life in prison or less. Hundreds of innocent people have been killed because the death penalty is not used when it is proper.

 

[CWBetts]

Then you should be willing to allow those that most of us deem worthy of death to live in your home.

If not, then you are subjecting innocent prison guards and fellow prisoners to risks that you are not willing to take yourself.

You need to hear about this really good book. its called The Catechism of the Catholic Church, and it addresses thisvery issue:

2267 Assuming the guilty party’s identity and reponsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death peanlty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however non-lethal meansare sufficient to defend and protect people’s safetyfrom the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common goodand more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilitieswhich the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent"

So really, I’m gonna have to disagree with you here.

 

[block]

You need to hear about this really good book. its called The Catechism of the Catholic Church, and it addresses thisvery issue:

2267 Assuming the guilty party’s identity and reponsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death peanlty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however non-lethal meansare sufficient to defend and protect people’s safetyfrom the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common goodand more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilitieswhich the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent"

So really, I’m gonna have to disagree with you here.

FINALLY!!! Thank you very much…

 

[cathopologist]

A murderer has time to repent before his execution. That is his second chance.

As a society our duty is to protect innocent life.

We can demonstrate our great love of life by punishing with execution those who deem it worthless.

Does an infant have time to ‘repent’ before he gets executed? A life is a life is a life. We are all born with sin - infant or adult. We are also given Free Will, but who made us god to decide who should live or die?

As a society, we have the responsibility to stand up against aggressors and people who corrupt our society. There have been several cases where mentally ill persons have been put to death because of the lack of judgement and empathy for them. Our court systems thirst for blood and our people have been duped into thinking the culture of death is a morally acceptable practice.

Murderers have a right to life too. I would not want to be around one, but i cannot gather the strength to bring myself to take his life because i wanted revenge. I’d rather he/she spend the rest of his/her life behind bars. There are people who have parolled after 25 years behind bars - they paid their due to society, repented and have never reverted to their ‘old ways’. Should we send them back to jail too? Because our premonitional, paranoid minds think he’s better off hanged or electrocuted?

 

[RobHom]

There is no proven case where an innocent person has been executed in America since the death penalty was reinstated.

There are a number of cases that challenge that notion.

justicedenied.org/executed.htm

There are hundreds of innocent people who have been murdered by someone previously convicted of murder.

This is true. And for that reason, the death penalty exists, but for the life of me… I cannot understand how any murderer is paroled or released.

I believe the state has the right to utilize Capital Punishment, but at the same time it is incumbent upon the state to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the individual is in fact guilty of the crime as charged. No maybe’s, no doubts, no “circumstantial evidence”… 100% proof beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

[block]

There are a number of cases that challenge that notion.

justicedenied.org/executed.htm

This is true. And for that reason, the death penalty exists, but for the life of me… I cannot understand how any murderer is paroled or released.

I believe the state has the right to utilize Capital Punishment, but at the same time it is incumbent upon the state to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the individual is in fact guilty of the crime as charged. No maybe’s, no doubts, no “circumstantial evidence”… 100% proof beyond a shadow of a doubt.

So if somebody came up to you and said that they just killed somebody, would you have the right in God’s eyes to kill that person?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

If, however non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safetyfrom the aggressorB]
So really, I’m gonna have to disagree with you here.

Read more carefully.

Given that hundreds of people have been murdered by convicted murderers in America alone, you seem to be missing something.

Non lethal means are not sufficient. Killers can find ways to kill.

You share the responsibility of those killed and who will be killed in the future because as a nation we don’t carry out just executions in a timely manner.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

So if somebody came up to you and said that they just killed somebody, would you have the right in God’s eyes to kill that person?

It’s not that simple.

Capitol murder is a specific offense.

I would need more information.

Here’s a better analogy.

If someone just committed a brutal murder in front of me, and I had to leave them alone with other people and go away, then it would be just for me to kill them.

A question for you:

Would it have been just to kill Adolph Hitler in 1941 during the early stages of WWII?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

There are a number of cases that challenge that notion.

justicedenied.org/executed.htm

No they don’t. There are no proven cases, which is exactly what I stated.

This is true. And for that reason, the death penalty exists, but for the life of me… I cannot understand how any murderer is paroled or released.

It is not just the paroled and released murderers that are the problem. Hundreds of relatively innocent people are murdered in our prisons, including prison guards.

I believe the state has the right to utilize Capital Punishment, but at the same time it is incumbent upon the state to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the individual is in fact guilty of the crime as charged. No maybe’s, no doubts, no “circumstantial evidence”… 100% proof beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I agree 100%!/QUOTE]

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Murderers have a right to life too. I would not want to be around one, but i cannot gather the strength to bring myself to take his life because i wanted revenge.

It has nothing to do with revenge.

Our most brutal murderers have a history of being repeat offenders.

You want to force other less dangerous prisoners and prison guards to live around brutal killers when you yourself would not make such a sacrifice.

If you won’t support their executions, then you share the guilt for those that they kill.( a miniscule percent of guilt, obviously, but you and those who hold your view contribute to these killings)

 

[LutheranDK]

So if somebody came up to you and said that they just killed somebody, would you have the right in God’s eyes to kill that person?

The man/woman on the street wouldn’t.
The State, however, WOULD.

What we can do as private individuals, and what the State can do AS the State, are two very seperate issues, and should not be mixed together.

 

[CWBetts]

Read more carefully.

Given that hundreds of people have been murdered by convicted murderers in America alone, you seem to be missing something.

Non lethal means are not sufficient. Killers can find ways to kill.

You share the responsibility of those killed and who will be killed in the future because as a nation we don’t carry out just executions in a timely manner.

You are not disagreeing with me. At this point you disagree with the Church. Face it you want bloodthirsty vengence. You are not concened with justice, but revenge. I see it in you attitude thet they “deserve to die” Appalling

 

[RobHom]

So if somebody came up to you and said that they just killed somebody, would you have the right in God’s eyes to kill that person?

No, and I never said that. Re-read what I said, digest it, and try again…OK?

Besides, way too many people are inclined to confess to crimes that they did not commit… You might find this interesting:

psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/08/12/why-do-innocent-people-confess/

 

[block]

It’s not that simple.

Capitol murder is a specific offense.

I would need more information.

Here’s a better analogy.

If someone just committed a brutal murder in front of me, and I had to leave them alone with other people and go away, then it would be just for me to kill them.

A question for you:

Would it have been just to kill Adolph Hitler in 1941 during the early stages of WWII?

No, I do not believe it would be just to kill Hitler or Saddam or anybody who commits such acts of voilence or anybody who may commit those acts. Everybody is capable of commiting murder, with your reasoning we should all be executed. I would rather keep these people permanently in hand cuffs and shackles so they were totally immobilized rather than killing them. Tell me, how then can they be a threat? And though my example may seem extreme, it proves my point that there ARE ways of keeping them from threatening society or anybody and still avoiding the death penalty. If there are ways, and those ways are not used, then the death penalty becomes the easiest way out rather than the right way out.

 

[block]

The man/woman on the street wouldn’t.
The State, however, WOULD.

What we can do as private individuals, and what the State can do AS the State, are two very seperate issues, and should not be mixed together.

So in God’s eyes, it would be ok for the state to kill that person but not for somebody else? If He wants them dead then what does it matter who does it?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

No, I do not believe it would be just to kill Hitler or Saddam or anybody who commits such acts of voilence or anybody who may commit those acts. Everybody is capable of commiting murder, with your reasoning we should all be executed. I would rather keep these people permanently in hand cuffs and shackles so they were totally immobilized rather than killing them. Tell me, how then can they be a threat? And though my example may seem extreme, it proves my point that there ARE ways of keeping them from threatening society or anybody and still avoiding the death penalty. If there are ways, and those ways are not used, then the death penalty becomes the easiest way out rather than the right way out.

Please consider all the facts before forming your opinion. Lives depend on it!

The AP reports:

[A] series of academic studies over the last half-dozen years that claim to settle a once hotly debated argument - whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. The analyses say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer.

The reports have horrified death penalty opponents and several scientists, who vigorously question the data and its implications.

patterico.com/2007/06/12/studies-show-the-death-penalty-does-indeed-deter-murders/

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

You are not disagreeing with me. At this point you disagree with the Church. Face it you want bloodthirsty vengence. You are not concened with justice, but revenge. I see it in you attitude thet they “deserve to die” Appalling

Read what I posted please, and re-read what the catechism states.

There have been hundreds of people murdered in prisons by convicted murderers.

Clearly, the Church would not oppose these people being executed because it would save innocent lives.

 

[block]

No, and I never said that. Re-read what I said, digest it, and try again…OK?

Besides, way too many people are inclined to confess to crimes that they did not commit… You might find this interesting:

psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/08/12/why-do-innocent-people-confess/

Ok, I read it again. I may even have digested it, not sure though. You said that if they are 100% sure then the death penatly would be ok. So I’m asking you, if YOU are 100% sure, which is why I said somebody came up to you and admitted it, then why would you not have that same right to kill that person? The bottom line is, nobody has the right to kill anybody. This is what Jesus told me. Thank you. REVISION And yes of course if an innocent life is being threatened then yes i feel it is ok to protect that life by any means necessary.

 

[block]

Please consider all the facts before forming your opinion. Lives depend on it!

The AP reports:

[A] series of academic studies over the last half-dozen years that claim to settle a once hotly debated argument - whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. The analyses say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer.

The reports have horrified death penalty opponents and several scientists, who vigorously question the data and its implications.

patterico.com/2007/06/12/studies-show-the-death-penalty-does-indeed-deter-murders/

Well, you seem to be confused still. You say that I am stating my opinion but this is not true. I question which one of us is doing just that. I seem to not be able to convince you that the death penalty is not right, you keep throwing stats at me about what the killer might do. But you ignore everything that I am saying to you. So therefor, I will not be responding to you anymore because my responses are not being used properly. God bless and thank you for a nice discussion.