Against the Death Penalty?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CHESTERTONRULES
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Aside from the fact that the two “occupations” are not equivalent, but where soldiers are concerned…it is a piece of knowledge that is clearly ingrained, yet we work very hard not to let it happen. War is a completely different scenario, and soldiers are well armed, whereas most correctional officers working on cell blocks are not armed. They rely on their wits and strength to avoid harm.

Here is an article about a Corrections Officer who was killed in a facility near where I live… dc.state.fl.us/pub/compass/0307/2.html

In Florida the CO’s are not armed inside the fence, and only the CO’s in the towers and the vehicles outside are armed.

There is a difference between CO’s and Combat Troops.
You’re right. They are both different occupations but the hazards are the same. They both have to deal with the ‘enemy’ and they both know the consequences that comes with the territory. Israeli forces who patrol the Palestinian quarters are not allowed to use the gun. That is why they have to learn Krav Maga.
 
Tell us the difference.
Murder is not just. Murder is a crime.

Killing in a just war is not murder.

A state eliminating a murderer by “killing” them is not murder. It is permanently removing them from society.
 
So what if abortionists say that eliminating the feutus is not murder but they are helping remove (or kill) the problem that may cause the parents, then what? Will there still be a difference?

Not that i disagree with your definitions but i would like to know what answers you will come up with for this scenario.
 
You’re right. They are both different occupations but the hazards are the same. They both have to deal with the ‘enemy’ and they both know the consequences that comes with the territory. Israeli forces who patrol the Palestinian quarters are not allowed to use the gun. That is why they have to learn Krav Maga.
I think I can understand your “reticence” where the death sentence is concerned…it would seem that the officials where you are tend to administer it for many crimes that really don’t deserve capital punishment. I googled it and this is what came up:

europarl.europa.eu/comparl/afet/droi/singapore_en.pdf

Is it true that the laws have been constructed in such a fashion that judges have no discretion in sentencing?
 
So what if abortionists say that eliminating the feutus is not murder but they are helping remove (or kill) the problem that may cause the parents, then what? Will there still be a difference?
You would have to ask that question to someone who is pro abortion.
Not that i disagree with your definitions but i would like to know what answers you will come up with for this scenario.
That’s my answer.

Other than…if a pregnancy occurred that they did not want, then they should have been smart enough to think ahead and make sure it did not happen.
 
😃

You’re right, I wouldn’t be willing to take that risk. But this is why I don’t choose to be a prison gaurd. They understand what their job is and they choose to do it. As for the other prisoners, they know what prison is like before they enter it.
I’m going to make a small objection as to choosing to be a prison guard. When I started, the prison was about the only job you could get in this area. (An older brother of mine actually made me put an application in.) If I could have found something else to do I probably would have. As time went along, I really couldn’t afford to quit.
About five years before I started, there was a big riot at a prison up north. I remember how frightening the newspaper reports were. when the prison I worked at opened a few years later, i was too scared to put an application in. It took two years without a permanent job before I figured it was work at the prison or starve.
 
I think I can understand your “reticence” where the death sentence is concerned…it would seem that the officials where you are tend to administer it for many crimes that really don’t deserve capital punishment. I googled it and this is what came up:

europarl.europa.eu/comparl/afet/droi/singapore_en.pdf

Is it true that the laws have been constructed in such a fashion that judges have no discretion in sentencing?
Since when has any judge use discretion in sentencing? The Singapore justice system is just as dubious as any other justice system around the world. With great power, comes great responsibility, but if you lose control, you lose your soul. What would you say to the judge who gave rights to Michael Schiavo to kill his own wife?
 
You would have to ask that question to someone who is pro abortion.
Pro-abortion or not, i’d like to read differing opinions on how ‘killing’ is different from ‘murder’ for this scenario. Pandora’s box is open.
 
Aside from the fact that the two “occupations” are not equivalent, but where soldiers are concerned…it is a piece of knowledge that is clearly ingrained, yet we work very hard not to let it happen. War is a completely different scenario, and soldiers are well armed, whereas most correctional officers working on cell blocks are not armed. They rely on their wits and strength to avoid harm.

Here is an article about a Corrections Officer who was killed in a facility near where I live… dc.state.fl.us/pub/compass/0307/2.html

In Florida the CO’s are not armed inside the fence, and only the CO’s in the towers and the vehicles outside are armed.

There is a difference between CO’s and Combat Troops.
I’m pretty sure CO’s inside the fence aren’t allowed to carry weapons in any prison. Don’t want to give inmates the chance to gain control of the weapon.
 
Some use Taisers, others carry OC spray when inmates are not in lockdown. Also depends on the country’s regulations. In Singapore, many carry batons and highly trained in lethal martial arts.
 
I am against the death penalty. I have no sympathy for those on death row, but I am still against it.

Despite what Chester claims, people convicted of murder don’t get to go around killing people. They are stuck behind bars for the rest of their lives. Usually, depending on their crime or level of crime, they are also in the lower end of the prison food chain. At least on death row, they get a semi-cozy living space and pretty good meals every day. They also don’t come into contact with other human beings as often as you do in prison.

If they are dangerous, put them in solitary.

I have seen no statistics concerning the amount of murderers in prison who have killed others. Show me some stats Chester.
 
Pro-abortion or not, i’d like to read differing opinions on how ‘killing’ is different from ‘murder’ for this scenario. Pandora’s box is open.
For me , it’s a matter of innocence. What has an unborn child done to deserve death. Contrast this with an adult who blatantly kills knowing that his actions may result in his execution.
While I tend to lean in favor of a death penalty, there had better be overwhelming evidence to prove the guilt of the convict.
 
Some use Taisers, others carry OC spray when inmates are not in lockdown. Also depends on the country’s regulations. In Singapore, many carry batons and highly trained in lethal martial arts.
Our brass were allowed to carry pepper spray,but the only CO’s allowed to carry weapons were the tact team in emergencies.
 
Simple… I am not the LAW, nor am I the State, nor am I appointed by legally elected officials to do so. Even if I am 100% certain that the individual is guilty, and even if I saw the murderer do the crime, the law does not give me the right or power to “execute” someone.

Oh…wait, “nobody” has the right to kill anybody… but “you feel its OK to protect “that” life by any means necessary”?

Do you realize that you just completely conflicted yourself?

“Any means necessary”…includes deadly force.
Please don’t come at me like I am ignorant for I am showing nothing but respect when I post my responses. When I said by any means necessary I was stating that yes if a life is being threatened then you would protect that life but only as the crime was being commited. If the murder has already taken place then it is out of our hands. And as for you not being that law, I understand this. I am not speaking about human law right now though, we are speaking about God’s law. This conversation has nothing to do with whether or not the state should be able to enforce the death penalty rather than a regular citizen, it is about whether or not through God’s eyes it is acceptable. And if you are saying it is not ok through God’s eyes for a regular citizen to enforce the death penalty, then why would it be ok for the state to do it? And it doesn’t matter because everything that I am saying is being twisted around in so many ways and everybody just wants to argue with me rather than try to understand what I am saying.
 
I am against the death penalty. I have no sympathy for those on death row, but I am still against it.

Despite what Chester claims, people convicted of murder don’t get to go around killing people. They are stuck behind bars for the rest of their lives. Usually, depending on their crime or level of crime, they are also in the lower end of the prison food chain. At least on death row, they get a semi-cozy living space and pretty good meals every day. They also don’t come into contact with other human beings as often as you do in prison.

If they are dangerous, put them in solitary.

I have seen no statistics concerning the amount of murderers in prison who have killed others. Show me some stats Chester.
You are just wrong.

“Of the roughly 52,000 state prison inmates serving time for murder in 1984, an estimated 810 had previously been convicted of murder and had killed 821 persons following their previous murder convictions. Executing each of these inmates would have saved 821 lives.” (41, 1 Stanford Law Review, 11/88, pg. 153) Using a 75% murder clearance rate, it is most probable that the actual number of lives saved would have been 1026, or fifty times the number legally executed that year. This suggests that some 10,000 persons have been murdered, since 1971, by those who had previously committed additional murders.

youdebate.com/DEBATES/death_penalty.HTM
 
I’m going to make a small objection as to choosing to be a prison guard. When I started, the prison was about the only job you could get in this area. (An older brother of mine actually made me put an application in.) If I could have found something else to do I probably would have. As time went along, I really couldn’t afford to quit.
About five years before I started, there was a big riot at a prison up north. I remember how frightening the newspaper reports were. when the prison I worked at opened a few years later, i was too scared to put an application in. It took two years without a permanent job before I figured it was work at the prison or starve.
My apologies Pete, and I thank you for putting yourself in danger to protect innocent people. I’ll be praying for your safety. God Bless.
 
For me , it’s a matter of innocence. What has an unborn child done to deserve death. Contrast this with an adult who blatantly kills knowing that his actions may result in his execution.

While I tend to lean in favor of a death penalty, there had better be overwhelming evidence to prove the guilt of the convict.
The unborn child was born with sin as was the adult who commited the sin out of his own accord. To us, pro-lifers, killing the unborn is a heinous act. To pro-abortionists, it isn’t. For the one outside the box, both are doomed anyway - whether you die early or late of natural circumstances, or whether you die through an act of God (disasters, disease, etc). You will still die no matter what. Your body rots whilst your soul meets your maker to determine how sinful you were when on earth - it doesn’t matter if you killed someone or not. You must still pay for your sins because of Original Sin.

I believe there have been several cases where even “overwhelming evidences” have proved to be false and innocents were sent to the chair. Of course, they only realized their follies after the person has been executed. Too late to make amendments.
 
Since when has any judge use discretion in sentencing? The Singapore justice system is just as dubious as any other justice system around the world. With great power, comes great responsibility, but if you lose control, you lose your soul. What would you say to the judge who gave rights to Michael Schiavo to kill his own wife?
Actually, in the State of Florida, it is not actually the Judge who makes the recommendation of the death sentence…it is the jury in a separate hearing after the trial where guilt or innocence is determined. However, under current law the Judge has the power to determine based on mitigating factors as defined under state law , to override the jury and impose the death sentence. This has happened however the jury’s recommendation is normally taken. Thus if the defendant is found guilty the sentence of life imprisonment or death is recommended and imposed by a jury of 12 peers.

Here is a read on the subject. It will take a few minutes but it discusses the issue and covers several other states as well:
law.fsu.edu/Journals/lawreview/issues/232/lafferty.html

This PDF will show the differences by States and the limits of Judges discretionary abilities. We have 50 states and probably a myriad of laws. In some states the Judge has no discretion, in others…much.
 
Our brass were allowed to carry pepper spray,but the only CO’s allowed to carry weapons were the tact team in emergencies.
Which State prison do you guard? I love watching Lockdown and Inside - maybe i’ll lookout for you but i will pray for your safety.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top