Well, I'm going to jump in, in the spirit of no-hard-feelings, logical debate.
* * *
Drayson, you provided a quote that said:
So why not accept it critically?
The fact about race affecting the punishment is interesting - I have to admit, I didn't know about that and I don't really have an answer for it. Still, I've said I'd have it as a punishment for *serious* offences (as outlined earlier) and I stick to that.
Terrorists (IMHO) deserve to meet a swift end - regardless of skin colour, religion, sex, colour of PJs, etc.
So who does? I don't accept that we should avoid making difficult decisions (as a species) just because we happen to think we have no place to make them. Difficult decisions sometimes need to be made. Most people would (I think) condone killing another human even if you have to say "they're coming at you, and the only way you can defend yourself is to kill them". Once you've established that a person would kill someone in extremis, the rest is just a matter of deciding where to draw the line. Surely?
Of course, it's up to the legal system to prove that the crime better than that. That's why I would only condone it in cases where the certainty level way higher than it apparently was there.
Because, as the article that quote is drawn from, when you look at the argument they're talking about critically, it's unacceptable. The facts do not support the thesis that the death penalty is advantageous.
But that's not what we're talking about here. Self defense is another matter entirely. We're talking about killing someone after the fact, so that the victims of the crime can feel some satisfaction. That's not justice, it's revenge, and revenge has no place in a courtroom.
Do you think it's a coincidence that some of the most vile regimes in the world today are the same ones that regularly practice capital punishment? Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Iran... these are the nations that share America's philosophy on the death penalty. The majority of the Western World, the democratic nations that America wants Iraq and Iran to become, do not practice capital punishment. That's interesting, don't you think?
Of course this doesn't mean that criminals will no longer die when apprehended in New Jersey. Osama would be found dead one day in his jail cell, victim of "Natural Causes". A lot more offending criminals are likely to be merely shot instead of apprehended if the officers of the law know that they won't be executed for their crimes.
"Instant Justice" is the term I'm referring to. Cop Killers in New Jersey will most likely now end in this fate.
I'll take this to task first. Your information is based off of a website that, at least at first glance (as I have little time tonight, so a first glance is all it can get) seems to be biased heavily in your direction. Deathpenaltyinfo.org is, on face, and anti-death-penalty site. Now, that doesn't make the information they present wrong, it does call into question whether the information is being presented in its entirety.
As there is no argument in this paragraph, I am going to ignore it except to say that once again you assume something about me that is not true. You assume I agree with or even like O'Reilly. While I do agree with him on some points, no one authority is greater than the arguments they present.
Well, that depends on your outlook on life. It is my firm opinion that a murderer deserves to die. However, since there is no hard evidence for something that is a matter of morality and ethics, I cannot present anything other than logic, philosophy, and history in response.
For history, every ancient legal code had the death penalty to one degree or another. It is only as history has progressed, and as mankind has become worse, that certain individuals have raised an outcry against it.
For logic, the simplest argument is that one who kills, and does so in cold blood, with the intent to kill, is deserving of death. Now this doesn't jive with your eye-for-an-eye thing, but I'll get to that in a minute.
This is really two arguments, and I will answer them in order. First, you stated that we as human beings have no place to be the executioners. I couldn't agree with you more. As you know, I'm a Christian, and as such I follow the teachings of Jesus. Even he condemned those who would take mob action to stone a woman (the story is in John, if you want to read it). However, I do believe that, while individuals are not permitted to kill, it is the responsibility of the government to promote the safety, welfare, and good of their charge, namely the country which is placed into their hands (in my belief, by God). As such, it is the responsibility of government to determine just sentance and to execute it. (If you want the main basis for this, read Romans 13; however, the argument is also logical in nature, so one need not turn only to Scripture for it.)
Your second argument was about innocent persons who were executed. I agree, such a thing is a travesty. However, that does not mitigate the responsibility that government has to execute punishment. Yes, some innocent people might be caught in the process and executed. However, that is what the appeals process is for. In case you didn't know, any death penalty case is cause for an automatic appeal on the part of the defendant. Everything possible is done to keep such things from happening.
Another answer to that argument is found in the logical idea that the death penalty does prevent that one person from committing such acts in the future. Whether it deters others from committing murder or not does not matter in light of the fact that by ending the life of a murderer you thereby reduce to zero the chances that that person will kill another human being, or rape another person, or destroy the life of potentially hundreds. The fact that such results are not measurable does not mitigate the fact that it is a definitive result.
Again, no argument.
Actually, my arguments are based in logic. When I posted earlier I was at work and had very little time. Now, I have explained myself. You say my arguments are ruled by passion - hardly. If anything, my passion would be to see such individuals remain alive, in order that they might, through the working of God, come to know Jesus as Savior. That does not negate the fact that, logically, they deserve death, and that it is the place of government to mete out fair punishment.
I said I would get to this, and now I am. First, this statement was in relation to individual action, not government action. The context in which Ghandi said this was in relation to a peaceful revolution as opposed to a bloody one, in relation to working within the system for change rather than having thousands die for something that could be accomplished peacefully. More to the point, it follows directly along the lines of what Jesus said when He spoke to His disciples, telling them to personally turn the other cheek. That does not relate to governments, though. Once, again, I refer you to the argument that it is the place of government to mete out justice, and punishment fitting to the crime. While such sayings are catchy, and very applicable to individuals, they do not apply - either logically or in context - to governments.
Telan I don't know if you have seen any of my other comments on real world issues here on TRF (they are not particularly frequent... similar to my apperances of late :P ) but I consider myself a political conservative and agree in principle with a whole array of conservative positions (taxes, military strength, abortion, etc)
And, at one time, I would have agreed with you about capital punishment.
However, my opinion on the matter has slowly evolved... both due to statistical and emotional arguments.
If you ever want to read about a true, real life "Travesty of Justice" read May God Have Mercy by John C Tucker. It is the story of a "convicted" rapist who is executed by electric chair when an a writ of habeus corpus that would likely have led to his conviction being overturned is delayed in the mail and recieved one day late.
To you Telan, I pose this query:
Would you rather:
Execute 9 innocent men to ensure that one guilty man does not escape justice?
or
Let 9 guilty men go free (or perhaps, since we are dedicated to law and order, have them serve life sentences in prision) to ensure that the state not execute 1 innocent man?
If I were the one wrongly accused, I would rather live in a state that held the later sentiment.
I think the main reason for the death penalty being removed remains as stated - it's becoming increasingly harder for people to determine who is guilty or innocent. In some ways our methods of technologically solving crimes has made us very cut and dry with how a crime is solved; whereas back in the day you were outed as a witch (for example) and were burned. These days, there's the potential for more accurate criminal apprehension, but the fact remains that while our advances in technology allow us to give effective justice, we are still human and are prone to making mistakes; and that, coupled with our global expression of open-mindedness and civil demeanour, means that we’re less likely to pull the lever (just in case, or simply because the bloodlust has mostly been whittled out of us all) than we were in the days of old.
Also: There's a South Park character creator link in Arts & Entertainment, Beff. You should check it out - I made a nifty Vicirus with it.
I really don't want to get into this argument about who's right and wrong because I don't agree 100% with either point of view. I do however find your point of view interesting Wes, considering that you're a self proclaimed Christian and you say that's where you get many of your views from.
I've always been fascinated how Christians can be so quick to support things like war, and capital punishment. I don't have a universal dislike for Christianity, not in the least. Some of the most kind, selfless people I've met in my life were Christians. However, the ones that get it wrong make everyone look bad. It seems like some pick and choose what portions of the Bible they're going to follow, disregarding those they don't personally agree with for whatever reason.
Romans 12:17-21
<SUP>17</SUP>Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. <SUP id=en-NIV-28249>18</SUP>If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. <SUP id=en-NIV-28250>19</SUP>Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"says the Lord. <SUP id=en-NIV-28251>20</SUP>On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." <SUP id=en-NIV-28252>21</SUP>Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Doesn't that say, leave the punishment to God? I don't think any Christian would say that murder is an acceptable practice, obviously. But arent forgiveness and compassion integral traits of any true Christian? If you believe in God wouldn't you too believe that any murderer here on Earth would receive retribution from God Himself?
Ephesians 4:31-32 <SUP id=en-NIV-29288>31</SUP>Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. <SUP id=en-NIV-29289>32</SUP>Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.
Again, as it does many times in the Bible God is telling us to FORGIVE one another. Where does the death penalty fit into forgiveness? I just don't see it.
This (below) has to be the most clear example I can find of Jesus himself denouncing the death penalty. In fact, if you're making your decisions based on a Christian set of beliefs, I don't see how you can agree with the following passage but still condone the death penalty.
John 8:1-11 <SUP id=en-NIV-26372>1</SUP>But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. <SUP id=en-NIV-26373>2</SUP>At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. <SUP id=en-NIV-26374>3</SUP>The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group <SUP id=en-NIV-26375>4</SUP>and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. <SUP id=en-NIV-26376>5</SUP>In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" <SUP id=en-NIV-26377>6</SUP>They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. <SUP id=en-NIV-26378>7</SUP>When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." <SUP id=en-NIV-26379>8</SUP>Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
<SUP id=en-NIV-26380>9</SUP>At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. <SUP id=en-NIV-26381>10</SUP>Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" <SUP id=en-NIV-26382>11</SUP>"No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."
Of course, if you're not a Christian then Bible passages have little affect on how you come to decisions; though the morality and reasoning for your decisions could actually be the same. Anyways, I was just curious why so many Chrisitians are so vocally pro War and pro Capital Punishment. It's just never made sense to me.
The thing about that is that there is a distinction between the individual and the government. All but the last passage above are in reference to individual action. Romans 13 specifically details the government as the means by which God judges individuals. I agree that forgiveness is good - from an individual standpoint. As I stated above, though, the government has the responsibility of protecting those that are under it, and it has the responsibility to execute just judgment on those who would do harm to those citizens.
As for the last passage, those individuals who brought the woman before Jesus were not in the government. They were religious figures - leaders, certainly, but in the way that Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson or others like them are (or in Jerry's case, were). Not in the way that the Roman government was. As such, they were acting as individuals. Not only that, but read in context this story is recounting a test that these religious leaders set before Jesus. It was a trap, and it was masterfully handled in a way that brought shame on those demanding her death.
I could explain that one more, but I don't have the energy tonight. Perhaps some other time.
I would like to ask, was this statement your personal opinion, or a fact printed somewhere in a website/article? Because the way I understand, executions take place because criminals are deemed too dangerous for their continued existance even among a restricted society like prison.
The fact is that people escape from prison all the time. An execution ensures that this won't happen. It forever removes from society the chance that that person will kill again.
