Should The U.S. Abolish the Death Penalty ?

Originally posted by p51mustang
if corporations are people why dont they get the death penalty?

Thats how it goes they pay their way out of it, smh..

Yes, it should be ended. America likes to see itself as a global leader, while murdering people. It's hypocritical to say the least.

There are quite a few innocent people facing the death penalty, and you would know of their innocence if you read up on the case and saw the blatant police and government corruption that is CLEARLY evident.

Damien Echols has now been released after serving 18 years on death row. People who have read through the case know that he is innocent. It's a blatant miscarriage of justice that would have led to his murder, and the state of Arkansas would have sat by and watched him killed to save face and prevent exposure of their massive Police corruption and ineptitude.

When you have wholly corrupt and despicable people like that making the judgments, you will ALWAYS end up with innocent people imprisoned and executed.

Those who support the death penalty are - I believe - emotionally driven idiots who will look at evidence and ignore it, willing to send an innocent person to their death simply to satisfy their sense of vengeance. They do not care about justice, they simply think that someone - anyone - should pay for the crime. It's the modern equivalent of human sacrifice to satisfy a vengeful God.

Originally posted by roughycannon
Yes because of this Wrongful execution

The best way to prevent Wrongful Execution, yet still keep the death penalty, is to only put to death repeat offenders, and mass killers that have to go out of their way to kill multiple times--(as in, you kill 10 people in the same car wreck (Clown car, ok?)? You shouldn't be considered for the death penalty on a 1st time offense). Even if you're totally the most evil dude on Earth, if you've only killed 1 time, there's no real proof that you would do it again. This is a Fool me once vs. Fool me twice issue.

And if that isn't enough, get the danged appeals a time limit of some sort, and execute judges and attorneys who mess that up. (Not that serious, but you get the point.)

Originally posted by STEADFast
Yes, we should abolish it... I think all murderers must be set free and given their own transportation, of course the Tea Party would be agaisnt this but I am sure our founding fathers would much rather give a thief a horse to live in a different town than to hang a horse thief or child molesting murderer. Our government needs to do a better job providing for criminals that have killed multiple people. This is one reason why the tea party is racist.

I love the sarcasm.

Originally posted by CaDreamer
naw those types should always get life in prison, a rapist being raped by other rapists lol the irony and such poetic justice...molesters never do well in prison, the longer their stay there, the more likely their inevitable gory death. again, THAT is justice.

They tend to kill them, not rape them. There's not enough sexual attraction in this situation. I'd prefer the death penalty in a "serial/mass" pedophile situation. This isn't about getting even, this is about prevention. As for those that say "life" sentences can do the same, two words: TED BUNDY.

Originally posted by patternchekhow can you legally justify doing the exact same thing that that is being done...

Because killing and murder are 2 separate definitions. Generally speaking, "kill" is ALL intentional deaths. This includes abortion, suicide, murder, accidental killings (manslaughter), hunting, slaughterhouses, antibodies + white blood cells actually doing their job, etc. Killing has no differentiation because it is THE generic word. The thing is while we are stating that the Death Penalty is Killing Killers, it's a generalization, and thereby not accurate enough to make a decision on. Anyone who makes a decision on that makes the decision with half the information REQUIRED. Murder, by etymological definition, in English, is a killing that is specifically hidden from public or is unlawful. It has limitations on it. It is not nearly as broad a generalization as killing. We're taking about a lawful killing of unlawful hidden-act killers. Those are not even remotely the same thing by word definition. And not being able to process the difference emotionally is two totally separate issues.

Originally posted by NightGypsyBut they don't....and that is the point. The death penalty is not an effective deterrent against murder. If a person has the propensity to kill, the death penalty is not going to stop him.

But it does put an end to how many more they could kill with a heavy PERIOD. This is not about scaring people into a better set of behavior, or even teaching them a better way. This is solely about prevention of future ills. It is not the Death Penalty's job to do the other two...and people that keep insisting that it does those things keep forgetting that as soon as you give a process a merit, others assume that it's a foundational leg to attack. If the Death Penalty prevents 1 person from becoming a Serial Killer, it's a good thing, but it should NEVER be mistaken for the point.

reply to post by elevatedone


I think the long drawn out waits people have on death row might be worse than death itself all the way around. Of course if I were an innocent man sitting there I can tell you I would think differently.

Think about this:
We are willing to accept the consequences if we are wrong and take the responsibility for executing an innocent person and... why not? No skin off our nose.

Now put yourself in the position of the innocent person rather than the society with a problem to solve.

ARE YOU FREE?

HOW DID LIFE ON EARTH WORK OUT FOR YA?

If you can be innocent and falsely accused you can be innocent and deliberately killed and in any other circumstance this is called your murder and someone needs to be held accountable for that.


And if you can be innocent and murdered at the hands of your society in some set of bizarre circumstances then you are not really free are you? You are only free for now.

Society has a problem to solve.

The first priority is securing the public and the second is meting justice.

I think we can do both without a) it costing an arm and a leg and b) resorting to murder.

Originally posted by brilab45
Thou shall not kill. One of the ten commandments that we most certainly don't follow.

Not that simple:

Exodus 20:13:You shall not murder.

Here

Hebrew word: Ratsach:

to murder, slay, kill

(Qal) to murder, slay
premeditated
accidental
as avenger
slayer (intentional) (participle)
(Niphal) to be slain
(Piel)
to murder, assassinate
murderer, assassin (participle)(subst)
(Pual) to be killed

Here

Greek: Phonueo

to kill, slay, murder
to commit murder

Here

Now, this is Moses asking for mercy on the grumbling Israelites, prefering that God kill him with his people if God was going to get rid of them.

Numbers 11:15 "So if You are going to deal thus with me, please kill me at once, if I have found favor in Your sight, and do not let me see my wretchedness."

Here

Hebrew word: Harag:

to kill, slay, murder, destroy, murderer, slayer, out of hand

(Qal)
to kill, slay
to destroy, ruin
(Niphal) to be killed
(Pual) to be killed, be slain

Here

Greek word: Apokteino

to kill in any way whatever
to destroy, to allow to perish
metaph. to extinguish, abolish
to inflict mortal death
to deprive of spiritual life and procure eternal misery in hell

Here

The reason that both are included is because while the Hebrew is still vague on the difference between Murder and Abolishing, the Septuagint is not. (For reference, the Septuagint was a translation written by people who spoke both fluent ancient Hebrew and Greek, and our English translations directly from the Hebrew are those actual definitions up there, much further removed, and not from Ancient Hebrew "native speakers". Even without translation, just looking at the Hebrew word in each passage, and the Greek word in each passage points to them being to different words.

When two different words are used, usually two different meanings are in use. If the same physical action is being expressed, then likely the use of two different words has to do with intent. Most people who use the words Murder and Kill will use them interchangeably, but that does not mean the words mean the same thing--not even in going back to the Biblical. So, your stance only works on the surface, but no further.

reply to post by elevatedone


Yes we should abolish the death penalty, except in the case of bankers and politicians. Which would amount to total abolishment because these groups are never held accountable in any way, even though they damage the most people's lives with their crimes.

I support the death penalty when substantial evidence proves without a reasonable doubt that the person being sentenced committed the crime for which he will be executed, and when such crime is of the nature that it was malicious and it took the life of an innocent person or caused such harm to come to the victim as to ruin the victim's life forever. The reason that I support such a penalty is that if a person is capable of maliciously destroying the life of another once, that person is capable of doing the same thing again. Therefor, in ending that person's life through capital punishment (death sentence), the threat that the individual poses to society is permanently removed so that others may be able to live.

I think it's staggering that in this day and age people from the most technically advanced nation in the world attempt to use religious scripture and dogma to justify state sanctioned murder.
Only in America!
Oh no, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan etc too.
Great company you guys keep.

The death penalty should be front and center....every state....every prison....everywhere....

we should put to death all inmates with life sentences....no more appeals...fry them all......

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
America is supposedly founded on a lot of things. It's mostly BS.

1. You can be "Founded" on certain principles, yet still be oblivious to the inevitable end-concepts. This is why the Constitution allowed for slavery, but was for protecting people's freedom. It takes generations of looking at the these things that do not equate to fix them.
2. You can also be "Founded" but lose your way.

Arguments over what we are founded on a lot of times just ignores the reality of today.

For example: testimony gleaned from witnesses under hypnosis is inadmissible in most jurisdictions, but testimony given after placing one's hand on a Bible and "swearing to tell the truth" is the norm.

People who MUST swear on anything instead of letting their yes mean yes and their no mean no don't have the faculty to tell the truth. Considering that this issue is Biblically addressed, many Christians who take the stand have a hard time or plain won't swear on the book.

Originally posted by eyesdown
I find the death penalty to be absoluletly sick. How can you take away someone's life whilst protesting that taking life is murder.

How can you use the word "whilst" and still be living in the 21st century? I know, too lighthearted for the subject, but there's all sorts of things out there that other people conclude that make no sense to everyone else. That's life.

Originally posted by Snoopy1978Read and get it through your Neanderthal skulls, a civilized society cannot punish a criminal by committing the same crime.

*sigh* "Read and get it through your Neanderthal skull, a civilized society IS NOT punishing a criminal by committing the same crime." It is putting a stop to the criminal's ability to commit the same crime. As long as we INSIST upon making it about punishment, there's room for argument, as well as room for finding more appropriate ways to "punish"--and that is where we failed. And please don't get upset at me using your own words on you. If you didn't like them, you shouldn't have used them.

Originally posted by Painterz
I've always thought people in favour of the death penalty possess a remarkable amount of trust in the police and in the machinery of justice.

Not always the case, but the thought has merit.

Originally posted by loam
Bring back banishment
There are plenty of suitable locations.

Antartica?

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
We all detest murder, but the state condones killing, do you see the contradiction? try leading by example rather than fueling the crime.

No, I don't see a contradiction. Those are two different words with two long and rigorously defined definitions. They have correlations, but they perform different functions.

Originally posted by eyesdown Prison is supposed to be rehabilitation.

This is where we fail in our reasoning. Prison is supposed to be SECURITY for the rest of the population. One way to provide security for everyone else is through possible rehabilitation, but security is the primary concern.

Originally posted by p51mustang
if corporations are people why dont they get the death penalty?

They should. Abolish the company, and render it's assets. Convict those who have a say in the company with the same penalties you give the company.

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by theruthlessone
but in the words of rick perry

"i have never lost sleep"

And therein lies the death of everything that makes us human and civilised.

There's a name for people like him, and those who agree - psychopaths.

*snort* Even in the things in life that I MAKE an effort to make a difference with, I'm not going to lose sleep over. Losing sleep ensures you don't have the wits needed to deal with the crusades you enact upon. Even when it totally breaks my heart, I shouldn't lose sleep.

Originally posted by Freeborn
I think it's staggering that in this day and age people from the most technically advanced nation in the world attempt to use religious scripture and dogma to justify state sanctioned murder.

Speaking at the 1 person who posted any scripture, this wasn't about justifying state sanctioned murder, but about addressing an assumption from someone else that the 10 commandments says: "Do not Kill". this was completely about the illogical use of semantics, so if you want to have that reaction, please, go ahead. People keep on insisting that these words mean EXACTLY the same thing, and they don't. Therefore I'm going to tell them that they're not reasoning soundly--irrelevant of whether or not it is right or wrong to have a government-sanctioned killing.

What was solved by killing Troy Davis? Nothing. Did it bring back the man he "supposedly" killed? No. So what benefit did society receive? Nothing...., oh wait and eye for an eye. As the song goes" and eye for an eye makes the world go blind".

Now, as far as my own opinion?

Is A Death Penalty right? Absolutely. There are times to kill.

Is OUR Death Penalty right? Sometimes.

Is OUR Death Penalty's only partial ability to be right worth abolishing the Death Penalty altogether? Maybe.

What wold it take to get me to Abolish OUR Death Penalty?
1.The poor man who was put to death yesterday, from the evidence that I can see. I'd like to review the whole trial before I make a decision, but the surface of this convoluted mess screams for this to NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN.
2. I'm a Christian. I'm required to draw lines in the sand that I DON'T AGREE WITH:

Ro 14:21 It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles.

The actual context for stumble, there is about what I see as being right, or specifically a freedom, and my brother sees it as evil, as in if they join me in what I am doing, they will believe that they are going against God, and therefore in rebellion--their rebellion is on my head. No matter how well I reason, there will be Christians out there who think that the Death Penalty is a sin against God, and that I'm forcing them to partake in the bloodshed. I can reason with them all I want, but in the end, I've got to back them. I'm not to be their cause for walking away from God. Do y'all have any idea how many people are going to abandon whole belief systems over that man's death? It is not worth this. (Now, this does have some limitations, y'all. If my brother's Rebellion leads to accusing me of being the cause for them walking away, the blood is not on me.)

So, I can like/call for death penalties all I like, but not want one at all. How about that?

reply to post by CynicalDrivel


This is not the only thread on the subject, your post is not the only one alluding to religious scripture and dogma; unfortunately it is an all too common reasoning.

reply to post by elevatedone


The US should abolish the death penalty if they want to continue speaking out loud about the Human Rights abuses that take place in other countries like China and North Korea.

Until they abolish it they can have NO say on international Human Rights and ssould not be considered a place that Human Rights are observed.

I have never believed in the "judged by your peers" BS we have been fed all these years. For one. No criminal is allowed to serve on a jury so - how can these members of the jury be PEERS? Especially how in the US innocent till guilty is no longer the way. They may preach that line but its not the reality. Look at the Casey Anthony case, she was pre judged by everyone, look at Strauss Kahn paraded around like a sex pervert before even being placed in court.

No the Death penalty is wrong as many decisions have been found out to be wrong a little too late. Dead is for ever.

Originally posted by Underworlds
I support the death penalty when substantial evidence proves without a reasonable doubt that the person being sentenced committed the crime for which he will be executed, and when such crime is of the nature that it was malicious and it took the life of an innocent person or caused such harm to come to the victim as to ruin the victim's life forever. The reason that I support such a penalty is that if a person is capable of maliciously destroying the life of another once, that person is capable of doing the same thing again. Therefor, in ending that person's life through capital punishment (death sentence), the threat that the individual poses to society is permanently removed so that others may be able to live.

If you whole reason for supporting the death penalty is because of possible reoffending then that can be solved by Permanent Imprisonment for actual Life.

It quite simple. You put someone away and NEVER let them out.

We dont know what is round the corner, there may be a scientific breakthrough that can deal with people who commit offenses and guarantee they never do that again.

Maybe one day we will inhabit another planet that can be used as a prison planet for the worst offenders instead of Death. Who know but we can solve your problem easily. Without more KILLING

Originally posted by Freeborn
This is not the only thread on the subject, your post is not the only one alluding to religious scripture and dogma; unfortunately it is an all too common reasoning.

Well, I should have posted it as the only one who is using scripture in this thread, that is my bad.

Originally posted by Six6Six
reply to post by elevatedone

 

The US should abolish the death penalty if they want to continue speaking out loud about the Human Rights abuses that take place in other countries like China and North Korea.

Until they abolish it they can have NO say on international Human Rights and ssould not be considered a place that Human Rights are observed.

I have never believed in the "judged by your peers" BS we have been fed all these years. For one. No criminal is allowed to serve on a jury so - how can these members of the jury be PEERS? Especially how in the US innocent till guilty is no longer the way. They may preach that line but its not the reality. Look at the Casey Anthony case, she was pre judged by everyone, look at Strauss Kahn paraded around like a sex pervert before even being placed in court.

No the Death penalty is wrong as many decisions have been found out to be wrong a little too late. Dead is for ever.

But we do this ALL THE TIME on every subject. Think: those who are pro-abortion are generally the ones who scream the hardest about the death penalty not being right. "But it's not the same?!?!?!" Orly. It is very few and far between to find people who genuinely are against ALL killing.

Originally posted by Six6Six
If you whole reason for supporting the death penalty is because of possible reoffending then that can be solved by Permanent Imprisonment for actual Life.

It quite simple. You put someone away and NEVER let them out.

The problem is that with NEVER letting them out, is that those who crusade against the ending of the Death Penalty would crusade against locking them up forever and ever. Why do you think we have 25-life sentences? People with life sentences getting the chance of parole after 25 years in the slammer is not a guarantee.

reply to post by CynicalDrivel


Do as you see fit.

Would just like to say that I am enjoying your contributions to what is a refreshingly civil discussion on a very emotive subject.

If I was ever to play Devils Advocate and attempt to support capital punishment then resorting to quoting scripture etc would have to be the last act of desperation.