Should The U.S. Abolish the Death Penalty ?

reply to post by CaDreamer


Are you purposely trying to derail this thread? If you agree that Christianity, nor Judaism or any other religion has anything to do with the efficacy of the death penalty, then why won't you shut up about religion?

first off no i agree with the thread and the OP, second i was replying to brilab45 with the Christian comment, when you sounded off without reading, i wasn't speaking to you. i only replied to you because you ignorantly refused to see that, you where not a part of that specific conversation within the thread...

the bible wholly condones the death penalty, i am against the death penalty, any attempt to put misguided christian mores within the debate and call it unchristian will be dealt with as once the ugly head of god is reared it must be addressed and put aside so the real debate can continue.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Further, suggesting that capital punishment is a service as necessary as medicine, building homes or other buildings, or teaching is remarkably short sighted. A populace with out any medical practices becomes a sick populace soon enough. A populace without any contractors to build edifices remains a homeless populace, and that populace without any teachers remains either ignorant, or free of indoctrination depending upon who is teaching and why. However, a populace without the death penalty does not in anyway threaten the social fabric in the same way that eliminating medicine, building, or teaching would.

Do you know how reluctant I was to agree with this? Not specifically the death penalty, but the system as a whole is supposed to keep those who will not play by the rules away from kids so they can safely be educated. It's supposed to keep doctors from needing to save as many lives. So the Death Penalty, as a part of the whole is necessary, but if the system can protect and defend without it, or even supersede a system with a death penalty in these goals, then why not do away with it? My thing is I'm not so sure it will work.

There is another poster in this thread who has been disingenuously asserting that it is inappropriate to call the death penalty murder because it is not "hidden". As if being open and notorious about the slaying changes it from a crime to a right.

Hidden or sanctioned. I'm not calling it that, like I defined it. I'm using the definition of the word from it's base meaning.

murder (n.) Look up murder at Dictionary.com O.E. morðor (pl. morþras) "secret killing of a person, unlawful killing," also "mortal sin, crime, punishment, torment, misery," from P.Gmc. *murthran (cf. Goth maurþr, O.Fris. morth, O.N. morð, M.Du. moort, Ger. Mord "murder"). from PIE *mrtro-, from base *mer- "to die" (cf. L. mors, gen. mortis "death;" mori "to die;" see mortal). The spelling with -d- probably reflects influence of Anglo-Fr. murdre, from O.Fr. mordre, from M.L. murdrum, from the W.Gmc. root. Viking custom, typical of Germanic, distinguished morð (O.N.) "secret slaughter," from vig (O.N.) "slaying." The former involved concealment, or slaying a man by night or when asleep, and was a heinous crime. The latter was not a disgrace, if the killer acknowledged his deed, but he was subject to vengeance or demand for compensation. Mordre wol out that se we day by day. [Chaucer, "Nun's Priest's Tale," c.1386] Weakened sense of "very unpleasant situation" is from 1878. The verb is O.E. myrðrian, from P.Gmc. *murthjan. Related: Murdered; murdering.

The hidden part is useless to me because you hide unsanctioned killing, so as to not be caught doing something that is considered unlawful, so it's more about not having a law back the kill up. My only fault in this is that I probably should have used "and" instead of "or". I see a comma, I see "or"--which would mean, possibly, that hidden is definition enough all on it's own, but I don't personally think that hidden can be used separate of unsanctioned, although unsanctioned doesn't have to be hidden as well, to be called murder. BU this has to do with the intent of hiding.

By the way, how is it lacking in candor or falsely giving the appearance of simple frankness when I'm only stating that murder means what it means? I was in no way indirect, insincere, or even remotely reserved in speech. If I was, I wouldn't so consistently point out that there is a difference between those two words, and back it up. Just because you disagree for various reasons ? And:

If this were so, the John Wilkes Booth would not have been pursued as a criminal who had assassinated Abraham Lincoln. Sirhan Sirhan would not be sitting in prison today for the open and notorious assassination of Robert Kennedy, and Jared Lee Loughner would not be in the mess he is today, if all it takes to excuse the murder is making it open and notorious.

This means nothing because while these were in the open, they still were not sanctioned.

No games of semantics, no matter how well argued the fallacy, no argument advocating unlawful behavior will stand muster when heard by the ears of the rational and critical thinker.

This and this, which was the entirety of my stance on the English difference between murder and killing. This was the Biblical one, that was meant to point out that Murder and Killing mean two different things, directly as a response to

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

Continued.

reply to post by CynicalDrivel

Continuation.

The question that was answered in the first one is "how can you legally justify the exact same thing being done". The problem is that when using the word EXACT, we need to be EXACT.
Oh, and, lol, This is the one that pulled up the Greek and Hebrew

But this was the one that was posted before your accusation that it seems like you missed:

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel 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.

Evidently somebody, somewhere, thinks my intent in this was to use it as the reasoning for why it is right or wrong to have the Death Penalty. My sole and entire problem with this is that killing and murder are not interchangeable. And now I spent this bloody time looking though my posts on this issue, and there's still a severe lack of me coming to the conclusion that the difference between killing and murder is why I believe in a Death Penalty.

The closest I came to this is:

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
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.

I did use the correct word in association with "death penalty", but I NEVER stated why I agree with a death penalty. Well, at least not here, or in reference to semantics...

I've been avoiding my reason(s) because I don't want to write more than I already am.

Besides, the reason I've not commented on your posts as much is because, for the vast majority of your reasoning, is because I actually agree with enough of it not to warrant a reply.

So: If people would plain state that "Killing a murderer though the Death Penalty" is wrong, I think I wouldn't have had a thing to say, even though I've come to a separate conclusion.

Great thread e1!


I think the U.S. should abolish the death penalty, because executing someone for what they did brings you down to their level. I think there needs to be a moral high ground that's established.


The animal side of me would call for vigilante style justice where the effected family members of the deceased would be free to "pursue" the convicted.....

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
Great thread e1!


I think the U.S. should abolish the death penalty, because executing someone for what they did brings you down to their level. I think there needs to be a moral high ground that's established.


The animal side of me would call for vigilante style justice where the effected family members of the deceased would be free to "pursue" the convicted.....

Clarify...

When you say the Us should abolish the death penalty, are you referring to all states or jsut the Federal government?

The Feds use the death penalty, and it varies from state to state if they do. 2 differentl levels. Not trying to call you out or anyhting, jsut want clarification.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I would say both. Although I believe in states rights, I think people have a right to live...

Anyone who kills someone else in an act of aggression is mentally unstable.

I dont think there should be death penalty in a civilised country, or any irreversible punishments. Not until there is a way to prove with 100% certainty that the person is guilty or innocent.

If you want deterrent, then I would maybe agree with physical punishments that do not leave the person permanently damaged (of course only for serious crimes). If you want to save taxpayers money, there can be forced labor for prisoners.
But the rule of thumb is there must always be a way to stop the punishment and compensate the convicted, if it is later proven he is innocent. Thats simply not possible with death penalty.