Capital punishment?

[mokona]

Capital Punishment, A punishment, or a crime itself?

For example, In 1984, a man named Gene Hathorn Jr. took a friend named James Lee Beathard to visit the Hathorn family. Hathorn's father, mother and brother ended up dead of shotgun blasts.
Hathorn and Beathard battled it out at a courtroom, pointing the fingers at each other, untill finally, Beathard was convicted for the triple homicide, and was sentanced to death.
However, There was no physical evidence that connected him to the crime scene, or the crime itself. He had been put to jail and sentanced to death based on Hathorn's testiment.

Later, it was found that Hathorn was guilty of the crime, and then he himself was sentanced to death.

Beathard, an innocent man, had been put to death because of Capital Punishment, and would still be alive to this day had it not been for his early and unnecisary conviction, and capital punishment itself.

So guys, what do you think about capital punishment? Are you For it or against it?

Im against it, just because
1. i think that people would suffer more being in jail.
2. its possible that the person convicted was innocent, and he could eventually, when evidence was found that supported that he wasnt connected, or didnt do the crime, leave jail, instead of being put to death for crimes he did not commit.

So, What do you think?

[NortheastCynic]

I'm against it except in cases of foreign terrorists for several reasons:

1. The state has no moral authority in killing its own citizens, it did not grant life and therefore cannot morally end it [with the exception of self-defense, i.e. police shootings]. Life is an inalienable right, period.

2. It is a fact that the state has killed innocent Americans, this is intolerable in a free society.

3. Rarely do victims' families feel better after seeing their relative's killer put to death, which connects to #4.

4. Making the victim's families feel better is not justice, it's revenge.

-NC

[Disenfranchised]

I'm against it because it is barbaric and archeic. It is not affective at cutting the murder rate. It is not applied consistantly, but arbitrarily. It costs more than incarceration for life. It may be applied to someone who is inocent. We are the last "civilized" nation to use it. It is just immoral to kill someone except in defense of yourself or another or in an effort to prevent a serious crime from being commited. Executing someone doesn't deter anyone form commiting any crime, expecially one of,or in the heat of, passion. There just isn't any justification for the death penalty. Ever!

[Nitrus]

Im for it, but in moderation. Take this example, you are using it to represent the ENTIRE death penalty system, its just one of a small percentage of others like it, it neither proves the system works, nor that it fails.

You cant possibly base your opinion on this one case.

I am for the kind of capital punishment that is needed but not in the death sense, for example, im the kind of person, who if i see the police brutalize a drug dealer, i couldnt care less, there are some people in this world who need a good hiding.

However, I think the justice system in both our countries needs to be seriously assessed on its effectiveness, to prevent cases like these from happening.

[Buck Laser]

No one has ever provided any statistical evidence that capital punishment provides ANY deterrent to murder or other capital crimes. The only thing capital punishment seems to do is satisfy some people's barbaric desire for revenge. The US is the last "first world" nation in the world to still use capital punishment.

Back when I was doing an internship in graduate school, I got acquainted with a Texas prison chaplain who introduced me to the Texas Society to Abolish Capital Punishment. It didn't take me long talking to him or visiting the prison to become firmly committed to the abolistion of capital punishment.

John Silber, the longtime president of Boston University, wrote a seminal essay back in the late fifties that pretty well demolished any attempt to justify the death penalty. I've now lost the paper, and would love to get hold of it again. It's a comprehensive essay, and the arguments are precise and as cogent today as they were forty years ago.

One of the things that makes me ashamed to be a Texan is the George Bush authorized the execution of more people in America than anyone living today. We were on the way to doing away with it until he came into office.

[BoogyMan]

I am for it in that the punishment should fit the crime. Why should a murderer get a second chance at a life when his innocent victim does not?

[Buck Laser]

I am for it in that the punishment should fit the crime. Why should a murderer get a second chance at a life when his innocent victim does not?

So you believe an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth?

It seems to me that you've been an advocate of religion on this forum, and I thought Jesus told us to move away from that kind of retributive justice. I think the Roman Catholic Church has.

[BoogyMan]

I am for it in that the punishment should fit the crime.Â*Â*Why should a murderer get a second chance at a life when his innocent victim does not?

So you believe an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth?

It seems to me that you've been an advocate of religion on this forum, and I thought Jesus told us to move away from that kind of retributive justice.Â*Â*I think the Roman Catholic Church has.


Egads Buck, where does the Bible ever tell us that there should be no consequences for our actions? It doesn't. Book, chapter, and verse?

I don't know why you are bringing catholicism into the discussion as I have never claimed catholicism.

[Buck Laser]

Egads Buck, where does the Bible ever tell us that there should be no consequences for our actions? It doesn't. Book, chapter, and verse?

I don't know why you are bringing catholicism into the discussion as I have never claimed catholicism.

It's amazing that you can move from opposition to capital punishment to claiming that there are no consequences for our actions. How do you do that?

As to book, chapter and verse, try Matthew 5:28 ff. "You have heard it said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth But I say unto you do not resist one who is evil." It does go on from there.

I mentioned the Roman Catholic Church because the Pope has had the courage to take an official stand. Most other Christian denominations have taken similar stands, but none of them with quite the unified voice the RC church has. By the way, I'm not a Catholic, either.

[underdawg]

I am against capial punishment for a few reasons.

1. There is always the possibility that the person on death row could actually be innocent. Sometimes innocent people can not defend themselves in court as well as a rich person.

2. I don't think people should not be killed because out of revenge. I think the eye for an eye thing is barbaric. I think that killing the guilty makes you just as guilty of murder as the murderers themselves.

3. I think some people can change. Just as Christians believe that even the most hardened criminal can be absolved of sin, I think that bad people can learn to be good.

[BoogyMan]

It's amazing that you can move from opposition to capital punishment to claiming that there are no consequences for our actions.Â*Â*How do you do that?

As to book, chapter and verse, try Matthew 5:28 ff.Â*Â*"You have heard it said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a toothÂ*Â*But I say unto you do not resist one who is evil."Â*Â*It does go on from there.

I mentioned the Roman Catholic Church because the Pope has had the courage to take an official stand.Â*Â*Most other Christian denominations have taken similar stands, but none of them with quite the unified voice the RC church has.Â*Â*By the way, I'm not a Catholic, either.


Buck, go back and read what I wrote. I asked you to show me where it said in the bible that there should be no consequences for our actions. I don't have a clue how you got that I said the opposite.

I am fully for the the reap what you sow, eye for an eye teaching.

[Buck Laser]

It's amazing that you can move from opposition to capital punishment to claiming that there are no consequences for our actions. How do you do that?

As to book, chapter and verse, try Matthew 5:28 ff. "You have heard it said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth But I say unto you do not resist one who is evil." It does go on from there.

I mentioned the Roman Catholic Church because the Pope has had the courage to take an official stand. Most other Christian denominations have taken similar stands, but none of them with quite the unified voice the RC church has. By the way, I'm not a Catholic, either.


Buck, go back and read what I wrote. I asked you to show me where it said in the bible that there should be no consequences for our actions. I don't have a clue how you got that I said the opposite.

I am fully for the the reap what you sow, eye for an eye teaching.


Please note that I asked you where you think I assumed that actions do not have consequences. Nothing that I wrote ever suggested that. I read exactly what you wrote and I excoriated you for making such a ridiculous leap. Why did you do that? Are you trying to push some cockamamie "liberals are soft on crime" agenda?
As I see it, you're trying to change the grounds so you can claim a spurious victory, and I find that deeply dishonest.

[NortheastCynic]

Im for it, but in moderation. Take this example, you are using it to represent the ENTIRE death penalty system, its just one of a small percentage of others like it, it neither proves the system works, nor that it fails.

You cant possibly base your opinion on this one case.
I'm not claiming that it doesn't work [not that it's a fact that it does], I'm saying that being able to kill terrible people not worthy of life is not worth the killing of innocent people.Â*Â*In other words, the "positive" of killing a murderer does not outweigh the negative of killing an innocent human being.

As for your comment about brutalizing a drug dealer. That is sad that you are so uncaring about a person's rights. I don't care who someone is, they have fundamental rights, and denying someone their's because of a crime they haven't been convicted of is an unConstitutional and immoral action, period.

I am for it in that the punishment should fit the crime.Â*Â*Why should a murderer get a second chance at a life when his innocent victim does not? Sounds great in theory, unfortunately innocent lives are taken in the process.Â*Â*Your statement, Boogyman is a terrible oversimplification of the death penalty.

-NC

[Buck Laser]

Letting "the punishment fit the crime" is a term taken from a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta of the late nineteenth century. The Emperor of Japan sings a delightful ditty about it. But Boogy wants to make it jurisprudence.

I am VERY disappointed in his approach to the matter, in that he accused me of saying that acts should not have consequences, when what I actually said was that I oppose the death penalty in all cases. I think he's being fundamentally dishonest in this matter.

[wonder cow]

On the one hand, there are people who need a good killing.

The question is, do we trust the government with this?

It's a tough question.

[BoogyMan]

Please note that I asked you where you think I assumed that actions do not have consequences. Nothing that I wrote ever suggested that.Â*Â*I read exactly what you wrote and I excoriated you for making such a ridiculous leap.Â*Â*Why did you do that?Â*Â*Are you trying to push some cockamamie "liberals are soft on crime" agenda?

As I see it, you're trying to change the grounds so you can claim a spurious victory, and I find that deeply dishonest.


Wow Buck, the leaps of "logic" that you are making here are truly amazing.Â*Â*

You said:

So you believe an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth?

It seems to me that you've been an advocate of religion on this forum, and I thought Jesus told us to move away from that kind of retributive justice.Â*Â*I think the Roman Catholic Church has.

My whole thread of commentary after that point has been framed by that commentary as you seemed to intimate that there is some kind of problem with an eye for an eye.

The "liberals are soft on crime" garbage is your own addition to the commentary that was never part of what I was responding to and is your own addition to the discussion.

As I see it you are making things up.

[BoogyMan]

Sounds great in theory, unfortunately innocent lives are taken in the process.Â*Â*Your statement, Boogyman is a terrible oversimplification of the death penalty.

Where does the complexity of paying for your actions come in NC?

[Waffletush]

1. There is always the possibility that the person on death row could actually be innocent. Sometimes innocent people can not defend themselves in court as well as a rich person.

Not attacking you personally here underdawg, but I always saw this absolutist argument as pretty weak. The only way we can avoid making mistakes is to have the whole country sit at home all day and do nothing. Should we ban driving on the off chance a car wreck may kill somone? Should we ban life in prison too on the assumption a person may die in prison, yet years after is found to be innocent? In every thing we do, there is a chance we can make a mistake. No justice system is 100% perfect. That is why someone sentenced to death gets one automatic appeal.

[Buck Laser]

Sounds great in theory, unfortunately innocent lives are taken in the process. Your statement, Boogyman is a terrible oversimplification of the death penalty.

Where does the complexity of paying for your actions come in NC?


Here again Boogy, you jump from opposition to the death penalty to the necessity of "paying for your actions." For those of us who are opposed to the death penalty on moral grounds, "paying for your actions" is still important. It just doesn't extend to taking another life. You can't seem to lift your sights beyond retribution. I find that sad and discouraging.

[BoogyMan]

Sounds great in theory, unfortunately innocent lives are taken in the process.Â*Â*Your statement, Boogyman is a terrible oversimplification of the death penalty.

Where does the complexity of paying for your actions come in NC?


Here again Boogy, you jump from opposition to the death penalty to the necessity of "paying for your actions."Â*Â*For those of us who are opposed to the death penalty on moral grounds, "paying for your actions" is still important.Â*Â*It just doesn't extend to taking another life.Â*Â*You can't seem to lift your sights beyond retribution.Â*Â*I find that sad and discouraging.


You find it sad to expect a murderer to pay the same price he exacted from someone who was actually innocent?

[Buck Laser]

You find it sad to expect a murderer to pay the same price he exacted from someone who was actually innocent?


No, I don't think it's sad. It's wrong is what it is. It's your attitude about retribution that's sad.

[BoogyMan]

Letting "the punishment fit the crime" is a term taken from a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta of the late nineteenth century.Â*Â*The Emperor of Japan sings a delightful ditty about it.Â*Â*But Boogy wants to make it jurisprudence.

I am VERY disappointed in his approach to the matter, in that he accused me of saying that acts should not have consequences, when what I actually said was that I oppose the death penalty in all cases.Â*Â*I think he's being fundamentally dishonest in this matter.


The way I see it the crime and the punishment MUST be tied together. I also have the right to consider your view to be based on a differing view of punishment. The fact that you choose to frame this as dishonest is your choice, its not the truth I assure you, but it is your choice.

[BoogyMan]

You find it sad to expect a murderer to pay the same price he exacted from someone who was actually innocent?


No, I don't think it's sad.Â*Â*It's wrong is what it is.Â*Â*It's your attitude about retribution that's sad.


Explain to me why it is wrong to expect the punishment to fit the crime.

[Buck Laser]

Explain to me why it is wrong to expect the punishment to fit the crime.


Because we can do better. Because the wrong people are convicted of crimes. Because the US already has a larger percentage of its population than any other nation in the world in prison. Because most nations long ago gave up capital punishment. Because capital punishment is barbaric.

And your reason to keep it? You WANT an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Just like the Arabs.

[BoogyMan]

Explain to me why it is wrong to expect the punishment to fit the crime.


Because we can do better.Â*Â*Because the wrong people are convicted of crimes.Â*Â*Because the US already has a larger percentage of its population than any other nation in the world in prison.Â*Â*Because most nations long ago gave up capital punishment.Â*Â*Because capital punishment is barbaric.

And your reason to keep it?Â*Â*You WANT an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.Â*Â*Just like the Arabs.


Tell me why equal punishment for crimes is a bad idea Buck? You have given a bunch of anecdotal commentary and I can respect that you find it barbaric, but I disagree with you.

[Buck Laser]

Tell me why equal punishment for crimes is a bad idea Buck? You have given a bunch of anecdotal commentary and I can respect that you find it barbaric, but I disagree with you.


It's not equal punishment I object to. It's capital punishment. A life sentence without possibility of parole is certainly adequate retribution. And if a supposed murderer is later found to be innocent, it's a whole lot easier to undo the sentence. Death sentences seem to be kind of permanent.

If you're a proponent of "equal" punishment, does that mean you believe a rape murderer should be raped and murdered in the same way? Do you call that civilized?

[BoogyMan]

It's not equal punishment I object to.Â*Â*It's capital punishment.Â*Â*A life sentence without possibility of parole is certainly adequate retribution.Â*Â*And if a supposed murderer is later found to be innocent, it's a whole lot easier to undo the sentence.Â*Â*Death sentences seem to be kind of permanent.

Would you be more amenable to a murderer, proven by DNA to be guilty, being sentenced to death?

If you're a proponent of "equal" punishment, does that mean you believe a rape murderer should be raped and murdered in the same way?Â*Â*Do you call that civilized?

We are talking about capital punishment Buck, so you will excuse me if I find this what-if a bit silly.

If the guy is a murderer he has a price to pay. An equal price.

[Buck Laser]

If the guy is a murderer he has a price to pay. An equal price.


You do know, don't you that the "Innocence Project" at Northwestern University found that about half the people on death row in IL turned out to be there on convictions that were overturned either because of their innocence or because of serious flaws in their prosecution? When the outgoing governor of IL moved the rest of the prisoners off death row pending further review of their convictions, a good many self-righteous people had a shit fit.

What I do not understand is why you, who's capable of using the bible to "proof-text" certain theological views, insists on an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. In my view, Jesus pretty much dismissed that kind of retributive justice, and most of the world is getting around to it now. Why do you want to be the last revenger standing? Does it prove you have big balls, or what?

[BoogyMan]

You do know, don't you that the "Innocence Project" at Northwestern University found that about half the people on death row in IL turned out to be there on convictions that were overturned either because of their innocence or because of serious flaws in their prosecution?Â*Â*When the outgoing governor of IL moved the rest of the prisoners off death row pending further review of their convictions, a good many self-righteous people had a shit fit.

Got a link for the study above? It sounds like an interesting read. Does it point out the % of those who were supposedly innocent vs those who had prosecution problems?

What IÂ*Â*do not understand is why you, who's capable of using the bible to "proof-text" certain theological views, insists on an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.Â*Â*In my view, Jesus pretty much dismissed that kind of retributive justice, and most of the world is getting around to it now.Â*Â*Why do you want to be the last revenger standing?Â*Â*Does it prove you have big balls, or what?


Christ talked about man not exacting revenge for sins against him, but also taught the we must render to Ceasar that which is Ceasar's. Our whole system of punishment would be of little value based on a single expansion of your operational theory above. The system calls for such punishment and I support it.

You didn't answer my other question Buck. Would you be more apt to support capital punishment where guilt can be proven without doubt by DNA evidence?

[Buck Laser]

Christ talked about man not exacting revenge for sins against him, but also taught the we must render to Ceasar that which is Ceasar's. Our whole system of punishment would be of little value based on a single expansion of your operational theory above. The system calls for such punishment and I support it.

You didn't answer my other question Buck. Would you be more apt to support capital punishment where guilt can be proven without doubt by DNA evidence?

Most states are moving away from capital punishment. China and the US are the notable exceptions.

And no, DNA proof of guilt would not make me favor capital punishment. How does that make it any less barbaric? I'm gonna have to find John Silber's essay on capital punishment, because I considered it definitive when I read it. I don't know if I can, though, because it was published in pre-internet days.

[BoogyMan]

Christ talked about man not exacting revenge for sins against him, but also taught the we must render to Ceasar that which is Ceasar's.Â*Â*Our whole system of punishment would be of little value based on a single expansion of your operational theory above.Â*Â*The system calls for such punishment and I support it.

You didn't answer my other question Buck.Â*Â*Would you be more apt to support capital punishment where guilt can be proven without doubt by DNA evidence?

Most states are moving away from capital punishment.Â*Â*China and the US are the notable exceptions.

And no, DNA proof of guilt would not make me favor capital punishment.Â*Â*How does that make it any less barbaric?Â*Â*I'm gonna have to find John Silber's essay on capital punishment, because I considered it definitive when I read it.Â*Â*I don't know if I can, though, because it was published in pre-internet days.


Send me a link if you can find the article, I am open to reading anything.

[Buck Laser]

I searched again after the last exchange. There are numerous references to Silber, and even to his work with the Texas Society to Abolish Capital Punishment, but no copies of the essay itself. Nevertheless, Wikipedia and Britannica have fairly comprehensive arguments against capital punishment, ranging from the theological to the utilitarian.

[BoogyMan]

I searched again after the last exchange.Â*Â*There are numerous references to Silber, and even to his work with the Texas Society to Abolish Capital Punishment, but no copies of the essay itself.Â*Â*Nevertheless, Wikipedia and Britannica have fairly comprehensive arguments against capital punishment, ranging from the theological to the utilitarian.


If you find the one that has held so much sway in your viewpoint I would truly like to read it.

[NortheastCynic]

Where does the complexity of paying for your actions come in NC?
This is a logical fallacy Boogyman, a strawman, and a transparent one at that.Â*Â*Where do I say that people who commit a crime should not pay for their crimes?Â*Â*I didn't.Â*Â*Jails do a fantastic job of making people pay for their crimes, without killing innocent people.

-NC

[BoogyMan]

Where does the complexity of paying for your actions come in NC?
This is a logical fallacy Boogyman, a strawman, and a transparent one at that.Â*Â*Where do I say that people who commit a crime should not pay for their crimes?Â*Â*I didn't.Â*Â*Jails do a fantastic job of making people pay for their crimes, without killing innocent people.

-NC


No NC, its a legitimate question based on your comment that my view was simplistic. If you don't want to discuss the point I am OK with that, but do not try to assume some kind of fallacy that is not there. You say my view is simplistic, I want to know why.

[NortheastCynic]

No NC, its a legitimate question based on your comment that my view was simplistic. If you don't want to discuss the point I am OK with that, but do not try to assume some kind of fallacy that is not there.C'mon Boogyman, if I didn't want to debate the point I wouldn't be here. I simply had a hard time figuring out that this: Where does the complexity of paying for your actions come in NC?
meant this: You say my view is simplistic, I want to know why.Kind of a stretch.

Anyway, to you're question. You were oversimplistic when you said this: I am for it in that the punishment should fit the crime. Why should a murderer get a second chance at a life when his innocent victim does not?When you hear this sentence, you think, "Yeah, that isn't right, murderers shouldn't get a shot a life when their victims don't!" But that's because you forget that murderers aren't the only ones executed; innocent people who were in the wrong place at the wrong timer do as well. That was my point.

-NC

[Waffletush]

If the guy is a murderer he has a price to pay.Â*Â*An equal price.


You do know, don't you that the "Innocence Project" at Northwestern University found that about half the people on death row in IL turned out to be there on convictions that were overturned either because of their innocence or because of serious flaws in their prosecution?Â*Â*When the outgoing governor of IL moved the rest of the prisoners off death row pending further review of their convictions, a good many self-righteous people had a shit fit.

Question for you Buck.Â*Â*Why don't we go ahead and retry OJ?Â*Â*You think he may be found guilty?Â*Â*

You are defending a stance of reverse double jeopardy.Â*Â*If you can acquit someone of murder based on evidence gained after the fact, why shouldn't society be allowed to convict someone of murder based on evidence gained after the fact?

If you want to deal in absolutes, then we should abandon incarcerating people all together. Why should we take a chance of locking anyone up who may be innocent? The answer to that is life is not 100% black and white. Mistakes can, and will happen. Unless you believe we should free everyone who is in jail on the off chance one may actually be innocent, you have to accept the fact a system (in this case the criminal justice system) can only do it's best by doing all it can to limit mistakes, but no system is 100% error free.

[Buck Laser]

Question for you Buck. Why don't we go ahead and retry OJ? You think he may be found guilty?

You are defending a stance of reverse double jeopardy. If you can acquit someone of murder based on evidence gained after the fact, why shouldn't society be allowed to convict someone of murder based on evidence gained after the fact?

If you want to deal in absolutes, then we should abandon incarcerating people all together. Why should we take a chance of locking anyone up who may be innocent? The answer to that is life is not 100% black and white. Mistakes can, and will happen. Unless you believe we should free everyone who is in jail on the off chance one may actually be innocent, you have to accept the fact a system (in this case the criminal justice system) can only do it's best by doing all it can to limit mistakes, but no system is 100% error free.

I didn't think it was possible for someone to misunderstand a point of view as completely as you've misunderstood mine. But then I've never encountered all the possible permutations of stupidity, either. Do you not understand what I mean when I say I'm opposed to the death penalty? I mean that I don't believe the state should kill people as a punishment for crime. Not O.J. Simpson. Not John Wayne Gacy. Not Saddam Hussein. Not even George W. Bush.

I never said anything about being for or against incarceration. That's a different issue entirely. But a later finding of innocence is easier to rectify when you haven't killed the person. Is there a part of that that you don't understand?

I understand the principle of double jeopardy. A person may not be tried twice for the same crime. Are you suggesting that we should go ahead and excecute OJ (and fuck the trial) because everyone knows he's guilty? I sure as hell hope not. May I suggest politely that you engage your thinking facilities before you let your fingers loose without supervision again?:D

[NortheastCynic]

If you want to deal in absolutes, then we should abandon incarcerating people all together.Â*Â*Why should we take a chance of locking anyone up who may be innocent?Â*Â*The answer to that is life is not 100% black and white.Â*Â*Mistakes can, and will happen.Â*Â*Unless you believe we should free everyone who is in jail on the off chance one may actually be innocent, you have to accept the fact a system (in this case the criminal justice system) can only do it's best by doing all it can to limit mistakes, but no system is 100% error free.Not to beat a dead horse, but this argument is nonsense.Â*Â*The reason that we incarcerate criminals is to punish them and to keep them out of civilized society.Â*Â*The reason we execute people is to punish them.Â*Â*You can punish someone without killing them.Â*Â*You cannot keep someone out of civilized society without incarcerating them.Â*Â*If you incarcerate someone falsely he or she is still alive, if you execute someone falsely they're dead.Â*Â*I don't support doing away with incarceration because there is a logical reason to do it and the good outweighs the bad.Â*Â*In other words, the good in being able to incarcerate actual criminals outweights the bad of incarcerating innocent people accidently.Â*Â*In terms of capital punishment the "good" in killing actual criminals does not outweigh the bad of killing innocent people.Â*Â*Hopefully that cleared things up.

-NC

[Waffletush]

I didn't think it was possible for someone to misunderstand a point of view as completely as you've misunderstood mine.Â*Â*But then I've never encountered all the possible permutations of stupidity, either.Â*Â*Do you not understand what I mean when I say I'm opposed to the death penalty?Â*Â*I mean that I don't believe the state should kill people as a punishment for crime.Â*Â*Not O.J. Simpson.Â*Â*Not John Wayne Gacy.Â*Â*Not Saddam Hussein.Â*Â*Not even George W. Bush.

I never said anything about being for or against incarceration.Â*Â*That's a different issue entirely.Â*Â*But a later finding of innocence is easier to rectify when you haven't killed the person.Â*Â*Is there a part of that that you don't understand?

Except in your haste you assumed I was FOR the death penalty.Â*Â*Are you not arguing that it is better to let 1000 guilty people go free than to execute one person who may be innocent?Â*Â*So then, why should we lock someone up?Â*Â*If they *may* be innocent, why take the chance and remove someone's freedoms when they *may* have done nothing wrong? It is a direct parallel to not executing someone becasue they *may* be innocent.

I understand the principle of double jeopardy.Â*Â*A person may not be tried twice for the same crime.Â*Â*Are you suggesting that we should go ahead and excecute OJ (and fuck the trial) because everyone knows he's guilty?Â*Â*I sure as hell hope not.Â*Â*May I suggest politely that you engage your thinking facilities before you let your fingers loose without supervision again?:D

No. Go re-read what I wrote.Â*Â*I am suggesting that if we are allowed to exonerate (sp) someone because we later find evidence of innocence, why can we not do the same for someone when we find evidence of guilt?Â*Â*Why should double jeopardy work only one way?

[Buck Laser]

I think you misunderstood me first, Waffletush. My opposition to the death penalty is NOT based on the possibility of executing an innocent person. I am opposed to the death penalty in ALL cases. So I don't see the possiblity that someone found innocent in court, but later proven to be guilty has any bearing whatsoever on my opposition to the death penalty.

But just for the record, I'm an agnostic with regard to OJ. Whether he did it or not certainly has no bearing on my position with regard to the death penalty. I merely cited the possiblity of executing someone who's innocent as ONE of the many reasons I oppose the death penalty. The fundamental wrongness of the state's taking a life as punishment is my starting point.

[Waffletush]

Not to beat a dead horse, but this argument is nonsense.Â*Â*The reason that we incarcerate criminals is to punish them and to keep them out of civilized society.Â*Â*The reason we execute people is to punish them.Â*Â*You can punish someone without killing them.Â*Â*You cannot keep someone out of civilized society without incarcerating them.Â*Â*If you incarcerate someone falsely he or she is still alive, if you execute someone falsely they're dead.Â*Â*I don't support doing away with incarceration because there is a logical reason to do it and the good outweighs the bad.Â*Â*In other words, the good in being able to incarcerate actual criminals outweights the bad of incarcerating innocent people accidently.Â*Â*In terms of capital punishment the "good" in killing actual criminals does not outweigh the bad of killing innocent people.Â*Â*Hopefully that cleared things up.

-NC


But there in lies the rub. If you sentence someone to life in prison, and they die in prison, what do you do later if you find evience of their innocence? Do away with life-in-prison sentences?

The argument that is nonsense is trying to deal with the CJ system as if it were an absolute. If you are going to do that, when you ban one form of punishment becasue someone may be innocent, you have to ban them all. And that is nonsense.

[Waffletush]

I think you misunderstood me first, Waffletush.Â*Â*My opposition to the death penalty is NOT based on the possibility of executing an innocent person.Â*Â*I am opposed to the death penalty in ALL cases.Â*Â*So I don't see the possiblity that someone found innocent in court, but later proven to be guilty has any bearing whatsoever on my opposition to the death penalty.

Trust me on this, we are closer to agreement on the death penalty that you realize.

But just for the record, I'm an agnostic with regard to OJ.Â*Â*Whether he did it or not certainly has no bearing on my position with regard to the death penalty.Â*Â*I merely cited the possiblity of executing someone who's innocent as ONE of theÂ*Â*many reasons I oppose the death penalty.Â*Â*The fundamental wrongness of the state's taking a life as punishment is my starting point.


And I was prodding you on that ONE stance; giving you an example of why that ONE stance can be seen as rubbish. Nothing more, nothing less.

[underdawg]

I think the only moral justifiable reason to kill any person is in self defense. I also feel that self defense is dependent on time. By this I mean that you can only kill someone during the act of defending yourself against someone trying to kill you. After the other person has walked away and the attack is over, I think the attacker should be banished to jail or prison, but not killed. I don't ever think that revenge is a just reason to kill someone.

I also feel that is same principal should also apply to countries. Killing should only be justified after an attack and limited on time.

I know this is a bit off topic, but I think that the same definition of killing applies to abortion as well. The link between mother and child should be a mutual agreement. If a mother does not want the child, the she should have the right to not have her body connected to that of another. It can also be called an act of self defense if the mother feels that the baby is a threat to her for whatever reason. I do think that a baby should be given the chance to live if someone offers to try to keep the baby alive, if that is possible. Only the link between mother and child should be separated and the baby, fetus or whatever should be extracted and left to die on its own or be rescued only if someone should come foreward and attempt to save it.

[NortheastCynic]

The argument that is nonsense is trying to deal with the CJ system as if it were an absolute. If you are going to do that, when you ban one form of punishment becasue someone may be innocent, you have to ban them all. And that is nonsense.I've addressed that already. We have to incarcerate to keep criminals out of society and to punish them, we do not have to kill them, that is the major difference between the two. As I said the good in incarcerating criminals outweights the bad of incarcerating innocent people. The same cannot be said for the death penalty. Just out of curiosity, do you support the death penalty?

But there in lies the rub. If you sentence someone to life in prison, and they die in prison, what do you do later if you find evience of their innocence? Do away with life-in-prison sentences?You can't do anything about it, but as I said, the good outweighs the bad. When talking about the death penalty, the bad outweighs the good.

-NC

[Buck Laser]

Not to beat a dead horse, but this argument is nonsense. The reason that we incarcerate criminals is to punish them and to keep them out of civilized society. The reason we execute people is to punish them. You can punish someone without killing them. You cannot keep someone out of civilized society without incarcerating them. If you incarcerate someone falsely he or she is still alive, if you execute someone falsely they're dead. I don't support doing away with incarceration because there is a logical reason to do it and the good outweighs the bad. In other words, the good in being able to incarcerate actual criminals outweights the bad of incarcerating innocent people accidently. In terms of capital punishment the "good" in killing actual criminals does not outweigh the bad of killing innocent people. Hopefully that cleared things up.

-NC


But there in lies the rub. If you sentence someone to life in prison, and they die in prison, what do you do later if you find evience of their innocence? Do away with life-in-prison sentences?

The argument that is nonsense is trying to deal with the CJ system as if it were an absolute. If you are going to do that, when you ban one form of punishment becasue someone may be innocent, you have to ban them all. And that is nonsense.


Oh, come on, Waffle! You keep setting up straw men. I've been an active opponent of the death penalty since 1962 or so, when I joined the Texas Society to Abolish the Death Penalty, and I've continued my opposition since then.

You're pulling things out of your ass when you say that conceptual action doesn't work--the Supreme Court ruled in 1972 that state's death penalty statutes as written constituted cruel and unusual punishment. How general is that? I think that constitutes pretty good evidence that one can deal effectively with the criminal justice system in toto. But that's not the only place one opposes it.

Your example of a prisoner who dies while in prison and is later found innocent taxes the imagination, too. OF COURSE things like that could happen!! Is that supposed to make my position look dumb? What you seem not to understand is that I recognize a difference between principles and practice: I am and have always been pragmatic in my approach to most of the issues of life. But practice doesn't preclue principles.

[Waffletush]

Oh, come on, Waffle!Â*Â*You keep setting up straw men.Â*

No, I have give a parallel example of why aboloshing the death penalty on the grounds of an innocent person may be executed is weak.

I've been an active opponent of the death penalty since 1962 or so, when I joined the Texas Society to Abolish the Death Penalty, and I've continued my opposition since then.

OK, so?

You're pulling things out of your ass when you say that conceptual action doesn't work--the Supreme Court ruled in 1972 that state's death penalty statutes as written constituted cruel and unusual punishment.Â*Â*How general is that?

See the phrase 'as written'?Â*Â*That's pretty general.Â*Â*However, I am sure you know this... (since we are a fan of bold) The Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that the death penalty is not a violation of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which bans cruel and unusual punishment. The ruling came in the wake of a 10-year moratorium on executions.

I think that constitutes pretty good evidence that one can deal effectively with the criminal justice system in toto.Â*Â*But that's not the only place one opposes it.

OK, I don't.Â*Â*You can't deal with one absurd absolute definition without considering them all.

Your example of a prisoner who dies while in prison and is later found innocent taxes the imagination, too.Â*Â*OF COURSE things like that could happen!! Is that supposed to make my position look dumb?Â*

No, your over-reacting to a question does.Â*Â*Some people believe life-terms are cruel and unusual punishment.Â*Â*Point being, if an innocent person could die in prison, why shouldn't we ban life terms?Â*Â*That is a valid question.

What you seem not to understand is that I recognize a difference between principles and practice:Â*Â*I am and have always been pragmatic in my approach to most of the issues of life.Â*Â*But practice doesn't preclue principles.

What you are missing here is I am not challegning your stance that you believe the death pentaly is wrong.Â*Â*You can say that, you can believe that all you want.Â*Â*However, to defend that stance, you have to give examples to back it up (lest you come across as a babbling no-nothing like others, but thank God you haven't yet).Â*Â*Then in debate, ususally people question your examples and show why they disagree or agree with them.

All things considered, let's deconstruct...

You believe the death penalty is bad.Â*Â*OK.Â*Â*

You gave an example of why:Â*Â*innocent people could be put to death; an irreversable course of action.Â*Â*OK.

I questioned your stance as very black and white, and gave an example of why I felt it was such.Â*Â*OK.

You disagree.Â*Â*OK.

What's the problem?

[Waffletush]

Just out of curiosity, do you support the death penalty?

I nearly missed this.Â*Â*Here is my stance.

The death penalty is worthless in that there has never been any proven example that it reduces crime.Â*Â*All it serves is society's need for retribution.

Hope that answers your question.

[Buck Laser]

I'm starting a new thread called Restorative Justice that should cast some light on new ideas coming up out of the criminal justice system Look for the new thread shortly.