Capital Punishment (virgin, tradition, contradiction, beliefs, choice)

[Pah]

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cp.htm

# In 2003, 65 persons in 11 and the Federal system, States were executed -- 24 in Texas; 14 in Oklahoma, 7 in North Carolina; 3 each in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Ohio; 2 each in Indiana, Missouri, and Virginia; and 1 each in Arkansas and the Federal system.

# Of persons executed in 2003:
-- 41 were white
-- 20 were black
-- 3 were Hispanic (all white)
-- 1 American Indian

# Of those executed in 2003:
-- 65 were men

# Lethal injection accounted for 64 of the executions; 1 was carried out by electrocution.

# Thirty-eight States and the Federal government in 2003 had capital statutes.

Let this quote open the debate on capital punishement. What do you feel about it?

I feel that all acts of revenge are childish.

I feel the state has the power to set punishments for crimes

In those two statements, is there a contradiction?

Bob

[painted wolf]

if you were to belive the pro-death propaganda then you would expect Texas to have the lowest crime rate. If death penalty truely deters people from crime. Last I heard they were still 8th in terms of highest crime rate and 13th in terms of violent crime.

I think that the death penalty is biased and misused in this country. Also the execution of a person with an IQ in the 60's is a travisty.

My state has the death penalty (hanging) but hasen't used it in more than 30 years. We would get rid of it but the lesislature has the 'you never know' attitude. The only thing that would really get you hanged here is possibly a major murder spree or treason. Thats if you couldn't talk them out of killing you. Personally I'm not shure anyone still knows how to tie the proper knots.

wa:do

[The Voice of Reason]

Bob, I love you, man. If anyone on this site can start a thread that will spark debate, and phrase it in such a way that discussion is inevitable, it is you.
Whether all acts of revenge are childish is open for debate, but the statement that the state has the power to set the punishment for crimes is a fact that is beyond question.

Painted Wolf - the argument against the death penalty (that it is not a deterrent) is a red herring (at least, it is to me). I say that because it is immaterial whether putting a serial killer to death convinces someone else in the folly of committing a similar crime (it would be nice if it did), but that the true point of it is to remove someone that has shown that they are incapable of interacting with other humans.
In my world, anyone that goes on a major killing spree (let's say that they killed five young women - or a family of four) has conceded their right to live. As for tying the knot, I can do it, would willingly do it, and would be proud to kick the chair out from under such an animal.

Painted - I know that you do not agree with me, and I fully understand that. I respect your opinion and I mean that sincerely. I just happen to feel that this world is a better place when it is devoid of people that willingly take the lives of others, whether it is for personal gain, sexual gratification, or any other reason.

Thanks,
TVOR

[Scott1]

The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."

[Scuba Pete]

My beliefs...

The state has the right to execute.

I have the right to abhor that right.

Only those who can imbue life should be allowed to take it.

Let anyone without sin be the first to cast a stone.

[Jaymes]

Meh. We don't rape the rapist... why should we kill the murderer?

[No*s]

I have mixed feelings on this subject.

The state has the power and the authority to do so. There are likely occasions when it's necessary. The state-administration of justice beats personal vengeance any day of the week. There are crimes that certainly would seem to deserve it, but...

Killing someone removes all possibility of repentance, and that's a serious thing, at least in a Christian worldview. How many people have repented after the fact? The tendency to murder is a disease, and the person needs to be healed.

No small number of people have been "exhonerated" post-humously by new techniques in investigation. I wouldn't want to be the man to fry an innocent person. That would be...disturbing at the very least. I wouldn't want to fry a guilty person either. Still more, I don't want to be the one to knock on the door of the inmates widow, children, or parents and say, "I'm sorry, Mr. & Mrs. Doe, but it is to my regret to inform you that your son John has been wrongfully executed. An advance in forensics has shown that he really wasn't at the seen of the crime as all the evidence states."

Add to this that I couldn't pull the lever. It's not even a matter of wouldn't. I couldn't. Heck, I feel guilty after I lose my temper and say a few choice words to people. There's no way that I could pull the lever.

That last part would make it completely hypocritical for me to say, "Yeah, I'm all for it." I won't say it's wrong, but I will say I have extremely strong reserves. To kill a man, take away the right of repentance, and to possibly do this to an innocent man, that's a tough one to bear. The state has its own power, and it can make its own choice, but I don't think I could ever do it.

Anybody can call me a weak man if they want. I just couldn't do it. Anybody on here that says they unconditionally support it, must be willing to convict or kill the person, so as to be involved, and *then* if he is proven innocent be willing to go to the family and tell them what happened and his part in it. It's just too much for me.

[The Voice of Reason]

Jensa - you are correct that we don't rape the rapist, but if I had my way, we'd at least neuter the rapist.

No*s - I would not look upon anyone that opposes the death penalty (for any reason) as being weak. If you do not believe it is right, I understand. I would not expect you to "pull the lever" on someone. I also don't see myself as "strong" because I am more than willing to do so. As for not having the chance to repent due to being executed, I'd have to point out that many a death row inmate has "come to Jesus" because of the very fact of his impending demise. Not that that is a stumbling block for me, as I am an Agnostic.

NetDoc - I certainly am not without sin, but I am without homicide. I'll take the chance that when I meet St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, he'll let it slide that I played a role in the execution of a valueless pig that preyed on society. I love most people that I meet, and try desperately to tolerate the rest, but I have nothing - absolutely nothing - for anyone that takes another humans life in the situation I described above. If we are talking about an accidental killing, that is a different story, but I am referring to people that wantonly kill - like Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Gary Gilmore, etc. To me, they have less value than the hogs that are processed at a slaughterhouse.

I realize that this makes me sound like a coldhearted, uncaring person, but I do believe very strongly in the idea of "an eye for an eye". If anything, this position makes me the weaker person, not someone on your side of the aisle.

Thanks,
TVOR

[Lintu]

This is an extremely long speech, but it helped me to decide for sure that I was against the death penalty:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...type=printable

The former governor of Illinois, George Ryan, did a very controversial thing in pardoning all of the inmates on death row before he left office. In that speech, he summarizes the reasons why he did this. It made a big impact on me.