1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why I can't accept the death penalty.

Discussion in 'General Debates' started by Jonathan Bailey, May 25, 2019.

  1. Jonathan Bailey

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2019
    Messages:
    204
    Ratings:
    +53
    Religion:
    Considering getting back into the fold: coming home to Jesus in an Affirmed Church this time.
    1. grievous judicial errors: in America, about 15% of those convicted of capital crimes are not actually guilty....the notion of being wrongfully convicted of something like murder and sent to the chair helplessly is more frightening than thought of actually being murdered to me....a murder attempt is much more likely to fail than an execution attempt

    2. no real crime deterrent in spite of what pro-death-penalty politicians say....ironically, the first-degree murder rate is consistently higher in death penalty states than in non-death penalty states...many bad people who have no regard for innocent lives have no regard for their own lives as well.....they would rather risk the chair than endure a life sentence anyway

    3. expensive long automatic appeals processes....it's much cheaper to the taxpayers to put even the most heinous criminals behind bars for life without the possibility of parole than to sentence them to death and pay untold millions on appeals for each capital case on death row for sometimes decades


    The real ultimate deterrent to heinous and serious crimes is a well-armed citizenry, the right to keep and bear arms for self protection. Little or no gun restrictions. The police are seldom present to thwart those who threaten the lives of innocent people. So-called no-gun zones are powerful magnets to crazed or evil gunmen and mass murderers.

    Vermont has a long history of being a State with no death penalty (except for high treason) and the lowest violent crime rates per capita and was the first state to allow permitless (Constitution) concealed handgun carry. Very lax gun laws combined no death penalty for murder seem to have actually made this state the safest against crime which some people might find odd but the stats don't lie. It's better to use a gun lawfully to prevent a murder in the first place than try to avenge a murder later (and the innocent victim is dead already) with a death sentence which has a good possibility of arising from the wrongful conviction of an innocent. A trip of an armed citizen's trigger in time saves innocent lives from one to nine.
     
    #1 Jonathan Bailey, May 25, 2019
    Last edited: May 25, 2019
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Enoch07

    Enoch07 It's all a sick freaking joke.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Messages:
    7,321
    Ratings:
    +2,036
    Religion:
    Theistic Rationalist
    It's just my personal opinion. But if I'm in jail wrongly convicted of murder. Please give me the death penalty. I would much rather die, than be trapped in the hell that is prison. Worse yet to be stuck in there for 20 years until an appeal finally frees me. Then I'm institutionalized and ruined anyways, not able to return to society. Old, out of the loop for 20 years, not able to get a job, no money saved for retirement, just gonna wind up homeless and strung out on crack. No thanks please put me down.

    It's not meant to be a deterrent to others. It's meant to deter that specific individual from committing more murders.

    Yeah but you'd have to take away the appeals or you incur the same cost regardless. Taking away the appeals would be unconstitutional.

    I agree with you here. I conceal carry a .45 1911 loaded with R.I.P rounds everyday of my life. Thankfully I've never had to squeeze the trigger in defense. I have had to draw it once though when a guy attacked my vehicle. I calmly pulled it out and slid it on the dashboard up against the front windshield. His eyes got as big as basketballs, p00ped his pants, and ran. Luckily the damage he done buffed out and the only bad thing that happened to him was he had to throw away some underwear.;)
     
    #2 Enoch07, May 25, 2019
    Last edited: May 25, 2019
    • Like Like x 2
  3. joe1776

    joe1776 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2017
    Messages:
    2,511
    Ratings:
    +884
    Religion:
    None
    All knowledge begins in the senses. Since we can't see, hear, smell or taste the difference between right and wrong, we must feel it. Therefore, everything we know about morality was learned from conscience, moral intuition that emerges from the unconscious.

    Our criminal laws are products of our reasoning minds but they are based on conscience. Most laws conform to the guidance of conscience but some do not because they were created by biased reasoning minds. Such laws are immoral. The death penalty is one of those.

    Conscience allows us to kill when necessary in self-defense or when it's necessary to protect the lives of others. Conscience also warns us that we should use only the force needed to stop the attack. The death penalty exceeds the necessary force to stop the killer from attacking others. However, I think murderers should be allowed to choose death over lifelong incarceration.
     
    #3 joe1776, May 25, 2019
    Last edited: May 25, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  4. bobhikes

    bobhikes infinitologist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Messages:
    7,785
    Ratings:
    +1,806
    I am for the death penalty with some changes

    1) Person must be convicted of multiple murder's the Death penalty can not be used for just one murder. A serial killer or Family murderer would have to be tried on separate death's and found guilty before being put to death. This will reduce the judicial errors.
    2) We don't know how much of a crime deterrent it is because of long expensive appeals and lack of usage. It also doesn't need to be a deterrent but a preventative measure, removing a probable problem from the future. Serial killers and Family or Group killers are not going to become good civilians again and will be lock up until they die anyway.
    3)By requiring multiple murder convictions reduce the appeals process.

    A mistake may happen when taking a life and to throw away another's life for a mistake is wrong. When taking multiple lives, a wrong has been done and been done purposely, this requires a penalty that removes future threats to others and that is death.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    10,882
    Ratings:
    +3,646
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    Owning guns doesn't make anyone safer. In fact, it increases the likelihood that the owner or someone close to him/her will be shot by it. And the death penalty does not deter murder because most people commit murder in the heat of the moment and do not think about the consequences. These are basic facts that we humans have had available to us for many decades. And yet we still refuse to acknowledge them because we are humans, and as such we live in a reality of our own invention.

    I, personally, believe that we humans should execute a person if they have shown by their actions that they pose an ongoing threat to the lives of others. I do not believe we are obliged to force society to take on the risk of keeping such a person alive. This would include serial killers, terroristic killers, mass killers, killers who kill while imprisoned, and killers who killed at random. This does not include most murderers, though, as most murders are crimes of passion against as specific person for a specific reason. And so do not pose an ongoing threat to society if the killer is kept alive, and in restrained conditions. In fact, they can and often do become a positive influence on others, even in prison.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Jonathan Bailey

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2019
    Messages:
    204
    Ratings:
    +53
    Religion:
    Considering getting back into the fold: coming home to Jesus in an Affirmed Church this time.
    The mere possibility of putting an innocent person to death by judicial error is too much of a risk to society to have the death penalty on the books of the state. It's better to let ten guilty people free than put to death just one innocent. Putting a person behind bars is a safer bet. There is a possibility that new evidence could reverse the conviction if it were in error. Death makes things final and too late if an error was committed. Jurors can convict with prejudice: they might not like the sound of your accent if you have one.

    The risk of accidentally getting shot by owning a gun is far less than the risk of being unarmed and defenseless while being faced with the immediate threat of violence. Stupidity and lack of firearms training accounts for the vast majority of so-called gun accidents.

    The FACT that Vermont has had the lowest violent crime rate per capita of all American states since the hills were born and has allowed permitless concealed carry on the streets longer than any other state proves that gun restrictions place the innocent at greater risk of being victims of violent acts. Gun restrictions hinder justifiable self-defense much more than they supposedly "protect" society. Gun restrictions are an attempt by government rather to become tyrannical. Don't be fooled by anti-gun politicians that they are supposedly grabbing gun rights in the name of YOUR "safety".

    Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

    What is an infallible proof positive that a person has shown by his actions that he is an ongoing threat to society? If the convicted murderer in question is placed on an island in maximum security, how is he going to be a continuing threat? The taking of a human life is only justifiable for self-defense and the defense of others if a person poses an immediate threat to life or limb and in some cases liberty as in a kidnapping attempt. It is never justified for mere property crimes unless one is attempting to steal somebody's horse, car, boat, ship or other conveyance by threat or fear of deadly force and leave the victim stranded in the desert, sea, on an island or other remote place to die. Yes, it's OK to use deadly force to thwart desertion attempts.
     
    #6 Jonathan Bailey, May 25, 2019
    Last edited: May 25, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Amanaki

    Amanaki sotāpanna

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2018
    Messages:
    3,155
    Ratings:
    +1,775
    Religion:
    Cultivator of Buddha Dhamma
    Your post made me curious to one thing.

    You say humans should execute other human beings? Who give the right to an other person to do a killing but the killing of the criminal is acceted? But killing someone in the streed is leagal?
    Where is the difference in this two examles?
    Why can a judge in or government kill and not be blamed for it?
    Both are act of taking someones life?

    There is no logic to killing someone
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Left Coast

    Left Coast Active Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2019
    Messages:
    323
    Ratings:
    +225
    Religion:
    None
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/...t-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/?redirect=1

    I agree, that's probably true. That's why I think people should be required to get training to own a gun.

    Correlation does not prove causation. One thing to consider about Vermont is that it's rural and not densely populated. When you have fewer neighbors, you're less likely to come into conflict with them, whether you own a gun or not.

    Overall though, I agree with you about the death penalty. It's unjust and unnecessary.
     
  9. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    27,832
    Ratings:
    +11,550
    Religion:
    Catholic-- liberal & ecumenical
    The death penalty is based in large part on the concept that people cannot change, and yet we well know that many do. It is strictly an act of revenge since there is always the option of imprisonment w/o parole.

    Also, an FBI estimate that I had seen a few decades ago had it that an estimated 10% of those in prion are likely to be innocent. If we find out they were innocent after all, they could be released; but if they've already been executed, it's sorta hard to dig them up, apologize, and then send them on their merry way.
     
  10. wellwisher

    wellwisher Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2018
    Messages:
    447
    Ratings:
    +179
    Religion:
    Catholic
    One of the confusions, connected to the death penalty, is associated with the legal process taking way too long. This gives defense lawyers enough time to confuse the issue and create doubt in the court of public opinion. This can make the case become political' opinion instead of facts.

    As an example, say you were at home with your family and a stranger breaks in and starts to harm you and your family. The assault is getting worse and worse, and you are very afraid for yourself and the life of your family.

    Luckily, a police officer happen to walk by and sees the crime. He comes in struggles with the man. They fight for his gun and the police officer shoots the man dead, to protect himself, you, and your family. This is the death penalty, applied in real time. Almost everyone could accept this, if there is evidence of a rabid criminal assaulting a family in a compounding way. There is no confusion in terms of who is who; criminal and victims.

    In the next scenario, the criminal is not shot, but is caught after he kills someone. He is then taken into custody and placed within the slow boat US legal system. Slow boat is used because it is very lucrative, if you bill by the hour. A ten year defense, with many appeals, can earn you $millions.

    As time passes, the original real time horrors of the innocent family, becomes a weaker and weaker memory to the bystanders, since their lives move on and old memories fade. The rabid criminal is also coached, over the years, to adapt to the needs of his chasing legal defense, by acting more like a normal person.

    These changes and the media's obsession with new controversy to sell soap, starts to peel away at the original real time empathy; old news. Some people, then start to think that this criminal is reformed and such a man could never have done this. How could that nice man hurt anyone; He is framed. This is why we need to get rid of the death penalty.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    10,882
    Ratings:
    +3,646
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    The fact that our legal system is imperfect only means that we should correct it, not that we should condemn it. Judges and juries should not be passing death sentences, they should be automatic under very specific circumstances (as started above).
    Most gun deaths are suicide, followed by accident, followed by domestic violence. All of which are dramatically increased in number simply by having the gun in the house. Which is why we in the U.S. are many, many times more likely to be shot to death that in almost any other country on Earth: we are awash in guns. They're everywhere, easily available, and we have virtually no responsible oversight.
    Vermont has a cold climate, no large cities, few minorities and a strong economy, which is why they have less crime.
    Certainty is for the gods, not we humans. But when someone serial kills, kills for ideology, mass kills, kills at random and for no apparent reason, or kills even when imprisoned, it's logical to assume that they pose and ongoing threat to the lives of others. And I do not believe that a whole society of humans is obligated to take on that risk.
    There is no absolutely secure form of imprisonment.
     
  12. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    10,882
    Ratings:
    +3,646
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    It's not a "right", It's a necessity.

    It is ALWAYS wrong to kill another human being. But in an imperfect world, it still sometimes becomes necessary.
     
  13. Amanaki

    Amanaki sotāpanna

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2018
    Messages:
    3,155
    Ratings:
    +1,775
    Religion:
    Cultivator of Buddha Dhamma
    So which human being can judge an other human being to death? And get away with it?
    How can one justify that one way of killing is wrong and an other way is ok, when both is a way to end someones life?
     
  14. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    10,882
    Ratings:
    +3,646
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    We determine as a human collective that we will not maintain the life of a killer who poses an ongoing threat to the lives of others because it is 'logical'. And because we do not wish to impose such a risk on each other. "Righteousness", in this instance, is not a possibility. So we err on the side of logic and collective security.
     
  15. Amanaki

    Amanaki sotāpanna

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2018
    Messages:
    3,155
    Ratings:
    +1,775
    Religion:
    Cultivator of Buddha Dhamma
    So if what is the difference in the execusionist who kill the killer, and the killer who killed someone else? Where is the morality in that because government say it is ok to kill for governmental employee(execusionist) but not for someone else?

    The killer has done something very bad ofcourse and can be put in prison for the rest of the life, but if governmental people can do the same and be cheered because of it?? where is the moral?
     
  16. Marcion

    Marcion Tantra-Yoga Universalist

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    1,059
    Ratings:
    +490
    Religion:
    Manava (human) Dharma, no religion, but Neo-Humanism
    Luckily this barbaric practice can nowadays only be found in the more backward parts of the world.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. BSM1

    BSM1 Who's a good boy?

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2012
    Messages:
    16,011
    Ratings:
    +7,210
    Religion:
    Buddhistic Panenthetic Jesusonian

    To me, the 1911A .45 is the epitome of "...no BS, I mean business..." hand gun.
     
  18. BSM1

    BSM1 Who's a good boy?

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2012
    Messages:
    16,011
    Ratings:
    +7,210
    Religion:
    Buddhistic Panenthetic Jesusonian

    Re: point #2. The death penalty, like most if not all, prison sentences are not and never have been "deterrents" to criminals. These sentences are meant to be justice as we have determined through judicial process.
     
  19. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    10,882
    Ratings:
    +3,646
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    Morality is based on ideals, and sometimes reality does not allow for those ideals to be followed. You're demanding an outcome that is not reasonably possible. An ideal is like a lighthouse, they are great landmarks to steer our course of action BY, but they can become disastrous if we steer directly at them.
    It is in the sacrifice of the individual for the sake of the many. And that's the best we can do.
     
  20. Amanaki

    Amanaki sotāpanna

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2018
    Messages:
    3,155
    Ratings:
    +1,775
    Religion:
    Cultivator of Buddha Dhamma
    I respectfully disagree with you on this.
     
Loading...