The "cruel and unusual" part of capital punishment comes in when someone is done the way Barbara was in relation to her execution day. One stay after another, THAT'S torture.
As to the death penalty itself, I think it is a necessary and just part of the criminal justice system.
Refusal to believe does not negate the truth.
"As to the death penalty itself, I think it is a necessary and just part of the criminal justice system."
You're in good company; Hitler, Stalin, Caesar, Sulla, etc.
In other words: your opinion stems from the fact that you are a barbaric idiot. No one has the right to take anyone's life, and that means the state too.
casparmulders: "You're in good company; Hitler, Stalin, Caesar, ...your opinion stems from the fact that you are a barbaric idiot."
Well, now. It seems we're both in good company because a difference of opinion results in a 4th grade name calling contest.
By the by, what would your opinion on abortion be? Do tell.
Refusal to believe does not negate the truth.
I have a sneaking suspicion that calling someone a "barbaric idiot" is hardly the way to win hearts and minds. Are you actually interested in making the world a better place? or is venting your spleen your raison d'être? Believe me, I understand the temptation to unload on those who espouse ideas that I know to be destructive, but making enemies of these people is not the way to move forward constructively.
"Only the refusal to hate or kill can end the chain of violence in the world"--so said Dr. King, and I'm sure he would include firing insults at those who disagree with us as a form of hate.
Just a word to the wise.
Peace.
Fighting for Truth, Justice, and making it the American way.
Pretty Obvious some of you long winded bastages couldn't live without C&P
shareThere are many who argue that execution is a cruel and unusual punishment. History and the text of the Constitution do not support this view. (I wish it did. I have too little trust in our legal system to let someone be killed by the govt.) Amendment 5 begins "No person shall be held to answer for a capital . . . crime." Thus there is such a thing as a crime for which death can be imposed. Both Amendments 5 and 14 of the Constitution refer to no person being deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The plain reading is that a person can be deprived of life. Amendment 8 bars cruel and unusual punishment. That referred to methods of execution practiced in England. When someone was convicted of treason, the executioner would invent a particularly painful way to kill the person. An example is in the film Braveheart. Wallace is hanged, racked, drawn, and quartered. Some executions involved flaying. Some included burning. Many included castration. Those were what the drafters of Amendment 8 banned.
shareNo matter what anyone thinks about the death penalty, the execution of Barbara Graham wasn't carried off according to plan. What was, and still is relatively uncommon; is the execution of a Mother with a young child. Had she been unattractive, middle-aged, and without any kind of family; she probably wouldn't have generated much attention from the rabid press of that era. I say "rabid". I can say that as I remember watching George Putnam who crusaded for her death while cashing a paycheck later for doing a cameo in this film. The hypocrisy of the people involved in this case is something worth remembering.
shareExecution of Ladies is very stupid and wrong, I am completly disagree with it.
I think Dead-punishment is not a good answer for Murderer ladies... (Barbara Graham and others)
Its unti humaniti and very very cruelelty to kill a guilty woman. By the way I think Barbara Graham was innocent, not guilty and she was a victim of American society in 1950s, she was a beatifull woman, a human and she could have her rights to live in this world, poor Barabara!!!
(I am a man, but I think all men should respect ladies)
Sorry if there is any mistake in my English!
No problem, regarding your mistakes in writing in English. What I don't understand is why you think it is particularly bad to execute "ladies?" I think it is wrong to execute anyone--man, woman, or child. I agree that men should respect "ladies"--but I would go farther and say that all human beings should respect each other, regardless of sex, regardless of nationality, regardless of race, age, religion, or anything else.
For me, it was excruciating watching the execution in the movie--not because she was a woman, but because she was a human being.
Peace.
Fighting for Truth, Justice, and making it the American way.
Mmmhm.
shareFirst, let me state that though I agree with the implied message in “casparmulders” comments, i.e., that the death penalty (DP) is barbaric, I do not agree that those who favor it are necessarily barbaric or idiotic. I do think that they are variously wrong, misinformed, misguided, ignorant (in the strict meaning of the term, i.e. lacking in certain knowledge, as in I personally am ignorant of astrophysics), or have been so inured to violence by its pervasive presence in society that the full import of its consequences have been lost.
You say that the DP is “a necessary and just part of the criminal justice system.” That simple statement isn’t nearly so simple as it might appear. First, you say that it is “necessary.” Necessary, as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary is something that is “Indispensable, requisite, essential, needful; that cannot be done without.” Does the DP qualify, then, as something that is necessary? Clearly, it does not. For proof of this contention, consider:
1) The DP was effectively abolished in the USA in 1972 by the Supreme Court. Four years and four days later, it was reestablished by the same court. For 1,464 days, the US was essentially DP free. Did the US cease to exist? Did society devolve into mass chaos? Did the murder rates skyrocket? The answer to all of these questions, is, of course, no. So in what way does the DP qualify as necessary when its absence did no demonstrable damage to the fabric of society?
2) Presently, 38 states have the DP, 12 + do not. The states without it include Alaska , Iowa , Massachusetts , Michigan , Vermont , N. Dakota, Hawaii , Minnesota , West Virginia , Maine , Wisconsin , and Rhode Island —as well as Washington , DC . Also, New York has been without a DP since its law was declared unconstitutional in 2004. Obviously, these states have somehow managed to survive even without a DP—not only survive, but thrive. The murder rate among these states is lower than in the states who still conduct executions. How is this possible, when they each lack such a vital, necessary component of the justice system?
3) The entire European Union is DP free, and though they, like all countries, have their problems, having a higher murder rate than the US isn’t one of them.
Having dispensed with the “necessary” part of your contention, let’s look at your idea that it is a “just” part of our system of justice. Unfortunately, there is so much to say on this subject, I hardly know where to begin. In fact, there is no way I could do anything but scratch the surface of the evidence which shows the DP to be anything but just. Again, resorting to the OED, “just” is defined as “Upright and impartial in one’s dealings; rendering everyone his due; equitable.” Also, “Consonant with the principles of moral right or of equity; righteous; equitable; fair. Of rewards, punishments, etc.: Deserved, merited.” Does the DP measure up to these definitions? Not even close. Not in the same ballpark, not even in the same game. Note that a form of the word “equity” was used three times in those short definitions. Is the DP equitable in its distribution of punishment? Nothing could be further from the truth. When the Supreme Court (SC)disposed of the DP in 1972, they did so in large measure because they found its imposition to be utterly “capricious and arbitrary.” Over the next four years, the DP states rewrote their statutes to supposedly deal with this, as well as some other problems the SC cited, and on July 2, 1976, the SC gave their imprimatur to the new laws (save one which they noted needed further refining). Now, 31 years later we have thousands of cases where the DP was applied, and it is clear, well beyond peradventure, that the DP is being applied just as capriciously, just as arbitrarily as before. It is, in fact, little more than a lottery. The evidence for this is overwhelming, but now the SC seems absolutely content with this condition that a few years before they found outrageous.
If we truly believe in the doctrine of “equal treatment under the law”--a nice little bit of sentiment that is etched into the façade of the SC building--and the practice of the DP can be shown to have fallen abysmally short of this ideal, shouldn’t it be abolished, or at least put on hold until a remedy for its ills be found? Or do we know longer require equal treatment before the law? Think of the possible consequences of a tacit acceptance of unequal treatment before the law--the injustices it would spawn, the horrors, the possibility that like a cancer, this acceptance in some cases would soon infect others until “Equal before the Law” became sort of a guideline that Judges were free to ignore. This is the condition in which we now find ourselves. The SC has even acknowledged that one particular aspect of unfairness (in McClesky)--the unequal treatment afforded defendants who kill whites as opposed to those who kill persons of color (those who kill whites have consistently been shown to be many times more likely to receive the DP)--appears to be an intrinsic to the DP, but have accepted this unfairness as an inevitable consequence of having a DP. (Should we have laws that are “intrinsically” unfair?)
Time and space (and the patience of my readers) prohibit a detailed look at the various unfairnesses that are part and parcel of today’s DP. But here’s a sampling:
1) Only about 2% of those who commit murder in this country receive the DP. If the laws were applied fairly, one might reasonably expect that only those who committed the worst of the worst offenses would end up receiving the ultimate sentence. Alas, a look at those who end up with life in prison vs. those who get death can show no discernable difference in the heinousness of the crimes. A few examples: A girl in Illinois drove some friends to a pawn shop with the intent to rob the store. There was no intent to harm anyone physically, but proprietor ended up being shot and killed, and the girl was sentenced to death . . . even though she never entered the store, did not carry a gun, and merely sat outside in the car to drive her friends away when they completed the job. One can hardly condone her actions, or consider her a complete innocent--but death? In contrast Charles Cullen, a nurse who, with malice & forethought, killed 13 of his patients was given a life sentence (see NY Times, April 30, 2004, D. Kocieniewski). And Gary Ridgway, a serial killer from Seattle who has admitted to 48 murders, was given life in prison. Then there is Justine in Maryland, who was convicted mostly on the testimony of the individual who actually murdered a dope dealer, saying that Justine had hired him. He later recanted. Then recanted his recantation. But on the basis of such unreliable testimony, Justine sits on death row for killing a dope dealer. Such anecdotes could fill books.
2) Then we have the regional disparities. Obviously, if you kill someone in the south, you have a much greater chance of receiving a death sentence. Much less known are a myriad other regional differences that play an important part in determining who gets death. Just a few of them: 2 Indiana Counties have accounted for about half of the death sentences in the state (see South Bend Tribune, Oct. 21, 2001). Upstate N.Y., though accounting for only 19% of the state’s murders, accounted for 62% of the state’s DP cases. And with Texas’ reputation, one might expect that there would be some uniformity in the number of DP cases across the state (in proportion to each areas murders), but nothing could be further from the truth. A few select counties provide most of the cases, with Houston outdoing the others by far. In Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, proportionately produces by far and away the greatest proportion of DP cases. Are murderers in Pittsburg; or Bloomington, IN; or Austin, TX; nicer or in some other way, more worthy than murderers in Philly, Gary, or Houston?
3) I’ve already alluded to the racial disparities, and even though there is much more to say on the subject, owing to the length of this tome, I’ll not add anything further.
4) Of course, there are also huge disparities in the outcomes of DP trials based on the wealth of the defendant, which is correlated to the quality of representation. If O.J. had been a poor drifter, is there any doubt about where he would be right now?
Believe me, this was but a small sampling of the types of inequities to be found in the administration of the DP. Of course, many of these inequities can be found in the trials of lesser offences, though strangely, they do seem even more prevalent in trials with death on the line. Inevitably, one will comment, “Well, our entire justice system is imperfect and rife with inequities. Should we then shut it all down?” I’m reminded of an auto manufacturer in another country who began producing a revolutionary new car. The public was mad about it, until after a year or so when about 10% of the cars suddenly, and without warning began to explode in a huge fireball, consuming everyone inside. The government immediately held hearings on whether to ban further production and sale, to which the car baron truculently responded with, “Well, ALL cars have imperfections. Should we then shut down the production of ALL cars?” Just as there is a huge difference between squeaky brakes or a leaky transmission and an exploding car, there is also a difference in the unjust imposition of a fine or prison term, and the sentence of death.
And we are now led to the ultimate inequity of the DP: the execution of innocents. Definitely NOT a mythical occurrence as some would have it. And, believe it or not, it has been argued in cases by Attorneys General, and even by Supreme Court Justices that mere innocence isn’t enough to necessarily grant the prisoner “relief” (i.e., remove him from prison or grant him a new trial). I have already written fairly extensively about this on another thread. See:
http://imdb.com/title/tt0051758/board/thread/38814038?d=79084979&p=2#79084979 and the follow up: http://imdb.com/title/tt0051758/board/thread/38814038?d=79673444&p=2#79673444
There is much more to say about the basic injustice of the DP, and of other problems associated with it (that is much more expensive than alternate punishments [hard to believe, but every study that has looked into it has agreed], that it creates more victims [the sons, daughters, wives, husbands, parents, friends of the prisoner], how it undermines our efforts to move toward a more peaceful, less violent society), but it cannot all be said in one reply to a comment in this venue. I list some excellent resources in the links noted above that give much more information on topic DP. But I am also open to questions if anyone wishes to put any to me.
Peace.
PS. You "GraGoste" note that the multiple stays are the cruel part of the DP, and there is truth to that statement, but think of the now hapless prisoner who hopes desperately for life. Sometimes these stays eventually result in a commutation of their sentence. Sometimes these stays have led to the exoneration of the individual. There have been several individuals who have actually been in the execution chamber, minutes away from death, when a stay came through which eventually resulted in their being able to prove their innocence. Would you deny them that? What's cruel is the situation--a human being waiting to be handled like a thing, to be killed in the most cold-blooded fashion imaginable. It's a cruelty that corrupts everything it touches. I believe we as a society can do better than to mirror the brutal act of a murderer, that we can find another response, a more ennobling, a nonviolent way. If not, than we are sentencing ourselves to more of the same--acknowledging that there is no hope for something better, that man is doomed to the status quo.
I don't believe this. The world needs more people who refuse to believe this.
Fighting for Truth, Justice, and making it the American way.
Peace to you, as well.
Now, I would be the last one to deny an innocent person his/her life. If there is the SLIGHTEST shadow of a doubt (forget Reasonable doubt (legal terminology)), then by all means put the execution off. Now, in the case of Barbara Graham, there were too many doubts as to whether she actually did the crime (been awhile since I've seen the movie).
Let's look at some of your arguments:
Quote: "The DP was effectively abolished in the USA in 1972 by the Supreme Court. Four years and four days later, it was reestablished by the same court. For 1,464 days, the US was essentially DP free. Did the US cease to exist? Did society devolve into mass chaos? Did the murder rates skyrocket? The answer to all of these questions, is, of course, no."
How can you possibly look at a 4 year abolishment of the death penalty and draw any conclusions? Did crime essentially cease to be? No. I'm sure there was some partyin' going on on death rows across the nation; but what of the families and friends who lost someone to these poor criminals? Where's their justice? Where is their closure? What about justice for the victim?
Before you start, NO, it won't bring them back. But it certainly will stop the guilty from killing again.
"But they're in prison! How are they going to kill again?" Ever hearing of a rec yard shanking? How about a corrections officer just trying to get through his/her shift, only to wind up dead at the hands of someone who can give 2 shi7z about someone else's life?
Quote: "A girl in Illinois drove some friends to a pawn shop with the intent to rob the store. There was no intent to harm anyone physically, but proprietor ended up being shot and killed, and the girl was sentenced to death . . . even though she never entered the store, did not carry a gun, and merely sat outside in the car to drive her friends away when they completed the job. One can hardly condone her actions, or consider her a complete innocent--but death?"
I'm with you on that one. What, by chance, did the actual shooter receive? At the most she should have been tagged with being involved, but not death.
Quote: " If O.J. had been a poor drifter, is there any doubt about where he would be right now?"
Ummm... I can agree with this to a certain extent. I submit to you that if he had been of any other race, he WOULD have been executed. Keep in mind this was in the aftermath of the Rodney King debacle. I feel the jury was terrified to convict a high profile African-American, for fear of another riot; despite the fact that most people of ALL races believe he's guilty as hell.
Quote: "What's cruel is the situation--a human being waiting to be handled like a thing, to be killed in the most cold-blooded fashion imaginable.
No, cruel is to kill someone for NO REASON, for no purpose denying the right of someone else's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Quote: "I believe we as a society can do better than to mirror the brutal act of a murderer, that we can find another response, a more ennobling, a nonviolent way.
Ennobling? Did I read this right? Do I take that to mean you're worried about a killer's self esteem?
As to another response, a nonviolent way, I feel that using something that hurts no more than a bee-sting to end a violent criminal's life is about as non-violent as it gets. If you want to go there, then death by this method is a hell of a lot less violent than prison.
You can't "hug" away the evils of the world. And that is unfortunate. But our world is not a perfect one, we just have to make due.
BTW, when Jessica Lunsford's killer is put to death, we will know that one less pedophile won't harm another little girl; just like we know Tookie Williams will NEVER kill again.
Refusal to believe does not negate the truth.
Ennobling? Did I read this right? Do I take that to mean you're worried about a killer's self esteem?Actually, you did not read this correctly. I wasn’t talking about the feelings of the condemned; rather, I was speaking of society. Though I am opposed to the DP for a hundred reasons, and can see no useful purpose for it, my main reason for opposing it is that its retention keeps society from advancing toward a less violent future. How does killing people who kill people teach us that killing people is wrong? Can we agree that a future with a lot less killing is a positive goal? How many people will we have to kill to reach that goal? (Sadly, there are many people who are unable to see the irony in that last question.) You say that “[y]ou can't ‘hug’ away the evils of the world”--and that is absolutely my point. You can’t wish them away. It will take a lot of hard work and sacrifice. It will take resisting the urge to return an eye for an eye. It will mean keeping the tool of violence sheathed when every fiber of our viscera cries out for revenge. If we want the killing to stop, then we will have to stop killing. I am not an absolute pacifist, but we have to make a real effort to reduce our use of violence if we ever expect it to be reduced. “[O]ur world is not a perfect one” you note (given to understatement, are you?), so “we just have to make due.” I say just making due isn’t enough. We as a species have been “making do” for eons, and we see the result all around us. If we really want to effect positive change in this imperfect world, then we’ve got to try some new ways of responding to our fellows. The status quo may be acceptable for you--it is for most people if one is to judge from their behavior--but it isn’t for me, and retaining the DP is certainly a vote for the status quo.
"Loved ones, wrenched from our lives by violent crime, deserve more beautiful, noble and honorable memorials than pre-meditated, state-sanctioned killings. The death penalty only creates more victims and more grieving families. By becoming that which we deplore -- people who kill people -- we insult the sacred memory of all our precious victims."I realize this has become a tome, especially in this world were the sound-bite suffices as a substitute for knowledge, but one more comment. You said:
Concerning the claim of justice for the victim's family, I say there is no amount of retaliatory deaths that would compensate to me the inestimable value of my daughter's life, nor would they restore her to my arms. To say that the death of any other person would be just retribution is to insult the immeasurable worth of our loved ones who are victims. We cannot put a price on their lives. That kind of justice would only dehumanize and degrade us because it legitimates an animal instinct for gut-level bloodthirsty revenge.
In my case, my own daughter was such a gift of joy and sweetness and beauty, that to kill someone in her name would have been to violate and profane the goodness of her life; the idea is offensive and repulsive to me.
Capital punishment degrades, dehumanizes and debilitates us as a human society.
I feel that using something that hurts no more than a bee-sting to end a violent criminal's life is about as non-violent as it gets.Albert Camus in his treatise on the DP [Reflections on the Guillotine], said something to the effect that above all else, the supporters of the DP lack imagination. Your comment certainly brings this quote to mind. Again, I am not being insulting, but if you truly believe that lethal injection is “about as nonviolent as it gets” then clearly you have not put yourself in the shoes of the condemned. I can understand why you haven't--it is a terrible place to visit, even in one's own mind. I have visited--at least as much as my imagination is capable of recreating the convicted’s situation--and I recoil from it. No one is afraid of a needle prick--it’s what that prick portends. The condemned sit in their cells for years--fear always just below the surface, knowing that a cold-blooded death awaits them at some time in the future. Waiting. Weeks. Months. Years. Waiting for the time when they will come for you, and take you to the killing room, where they will strap you down and dispose of you like they would a lame horse, all in front of a detached and curious group of onlookers, sometimes sprinkled with a few individuals who hate you with every fiber of their being. No, this definitely does not sound nonviolent to me, but to a large portion of society, it DOES--this treating a human being like so much detritus. If we could reach a place where the treating of ANY human being like garbage was unthinkable, wouldn’t the world be a better place? If so, we need to stop treating people that way--no matter who they are, or what they’ve done. I’m not talking about treating murderers as princes--a am an advocate of prison--but until we stop torturing and killing our own citizens we will not, indeed cannot, advance along the road toward becoming a more compassionate society.
Hello, again.
There are several points to take issue with, I am glad for a civilized debate.
First off:
Quote: "How does killing people who kill people teach us that killing people is wrong? Can we agree that a future with a lot less killing is a positive goal?"
There is a distinct difference between execution and murder. You may think I'm just nit-picking semantics here, but there are clear and distinct boundaries to describe each. To "execute", is to pay a penalty for a crime committed. It takes into account the damage done, the price the victim pays and the impact on society. "The average annual cost of housing a death-row inmate is $27,500"
according to The Associated Press. That's waaaay too much, I feel, and I'm not alone. (That's just HOUSING. The courts and appeals process is another matter.)
I pay enough taxes, some I don't mind. But when a chunk of my salary goes to an inmate's housing and upkeep, yeah, I resent the hell out of it. These are normally folks who could give a damn about anyone but themselves, who have taken the life of someone who did them no wrong (as in the case of Barbara Graham).
As I've said, in a perfect world, the only ones executed would be put to death as long as "all shadow of a doubt" can be removed. Confessed (not coerced, I know you're going there next) killers should be put out of the publics misery as quickly as possible.
Prime example: Timothy McVeigh. Six years from crime to chamber. Who else has gotten this kind of express lane service? (Never mind the peripherals of his crime and accomplices, yes they should have gotten it, as well). Very few shed a tear when he was executed. Misunderstood, bad luck case, whatever. He was responsible for killing innocent people (168 total, NINETEEN CHILDREN) Does this b****** deserve $27,000 a year for murdering 19 children alone? One child? One person? I think not.
Did it bring them back? No. Will he do it again? No. Will he be housed for the rest of his life out of our wallets? No.
Consider this: Dennis Whitney, in prison for killing 7 people when he was 17 years old, "After 12 years on death row and coming within two days of dying in the electric chair, his sentenced was commuted to life in prison in 1972 when the U.S. Supreme Court declared Florida's death penalty law unconstitutional."
"The cost of providing health care to prisoners is increasing dramatically, fueled by older inmates such as Whitney." Now, this P.O.S. ADMITTED to killing 7 people. What does he have to say about getting rejected for parole?
Quote: "If they turn me down, I'm just going to let the state take care of me the rest of my life," he said. "I'm well fed, well clothed and well taken care of."
Well, bully for him. It sounds like he's become well-adjusted to "hard time".
(source: http://www.cjcj.org/index.php
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 1622 Folsom Street, San Francisco, CA 94103)
Murder is senseless, has no reason, no positive outcome and is usually performed for greed and self-centered reasons. A lot of acts that are called "murder" don't fall under these categories.
Personally, I feel the death penalty should encompass pedophiles, un-rehabilitated drug dealers, and general burdens on society. I also feel that doctors who perform abortion on demand fall under this category as well (but that's a whole new arena).
Your quote: "It will take resisting the urge to return an eye for an eye..." the system we have based on commandments set down in the Old Testament, given of God as guidelines for us to live our lives. I don't think anyone down here has either the knowledge nor authority to dispute His commandments.
Now, before you roll your eyes and declare me a wild-eyed, Jimmy Swaggart-ite fundamentalist psycho (usually MY first reaction to those who quote scripture)
I'm just your average Joe, who believes in God. There, I've said it. I don't believe this world is the end. I believe in God and His mercy. I believe that you will be surprised at who you see in Heaven and who you don't. You also said, quote: "A lot of people who have become ensnared in the web of helplessness and defeatism see my comments as being pie-in-the-sky idealism untethered to the real world"
To an extent, I do. I strive to be an optimist. I don't see very much to re-inforce the idea; and live in the real world: but I know some stories have happy endings. In five years as a corrections officer, I've seen 2 examples of people who completely changed their lives, and I'm proud to say, have made themselves into productive human beings. The change is radical. And neither did anything worthy of the death penalty in the first place. Some of the ones I've known who are serving life in prison deserved to be executed soon after their trial. I will not give details, but you may have heard of one, and one would be hard pressed after knowing his personality and the details of his crime, NOT to agree that he is an outright oxygen thief who doesn't deserve the air that he breathes.
"You take into account the crime, you take into account the criminal" to paraphrase John Grisham's character Jake Brigance.
And the all time favorite of the anti-death penalty crowd "who decides who lives and who dies, why play God?" It's not "playing God". Our judges and the ones who interpret and enforce our laws are granted certain powers by us, the people; as well as sanctioning by God.
Time and again you mention the "government": the "government" should help the victims, the Texas "government" should have helped the Robinson kid. The "government" needs to do something. Well, the "government" has yet to deliver us to Utopia, and it never will. I don't depend on the "government" except for what it was designed to do: protect the country and administer the laws. The government was not designed to take the place of common sense and decency. It was not designed to replace God's instructions of the natural human instinct to care for one another.
The "government" isn't letting us down, we are letting it down by not electing competent leaders, and expecting it to do jobs for which it was never intended.
One thing we can certainly agree on: the wait is definitely cruel. And dragging it out is definitely wrong. Especially for those who say: "yeah, I capped 'im. S*** happens, I don't deserve what HE got, tho". Get the table ready.
And prison life is the hands down, by far most violent choice of the two. I noticed your statistics did not mention the percentage of those who become murderers AFTER they're incarcerated.
Anyway, just my take on things, and again, thank you for a civilized debate.
Refusal to believe does not negate the truth.
First, I note that more than half of your most recent comments about the death penalty (DP) concern the costs of housing convicted murderers. Quite frankly, this argument has absolutely no legs. None. The data is overwhelming that the DP is MUCH more costly than comparable first-degree murder cases where the DP is not sought. Even Texas, the most pro-death penalty entity in the Western World acknowledges that the DP costs more. Study after study has come to the same conclusion. Clearly it bugs the heck out of you that our tax dollars are “wasted” on convicted killers. That being the case, you should be an ardent abolitionist, as getting rid of the DP will mean far less money spent on these ‘oxygen thieves.’ To my knowledge, there have been no studies (let me repeat that--NO studies, as in none, zero, nada) that show the DP saves money. Typically, the vocal proponent of the DP who has expressed his disdain over spending so much money on murderers, upon discovering that the DP costs more, then reverses course and declares it money well spent. Think about that for a moment. I am about to cite several studies that demonstrate conclusively that the DP is ever so much more costly than the alternatives. Where will you go with this argument then? As I see it, you have the following choices (though perhaps you'll surprise me ?): Ignore the evidence and continue to trumpet the DP as a cost saving measure; drop the cost issue altogether, at least until you run into someone who isn’t as knowledgeable on the subject; or change course and declare it money well spent--none of these approaches demonstrating much in the way of intellectual rigor (Whoops! It just occurred to me that one could read this as an insult, but all I really mean is that these responses show that the respondent is thinking with their gut, and not their head--something all of us do from time to time). At their core, most of the arguments for the DP are essentially visceral, i.e., not based on logic, and I for one, think it dangerous to base the conduct of our justice system on “gut feelings,” especially when they so clearly conflict with reason. But on to those studies:
1) Duke University, in a comprehensive study that looked at all the facets of DP costs in North Carolina, determined that a DP case, from arrest through execution, cost on average 2.16 million more than a comparable case where life imprisonment was sought (from arrest to death while in prison).
2) In New Jersey, the non-partisan, non-profit “New Jersey Policy Perspective” which analyzes issues of state policy, conducted a study of the costs of the DP in NJ, and found that between 1982 (when the DP was reintroduced) and 2005, the state had spent 253 million on the DP, and this did not include some costs, such as the cost of the actual execution, or increased cost of jury selection (the process takes longer in DP trials), for example. Upon reading the report, Michael Murphy, former Morris County prosecutor, remarked: "If you were to ask me how $11 million a year could best protect the people of New Jersey, I would tell you by giving the law enforcement community more resources. I'm not interested in hypotheticals or abstractions, I want the tools for law enforcement to do their job, and $11 million can buy a lot of tools." You can find the report on their website: <NJPP.org>
3) In Tennessee, the comptroller’s office of the treasury found that the DP trials alone cost about 50% more than trials of murder cases where the DP is not sought. Though their findings indicated that most aspects of the DP cost more than comparable cases of murder not involving the DP, an accurate appraisal of the total costs could not be made as accurate records had not been kept. [It has often been suggested that prosecutors who are gun-ho DP proponents do not keep accurate records in order to keep the true costs of the DP from being known.] (See: <www.comptroller.state.tn.us/orea/reports/deathpenalty.pdf>; )
4) In my own state of Kansas, a study indicated that the total costs of DP cases were 70% more than comparable murder cases where the DP is not sought. (See: <http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=7&did=918>;)
5) In Indiana, a study indicated that DP cases cost 38% more than the total costs of life without parole cases. (See: Indiana Criminal Law Study Commission, January 10, 2002).
6) According to research done by the Palm Beach Post, Florida would save about 51 million a year if all first degree murder cases were prosecuted with life in prison as the punishment option. (Palm Beach Post, January 4, 2000)
7) The State of California spends $90 Million dollars annually above and beyond the ordinary costs of the justice system on capital cases. $78 million of that total is incurred at the trial level, according to the Sacramento Bee (March 18, 1988).
8) According to state and federal records obtained by The Los Angeles Times, maintaining the California death penalty system costs taxpayers more than $114 million a year beyond the cost of simply keeping the convicts locked up for life ( Los Angeles Times, March 6, 2005).
There was much in your latest missive to respond to, so here is an addendum to my long reply above
There is a distinct difference between execution and murder.There is a difference, of course, but being different doesn’t make either action Just, right, or productive. Again, what I want to move toward is a
You may think I'm just nit-picking semantics here, but there are clear and distinct boundaries to describe each. To "execute", is to pay a penalty for a crime committed. It takes into account the damage done, the price the victim pays and the impact on society.
Murder is senseless, has no reason, no positive outcome and is usually performed for greed and self-centered reasons.You go one to call these murderers “oxygen thieves” (a nice phrase, I have to admit), as well as various other derogatory terms. These thoughts/feelings are understandable. I must point out, however, that murder—though it often seems senseless, always has a reason behind it. As Alice Miller, the world’s foremost authority of child abuse has written: “Every act of cruelty, no matter how brutal and shocking, has traceable antecedents in the perpetrators past.” (See: For Your Own Good: Hidden cruelty in child rearing and the roots of violence) What does this mean? It means that no essentially good person, raised in a loving home with parents who respected their children, ever just ups and decides, “Hey, I’m gonna go cap me a couple of innocent people.” When you examine the parties on death row, you essentially find three types—those who were systematically abused, ridiculed, and despised by their parents, those who experienced some type of brain damage, and of course, those who are innocent. The far right would have it that these people are just monsters who made an evil choice, and that’s all there is too it. This is poppycock. I’m not suggesting that people should not be held accountable for their crimes, but to ignore the truth of how these crimes came to be is to insure that such crimes will always be with us--and in quantity. I was abused as a child, and I have suffered my entire life because of it--but the abuse I experienced was mild compared what most on death row have seen. If I had gone through exactly what some of them had, I have no doubt that I would have no respect for the lives of others either, and would probably be either dead, or in prison right now. So, murder DOES have a reason, and is not senseless (though it feels that way, I know). It is the direct result of actions taken against them when they were defenseless children--with no one to rescue them--children who, had they found love, might have grown up to nourish society instead of degrade it. We, as a society, need to address the issue of this abuse more urgently. This will have a more far reaching effect on the murder rate than the DP ever could.
Your tenacity is admirable, and your arguments compelling.
But I'm afraid we must agree to disagree on this point.
Christ did teach to turn the other cheek. But He did NOT intend for criminals to get unlimited "pass cards" for their crimes.
And the thing that really bugs me about (most) anti-DP advocates is that on the other end of the spectrum they usually wind up being pro-choice. Which, in my mind at least, completely negates their argument for the death penalty. You haven't mentioned a pro-abortion stance; so I'll take you on your arguments that you agree that ALL life is precious.
Now, when we have people who follow this credo to the letter, then I can agree with you.
But since we have people who still slaughter other people for no good reason (other than their own twisted motives), I must respectfully disagree.
Refusal to believe does not negate the truth.
Yes, I don't think Christ would think it a very good idea to let murderous felons run about freely. But there can be no doubt that He would NOT approve of killing these men (of course, I don't think he would much like our prison system either, but that's another story). So . . . if one believes in Christ, how does one believe in a system that is brutal, unfair, wastes money, and to top it all--Non-Christian?
Compartmentalization. We all use it to some extent. When our beliefs don’t quite jive, we keep belief “A” in compartment No. 1, and belief “B” in No. 2. Of course, to be a fully integrated, being--a being fully honest with ourselves as well as others, we should all strive to pull down the walls between our compartments (though some walls are there as a self-defense measure, and these should only be brought down slowly and with great care, but that again, is another story).
I understand about the “being bugged” about the seeming inconsistency between “Pro-lifers” who are “Pro-deathers” when it comes to the DP, and Pro-choicers/Pro-abortion people who are against the DP. I make it a point, except in very particular circumstances, to keep my views of abortion unstated when I speak of the DP, as once I state my view on the other topic, half my audience immediately shuts me out. Still, for the careful reader, my views can be discerned in this regard. Incidentally, there is a fairly large group of individuals who call themselves the “Consistent Life” ethic folks, or the seamless garment network, who are united in being pro-life across the board–pro-abolition, pro-life, against euthanasia, against war--among other things. So, not everyone is inconsistent in this regard.
So . . . . . . when are you going to take the plunge and make your own message consistent, and bring down those walls between your compartments?
But since we have people who still slaughter other people for no good reason (other than their own twisted motives), I must respectfully disagree [and remain a supporter of the DP].Yes, as long as we have those who kill for seemingly senseless reasons (though there are always reasons) this world will remain a trying place. Those of us who believe all life is precious will have a ‘ell of a time trying to convince the world to try different, non-violent methods to react to the problems that confront us. Rarely, there may be instances when some kind of military intervention is necessary (not counting “policing actions” by UN forces to keep war from breaking out in hot spots)--but these should be extraordinarily rare. We have seen in our own history the disastrous results of entering into unnecessary military conflicts. We should be looking for ways where we can divest ourselves of violent action. We can’t just say the world is a violent place and there’s nothing to be done except be violent ourselves (actually, this is exactly what we have been saying). How will anything ever change with this type of attitude? It won’t. We keep treading over the well-worn grove of violence, and the groove only gets deeper, making it ever harder to turn other directions, to other ways of doing things. If we want to reduce violence, than we have to use different tools, different approaches, different ways of thinking. Until WE change, we will never be rid it, as violence begets more violence. Getting rid of the DP is, as I’ve said before, one of the easiest first steps available to us. Almost every other Western Nation has already become DP free, and none of them has collapsed because of this decision.
Quote: "I understand about the “being bugged” about the seeming inconsistency between “Pro-lifers” who are “Pro-deathers” when it comes to the DP, and Pro-choicers/Pro-abortion people who are against the DP. I make it a point, except in very particular circumstances, to keep my views of abortion unstated when I speak of the DP"
"seeming inconsistency"?
I take it that your sympathies on the topic range to the pro-choice credo.
We've had a pleasant debate so far, and I plan to keep it that way. I've only one thing to say on the subject:
No, there's no "seeming inconsistency".
You either value life or you don't.
I'm not being confrontational, or nasty. But that is not just a "seeming inconsistency".
It's a downright contradiction. Way more so than the "seeming inconsistency" between "turn the other cheek" and "an eye for an eye".
Peace as well to you.
Refusal to believe does not negate the truth.
If, as you say, it is a "downright contradiction" (being pro-abortion and against the DP, or Pro-life and for the DP)--that you either "value life or you don't," then how do you explain your pro-life stance on the one hand, and your support of the DP on the other?--especially in light of the fact that some of your beliefs which you felt supported your views of the DP have been shown to be rather shaky? And I'm not trying to be nasty either (I always strive for respectful exchanges of opinion).
And incidentally, as regards your assumption about my supposed pro-choice leanings, in the words of Ira Gershwin, "it ain't necessarily so."
Cheerio!
Fighting for Truth, Justice, and making it the American way.
Simple.
A killer (pedophile, rapist, drug pusher) on death row has deprived someone (and their friends and loved ones) of a human life; for any or no reason (ok, they all have reasons, however twisted), and they should pay the penalty for taking a human life unlawfully.
An unborn child, fetus, whatever you want to call it, has never done any harm, and should be allowed a fighting chance.
Now, don't give me the "what about cases of rape and incest?" the same lame arguement that feminists and their lackeys fall back on to try to justify crossing out a human life because of their own irresponsibility.
And also(respectfully), my beliefs that support my views aren't shaky at all, being based Biblically.
Quote: "And incidentally, as regards your assumption about my supposed pro-choice leanings, in the words of Ira Gershwin, "it ain't necessarily so."
Actually, not much of an assumption, more of an educated guess. You may be the exception that proves the rule, lol.
Refusal to believe does not negate the truth.
It is amazing; the infinite variety of rationalizations human beings can come up with to justify killing other human beings. As is so often the case, the user of rationalization “a” is quick to notice and comment upon that someone else is using rationalization “Q” to support their flawed ideas. The user of “Q” will, in a rush, deny using any rationalization at all, and will cite several other flimsy justifications and denials to prove their point. Having defended themselves against these “unwarranted” criticisms, they then point out the underlying rationalizations the other is using--to which the one under attack will respond with indignation at such an unfounded assertion. Each side is utterly entrenched in their position, so deeply that they are unable to see outside this position. The trench they have dug out for themselves has become their only reality. Should someone come along to suggest to each that there exist whole vistas outside their experience, whole new ways of looking at things--they are regarded sadly and with pity. “Ah, the poor deluded fool just cannot see what is true.” “Come,” the newcomer encourages, “step up out of your hole and look at the wide world of possibility.” “You are mad!” the two entrenched souls cry in unison, “This, this IS the whole world, the only correct way of seeing.”
In the present case, you are quick to see the inconsistencies in the arguments of the Pro-choice, anti-DP people, yet you are oblivious to the inconsistency in your own position (as you stated "You either value life or you don't"--so which is it?) Likewise, the pro-choice, anti-death crowd would jump at the chance to declare you a hypocrite (a term I myself would not use as I believe it inaccurate) because of your stance but would be oblivious to the shortcomings of their own position. Any attack on their view is defended with an assortment of rationalizations and denials (e.g., the fetus is merely “tissue” and is certainly not conscious; the mother has the right to do with her body as she will [ignoring the presence of a second body], etc.)--all amounting to the denial of the “humanness” of the embryo/fetus. In a similar vein, you deny the humanness of a murderer, drug dealer, pedophile, or “oxygen thief.” Both sides have plenty of company. Mankind has been making excuses for killing each other since man was first capable of forming a rationalization. Just sticking with the idea of death as punishment--since the beginnings of civilization the DP has been a mainstay of jurisprudence (at least until recently when many nations have given it up). And each period and locale has developed their own rationale for carrying out this punishment--each supremely confident that theirs was the true and correct way of administrating “justice.” At one time and one place, virtually every crime imaginable--not to mention many offenses that are no longer even considered crimes--was punishable by death, from cursing one’s parents, to being a pickpocket, to being the wrong race or belonging to the wrong religion, or even the wrong political party. Even being the wrong sex was a crime punishable by death if you were a girl who had the temerity to be the first born. You name it, it was once subject to the DP. Even today, in some parts of the world, crimes such as adultery or of converting to another religion are punishable by death. Of course, here in the good-ole USA, where we are EVER so much wiser than all the other nations of the earth, past and present, WE have the system worked out perfectly for deciding who is executed and who is not. (Oh, of course there are all those needling, small, insignificant problems with it I’ve pointed out before, such as the fact that innocent men are sentenced and executed, and that who gets the penalty is essentially a random draw--except when race is involved and then white life is always more important [I guess this is God’s will?]-and then there are the problems with dragging the survivors through a long, painful ordeal, with the false hope of healing at the end, only to find that the healing hasn’t even started; and the manufacture of a whole new set of victims [the loved ones of the condemned], and the far higher costs of implementing capital punishment than the alternative--but I guess these are insignificant qualms.) Of course, our system is always evolving. While recently making it more difficult for innocent men on the row to seek redress in court (making the execution of inocents more likely), there has also been a narrowing of the parties who are eligible for consideration of a death sentence. Since 1972, rapist and pedophiles have been taken off the list of those who qualify. As have all crimes save murder and high treason. And the mentally retarded and mentally ill have also--in theory at least--have also been removed from consideration, as well as minors. So, which DP is the right DP? The one of 60 years ago that was used mainly to control the "nig*er" problem? or the one today which has narrowed its focus but increased the likelihood of killing the innocent? Or is just any DP okay, just so long as there IS a death penalty? The measure by which we decide who is no longer human and is thus subject to the DP is changing all the time. And as long as we allow such killings, it always will change. As long as death is considered appropriate--then the possibility is always there to narrow, or vastly expand its use. In 50 years, if we were so unfortunate to have a succession of Bush type presidents, perhaps our list of DP eligible crimes would expand hugely. With time, we might eventually (D)evolve to the point of using it like the Nazis did. But as long as human life is considered something that can be taken at the whim of the government, the chances of even greater--far greater--abuses than we see now are always a possibility. As, unbelievably, Pres. Bush recently said, "Every person, however frail or vulnerable, has a place and a purpose in this world. Every person has a special dignity. This right to life cannot be granted or denied by government, because it does not come from government, it comes from the Creator of life." [emphasis mine] Now, I suspect he was referring to the idea of euthanasia, but his comments are clearly applicable to all human beings--"every person"--comments so far afield from his actions that I must conclude that he makes of himself a hypocrite.
If injustice is allowed for some, than injustice threatens all. I have demonstrated in over a dozen ways (see previous comments preceding this one) why the DP, as practiced by the USA, is an unjust system. The only thing that can put an end to these abuses is to end the DP--a first step in transforming this nation into one that values ALL life. Such a nation will have very few murderers. If this is a goal that sounds appealing, then we cannot wait for others to change before we act, wait for others to put down the instruments of brutality and hate before we do. Each of us has to commit to this ideal individually, then slowly, bring others into the fold. Killing people is not the way to reduce killing. This idea doesn’t even make sense, but this is the idea that DP supporters cling to. Well . . . actually there are two ideas--one, if we just kill enough of the right people, incarcerate enough of the right people, then things will get better. The other idea is that things will never get better, so we might as well just kill those who offend us to make us at least feel as if we are restoring the moral order. The first idea is insane, the second defeatist. I don’t know that we can ever reach nirvana, but I know we can make things better. People like you and I need to find less violent tools with which to react to the problems that confront us.
But wait, you say. We must retain the tool of death because the Bible demands that we keep it. You said, that your “beliefs that support my views [on the DP] aren’t shaky at all, being based Biblically.”
Sigh.
I’ve already shown you evidence--from the Bible--that casts doubt about this assertion. Let me once again try. First, the Bible is not a wishy-washy thing. It has very definite views on many subjects. One of these things is the DP. I have shown (in brief) why the OT Bible does not actually mandate the DP, but actually uses it to limit retribution. That being said, the Bible did allow the DP, without doubt, under certain circumstances. But it allowed for a very specific DP--a DP that in absolutely no respect resembles the DP we have today. So how can you say the Bible supports your views on the DP? This would have been like the Israelites, after being instructed to build a very specific temple, deciding to build one that looked like Stonehenge. “But God commanded us to build a temple, and we did!” so the Israelites would proclaim. But God wanted a very particular temple. Do you think another Stonehenge would have been good enough? If your boss told you to write a 1,500 word paper (I don’t know what work you do) on some specific problem that his company was experiencing, and you handed in a 200 word poem about the wonders of Love--what do you think your boss would say to that? He’d probably think it a joke, and then ask for the real paper. “No,” you’d tell him, “that’s my paper. I figured it was near enough to what you wanted.” If your wife asked you to bring her a cappuccino, and you brought her a Bloody-Mary, would she find this acceptable? If the answer to all these questions is no, then please tell me why you think God is okay with our DP that in no way resembles the DP he intended for Israel? Have you decided that God HAS become wishy-washy in his old age? I can understand when you say you think that we need a DP because those foul, evil b*stards deserve such treatment--I don’t agree for many reasons, but I understand. I cannot understand this. If you are going to bring God’s wants into the picture, you cannot claim with anything approaching a straight face that our DP is what God wants. This isn’t a matter of opinion, all one need do is look at the way the Jewish people carried out the DP after they had received the Law--a very specific DP in order to fulfill the strictures set down by their God--and compare it with ours. It’s a no brainer. As I noted previously, and in some detail, there are no similarities--none, not any whatsoever--between our DP and the DP procedures of the OT Jews, save the death at the end. If you continue to persist in this false notion that the Bible and our DP are compatible, you are going to have to say a lot more than “they are.”
But beyond the nuts and bolts of how the DP worked in Israel before Christ and how this is nothing like how we practice the DP, there is a considerable amount of information in the Bible that casts doubt on whether even a DP practiced in the old way (an impossibility, BTW as one of its strictures was that a capital case could only be tried when the great Sanhedrin was sitting in the Temple, and there is no longer a Temple) would be approved by God. You ignore the whole sweep and vision of the entire New Testament (as do all who try to buoy there stance on the DP with Biblical quotations--which is rather sad, seeing Christians discounting the words of Jesus). The whole of the NT is devoted to the idea that the first and most important commandment, superseding all others, is to love God and one’s neighbor. Even more challenging, Christ makes it clear that every man is our neighbor and that we are even to love our enemies. I would be interested in reading how our DP is a fulfillment of that commandment--not only for the criminals themselves, but for their families. I have heard some Christians make the attempt, saying that the Christian community should reach out to both the condemned and his/her family. But for me, this is hypocrisy. As a supporter of the DP in a democracy, such a Christian in a very real sense is helping to send the condemned on his way to execution, with his hand right there on the switch. So, now we’re asking this facilitator of the execution, nay, this executioner of the family’s loved one (who just might be innocent) to come and counsel them? What could the “executioner” offer the mother of the one waiting to be killed? A slap in the face? What kind of love is that? By their fruits you shall know them. If a person approached the mother of a death row inmate, and told her “I love you,” and then slapped her across the face with the full force of his might, then told her again that he loved her, before punching her in the stomach, and then again affirmed his love for her before slamming his fist into her jaw, and then proclaimed his love yet again before picking her up and slamming her against the wall, followed by one more avowal of his love before unzipping his pants and urinating on her crumpled body. Who in their right mind would declare that this man really loved this woman? But who would not acknowledge that most mothers would gladly accept this beating and degradation rather than have to experience the agony of watching her son or daughter die a thousand little deaths over a period of years, before finally being taken out of his/her cell and killed like a rabid dog. So, these Christians who support the DP, who thereby do far worse to this mother than the brute I just described, now want to offer their compassion to this mother? This is hypocrisy of the lowest order, but this is what some Christians offer (though most simply pretend that the relatives of the inmate don’t exist).
So, how is it that Christians who support the DP manage to ignore the central figure of their beliefs when arguing why the Bible supports our DP? As already noted, human beings have a nearly infinite capacity for rationalization and denial. But just to remind those who are Christian and for the DP, that the NT has a great deal to say on the subject (though with only one exception, its references are indirect--though still powerfully relevant), I’m about to quote several passages from the NT (though there are plenty in the OT that speak to the supremacy of Love and Forgiveness and Mercy over retribution). The words of Christ are in red:
Blessed are the merciful for they will be shown mercy--Mat. 5:7
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill them--Mat.5:17 [as I note in an earlier comment, this utterance by Christ is key to understanding why the punishments seemingly required for certain crimes are not actually mandated. See my earlier notes]
[It’s been said] ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to the judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother is subject to the judgment . . . .--Mat. 5:21,22
You have heard it said, ‘eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, offer him the other also.[Another key comment from Christ, taken together with his earlier statement that he has not come to “abolish the law” but to “fulfill” the law. Love is the fulfillment of the law, not retribution]--Mat 5:38,39
. . . love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.[Another especially important verse in understanding how the Christian should respond to the DP. Can the DP ever be an expression of love? If so, than this is a kind of love that no sane man would ever want to experience.]--Mat. 5:44
. . . if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.--Mat. 6:14
So in everything, do unto others what you would have them do unto you. [Emphasis mine]--Mat. 7:12
. . .by their fruit you shall know them.--Mat. 7:20
Anyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.--Mat. 7:26
I desire Mercy, not sacrifice.--Mat. 9:13
‘Love the Lord thy God with all your heart . . .’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law of the Prophets hang on these two commandments. [Once again making it clear that every Law of the OT should be viewed through the prism of Love]--Mat. 22:37-40
But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you.--Luke 6:27 [DP advocates should petition the churches to have this passage stricken from the Bible.]
Be Merciful, just as your Father is merciful.--Luke 6:36
All who live by the sword, shall die by the sword--Mat. 26:52
The teachers of the Law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such a woman. Now what do you say? They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, ”If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to cast a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away, one at a time . . . until only Jesus was left. .. . Jesus straightened up and asked the woman, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
“No one sir,” she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.”--John 8:2-11 [I have heard people try and explain how this passage is really not incomatible with a DP, but I have yet to hear anyone do it and make sense. Might you be the first?]
[CONTINUATION]
So, tell me again how the DP is supported by the Bible? Of course, if you're basing this support on a OT reading, without regard to context, or the strictures laid down by God on how to conduct a DP trial (I can see no other way anyone could see support for the DP from their Bible), then we still have a problem. If we're going to strictly follow God's word as it relates to the DP (again, without regard to historical context, or its place within the entire Bible, or how such trials were to take place), then you really need to get out there and start demonstrating for a broad increase in DP eligible crimes. Among other things, anyone who "strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death (Exod 21:12) [this would include getting angry and hitting someone with no intent to kill], adultery (Deut. 22:22-24, among many other places), kidnapping (Exod. 21:16), Rape of a betrothed woman (Deut. 22:25), fornication by a woman (Deut. 22:13-22), cursing one's parents (Exod. 21:17), sex with animals (buggery) (Lev. 20:15), Sorcery (Lev. 20:27), Idolatry (Deut. 17:2-4), Rebelliousness by a son (Deut. 21:18-21), work on the Sabbath (Exod. 31:15), also eating certain prohibited items (can't find the reference right now), and many other crimes. If we applied the DP to all the crimes the OT deems worthy of death--how many individuals would be left on the earth? I, for one, would have long since been executed (and no, it wouldn’t have been buggery that would have been my downfall--but I have been rebellious--many times). So, you better get campaigning!
There are still many other problems with imposing a death sentence within the framework of the Bible. Before Christ, blood sacrifice was a part of the Jewish ritual of seeking forgiveness. This was a part of the DP process; the sacrifice of the victim’s blood was to atone for his sin. The trouble with this now is that this is no longer applicable to anyone who believes in Christ. It was his blood that was used to atone for the sins of man from then on and forever. So this integral part of the process--part of the reason for implementing a sentence of death in the time before Christ--has no meaning post crucifixion. (See: The Biblical Truth About America’s Death Penalty, “A Christian Conundrum Under Mosaic Law” (pgs.71-81); 2004)
And then, there are a myriad other passages from the Bible that throw doubt on your idea that the Bible supports our DP (once more, with feeling: I reiterate, there is absolutely NO way that the Bible supports the way we conduct our DP--period!) One I’d noted in a previous comment, but bears repeating: And what does God require of you but to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God. (Micah 6:8) Our DP simply does not qualify as “justice” the way it is administered--for dozens of reasons, some of which I described in an earlier comment. And Mercy? Anyone who truly understands the meaning of the term, and understands how our DP operates, knows that these two terms simply do not intersect. Ever. Not only is there nothing resembling mercy for the condemned, but the victimization of the condemned's family is hardly meriful. And I'm not so certain that taking upon oneself the power of death from God is in any way walking "humbly" with Him.
And then there is Exodus 23:7--Keep thee far from a false charge, and the innocent and righteous slay thou not. No ifs, ands, or buts--simply do not execute an innocent man period--with a capital exclamation mark! This is a commandment from God. How do we stack up in this regard? The same as in every other particular as to the conduct of a DP system as ordained by God--poorly. (I’ve already looked at this issue at length in an earlier entry).)
Typically, in past debates I’ve had about this issue, when confronted with this overwhelmingly clear information from the Bible which contradicts the supposed Biblical injunction to maintain a DP, the reaction has been to essentially ignore this information and concentrate on those passages that seem to support their cause (as if these other passages--including the words of Christ--were utterly worthless or irrelevant), again, without regard to their historical context or their context within the entire Bible, and ignoring the Biblically related precepts for conducting a DP trial. The Bible is a work of hundreds of pages, not a tiny volume with a few select passages devoid of context. To truly understand the issue as it is delineated in the Bible, the entire work must be considered. Only then will one understand why all the major denominations have condemned the DP as "Unchristian" (except the Southern Baptists, who use the same type of reasoning to support the DP as they once did to support slavery).
There is, of course, much more, but I’m out of time. And so, that will just have to do for now. Cheerio!
Peace.
Fighting for Truth, Justice, and making it the American way.
[deleted]
Agreed!
Fighting for Truth, Justice, and making it the American way.
[deleted]
I understand.
Yes, the "advanced Civilization" in Europe that needs "retards" from America every time there is a threat to the pansy-a$$ socialist peaceniks from a psychopathic maniac and that they are too "civilized"(chicken) to do anything about.
Refusal to believe does not negate the truth.
A few years ago a man in England decided to murder his wife. He whacked her on the head and then proceeded to disposal of the body, in a vat of acid bought for the purpose. Unfortunately he had not hit her hard enough and going in to the acid brought her back to consciousness. She got out of the vat and the house and ran down the street, her clothes melting off, her eyes burned out, until collapsing in agony that doesn't bear thinking about.
That murderer ought to be put to death, in my view - and here is where this matter can never be settled by the most cogent argument. It is, first and foremost, an intuitive moral judgment. But this leads also to a practical consideration. The vast majority of people believe in the death penalty and while that is so, failure to impose it brings the law into disrepute. If England were a true democracy, like the United States, abolition would never have happened.
I've always felt that the repeated stays were were orchestrated to be the real punishment.
share