Capital Punishment

[larrythehamster]

Capital punishment in the United States is officially sanctioned by 38 of the 50 states, as well as by the federal government and the military. The overwhelming majority of executions are performed by the states; the federal government maintains the right to use capital punishment (also known as the death penalty) but does so relatively infrequently. Each state practicing capital punishment has different laws regarding its methods and crimes which qualify; no state may execute someone for a crime committed before the age of 18. The state of Texas has performed more executions than any other state.

 

Capital punishment is a highly charged issue with many groups and prominent individuals participating in the debate. Arguments for and against it are based on moral, practical, religious, and emotional grounds. Advocates of the death penalty argue that it deters crime, improves the community by making sure that convicted criminals do not find their way out onto the streets to offend again, and is cheaper than keeping convicted criminals in high security prison for the rest of their natural lives. Opponents of the death penalty claim that "capital punishment cheapens human life and puts government on the same low moral level as criminals who have taken life."

 

Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976 there have been 1064 executions in the United States (as of February 28, 2007). There were 53 executions in 2006.

 

67% of capital convictions are eventually overturned, mainly on procedural grounds of incompetent legal counsel, police or prosecutors who suppressed evidence and judges who gave jurors the wrong instructions. Seven percent of those whose sentences were overturned between 1973 and 1995 have been acquitted. Ten percent were retried and resentenced to death.

 

Capital Punishment - The ultimate penalty. But what do you think about it? Is it a good deterrant? Is it a step to far, almost playing God?

 

As an Englishman, I don't know much about the Death Penalty, but I gotta say it's one thing i'm very interested in...

 

Please gimme your opinions and share your knowledge...

[»1587200]

The fight can go both ways. While most Christians will say, "What gives us the right to take away someone else's life?" based on the core Christian belief of forgiveness and love (even though not all follow that, but that's another topic completely) you can also argue that perspective by saying, "What gave that person the right to take someone else's life to begin with?"

 

I, as a Christian, personally believe my first statement, that we as a society do not have the right to take someone's life, as well as forgiveness and love. I'm not saying that we should forgive all crimes and let the people go free, no. People should pay for their crimes, but I don't think we as a society should go as far as killing the person. Some may argue that the law in the old testimate was an eye for an eye, but Christ taught love, forgiveness and compassion, and I think that when we take someone's life we throw those out the window.

[Aileron]

I for one view it differently.

 

There is clearly a sort of societal contract in which citizens are given rights but have to follow laws. Participating in a crime represents a failure to live up to the contract. The contract then becomes invalid and society no longer has an obligation to give you those rights.

 

For example, prison sentences. Under normal cir!@#$%^&*stances, citizens have an inalienable right to freedom. Society has no right to put people in jail under normal cir!@#$%^&*stances. However, when the person has been found guilty of a crime, society is now under no obligation to uphold their normal rights.

 

I am !@#$%^&*uming ofcourse matters of scale are upheld...obviously you don't give a life sentence for overdue library books.

 

I'm a Christian too. While I do believe God is merciful, He also stands for justice as well. Mercy and Justice must be balanced, and I do not believe a life sentence can balance out some of the more heinous of crimes.

[»1587200]

So screw reabilitation? Just kill 'em right?

[AceSpades]

I agree when most people say "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" but there must be limits when using this theory. I'm a Law student and have seen first hand the miscarraiges of justice take place. For those who don't know a miscarraige of justice is where the Judge and Jury "gets it wrong". This means sending innocents to death. So personally, I'm against it.

[Aileron]

The debate is "life in prison" vs "death", not "death" vs. "mess with their head and let them back out into society". We are !@#$%^&*uming the criminal has either done multiple homocides or was in the miltary or some high ranking government position and has committed an act of treason. To my knowledge those are the only two crimes that can get a capital sentence. Lets assume the former case, because the latter is a matter of oathtaking. Are you telling me that its worth trying to rehabilitate someone who lets say is a serial killer who has 15 murders under his belt? I can only think of one way to do it that would reliably work...were it not cruel and unusual it still wouldn't be much better than execution. Even if you rehabilitate a serial killer, there's no way in heck that we would ever let him out of prison, so yes, I say rehabilitation in the case of the crimes which can get somebody a capital sentence is indeed "screwed".

 

 

I've worked in a hospital and seen the dead bodies of innocents killed by murderers. I've seen first hand what murderers can do to people who may not have been falsely accused of a crime but also are innocent. The solution to preventing the conviction of innocents is to improve the judicial system.

 

Forgiveness is one thing, but on the other hand there's just being naive.

[SeVeR]

I'm a Christian too. While I do believe God is merciful, He also stands for justice as well. Mercy and Justice must be balanced, and I do not believe a life sentence can balance out some of the more heinous of crimes.

Ahh... a Christian with no objection to playing God. I bet the Crusaders had God's blessing too.

[Aileron]

Um, let me try to understand all the leaps you are trying to make here.

 

First off you are trying to imply that pursuing justice is somehow playing God. It is true that no one mortal is qualified to force justice on the world...that's why we have a justice system.

 

Then you imply that justice is an entirely Christian concept when it isn't. There wasn't a civilization in history that didn't have a concept of justice.

 

Then you claim all Christians are Crusaders, when there isn't a Christian alive today who deserves the !@#$%^&*le.

 

Then you claimed that of all wars in history the Crusades were somehow one of the worst. Hardly. A lot of good came out of them. For the first time in history, people rallied under a cause other than "the King said so". They also unified Europe somewhat as various city-states united under the same cause. Finally they brought works of arts and sciences. Most of the Greek works, such as half of Euler's writings, had been lost with the fall of Greece and Rome but copies had been translated and stored in universities in the Middle East, and during the Crusades, Crusaders took those works back to Europe where they became the foundation for modern science. Were it not for the Crusades those works would have either been lost to the fall of Islamic science or the Mongols. Most historians that don't have an axe to grind will tell you that the Crusades were a partial cause of the Renaissance.

[AceSpades]

Also, I think it's well known that in the states that enforce capital punishment the crime rate is high. Therefore capital punishment is doing nothing to strengthen the judicial system.

[larrythehamster]

the miscarraiges of justice take place

 

I think this is one of the big issues in the matter... At the end of the day, to error is human... Once the death sentance is carried out, there's no going back, no forgiveness, no room for error.

Also, what gives us as humans the right to take someones life. Surely that makes us as bad as the killer in the first place?

 

And another point i'd like to raise, what about soldiers in the army? Why is that any different? Who gave them the right to take another persons life and not face a penalty for it...

 

Just a few little thoughts from me ^^

[Aileron]

As I said, what gives us the right to do so is the fact that the person was found guilty of a crime by a jury of their peers. The fact that we put the person through the justice system beforehand is what makes us different than the murderer. Yes, usually the murderer will "justify" his case in his mind, whereas we created a system that eliminates our own individual opinions and tries the suspect objectively. That is ofcourse in theory.

 

There's a little catch phrase going around: "The difference between a cop and a robber is not the gun, it's the badge." The cop's actions are justified because his actions are sanctioned by society. He is not acting of himself but as an agent of the public's will. Our justice system is similar, which creates the difference between execution and murder.

 

 

War is different. Theorhetically if there is some overall moral cause the justifies the loss of life. In practice that is rarely the case, thus war is usually wrong. If the cause is unjustified the blame rests on the people calling the shots rather than the ones taking orders.

[SeVeR]

Um, let me try to understand all the leaps you are trying to make here.

 

First off you are trying to imply that pursuing justice is somehow playing God. It is true that no one mortal is qualified to force justice on the world...that's why we have a justice system.

 

Then you imply that justice is an entirely Christian concept when it isn't. There wasn't a civilization in history that didn't have a concept of justice.

 

Then you claim all Christians are Crusaders, when there isn't a Christian alive today who deserves the !@#$%^&*le.

 

Then you claimed that of all wars in history the Crusades were somehow one of the worst. Hardly.

Wow Aileron, a whole post in reply to two short sentences...

 

First off, pursuing justice is not playing God when pursued by a none believer. A Christian pursuing justice ultimately melds social justice with Biblical justice in an attempt to play God. Justice is not a Christian concept, justice came much earlier than Christianity, which hijacked the concept for their own authoritarian desires. All Christians are not Crusaders and i never said they were (is this a leap or a bound Ail?), the subtle point you missed is that Christians who play God only play God based on the current interpretation of God. The Crusaders in their time were saints, while in our time they're living out eternity in !@#$%^&*, so who is right?

 

Now finally, i'm very interested to know what made you think i believe the Crusades were the worst wars in history? Really Aileron... the conclusions you've already drawn about me (wrong for the most part) somehow give you the ...imagination(?) to draw further, even more ridiculous, conclusions such as an implication that i think the crusades were the worst wars in history. Presumably you think i believe this because you believe i hate Christianity and see a Christian war as ten times worse than anything else? I've seen this before from you many times. It makes you a very dangerous person as inevitably your intelligence will get you into a decision making position, at which point you'll start making conclusions based on pre-conceived and uninformed ideas about people. As for which war... personally i would go for the first world war, the most sickening example of trench warfare ever.

[Aileron]

Did you just call me an evil genius?

[Greased_Lightning]

As a Catholic, I'm taught that the death penalty is wrong. Unfortunately, I'm no saint. I agree that human life is precious, but in some cases, when the crime is especially heinous and there is no doubt in the issue, I see the death penalty as justifiable. I can see how people may call this playing God, but what gave that person the right to play God and end another's life in the first place? Again, the argument to that would likely be that two wrongs don't make a right, but I hope that it acts as a deterrent to others. It may seem cold hearted to 'make an example' out of someone, but I think it is the logical punishment. In capital cases, the evidence should have to be overwhelming, all procedures followed rigorously, and the crime to be bad enough to merit this (such as multiple violent killings of innocents).

 

Everyone knows what the consequences of their actions could be, so people should be able to govern themselves. Unfortunately, we all know this not to be the case far too often.

[SeVeR]

No-one gave the murderer the right to play God. They took it upon themselves to play God and a Catholic of all people should know the consequences for murder in the afterlife. Is it worth going to !@#$%^&* to exact justice in this life or do you think God wants mankind to execute the sinners? The way i see it, capital punishment is murder, it's playing God, but for a Christian it's also murder in the name of God and a presumption of Gods will.

 

I personally do not believe in God and don't give a !@#$%^&* about whether we use capital punishment.

 

Aileron, maybe i just need to draw up a new definition of stupidity.

[NBVegita]

Actually its been proven that on average the death penalty prevents 3-25 murders a year.

 

I'm all for the death penalty. If you do something that bad, you have forfieted the right to your own life. The second you take another life without just cause, you have forfieted the right to have your own spared in my opinion. Whats worse is that you did not give the person who's life you stole a chance to decide. You at least made the choice of ruining your own life.

 

Everyone in our society is womanized. The punishment should fit the crime. Playing "god"? Everyday man plays "god". we kill thousands of animals every day for our needs and our convenience. Ever step on a bug on purpose? Use a fly swatter? You just played "god" my friend, when you decided that another creature on this earth should no longer have the right to live. What makes humans any better? What separates a murderer from a maggot? Murderers take human lives, maggots eat our trash. Which of them causes more damage? You refuse to let that murderer die for killing other human beings but maggots you would have no problem killing.

 

And as for you christians, what about your inquisition? the witch hunts? They either interrogated (tortured) you unil you died or confessed. And if you confessed, they just hung you instead. Bet your god just loved that. The irony is that in all of the witch trials, not a single wiccan was actually tried. So a lot of innocent people got killed for no reason, and it was the fault of christians.

 

We have the right to exact justice for the wronged. If someone stole 1 million dollars from you would it be justice to let them pay that back in small amounts over the next 60- years? Would it be justice if someone raped your daughter and got a year in jail? It's just as cruel to ins!@#$%^&*utionalize a man, as it is to kill him. There was a study that the majority of men who have been convicted of a life sentence, and are released after many years of jail, end up back in jail within 2 years of being released. Because they can no longer funcion out side of the ins!@#$%^&*ution. Is it crueler to end a mans life after a lifetime of breaking his pride and spirit?

 

I guess I'm just old fashioned about some things.

[Drake7707]

The biggest m!@#$%^&* murderers are always people that are either complete wacko's or believe everything in a religion. On a more on-topic matter: death penalties are old fashioned. Most of the more 'civilized' countries don't do that anymore, and actually death is the lesser cruel way to make someone suffer for what he/she has done. Death is nothing more than leaving everything behind, ... but isn't that also the case when you're in jail for a long period of time ?

[NBVegita]

Yes but one is chopping off a guys head. The other is letting him starve to death.

 

Completely metaphorical.

[Aileron]

Hmmm...come to think of it anime avatars should be regulated on these forums.

 

 

I don't have to defend witch trials. I'm Catholic. Trying witches was more of a Calvanist thing. That's why we booted them from Europe.

 

As for the Inquisition, the Renaissance followed the Inquisition. In Islam, the Golden Age of Islamic Science occured after the mihna. In Russia, a great period of cultural advancement occured with Peter the Great using Inquisition-like methods. There's a difference between religion and supersi!@#$%^&*ious tradition, between believing in God the fundimental order of the universe and believing in God your best friend and good luck charm. The Inquisition served to test people's faith so as to move people from the second catagory in to the first one. This brought the populace from a supers!@#$%^&*ious state that was only good for making small-scale but constant war to a state that believed in order that could pursue arts, science, and really big wars.

 

For instance, in the Dark Ages the biggest fear of sailors was the Leviathon, the Krakken, or other sea monsters. Religiously, sea monsters don't exist. The Inquisition would ask questions testing someone's faith such as "Does God send seamonsters after sinful sailors?" If they answered yes it was a failure of faith. After the inquisition, sailors din't believe in seamonsters any more and ships started to sail into deeper waters.

 

It was an effective, albeit harsh, way to get civilization rolling.

 

 

Oh, and grammatically, "God" is capitalized when referring to monotheistic religions and only in lower case if referring to polytheistic gods.

 

First off you don't have to put "civilized" in quotes. (I do because of grammer rules.) Some nations are indeed more civilized than others. If all nations were inherently equally civilized then social progress would be inherently impossible, because in order to progress one has to go from an inferior to a superier state, which is in contradiction to the statement that all cultures are equally civilized. Since, there are several movements in history in which social progress has been made, then some cultures are more civilized than others.

 

That being said, you were correct in putting them in quotes because most of these "civilized" nations are in a state of cultural decay. (I'm using quotes again because I'm using saracasm.)

[NBVegita]

Ah but you see when I refer to man, man has many religions and many gods, so thus the race of man as a whole is polythiestic, thusly "god" would be in proper context. Now if all human beings believed in one diety, my grammer would be incorrect.

 

And I never said the inquisition didn't have a good side to it. I mean look at the halocaust. They made decades worth of medical advances in a matter of years. Most great tragedies have rewards to them.

[Aileron]

Except that all varieties of Jews, Christians, and Muslims agree that the others believe in the same God, so all monotheistic religions of humanity are in agreement as far as God is concerned. This isn't optional; its a rule of English. God is capitalised.

[NBVegita]

But you made a severe error thinking that the only religions known to man are from Jews, Christians, and Muslims. The fact that man also has polythiestic religions denotes that I can accordingly refer a god vs the God.

[Aileron]

No, it doesn't.

 

Its a rule of English. Look it up.

 

Scratch that, its beyond a rule of English. Its true for all languages that use Roman letters.

[NBVegita]

3. (lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.

4. (often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.

6. (lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol.

7. (lowercase) any deified person or object.

[NBVegita]

Being their exist within man Polythiesm, thus the christian God, is one of many gods worshiped by man as a whole. So if I refer to man playing "god" I could in essence refer to him as playing Zeus, or Mercury, or in satanism where satan is considered a god.