NationStates Jolt Archive

Linkage (http://www.insightbb.com/story.aspx?doc=/XML/1110_AP_Online_Regional_-_National_(US)/d5ed4064-e4c9-45c0-95a0-120c6fa48f14.xml&top=NEWS)


Oct 26, 11:08 PM EDT
By MICHAEL GRACZYK - Associated Press Writer

HUNTSVILLE, Texas (AP) -- A man convicted in a 1992 murder case in which the troubled Houston police crime lab allegedly mishandled evidence was executed Tuesday evening despite last-minute legal battles and pleas from relatives of the murder victim that his life be spared.

U.S. District Judge Nancy Atlas had blocked Dominique Green's execution after his attorneys argued that boxes of improperly stored and catalogued evidence, kept by the crime lab and recently discovered, could contain information relevant to the case.

The state attorney general's office objected to the reprieve, which was then lifted by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to grant a last-minute stay.

"There was a lot of people that got me to this point and I can't thank them all," Green said in a barely audible voice. "I am not angry but I am disappointed that I was denied justice. But I am happy that I was afforded you all as family and friends. I love you all. ... Please keep my memory alive."

Green gasped slightly a couple of times as the lethal drugs took effect and was pronounced dead nine minutes later. The execution was the 18th this year in Texas and the fifth this month.

Green's attorneys had argued their client should be kept alive until they could look through all the files. Harris County prosecutors said all evidence in the case had been accounted for.

The execution was opposed by relatives of the man Green was convicted of killing and by religious leaders, including Nobel Peace Prize laureate Desmond Tutu and the Rev. Joseph Fiorenza, the Roman Catholic bishop of the Galveston-Houston diocese.

"Texas is going to put a righteous person to die like an animal, putting him on a table, strapping him up, putting those needles in his arms, putting him to sleep," the victim's son, Andre Lastrapes-Luckett, said after meeting with Green in prison Monday.

Green was convicted of gunning down Andrew Lastrapes Jr. during a $50 robbery outside a Houston convenience store in October 1992. Green admitted being at the store at the time of the murder, but maintained he was not the gunman.

Green was arrested three days after the shooting when officers spotted a stolen car and ran it off a highway. According to testimony, a gun in the car was traced to the slaying.

Defense attorneys said problems at the Houston crime lab raised questions about the validity of some of the evidence, including the gun. The lab's DNA section has been closed since a 2002 audit revealed possible contamination of evidence, inadequate training for analysts and insufficient documentation.



Yay for the death penalty. NOT!!!

That's the trouble with Death penalties - it's not like any bad decisions can be overturned, is it?

Another day, another abuse of human rights.

The death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment. It is irreversible in the case of an error. It brings the society that uses it to, or below, the level of whoever that society is "punishing".

Unfortunately for Texans who do have a brain, the death penalty fits right in, and thrives, in Texas...

And, here in New York...

And in quite a few other backward states...

That is unfortunate. Personally I don't think it's a very good idea to give an institution that can't even manage our money efficiently the power of life and death over us. :(

Another day, another abuse of human rights.
For every person executed under due process of a law, a hundred thousand babies are executed on the whim of one person.

It really sucks but then again, Texas isn't really in America now is it?

It's a sad, sad occasion when things like this begin to stop envoking emotion.

Things need to change.

He did it. He got what he deserved. Found guilty by a jury of his peers and sentenced to death.

For every person executed under due process of a law, a hundred thousand babies are executed on the whim of one person.

To paraphrase Mrs. Broflowski, 'What-what-WHAT!' the Fuck are you on about, dude? Some shadowy baby-killing conspiracy? Just who is this 'one person' supposed to be, anyway?

To paraphrase Mrs. Broflowski, 'What-what-WHAT!' the Fuck are you on about, dude? Some shadowy baby-killing conspiracy? Just who is this 'one person' supposed to be, anyway?
The mother of her aborted child.

He did it. He got what he deserved. Found guilty by a jury of his peers and sentenced to death.

The courts are incometant, juries are a joke and most people get shitty lawyers for defense.
I wonder how the Texas public defenders are?

The courts are incometant, juries are a joke and most people get shitty lawyers for defense.
I wonder how the Texas public defenders are?
You can hire a lawyer, too.

The courts are incometant, juries are a joke and most people get shitty lawyers for defense.
I wonder how the Texas public defenders are?

And you make this assertion based on what?

He did it. He got what he deserved. Found guilty by a jury of his peers and sentenced to death.

I just wrote, rewrote, and wrote again what I wanted to say to this poster, but I don't feel like getting myself worked up. Suffice it to say that I hope that if Lex ever finds himself in this dude's predicament, he'll remember what he posted here today and happily goes to his own death.

Peace.

I've never felt so ashamed to live in Texas.

I sincerely hope we move elsewhere someday soon.

The mother of her aborted child.

Dude, by your own statement, we're talking about one hundred thousand people, here. Not one. Think about it.

Dude, by your own statement, we're talking about one hundred thousand people, here. Not one. Think about it.
Think logically, it's one person, just a different one person. At least to execute someone legally, you need a judge, jury, some lawyers, policement, witnesses, etc. etc.

So was he or was he not driving a stolen car?

I just wrote, rewrote, and wrote again what I wanted to say to this poster, but I don't feel like getting myself worked up. Suffice it to say that I hope that if Lex ever finds himself in this dude's predicament, he'll remember what he posted here today and happily goes to his own death.

Peace.
Or maybe he'll be innocent and not be found guilty? Or maybe you're just an idiot who posted a paragraph about nothing?

And you make this assertion based on what?

It's my opinion on the first since politics always come into play, juries are mostly people too stupid to avoid jury duty in the first place and who most likely doze through most of it anyway. The last is obvious since many can't afford a lawyer and will end up stuck will some kid whose ink on their law degree hasn't dried yet. THAT is the justice system.

He did it. He got what he deserved. Found guilty by a jury of his peers and sentenced to death.
Agreed, when are people going to learn that actions have consequences. Murder leads to prison or the death penalty. Stop being apologists for murderers.

It's my opinion on the first since politics always come into play, juries are mostly people too stupid to avoid jury duty in the first place and who most likely doze through most of it anyway. The last is obvious since many can't afford a lawyer and will end up stuck will some kid whose ink on their law degree hasn't dried yet. THAT is the justice system.
Well, then maybe people should stop avoiding jury duty if this is such a pandemic problem. And maybe America needs more lawyers!!!

Stop being apologists for incompitent &/or corrupt cops and DAs.

Or maybe he'll be innocent and not be found guilty? Or maybe you're just an idiot who posted a paragraph about nothing?

Maybe I'm just one idiot who posted a paragraph about nothing, or maybe I'm a hundred thousand idiots. Depends who's doing the math, bunky.

Just one more scumbag that won't be able to vivctimize anyone anymore.

It's my opinion on the first since politics always come into play, juries are mostly people too stupid to avoid jury duty in the first place and who most likely doze through most of it anyway. The last is obvious since many can't afford a lawyer and will end up stuck will some kid whose ink on their law degree hasn't dried yet. THAT is the justice system.

How much contact with the justice system have you had? You sound like you are throwing out common misconceptions. I sorry you feel that way about jury duty. It is a civic duty that all citizens should participate. Juries are a lot smarter than you think. And the public defenders are some of the most experienced trial attorneys out there. I should know. I'm an Assistant Prosecutor.

Maybe I'm just one idiot who posted a paragraph about nothing, or maybe I'm a hundred thousand idiots. Depends who's doing the math, bunky.
Good point, but at the end of the day you're still an idiot.

Just one more scumbag that won't be able to vivctimize anyone anymore.

Planning a little vacation, are you?

For every person executed under due process of a law, a hundred thousand babies are executed on the whim of one person.

This may be difficult for you to wrap your mind around, but some of us believe that the government should protect human life in all cases.

Good point, but at the end of the day you're still an idiot.

No, I'm a Subgenius. It's different than being an idiot. Idiots can't seem to tell whether they're talking about hundreds of thousands of women, or just one. Or don't care to differentiate.

This may be difficult for you to wrap your mind around, but some of us believe that the government should protect human life in all cases.
This may be difficult for you to understand, but I wasn't talking to every single human being on earth when I said that.

Without honest cops and DAs the smartest jury in the world could convict an innocent man, short of him having a "dream team" to get them off, which will leave them always suspected.

No, I'm a Subgenius. It's different than being an idiot. Idiots can't seem to tell whether they're talking about hundreds of thousands of women, or just one. Or don't care to differentiate.
Idiots can't tell that one person doing the same thing as 999,999 different people, is still one person. Or they just have poor understanding of the English language.

Without honest cops and DAs the smartest jury in the world could convict an innocent man, short of him having a "dream team" to get them off, which will leave them always suspected.
Then become a cop. Fix the system. Or stop complaining about those who are doing their jobs.

This may be difficult for you to understand, but I wasn't talking to every single human being on earth when I said that.

Well, I have to admit, it is a little difficult for me to understand why you would quote someone you weren't talking to.

Just one more scumbag that won't be able to vivctimize anyone anymore.

Or a potential innocent executed before all the evidence is looked at. But hey, what's the difference?

Well, I have to admit, it is a little difficult for me to understand why you would quote someone you weren't talking to.
I was using a statement to make a point, but fine, you win. Not everyone is for or against killing people in all cases.

Then become a cop. Fix the system. Or stop complaining about those who are doing their jobs.

Oh, that's hilarious! :D No one should find fault with any area of government unless they are prepared to do a better job. That should shut a WHOLE lot of people up! :D

Oh, that's hilarious! :D No one should find fault with any area of government unless they are prepared to do a better job. That should shut a WHOLE lot of people up! :D
No one should say an entire branch of the government (judicial) is completely worthess, unfair, corrupt, and stupid unless they have a better way to do it.

From what I've read, there was a possibility that some of the evidence might have been tampered with by detective doing a shiity job. In that optic, what's 6 more month to wait to be absotulely sure that there's been no foul play?

When you're sure about the integrity of the process, then you can carry the sentence at your leisure. Is that too much to ask? Does the cost of a man in prison for one year is so much of a burden on the taxpayer's wallet that we cannot afford the cost associated with making sure the justice system has been respected?

Arammanar, it was unfair of me to jump on you like I did. I was trying to make the point that one shouldn't make assumptions, but apparently I committed that exact mistake. I apologize.

No one should say an entire branch of the government (judicial) is completely worthess, unfair, corrupt, and stupid unless they have a better way to do it.

Agreed. I would merely contend that the judicial system, depending as it does (and must) on humans to make decisions, is inherently imperfect, and regardless of a person's personal views on the morality of capital punishment, it's unconscionable to support it without a 100% certainty that only the guilty will be executed. Even a single innocent life is too high a price to pay for any positive effects of capital punishment.

Agreed. I would merely contend that the judicial system, depending as it does (and must) on humans to make decisions, is inherently imperfect, and regardless of a person's personal views on the morality of capital punishment, it's unconscionable to support it without a 100% certainty that only the guilty will be executed. Even a single innocent life is too high a price to pay for any positive effects of capital punishment.
I won't argue that the judicial system, along with every system, is inherently imperfect. But I think given our resources and human nature, it's the best we can do. I believe that some people are executed by mistake. I believe some people die in accidents, whether automotive, medical, or otherwise. But I also think if you have the choice of having two people die, or having one person die, you go for the one person. Maybe this man was innocent. Maybe he wasn't. But whether or not he committed this crime, the ability to punish people with death was displayed to everyone. The point of the death penalty isn't about revenge, or reducing prison population, it's to show criminals that the government has access to any punishment they need to prevent you from doing wrong.

No one should say an entire branch of the government (judicial) is completely worthess, unfair, corrupt, and stupid unless they have a better way to do it.

Fortunately, I do. :)

1) moritorium on executions in which there is any unexamined forensic evidence. Something to hide? There shouldn't be, should there?

2) 20 years + death for capital cases. Plenty of time for review at leisure, with only one deadline. We would spend more to keep them but we would spend less to fight their extensions, and lawyers cost a lot more than prison guards. Plenty of time to prove an innocent to be not-guilty, as well as plenty of time for the guilty to count off until they get to die, and suffer knowing. So it's a win-win-win.

3) treat all cops suspected of crimes as any other person would be treated. "In the line of duty" should be an affirmative defence, but we must remove the layer of departmental discipline and treat bad cops like any other bad citizens.

4) matching punishments for cops, prosecutors and witnesses found to have falsified any evidence. Cheat to get a death conviction? Get death.

I'm also qualified to criticize the IRS :D

Fortunately, I do. :)
1) moritorium on executions in which there is any unexamined forensic evidence. Something to hide? There shouldn't be, should there?

There will always be "unexamined evidence." I say you get 3 tries, and that's it.

2) 20 years + death for capital cases. Plenty of time for review at leaisure, with only one deadline. We spend more toi keep them but we spend less to fight their extensions, and lawyers cost a lot more than prison guards. Plenty of time to prove an innocent to be not-guilty, as well as plenty of time for the guilty to count off until they get to die, and suffer knowing. So it's a win-win-win.
Twenty years is too long. Give them 10 or 15. But I agree with you in principle.

3) treat all cops suspected of crimes as any other person would be treated. "In the line of duty" should be an affirmative defence, but we must remove the layer of departmental discipline and treat bad cops like any other bad citizens.
Agreed, the law is not above itself.

4) matching punishments for cops, prosecutors and witnesses found to have falsified any evidence. Cheat to get a death conviction? Get death.
Yes! That is the whole rational behind the death penalty, matching punishment to deter.

Wow, a well-thought out legitimate reply that I mostly agree with that didn't flame me for a different view. My hat goes off to you

For every person executed under due process of a law, a hundred thousand babies are executed on the whim of one person.That is a pathetic excuse for killing even one human being

That is a pathetic excuse for killing even one human being
"Womens Rights" is a pathetic excuse for murdering millions of innocent children.

The courts are incometant, juries are a joke and most people get shitty lawyers for defense.
I wonder how the Texas public defenders are?Heard an NPR report - they're underfunded, and apparently under-educated...

I won't argue that the judicial system, along with every system, is inherently imperfect. But I think given our resources and human nature, it's the best we can do. I believe that some people are executed by mistake. I believe some people die in accidents, whether automotive, medical, or otherwise. But I also think if you have the choice of having two people die, or having one person die, you go for the one person. Maybe this man was innocent. Maybe he wasn't. But whether or not he committed this crime, the ability to punish people with death was displayed to everyone. The point of the death penalty isn't about revenge, or reducing prison population, it's to show criminals that the government has access to any punishment they need to prevent you from doing wrong.
But it doesn't prevent them from doing wrong.

But it doesn't prevent them from doing wrong.
Of course it doesn't. No one anywhere is infallible. But you do the best you can. 99% is a lot better than any one person does.

Of course it doesn't. No one anywhere is infallible. But you do the best you can. 99% is a lot better than any one person does.
No one anywhere is infallible, and that speaks volumes for the people who commit the crime of murder.

99% deterence? How do you figure?

Thank you! :D *bows*

I say they get ONE try, but it has to be a fair one. Anything turns up from having been "lost" and the prosecutor foots the bill of having it tested.

And we could do a study... look at the average and maximum times it has taken to exonorate an innocent convict and subtract for the times it took to get extensions, and round up to some whole number, weighted towards the maximum end, and make it that.

"Womens Rights" is a pathetic excuse for murdering millions of innocent children.
Abortion isn't about women's rights, it's about human rights.

Abortion isn't about women's rights, it's about human rights.
Which human, the woman who doesn't want to carry a baby, or the baby, who is innocent, and never has a chance?

Abortion isn't about women's rights, it's about human rights.
Except for unborn humans. And males, since they rarely get a say in the matter. Who does leave? Oh yeah, women.

No one anywhere is infallible, and that speaks volumes for the people who commit the crime of murder.

99% deterence? How do you figure?
I'm saying 99% of the time there's no controversy over a death penalty case. It's generally a done deal. Things like this article generally don't occur.

"Womens Rights" is a pathetic excuse for murdering millions of innocent children.I did not raise the issue of abortion vs no abortions - I just pointed out that the fact that abortions take place, and someone is opposed to them, is not much of an excuse to kill somebody else.

I stand by that idea.

Please take the pro-death/anti-choice debate to an appropriate thread, if it cannot be related more directly to the topic at hand than "what about these killer?" and "but it's a right!" Can you relate it to capital appeal processes and problems with evidence? If you can, go on and do so but otherwise you are simply threadjacking.

Thank you! :D *bows*

I say they get ONE try, but it has to be a fair one. Anything turns up from having been "lost" and the prosecutor foots the bill of having it tested.

And we could do a study... look at the average and maximum times it has taken to exonorate an innocent convict and subtract for the times it took to get extensions, and round up to some whole number, weighted towards the maximum end, and make it that.And in the end, you weigh how much it costs in $$$$$ against somebodies life?

No, thank you.

I'm saying 99% of the time there's no controversy over a death penalty case. It's generally a done deal. Things like this article generally don't occur.That's quite true.

Do you want to be in that 1%?

Do you want someone you know to be in that 1%?

Particularly if it's a crime that capital punishment (death) is, by the law of "whatever state you are in", one of the possible/probable sentences?

How about a REAL life in prison without parol sentence? Without ANY privileges - just sit in the cell, get fed three times a day, until your life expires naturally?

And, if 20 years down the road we find out we put an innocent man in jail, we can let you out.

Instead of having to dig you up...

He did it. He got what he deserved. Found guilty by a jury of his peers and sentenced to death.

The whole point is he did not do it.

He was a convenient powerless victim for a corrupt system that manufactures its own evidence.

The whole point is he did not do it.

He was a convenient powerless victim for a corrupt system that manufactures its own evidence.
He did do it. Unless you can prove otherwise, he was guilty. Innocent until proven guilty, proven guilty until proven innocent.

And in the end, you weigh how much it costs in $$$$$ against somebodies life?

No, thank you.

Did you read my previous post? I am talking about a minimum grace period during which execution would be postponed, and during which the defence would be free to pursue appeals without worrying about extensions. I am then talking about making a study to see how long it can take to exonorate an innocent convict and setting the grace period towards the top of this range.

How does that relate to your response?

Did you read my previous post? I am talking about a minimum grace period during which execution would be postponed, and during which the defence would be free to pursue appeals without worrying about extensions. I am then talking about making a study to see how long it can take to exonorate an innocent convict and setting the grace period towards the top of this range.

How does that relate to your response?
It doesn't. Snubby just likes assuming that everyone is hell-bent on ending innocent life.

Of course it doesn't. No one anywhere is infallible. But you do the best you can. 99% is a lot better than any one person does.

There is no evidence tio support the claim that the death penalty acts as a deterrent.

In jurisdicitions in which the death penalty has been removed, the rate of homicides has gone down.

That seems to lead me to a conclusion opposite to yours.

Except for unborn humans. And males, since they rarely get a say in the matter. Who does leave? Oh yeah, women.
And why should other human's rights get precedence over a woman's regarding what goes on in her own body?

EDIT: Apologies Druthulhu, I'll stop.

And why should other human's rights get precedence over a woman's regarding what goes on in her own body?
Because she's losing a right to convenience, someone else is losing a right to live. In my world, inconvenience is a less serious crime than murder.

And why should other human's rights get precedence over a woman's regarding what goes on in her own body?
Why should a woman be able to murder another human because it is not conveinent to carry a child?

I'm saying 99% of the time there's no controversy over a death penalty case. It's generally a done deal. Things like this article generally don't occur.
Ah, I see. You were changing the subject.

There is no evidence tio support the claim that the death penalty acts as a deterrent.

In jurisdicitions in which the death penalty has been removed, the rate of homicides has gone down.

That seems to lead me to a conclusion opposite to yours.
You're assuming murder rate is solely dependent on the presence or absence of the death penalty. Are you saying that no one takes into account the fact that their actions could result in them being killed before they perform them? Or do murderers simply not care about their own lives, or have no understanding of the legal system?

Ah, I see. You were changing the subject.
I thought the subject was on killing innocents. No, I don't believe that 99% of murders that are not carried out are not carried out because of fear of the death penalty. That's just silly :p

I thought the subject was on killing innocents. No, I don't believe that 99% of murders that are not carried out are not carried out because of fear of the death penalty. That's just silly :p
100% of aborted babies are innocent. Protect those innocents.

100% of aborted babies are innocent. Protect those innocents.
Well, I have a tiny quibble. I think in 1 in a million cases where carrying a baby to term will kill the mother abortion should be allowed, as I'm in favor of self-defense, but again, the exception not the rule.

Did you read my previous post? I am talking about a minimum grace period during which execution would be postponed, and during which the defence would be free to pursue appeals without worrying about extensions. I am then talking about making a study to see how long it can take to exonorate an innocent convict and setting the grace period towards the top of this range.

How does that relate to your response?

But your system, in the end, still allow the death penalty. This is where we disagree. While your proposition is sound, I just can't, in good conscience, allow a system that permits the death penalty.

But then, this is the the greater issue, is it not? ;)

Well, I have a tiny quibble. I think in 1 in a million cases where carrying a baby to term will kill the mother abortion should be allowed, as I'm in favor of self-defense, but again, the exception not the rule.

wow, how generous. But are you talking about one in a million, or one hundred thousand in a million, chump?

You're assuming murder rate is solely dependent on the presence or absence of the death penalty. Are you saying that no one takes into account the fact that their actions could result in them being killed before they perform them? Or do murderers simply not care about their own lives, or have no understanding of the legal system?

If the only major change in policy is the removal of the death penalty, why shouldn't we assume it has an incidence on the murder rate?

Again, the death penalty has not been proven as a good deterrent. And it is definitively a infringment on an individual's right to live.

No actions should remove that right from you.

Well, I have a tiny quibble. I think in 1 in a million cases where carrying a baby to term will kill the mother abortion should be allowed, as I'm in favor of self-defense, but again, the exception not the rule.
Absolutly, also cases of rape and incest, and sever birth defects. However, just because your too lazy to use birth control is not a reason to abort.

wow, how generous. But are you talking about one in a million, or one hundred thousand in a million, chump?
Wow, how trivial. Go find a local third grader and ask him to explain that sentence to you if it's still above your head.

Absolutly, also cases of rape and incest, and sever birth defects. However, just because your too lazy to use birth control is not a reason to abort.

...and just how many babies have YOU had to abort, you clod?

Wow, how trivial. Go find a local third grader and ask him to explain that sentence to you if it's still above your head.
Might I suggest you place this troll on ignore. I have, and the boards are a lot easier to read when instead of childish dribble, you instead see "Dobbs Town This user is on your Ignore List. "

Wow, how trivial. Go find a local third grader and ask him to explain that sentence to you if it's still above your head.

One woman and 100,000 women are not interchangeable, unless you have such a low opinion of women as to see them as some sort of herd animal. Do you?

...and just how many babies have YOU had to abort, you clod?
Who HAS to have an abortion? Not that many. So why is that an issue?

Did you read my previous post? I am talking about a minimum grace period during which execution would be postponed, and during which the defence would be free to pursue appeals without worrying about extensions. I am then talking about making a study to see how long it can take to exonorate an innocent convict and setting the grace period towards the top of this range.

How does that relate to your response?Not quite coherent, was I?

What I mean is this. What is the point of setting a "time limit"? And I guess I jumped to the conclusion that the point was to set a dollar limit. Which would be even worse, in my opinion, than just having the death penalty. It would amount to killing someone when they became too expensive.

On re-reading your post, it does not mention a dollar limit - just a time limit. So, I guess that means that if we give somebody 20 years to prove they are innocent, and it takes 21 years to find out they were innocent, that it was then okay to kill them? And, if you look in to these cases, it often is a matter of that kind of time.

See - the setting of a limit of any kind does not satisfy my real objection to the death penalty. My real objection to the death penalty is as stated in my first post.

I cannot think of/forsee/imagine a situation in which I could agree that the death penalty is warranted.

Because in the end, it simply amounts to society deciding to kill somebody. Which I cannot find as acceptable to me. Let them sit in a little concrete cell on a thin mattress with a bland diet and nothing else. But let's not lower our collective selves to the level of a murderer by killing people we think we have proven to be murderers.

Might I suggest you place this troll on ignore. I have, and the boards are a lot easier to read when instead of childish dribble, you instead see "Dobbs Town This user is on your Ignore List. "

Delighted to be of service, it's so much nicer with your tiny pointed little head buried deep in the sand, isn't it?

One woman and 100,000 women are not interchangeable, unless you have such a low opinion of women as to see them as some sort of herd animal. Do you?
I didn't say they were interchangable. I said if you read my sentence, and can't understand it, find a third grader to explain it to you. Unless you have such low social standing that third graders don't feel comfortable going near you.

I have three sons, 2 year old twins, and an 8 day old, and I can't imagine haveing them partialy delivered and then their brains sucked out of their crushed skulls. I have managed to always use protection when I didn't want the funk or didn't want a child. It is not hard. If you need one, call me, I have quarters, you can buy protection from a bathroom vending machine. If only Dobbs Town's parents had had this foresight.

It doesn't. Snubby just likes assuming that everyone is hell-bent on ending innocent life.doesn't deserve a response, and won't get one

doesn't deserve a response, and won't get one
Except for that fact that it just did.

I didn't say they were interchangable. I said if you read my sentence, and can't understand it, find a third grader to explain it to you. Unless you have such low social standing that third graders don't feel comfortable going near you.

Right. You said, 'For every person executed under due process of a law, a hundred thousand babies are executed on the whim of one person. '

I said, ''What-what-WHAT!' the Fuck are you on about, dude? Some shadowy baby-killing conspiracy? Just who is this 'one person' supposed to be, anyway? "

You said, "The mother of her aborted child."

And I said that in that case, we're talking about one hundred thousand people (women), not one.

Connect the goddamn dots already. You can't say it's one person executing one hundred thousand babies, that's just incredibly stupidly DUMB, profooundly DUMB, far dumber than any insult Munkebrain has yet tried assailing me with.

Right. You said, 'For every person executed under due process of a law, a hundred thousand babies are executed on the whim of one person. '

I said, ''What-what-WHAT!' the Fuck are you on about, dude? Some shadowy baby-killing conspiracy? Just who is this 'one person' supposed to be, anyway? "

You said, "The mother of her aborted child."

And I said that in that case, we're talking about one hundred thousand people (women), not one.

Connect the goddamn dots already. You can't say it's one person executing one hundred thousand babies, that's just incredibly stupidly DUMB, profooundly DUMB, far dumber than any insult Munkebrain has yet tried assailing me with.
Wonder why no one else called me on that? Why everyone in this thread hasn't been confused by it? Because you're an idiot. The fact you know what I meant, and try to twist semantics to further your nonexistent point, just further belies your intelligence

I have three sons, 2 year old twins, and an 8 day old, and I can't imagine haveing them partialy delivered and then their brains sucked out of their crushed skulls. I have managed to always use protection when I didn't want the funk or didn't want a child. It is not hard. If you need one, call me, I have quarters, you can buy protection from a bathroom vending machine. If only Dobbs Town's parents had had this foresight.Until the last sentence, you were making a coherent argument. Last sentence nothing but flame.

This thread was started as a discussion of the death penalty, particularly in cases where the person executed/about to be executed was innocent of the crime.

Not about abortion/right to life.

And let's not get into, as someone said earlier in this thread "innocent until proven guilty, then guilty until proven innocent" - as an excuse to actually execute - which means KILL - a person. That's just nonsense. If a person did not commit the crime for which they are being punished, or about to be punished, then they are innocent - regardless of what took place in court. Just as someone who does commit a crime, and is found innocent in court, is really guilty - just not "legally" guilty.

The law defines reality. You have to accept some things as true if they are proven to be so, unless you can prove otherwise. This man was found guilty. Unless you prove he is innocent, guilty he remains. If you simply say he might be innocent and must be treated as such, then you negate any source of order or reason in society.

Except for that fact that it just did.a response has to address the "arguement", and attempt to show how it is wrong, or attempt to show how it is right. That was not a response to your "arguement", just a statement that there would be none. This is not a response to your "arguement" either, just an explanation so you can understand that you did not get, and aren't going to get, a response.

a response has to address the "arguement", and attempt to show how it is wrong, or attempt to show how it is right. That was not a response to your "arguement", just a statement that there would be none. This is not a response to your "arguement" either, just an explanation so you can understand that you did not get, and aren't going to get, a response.
No it doesn't. If you don't feel an argument has been made, you have nothing to respond to. So you ignore it. But that's not the point of this topic, and it doesn't really matter anyway.

Wonder why no one else called me on that? Why everyone in this thread hasn't been confused by it? Because you're an idiot. The fact you know what I meant, and try to twist semantics to further your nonexistent point, just further belies your intelligence

If you can't say what you mean, that's not my problem. I'm not at all confused by your statement. I do have a point - I'm calling you STUPID, and apparently getting a lot more mileage out of this simple proposition than I could ever have hoped for.

Hook, line, sinker. STUPID.

And what I was trying to say was, as a man, you have no fuckin' clue as to what agonies women may or may not have to endure while deciding whether or not to abort their fetuses. You are hardly in any position to offer any form of commentary whatsoever. You may feel entitled to tell other people (women, in this instance) how to live, or how to think or feel, but your sense of entitlement doesn't extend into the real world. Unless you live in a theocracy where women have no rights over their own bodies, you're just stirring shit, buddy.

Get your fuckin' greasy paws off my sister's uterus, you holier-than-thou FUCK.

The law defines reality. You have to accept some things as true if they are proven to be so, unless you can prove otherwise. This man was found guilty. Unless you prove he is innocent, guilty he remains. If you simply say he might be innocent and must be treated as such, then you negate any source of order or reason in society.The law defines legality, but has no effect on reality. LEGALLY, the man is guilty if a court of law found him to be. In REALITY, he is only guilty if he committed the crime.

No one has to prove reality - but we do have to prove GUILT in a court of law. GUILT must be proven, in our legal system. INNOCENCE is assumed in our legal system, until guilt is proven BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. If a reasonable doubt comes up...even after a trial...then innocence must once more be assumed unless/until that reasonable doubt is removed by proof of evidence.

And that does not "negate any source of order or reason".

The whole point is he did not do it.

He was a convenient powerless victim for a corrupt system that manufactures its own evidence.

The article isn't very detailed, so it doesn't say whether he denied fleeing the police in a stolen car. Only, from what I have read, the gun was at question. It does say that he admitted to being at the scene of the killing, but that he was not the shooter. If he was indeed fleeing the police it a stolen car, it would be a very big coincidence for him to have simply been an innocent bystander at the killing. Call me prejudiced, but I do not like car thieves, and I think it's pretty likely that he was there with the shooter, and part of the robbery. If he was, he gets death anyway, whether he was the shooter or not.

Sadly, I grew up in Texas.

Just wanted you to know that some Texans really don't have their heads up their asses, and see this as a sick practice.

The article isn't very detailed, so it doesn't say whether he denied fleeing the police in a stolen car. Only, from what I have read, the gun was at question. It does say that he admitted to being at the scene of the killing, but that he was not the shooter. If he was indeed fleeing the police it a stolen car, it would be a very big coincidence for him to have simply been an innocent bystander at the killing. Call me prejudiced, but I do not like car thieves, and I think it's pretty likely that he was there with the shooter, and part of the robbery. If he was, he gets death anyway, whether he was the shooter or not.

So car thieves should get the death penalty? Ain't that a little, uhh- harsh?

And what I was trying to say was, as a man, you have no fuckin' clue as to what agonies women may or may not have to endure while deciding whether or not to abort their fetuses. You are hardly in any position to offer any form of commentary whatsoever. You may feel entitled to tell other people (women, in this instance) how to live, or how to think or feel, but your sense of entitlement doesn't extend into the real world. Unless you live in a theocracy where women have no rights over their own bodies, you're just stirring shit, buddy.
So since I don't know what murder victims feel like, I can't say murder is good or bad? Since I don't know what it feels like to have my shot in war, I can't say war is bad? Since I don't know what being an idiot feels like, I can't say you're an idiot, idiot? I don't give a flying fuck how women feel about their fetuses, I care about innocent life. Their rights stop when they infringe on someone else's rights. An innocent's right to right trumps another innocent's right to liberty, if both are in conflict.

So car thieves should get the death penalty? Ain't that a little, uhh- harsh?

No they should not as such. But it removes, for me, a lot of the doubt as to whether his presence at the scene of the murder was a coincidence, and if he was there as part of a violent crime that resulted in homicide, the law gives him death whether he held the gun or not.

The law defines legality, but has no effect on reality. LEGALLY, the man is guilty if a court of law found him to be. In REALITY, he is only guilty if he committed the crime.

No one has to prove reality - but we do have to prove GUILT in a court of law. GUILT must be proven, in our legal system. INNOCENCE is assumed in our legal system, until guilt is proven BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. If a reasonable doubt comes up...even after a trial...then innocence must once more be assumed unless/until that reasonable doubt is removed by proof of evidence.

And that does not "negate any source of order or reason".
To get the death penalty, you must be no reasonable doubt that you in fact did commit whatever crime you have been charged with. At that point, you are no longer assumed to be innocent, you are assumed to be guilty. Thus, the burden of proof changes hands. The judge looked at the case and did not think that the new development was reasonable.

How much contact with the justice system have you had? You sound like you are throwing out common misconceptions. I sorry you feel that way about jury duty. It is a civic duty that all citizens should participate. Juries are a lot smarter than you think. And the public defenders are some of the most experienced trial attorneys out there. I should know. I'm an Assistant Prosecutor.

Maybe I am wrong about how smart juries and PD's are. All I know is that trials for the most part are long and for the most part boring with no Perry Mason moments. Lots of things get lost in trials anyway because of tricks that both sides pull to help them win easier. I am not so optimistic to think that prosecuters and defense attorneys are for the most part beacons of virtue. If they were, there wouldn't be lawyer jokes.

The article isn't very detailed, so it doesn't say whether he denied fleeing the police in a stolen car. Only, from what I have read, the gun was at question. It does say that he admitted to being at the scene of the killing, but that he was not the shooter. If he was indeed fleeing the police it a stolen car, it would be a very big coincidence for him to have simply been an innocent bystander at the killing. Call me prejudiced, but I do not like car thieves, and I think it's pretty likely that he was there with the shooter, and part of the robbery. If he was, he gets death anyway, whether he was the shooter or not.Does that apply to everybody who was there at the time? Everybody in the car at the time? Everybody in earshot at the time? Everybody in Texas at the time? Or just anybody you don't like?

I don't give a flying fuck how women feel about their fetuses

Let me savour the moment. Damn, I wish I had your momma's email address.

To get the death penalty, you must be no reasonable doubt that you in fact did commit whatever crime you have been charged with. At that point, you are no longer assumed to be innocent, you are assumed to be guilty. Thus, the burden of proof changes hands. The judge looked at the case and did not think that the new development was reasonable.So, if that was you, and the judge said, "Nah, kill him anyway," that'd be okay with you?

Agreed, when are people going to learn that actions have consequences. Murder leads to prison or the death penalty. Stop being apologists for murderers.

Unfortunately in Texas, many people are executed for crimes outside of murder.

Stop being apologists for incompitent &/or corrupt cops and DAs.

They can't be too incompetent if the guy was convicted and executed.

Let me savour the moment. Damn, I wish I had your momma's email address.
That would be difficult, since she's dead. But way to ignore a point and be a jackass.

So, if that was you, and the judge said, "Nah, kill him anyway," that'd be okay with you?
I'd say that one judge was not doing that one judge's job. I wouldn't say the idea of punishing crimes is wrong.

They can't be too incompetent if the guy was convicted and executed.

Unless he was in fact innocent, in which case they are either incompetent or corrupt.

What? You don't give a fuck about women's fetuses. You said you care deeply about unborn innocent babies, right? So you must have some sort of interest in the fetuses the babies come from, am I not right? Or are you interested in some other sort of baby, like photos of babies in department store catalogues...or babies made of plastic...what other sorts of babies don't come from fetuses (which you're not interested in)?

This is becoming very frustrating. So, I'm going to re-state what I said in my first post on this thread:

The death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment. It is irreversible in the case of an error. It brings the society that uses it to, or below, the level of whoever that society is "punishing".

Unfortunately for Texans who do have a brain, the death penalty fits right in, and thrives, in Texas...

And, here in New York...

And in quite a few other backward states...

There is not, and cannot be, any rational that is acceptable to me for society killing someone.

The crux of the problem is that he was convicted with evidence that was tampered with. If you let me make up evidence, I can guarantee you a conviction. Doesn't make the man guilty.

As for the burden of proof, it always, always fall on the DA under the US system of justice. There no such thing as guilty until proved innocent.

Does that apply to everybody who was there at the time? Everybody in the car at the time? Everybody in earshot at the time? Everybody in Texas at the time? Or just anybody you don't like?

Read the law. It applies to everybody who was a participant in a premeditated violent crime that cost an innocent person their life, whether that was in the plan or not.

I'd say that one judge was not doing that one judge's job. I wouldn't say the idea of punishing crimes is wrong.But, you wouldn't get to say that. Because they would have killed you - legally - and called it the death penatly.

What? You don't give a fuck about women's fetuses. You said you care deeply about unborn innocent babies, right? So you must have some sort of interest in the fetuses the babies come from, am I not right? Or are you interested in some other sort of baby, like photos of babies in department store catalogues...or babies made of plastic...what other sorts of babies don't come from fetuses (which you're not interested in)?
I said I don't care how they FEEL about their fetuses. Looks like reading comprehension isn't your strong point.

But, you wouldn't get to say that. Because they would have killed you - legally - and called it the death penatly.
And that's not the issue. That doesn't have anything to do with the morality or logic of the death penalty, it has to do with a bad judge. Just like if a surgeon accidentally kills you, is medicine now wrong just because it isn't perfect?

Read the law. It applies to everybody who was a participant in a premeditated violent crime that cost an innocent person their life, whether that was in the plan or not.The point is, I want to change the law to eliminate the death penalty, not read it.

What? You don't give a fuck about women's fetuses. You said you care deeply about unborn innocent babies, right? So you must have some sort of interest in the fetuses the babies come from, am I not right? Or are you interested in some other sort of baby, like photos of babies in department store catalogues...or babies made of plastic...what other sorts of babies don't come from fetuses (which you're not interested in)?I said I don't care how they FEEL about their fetuses. Looks like reading comprehension isn't your strong point.

Would you two start another thread about this as was asked by Druthulhu earlier. It derails the conversation.

Thank You.

And that's not the issue. That doesn't have anything to do with the morality or logic of the death penalty, it has to do with a bad judge. Just like if a surgeon accidentally kills you, is medicine now wrong just because it isn't perfect?No, there are two arguements against the death penalty. One is that it is abhorent and immoral. For those who don't get that, and think it's fine for society to kill someone, there is the other - that the person sentenced to death just might not have committed the crime he/she is going to be executed for.

Arammanar:

It's just so much fun getting you to react so horribly. You've provided me with far more fun and amusement than I'd hoped for. Thank you, and good luck enforcing your will on half the adult population. You'll need it.

Bye-bye now,

Dobbs Town.

The point is, I want to change the law to eliminate the death penalty, not read it.

Why not? :) You don't seem to mind reading into what I have written and asking me to defend positions I have not taken. ;)

And that's not the issue. That doesn't have anything to do with the morality or logic of the death penalty, it has to do with a bad judge. Just like if a surgeon accidentally kills you, is medicine now wrong just because it isn't perfect?
death penalty can be outlawed.
surgery cannot.

Why take the chance to have bad judges when we can remove the possibility.

Jowever, just because your too lazy to use birth control is not a reason to abort.

A common excuse to make abortion illegal. Another one would be that they're not taking responsibility and that they werent responsible when they had unprotected sex. So, tell me, if these irresponsible sluts are so incompetent to not take birth control or take responsibility, what makes you think that they would not be just as lazy when taking care of a child or even giving it up for adoption (that is, NOT giving it up for adoption)?

death penalty can be outlawed.
surgery cannot.

Why take the chance to have bad judges when we can remove the possibility.
Why have a legal system at all when you can just remove the possibility of any wrongful conviction?

I'm really sick and tired of everyone immediately attacking Texas for this. Or, more accurately, I'm sick of how everyone immediately abandons Texas as a lost cause. They seem to forget that while yes, we do have the death penalty, so do 37 other states. And though it may be convenient to target us because we execute more people than any other state, did you ever stop to take a look at the violent crime indices, and compare how many violent crimes Texas has compared to those other states? Texas is not a bad place. If you're a liberal, you might think it is, simply because most of this state doesn't share your political views, but then again politics is messed up. I've yet to meet someone truly into politics who actually was open-minded; by the time you get that into it, you're as deeply convicted of your political beliefs as a fundamentalist christian is of their religious beliefs. But that's besides my point. I, personally, am opposed to the Death Penalty. I don't think taking another human's life is ever correct. And I also like Texas. Having proper moral convictions and a conscience bent towards social justice does not contradict liking Texas. Please note that I'm not claiming Texas is the best state out there; I'm merely saying that the fact that we have the death penalty does not on its own make us the worst.

I'm really sick and tired of everyone immediately attacking Texas for this. Or, more accurately, I'm sick of how everyone immediately abandons Texas as a lost cause. They seem to forget that while yes, we do have the death penalty, so do 37 other states. And though it may be convenient to target us because we execute more people than any other state, did you ever stop to take a look at the violent crime indices, and compare how many violent crimes Texas has compared to those other states? Texas is not a bad place. If you're a liberal, you might think it is, simply because most of this state doesn't share your political views, but then again politics is messed up. I've yet to meet someone truly into politics who actually was open-minded; by the time you get that into it, you're as deeply convicted of your political beliefs as a fundamentalist christian is of their religious beliefs. But that's besides my point. I, personally, am opposed to the Death Penalty. I don't think taking another human's life is ever correct. And I also like Texas. Having proper moral convictions and a conscience bent towards social justice does not contradict liking Texas. Please note that I'm not claiming Texas is the best state out there; I'm merely saying that the fact that we have the death penalty does not on its own make us the worst.
True, not the worst, but among the few at the bottom. How's it being such a lowlife state?

I'm also qualified to criticize the IRS :D

Aren't we all?

Its takes to long for people to be killed on death row it should be immediate. Conviction, last request, then the killing.

A common excuse to make abortion illegal. Another one would be that they're not taking responsibility and that they werent responsible when they had unprotected sex. So, tell me, if these irresponsible sluts are so incompetent to not take birth control or take responsibility, what makes you think that they would not be just as lazy when taking care of a child or even giving it up for adoption (that is, NOT giving it up for adoption)?
A lowly upbringing can be overcome, being sucked out of a uterus with a vacuum and then tossed into a trash can cannot.

Its takes to long for people to be killed on death row it should be immediate. Conviction, last request, then the killing.

Thank you, Yasar Arafat. :rolleyes:

True, not the worst, but among the few at the bottom. How's it being such a lowlife state?

Seems so Interesting a person who is claiming to be from Germany is bashing a state in the US when that person has probably never been to all 50 states, much less spent enough time in each of those states to truly know enough about them to claim such knowledge.

I may only can claim good knowledge of Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Arkansas myself; but I can tell you this... You my dear Sir/Madam are very mistaken.

Maybe Texas is a terrible place to an extremist hippy (and where I am it isnt so nice for an extremist conservative) but honestly the terrain of Texas has something for most people (except those who want snow for 3/4s the year, Move to Alaska and enjoy the snow 11 months...). The people in my area (not in say Houston area... San Antonio is decent about it so is Dallas) are nicer than a lot of the people I have met from other states *cough* Californians *cough* [Dont get me wrong I have met some nice ones, but on the average they tend to treat me like an ignorant racist redneck and they are 2/3rds wrong with that belief.]
Last time I checked, statewide we have a better ratio of crime to populace statistics... lower cost of living is most areas, and better laws (minus the ones that were in our constitution and have a 'repeal' on them but are still 'technically' enforcable...)

I'm not sure I would like to meet a German with a mind like yours... Especially coming from a Country that should be used to hearing 'Ignorant and Dated' viewpoints about themselves...

How many times have you had someone blame Germany for Hitler? eh?

Well Ill say this and leave it be; If you haven't been all over Texas, You don't have Any right to say anything about it... because you will be simply speaking from Ignorance... which can be considered Prejudice.

Gnight, Folks. Just remember; The Death Penalty has less to do with God, and more to do with Government...

Its takes to long for people to be killed on death row it should be immediate. Conviction, last request, then the killing.Let us all know how you feel about that if you ever wind up there yourself.

Let us all know how you feel about that if you ever wind up there yourself.

He won't get a chance to, unless he uses that as his last request.



"Do you have a last request?"

"Yes, I do... please don't kill me!"

Unfortunately in Texas, many people are executed for crimes outside of murder.
That's good policy.

No, there are two arguements against the death penalty. One is that it is abhorent and immoral. For those who don't get that, and think it's fine for society to kill someone, there is the other - that the person sentenced to death just might not have committed the crime he/she is going to be executed for.

1. Not abhorent and immoral. In fact it is specifically approved in scripture.

2. If they are truly innocent then they go to heaven straight away. So really we are doing them a favor. (Plus the people who conspire to frame them go to hell.) Unless, they are atheists. In which case they are going to hell regardless.

1. Not abhorent and immoral. In fact it is specifically approved in scripture.

2. If they are truly innocent then they go to heaven straight away. So really we are doing them a favor. (Plus the people who conspire to frame them go to hell.) Unless, they are atheists. In which case they are going to hell regardless.

I don't see how non-subscribers like Atheists end up being judged by a Christian God. Even if they were, I thought they were condemned to Limbo, or the land of noble Pagans outside the gates of Hell, or somesuch.

What about the Zoroastrians (amongst others)?

I don't see how non-subscribers like Atheists end up being judged by a Christian God. Even if they were, I thought they were condemned to Limbo, or the land of noble Pagans outside the gates of Hell, or somesuch.

What about the Zoroastrians (amongst others)?

Did I say Christain God?

And I don't think it matters what people believe. It's all about what God believes.

That's good policy.
Why am I not surprised? :p

Did I say Christain God?

And I don't think it matters what people believe. It's all about what God believes.

Well...God is supposed to be everywhere, the Universe his creation, thus an extension of himself, blah blah blah, we ourselves form part of God, part of God's consciousness, etc., etc., etc., so I'd have to say that what people think/feel/know has a great deal to do with God thinks/feels/knows. On its' own, belief is kinda meaningless. You can believe whatever you want. We can have conflicting beliefs. But to know...is to no longer require belief, n'est-ce pas?

You know, when quoting scripture, I'd refer you to the ten commandments. Specifically, "Thou shall not kill". How come any believer of holy scriptures can, in good conscience, accept the death penalty?

1. Not abhorent and immoral. In fact it is specifically approved in scripture.

2. If they are truly innocent then they go to heaven straight away. So really we are doing them a favor. (Plus the people who conspire to frame them go to hell.) Unless, they are atheists. In which case they are going to hell regardless.
Religious fanaticism has no place in the legal system. The God I believe in does not want us to kill one another under any circumstances. The "eye for eye" garbage is NOT God speaking, it's just a written version of that society's decision to kill one another ad nausium (sp?).

And your personal decision on what God thinks, and what happens to dead people, is not sufficient proof for me that it's okay to kill people, even if they're innocent.

In the United States religion, by design, has no place in the government or legal system. And that is to ensure that I don't/can't foist my religious beliefs on you or anyone else, and you don't/can't foist your religious beliefs on me or anyone else.

So...try again, without using religion.

That's good policy.Well, so far what you have managed to prove to me is that you selected your NS name well.

You know, when quoting scripture, I'd refer you to the ten commandments. Specifically, "Thou shall not kill". How come any believer of holy scriptures can, in good conscience, accept the death penalty?

A person judged guilty of murder must die. Do not allow any kind of bargain or ransom for his life. Num. 35:30

The blood of the victim murdered defiles the land. The only way it is cleansed is by administering capital punishment to the murderer. Num. 35:33-34

Other capital crimes:

Hitting your parents -- Ex. 21:15

Kidnapping -- Ex 21:16

Cursing your father or mother -- Ex 21:17

Killing an unborn infant -- Ex 21:22-25 (There is some discussion about the interpretation of the passage. I believe it means if a woman has a miscarriage and the baby lives there can be lesser penalties. If the baby dies or the baby and the mother die the death penalty applies as the KJV & NIV translate the passage.

An animal that has the habit of injuring others and the owner does not destroy it -- Exodus 21:28-29

Witchcraft -- Ex. 22:18

Worship of other gods/goddesses -- Ex. 22:20

Working on the Sabbath -- Ex. 35:2

Adultery -- Lev. 20:10

Incest -- Lev. 20:11-12 & 14

Sodomy (homosexuality/lesbianism) -- Lev. 20:13

Bestiality -- Lev. 20:15-16

False prophesying -- Deut. 13:1-10

Rape under some circumstances -- Deut. 22:25


You get the idea.

A person judged guilty of murder must die. Do not allow any kind of bargain or ransom for his life. Num. 35:30

The blood of the victim murdered defiles the land. The only way it is cleansed is by administering capital punishment to the murderer. Num. 35:33-34

Other capital crimes:

Hitting your parents -- Ex. 21:15

Kidnapping -- Ex 21:16

Cursing your father or mother -- Ex 21:17

Killing an unborn infant -- Ex 21:22-25 (There is some discussion about the interpretation of the passage. I believe it means if a woman has a miscarriage and the baby lives there can be lesser penalties. If the baby dies or the baby and the mother die the death penalty applies as the KJV & NIV translate the passage.

An animal that has the habit of injuring others and the owner does not destroy it -- Exodus 21:28-29

Witchcraft -- Ex. 22:18

Worship of other gods/goddesses -- Ex. 22:20

Working on the Sabbath -- Ex. 35:2

Adultery -- Lev. 20:10

Incest -- Lev. 20:11-12 & 14

Sodomy (homosexuality/lesbianism) -- Lev. 20:13

Bestiality -- Lev. 20:15-16

False prophesying -- Deut. 13:1-10

Rape under some circumstances -- Deut. 22:25


You get the idea.
So just about everyone who is not Christian must die? My.. that looks grim.
Working on the Sabbath is capital crime? I see.. poor people of the world who have to work on Sundays. Even Bush would be killed if that applies.

Sodomy.. oh noes.. Dick Cheney is gonna lose his daughter.

Religious fanaticism has no place in the legal system. The God I believe in does not want us to kill one another under any circumstances. The "eye for eye" garbage is NOT God speaking, it's just a written version of that society's decision to kill one another ad nausium (sp?).

And your personal decision on what God thinks, and what happens to dead people, is not sufficient proof for me that it's okay to kill people, even if they're innocent.

In the United States religion, by design, has no place in the government or legal system. And that is to ensure that I don't/can't foist my religious beliefs on you or anyone else, and you don't/can't foist your religious beliefs on me or anyone else.

So...try again, without using religion.

1. Try reading again with humor.

2. What about self defense, or should you just let someone kill you?

3. The majority of people who live in areas where the death penalty is enforced believe in it. So what are you saying: even though I should not impose my ideas upon the majority of society because you do not agree with them, you are perfectly free to do so.

4. It is the ultimate sanction that society can impose, and thus fulfills the retributive function of the judicial system.

Interestingly enough the Qu'raan does not mandate the death penalty for murder, but leaves it up to the victims family. The death penalty may be imposed for other crimes however such as apostasy.

So just about everyone who is not Christian must die? My.. that looks grim.
Working on the Sabbath is capital crime? I see.. poor people of the world who have to work on Sundays. Even Bush would be killed if that applies.

Sodomy.. oh noes.. Dick Cheney is gonna lose his daughter.

No, Dick Cheney's daughter is not covered by those. That would be Romans 1:25-26 ( I think offhand ). No death penalty. Is a sin though, but only with a certain interpretation. From another perspective the Bible is silent as to lesbians, so you can only assume that God doesn't care.

Oh, and the sabbath is Saturday. And this is all old testament so it applies to Jews as well.

Killing an unborn infant -- Ex 21:22-25 (There is some discussion about the interpretation of the passage. I believe it means if a woman has a miscarriage and the baby lives there can be lesser penalties. If the baby dies or the baby and the mother die the death penalty applies as the KJV & NIV translate the passage.

What discussion? A FEOTUS is called "fruit" and its loss due to a violent act results in a civil payment - money. But if the woman dies with her fruit, it is capital murder even if it was an accident.

You know of a translation that says otherwise?

An animal that has the habit of injuring others and the owner does not destroy it -- Exodus 21:28-29

Close. DEATH caused by an animal with a history of attacking people, more specifically, an ox inclined to gore, leads to capital punishment for its owner. (Should be done these days when attack-trained dogs tear up children).

Adultery -- Lev. 20:10

...whish is defined as a married women with another man. A man can have all the sex he wants as long as it's not somebody else's wife. BTW whores are encouraged over masturbation.

Incest -- Lev. 20:11-12 & 14

Except brothers are REQUIRED to give their brother's widows sons, if they had none already.

Sodomy (homosexuality/lesbianism) -- Lev. 20:13

Lesbianism is no where forbidden in the Torah.



Thing is, there is no commandment against killing in any properly translated Torah. The hebrew word means "murder". That's just all there is to it. Anti-death-penalty people always seem to conveniently overlook this, but it is simply a fact.

What discussion? A FEOTUS is called "fruit" and its loss due to a violent act results in a civil payment - money. But if the woman dies with her fruit, it is capital murder even if it was an accident.

You know of a translation that says otherwise?



Close. DEATH caused by an animal with a history of attacking people, more specifically, an ox inclined to gore, leads to capital punishment for its owner. (Should be done these days when attack-trained dogs tear up children).



...whish is defined as a married women with another man. A man can have all the sex he wants as long as it's not somebody else's wife. BTW whores are encouraged over masturbation.



Except brothers are REQUIRED to give their brother's widows sons, if they had none already.



Lesbianism is no where forbidden in the Torah.



Thing is, there is no commandment against killing in any properly translated Torah. The hebrew word means "murder". That's just all there is to it. Anti-death-penalty people always seem to conveniently overlook this, but it is simply a fact.


All right, keep your hair on. I only posted those to show that there was a number of things that the death penatly was for, I probably should have edit the synopses I little better.

And note, I do point out in another post that, depending on how you read Romans, the bible is probably silent to lesbianism. (Yes, I also know people that take Romans to have a prohibition.)

As the murder/killing thing. As all christians know the KJV says kill, and the KJV is inerrant.

. . .

As all christians know the KJV says kill, and the KJV is inerrant.

Wrong. Many Christians know that the KJV is probably one of the most flawed of all popular translations, other than perhaps the RC.

doncha just love the smack of firm government?

Or, in Texas's case, the sizzle of firm government.

Wrong. Many Christians know that the KJV is probably one of the most flawed of all popular translations, other than perhaps the RC.

Do I have to point out the:" 1. Read again with humor" thing.

I suppose you are one of those Vulgate people. Anyway I have it on Good authority from the established church the KJV is inerrant. Because the King said so, and he's head of the church.

A person judged guilty of murder must die. Do not allow any kind of bargain or ransom for his life. Num. 35:30

The blood of the victim murdered defiles the land. The only way it is cleansed is by administering capital punishment to the murderer. Num. 35:33-34

Other capital crimes:

Hitting your parents -- Ex. 21:15

Kidnapping -- Ex 21:16

Cursing your father or mother -- Ex 21:17

Killing an unborn infant -- Ex 21:22-25 (There is some discussion about the interpretation of the passage. I believe it means if a woman has a miscarriage and the baby lives there can be lesser penalties. If the baby dies or the baby and the mother die the death penalty applies as the KJV & NIV translate the passage.

An animal that has the habit of injuring others and the owner does not destroy it -- Exodus 21:28-29

Witchcraft -- Ex. 22:18

Worship of other gods/goddesses -- Ex. 22:20

Working on the Sabbath -- Ex. 35:2

Adultery -- Lev. 20:10

Incest -- Lev. 20:11-12 & 14

Sodomy (homosexuality/lesbianism) -- Lev. 20:13

Bestiality -- Lev. 20:15-16

False prophesying -- Deut. 13:1-10

Rape under some circumstances -- Deut. 22:25


You get the idea.You believe that this is what God wants? That's sad.

You believe that this is what God wants? That's sad.

No, I just made it up off the top of my head.

As all christians know the KJV says kill, and the KJV is inerrant.Er...some christians don't know that. Some chrisitias believe the Pope is infallible...and some don't.

For me, there simply is no valid justification for society killing someone. None.

And, for me, this is enough of this discussion.

Er...some christians don't know that. Some chrisitias believe the Pope is infallible...and some don't.

For me, there simply is no valid justification for society killing someone. None.

And, for me, this is enough of this discussion.

For the LAST TIME, this is all tongue in cheek.

For the LAST TIME, this is all tongue in cheek....the absolute last time? you won't change your mind, will you?

;)

...the absolute last time? you won't change your mind, will you?

;)

Well, ok, since you asked nice and all. :)

Personally, speaking for other chrisitias, I believe the Pope has a sharp focus on world affairs and an intellect undimmed by time and senility. :p

Here Here! The Pope has many, many, many years left in which he will guide us with his sagacity and piercing intellect.

For the LAST TIME, this is all tongue in cheek.
you poor thing. you forget that in the general forums THERE ARE NO JOKES. everything is meant the worst way it can be interpreted to mean.

you poor thing. you forget that in the general forums THERE ARE NO JOKES. everything is meant the worst way it can be interpreted to mean.

Which can actually sometimes be hilarious, if you feel like pushing buttons. :p

A person judged guilty of murder must die. Do not allow any kind of bargain or ransom for his life. Num. 35:30

The blood of the victim murdered defiles the land. The only way it is cleansed is by administering capital punishment to the murderer. Num. 35:33-34

(skipping most of them...)
Rape under some circumstances -- Deut. 22:25


You get the idea.
I got your point: to be ok with the death penalty, you have to believe that what is written in the Old Testament is somewhat better that what Jesus has taught us in the new testament. ;)

Thing is, there is no commandment against killing in any properly translated Torah. The hebrew word means "murder". That's just all there is to it. Anti-death-penalty people always seem to conveniently overlook this, but it is simply a fact.
In my defense, most of the religious arguments here use the KJV. Even if we use the translation as "murder", it is still an argument against the death penalty which is, essentially, state sanctionned murder. So the point is valid with whichever translation you want to use.

I got your point: to be ok with the death penalty, you have to believe that what is written in the Old Testament is somewhat better that what Jesus has taught us in the new testament. ;)


Well, some may say that but:

Christ never came to do away with the Old Covenant, he came to fulfill it. As he himself states:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill: Matthew 5:17

So, Christ is telling us to maintian the old Mosaic laws from the first five books of the Old Testament. (The Pentateuch)

Besides, Jesus himself, admitted that he is subordinate to God, and not vice versa: 1 Corinthians 11:3. Thus he could never overule the law as laid down by God originally.

In any event, Jesus approved of Gods command that children who curse their parents are to be put to death: Matthew 15:3-4. He also chastised the Pharisees for failing to kill those children who defied their parents' commands: Mark 7:9-13.

But you could look at it your way if you want, although I would remind you that Jesus also told us we are to live our lives in fear of God for God has the power not only to kill us, but to torture us forever in Hell (Luke 12:5)

Your call.

Well, some may say that but:

Christ never came to do away with the Old Covenant, he came to fulfill it. As he himself states:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill: Matthew 5:17

So, Christ is telling us to maintian the old Mosaic laws from the first five books of the Old Testament. (The Pentateuch)

By that rationale, we should never have abolished slavery as stated in leviticus. Also, I should be punished severly because my clothing are made from more than one type of fibre.


Besides, Jesus himself, admitted that he is subordinate to God, and not vice versa: 1 Corinthians 11:3. Thus he could never overule the law as laid down by God originally.

In any event, Jesus approved of Gods command that children who curse their parents are to be put to death: Matthew 15:3-4. He also chastised the Pharisees for failing to kill those children who defied their parents' commands: Mark 7:9-13.

Ah, but I seem to recall tha god gave us ten commandments as the supreme law (look at it as a constitution), and that one of those is that we should not murder.

But you could look at it your way if you want, although I would remind you that Jesus also told us we are to live our lives in fear of God for God has the power not only to kill us, but to torture us forever in Hell (Luke 12:5)

Your call.
Well, I'll not stop doing good things and advocating saving lives in fear of God's reprisal. I'll believe the many instances that says that God is forgiving and I'll take what's coming to me.

By that rationale, we should never have abolished slavery as stated in leviticus. Also, I should be punished severly because my clothing are made from more than one type of fibre.

That's right. Now you're getting it. Although if you look at Paul, some distinction is drawn between whether the law is established or abolished. It's very involved subject. Probably the prohibition on fabric is abolished, but the practice of slavery is not.

Some people also choose, as you do, to draw a distinction between "moral" and ceremonial law. That is to say that they believe the correct interpretation is that the moral law of the ten commandments is kept, but mosaic law is not.

Probably textually however, the correct interpretation is that laws which are self-justifying, i.e., relate only to standing before God are abolished, however those that govern conduct between men are not. Thus the prohibition on eating shellfish, wearing certain types of fabric, hitching oxen with asses are no longer to be kept. On the other hand laws regarding slavery, rape and incest etc. are not. Therefore we should retain our system of capital punishment as Jesus indicates in the examples I gave.

I'm not sure I buy all that though.


Ah, but I seem to recall tha god gave us ten commandments as the supreme law (look at it as a constitution), and that one of those is that we should not murder.

Yes he did. But do you keep the sabbath, (saturday).

In any event capital punishment is not murder, it is Gods ordained punishment for certain offences.

Well, I'll not stop doing good things and advocating saving lives in fear of God's reprisal. I'll believe the many instances that says that God is forgiving and I'll take what's coming to me.

Well there is nothing wrong with that. But capital punishment for many crimes is always justified by the Bible. Try the Qu'raan it's a little more flexible on these matters.

That's right. Now you're getting it. Although if you look at Paul, some distinction is drawn between whether the law is established or abolished. It's very involved subject. Probably the prohibition on fabric is abolished, but the practice of slavery is not.

Some people also choose, as you do, to draw a distinction between "moral" and ceremonial law. That is to say that they believe the correct interpretation is that the moral law of the ten commandments is kept, but mosaic law is not.

Probably textually however, the correct interpretation is that laws which are self-justifying, i.e., relate only to standing before God are abolished, however those that govern conduct between men are not. Thus the prohibition on eating shellfish, wearing certain types of fabric, hitching oxen with asses are no longer to be kept. On the other hand laws regarding slavery, rape and incest etc. are not. Therefore we should retain our system of capital punishment as Jesus indicates in the examples I gave.

I'm not sure I buy all that though.




Yes he did. But do you keep the sabbath, (saturday).

In any event capital punishment is not murder, it is Gods ordained punishment for certain offences.



Well there is nothing wrong with that. But capital punishment for many crimes is always justified by the Bible. Try the Qu'raan it's a little more flexible on these matters.

For me, if your going to support capital punishment then it should also extend to people caught in practicing slavery and rapists too. Those kinds of people especially pedophiles should enjoy the needle just as much as murderers. Otherwise I really feel that the sentences are harsh, especially if Jesus is about redemption.

Hey now there's a point. If Jesus already died for all our 'sins', then why should capital punishment make sense to a Christian? Wasn't Jesus' death enough?

Eh?

For me, if your going to support capital punishment then it should also extend to people caught in practicing slavery and rapists too. Those kinds of people especially pedophiles should enjoy the needle just as much as murderers. Otherwise I really feel that the sentences are harsh, especially if Jesus is about redemption.

Deuteronomy 22

13 If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," 15 then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. 16 The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver [2] and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.
22 If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.
23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death-the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [3] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
30 A man is not to marry his father's wife; he must not dishonor his father's bed.

Happy ? Didn't think so.

Hey now there's a point. If Jesus already died for all our 'sins', then why should capital punishment make sense to a Christian? Wasn't Jesus' death enough?

Eh?

LOL, you are silly!

That's not what it means. Jesus just took away our original sin by dying. Read my posts above. You can still commit your own new ones, and God will send you to hell for them.

Also Jesus instructs us to keep these laws. Again see above.

LOL, you are silly!

That's not what it means. Jesus just took away our original sin by dying. Read my posts above. You can still commit your own new ones, and God will send you to hell for them.

Also Jesus instructs us to keep these laws. Again see above.

When did Texas's execution turn into a religious debate? the simple fact is there was plenty of evidence that the man was innocent and it was ignored. Is this justice?

When did Texas's execution turn into a religious debate? the simple fact is there was plenty of evidence that the man was innocent and it was ignored. Is this justice?

Erm, I think when someone said something like no christian would ever condone capital punishment.

Or actually it could have been when I pointed out that if he was innocent he would go to heaven anyway, so no harm done there. (Unless he's an atheist then he is going to hell guilty or not.)

One of those two. I forget.

When did Texas's execution turn into a religious debate? the simple fact is there was plenty of evidence that the man was innocent and it was ignored. Is this justice?

No, it's the Justice System. Big difference. Just like the Dept. of Homeland Security (unless it's setting it's offices up all over Europe which is the actual WASP homeland).

District attorney is an elected office and its' occupants get votes by getting convictions and harsh penalties not by seeing justice done, which requires letting innocent people go.

Why do you think that prosecuters are so against using DNA evidence to overturn convictions? It can't prove guilty people innocent. The D.A.'s just don't want to have their records taken down a peg. This is one of the things that annoys me about conservatives the most. "well now if we use DNA evidence to let innocent people out of jail, we're going to have to close our jails down." :headbang:

Erm, I think when someone said something like no christian would ever condone capital punishment.

Or actually it could have been when I pointed out that if he was innocent he would go to heaven anyway, so no harm done there. (Unless he's an atheist then he is going to hell guilty or not.)

One of those two. I forget.

So it's OK to murder Christians? Why didn't anyone tell me this before?
I have to go prepare for my next Jehova's Witness visitors.

I'm not sure I buy all that though.


....(some stuff removed)...


Yes he did. But do you keep the sabbath, (saturday).

In any event capital punishment is not murder, it is Gods ordained punishment for certain offences.


Well there is nothing wrong with that. But capital punishment for many crimes is always justified by the Bible. Try the Qu'raan it's a little more flexible on these matters.
I figured you were playing devil's advocate. The problem is that I'm not a religious person that quote specific passages, so we're just about the end of that part of the discussion. I'm not even a practising religous person. I try to live by what the bible teach us, but that's it.

One thing I have to discuss, though. The bold part of the quote. Capital punishment is state sanctionned murder. Even if God ordains death for some crimes, only God can take away life. (as found in the scriptures)

As to the specific of this case, I find it stupid to hasten the sentence when there's reason to believe that the evidence used to condemn the man were tampered with. That's not what I (and the law) calls a just and fair trial. They should have kept the reprieve in place until they were sure there was not a miscarriage of justice.

No, it's the Justice System. Big difference. Just like the Dept. of Homeland Security (unless it's setting it's offices up all over Europe which is the actual WASP homeland).

District attorney is an elected office and its' occupants get votes by getting convictions and harsh penalties not by seeing justice done, which requires letting innocent people go.

Why do you think that prosecuters are so against using DNA evidence to overturn convictions? It can't prove guilty people innocent. The D.A.'s just don't want to have their records taken down a peg. This is one of the things that annoys me about conservatives the most. "well now if we use DNA evidence to let innocent people out of jail, we're going to have to close our jails down." :headbang:

Yes DA's answer to the voters and losing a conviction would not look good to them. Is an honest lawyer an oxymoron? DNA evidence should be enough to end capital punishment. So many people are released on it that the validity of so many convictions are in question.

The death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment.
No it isn't, it's an easy way out.

Idiots can't tell that one person doing the same thing as 999,999 different people, is still one person. Or they just have poor understanding of the English language.


Failed at math did ya?

Its funny how you are "pro-life" and pro-death at the same time. Wait, no its not funny, its disturbing. So you are for the death penalty and the war I assume as well right?

You are so "moral" yet you call people idiots when they disagree with you. Maybe you should go read your bible again and learn what Jesus was really teaching. You can read right?

The word for kill in the Ten Commandments means murder, or unjustified killing. You can't kill someone who didn't do anything wrong, but you can kill someone if it's justifiable.

Failed at math did ya?
Actually no, I finished the calculus needed for my major and stopped, but still had a 4.0.

Its funny how you are "pro-life" and pro-death at the same time. Wait, no its not funny, its disturbing. So you are for the death penalty and the war I assume as well right?
I'm for the killing of the guilty and the protection of the innocent. Sorry if justice is "disturbing."

You are so "moral" yet you call people idiots when they disagree with you. Maybe you should go read your bible again and learn what Jesus was really teaching. You can read right?
I call people idiots when they make a four page discussion about semantics when THEY UNDERSTOOD WHAT I MEANT AS BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION and just want to be dicks who think they're clever. And yes I can read or I wouldn't be able to respond to your tripe.

You don't seem to mind that they executed the poor guy even though there were problems with the evidence and even the victims family was asking for them not to kill him. There have been many cases showing that innocent peole have received the death penalty - so obviously they kill more than the guilty... yet you are for it.

All those people we bombed in Iraq don'tdeserve to die because of what Saddam Hussein did. Were you for the war too?

Jesus said let he without sin cast the first stone right? Do you truely beleive that those killing the ones convicted of crimes are without sin (whatever your definition of sin is at the time)? If not then you should be against the death penalty.

And were you around during the writing of the ten commandments? What give you or anyone in this day and age the authority to determine what the Bible meant about anything?

Sometimes you bible thumpers should really do a bit of critical thinking before you just accept whatever your Church tells you to believe.

Sometimes you bible thumpers should really do a bit of critical thinking before you just accept whatever your Church tells you to believe.

They probably would if they had the brain capacity to even piece together a semblance of human feeling.

You don't seem to mind that they executed the poor guy even though there were problems with the evidence and even the victims family was asking for them not to kill him. There have been many cases showing that innocent peole have received the death penalty - so obviously they kill more than the guilty... yet you are for it.
First of all, the victim's family is irrelevant. They matter in the civil case, not the criminal one. There have been many cases where dubiously innocent people have been executed, and far more where the clearly guilty were executed. The judge looked at the problems with the evidence, and decided they wouldn't affect the outcome of a retrial.

All those people we bombed in Iraq don'tdeserve to die because of what Saddam Hussein did. Were you for the war too?
There are no innocents in war. You kill people because you have to, not because you want to. Believe me, I would love it if we could fight a war where only combatants died, but unfortunately, we live in a place called reality.

Jesus said let he without sin cast the first stone right? Do you truely beleive that those killing the ones convicted of crimes are without sin (whatever your definition of sin is at the time)? If not then you should be against the death penalty.
Someone who is both saved and repenetent is without sin in the sense they can receive moral authority. But I never said my views on the law where contingent on my views on religion.

And were you around during the writing of the ten commandments? What give you or anyone in this day and age the authority to determine what the Bible meant about anything?
The Bible itself. It tells you to read and study it so you will be able to speak when asked a religious question. But again, I never said my religion influenced my beliefs on the law.

Sometimes you bible thumpers should really do a bit of critical thinking before you just accept whatever your Church tells you to believe.
Maybe those of you who make moronic assumptions should stop before you make a bunch of irrelevant statements?

Ok lets see if I can pull out some guns real fast (philisophical guns not literal...).
Some where up there, there was a lengthy discussion of OT law... which is kind of pointless if you read the teachings that Paul gave to us... I remember a clear cut series of scripture; Afraid I cannot recall the exact passage, but If I do recall correctly it was in 1/2 Corinthians... but dont Quote me on that, numerical memorization is not one of my strong points.
The essential gist of the scripture comes down from a disagreement of converted Jews and converted Gentiles over Ritual Circumcision... Anyhoo it breaks down into a discussion over whether or not the OT law is still Viable. The scripture says something along the lines of "You must either take all of the Old Laws or None of them, You cannot pick and choose." Basically saying the OT is not the Christian Law, the Ten Commandments are Mosiac Law not Jesus...

Now On to the heart of the discussion; I am a firm Christian believer, mock as you may, but I have my reasons as I am sure any of you have your reasons for believing in whatever you happen to believe, or not believe, in.

But here in the United States, as previously stated, Religion has NOTHING to do with Law.
For the Christians out there, there are even passages of the NT that state we are to Respect the laws of our land as long as they do not Directly/Indirectly interfere with the practice of our religion... So whether You in good moral conscience can agree with the Death Penalty or not, it is something that has existed since the Dawn of Time and has been thus far effective at preventing a modicum of crimes. I know I personally would never murder another, even if I had no moral qualms about it, due to the fact that I try to follow the laws of my land and definitely am not ready to meet my maker.

Now the greatest counterpoint to the Death Penalty, one that I am suprised has yet to be brought up, is the one that it is not truly affective as a deterrent to murder. Well I can see that point of view, but the point of Law is not to stop the people already WILLING to break it, but to stop those who would think and decide accordingly. After all enforcement of the law is only as good as the individual you are attempting to enforce it upon.

Oh and to the people who basically just bashed the entirety of the Christian populace, Please do not judge me by the seemingly large mass of ignorant persons who Label themselves as Christian running around. I am different than most, and will actually listen to just about anything long enough to try and see why someone believes as they do. All the while, managing to not attempt to force my beliefs upon them, but dont be mistaken I will counterpoint any glaring logical loopholes.

Ok lets see if I can pull out some guns real fast (philisophical guns not literal...).
Some where up there, there was a lengthy discussion of OT law... which is kind of pointless if you read the teachings that Paul gave to us... I remember a clear cut series of scripture; Afraid I cannot recall the exact passage, but If I do recall correctly it was in 1/2 Corinthians... but dont Quote me on that, numerical memorization is not one of my strong points.
The essential gist of the scripture comes down from a disagreement of converted Jews and converted Gentiles over Ritual Circumcision... Anyhoo it breaks down into a discussion over whether or not the OT law is still Viable. The scripture says something along the lines of "You must either take all of the Old Laws or None of them, You cannot pick and choose." Basically saying the OT is not the Christian Law, the Ten Commandments are Mosiac Law not Jesus...

Now On to the heart of the discussion; I am a firm Christian believer, mock as you may, but I have my reasons as I am sure any of you have your reasons for believing in whatever you happen to believe, or not believe, in.

But here in the United States, as previously stated, Religion has NOTHING to do with Law.
For the Christians out there, there are even passages of the NT that state we are to Respect the laws of our land as long as they do not Directly/Indirectly interfere with the practice of our religion... So whether You in good moral conscience can agree with the Death Penalty or not, it is something that has existed since the Dawn of Time and has been thus far effective at preventing a modicum of crimes. I know I personally would never murder another, even if I had no moral qualms about it, due to the fact that I try to follow the laws of my land and definitely am not ready to meet my maker.

Now the greatest counterpoint to the Death Penalty, one that I am suprised has yet to be brought up, is the one that it is not truly affective as a deterrent to murder. Well I can see that point of view, but the point of Law is not to stop the people already WILLING to break it, but to stop those who would think and decide accordingly. After all enforcement of the law is only as good as the individual you are attempting to enforce it upon.

Oh and to the people who basically just bashed the entirety of the Christian populace, Please do not judge me by the seemingly large mass of ignorant persons who Label themselves as Christian running around. I am different than most, and will actually listen to just about anything long enough to try and see why someone believes as they do. All the while, managing to not attempt to force my beliefs upon them, but dont be mistaken I will counterpoint any glaring logical loopholes.


Your knowledge of the scripture is appalling. Go read this thread again. Specifically, the coming of Jesus did not replace the entire Mosiac law.

Makes me proud to be living in New Zealand. We have never had the death penalty and thank God. Conservatives and liberals here tend to agree -- as long as it is impossible to prove someone 100% guilty of commenting the crime, then it is utter foolishness to kill them.

"The greatest crime a government can commit is the killing of one of its innocent citizens." - Phill Goff, Justice Minister of New Zealand

Jesus was brought a woman who had been caught in adultery and was asked what should be done with her (the man had gotten away unrecognized, even though the law required them both to be stoned). After silently writing in the dirt (some suppose he wrote the names of married women that the accusers had been with) he said that they should let whoever had no sins throw the first stone. No one came forward, all withdrawing their accusations, so he simply told her to go and sin no more.

When Jesus was condemned to die Pilate offered to give a reprieve to either him or to Barabus, and the crowd chose Barabus. The gospel writers made much of the fact that Barabus was a convicted murderer.

Jesus was executed alongside two convicted theives. One demanded that if Jesus was indeed the son of G-d, he save them along with himself. The other accepted his punishment and only asked Jesus to ask G-d to forgive him, and Jesus declared that he was forgiven, but did nothing to reprieve his earthly punishment.



Jesus never comndemned the law or sought to change it. He only taught that the law should be appied with mercy and without hypocricy. Today, in the West at least, adultery and theft are not punished with death, and Jesus himself never advocated clemency for any thief or murderer.