NationStates Jolt Archive

The death penalty hasn't discussed much in NS that I can remember. Anyway, here are my reasons against it:

1. Taking of a human life, whether it be by civilian or government, is wrong.
2. In Illinois ALONE, since 1973, 12 people have been discovered to have been executed as innocents. You can reverse life in prison, but not death.
3. There is a disproportionate (relative to convicts) number of blacks and lower-income people on death row.
4. The U.S. is only behind China and Iran in terms of executions in the past 10 years. This is NOT good company.
5. 112 nations and all 'western' nations have banned it except the U.S.
6. There is no definite evidence it is a deterrent
POLL COMING

Indeed, very troubling statistics - the government-sactioned killing of people, including criminals, is wrong

How dare you suggest that the government ought to give a damn about human rights? I'm calling the thoughtpolice.

How dare you suggest that the government ought to give a damn about human rights? I'm calling the thoughtpolice.
Death penalty doubleplusgood, then?

Terrorism is the only reason I would allow the death penalty. Timothy McVeigh and such.

Terrorism is the only reason I would allow the death penalty. Timothy McVeigh and such.
I can sort of see why you would allow it, but I still stand by the idea that "an eye for an eye will make the world blind"

1. Taking of a human life, whether it be by civilian or government, is wrong.

I disagree. I believe that once you've violated the rights of another, you've forfeighted your own.

2. In Illinois ALONE, since 1973, 12 people have been discovered to have been executed as innocents. You can reverse life in prison, but not death.
3. There is a disproportionate (relative to convicts) number of blacks and lower-income people on death row.

Unfortunate statistics, certainly, but I fault the justice system for that. You can reverse life in prison, but not the damage that even a partial sentence does (not to say that a person would choose death over the possiblity of eventual xoneration). Unfortunately, one cannot cite that our prisons are overcrowded because of the amount of time a death sentence takes. As I see it, the flaws and inefficiencies in the system may make it less than effective. In that, I may agree that it is not useful enough to keep.

4. The U.S. is only behind China and Iran in terms of executions in the past 10 years. This is NOT good company.
5. 112 nations and all 'western' nations have banned it except the U.S.
6. There is no definite evidence it is a deterrent
POLL COMING

I'd like to know the reasoning behind other nations' banning of the penalty before I would take that into consideration as a real factor. As far as deterrance, I'm well aware of that, but as I established in point one, I see it as a matter of punishment and, to some extent, removal from society.

i want them to bring back the death penalty to England. And re-introduce laws enabling teachers to physically discipline pupils

It really gives you little scope for rehabilitation.

Not to mention I think that death is too good a punishment for those who are truly guilty; let them wallow in what they did then face death [and a potentially grim afterlife]

i want them to bring back the death penalty to England. And re-introduce laws enabling teachers to physically discipline pupils

Ah for the good old days of public executions.

And yes, bring back the birch. Yes, yes, yes...oh, ahh, ahhh

Beat some respect for non-violence into them I say.

I wonder if 4 and 5 would make people want to limit abortion access, too.

I think it should be available, but only for crimes such as terrorism / serial killing, and also towards people like Saddam.

I think that the death penalty should be re-introduced for paedophilic repeat offenders, murderers and rapists.

Terrorism, in my mind is only punishable by death when loss of life has occured.

Human rights are rights that are assigned to humans. Those that commit such crimes relinquish any claim to bear that label, they're monsters and should be treated accordingly.

Yes, I know I'm harsh with this, but just you wait till you or someone you love becomes the victim of one of these sick bastards and see if you don't want to kill him.

I disagree. I believe that once you've violated the rights of another, you've forfeighted your own.

You cannot 'forfeit' your rights unless you explicitly waive them.

I think that the death penalty should be re-introduced for paedophilic repeat offenders, murderers and rapists.

Terrorism, in my mind is only punishable by death when loss of life has occured.

Human rights are rights that are assigned to humans. Those that commit such crimes relinquish any claim to bear that label, they're monsters and should be treated accordingly.

Yes, I know I'm harsh with this, but just you wait till you or someone you love becomes the victim of one of these sick bastards and see if you don't want to kill him.
I know of many, many cases where the victim's family wanted life in prison. Also, it's not just a matter of rights, but of morality. If killing is wrong, do two wrongs equal a right? And what if the person is executed, then posthumously exonerated?

The death penalty hasn't discussed much in NS that I can remember. Anyway, here are my reasons against it:

1. Taking of a human life, whether it be by civilian or government, is wrong.
2. In Illinois ALONE, since 1973, 12 people have been discovered to have been executed as innocents. You can reverse life in prison, but not death.
3. There is a disproportionate (relative to convicts) number of blacks and lower-income people on death row.
4. The U.S. is only behind China and Iran in terms of executions in the past 10 years. This is NOT good company.
5. 112 nations and all 'western' nations have banned it except the U.S.
6. There is no definite evidence it is a deterrent
POLL COMING

I agree with everything you say, BUT.....what do we do with dangerous people who cannot be helped? Should they be under taxpayer care for the rest of their lives? I'm no supporter of the death penalty, only a pragmatist who sees our tax dollars going to pay for the various expenses of the dregs of society rather than going to help the truly needy. This is a tough question at the least, and an ethical dilemma if we really want to face it head on. I have no answers.

The real Jezusland hypocrit that I am, can only say that I condem the death penalty in China and Russia and ask for more attention for human rights.I don't mind that we have the record of people in prison or are the only one nation that executes in the Western world. That is why we are Gods children, we are above those darn civilised EU anti warmongers.

God bless the US and our children that sing the song each morning at school while they raise the flag. Last EU nation that did the same was between 1933/1945 in Germany (just thinking at it because Bastogne is 60 years ago)

I agree with everything you say, BUT.....what do we do with dangerous people who cannot be helped? Should they be under taxpayer care for the rest of their lives?
Force them to work a labor sentence; let them pay for their own imprisonment

Force them to work a labor sentence; let them pay for their own imprisonment
I'm not morally opposed, but what if they have no real education, like many convicted killers?

You cannot 'forfeit' your rights unless you explicitly waive them.

Ah, that's your opinion on the matter, and perhaps we agree. My belief is that people have rights because they respect those of others. This is why society works - you recognize that you give up certain rights (those which harm others) as everyone else does, so that no one is harmed in exercising those rights. Thusly, murder is illegal, theft is illegal, and so forth.

As such, once you destroy anothers' life, you've waived your right to have yours preserved. Is that agreement? I doubt it, since I don't think that's what you were getting at.

For truly heinous crimes, the death penalty is deserved.

There might have been cases where the death penalty was wrongly administered, but this happens to other cases as well - wrongful imprisonment etc. You can't give back a man the years spend in prison, can you? So,what then? No punishment at all because there's a possibility that one or two innocents might be caught in the net? No system is perfect, but we do the best we can.

Rehabilitation will only work in some cases, not all. Do you reckon we should waste the hard earned taxpayers' money to try to rehabilitate a man who knowingly kidnaps, rapes and tortures small children just for kicks? I say, keep the death penalty!!

Its simply too inefficent .. too ineffective.. it can be too easily wrong. We spend just as much money trying to kill them as we do to let them rot in jail.. unless they can stream line it while making it more effective.. there is no point

Its simply too inefficent .. too ineffective.. it can be too easily wrong. We spend just as much money trying to kill them as we do to let them rot in jail.. unless they can stream line it while making it more effective.. there is no point

Indeed, and that's my hangup on the matter, and why my position on it is still wavering.

There might have been cases where the death penalty was wrongly administered, but this happens to other cases as well - wrongful imprisonment etc. You can't give back a man the years spend in prison, can you? So,what then? No punishment at all because there's a possibility that one or two innocents might be caught in the net? No system is perfect, but we do the best we can.

Yes, but at least the person is ALIVE!!

Indeed, and that's my hangup on the matter, and why my position on it is still wavering.
It's a tough issue isn't it? I used to support it, myself. That was before I 'educated' myself.

I believe the death penalty is wrong under all circumstances for moral reasons. Although I heard that it's actually more expensive to kill someone than it is to keep them in prison for life? :confused:

I think a lot of the crime in this country would vanish if we had better education and a better economy. The less poor people you have, the less crime.

We spend just as much money trying to kill them as we do to let them rot in jail
A capital murder trial costs three times as much as a normal trial

I think a lot of the crime in this country would vanish if we had better education and a better economy. The less poor people you have, the less crime.
Brilliant! You make the most sense on this board!

People should be taught that killing is wrong, always, with no exceptions, and they should try not to do anything that is too disturbing to others. War should be done away with, as should prisons, along withthe death penalty. Its not right when the government puts somebody away for life in prison one day, then sends
thousands of troops off to a distant country to kill a bunch of people who did nothing wrong.

Education not Execution.

I know of many, many cases where the victim's family wanted life in prison. Also, it's not just a matter of rights, but of morality. If killing is wrong, do two wrongs equal a right? And what if the person is executed, then posthumously exonerated?


Then perhaps special consideration should be given where families do not wish for the death sentance to be applied.

As for posthumous exonerations, that is certainly unfortunate, and recompense should be paid by the state to the family of the innocent party. Either that, or the death penalty should be awarded only in cases where evidence is practically concrete. At the very least, offenders convicted on evidence that is beyond a reasonable doubt but not cast iron should be sentanced to life with hard labour.

Suffice it to say that although the statements in my last paragraph are wishy-washy, there are times when there is no doubt as to the guilt of the accused, and in these circumstances, any penalty less than death should not be considered.

I'm not morally opposed, but what if they have no real education, like many convicted killers?

Being uneductaed does not mean that you are free of the burden of knowing right from wrong.

In such a situation you ask the accused on question, do you want to die?

Regardless of the answer, yes or know, the victim didn't want to die either.

As for posthumous exonerations, that is certainly unfortunate, and recompense should be paid by the state to the family of the innocent party. Either that, or the death penalty should be awarded only in cases where evidence is practically concrete.
1. You cannot put a price on life.
2. DNA evidence would help solve the problem of wrongful conviction, but not the other ones.

Education not Execution.

We in the deep South and our guys in Washington are against education. We like you to be uneducated (watch are education programs :) ). We also like to be the paria of the free world while executing here and torturing abroad. Hell, it were the French with Lafayette that gave us our nation and brought Dr. Guillotines invention at the markethall 10 years later. We really like to be French when it fits us. Damn pitty that we don't use this cheap import invention anymore. (Sarcasm)

Being uneductaed does not mean that you are free of the burden of knowing right from wrong.

In such a situation you ask the accused on question, do you want to die?

Regardless of the answer, yes or know, the victim didn't want to die either.
No, I meant that if you were uneducated, it would be difficult to 'work one's way' out.

I disagree. I believe that once you've violated the rights of another, you've forfeighted your own.

Say it with me: Inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

No, you cannot put a price on life, I agree with you whole-heartedly, however wrongful convictions WILL occur, and in my mind it is wrong not to recompense the family in some manner.

DNA evidence I agree willl help to decide the issue, but not completely answer it.

I hate to resort to this argument, but the matter of fact is that I beleive that the price of justice in many occasions outweighs the possibility of wrongful conviction.

I realise how that sounds, and I realise that I am being pig headed. I do not blame you in the slightest for the stance you are taking, and had certain things in my past not happened, I'd probably be right there with you.

There's alot to be said for executioning of hideus crimes, it makes sense to the feelings of humans who have lost and suffered in the hands of a criminal.

But you CANNOT allow a people to be only as good as the worst of the flock. If you kill a murdere because he has killed, then we're on the low side of the potential of mankind. That is a state of mind only fit for war. We're better than that. And rehab isn't only tax money out the window it's a science in progress as never before (at least it is here, Denmark, and i'm confident it's the same in the USA) learn, get smarter, do it better, that's what we're trying to do with everything else and i think it makes sense.

And have you ever heard of families saying "he raped our daughter, but now he's dead and that makes us feel good"

Good topic btw

No, I meant that if you were uneducated, it would be difficult to 'work one's way' out.

What do you mean? I'm not sure I understand 'work one's way out" entirely?

You cannot 'forfeit' your rights unless you explicitly waive them.
You hurt one of my children, you forfeit your right to my not shooting you dead.

I think a lot of the crime in this country would vanish if we had better education and a better economy. The less poor people you have, the less crime.

Ain't that the damn truth!

I hate to resort to this argument, but the matter of fact is that I beleive that the price of justice in many occasions outweighs the possibility of wrongful conviction.

It's ok to believe that, but my question is "Does justice mean doing two 'wrongs' to make a 'right'"?

You hurt one of my children, you forfeit your right to my not shooting you dead.

As much as I appreciate your standpoint, I cannot agree with taking the law into your own hands. At least with a trial a perpetrator is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a pannel of his peers.

You hurt one of my children, you forfeit your right to my not shooting you dead.
Like Copiosa said:
"INALIENABLE RIGHT TO LIFE"

I'm 100% against the death penalty - 100% against giving the government the power to kill its own citizens.

I agree with everything you say, BUT.....what do we do with dangerous people who cannot be helped? Should they be under taxpayer care for the rest of their lives? I'm no supporter of the death penalty, only a pragmatist who sees our tax dollars going to pay for the various expenses of the dregs of society rather than going to help the truly needy. This is a tough question at the least, and an ethical dilemma if we really want to face it head on. I have no answers.
Actually, it costs a couple of million less to incarcerate them for life than to execute them.

I can sort of see why you would allow it, but I still stand by the idea that "an eye for an eye will make the world blind"


I used to be totally anti death penalty. I no longer am totally anti death penalty. I do not believe simple murder deserves the death penalty,Most people who have murdered once do not murder a second time, generally they repent, and regret it all their lives, but I do believe agravated murder, ie, mass murder, serial murder, murder of children, pregnant women, and terrorism would merit the death penalty. I used to think rape was not a serious enough crime to merit the death penalty, but since AIDS, I think that rape now merits the death penalty. NO crime should have the death penalty until AFTER CAREFUL INVESTIGATION AND PROOF BEYOND RESONABLE DOUBT OF GUILT. Then I think that execution ought to be as cruel as possible, as painful as possible and public. Rape since it is a particularly terrible crime ought to be punished in public.

Maybe the fact that execution isn't a deterent is because most people haven't seen one. Maybe if likely criminals had to see an execution or two they'd think twice before committing crimes.
I actually am not too sure terrorism ought to be on that list. Executed terrorists have a terrible way of becoming martyrs to their cause. Better to put them in a hole in the ground with lots of cockroaches if you ask me.
Another thing, terrorism is more than a little defined by a government or lots of governments. When a constituted or recognized government does the VERY SAME THING, with Phantom jets instead of plastic explosives well then, that's civilzed war!

Say it with me: Inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Inalienable - incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred (Merriam-Webster Online).
You kill one of my children, you have taken their life, you have taken away what was referred to by you as "inalienable". Nothing is truly inalienable. And that is not in the Constitution, but in the Declaration of Independence.

I used to be totally anti death penalty. I no longer am totally anti death penalty. I do not believe simple murder deserves the death penalty,Most people who have murdered once do not murder a second time, generally they repent, and regret it all their lives, but I do believe agravated murder, ie, mass murder, serial murder, murder of children, pregnant women, and terrorism would merit the death penalty. I used to think rape was not a serious enough crime to merit the death penalty, but since AIDS, I think that rape now merits the death penalty. NO crime should have the death penalty until AFTER CAREFUL INVESTIGATION AND PROOF BEYOND RESONABLE DOUBT OF GUILT. Then I think that execution ought to be as cruel as possible, as painful as possible and public. Rape since it is a particularly terrible crime ought to be punished in public.

Maybe the fact that execution isn't a deterent is because most people haven't seen one. Maybe if likely criminals had to see an execution or two they'd think twice before committing crimes.
I actually am not too sure terrorism ought to be on that list. Executed terrorists have a terrible way of becoming martyrs to their cause. Better to put them in a hole in the ground with lots of cockroaches if you ask me.
Another thing, terrorism is more than a little defined by a government or lots of governments. When a constituted or recognized government does the VERY SAME THING, with Phantom jets instead of plastic explosives well then, that's civilzed war!
I still cannot thank Copiosa enough: Inalienable right to life

Nothing is truly inalienable. And that is not in the Constitution, but in the Declaration of Independence.
Why would it say it was inalienable if it wasn't? And it is still the first document of the new nation and which would serve as a partial basis for the constitution.

Not to mention I think that death is too good a punishment for those who are truly guilty; let them wallow in what they did then face death [and a potentially grim afterlife]

Death penalty too good for some?

Perhaps it could be restricted to first offenders only.

Originally Posted by Jenn Jenn Land
I think a lot of the crime in this country would vanish if we had better education and a better economy. The less poor people you have, the less crime.

If only 'twere true. Rich people are just as culpable as poor people at committing crime. It's just usually not as obvious, or classified as "white-collar" crime, such as defrauding thousands of employees of Enron out of their retirement and such. And middle-class people aren't any better. Crime is universal.

Why would it say it was inalienable if it wasn't? And it is still the first document of the new nation and which would serve as a partial basis for the constitution.
I could say red is blue, but that doesn't make it so.

If only 'twere true. Rich people are just as culpable as poor people at committing crime. It's just usually not as obvious, or classified as "white-collar" crime, such as defrauding thousands of employees of Enron out of their retirement and such. And middle-class people aren't any better. Crime is universal.
Who's more likely to steal:
Person making $180,000 a year living the life.
OR
Person making $24,000 just trying to squeak by.

Who's more likely to murder their landlord:
Person making all payments on time because they make $180,000.
OR
Person who got evicted because he's making $24,000.

I could say red is blue, but that doesn't make it so.
What?! You have no authority! This was the first document accepted by the US! If congress passed a law saying that red was blue, by legal definitions, red would be blue!

What?! You have no authority! This was the first document accepted by the US!
The Bible is older, and its principles were used as the basis of many of our state and federal laws. Do you accept everything in it as gospel truth (pardon the pun!)?

It's a tough issue isn't it? I used to support it, myself. That was before I 'educated' myself.

Indeed, while I've seen plenty of figures, I've yet to see one which makes me conclude that some people ought not be removed from the face of the earth, barring those which demonstrate inefficiency. I can't stand a flawed system, and the death penalty is very much that. I just haven't resolved that it is uselessly flawed...yet.

The Bible is older, and its principles were used as the basis of many of our state and federal laws. Do you accept everything in it as gospel truth (pardon the pun!)?
"Congress shall make no law regarding religion". That IS the Constitution!

Inalienable - incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred (Merriam-Webster Online).
You kill one of my children, you have taken their life, you have taken away what was referred to by you as "inalienable".

Wrong. It's not life that's inalienable, but rather the right to it. If, as you say, I kill one of your children, I've only violated their right. I haven't taken it away.

Nothing is truly inalienable. And that is not in the Constitution, but in the Declaration of Independence.

Right. After all, the Declaration of Independence is only the founding document of our nation, so we can safely ignore it. You'll notice that I didn't say the death penalty was unconstitutional. A thing needn't be unconstitutional to be a violation of basic human rights.

The Bible is older, and its principles were used as the basis of many of our state and federal laws. Do you accept everything in it as gospel truth (pardon the pun!)?
Times Christianity or God by name is mentioned in the Constitution: 0

The real Jezusland hypocrit that I am, can only say that I condem the death penalty in China and Russia and ask for more attention for human rights.I don't mind that we have the record of people in prison or are the only one nation that executes in the Western world. That is why we are Gods children, we are above those darn civilised EU anti warmongers.

God bless the US and our children that sing the song each morning at school while they raise the flag. Last EU nation that did the same was between 1933/1945 in Germany (just thinking at it because Bastogne is 60 years ago)

Perhaps this gives ammo for our government (or us in the South), we should blaim the French for being so undemocratic by abolishing the death penalty in the 70ties. Ya know they are such a bad example and instead of following us, the wise guys that know it all, they have a own opinion about that without asking us permission. Darn rebbels, we have it much more easy with our pupets like the Poles that we pay. But, I wan't to stop to the money transfer to the Poles because they have:

A. No death penalty
B. Don't die enough in Iraq (same fore those Brits that manage to behave in enemy region) while our boys do.
C. Still wait to admit that they are our next collony in the anti EU propaganda.

(Sarcasm)

we should blaim the French for being so undemocratic by abolishing the death penalty in the 70ties
Killing people is democratic?

Who's more likely to steal:
Person making $180,000 a year living the life.
OR
Person making $24,000 just trying to squeak by.

Who's more likely to murder their landlord:
Person making all payments on time because they make $180,000.
OR
Person who got evicted because he's making $24,000.
I say both are just as likely. You are presuming poor people have lower moral standards?
The 180,000 living the life could just as easily overextend themselves in debt and start stealing from the company.
The 24,000 could just as easily scrimp and save to donate money to the church every week.
I say again, crime is universal.
You are stereotyping.

Perhaps this gives ammo for our government (or us in the South), we should blaim the French for being so undemocratic by abolishing the death penalty in the 70ties. Ya know they are such a bad example and instead of following us, the wise guys that know it all, they have a own opinion about that without asking us permission. Darn rebbels, we have it much more easy with our pupets like the Poles that we pay. But, I wan't to stop to the money transfer to the Poles because they have:

A. No death penalty
B. Don't die enough in Iraq (same fore those Brits that manage to behave in enemy region) while our boys do.
C. Still wait to admit that they are our next collony in the anti EU propaganda.

(Sarcasm)

Uh... what in the world are you saying?

I say both are just as likely. You are presuming poor people have lower moral standards?
The 180,000 living the life could just as easily overextend themselves in debt and start stealing from the company.
The 24,000 could just as easily scrimp and save to donate money to the church every week.
I say again, crime is universal.
You are stereotyping.
I'm not saying poor people have lower moral standards! It's a question of survival! If you have absolutley no income and no food, and you see someone who has stockpiles of food, who is more likely to steal food?

I think a lot of the crime in this country would vanish if we had better education and a better economy. The less poor people you have, the less crime.

Ah, but plenty of crimes come from the middle and upper classes, as well. You'd reduce crimes of necessity and general stupidity. In that, we'd certainly have less crime, but until people universally have respect for each other, we will not eliminate criminal acts. Plenty of people will still take advantage of, or attempt to annihilate, their fellow man, regardless of how educated or affluent they are.

But, I do agree that those things would reduce crime in some ways.

"Congress shall make no law regarding religion". That IS the Constitution!
Incorrect. Direct quote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . .".
Note the "establishment" part. Which means that Congress (also note it says Congress, not the President or the Judiciary) cannot force me to be Presbyterian. It does not forbid me from practicing as I see fit; it expressly protects that right, and does not forbid me practicing it in any particular place, including work, school, etc.

Incorrect. Direct quote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . .".
Note the "establishment" part. Which means that Congress (also note it says Congress, not the President or the Judiciary) cannot force me to be Presbyterian. It does not forbid me from practicing as I see fit; it expressly protects that right, and does not forbid me practicing it in any particular place, including work, school, etc.
Right it cannot force you to practice anything. But biblical law, such as stoning homosexuals, is not the basis of our country's judicial system!

I'm not saying poor people have lower moral standards! It's a question of survival! If you have absolutley no income and no food, and you see someone who has stockpiles of food, who is more likely to steal food?
Is stealing the only crime worth worrying about? What about murder, selling drugs, lying (perjury), etc? The poor person is probably more likely to steal food. The rich person is more likely to steal your life's savings. Which is worse?

Ah, but plenty of crimes come from the middle and upper classes, as well. You'd reduce crimes of necessity and general stupidity. In that, we'd certainly have less crime, but until people universally have respect for each other, we will not eliminate criminal acts. Plenty of people will still take advantage of, or attempt to annihilate, their fellow man, regardless of how educated or affluent they are.

But, I do agree that those things would reduce crime in some ways.
What is "plenty of crime"? A disproportionate number of thefts are perpetratd by lower-income people because they need things to live!

Is stealing the only crime worth worrying about? What about murder, selling drugs, lying (perjury), etc? The poor person is probably more likely to steal food. The rich person is more likely to steal your life's savings. Which is worse?
The most serious crimes dispropportionately are perpetrated by lower-income people.

Uh... what in the world are you saying?

Yeah, he says things we don't like. I know he's right but I hate to read it in a right wing forum, to hell with those lefties.

Say it with me: Inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I don't think so...someone's already addressed this to my satisfaction. As a side note, we already revoke the right to liberty by imprisonment, so why not life by execution? I'm afraid that this point is easily refuted by this.

I don't think so...someone's already addressed this to my satisfaction. As a side note, we already revoke the right to liberty by imprisonment, so why not life by execution? I'm afraid that this point is easily refuted by this.
"Liberty" can mean many things. "Life" means one thing and one thing only. Please let's not start talking about abortions, ok?

Right it cannot force you to practice anything. But biblical law, such as stoning homosexuals, is not the basis of our country's judicial system!
Nobody said anything about stoning homosexuals! Goodness! However, what about the blatant displays of the ten commandments and other Bible verses in SCOTUS itself?! What about the reference, in the same Declaration of Independence you referenced, actually the same sentence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Nobody said anything about stoning homosexuals! Goodness! However, what about the blatant displays of the ten commandments and other Bible verses in SCOTUS itself?! What about the reference, in the same Declaration of Independence you referenced, actually the same sentence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Endowed by their "Creator" and enforced by humans

The most serious crimes dispropportionately are perpetrated by lower-income people.
I would argue, if you have the statistics to prove it, that is only true because there are more poor people than rich people. However, if you try to say that if poverty were eliminated, crime would disappear, I think you will be sadly disappointed.

I would argue, if you have the statistics to prove it, that is only true because there are more poor people than rich people. However, if you try to say that if poverty were eliminated, crime would disappear, I think you will be sadly disappointed.
I said "DISPROPORTIONATELY". That is fact. Your speculation about ending poverty is just that, speculation.

Endowed by their "Creator" and enforced by humans
Just showing you a religious reference, as a piece of evidence that the writers of the Declaration and of the Constitution did use many Judeo-Christian principles in setting up our system of Justice.

we already revoke the right to liberty by imprisonment

Only if you define "liberty" as physical freedom.

Just showing you a religious reference, as a piece of evidence that the writers of the Declaration and of the Constitution did use many Judeo-Christian principles in setting up our system of Justice.
Thomas Jefferson also despised Christianity.

I said "DISPROPORTIONATELY". That is fact. Your speculation about ending poverty is just that, speculation.
Until you provide me with statistics showing the percentage of poor people in the population in relation to the number of crimes they commit, you are only speculating as well.

What is "plenty of crime"? A disproportionate number of thefts are perpetratd by lower-income people because they need things to live!

And bigger, more elaborate crimes are perpetrated by upper-income people out of greed. Taking Selgin's example of white-collar crime a step further, how many purse-snatchings by the needy would it take to equal one case of embezzlement of millions of dollars by the greedy? How many accidental shootings of clerks for the number of people who need to disappear for a grand scheme to work?

I concur that you would reduce crime, but I think that, in comparing the scope of the offenses, the upper classes are just as to blame as the lower.

Thomas Jefferson also despised Christianity.
He despised the way people were practicing it, not Christianity itself. Even Thomas Jefferson, as a Deist, believed in a Creator.

I can sort of see why you would allow it, but I still stand by the idea that "an eye for an eye will make the world blind"



Actually, an eye for an eye will leave one person left with one eye.

Until you provide me with statistics showing the percentage of poor people in the population in relation to the number of crimes they commit, you are only speculating as well.

I study geografical statistics (not in the usa, but people might act somewhat the same) and there's is no corellation ( A doesn't lead to B) between the number of physical assault crimes and the average income in different areas. But that is only for violence, i cannot say anything certain about other crimes at the moment.

Actually, an eye for an eye will leave one person left with one eye.

Yeah, but aprox half of icelands population in the viking ages died because of the "eye for an eye" principle. Ahh those good old family feuds. Perhaps not that relevant, but it shows what the extreme consequenses can be.

"Liberty" can mean many things. "Life" means one thing and one thing only. Please let's not start talking about abortions, ok?

Perhaps you can tell me how a life-sentence is not the revocation of one's right to liberty (since I've already made it clear this is my position). You say it can mean many things, and you may be right, so I'd like to hear an alternative definition. As I see it, the founding documents of this nation secure our rights so long as we follow the law. If we fail to do this, we waive our rights. Life imprisonment is the revocation of our right to liberty. Execution is the revocation of our right to life. One could say that lesser sentences suspend our right to the pursuit of happiness, but that's very vague and insignificant, so let's not deal with that.

Nobody said anything about stoning homosexuals! Goodness! However, what about the blatant displays of the ten commandments and other Bible verses in SCOTUS itself?! What about the reference, in the same Declaration of Independence you referenced, actually the same sentence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

All archaic references to a time long passed. We see a general religious mindset and schema referenced, but what we do not see are Biblical laws enshrined specifically. Quite frankly, I believe that these references ought to be removed, where easily done. We have progressed as a society to a point where our minds are no longer limited to respecting one theology, and our institutions ought to reflect this.

All archaic references to a time long passed. We see a general religious mindset and schema referenced, but what we do not see are Biblical laws enshrined specifically. Quite frankly, I believe that these references ought to be removed, where easily done. We have progressed as a society to a point where our minds are no longer limited to respecting one theology, and our institutions ought to reflect this.

Very good point, society developes.

I would argue, if you have the statistics to prove it, that is only true because there are more poor people than rich people. However, if you try to say that if poverty were eliminated, crime would disappear, I think you will be sadly disappointed.

I don't believe that anyone is saying that crime would entirely disappear, but rather that it would be substantially reduced. This I may agree with, though my point of contention has been that upper class crimes may do more damage overall than those of the lower class (though these may be more numerous). But, even if the only reason they are right is because there are more poor people, would it not be worthwhile to reduce the sheer number of crimes by such people?

All archaic references to a time long passed. We see a general religious mindset and schema referenced, but what we do not see are Biblical laws enshrined specifically. Quite frankly, I believe that these references ought to be removed, where easily done. We have progressed as a society to a point where our minds are no longer limited to respecting one theology, and our institutions ought to reflect this.
The Founding Fathers' minds were limited to respecting one theology? Archaic or not, they are historical, and not harmful to anyone's mind, body or soul. Why should these references be removed? Because they are not convenient in your view of history?

Very good point, society developes.
How has society developed? Haven't we just been debating who commits more crime, the poor or the rich? Are we not committing the same crimes that have been committed for generations? Sure, living conditions have improved, but has the condition of the human spirit improved?

Only if you define "liberty" as physical freedom.

Among other things, yes. I believe the definition to be multifaceted, and our legal system deals with the physical aspect. A host of government-perpetrated horrors would be permissible if, say, the excuse could simply be given that, "Well, he's still mentally free," or "He's still free to pursue happiness in his mind, just not in society!"

I think such rationalization borders on some dangerous grounds.

I don't believe that anyone is saying that crime would entirely disappear, but rather that it would be substantially reduced. This I may agree with, though my point of contention has been that upper class crimes may do more damage overall than those of the lower class (though these may be more numerous). But, even if the only reason they are right is because there are more poor people, would it not be worthwhile to reduce the sheer number of crimes by such people?
It would be worthwhile to reduce crime by everyone, regardless of class.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
The Fifth Amendment.
The Constitution clearly says here that you can be deprived of life, liberty, or property, as long as due process of law is observed. The term "unalienable" in the Declaration was pure poetic license, I believe. Anyway, the Declaration is not what we take our laws from; the Constitution is.

The Founding Fathers' minds were limited to respecting one theology? Archaic or not, they are historical, and not harmful to anyone's mind, body or soul. Why should these references be removed? Because they are not convenient in your view of history?

Yes, they were - we are all products of the environments in which we're raised. Theirs was a time of a monotheistic, roughly Judeo-Christian god. That was the schema most had for the world. Today, we know that the world may be braoder than that, in that others have different ideas which are equally valid.

I have full respect for maintaining history and a healthy record of the past. However, a remnant of another time which is detrimental to the current system goes beyond simple historic preservation. A ten commandments monument not there since the days of the state's founding, for example, has no historical right to exist in a courthouse rotunda, and only serves to alienate those who are not of the Judeo-Christian faith and throws into question the idea of a fair and impartial judge. As such, it is a detriment to the system, and ought to be removed. Should an inscription centuries old share the same fate? More than likely not, but for the most part, these are not the references in question. Most current incarnations of this issue pertain to state officials who would have people believe that the founding fathers were Christian and take it upon themselves to place such references today to force their agenda.

These references have no place on state property.

Actually, an eye for an eye will leave one person left with one eye.

I think it means what would happen is in retaliation, they would remove their eye, but the person they retaliated against would retaliate to their retaliation and so on until they lost all their eyes. Then of course, more people get involved and more eye gouging!

I personally don't think the death penalty is neccassary. I live in Canada and we do not have it, and our crime is less...present then in USA. Yes I know USA has a higher population but even in proportion it isn't nearly as bad from the numbers I used and I believe them to be credible. I just rambled alot...I'm gonna go lay down now :D

Yes, they were - we are all products of the environments in which we're raised. Theirs was a time of a monotheistic, roughly Judeo-Christian god. That was the schema most had for the world. Today, we know that the world may be braoder than that, in that others have different ideas which are equally valid.

I have full respect for maintaining history and a healthy record of the past. However, a remnant of another time which is detrimental to the current system goes beyond simple historic preservation. A ten commandments monument not there since the days of the state's founding, for example, has no historical right to exist in a courthouse rotunda, and only serves to alienate those who are not of the Judeo-Christian faith and throws into question the idea of a fair and impartial judge. As such, it is a detriment to the system, and ought to be removed. Should an inscription centuries old share the same fate? More than likely not, but for the most part, these are not the references in question. Most current incarnations of this issue pertain to state officials who would have people believe that the founding fathers were Christian and take it upon themselves to place such references today to force their agenda.

These references have no place on state property.
Leaving Judge Roy aside, many of the monuments being removed have been there for decades, if not centuries. I say it is alienating to remove all references to the Judeo-Christian references upon which our law was based, to all those that still believe in them, and don't believe they are "a remnant of another time which is detrimental to the current system".

How has society developed? Haven't we just been debating who commits more crime, the poor or the rich? Are we not committing the same crimes that have been committed for generations? Sure, living conditions have improved, but has the condition of the human spirit improved?

We are (on the whole) more educated, and so more aware of the plight of others. The flesh of ethics has been grafted onto a secular skeleton, making the body of morality universal, transcending boundaries. We debate the specifics in the modern era, rather than phantoms, generalizations, or assumptions (ideally). We have yet to reign in human greed and selfishness, but I don't have enough faith in humanity to assume that will ever happen. I think we can only hope to subdue our base desires with our intelligence, and I think that is the progress we have made.

It would be worthwhile to reduce crime by everyone, regardless of class.

Yes, but they only propose a viable solution of lower class crime (crimes of need). Upper class crimes (those of greed) are harder to stop, and I have no real solution for those. Once could argue that the death penalty is just that, and I would love to do so, but how many upper (or even middle) class persons are ever executed?

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
The Fifth Amendment.
The Constitution clearly says here that you can be deprived of life, liberty, or property, as long as due process of law is observed.

This is what I was getting at, thank you for providing the specific language. Context is ever-important.

How has society developed? Haven't we just been debating who commits more crime, the poor or the rich? Are we not committing the same crimes that have been committed for generations? Sure, living conditions have improved, but has the condition of the human spirit improved?

The society we live in, and the values it is based upon, is very significant for our behaviour. As for basic human tendencies development is on a time scale to big for us to worry about, but what view you put on these tedencies is very much decided by your life experiences, and therefore the society you live in. As for the spiritual part, that is probably not a discussion to take with me, as i'm not in any way religius.

Leaving Judge Roy aside, many of the monuments being removed have been there for decades, if not centuries. I say it is alienating to remove all references to the Judeo-Christian references upon which our law was based, to all those that still believe in them, and don't believe they are "a remnant of another time which is detrimental to the current system".

Decades are inconsequential. '50s additions of references to God are of little historical value regarding the founding of this nation. Centuries are quite another matter - cite me a link to a story of a centuries old reference to God being threatened with removal.

It was alienating to condemn segregation and end institutional racism, yet we did it. I see no merit in the argument that simply because arbitrary laws or practices which happen to favor your group are ended is discrimination against that group. Were it to be replaced with the monument (for example) of another faith, you may have grounds to feel alienated. Omission only causes such feelings to those who do not understand that the existence of such contentious monuments already alienates others; and if they do understand this, then they show how little respect they have for their fellow man.

Just because they don't believe those monuments a problem because they cannot associate with people unlike themselves does not mean that nothing should be done, in order to protect their fragile egos. Absence of a Christian monument does not constitute discrimination against Christianity (as the courts ruled).

Among other things, yes. I believe the definition to be multifaceted, and our legal system deals with the physical aspect. A host of government-perpetrated horrors would be permissible if, say, the excuse could simply be given that, "Well, he's still mentally free," or "He's still free to pursue happiness in his mind, just not in society!"

I think such rationalization borders on some dangerous grounds.

I agree, and I didn't mean to give the impression that I was making such a rationalization. I simply don't believe physical freedom is the type of liberty referred to as "inalienable."

I agree, and I didn't mean to give the impression that I was making such a rationalization. I simply don't believe physical freedom is the type of liberty referred to as "inalienable."

Well, when you add in the rest of the phrase, which mentions that we have the right to said things unless revoked by due process of law, that's really all it can mean. When you place it in context, it becomes rather clear: People have certain rights that can only be suspended or revoked in being found guilty in due process. I know you weren't rationalizing the statement to that extent, I just wanted to show jut how far such a reading could go in the context of a government document. The government can only really revoke our physical freedoms. The founding fathers, most of all, knew that people always have their mental freedom regardless any sort of imprisonment.

Leaving aside the whole "founding fathers and religion" thing, which is irrelevant to this issue, The US has the worst crime rates in the world when compared to Europe. Know why? Becuase they have a more socially democratic society! The poor are much better fended for AND THIS RESULTS IN LESS CRIME. It cannot be a coincidence because this makes sense! someone with nothing to lose (in general) has less respect for the law!

I belive that we must be better than the criminals we convict. If we are to retain the moral high ground and the legitimacy to sentence criminals and to tell them that what they did was wrong then we must not resort to the same means they did even in punishment. If we do the blood is on society's hands and we are all morally complacit in a similar crime.

Death penalty shall only be allowed for attempted suicide:P ;)jk

It is the mentally ill that deserve to be freed from misery and forgiven from their sins. But those capable of ending life consciestly for no reason deserve no death, but life...

In other words only crazy ppl deserve the death penalty. Killers deserve life in a dungeon or something far more cruel.

Killing is the act of causing a sudden death. Life is and ever lasting death that begins since birth.

On a slightly different tangent, if a foreign nation bombs my country, killing millions of people, does this mean that I shouldn't bomb them back in retaliation because life is sacred and by doing the same I am actually lowering myself to their level?

What are our alternatives? Complain to the UN? Yeah, much good that would do!

Ever wonder why China has 10 times the population and one tenth of the crime rate of the US???

BECAUSE OF A HARSH DEATH PENALTY!

The death penalty is much more cost efficent then life in prison, we need to start privitizing the death penalty to the cheapest source...

Ever wonder why China has 10 times the population and one tenth of the crime rate of the US???

BECAUSE OF A HARSH DEATH PENALTY!

The death penalty is much more cost efficent then life in prison, we need to start privitizing the death penalty to the cheapest source...


ithink your forgot that china never really had a high crime rate, and their culture doesnt encourage crime.

plus, their punishment, is, at best... brutal.

stealing, even if its a quarter on the street: is punished by removing your left hand. adultery punished by tkaing thumbs.

plus, their punishment, is, at best... brutal.

stealing, even if its a quarter on the street: is punished by removing your left hand. adultery punished by tkaing thumbs.

Sounds good to me. It marks everyone who has commited crimes before!

Sounds good to me. It marks everyone who has commited crimes before!


yea... thats great... youknow, it would be better off in that case to jsut kil them, considering the fact they would never have a chance in life because of 1 mistake.

perfecto.

yea... thats great... youknow, it would be better off in that case to jsut kil them, considering the fact they would never have a chance in life because of 1 mistake.

perfecto.

It's not a mistake, it was an action.

You do not accidentally arob the mini mart, you know what the hell you are doing!

China shows us that if we make punishment for crime so horrible, no one will attempt to do it!

No Crime Rate = Better America!

I think that human life is so precious, that the surrender of the murderer's life is the only punishment that fits the crime.

Death penalty shall only be allowed for attempted suicide:P ;)jk

It is the mentally ill that deserve to be freed from misery and forgiven from their sins. But those capable of ending life consciestly for no reason deserve no death, but life...

In other words only crazy ppl deserve the death penalty. Killers deserve life in a dungeon or something far more cruel.

Killing is the act of causing a sudden death. Life is and ever lasting death that begins since birth.

Crazy people deserve the death penalty?

You'll have to kill me posthaste, as I am an unstable cocktail of mental problems that is barely capable, if it all, of functioning normally. Hell, I've been posting here at 3 am. So what's so bad about crazy people anyway?

It's not a mistake, it was an action.

You do not accidentally arob the mini mart, you know what the hell you are doing!

China shows us that if we make punishment for crime so horrible, no one will attempt to do it!

No Crime Rate = Better America!


so, your saying that no one should ever ever be forgiven in there entire lives because they arent perfect?

okay. so much for values...

It's not a mistake, it was an action.

You do not accidentally arob the mini mart, you know what the hell you are doing!

China shows us that if we make punishment for crime so horrible, no one will attempt to do it!

No Crime Rate = Better America!

Hasn't it already been suggested that this poster be sent to China ?
I Am sure he would get along just fine.

anyway instead of the death penalty, why dont we let citizens carry firearms at all times ?

Hasn't it already been suggested that this poster be sent to China ?
I Am sure he would get along just fine.

anyway instead of the death penalty, why dont we let citizens carry firearms at all times ?

Hooray for NRA gun retards.

I don't agree with the death penalty, and I think that a whole life in prison is still too sweet for several crimes (multiple murders, child rapists/murderers..)
We need something like, let's say sensorial isolation for a loooong period of time. It is reversible, and I think it's horrible enough to have a consequence on crime rates.

ithink your forgot that china never really had a high crime rate, and their culture doesnt encourage crime.

plus, their punishment, is, at best... brutal.

stealing, even if its a quarter on the street: is punished by removing your left hand. adultery punished by tkaing thumbs.

Somehow doesn't sound accurate.

Source please.

I am completely opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances as it is brutal, barbaric and has no place in modern society. It is wrong for the state to stoop to the same level as those who commit appalling crimes. The death penalty has never been shown to deter crime and the USA has a far higher murder rate than Europe. In Canada and the UK when the death penalty was abolished the crime rate went down.

There is no point in being tough on crime unless you are also tough on the causes of crime. I believe most crime is caused by social problems which are a direct result of the flawed economic system of capitalism. An end to the exploitation of the working people, a radical redistribution of wealth and a strong welfare state would be the best way to reduce crime.

The rehabilitation of people who commit crime is far more important than punishment. For this reason I am also opposed to life imprisonment which leaves no chance for rehabilitation. Fortunately in most European countries a life sentence does not mean life and in the UK it is usually between 9 and 15 years.

so, your saying that no one should ever ever be forgiven in there entire lives because they arent perfect?

okay. so much for values...

If you make punishment for a crime so horrible, no one would ever think of commiting one.

They would realize that what they are risking is too much compared to what they will gain and they will find another way in life, not commiting a crime...

People say the death penalty and what not doesn't deter.

But I say look at what it has done for China. They have what? A billion people in the country? and a non-existant crime rate?

It should be banned, permanently, in all natiions, and the "criminals" freed.

I'm all for the death penalty.

But I say look at what it has done for China. They have what? A billion people in the country? and a non-existant crime rate?



well... theres really 1 good answer to this:

THEY ARE FREAKIN CHINESE!


i mean, cmon! the people dont even know what crime means! they cook rice and sleep and die!!!

1. You cannot put a price on life.


Yes, but our court system does it everyday when it awards "damages" in wrongful death cases.

This is a tough issue for me. On one hand, I very strongly believe that someone who violates the rights of another individual forfits their own to the degree they violated. I also know that statistically, the best predictor of future behavior is previous behavior, which make the "rehabilitation" issue moot for the most part.

I also can see that prisoners in our current penal system have more rights than those of us who live on the outside, free room and board and at our expense no less. This is a huge injustice. They should at the very least have to work to live and any and all amenities need to be discontinued immidiately.

So, I believe a murder deserves to die and that the likelihood of one become a valuable, productive member of society is small. The problem is, I don't think I could execute that justice myself and to ask someone else to do what I would not doesn't seem right to me. Don't get me wrong, I could kill someone who was currently attempting to harm another human being in my presence, but only as a means of saving an innocent. This has always been a perplexing issue for me.

Incidentally, I don't think that demographic arguments are grounds for ending the death penalty. The issue is, if you commit the crime you deserve the penality, regardless of race, income, religion, gender, etc. and if a specific demographic population is more prone, for whatever reason, to commit violent crimes, then they should have a higher statistical representation in convictions and punishments.

i mean, cmon! the people dont even know what crime means! they cook rice and sleep and die!!!

Excuse me? :confused: This is both highly prejudical and highly inaccurate. These are people who live, love, dream and work just like the rest of us. I find your statement reprehensible. How can you be so caloused toward your fellow man?

well... theres really 1 good answer to this:

THEY ARE FREAKIN CHINESE!


i mean, cmon! the people dont even know what crime means! they cook rice and sleep and die!!!

Your racism is disgusting.

Your use of large fonts in place of logical reasoning is infantile.

Your refusal to support your ludicrous comments re the Chinese judicial system when challenged is unsurprising.

It should be banned, permanently, in all natiions, and the "criminals" freed.
Why release a convicted murderer?

If you make punishment for a crime so horrible, no one would ever think of commiting one.

They would realize that what they are risking is too much compared to what they will gain and they will find another way in life, not commiting a crime...

People say the death penalty and what not doesn't deter.

But I say look at what it has done for China. They have what? A billion people in the country? and a non-existant crime rate?
So we should execute people for traffic violations? It is not a deterrent, because psycopathic killers don't weigh the consequences of their actions before they kill.