Do You Support The Death Penalty?

[Dagi]

I wish it was as you say.

[delalluvia]

I could not guarantee that, of course, yet it is a fact that attorneys payed by a private person are more ambitious than those the government pays for.

True, so if every laywer was a government employee, you will have attorneys that are not as ambitious as they would be if they were in private practice.  Do you think that will get you the quality you are looking for?

Girl you just don´t get it. I said you were innocent. Innocent. Are you actually so naive as to think that anything of what you wrote must happen so that you are accused to have commited a heinous crime?

Of course, the West is not the torture chamber, police state that you seem to want to make it out to be.  Our judicial system is still comprised of people trying to do their best to administer justice, who are actually very reluctant to hand out the death penalty.  You make it seem like they're all bloodthirsty crowds in an arena, happy to drag innocent people off the street, and based on no evidence whatsoever instantly convict them of a death penalty crime.

[Dagi]

  You make it seem like they're all bloodthirsty crowds in an arena, happy to drag innocent people off the street, and based on no evidence whatsoever instantly convict them of a death penalty crime.

No, I didn´t say that. I said there are persons who are innocent and nevertheless sentenced to death (and I remind you that death is nowadays still irreversible), and every single one of them is an argument against death penalty, it does not depend on their number.

And I remind you that few evidences are infallible, not even "scientific" ones.

[delalluvia]

No, I didn´t say that. I said there are persons who are innocent and nevertheless sentenced to death (and I remind you that death is nowadays still irreversible), and every single one of them is an argument against death penalty, it does not depend on their number.

And I remind you that few evidences are infallible, not even "scientific" ones.

I don't disagree that that has happened in the past, but it's becoming less and less an occurence.  Simply because of the state of forensic science and because a great many states are moving beyond the accusatory basis.

Like Gary said, a person in this country is innocent until proven guilty.  The state has to prove they are guilty.  And one person's accusation against another without any proof is no longer sufficient to convince grand juries to bring charges against anyone because it's literally he said/he said.  A crime might have occurred, but without actual proof, it will not go to trial.

So a person can accuse another person mistakenly or not of a crime, but without evidence that the other person was involved, it won't go forward.

[Dagi]

If you want to belive that, then do.

[Dagi]

Is this the plot for your third novel, Gary?  Brilliant. 

[Mikaela]

Well, you'll have to give Del this: She's got willpower and stamina to be continuing to argue her opinion, when she's so clearly in the minority.

False accusations these days take a lot of evidence to prove.  I'm not saying they didn't happen in the past, they obviously have, but those are becoming less a possibility these days.

The couple of obvious miscarriages of justice that I know of involving first degree murder (and rape) - one in New Zealand, one in my own country - saw defendants convicted and sentenced in a manner that I bet would have equaled capital punishment in the US. In both cases, there was a huge public push to "find the guilty one" and the police was under much pressure. And in both cases the police and/or the prosecutor suppressed evidence and witnesses indicating the defendant was not guilty, and otherwise "massaged" the facts and evidence of the case to fit their theory and get the suspected person convicted. This has later been proven - in the case in my own country the poor innocent man served nearly the full sentence and he died just before being found unjustly convicted (after the real murderer confessed on *his* death bed, and the case and the evidence was re-opened and reviewed with fresh eyes.) The unjustly convicted man was deaf, and had physical disabilities, was a loner, and at the time of sentencing had very great disadvantages in defending himself. 

This in my view is the most likely way that "false accusation" will happen today: The false accusors will be police and prosecutors, with the whole apparatus of their professions at their disposal to aid them in their accusations.  Police and prosecutors are career people, some will be less than humanitarians and prety cynical, and they're working under stress, eager to achieve and deliver a "case closed", especially in cases where there is a public outcry. If they think they've got the right guy, why not help the case along a little bit by suppressing "confusing" evidence, dismissing witnesses - or even actively planting evidence such as DNA traces or what not. After all, they *know* the guy is guilty, they just need to be sure that the jury sees it too.

I think it's totally naive to think such things will not happen in future as it has in the past - and I bet there are people on death row in the US today because of this.

[serious crayons]

OK, I'm just pointing out that because you do so means other people will as well and for the same justification so moral absolutes aren't really absolutes.  They are to you, but not to others, so that makes them not absolute.

...  It's no longer 'absolute', it's must be a run-of-mill moral.

I'm still not making myself clear, then. I'm going to quote Gary again: "It's our understanding of the morals that is relative, not the morals themselves." That is, just because people disagree on what is right and wrong doesn't mean that whatever somebody thinks is OK for them. If that were the case, slavery and concentration camps would both have been just fine. No, the moral absolutes still exist, even if people interpret them incorrectly.

Another example: Just because Afghanis think homosexuality is wrong, doesn't mean homosexuality actually IS wrong in Afghanistan, but fine in the United States. No, it's one or the other. So either the Afghanis are incorrect, or the Americans are. You can probably guess which I vote for.

The second you say 'except', that's an exception to the rule and therefore the rule is no longer absolute.

Sorry, but I have absolutely no problem calling "murder is wrong except in self defense or to defend other innocents" a moral absolute.

That's the only one we could come up with that wasn't based on emotional arguments and even she was going to have to determine whether the research done 10-20 years ago was still correct based on inflation rates and longer lives of prisoners.

Tell your friend to check out this website: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/getcat.php?cid=3

So we should just do away with our justice system all together?

No. We shouldn't use it to kill people.

And you can separate our judicial system and government policy from the humans who run it - and are infalliable - how?

I wasn't attempting to do that.

But if you're asking how the judicial system and government policy differs from the rest of life, the answer is they are public institutions and, in a democracy, are expected to attempt to treat all citizens equally, regardless of race, wealth and other demographic differences.

It's the same thing, though.  Obviously, there are white-collar prisons - what they call 'country club' prisons and hard-time lockups.  We do differentiate in punishments and the length of time and how 'hard' that time is ...   We make distinctions.

Yep. That's what I said. That's why there's no need to kill anybody.

[moremojo]

Now as for your outrage about my thoughts on love, and your challenge that not even I could love Hitler and Stalin and their kind, and that I couldn’t possibly envision a God who would accept them if they didn’t repent first.  All I can say is that yes, I can envision a God who would accept Hitler and Stalin, just as they are, or were as the case may be.  I can’t truly love them, but I don’t claim to be a perfect person.  But I do think people lash out at others out of hatred and self-interest, and that these things stem from a sense of isolation.  I think we do bad things to one another because we feel alone.  But if there is a God we are mistaken, and there is no need to try to save ourselves, because God will save us.  If you have faith then you feel at one with God and the whole of creation.  For a person of faith there is no need to strive toward anything, no need to climb over anyone to get to the top, because you would already have the world in whole, and you would believe that not even death would change this.  Of course no one has perfect faith.  Even the best of us will lash out sometimes.  We all make mistakes, and people like Hitler and Stalin made monstrously huge ones.  They hurt a lot of people, and I feel their victims’ pain and fury.  And if I had been directly effected by them I’d want to beat them with a ball bat I’m sure.  But that’s only because I’m not perfect.  Jesus, according to the New Testament, did tell us to turn the other cheek you know. 

I can tell you that I want to stop the Hitlers and the Stalins of the world.  Just as I want to stop gay bashing, either directed toward myself or someone else.  I’d even use deadly force if I had to.  And I’d have no problem with putting such people in prison.  But guess what, quyst, in my better moments I don’t want even Hitler and Stalin to be consigned to hell.  I don’t even believe in hell.  I believe that if there is a God he will save us all.  I think it’s love that turns us into better people.  I think it’s love that informs morality.  And if there is a God, and if he brought someone like Hitler or Stalin into his presence I think his love would transform them.  As Paul said, according to the New Testament, “now we see in a glass darkly, but then face to face.”  If there is a God, and if Hitler and Stalin no longer saw that dark glass they looked at in this life, but instead saw the face of God, I think they’d realize that there had been no need to try to conquer the world, there had been no need to see others as their enemy, no need to kill and push back, because they would realize that the competition had only been in their heads, and that they already had the world from the start.  So in my view of things there is a place in heaven even for Hitler and Stalin.

As for your plea that I love you, quyst, all I can say is that you have made that rather difficult.  You came to this site with the intention of going on the attack.  Your posts contained not even a hint that you were interested in the well being of anyone here.  So I, and others fought back.  I know I used some pretty harsh language against you.  But you presented yourself as someone who was utterly indifferent to my thoughts and feelings.  I only responded in kind.  Maybe a perfect person would have remained passive.  Maybe a perfect person would have taken the blows without complaint.  But I don’t claim to be perfect.  However, I can assure you that even when I was burning with hostility toward you, I would not have done anything more than give you a good shake if you were standing right here in front of me, and I probably would not have even went that far.  And I want you to know this, if nothing else I have said gets through, I don’t want you to be consigned to hell for disagreeing with me.  I don’t want you to be consigned to hell for any reason.  If there is a God, I hope that he saves you along with everyone else.  And if we can’t be friends here, I hope we can be friends in heaven.

Gary

Gary, you display such impressive wisdom and compassion, and I marvel at your eloquence in conveying your ideas and feelings. We are so lucky to have you among us.

Much of what you write here reminds me of what God tells Neale in the Conversations with God series of books. Those ideas have influenced me, and informed some of what I have written in this thread.

Peace,
Scott

[moremojo]

I'd be curious to know if our members who support the death penalty also support its implementation against adult persons who are being executed for crimes committed while they were children. It should go without saying that I am opposed to this, being against the death penalty for any reason, but I am curious about others' feelings. The U.S. is one of the few post-industrialized Western nations to continue this practice.

My apologies if this particular topic has already been addressed in the thread, and which I might have overlooked.