Do You Support The Death Penalty?

[Dagi]

A very clear NO from me!

Can of worms, David, can of worms.....
But a necessary one!

  Oh yes, Penthesilea!

[Dagi]

No, but you're talking about the same concept.  One person is less financially able than the other.  One less financially able sues the more financially able.  Should the person most able to afford counsel for a defense, be denied that defense because the other person cannot?

I resent that the quality of the defense, and therefor the outcome, depends on how financially able a person is. One possibility would be to make all attorneys governmental, so that everyone gets the same quality.

And what are they on trial for?  Prosecutors don't ask for the death penalty for jaywalking.  It has to be a very serious crime with plenty of back up evidence - especially in this day and age of DNA evidence.

I don´t get your point of view here, sorry.

It's not just, but what is the alternative?

See above. (at least as for attorneys)

What crime am I accused of?  If I butchered some innocent person for some sick fantasy of mine, I can't say what I would think because I'm obviously not a well person. [shrug]  This is a very complex question and many ways to look at it, so I really couldn't say.

I said you are innocent, and nevertheless sentenced to death (that happens a lot, in case this has not yet come to your ears).

[serious crayons]

So basically you're making exceptions to the word of god.  As you can tell from the writing of the Hebrew Bible, god didn't make any exceptions.  He didn't say "Thou shalt not steal - but it's OK if a b or c".  You didn't steal - for any reason - period. ...

I'm not clear on what you're arguing in this entire post. Of course I'm making exceptions to "the word of God." I'm not religious in that way. Admittedly, my listing of the 10 commandments was a bit OT, so maybe that was confusing.

But as I thought I'd made clear, I don't believe the 10 commandments are "the word of God," I don't believe the Bible is the word of God, I don't necessarily believe in God and I don't agree that all of the 10 commandments are valid rules. So yes, I certainly do make exceptions to what, IMO, are the words of fallible human beings.

You can't imagine allowing a child to starve, but you need to read the Hebrew Bible a bit more.  He not only allows it, he even condones and orders the murder of children.

Of course. See above. "God" and I don't agree about this.

So in that case, if you make exceptions, then it's perfectly justifiable if someone else does as well,  "Thou shalt not murder - but it's OK if a b or c."

No, that would not be "perfectly justifiable" in my view. I'm talking about what are, IMO, moral absolutes. I'm not saying everybody can pick and choose which moral rules are right for them.

Obviously different people have different views on what those moral rules are. We talked earlier about people who think homosexuality is wrong, even deserving of death. That, to them, is a moral absolute. However, that doesn't mean they are right. Am I making myself clear? Do you see the distinction?

Let's see if I can phrase it differently. I believe there are moral absolutes. I believe different people have different ideas of what those moral absolutes are. That does not, however change the moral absolutes -- it just means some people are wrong.

In MY opinion, "murder is a no-no" is a moral absolute. You disagree, when it comes to capital punishment. Therefore, if there are moral absolutes and one of them concerns murder in the case of capital punishment, then one of us is wrong. I happen to think I'm right. Why wouldn't I?

OK, but I don't think the family of their victims would agree.

Well, let them come onto this message board and argue their case, then. I'm telling you what I think.

But you make exceptions - so it's really not absolute, not even in your eyes - see your below comment:

Yes, it still is an absolute. The absolute moral rule, IMO, is: Killing is wrong, except for self-defense or to save other innocent people, as in WWII or to stop a genocide. There's no reason a moral absolute can't have exceptions. But those are exceptions for particular kinds of killing, not exceptions for particular instances. In other words, to say "Killing is wrong except in self-defense" is a moral absolute. To say "Killing is wrong unless you happen to think the person is really really bad" or "Killing is wrong unless the victim is black" or "Killing is wrong unless the defendant can't get a good attorney" or "Killing is wrong unless the victim's family is really in favor of it" -- those are examples of either moral relativism or mistaken moral absolutes.  Do you see the difference?

True, but then there are people who believe the rule is absolute - see the Amish in the recent horrendous murder of school girls - or the Quakers in any war. They don't believe in killing - for any reason - because they believe their commandment is an absolute.

Yup. As I said, different people hold different opinions about what the moral absolutes are. Maybe they're right and I'm wrong -- I don't know. All I can go by is what I believe.

Which is why I support long appeals process.  Give technology plenty of time and their defense as many opportunities as possible to bring in new evidence, ask for new trials, ask for clemency etc.  I certainly don't approve of convicting them in the morning and executing them in the afternoon.

This reminds me of another practical argument your friend could have used in her debate: Executions cost the state much more than life imprisonment does.

I still don't see the issue.  The white person is unlikely to get off with a light sentence for the same crime - he just didn't get executed.  That doesn't mean he didn't deserve the punishment or that the black person did not.  One just got it and the other didn't.

The issue is that it reveals the fallibility of death-penalty sentencing. You may think they both deserved to get a death sentence. But they didn't. If the system is that capricious, it is unconstitutional and morally intolerable.

Everyone should strive toward the same - but seeing as not everyone has the same talents not everyone is going to make it and those that do make it, it isn't fair that they should have to have their rewards reduced for those who don't.

Inequality is part of life. But it should not be part of the judicial system and government policy.

True, but they're not on death row.  We're talking heinous crimes.

In this case, we were talking about why the U.S. has more imprisoned felons than other Western industrialized countries yet has a higher murder rate. Part of the answer is that not all of those imprisoned felons are murderers. The U.S. has more people on death row because the U.S. is the only one of those countries with the death penalty. By definition, they have NO people on death row.
 

Well we do, don't we?  People who write hot checks don't get the same punishment as those who rape children and dismember them.

So you do agree that we should find different punishments for every category of crime.

Of course, if you're talking length rather than kind. Del, do you remember what you said that I was responding to? You said we should have the death penalty so that a murder doesn't get the same punishment as a car thief. I said they shouldn't get the same punishment -- they should get different lengths of sentences. But they don't need whole different kinds of punishments, as you contended.

I think it's a Christian morality thing personally.  The same reason they don't sell alcohol down in my part of the country or stores are closed on Sunday.  Not really sure.

At this point, it has a lot to do with business lobbying. But yes, it is at least grounded in Christian morality. Do you remember what you said here that I was responding to? You said in this country we don't judge people based on morality. But we do.

[ifyoucantfixit]

     Ok I was done with my participation in this forum...but..I would like to qualify the terminology here, if i might..I am not a believer either.  But I did use to be, and know the tenants of the bible. 
     The term murder, is not equated with self defense, or execution...It is the meaning of laying in wait,
or through anger or vengeance.  Thou shalt not do or (commit) murder.  That is the rule of which your
arguements are based.  Not on execution.  The bible clearly allows for that.  An eye for and Eye and,
a tooth for a tooth...That is all provided you believe the bible is the word of god, on which you base
your moral tenants.  Other than that, it gets pretty arbitrary.  My own opinion is thus and such.....
Stating what a particular person thinks is or is not moral, is a subject for a different debate I believe. 
      To state what any persons opinions on the moral tenants, are,are  as varied as there are people.
    This is the way I see the term...

[serious crayons]

Stating what a particular person thinks is or is not moral, is a subject for a different debate I believe. 
      To state what any persons opinions on the moral tenants, are, as varied as there are people.

True, people's opinions are varied, but I don't know how to discuss the death penalty without discussing morality.

I shouldn't have brought in the Ten Commandments because that just confused the issue. They aren't my version of moral rules.

[delalluvia]

I resent that the quality of the defense, and therefor the outcome, depends on how financially able a person is. One possibility would be to make all attorneys governmental, so that everyone gets the same quality.

OK, but you wouldn't necessarily get quality.  All you would get would be attorneys willing to take the pay the government is offering.  How would you equate skill so you could guarantee everyone gets the same quality of representation?

I don´t get your point of view here, sorry.

What I was saying is that not all cases are instantly death penalty cases.  Some should be, but the prosecutors for whatever reason don't think they'll be able to get it, so they don't try.  When people are accused of heinous crimes, the death penalty isn't always an instant option.

I said you are innocent, and nevertheless sentenced to death (that happens a lot, in case this has not yet come to your ears).

You'll have to be more specific.  I am innocent - how?  I was in the same room as my murderous boyfriend and did nothing to try and stop him from committing murder?  I didn't actually pull the trigger but I also didn't turn in the person that did?  I was so brow-beaten by my abusive sick husband that I didn't rescue any of the girls he kidnapped and tortured to death?  How do I manage to get accused of a heinous crime yet am completely innocent?

[serious crayons]

How do I manage to get accused of a heinous crime yet am completely innocent?

The ones I hear of usually involve mistaken identities or false accusations.

[delalluvia]

I'm not clear on what you're arguing in this entire post. Of course I'm making exceptions to "the word of God." I'm not religious in that way. Admittedly, my listing of the 10 commandments was a bit OT, so maybe that was confusing.

But as I thought I'd made clear, I don't believe the 10 commandments are "the word of God," I don't believe the Bible is the word of God, I don't necessarily believe in God and I don't agree that all of the 10 commandments are valid rules. So yes, I certainly do make exceptions to what, IMO, are the words of fallible human beings.

OK, then I don't understand why you brought up the Commandments at all.

No, that would not be "perfectly justifiable" in my view. I'm talking about what are, IMO, moral absolutes. I'm not saying everybody can pick and choose which moral rules are right for them.

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.

Obviously different people have different views on what those moral rules are. We talked earlier about people who think homosexuality is wrong, even deserving of death. That, to them, is a moral absolute. However, that doesn't mean they are right. Am I making myself clear? Do you see the distinction?

Yes, but we are talking about the modern West, not other countries or countries that are theocracies.

Let's see if I can phrase it differently. I believe there are moral absolutes. I believe different people have different ideas of what those moral absolutes are. That does not, however change the moral absolutes -- it just means some people are wrong.

OK.

Yes, it still is an absolute. The absolute moral rule, IMO, is: Killing is wrong, except for self-defense or to save other innocent people, as in WWII or to stop a genocide. There's no reason a moral absolute can't have exceptions.

Sure it can, by simple definition.  It's no longer 'absolute', it's must be a run-of-mill moral.

But those are exceptions for particular kinds of killing, not exceptions for particular instances. In other words, to say "Killing is wrong except in self-defense" is a moral absolute.

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

This reminds me of another practical argument your friend could have used in her debate: Executions cost the state much more than life imprisonment does.

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.

The issue is that it reveals the fallibility of death-penalty sentencing. You may think they both deserved to get a death sentence. But they didn't. If the system is that capricious, it is unconstitutional and morally intolerable.

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

Inequality is part of life. But it should not be part of the judicial system and government policy.

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

Of course, if you're talking length rather than kind. Del, do you remember what you said that I was responding to? You said we should have the death penalty so that a murder doesn't get the same punishment as a car thief. I said they shouldn't get the same punishment -- they should get different lengths of sentences. But they don't need whole different kinds of punishments, as you contended.

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.  Obviously the head of Enron is not going to be doing time in some cellblock next to Aryan brotherhood murderers.  We make distinctions.

At this point, it has a lot to do with business lobbying. But yes, it is at least grounded in Christian morality. Do you remember what you said here that I was responding to? You said in this country we don't judge people based on morality. But we do.

I said we are getting away from it.  We're not quite there yet.

[Dagi]

OK, but you wouldn't necessarily get quality.  All you would get would be attorneys willing to take the pay the government is offering.  How would you equate skill so you could guarantee everyone gets the same quality of representation?

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.

What I was saying is that not all cases are instantly death penalty cases.  Some should be, but the prosecutors for whatever reason don't think they'll be able to get it, so they don't try.  When people are accused of heinous crimes, the death penalty isn't always an instant option.

And I´m thankful for that.

You'll have to be more specific.  I am innocent - how?  I was in the same room as my murderous boyfriend and did nothing to try and stop him from committing murder?  I didn't actually pull the trigger but I also didn't turn in the person that did?  I was so brow-beaten by my abusive sick husband that I didn't rescue any of the girls he kidnapped and tortured to death?  How do I manage to get accused of a heinous crime yet am completely innocent?

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?

[delalluvia]

The ones I hear of usually involve mistaken identities or false accusations.

And those are usually the easiest to defend, since cops, prosecutors, defendants and the judges all know eyewitness testimony is the weakest accusation out there.  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.