There will be a community "roundtable" (which in this part of the FL means '10 liberals against 1 conservative').  Anyway, I will be showing up to argue for Capital Punishment, and would like to get some original viewpoints, beyond my own.  Any good stats or facts would also be helpful.

Post here, or email me if you prefer.  Thanks!  

http://www.capitalism.org/faq/death_penalty.htm

[url]www.capitalism.org/faq/death_penalty.htm">www.capitalism.org/faq/death_penalty.htm[/url]

D'oh!  ok, I'm stoopid, I don't know how to post links here.  Here's the URL:

http://www.capitalism.org/faq/death_penalty.htm

If you want some background on an actual capital punishment case, read [url=https://www.amazon.com/dp/0312927789?tag=arfcom00-20]Adams v. Texas[/url] and watch [url=https://www.amazon.com/dp/6305972451?tag=arfcom00-20]The Thin Blue Line[/url].  It will change your perception of the death penalty.

Don't get caught up in the debate as to whether cap. pun. is a deterrent. A thousand stats exist that can be intentionally MISinterpreted by the "pro-life for criminals, pro death for infants" types.

Argue it from a standpoint of valuing innocent human life. The reason the death penalty is justified in a civilized scoiety is to send a CLEAR message that innocent human life is of inestimable value. And that those who interrupt innocent human life have commited an act for which there is ONLY ONE remedy.

NOT exercising the death penalty shows a contempt for the laws that say murder is NOT to be allowed. What good is a law that has no teeth?? Civilized societies only remain civilized if the laws are enforced, and the punishment fits the crime. Letting a murderer live is the equivalent of saying "The laws against murder are irrelevant."


Good luck. You'll need it, cuz ULTIMATELY, even if you make your case, they will say "Well, cap. pun. is wrong because I feel like it is wrong."

Sadly, that logic will suffice for them.

I am anything but a liberal, and I don't believe in the death penalty for two reasons:

1) I prefer slow torture, even though it goes against the constitution

2) There have been at least 3 cases in the last year where completely _innocent_ people were on death row and released because a certain government agency had withheld info.  How many have gone to the grave because of this?

With the conserns about DNA testing, ETC. aside
Let me give you a quote I heard....It may not be a deterrent to the criminal population overall,
but we know that this criminal will not commit another crime.....
I started to edit my speeling, but I donnt kare..

good stuff from some of you, most of this was my strategy already- any more good stuff guys?  btt

Is it a deterrent?

No laws were written merely to deter.  Neverthless [b]it has been a deterrent to the vast majority of us who don't murder[/b] or knowingly commit any crime.

Is it punishment?

Crime and punishment are simply legal versions of cause and effect.  Society establishes the price you must pay ahead of time.  It is your bargain with society when you murder that [b]you have automatically sacrificed your own life[/b].

No it doesn't bring anyone back and no it is not society's retribution, merely their best judgment.

If a country or society has no capital punishment they are merely showing they value human life in a different manner.  The murdered are valued less than the murderer.

I'm not aware of any innocent person who has been put to death for murder who was later found to be innocent.  I am aware that some have been exonerated by various means and later released.  There may be a case for more scrutiny of murder trials but I can't see getting rid of capital punishment on the basis of the remote possibility of a system failure.

Is the Death Penalty wrong?  I've heard this so many times it's making me sick.  Being an old soldier (and my local letters editor thinks I'm a crank) take this with whatever grain of salt you feel it deserves.

I think that Capital punishment is not only effective, but is actually necessary - and becoming moreso.  Research recidivism - you should be able to find information on that from "three strikes" supporters.  FIlter according to violent crimes.

Now, let us take a hypothetical (I know, what if there were no hypothetical questions?)  Place a man on trial for the murder of, say, two people.  Prove his guilt beyond any reasonable doubt - the standard of justice.  Now, we have two choices...

1) Incarceration.  It has been said that one should "Kill a man if necessary, but to incarcerate him destroys his dignity and yours."  In any case, you then place him on the public dole for security, housing, and sustenance, and he is probaly living better than he has before (and is definintely living better than me!)

2) Execute him.  In doing so, you remove a dangerous element from society, disabling any firther crimes being committed by that one man.  It may only be one man, but it is a start.

Another interesting philosophical point - in ancient Rome, Roman citizens were NOT to be shackled or manacled when arrested.  See the point above (which can, I believe, be attributed to Robert Anson Heinlein.)

Murder, kidnapping, rape, arson (where personal injury or death is involved,) attempted murder, assault with intent, and probably other crimes, should be treated and handled as capital offences.  It has often been argued that the death penalty is morally wrong, but so is releasing a known danger back into the general population.  So is placing a known danger in an environment where he can escape control or custody.

To kill a man is a sin.  To release a known killer into the population (for whatever reason) is a greater sin, and the man who releases him should be held responsible for any more lives lost.

I am at your disposal for discussion inthe backchannel

FFZ
[email protected]