Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 7/7/2002 8:16:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/7/2002 8:24:28 AM EDT by Philadelphia_GunMan]
I think that ALL murderers should be put to death. If you intentionally kill another human being, you die. I think an accross the board death penalty would be effective at reducing murder rates. People know that it is only a small percentage of murderers that face the death penalty. So if you make all murderers face the death penalty, it could be a deterent. It especially pisses me off when the news says something like "he will face the death penalty for this gruesome multiple murder". As if if you only kill one person or it was not very violent then we should just put them in jail for life.
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 8:27:43 AM EDT
Murder with aggravating circumstances, like most states with the death penalty. Killing police officers, prison guards, firemen in the course of their duties, killing for hire, killing during the course of an aggravated felony (rape, robbery, kidnapping, etc.), killing by a convict in prison for life sentence (what else could deter him?), particularly gruesome muders (torture, children, elderly, etc.,) such aggravating factors as those. Treason. Eric The(Hang'EmHigh)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 8:35:52 AM EDT
I voted all murderers, but I guess I'd better clarify that. Murder= The taking of an innocent life. as opposed to; Killing= The taking of a life in self defense when some one else is trying to take your G*d-given rights. OR accidental homicide...
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 8:38:17 AM EDT
Murder Child molestation Rape Espionage
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 8:52:38 AM EDT
I used to support the death penalty for rape, but an old law professor, Dale Bennett at LSU, convinced all of us otherwise! If the criminal has committed a crime that is a capital offense [u]already[/u], what would stop him from going ahead and killing the woman/child/victim anyway? The dead victim would never be able to point him out in a courtroom if he just went ahead and finished them off out in the woods. So, Society says to the criminal: if you let your victim live, society will let you live, as well. [b]Kill them, we kill you![/b] Now, don't go saying that criminals never let such things factor into their determinations of what they intend to do! [b]Baloney![/b] Most serious criminals I have met know the laws as well as most criminal lawyers! Eric The(Reasonable)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 8:55:23 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 8:59:24 AM EDT
I'm of the opinion that I'd rather see 100 guilty people go free rather than one innocent person imprisoned... let alone be sentenced to death. Years ago I used to be 100% pro death penalty for all 1st degree murders. However, with the introduction of DNA evidence and the subsequent release of prisoners formerly on death row, I've had to modify my views somewhat. I belive that in any capital offense the criteria used during the sentencing phase should be held to a higher standard. While it is only necsissary that a jury find a person guilty "beyond any reasonable doubt" I belive that in order for the death penalty to be imposed it should be "beyond *any* doubt". Anyone who offers perjured testimony or that conceals/doctors evidence that results in a defendants being sentenced to death, should have to serve life imprisonment at a minimum. I also don't think that any special handling should be given to persons who kill a police officer, firefighter or federal agent while performing their duties (and I'm a firefighter). It shouldn't matter who or what the person is or does for a living. Ohh, and one other thing; I sometimes wonder if it wouldn't be more fitting if a person were sentenced to life without the possibility of parole rather than being executed? At least with death there's a finality. Spending the next 30/40/50 years of your life locked up in hell-on-Earth can be more appropriate.
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 9:00:57 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Maynard: It is disturbing that so many of you who have very little faith in the Government including the Justice system would so readily allow them to put someone to death. This is the same monolithic institution that so many of us rant about here and has proven time and time again to be deeply flawed and yet we trust them to terminate the life of a fellow citizen?
View Quote
You bring up a good point, I think we have all heard the stories. If we used the jury system as it was intended, it would not happen so often, (if at all).
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 9:13:39 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Maynard: It is disturbing that so many of you who have very little faith in the Government including the Justice system would so readily allow them to put someone to death. This is the same monolithic institution that so many of us rant about here and has proven time and time again to be deeply flawed and yet we trust them to terminate the life of a fellow citizen?
View Quote
Yes, if there is any doubt at all, most juries don't convict. At least that's been my experience with juries in Louisiana and Texas. In your home states, you may have problems and I cannot address those. But I would say that the number of innocent men sent to their Maker over the past 100 years has been almost zilch! Eric The(Confident)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 9:15:50 AM EDT
And 'almost zilch' is good enough for any type of government work.[:D] Eric The(Sassy)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 10:26:02 AM EDT
I am fundamentally against the death penalty simply because the thumb-sucking justice system is not infallible. No doubt more than one innocent person has been executed in this country, and this troubles me greatly. As an example, did Julius & Ethel Rosenberg deserve to be electrocuted? They were small bananas in the Soviet spy ring that stole atomic bomb technology. Indeed, I don't believe Ethel was involved in spying at all. Too often reason does not prevail.
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 10:35:43 AM EDT
Post from marvl -
As an example, did Julius & Ethel Rosenberg deserve to be electrocuted? They were small bananas in the Soviet spy ring that stole atomic bomb technology. Indeed, I don't believe Ethel was involved in spying at all.
View Quote
Even her most adamant supporters admit that she was aware of the espionage activities of [u]her[/u] [u]brother[/u], David Greenglass, and her husband. Did they all deserve to die? Hell, yes. [b]Even small potatos get fried![/b] And Julius was given the opportunity to save Ethel, simply by admitting to his crimes. Not a very decent, loving small banana, was he? Sorry, but they both deserved the chair. Eric The(Hard-Assed)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 10:38:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By liberty86: I voted all murderers, but I guess I'd better clarify that. Murder= The taking of an innocent life. as opposed to; Killing= The taking of a life in self defense when some one else is trying to take your G*d-given rights. OR accidental homicide...
View Quote
Ohhh, killing to defend your rights. I thought that was a taboo topic aroud here.
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 10:46:41 AM EDT
To all who are against the death penalty; An Inmate who is serving a life sentence in prison for committing either murder or any other serious crime will probably live a better life than most expect and better than they did on the outside. In a prison in America an inmate gets free medical attention, a job, sex, power and recognition (if in a gang), and all the drugs he can afford. An inmate has almost zero responsibilities, someone tells him when to get up and go to work, when to go play and unlike the movies most Inmates do not get raped when they first enter prison if at all. Some of you will argue that there is more to worry about in prison than what seems like the easy life that I have described but the reality is an Inmate really only loses his freedom and the comfort of a woman (which some still find a way to get through civilian prison staff) other than that they have it made in prison.
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 10:48:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DOCPIG: To all who are against the death penalty; An Inmate who is serving a life sentence in prison for committing either murder or any other serious crime will probably live a better life than most expect and better than they did on the outside. In a prison in America an inmate gets free medical attention, a job, sex, power and recognition (if in a gang), and all the drugs he can afford. An inmate has almost zero responsibilities, someone tells him when to get up and go to work, when to go play and unlike the movies most Inmates do not get raped when they first enter prison if at all. Some of you will argue that there is more to worry about in prison than what seems like the easy life that I have described but the reality is an Inmate really only loses his freedom and the comfort of a woman (which some still find a way to get through civilian prison staff) other than that they have it made in prison.
View Quote
If you don't mind that not being able to leave the prison thing.
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 10:54:44 AM EDT
If you take someone's life in the commission of a crime, why shoud you be allowed to keep your?
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 11:06:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/7/2002 11:19:31 AM EDT by WhiskeyBravo]
During the Gulf war my brother was stationed in Rihad where he saw the beheading of a man who was caught stealing. Apparently this was the thief's 2nd offense. The man was already missing a hand which was cut off and his arm branded to make him identifiable as having stolen in the past. The execution occurred right in the street in front of the store where he was caught. Immediate justice. I support the death penalty for those who murder. God gives the governing authorities the right to carry out capital punishment. There are people being killed in one way or another throughout the world minute by minute. The death of the body isn't as much of a concern to Him as is the saving of the soul. [bounce]
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 2:32:53 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 2:50:51 PM EDT
What Mr. Hun said at the top of this thread. The only thing is you have to use it. Here in New Hampshire the death penalty is applied to "capital murder" ( murder of a cop or gov official, jail killing, kidnapping murder among a few others). But it never gets used. There have been several instances of capital murder here but it is always pleaded down to 1st degree and that's the end of it. There have been multiple cop killings and murder for hires (Pam Smart) in the previous few years, but the powers that be seem to view the DP as just a bargaining tool. Stepped-init
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 2:58:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Maynard: If killing is wrong why would we ever sanction or allow the State to carry out the same wrong? If killing is a crime then why allow the State to do the same under any circumstances?
View Quote
I used to be anti death penalty becuase I used this same logic. However I read a paper about the death penalty written by Couomo (sp) ,the ex govenor of NY, that changed my mind and made me pro death penalty. The state has more power then individuals otherwise there would be no government. For example inprisonment is a crime if you inprison someone, but it is perfectly legal for the state to lock someone up. Forcing someone to give you money is extorsion and illegal, but the state has the power to fine you. If we followed your logic that since killing is illegal the state shouldn't be allowed to do it then we would have to set all the prisoners free and then we would have no justice system.
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 3:04:44 PM EDT
Not only do I agree with the death penalty, I thing it should be public hangings. Think of the mental deterance that would give. Yes, I am sure that rarely an innocent would be executed. I have always felt if I were in that boat, yes it would suck, and I would fight for my life, but in the end it is the price we must pay for justice. No different than shooting through a hostage in a matter of national security. That said, please understand that while I support this, I am also a HUGE fan of freedom. I find many of the laws today extremely appauling. I guess what I believe is if you wanna screw goats in your backyard, as long as you put up a fence where I dont have to see it, be my guest. Dont hurt others and dont take anybodys stuff and you are cool. Screw up and it will be a swift and wrathfull eye for eye justice. Does that make sense? LOL Few laws enforced vigerously. Yeah, thats what I mean.
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 3:08:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DOCPIG: To all who are against the death penalty; An Inmate who is serving a life sentence in prison for committing either murder or any other serious crime will probably live a better life than most expect and better than they did on the outside. In a prison in America an inmate gets free medical attention, a job, sex, power and recognition (if in a gang), and all the drugs he can afford. An inmate has almost zero responsibilities, someone tells him when to get up and go to work, when to go play and unlike the movies most Inmates do not get raped when they first enter prison if at all. Some of you will argue that there is more to worry about in prison than what seems like the easy life that I have described but the reality is an Inmate really only loses his freedom and the comfort of a woman (which some still find a way to get through civilian prison staff) other than that they have it made in prison.
View Quote
I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be too hard to turn these "club med" style prisons into something more closely resembling facilities normally only seen south of the border, or POW camps in Viet Nam. 20 hours of backbreaking, useless labor per day, a single meal (1 cup of watery broth or gruel), and 4 hours of sleep while manacled to the wall so your weight is mostly supported by your wrists should keep the inmates "alive" but feeling such despair that most of them would soon do something that would get them shot. If not, the workload could always be increased so a percentage of them dropped dead from working too hard.
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 3:13:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DonR: If you take someone's life in the commission of a crime, why shoud you be allowed to keep your?
View Quote
Your what????? [:D]
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 3:13:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By garheadjr: Not only do I agree with the death penalty, I thing it should be public hangings. Think of the mental deterance that would give. quote] That's been my feeling for a long time. If we're going to have a death penalty, let's not hide it away in some dark secluded room. Public executions would be the way to go. I'd even like to have the prisoner paraded in before the crowd so we could toss garbage and spit on him. I don't know, that may be cruel and unusual though. Public fireing squad executions wouldn't be though.
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 3:14:46 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 3:19:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Maynard:
Originally Posted By DonR: If you take someone's life in the commission of a crime, why shoud you be allowed to keep your?
View Quote
If killing is wrong why would we ever sanction or allow the State to carry out the same wrong? If killing is a crime then why allow the State to do the same under any circumstances?
View Quote
Killing is NOT a crime, nor is it wrong. Where are you getting your information???
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 3:28:17 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 3:28:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/7/2002 3:39:32 PM EDT by EricTheHun]
[b]Maynard[/b], [b]and you other opponents of the death penalty[/b], here are two hypotheticals for you to consider: A police officer confronts an armed man with a knife against the throat of a little girl, threatening to kill her, just as the man raises the knife to kill the child, the policeman fires, killing the armed man instantly. [b]Do you agree with the policeman's actions?[/b] A husband comes home late one night to find an armed man in his home. The man is brandishing a weapon at both the husband, his wife, and their child. As he lunges toward the child with his weapon the husband fires, instantly killing the armed intruder. [b]Do you agree with the husband's actions?[/b] These two examples already shows that the law has, and always will, permit the 'lawful taking of one human life by another' in such circumstances. Note that there was no trial by a jury for the armed man before either 'execution.' No right to an appeal, no attorney to represent him. Nothing. We do not call the actions of either the policeman or the husband 'murder', do we? The law simply calls them justifiable acts of self-defense, or the defense of others. So when the State decides that after a trial by jury, that the sanctity of [b]innocent human life[/b] requires that the criminal defendant be put to death, then so be it! It's no more 'murder' [u]then[/u], than in the previous two examples! Unless you want to live in a country where the actions of the policeman and the husband are judged to be unlawful and deserving of some sort of punishment, then you must admit that there are times when self-defense requires the taking of another human's life. If you admit [u]that[/u], then you must admit that capital punishment is a thoroughly reasonable manner for society to protect itself and its citizens against the murderous activities of a few criminally minded men (and women). Period. Eric The(Hang'EmHigh)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 3:29:27 PM EDT
I think some murderers (what is usually called 1st degree), and some rapists (what is called 1st degree CSC in Michigan), and persons who torture/disfigure victims. In law school I had a great time when in human rights law abortion came before capital punishment. When it was time for the DP and all the students but me opposed: "Like all of you girls, I support the death penalty. I just don't see that the burden of sin of a baby is enough to warrant the death penalty in the same way a murderer's preplanned act does." One girl bit after some minutes of outrage with: "What about a child of rape?" So I could fire back with: "I don't see where the sins of the father pollute the baby in US civil law? The constitution outlawed corruption of blood. Now if you want to scrap the con and go to strictly civil law, I still think Jesus had a soft spot for the young but that can be debated within the church court."
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 3:35:02 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 3:38:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Maynard:
Originally Posted By liberty86: Killing is NOT a crime, nor is it wrong. Where are you getting your information???
View Quote
From my values. You? If killing or murder isn't wrong then why punish the act at all?
View Quote
Rather than make up my own values, I use the Bible as my plumbline. AND, I didn't say murder is not wrong, I said killing is not wrong.....you seem to think the two words mean the same thing. They don't....regardless of YOUR values..
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 3:43:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Maynard: Killing in the name of self defense by a citizen or an entity in the act of protecting the citizenry during the act is most certainly not the same as taking a person after the fact and taking their life.
View Quote
It is in fact the same thing, it prevents the perp from murdering again. It is also called punishment. It MAY also act as a deterrent on others...
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 3:45:34 PM EDT
Any good FF quotes on the subject, anyone? (I'm too lazy to look myself.)
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 3:46:07 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 3:47:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/7/2002 3:48:29 PM EDT by Maynard]
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 3:49:32 PM EDT
I just want to know why people who are against abortion also support the death penalty. So is killing another human "wrong" or isn't it?
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 3:51:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Maynard:
Originally Posted By liberty86: It is in fact the same thing, it prevents the perp from murdering again. It is also called punishment. It MAY also act as a deterrent on others...
View Quote
When have laws or punishment ever been a deterrent to those predisposed to lawlessness?
View Quote
Punishment, (death), is certainly a deterrent to the perp. If it were carried out more often, it would be more of a deterrent.....
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 3:54:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BenDover: I just want to know why people who are against abortion also support the death penalty. So is killing another human "wrong" or isn't it?
View Quote
No...did you read all the posts?? [b]Killing is NOT wrong, MURDER is!![/b]
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 3:55:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BenDover: I just want to know why people who are against abortion also support the death penalty. So is killing another human "wrong" or isn't it?
View Quote
The child is innocent.
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 3:55:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BenDover: I just want to know why people who are against abortion also support the death penalty. So is killing another human "wrong" or isn't it?
View Quote
So you place innocent babies on the same level with murderers?
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 3:57:47 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 4:01:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Maynard:
Originally Posted By liberty86: Punishment, (death), is certainly a deterrent to the perp. If it were carried out more often, it would be more of a deterrent.....
View Quote
Can you provide a cite or proof of this assertion my good man? I think if you search and find the stats you will see there is no deterrent.
View Quote
I can't believe you Maynard. I don't need to search stats to know that if a murderer is put to death it deters him from murdering again. If you need stats, YOU go find 'em.....
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 4:03:12 PM EDT
Pay Per View executions might work as a deterance. And, as a by product; it would help pay for the cost of putting these animals down. ___________________________________________ American Legion - For God & Country
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 4:05:34 PM EDT
If you don't believe in abortion for religious purposes, then killing is wrong because it is a commandment. Regardless of guilt or innocence, vengence is something that Jesus taught against in the NT. He commanded Peter to put away his sword in the garden when he knew that doing so would assure his own execution. Something about "vengence is mine sayeth the Lord". Now I am not trying to take this topic off on some religious tangent. I just cannot understand how there exists a paradox between the emotional positions of abortion and the death penalty. Even Christians themselves cannot adequately explain the paradox because in doing so, it would lead to a contradiction in viewpoints. Either you kill, or you don't kill. Which is it?
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 4:07:20 PM EDT
Post from Maynard -
Killing in the name of self defense by a citizen or an entity in the act of protecting the citizenry during the act is most certainly not the same as taking a person after the fact and taking their life.
View Quote
[b]Sez you![/b] Nonsense, m'boy, that is nonsense. Society says that there are certain things that you may do that are worthy of forfeiting your life. [b]You know them beforehand. The rules and procedures are known beforehand.[/b] So when you pull the trigger on the man/woman/child, under such circumstances as the laws written by society say in advance are worthy of capital punishment, you are simply pulling the trigger on yourself. It is 'suicide by use of the State', that's all! When you say that the policeman's actions and the husband's actions are different, you are wrong. Society has already taken those factors into account and say that there is no criminal act in defending one's life, or the life of another, by taking the life of someone trying to take innocent life. Period. It is because our society cherishes [u]innocent[/u] human life so much that it has determined that capital punishment is the best method for dealing with the crime of murder. And that the [u]guilty[/u] life is forfeit! It's been the reasonable response of mankind, since the very beginning. It will be around as long as mankind exists on this planet. Get used to it! Eric The(Reasonable)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 4:09:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BenDover: If you don't believe in abortion for religious purposes, then killing is wrong because it is a commandment. Regardless of guilt or innocence, vengence is something that Jesus taught against in the NT. He commanded Peter to put away his sword in the garden when he knew that doing so would assure his own execution. Something about "vengence is mine sayeth the Lord". Now I am not trying to take this topic off on some religious tangent. I just cannot understand how there exists a paradox between the emotional positions of abortion and the death penalty. Even Christians themselves cannot adequately explain the paradox because in doing so, it would lead to a contradiction in viewpoints. Either you kill, or you don't kill. Which is it?
View Quote
Old Testament commands the death penalty for quite a few things. New testament doesn't say much about it as far as I know.
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 4:11:04 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 4:11:26 PM EDT
So if the Law of Moses supposedly went away with Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, it would stand to reason that in all of Jesus' other words, all killing is wrong, including criminal executions.
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 4:12:29 PM EDT
Ben: The Bible forbids murder, shedding the blood of innocents. The state killing the murder or rapist is not forbidden. In fact, pre Christ when God was ruling the jews directly there were specific rules regarding killing a murderer and when the murder would be safe. If you are claiming that all killing is forbidden by Christ, why did he order the followers to bear a sword when spreading his word? Why did the roman empire, acting a scant 400 years after his death in enacting rule based on his teachings, continue to execute criminals? They wrote or helped to write the most important of the creeds and commentaries of the Christian faith, would they not have known if it was wrong?
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 4:13:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/7/2002 4:26:21 PM EDT by FrankSquid]
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 4:14:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BenDover: If you don't believe in abortion for religious purposes, then killing is wrong because it is a commandment. Either you kill, or you don't kill. Which is it?
View Quote
Please cite where the bible says killing is wrong.......Do you mean "Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill?" "Kill" translated to the original language means "1) to murder, slay, kill". This is the taking of an INNOCENT life.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top