Death Penalty

The death penalty is premeditated, cold-blooded killing by the state.

There are 700+ people on death row in California waiting to be killed by the State in the new poison-injection and renovated gas chamber death chambers.

Is that genocide?

 

No, it isn't.

And this is not directed at you but think Home Invasion. I wonder how many people who have guns in their homes for self defense would have a problem killing an intruder preparing to harm their family yet balk at the idea of the state killing someone who murdered someone elses family.

Bee

 

Interesting how the social conservatives in this country institute massive legislature in order to prevent the killing of one celled zygotes while at the same time advocating of the state sanctioned killing of prisoners.

lol isnt life sacred?

 

I agree it does not make sense that is why I am agianst the death penalty. Though still conservative on many issues.

 

I dislike the death penalty because all mistakes are final. And with the terribly flawed justice system we have that makes mistakes all the time, it should be done away with. You can correct a mistake and release a innocent man in prison, but death is final.

 

Exactly correct.

Innocence Project details it all:

www.innocenceproject.org


And also, not in America, but in a similarly civilised country, look no further than Lindy Chamberlain for a perfect example:

Convicted of murdering her baby at Uluru camping site:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azaria_Chamberlain_disappearance

Lindy was convicted of murder on 29 October 1982 and sentenced to life imprisonment. Azaria's father, Michael Chamberlain, was convicted as an accessory after the fact and given a suspended sentence.

The media focus for the trial was extraordinarily intense and sensational. The Chamberlains made several unsuccessful appeals, including the final High Court appeal.

>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>

Luckily bambu-ilk some '2 decades' earlier had marched and protested in outrage at the death penalty and eventually had it abolished:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/02/01/1169919473225.html

___

or Lindy would surely have been put in a death chamber and killed by the govt.

____________________



After all legal options had been exhausted, the chance discovery of a piece of Azaria's clothing in an area full of dingo lairs led to Lindy Chamberlain's release from prison, on "compassionate grounds." She was later exonerated of all charges.

>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>

Lindy insisted during her trial that baby Azaria was wearing a little white baby's jacket.
It was not found, they said she was a liar.
The 'piece of Azaria's clothing' found near the dingo lairs was indeed that jacket.
Devout Christian lady Lindy was no liar.

The lynch mob were waving nooses around outside the court.


All convicteds must be kept alive!

 

Civilized & Industrialized Countries: Death Penalty Support
Dudley Sharp

The idea that some subjective definition of civilized countries or an objective description of industrialized countries matters in regard to the death penalty is nonsense.

There are a lot of nasty countries that don't have the death penalty and I believe that civilized/industrialized countries such as Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, the United States, etc, have the death penalty. Yes? So what?

Of much greater importance is that most people are good people and that it seems the majority of people in all countries support the death penalty for some crimes (1). Why? Justice.

Folks find the death penalty just and appropriate for some crimes, the moral foundation of support for all criminal sanctions.

Let's say I am right, that innocents are more protected with the death penalty (2). What is so civilized about countries that knowingly spare murderers at the cost of sacrificing more innocents?

In complete disregard for the truth, some say that jurisdictions with the death penalty have higher crime rates than those without it. Such claims are absolute nonsense (3)

NOTE:

countries with no death penalty law: 95
countries with the death penalty: 102
source: Amnesty Intl. AI plays with the numbers, but when you weed through their nonsense, this is the reality.


1) "Death Penalty Support Remains Very High: USA & The World"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-polls-support-remains.html

2) a) "The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

b) "Opponents in capital punishment have blood on their hands", Dennis Prager, 11/29/05, http://townhall.com/columnists/Denn..._capital_punishment_have_blood_on_their_hands

c) "A Death Penalty Red Herring: The Inanity and Hypocrisy of Perfection", Lester Jackson Ph.D.,
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102909A

3) Regarding violence - Detailed country by country review: "Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html


MORE:

"The Death Penalty: Not a Human Rights Violation"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/20/the-death-penalty-not-a-human-rights-violation.aspx

"Killing equals Killing: The Amoral Confusion of Death Penalty Opponents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/0...y-distinct-moral-differences--new-mexico.aspx

"The Death Penalty: Neither Hatred nor Revenge"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/20/the-death-penalty-neither-hatred-nor-revenge.aspx


27 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation,
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm

"Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/0...th-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx

-----

"The Innocent Executed: Deception & Death Penalty Opponents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/1...eception--death-penalty-opponents--draft.aspx

"Death Penalty Sentencing: No Systemic Bias"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-sentencing-no-systemic.html

"Death Penalty Cost Studies: Saving Costs over LWOP"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2010/03/21/death-penalty-cost-studies-saving-costs-over-lwop.aspx

"Physicians & The State Execution of Murderers: No Ethical/Medical Dilemma"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/10/physicians-state-execution-of-murderers.html

"Death Penalty Support: Religious and Secular Scholars"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-support-modern-catholic.html

"Sister Helen Prejean & the death penalty: A Critical Review"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/0...ean--the-death-penalty-a-critical-review.aspx

additional essays:

http://homicidesurvivors.com/categories/Death Penalty.aspx
http://prodpinNC.blogspot.com/

 

The Death Penalty: Saving Innocent Lives
Dudley Sharp, contact info below

Innocence

Of all human endeavors that put innocents at risk, is there one with a better record of sparing innocent lives than the US death penalty? Unlikely.

1) "The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

2) Opponents in capital punishment have blood on their hands, Dennis Prager, 11/29/05, http://townhall.com/columnists/Denn..._capital_punishment_have_blood_on_their_hands

3) "A Death Penalty Red Herring: The Inanity and Hypocrisy of Perfection", Lester Jackson Ph.D.,
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102909A

The false innocence claims by anti death penalty activists are legendary. Some examples:

4) "The Innocent Executed: Deception & Death Penalty Opponents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/1...eception--death-penalty-opponents--draft.aspx

5) The 130 (now 13 death row "innocents" scam
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/04/fact-checking-issues-on-innocence-and-the-death-penalty.aspx

6) Sister Helen Prejean & the death penalty: A Critical Review"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/0...ean--the-death-penalty-a-critical-review.aspx

7) "At the Death House Door" Can Rev. Carroll Pickett be trusted?"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/01/30/fact-checking-is-very-welcome.aspx

"Cameron Todd Willingham: Another Media Meltdown", A Collection of Articles
http://homicidesurvivors.com/categories/Cameron Todd Willingham.aspx

Deterrence

Of course the death penalty deters.

All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the least likely of all criminal sanctions to violate that truism.

1) 27 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm


2) "Deterrence & the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/0...th-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx

3) "Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html

4) This is out of date, but corrects a number of the misconceptions about deterrence.
"Death Penalty and Deterrence"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/0...rmed--seven-recent-studies-updated-61204.aspx

5) "The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

Of course the death penalty deters. A review of the debate.
Dudley Sharp

1) Anti death penalty folks say that the burden of proof is on those who say that the death penalty deters. Untrue. It is a rational truism that all potential negative outcomes deter some - there is no exception. It is the burden of death penalty opponents to prove that the death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the only prospect of a negative outcome that deters none. They cannot.

2) There have been 27 recent studies finding for death penalty deterrence. A few of those have been criticized. The criticism has, itself been rebutted and/or the criticism doesn't negate no. 1 or nos. 3-10.

3) No deterrence study finds that the death penalty deters none. They cannot. Anti death penalty columnists Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune states, "No one argues that the death penaly deters none." Yes, some do, But Zorn is correct, the issue is not "Does the death penalty deter?". It does. The only issue is to what degreee.

4) About 99% of those murderers who are subject to the death penalty do everything they can to receive a lesser sentence, in pre trial, plea bargains, trial, in appeals and in clemency/commutation proceedings. Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life. No surprise. Would a more rational group, those who choose not to murder, also share in that overwhelming fear of death and be deterred by the prospects of execution? Of course.

5) There are a number of known cases of individual deterrence, those potential murderers who have stated that they were prevented from committing murder because of their fear of the death penalty. Individual deterrence exists.

6) General deterrence exists because individual deterrence cannot exist without it.

7) Even the dean of anti death penalty academics, Hugo Adam Bedau, agrees that the death penalty deters .. . but he doesn't believe it deters more than a life sentence. Nos. 4-6 and 10 provide anecdotal and rational evidence that the death penalty is a greater deterrent than a life sentence. In addition, the 27 studies finding for deterrence, find that the death penalty is an enhanced deterrent over a life sentence.

All criminal sanctions deter. If you doubt that, what do you think would happen if we ended all criminal sanctions? No rational person has any doubt. Some would have us, irrationally, believe that the most severe sanction, execution, is the only sanction which doesn't deter.

9) If we execute and there is no deterrence, we have justly punished a murderer and have prevented that murderer from ever harming/murdering, again. If we execute and there is deterrence, we have those benefits, plus we have spared more innocent lives. If we don't execute and there is deterrence, we have spared murderers at the cost of more innocent deaths.

10) Overwhelmingly, people prefer life over death and fear death more than life.

"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."

John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science

 

I oppose the death penalty for many reasons. Here they are in order of descending importance:

1. No Way to Take it Back
We can just ask that convicted "arsonist" in Texas about that through a Ouija board. Of course Gov. Perry did all he could to bury the real answer. I say even if there are no fully documented accounts of innocents being put to death, the chance exists (which the sample case shows the extreme difficulty of figuring it out even when it seems likely). And that's enough. You can't free a dead person and a dead person can't sue (family can, but that's not much consolation).

2. I don't accept that definition of justice.
I reject the retributionist model of justice in favor of the utilitarian approach. The death penalty is always about "deserves". The death penalty, as it should be used, has no real deterrent effect. Those studies showing an effect (questionable studies, like most based on crime trends) count on executions being highly publicized and fresh in people's minds. So... common and hyped up? Over time, they'd be hyped less. And the death penalty should not be common; it should be reserved for those criminals so dangerous that bars are not good enough.

3. It's a distraction
The whole "tough justice" ideology also fails on utilitarian grounds and tempts the population to ignore important changes that should be made in our justice system in favor of the retributionist "justice" mentioned above. I think the death penalty feeds this retributionist tendency more than any other punishment by fitting into simplistic moralistic frames.

 

No, it's stupidity! Most of them should have been executed by now!

 

6th Commandment: "Thou shalt not kill / Thou shalt do no murder"

Death chambers sure look like killing and murder by the state to me.

 

We have had many cases of wrong convictions in Canada to give the death penalty any legs.

 

The commandment is specific to murder and/or any type of illicit killing, which is not a reference to state executions for criminals.

Death Penalty: New Testament Support, a limited review
Dudley Sharp

The biblical and theological support for the death penalty far outweighs any alleged teachings to the contrary.

God/Jesus: 'Honor your father and your mother,' and 'Whoever curses father or mother must certainly be put to death.' Matthew 15:4. full context - Jesus used this reference to condemn the Pharisees for their intentional misinterpretation of God's Word, emphasizing that the Truth of God's Word must be enforced, which is precisely what He was doing with this well known passage. www.newadvent.org/bible/mat015.htm

Saint (& Pope) Pius V, "The just use of (executions), far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this (Fifth) Commandment which prohibits murder." "The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent" (1566).

All interpretations, contrary to the biblical support of capital punishment, are false. Interpreters ought to listen to the Bible’s own agenda, rather than to squeeze from it implications for their own agenda. As the ancient rabbis taught, “Do not seek to be more righteous than your Creator.” (Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7.33.). Part of Synopsis of Professor Lloyd R. Bailey’s book Capital Punishment: What the Bible Says, Abingdon Press, 1987.

"Death Penalty Support: Christian and secular Scholars"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-support-modern-catholic.html

Christianity and the death penalty
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html#F.Christianity

Catholic and other Christian References: Support for the Death Penalty,
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/1...references-support-for-the-death-penalty.aspx

Quaker biblical scholar Dr. Gervas A. Carey: " . . . the decree of Genesis 9:5-6 is equally enduring and cannot be separated from the other pledges and instructions of its immediate context, Genesis 8:20-9:17; . . . that is true unless specific Biblical authority can be cited for the deletion, of which there appears to be none. It seems strange that any opponents of capital punishment who professes to recognize the authority of the Bible either overlook or disregard the divine decree in this covenant with Noah; . . . capital punishment should be recognized . . . as the divinely instituted penalty for murder; The basis of this decree . . . is as enduring as God; . . . murder not only deprives a man of a portion of his earthly life . . . it is a further sin against him as a creature made in the image of God and against God Himself whose image the murderer does not respect." (p. 111-113) "A Bible Story", Essays on the Death Penalty, T. Robert Ingram, ed., St. Thomas Press, Houston, 1963, 1992.

Pope Pius XII: "When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live." 9/14/52

Jesus: "So Pilate said to (Jesus), "Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you and I have power to crucify you?" Jesus answered (him), "You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above." John 19:10-11


Jesus: "You have heard the ancients were told, ˜YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER" and "Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court". But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, "Raca", shall be guilty before the supreme court and whoever shall say, "You fool", shall be guilty enough to go into fiery hell." Matthew 5:17-22. Here, Jesus raises the bar. Not only are murderers subject to the death penalty, but those who have hatred in their hearts "shall be guilty enough to go into fiery hell" - an infinitely more severe sanction than any earthly death. full context http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat005.htm

The Holy Spirit: God, through the power and justice of the Holy Spirit, executed both Ananias and his wife, Saphira. Their crime? Lying to the Holy Spirit - to God - through Peter. Acts 5:1-11

OT: God: "You shall not accept indemnity in place of the life of a murderer who deserves the death penalty; he must be put to death." Numbers 35:31 (NAB)
full context www.usccb.org/nab/bible/numbers/numbers35.htm

Saint Paul, in his hearing before Festus, states: "if then I am a wrongdoer, and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die." Acts 25:11.

St. Augustine: "The same divine law which forbids the killing of a human being allows certain exceptions. Since the agent of authority is but a sword in the hand, and is not responsible for the killing, it is in no way contrary to the commandment "Thou shalt not kill", for the representative of the State's authority to put criminals to death, according to the Law or the rule of rational justice." The City of God, Book 1, Chapter 21

St. Thomas Aquinas finds all biblical interpretations against executions "frivolous", citing Exodus 22:18, "wrongdoers thou shalt not suffer to live". Unequivocally, he states," The civil rulers execute, justly and sinlessly, pestiferous men in order to protect the peace of the state." (Summa Contra Gentiles, III, 146

St. Thomas Aquinas: "The fact that the evil, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit the fact that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement. They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so stubborn that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from evil, it is possible to make a highly probable judgement that they would never come away from evil to the right use of their powers." Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, 146.

many more

 

They are killing, not murder.

Kill =/= murder

 

Where is the option for "No, it's too humane"?

 

People who agree with the death penalty are as bad as the murderers themselves.

 

Because, you know, murder victims have broken the law and get a trial by jury of their peers and... oh wait, never mind. That's a completely retarded comparison.

 

Executions are just state sanctioned murder. And the familys who watch the executions are sickos.

 

That same sort of thinking, taken to its logical conclusion, would imply that we shouldn't punish criminals at all.

 

I'm all for a life sentence in prison for murder.

 

Since, by your logic, I'm as bad as a murderer, I would like to ask you something.

If you saw your daughter being abducted from her bedroom by two men who look stronger than you, and assuming you had a gun in your hand and a clear and safe shot, would you shoot with the intention to kill the abductors? Or would you make an attempt to wound, arrest, or try to defuse this scenario by other means.

I'm not out to make fun of you or anyone else but I would like an answer to this question.

Bee

 

Of course, i would take them out. But the job of the state is not to kill people.

 

Thanks for the reply.

In the three choices I gave you, and knowing your daughter would be physically unable to protect herself, you chose to terminate the life of the attacker rather than choose one of the other choices supressing any moral or religious views that you may have had.

And, if you had to play this again, you most likely would do the same thing. Is this correct?

Bee

 

I wouldn't hesitate to kill anyone trying to harm my family. That's a completely normal reaction.

 

I oppose it because I see no way of correction if the sentencing is wrong - and that is not a rare tendency.