Why you can't have the death penalty as it exist today Glenn Ford

[Sunburn74]

So being ass-raped by big black men is your definition of "relative comfort"?

Not everyone is being ass raped. Prison gangs are a common occurence that offers protection (refer to the movie shawshank redemption. Sure tom hanks got his ass beat every day, but the 3 other guys doing the beating seemed to be having quite the ball). Not to mention there are things like conjugal visits, exercise time, free healthcare, etc. You do realize on occasion you'll have homeless people who perform petty crime in order to go to prison because at least there they'll get some of the above benefits.

If the death penalty has to stay around (a lot of people don't care about the State killing citizens), I think it needs to require the same burden of proof as treason. Two eye witnesses to the same overt act and/or a confession in open court. As we've come to understand since that was written into the Constitution, even that burden of proof is too low, as it depends on the honesty and good memory of witnesses or the honest admission by a suspect who may have been coerced.

Again, I think that is probably where the fix is. Whilst you can never reach absolute truth, you can change the requirements from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "I'd bet my life on it". I really am a strong proponent of putting some culpability on the part of the prosecutor who sends a man to death who is later cleared. If a prosecutor is going to push for the death penalty he needs to be damn sure he's got the right guy and not just trying to make a name for himself.

You could also put some culpability on the part of the jury. Maybe if a guy is freed, you get a letter in the mail with an appointment for you to show up for your 1 hour whipping with a cat o nine tails. Lol I just see some 87 year old lady getting a letter in the mail like that and having a heart attack on the spot.

 

[LunarRay]

To start with, if there is any reasonable doubt the jury has to find the person not guilty.

Each of the convicted who were eventually seen to be Not Guilty had juries that heard that Jury Instruction but it still resulted in a conviction.

 

[LunarRay]

What is best for society, keep someone in prison forever, for fast track the death penalty?

Depends on the society. In Iran, I'd say kill em quick but in the US I'd say prison separates the convicted from society while executing them may do the same it presents no remedy for mistakes made.

Instead of abolishing the death penalty, we need to speed things up. Instead of executing one a month like what Texas does, pick that up to one a day, maybe even 2 or 3 a day.

Well... you have the right to your opinion. I don't believe your opinion is informed by the information regarding innocent people being executed or finally freed by better evidence before being executed.

The problem with the death penalty, criminals know they will probably die waiting on appeals. The death penalty is no longer a deterrent to crime because the appeals process takes so long.

That might be one argument for eliminating the death penalty. I think the best one is the error factor... but if you'd like to eliminate it for any reason it would be fine with me.

See the bold

 

[Pray To Jesus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoI4G1fWmEQ

Death penalty.

 

[davmat787]

I was pro death penalty until I heard an interview on the radio with someone from the innocence project. After that interview, I immediately changed my stance on capital punishment. No doubt there are convicts that are deserving of the death penalty, but until it becomes infallible, there is zero justification to continue using it.

And its not like life in prison with no chance of parole is getting off easy. If I was faced with that or the death penalty, I would choose the latter.

If anyone is on the fence in regards to capital punishment, I suggest cruising over to the innocence project website which is linked above and spend some time there.

 

[davmat787]

Pro-Life means valuing life, protecting it at all costs, right?

Why is the death penalty not on Pro-Lifer's agenda??

Do you really think you found some sort of "gotcha", that being pro-life and pro-death penalty is conflicting? I am not pro death penalty (see my post above for explanation why) but I don't see why the two stances conflict.

Why do you think someone can't be pro-life and pro-death penalty?

 

[davmat787]

The court system in this country is set up to convict, not to provide justice.

Actually it is setup to get people to plea guilty to a lesser charge and generate money for the judicial industry. Trials are expensive, and by over charging people it scares them into accepting a plea deal and sparing themselves from the cost of going through a trial.

I will try to find an article on this subject, but the statistics are overwhelming.

 

[CitizenKain]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoI4G1fWmEQ

Death penalty.

There is something really funny and/or sad about someone named Pray to Jesus cheering for the death penalty.

 

[davmat787]

There is something really funny and/or sad about someone named Pray to Jesus cheering for the death penalty.

He rolls old testament style, yo.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

He rolls old testament style, yo.

Jesus is the only begotten son of God. He is obedient to His Father and does the will of His Father.

“For all who take up the sword will die by the sword."

 

[LunarRay]

There is something really funny and/or sad about someone named Pray to Jesus cheering for the death penalty.

Seems consistent to me.... Consider:

In the new testament benevolent Jesus introduced us to Hell.... A place with internet speeds of 2mb per hour or some such for eternity... versus simply dying and staying dead for eternity. Remember you were commanded to have free will so that you can be punished if you don't use it correctly... without free will only a N. Korea type life or death would be at play.

 

[LunarRay]

Jesus is the only begotten son of God. He is obedient to His Father and does the will of His Father.

Quote:
“For all who take up the sword will die by the sword

Wouldn't obedient Jesus not be a bit off by not reconciling the 'thou shalt not kill' bit with the sword play?

Or maybe he was indicating God was doing the 'die by the sword' part.... and we know he wouldn't make mistakes like killing innocents so it must mean something a bit different.

 

[Agent11]

It would be more humane to shoot a man than to lock him in a cage for life.

Prosecutors need to be held more accountable for trying cases on weak evidence and convicting an innocent person. I think a prosecutor who is proven to have knowingly misled a jury should get life in prison, with parole possible after the number of years from incarceration the victim suffered until released; or execution in the case of an innocent being executed.

If Prosecutors had this hanging over their heads, they would not construct crappy circumstantial cases.

 

[bshole]

It would be more humane to shoot a man than to lock him in a cage for life.

Prosecutors need to be held more accountable for trying cases on weak evidence and convicting an innocent person. I think a prosecutor who is proven to have knowingly misled a jury should get life in prison, with parole possible after the number of years from incarceration the victim suffered until released; or execution in the case of an innocent being executed.

If Prosecutors had this hanging over their heads, they would not construct crappy circumstantial cases.

You wouldn't find any prosecutors. Who in their right mind would risk their life for a stupid paycheck?

 

[poofyhairguy]

You wouldn't find any prosecutors.

Well and that by the time technology changes enough to exonerate people those prosecutors will be retired. Locking up grandpas will never work politically.

 

[feralkid]

Not everyone is being ass raped. Prison gangs are a common occurence that offers protection (refer to the movie shawshank redemption. Sure tom hanks got his ass beat every day, but the 3 other guys doing the beating seemed to be having quite the ball).

I'm almost positive Tom Hanks wasn't in Shawshank Redemption.

 

[desy]

he's confusing his prison movies
Hanks was in the Green Mile, Timothy Robbins was Shawshank

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Wouldn't obedient Jesus not be a bit off by not reconciling the 'thou shalt not kill' bit with the sword play?

Or maybe he was indicating God was doing the 'die by the sword' part.... and we know he wouldn't make mistakes like killing innocents so it must mean something a bit different.

You shall not murder sometimes translated as You shall not kill, KJV Thou shalt not kill (LXX οὐ φονεύσεις, translating Hebrew לֹא תִּרְצָח lo tirṣaḥ), is a moral imperative included as one of the Ten Commandments in the Torah,[1] specifically Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17.
The imperative is against unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt. The Hebrew Bible contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but also allows for justified killing in the context of warfare, capital punishment, and self-defense.

 

[bshole]

You shall not murder sometimes translated as You shall not kill, KJV Thou shalt not kill (LXX οὐ φονεύσεις, translating Hebrew לֹא תִּרְצָח lo tirṣaḥ), is a moral imperative included as one of the Ten Commandments in the Torah,[1] specifically Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17.
The imperative is against unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt. The Hebrew Bible contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but also allows for justified killing in the context of warfare, capital punishment, and self-defense.

Getting your morals from the Bible isn't what you think it is..... and some killing is good!!!

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. -- Deuteronomy 21:18-21

He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. -- Exodus 21:15

He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. -- Exodus 21:17

 

[poofyhairguy]

I'm almost positive Tom Hanks wasn't in Shawshank Redemption.

 

[LunarRay]

You shall not murder sometimes translated as You shall not kill, KJV Thou shalt not kill (LXX οὐ φονεύσεις, translating Hebrew לֹא תִּרְצָח lo tirṣaḥ), is a moral imperative included as one of the Ten Commandments in the Torah,[1] specifically Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17.
The imperative is against unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt. The Hebrew Bible contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but also allows for justified killing in the context of warfare, capital punishment, and self-defense.

And, in context of this thread, wouldn't taking the life of an innocent result in 'bloodguilt'?

The old testament is quite at odds with the new one and of course this relates to just one of the many gods folks believed in over the years. But, assuming everyone is atheistic for all but the Christian one and sticking with the New Testament... The New Covenant, given the old one has a more Earth oriented consideration, seems to indicate quite a division between Earthly power and Heavenly power. One, it seems, ought to consider just about everything Jesus is said to have uttered to point to salvation or entry to heaven.

Anyhow, your quoted passage, 'Live by the sword, die by the sword' can and has been seen to mean many different things in the context of the entire New Testament. One, I agree, is the bit about Peter and the soldier's ear... but, another might be that folks ought to expect the means they use to achieve a thing to be the same means that will or ought to be applied by others to them and in that context perhaps a more passive nature is appropriate?

One thing for sure if sure is possible so I'll say probable is that in this thread the taking of a life by justified judicial means is OK if it followed the notion of the ideal and that is the rub.... It has a probability of achieving the ideal that is affected by the dynamics involved and that renders each case different than the rest and that condition produces an ideal that has to vary with the dynamics.
Assume a defendant is innocent in fact. He is convicted with out misconduct on the part of any participant to the trial. He is executed. Another following the same factors except he is guilty in fact but acquitted has demonstrated a system that cannot exact the ultimate punishment without any consideration for remedy should either prove to be incorrectly decided... In the latter case, double jeopardy applies while in the former not even mouth to mouth will apply the same standard.
That don't seem very Jesus like to me... which makes me wonder how Christians can ever seek to destroy a life... either a living one or an unborn one but those considerations are held in the mind of the beholder... I'd think.

 

[Agent11]

You wouldn't find any prosecutors. Who in their right mind would risk their life for a stupid paycheck?

Phrased as I put it it would be pretty difficult actually. It would simply require some evidence, rather than a purely circumstantial case... Which most bad cases are.

 

[bshole]

Phrased as I put it it would be pretty difficult actually. It would simply require some evidence, rather than a purely circumstantial case... Which most bad cases are.

Agent11, prosecutors are human just like the rest of us. Look at the threads regarding shootings on this forum. There is an initial period of open questioning and once each poster makes up their mind on what happened, do they ever change their mind? Rarely. After the point of "decision", confirmation bias kicks in. It is the same with prosecutors. It is part of being human and not machine. It is not something that can be "fixed" with new laws.