Say Anything Blog

It’s a self defense issue for me.  We do not have to kill a convicted murderer to protect ourselves from him/her.  We simply have to put them in prison.

Though for me it’s not really a moral issue.  I oppose the death penalty because our courts, while about the best we can hope for, are prone to errors that put innocent people in jail.  And it’s cheaper to just put the inmates in jail than it is to go through the endless appeals that are a necessary evil of a death penalty case.

---

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

And it’s cheaper to just put the inmates in jail than it is to go through the endless appeals that are a necessary evil of a death penalty case.

Rob,

Unfortunately, you’re right about that.  I could understand opposing the death penalty for pragmatic reasons.  I don’t agree, but I understand.

Thanks, HG.

I’ve actually done a bit of work in the defense field, and I can tell you that our justice system does sometimes get it wrong.  Not often, but enough to where I’m not comfortable with executing these people.

Prosecutors have a lot of power, and some of the unscrupulous ones abuse it.  Look at Nifong.

---

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob,

Nifong should give anyone reservations about the death penalty. 

However, morality cannot be set aside.  Murder is immoral and morality prevents murder through deadly force in the case of self-defense.  Murder is a greater immorality and thefore a greater crime than attempted murder and therefore morality (moral duty) can require no less than deadly force. 

In spite of the risk, and I agree with you there is a risk, it is our moral duty to execute convicted murderers. Justice then is served through capital punishment.

We may not like that responsibility, or draw back from it with good reason, but the same arguments could be made, and often are made, against law enforcement. The risk to the innocent is something society accepts where morality and good sense require it.

I agree with Rob. Why does an incarcerated prisoner need to be killed? Who is the prisoner harming?

The death penalty is also amongst the most cold-hearted, and most calculated, of all killings. It has no place in a civilised society.

---

“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” —George Orwell

AV,

I fear you do not recognize morality, but I’ll repeat this portion for you. 

However, morality cannot be set aside.  Murder is immoral, and, in the case of self-defense, morality prevents murder through deadly force .  Murder is a greater immorality, and, therefore, a greater crime than attempted murder. It then follows that morality (moral duty) can require no less than deadly force.

I fear you do not recognize morality, but I’ll repeat this portion for you. --HG

What I believe is moral is most probably different than what you believe. What you seem to be advocating sounds more like hate to me. Why kill someone who is no-longer a threat to society (since they are incarcerated)? This seems to be punitive, not moral.

I don’t know where you claim your `morality’ is from (and it sounds very Old testament), but since you claim to be a Christian:
Do not judge and do not condemn. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. (Luke 6:37)
But if you do not forgive others, your Father will not forgive you your sins. (Matthew 6:14)

---

“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” —George Orwell

Anarchist Vegetarian said, The death penalty is also amongst the most cold-hearted, and most calculated, of all killings. It has no place in a civilised society.

A civilized society would permanently take care of the problem.

What you seem to be advocating sounds more like hate to me.

So it’s “cold-hearted” (lacking emotion) and also “hate” at the same time? How does that work?

Why kill someone who is no-longer a threat to society (since they are incarcerated)? This seems to be punitive, not moral.

First of all, people break out of the most secure prisons quite regularly, so that argument of yours is bunk. Secondly, it is punitive! And that is not a bad thing.

I don’t know where you claim your `morality’ is from (and it sounds very Old testament), but since you claim to be a Christian:
Do not judge and do not condemn.

So you’re telling Christians that they can’t make any judgments, nor condemn actions.

I guess you believe that any and all behavior is permissible according to the Christian doctrine. Where you got this idea, in between all of the talk about “sins” and judgments, is beyond me.

But if you do not forgive others, your Father will not forgive you your sins.

Awesome. Let’s close the prisons and let every thief, murderer, and rapist out.

Great “logic” there Einstein.

HG

I don’t support the death penalty either. I don’t see the killing of a murderer as a moral thing, let alone a morally obligatory thing. I understand that the logic is when they kill or attempt to kill they thereby forfeit their autonomy to live, they give up the right to be free from being killed by removing that right from another. I just feel that it is societies intent, through laws and the court system, to protect the members of society and preserve their rights. I think once we have apprehended a killer that the goal is achieved; society is safe again.

Killing the murderer, to me, is going beyond protecting society. I see it as creating more of a social acceptance of killing, as desensitizing people. We tell society the only time they may kill is to self-preserve in a bona fide threatening situation, yet we kill these people after they have been caught and pose no further threat. It is a public rationalization of killing that is not related to self defense. The last thing the public needs is more rationalizations for killing people.

I understand it is also a deterrent, but often it doesn’t work. If you are messed up enough to kill someone you are either not thinking about capital punishment or you are convinced you’ll get away.

Furthermore, a death penalty case needs to be one where the defendant has ultimate control over their actions. Often people are retarded, molested and abused, or raised without being taught appropriate value systems. It seems to me if we want to kill someone we need them to be clear minded and know the difference between right and wrong. Then when they chooise to do wrong of their own will, and only then, are we even remotely justified in killing them. Locking them up seems to carry less of a burden that the actor be 100% responsible because it can be rationalized as protecting society. So can the execution, but I feel it goes beyond what the basic function of our justice system should be - it digresses.

AV,

Christianity condemns murder as immoral but that is not the morality I am appealing to.  Society has judged murder immoral (I don’t know anyone who would argue otherwise) and conversely self-defense is judged moral, hence it is no crime to kill in self-defense.  This is the starting point of my post. 

I don’t see how one can argue for the protection of life using deadly force, then reduce the penalty for murder.

We all agree self-defense is necessary to protect life.  Hence, we place a value and dignity upon life that we then judge worthy of defense by deadly force.  If murder takes place, has the value and dignity of life changed?  Is it now of less value, and, therefore, the murderer is no longer worthy of death?  It is morally inconsistent to devalue the life and the penalty due the actor simply because he is not longer a threat to that life.  He is no longer a threat because he took that life!  With all due respect to you all, it is absurd. 

Protection alone is not what makes self-defense moral and legal, but the value of the life of another.  Otherwise, I ought to be able to kill another for anything I deem protection.
Can one kill another to protect his car from vandalism?  No, the car does not have the same value as life, so the criminal cannot be met with deadly force.  Life is what self-defense is justified in protecting, because life is to be cherished.  Taking a life is what makes the actor worthy of death.

I think once we have apprehended a killer that the goal is achieved; society is safe again.

Sparkie,

I have to say I am always impressed how clearly you communicate.

That aside, there are times when murders are released or escape, only to kill again.  They have been known to kill in prision as well.  Using the logic of the opponents, the risk to the innocent of not executing murderers is too great. 
This arguement, as you can see, cuts both ways.  Err is human.  We ought to err on the side of the death penalty, not on the side of murder.

AV,

Regarding the Scripture you cited:  They are personal responsibilities. Not government responsibilities.  Government is invested with our right to justice.  I could cite Scripture which clearly lays the responsibility of capital punishment upon government, but I don’t think you care to hear it.  I personally am expected to forgive others, government is to take up the cause of justice.

Regarding the death penalty and the Bible, especially the New Testament, Paul clearly endorses the power of the king to use the sword (= death penalty more or less) in Romans 13, and Peter does as well in his first epistle.  Moreover, if the death penalty was in principle wrong, exactly what was my Lord doing when He refused to take a stand against crucifixion?

Pragmatically, Rob does have a good point.  My answer is simple; a one year sentence from a bad prosecutor is just as final as death.  Less impact, of course, but the thing to fix is not whether or not we have a death penalty, but rather whether or not we have corrupt prosecutors.

There are three questions we need to ask when deciding how to punish someone for a crime:

1) Is this punishment the best way to guarantee the criminal won’t harm any more people?

2) Is this punishment the best way to dissuade others from committing this crime in the future?

3) Does this punishment result in the lowest possible level of suffering necessary to establish the first two criteria?

In my view, capital punishment quite clearly wins out in all three areas:

1) Executed criminals quite obviously cannot commit any more crimes; incarcerated criminals can, and do.

2) Humans, for whatever reasons (they are mostly irrational), have a much greater fear of death than they do of lifetime imprisonment (this is why states with capital punishment have lower murder rates than others; it’s why the death penalty is a deterrent).

3) However, while humans fear capital punishment more than life imprisonment, a painless execution results in far, far less suffering than a lifetime of unmitigated, forced labor.

Put me in the capital punishment camp.

Rob P.

You raise an important point.  The importance of government to execute justice is how the people are protected.
Morality is so very important in America because of the great responsiblity of liberty.

Dave
Your first #2 is not a goal of the justice system. It has been thrown around as a rationalization for some of the things we do to offenders, but its really not a stated goal. Furthermore, the death penalty does not correlate to lower crime rates, it correlates to higher ones.

HG
Plainly, I don’t see that a criminal’s potential escape should carry any sway in the death penalty debate. Perhaps you have an issue with security or something… Killing in jail also - murderers and the lot have been removed from society because they pose a threat. They no longer enjoy the luxuries of society… like living in a separate space from the murderers. As for killers being let out to kill again… maybe we just have to tell Norman Mailer to shut the eff up and it doesn’t matter how cutsie a book any one inmate can write dissing on our society… we still shouldn’t let them out.

That said, I do think there are murder cases that don’t justify jail time let alone capital punishment. If Arlene, who lives in a very rural area, comes home one night and finds her hubby shaked up with the fat lady next door and offs them both… she may not need jailtime. Its not clear, in cases like that, that the offender poses any continued threat to society. She probably won’t reoffend if she is merely fined heavily and put on longterm P.O. watch. Hey, its just my opinion.

Sparkie said, I understand it is also a deterrent, but often it doesn’t work.

It works every time. The dead can’t kill people.

Lik
A deterrant deters people who have not yet offended from doing so. I get your logic though.
It has been proven that societies with capital punishment have higher violent crime rates than those without capital punishment.

Sparkie, not quite true.  The murder rate tripled after the death penalty was banned by the Supreme Court in the 1960s, and returned to its ordinary level once it was reinstated in the late 1970s/early 1980s.  Not the only thing going on at the time, of course, but the typical “wisdom” is derived from comparing homogeneous populations with heterogeneous populations.

Rob,

I knew there was something I liked about you but your position on the death penalty is not consistent with a true right wing Republican?? It might hurt you to have someone like me saying nice things about you with some of this group..(smile)

JTG, I actually know a lot of right wingers who oppose the death penalty.  Some on moral grounds, but a lot for the practical reasons I’ve already mentioned.

I actually got my stance from my dad, who is a retired cop and very, very “right wing.”

---

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Sparkie,

We clearly see things differently.  The factors I consider relevant to this debate are:

1.  The sanctity of human life.

2.  The moral responsibility.

3.  The role of government to provide justice.

4.  The wisdom of capital punishment.

It is irresponsible to acknowledge the protection of life, and disregard the sanctity which makes protecting life both moral and legal. 

Your argument seems to be:

Protection is the purpose of the law.
Once a murderer is imprisoned society is protected.
Therefore, the death penalty is not necessary to protect society.

This is a very comfortable argument, but it ignores what is being protected, how, and why. 

The sanctity of life is to be preserved.
Deadly force is necessary to preserve life.
Deadly force preserves the sanctity of life. 

Plainly, I don’t see that a criminal’s potential escape should carry any sway in the death penalty debate.

Opponents credibly argue that the risk to innocent life is too great to support capital punishment.  This is not only a pragmatic, but a legitimate concern; after all, to err is human. 

Proponents credibly argue that the risk of release, escape, or the threat to other inmates is too great to allow the murderer to live.  This too is not only a pragmatic, but a legitimate concern; after all, it has happened on numerous occasions. 

If we err on the side of justice, there is a small, but nonetheless disturbing, chance an innocent person will be executed. 

If we err on the side of crime, there is a much greater chance and innocent person will be murdered. 

The two scenarios are perfectly comparable.  Therefore, we should err on the side of justice.

Rob,

Thanks, and I understand that I have a contradiction because I favor certain abortions but am against the death penalty. At least the Pope is consistent in being ageist the death penalty and abortions although most Catholics I know are for the death penalty but against abortion. mmmmmmmmmm

At least the Pope is consistent in being ageist the death penalty and abortions although most Catholics I know are for the death penalty but against abortion.

Those “most Catholics” who favor the death penalty are probably looking at it from the angle of protecting life. It’s an entirely consistent position as explained by HG.

mmmmmmmmmm

Are you alright?

Likwidshoe,

Those “most Catholics” who favor the death penalty are probably looking at it from the angle of protecting life. It’s an entirely consistent position as explained by HG.

I understand that position and can respect it, my question was more questioning the authority of the Pope in his own church and how much effect his leadership has? It seems he is addressing the issue of protecting all life also if there is a choice.

It seems he is addressing the issue of protecting all life also if there is a choice.

jtg,

There is this pesky matter of Justice to be dealt with, and whose responsibility it belongs to.  The Catholic church reached beyond its authority (if you want to call it that) and covered up as well as let go child molesting priest.  On top of that, when brought into the light, attempted to deal with it themselves and to keep it out of the criminal courts.  The Catholic church has no authority or commission by God to govern any society or to act in a judicial manner over an society.  That responsibility is clearly given to government.

HG: Couldn’t agree with you more

There is this pesky matter of Justice to be dealt with, and whose responsibility it belongs to.  The Catholic church reached beyond its authority (if you want to call it that) and covered up as well as let go child molesting priest.  On top of that, when brought into the light, attempted to deal with it themselves and to keep it out of the criminal courts.  The Catholic church has no authority or commission by God to govern any society or to act in a judicial manner over an society.  That responsibility is clearly given to government.

I wanted to point out that the “flock” don’t always follow their “Shepards” leadership and direction. Are good Catholics supposed to follow the leadership of the Pope?

Are good Catholics supposed to follow the leadership of the Pope?

Some are more ardent followers than others.  I’m not Catholic, so I don’t acknowledge the Pope as an authority figure.

HG:

Some are more ardent followers than others.  I’m not Catholic, so I don’t acknowledge the Pope as an authority figure.

I think my main point was also that when we have another safe choice than administrating capital punishment then we should take it just as every law enforcement officer is trained.

I think my main point was also that when we have another safe choice than administrating capital punishment then we should take it just as every law enforcement officer is trained.

There is a difference.  Law enforcement is not judge, jury, and executioner.  Justice for the victim, victim’s famitly and friends, and society is the responsibility of the courts, not the police officer.  Justice demands the guilty be given his due.

1.  The sanctity of human life.--HG

Protecting the sanctity of human life by killing people? Sounds like doublespeak.

None of us are responsible for what a murderer does, but obviously we are 100% responsible for whatever we do. The executioner is obviously a killer, and he is 100% responsible for being a killer. And to quote HG:

Justice demands the guilty be given his due.--HG

---

“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” —George Orwell

Someone once coined the phrase that goes something like this ‘it is better to release 99 guilty men than convict an innocent man’. Whether you buy into that or not there are a lot of people that are wrongly convicted.  Think of it - incarcerated in a cell knowing that you did not commit the crime for which you were accused and convicted - not a good feeling.  Even worse if you’re in death row only being kept alive by appeals.

I’m not strong on either side of this question (which is probably the same for most Christians and Catholics - not sure why some of you seem to be beating that empty drum) but in the light of many recent acquittals based on new DNA testing methods, justice would have not been served on any that had already been executed.

---

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

Anarchist Vegetarian said, Protecting the sanctity of human life by killing people? Sounds like doublespeak.

Protecting the sanctity of human life by killing murderers is not doublespeak. On the converse, it is putting a price tag on life. You take someone else’s - you lose the right to yours. This action protects the sanctity of human life more than any other possible action because the price tag is the highest.

You take someone else’s - you lose the right to yours.--Likwidshoe

That sounds all very good in theory, but there are implementation difficulties. How does one know with absolute certainty that the accused is guilty? How does one take the murderers life without violating that principle?

---

“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” —George Orwell

That sounds all very good in theory, but there are implementation difficulties. How does one know with absolute certainty that the accused is guilty? How does one take the murderers life without violating that principle?

That is a question and problem for all of justice.

As for some murderers out there, we know that they’re guilty with an absolute certainty (think Saddam as an easy example). The death penalty is just in those cases.

lik,

AV is hopeless I fear.  There is a proverb that I had hoped I wouldn’t have to practice, but AV may be too far gone.

“Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.”

But before I do, one last try.

Protecting the sanctity of human life by killing people? Sounds like doublespeak.

If someone is about to take your life AV, how do you protect the sanctity of it against such force?

If you have a brain, you have your answer.

Whether you buy into that or not there are a lot of people that are wrongly convicted.

docdave,

I addressed that delima in the second half of this post.

HG

If someone is about to take your life..., how do you protect the sanctity of it against such force? ... If you have a brain, you have your answer.

I addressed this above. Society = safe when capital punishment occurs. Self defender = not safe when ‘self defense’ occurs.

I often feel that the defendant often wants to die as a result of the psycological and emotional strain associated with being a murderer. If that’s the case why not let them think about it?

I also sat in on the final arguments during a federal death penalty case in a liberal state. No one had been executed in this state since the 50s. The Bush admin pushed for the death penalty. The jury convicted and sentenced him to death. The was lots of mediating aspects of the defendants life though. He grew up with parents who would get arrested for fighting and stabbing each other. He was sent to live with his uncle who abused him and his little sister sexually. By the time he was fourteen he was committing violent crimes and using drugs and alcohol. The prosecution had already established his guilt. At this point one would expect a rationalization for why they would seek the death penalty over the life sentence. They said practically nothing about the defendant and why he deserved the more severe punishment - rather - they focus on minute details from the crime scene like how far his victims teeth were found from here head after he (or his accomplice who committed suicide in jail awaiting trial) kicked them out of her head. Basicly the guy was smoking crack with his mom and one of his friends. His mom and him got in a fight about the volume of the country music on the radio and the two killed this guy’s mom. Then they went to Wal-Mart, bought shotguns, and carjacked an employee at 5 am. They then went to NY where they killed the lady in the woods (making it federal) and on to Arkansas where they were captured.

The short and long of it is that the fed pursued the death penalty in a state where it will never happen. I couldnt believe they sentenced him to death in the first place, but it will definately be appealed until this crackhead is old and grey. Wasting countless thousands.

Regarding the penalty, I personally believe that the Bible strongly endorses it IF the justice system is likely to reach a valid conclusion, in cases where there is clear intent to murder.

The problem in this country is that you get this penalty applied in un-Biblical ways, such as a man convicted on the testimony of just one witness without corroborating evidence. 

It’s also worth noting that there are no proven cases of someone being wrongly executed, even in the celebrated case of Illinois executing 12 and releasing 13 death row inmates.  The appeals system appears to be pretty good, even when you’re dealing with corrupt Chicago cops.

Robert Perry said:

Regarding the penalty, I personally believe that the Bible strongly endorses it

I don’t support the use of the Bible for applying justice nor am I a “Bible Thumper” because it is full of contradictions for anyone to pick and choose as they wish. But if we want to play the Bible game it also says…” Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay,” saith the Lord. Romans 12:19 KJV

There I did it…

Yes, but Romans 12 must be interpreted in light of Paul’s other writings, specifically Romans 13.  It is in no way contradictory for government to have the responsibility to punish the wicked at the same time that individuals are told not to take their own vengeance.

But that said, as long as Mike Nifong is licensed to practice law, Rob and others have a great argument against the death penalty, to put it mildly.

jtg,

Put that text into context and you see that government has been entrusted with the responsible of justice.

There are no more contradictions in the bible than there are in the constitution, but liberals always find ‘em.

I really thought the answer I posted here, put the kibosh on the “somebody might be wrongly executed argument”.  Correct me if I’m wrong.

Sparkie,

I addressed this above. Society = safe when capital punishment occurs. Self defender = not safe when ‘self defense’ occurs.

I addressed this ‘protection only’ argument as well.  Simply put (I hope), it is implicit in “protection of life” that a moral absolute exists which places a sanctity upon life worth protecting. 

Justice, as well as protection, is the responsibility of the government.  Justice demands the murderer be given a murderer’s due.

I’d argue it doesn’t put the kibosh there, HG; a wrongful conviction does not impact whether a prisoner escapes or kills more people.  By the time a typical death row inmate is executed, he’s been there for a decade or more, and quite frankly his body’s more or less not in the killing business anymore.

Robert Perry,

So are you saying that the risk to the innocent of wrongful conviction and execution is not out-weighed by the greater risk of the actor murdering another innocent person?
And that the reason being is that the costs of death row imprisionments and appeals are too great?

Robert Perry,

I don’t suppose that the answer I referenced deals with the financial costs of the death row imprisionment.  It does however answer the “wrongful conviction and execution” argument.  Would you agree?

HGL

There are no more contradictions in the bible than there are in the constitution, but liberals always find ‘em.

The Bible is a good book with lots of good info. That’s it. No more. IMO

HG

There are no more contradictions in the bible than there are in the constitution, but liberals always find ‘em.

Sorry I got the HG wrong but I also was going to add that I don’t understand why you are using this example and why blame everything on liberals? I think there are a lot of objective Republicans who would raise the same questions. And I really think we should have more separation of church and state. So the Bible should really not even be a consideration on such issues

jtg,

The reference about liberals was that they often find contradictions—not any they would admit—in the constitution by their method of interpretation.  Such is the same with the bible.  That the bible should not be a consideration in such issues is absurd if as you say “The Bible is a good book with lots of good info”.  To take the advice of the bible regarding issues is not to embrace a religion or faith.  Just ask our FF.  Just look at the plethora of quotes by our FF which give deference to the bible.  Just look at the laws and constitution of our country.  Just look at the influence of the bible and the wisdom therin throughout our nations heritage and you can plainly see that the bible has had and can have an influence in such issues without violating the seperation of church and state or embracing a religion.

HG

There is a lot of evidence to support, as you are well aware, that a Lot of the (FF) Religious influence came from deism, which is not the same as the Christianity the Church is espousing today and probably would result in less hypocrisy if was more widely practiced today.

jtg,

You are correct in that some of the FF were influenced by deism.  That does not dismiss their respect and appreciation for the wisdom of the bible. 

You have changed the course of your argument, and I have not said argued all FF were Christian nor religious. In fact, if you read my post again, I said the exact opposite. My last post is absolutely accurate and I assume by your changing course, you admit it as well.

jtg,

Give me an example of the “good info” you say is in “the bible”, preferably a moral one.

HG said

Give me an example of the “good info” you say is in “the bible”, preferably a moral one.

Hi HG, sorry so long in getting back, family business and stuff.

Matthew, Luke, and John portray a man called Jesus whose words and actions I can appreciate. Now you understand I am picking and choosing which is what we all do, I feel.

So here are a few examples I like. Matthew 7: 1-5 Mat:19 16-22 and Mat:22 35-40. There are others but these a some of the best.

Matthew 7
1Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

And then this story:
John 8: 1Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.

2And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

3And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

5Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

6This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

9And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

10When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

jtg,

This is exactly what I mean about liberals taking things our of context.  (see here)
Christ is warning not that we should not judge at all, that would be ridiculous, but from the context it is the type (for with what judgment ye judge) and the attitude and degree of that judgment (for with what measure ye meet).  Else how is it that one is to, after self-examination, judge his brother?  The right judgment is designed to help not condemn.  And from the context, this judgment is clearly on a personal level, not judicial.

Let me help you out.  I assume you would find the commandment “thou shalt not steal” perfectly acceptable.  Me too.  Now if an elected official says “stealing is immoral” is he then violating the separation of church and state?

HG

This is exactly what I mean about liberals taking things our of context.  (see here)

I was well aware that anything I honestly replied to you might get this response and I took that chance because I am not trying to beat you. I am not your enemy. I am probably more like you than not.

Let me help you out.  I assume you would find the commandment “thou shalt not steal” perfectly acceptable.  Me too.  Now if an elected official says “stealing is immoral” is he then violating the separation of church and state?

I understand that that he was not talking about “What belongs to Caesar” because he recognized the separation also. And you know I am going to say no. But also keep in mind the Bible says a lot of things that most of our society chooses to ignore.So we realy don’t take serious ALL the Bible. I don’t think anyone does.

I was well aware that anything I honestly replied to you might get this response and I took that chance because I am not trying to beat you. I am not your enemy. I am probably more like you than not.

jtg,

I was not setting a trap, rather I was trying to get you to focus on the topic.  This is the focus of my last four posts: 

Just because someone learns something or practices something contained in the bible, does not make it religious nor a violation of the separation of church and state.  This is proven throughout America’s heritage.

The reason I attempted to clarify the meaning of the biblical references you cited is because it is the only Scripture liberals ever demand everyone live by, especially Christians.  Yet they fail to understand what the texts is actually saying.  You may not be trying to beat me, but I am refuting your statements and attempting to put things into a proper context. 

Liberals often cry “seperation of church and state” at any opinion that they feel may have something to do with the bible.  It is childish and silly how that liberals will attack anothers opinion simply because the bible teaches the same.
There are a few things liberals say that are in the bible as well.  That doesn’t seem to bother them. 

There is religion and there is wisdom taught in the bible.  We have long practice the latter without making a law establishing the prior.  It would sure be nice if the liberals would at least be honest and acknowledge the difference instead of crying foul at every opinion in common with biblical teaching.

And jtg, noone is saying you have to take the whole bible seriously, but you shouldn’t mind if I or anyone else does.

HG:

Justice, as well as protection, [are] the responsibility of the government.  Justice demands the murderer be [murdered].

Justice can be taken two ways.
-First, justice is maintained in a general sense when the government protects the individual within the society - it is said to be a just society where everyone is afforded protection fairly et cetera.
-Secondly, one may think of justice on a more case by case basis… such as: He did X. What now must the gov’t do to ‘even things out’ after his doing X?

Unfortunately (or not) I prefer the first concept of justice. I believe it protects one’s negative autonomy (right to be free from being murdered, et al) well. The second concept relies more heavily on protection as being something not entailed in just-ness. It has more to do with, ‘let’s have some revenge to even this out’. That is not how one arrives at a just outcome. If money is stolen it can be retrieved or replaced and this is not revenge-orientated, but it is just. When someone is murdered they cannot be brought back to life or replaced. Ultimately there is no just solution at that point - killing the murderer included. There is no rational moves I have found to date than can convince me that the killer being killed after society has been protected from his predation is a just thing to do.

Separately, would you support the death penalty in a state where it has been voted down? Isn’t it consistent with the general spirit of this blog to allow the states to decide if they wish to have capital punishment or not? I understand conservatives often support the death penalty, but is it something that’s worth empowering the fed enough to have jurisdiction over it?

---

There is no justice without morality Sparkie.  Think about it.

Separately, would you support the death penalty in a state where it has been voted down?

Sparkie,

I support the death penalty whether or not it is voted up or down by the electorate or legislature because I understand the death penalty to be justice for the murderer, victim, victim’s loved ones, and society as a whole.  If you are saying is it a state’s rights issue, well currently for the most part it is, unless a federal crime is committed, in which case federal crimes can carry the death penalty despite what the state law requires or does not require.  Would I favor a Federal law requiring the death penalty?  I don’t know how that would work, I haven’t thought that much about it.

Think about it.

c’mon now. you know i have. i believe not having a death penalty to be far more morally sound than having a death penalty. there is simply no question in my mind whatsoever on that.

HG, you asked:

So are you saying that the risk to the innocent of wrongful conviction and execution is not out-weighed by the greater risk of the actor murdering another innocent person?

Actually, no; I’m arguing that that’s not the trade-off at all.  The alpha/beta risk here is between convicting, and not convicting; the method of punishment (life imprisonment or execution) only comes as a secondary consideration.  Lifers and death row inmates rarely escape prison these days.

So again, what needs to be fixed is not the penalty, but rather the method that gets someone to that point.

rigth, rp that was one of my points when I posted

Think of it - incarcerated in a cell knowing that you did not commit the crime for which you were accused and convicted - not a good feeling.

Wrongful convictions is the root of the problem.

---

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

Wrongful convictions are going to happen as long as human beings are in charge of carrying out justice.  Is there more we could do?  Sure, and as technology increases (dna) we are taking the steps to eliminate error.  But, should we have to forego justice in the meantime?

Sparkie,

Let’s try and break this down. 

In the case of self-defense, a person may kill anther person to protect one’s life.

You say protection is the purpose of justice and therefore once the threat is removed, justice is measured out.

However, in self-defese, the threat may be removed by killing the actor and in so doing justice is served.  What made killing the actor just?  Was it not the value of the life being protected?  So it is not protection which justifies killing the actor, but innocent life that justifies killing the actor.  Hence, life is of such value as to warrant the death of the actor, even if he has not murdered.

In the case of murder, the innocent life is of no less value, and the actor, far more criminal.  The moral does not change.  The innocent life is still of such value as to warrant death.  The actor in the first scenario meets with death and justice is served.  The actor in the second scenario ought also to meet with death for justice to be served.  Else, justice is inconsistent and so is our morality.

I’m arguing that that’s not the trade-off at all.

Robert Perry,

If we were to agree that CP should be practiced there will still be wrongful convictions.  And, many of those lifers would be on death row from which very few, if any, escape.  Occasionaly a wrongful conviction will take place, and yes, an innocent person may be executed. And, IMO, justice would be better served.

If we were to agree that CP shouldn’t be allowed there will still be wrongful convictions. Murderers would no longer be on death row because there wouldn’t be a death row.  and (the texas 7) will still be killing innocent people.

Lifers and death row inmates rarely escape prison these days.

Try checking google on that one.  I agree they don’t often if ever escape from death row, so put ‘em there.  Conversely, there is not one single documented case of wrongful execution.

paroled murderer

escapees

I messed up the links, these should work.

But, should we have to forego justice in the meantime?

Its clearly not ‘just’ if there is any outside chance the perp is the wrong perp. That’s obvious. Furthermore when you lock all these perps away with each other in a rank, concrete shitthole… then justice has been served.

In the case of murder, the innocent life is of no less value, and the actor, far more criminal.  The moral does not change.

I’m with you.

The innocent life is still of such value as to warrant death.

Except in the second case there is no innocent life to protect (hence murder) and the other innocent lives are protected because the perp is in custody.

The actor in the first scenario meets with death and justice is served.

I’m with you, but justice? Maybe the act of killing the person can be deemed ‘just’ insofar as its not punishable.

The actor in the second scenario ought also to meet with death for justice to be served.  Else, justice is inconsistent and so is our morality.

No. Just plain no. It started off interesting, but you ignore many obvious differences in the two cases which I have already been over and explained my stances on. In the second case nobody’s life is in danger. Therefore if we kill the perp it cannot possibly rely on the same rationalization. Period. There is no inconsistency in that. In the first case we identified a certain SOA (state of affairs) consistent with the ‘just’ killing of this ‘actor’. Is is this: When he is posing a threat to innocent life we may kill him in self defense. Shit, even a bystander could kill him at that point and get away with it. You, unfortunately, rely on the logic from a clear cut case in which one is justified in killing another and attempt to foist it into an entirely different scenario. Not a fair move. Unjust even.

I think you might be onto something here, but you’ll need to draw out your cases more carefully for it to work.

---

HG

(in case you needed that in the recent comments to look over here because this thread is getting rapidly buried)

---

Its clearly not ‘just’ if there is any outside chance the perp is the wrong perp

There is not one single documented case of wrongful execution.

Sparkie,

I’ll give it shot.

The morality of self-defense cannot be ignored for it is implicit within it.  That is; life is of such value as to warrant the death of the actor. This is the common morality from self-defense to murder.  In both cases, it is the disregard for the value (sanctity) of life which is exactly the same.  In self-defense such disregard (immorality) is justly met with death.  In the second such disregard should be justly met with death if the morality, justly applied to the actor, is to be consistent. 

You seem to be looking at justice as applied primarily to the innocent life, hence, protection is justice.  But there is also justice for the criminal.  In the first scenario he get’s that which we judge his due for disregarding life.  In the second, if given a life sentence, he is getting less than in the first, and yet his crime greater and the disregard for life (immorality) the same. Protection is not possible now, but justice still is. 

In the first scenario the victim is served by the just killing of the actor, and justice for the actor is executed by the victim—hence, no crime.  In the second scenario the victim, victim’s loved ones, and society recieves justice at the hand of the judge by the measuring out of justice to the actor.

The fact that murder takes a life and that such life cannot be restored only means that the murderer owe’s an even greater debt.  It does not mean that, Oh well, can’t bring ‘em back so, life sentence for you.  No, it cannot be if life is of the value we place upon it.  We have a moral duty to uphold the value of life, especially when taken away in cold blood.  We have this morality because we as a society place such a value upon life so that it may be defended with deadly force.

In the case of self-defense, a person may kill anther person to protect one’s life.--HG

The urge to defend oneself (or run away if poss.) is an evolved trait, known as `Fight of Flight’ (though some us can choose to suppress it somewhat). Creatures that defend themselves (or escape) are often more likely to pass on their genes. When one is in a (perceived) life threatening situation, adrenaline levels rise, time seems to slow down, and self-preservation instincts kick-in.

To kill someone harmlessly locked in a cell though, it is premeditated, heartless, and definitely a moral issue. You may say that for their crimes, they deserve to die. That may be so*. But to actually kill someone in cold blood, and when there is no threat to anyone else’s life, is immoral. It is very simple.

*My brother-in-law’s best mate was stabbed to death. The guy who did it got lots of years in prison, and then only a matter of weeks after release, stabbed and killed someone else. This guy is clearly a liability to any sort of civilised society.

---

“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” —George Orwell

AV,

Read your own post again.  Then, check the links I posted above.  Had your brother-in-law’s murderer been executed he wouldn’t have another murder on his account would he.  Who was better served in your unfortunate experience, the murderer, or his last victim?

To kill someone harmlessly locked in a cell though, it is premeditated, heartless, and definitely a moral issue.

Convicted murderers have been known to do this one more than one occasion. 

What moral standard are you appealing to?  It is morally consistent to take the life of an actor who disregards life in either attempted murder or murder.  The threat aspect only applies to the victim, not the actor.

brother in laws best mate, I got it AV.

For he is God’s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

—Romans, 13:4

Dei enim minister est tibi in bonum si autem male feceris time non enim sine causa gladium portat Dei enim minister est vindex in iram ei qui malum agit, motherfucker

---

...for great justice

To kill someone harmlessly locked in a cell though, it is premeditated, heartless, and definitely a moral issue.

Premeditated?? I hope to kiss a mule, it’s premeditated! Or would you rather the state execute people casually without thought?

Heartless? We all cried when they shot Ol’ Yeller, didn’t mean he didn’t need to be shot! Don’t confuse emotion with necessity!

someone harmlessly locked in a cell

except for when they’re not! If you incarcerate a man for life, what is the punishment if he kills a fellow inmate or prison guard?  Life and a half?

---

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

Had your brother-in-law’s murderer been executed he wouldn’t have another murder on his account would he.--HG

If the murderer had been detained until he was no longer a threat (treated, or to old and weak to hold a knife, whichever came first), that would result in the fewest killings.

---

“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” —George Orwell

it is premeditated,

I know you were just using that as a cheap rhetorical trick. When you premeditate murder is a bad thing! When you premeditate justice it is a good thing!

---

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

If you incarcerate a man for life, what is the punishment if he kills a fellow inmate or prison guard?  Life and a half? There is also the ludicrousness of a mass murderer getting multiple life senctences without parole.  Sometimes capital punishment not only the right decision, it is the only decision.

---

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

If the murderer had been detained until he was no longer a threat (treated, or to old and weak to hold a knife, whichever came first), that would result in the fewest killings.

Not necessarily true AV.  All to familiar is the Texas 7 scenario where escaped lifers kill again.  This too has happened on more than one occasion.  Remember, not one documented case of wrongful execution exists.

Proof,

Nice snag.  I missed that one.

False equivalence is an old stand-by of the left…

---

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

To kill someone harmlessly locked in a cell though, it is premeditated, heartless, and definitely a moral issue. You may say that for their crimes, they deserve to die. That may be so*. But to actually kill someone in cold blood, and when there is no threat to anyone else’s life, is immoral.

Do my eyes deceive me, AV is acknowledging morality and immorality? There may still be hope for you AV—and my hope for you to live to regret your comments on SAB is still flickering.