(I feel your pain, Nellie, my thing was too big, so I ended up using elipses for the quotes, so you'd could find what I was talking about, the quotes don't make sense, you'll have to find them, but they're in order from your last post, so it should be easy).
Yes, my morals to come from the bible, but I am free to interpret the bible anyway I see fit. One of the biggest commandments is “though shalt not kill.” Human life is above all other religious practices. You can break the Sabbath, the most holy of days, to save a life. With this emphasis on the importance of life, how could I not assume that life, no matter what has been done, is important?
I never gave an indication ....proper justice for the act committed against them?
I’m sorry for the confusion, and I can see where it stemmed, but I wasn’t talking about what you said, I’m talking about what society says. Life is sacred, important, and should be preserved. Obviously, as life is important to me, how could I not argue that killing even a killer is not proper justice? Yes, I hold life above all else, and, yes, a man should not commit murder. This man does deserve punishment, but killing the man should not be decided by the state. It is not an equal sentence for a crime. He’ll be dead before his time, and instead of feeling the pain of life, as the victims family is surely feeling, he gets an easy way out. The death penalty doesn’t seem to be equal to me.
That's a lot of prejudices to put on a single judge. ... 'racist bigot who hates the poor'.
Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! The twelve men and women on the jury get to decide if the man is guilty or not, and can find a proper punishment. However, only a judge is able to decide whether a man is to be put to death, the jury can only plead that the man be put to death. One man decides whether or not this persons life is better than another’s. Still leaving plenty of room for prejudice.
To compare one state with another is an unfair comparison. ... crime rate than Melee Island.
Let’s take Oklahoma’s reintroduction to capital punishment in 1990. After which there has been a lasting increase of about one additional homicide a month. But if the system was really working, the opposite should happen. What about states with the death penalty that border stated without, they should be relatively homogenous, right? In Wisconsin and Iowa, which are non-death-penalty states, the homicide rate is half that of Illinois. The death penalty, obviously has no case as a deterrent of crime.
How is that out of context? ...other grisly fate might await the people you mention.
Yes, there is less of a deterrent affect for criminal’s pf this nature. This is exactly my point. This system is just acting on our primal urges for revenge. It hasn’t been proven to reduce homicide rates, which is one of its many selling points. And yes, it was taken out of context. You said it be much better for criminals with a high-risk job (i.e. death happens everyday in these jobs) to be killed by the state. You inferred that I said that it was better they were gunned down than justly accused of murder and killed by the state. To which, I didn’t infer. I was merely pointing out that a punishment, such as the death penalty, has no affect on the criminals who could be killed any day on the street.
Then how can we ever punish anyone for anything?
With the same twelve men you mentioned earlier. Prejudice can still play a part here. But with twelve men, I agree, that prejudices do not have as much of an effect as they could.
Yes, I agree. And I am certainly passionate about seeing justice for the victims of murder.
Than why don’t you seek other ways in which to punish these criminals. If your so passionate about seeing justice, you should at least consider alternative punishments. I don’t consider state killings justice.
I didn't infer it. ...- juries aren't making their decision based on a toin coss.
Yes, the jury is a good method of filtering out prejudice. No one is arguing that the jury doesn’t make a decision based on the evidence they are given. The final verdict can only be decided by a judge, that’s one man. Prejudice still ensues.
I wholeheartedly agree. I see that we both seek a fair and just death penalty.
No, I am simply arguing that your system is not fair or just. The system used to put criminals into effect leaves a gray area. Which is what I was arguing. A gray area that should never have been drawn. The well-defined line, at least brings some sense of fairness to this system. However, it too, should be a line that the state should not be allowed to draw.
When a... they make the decision to face those consequences.
However, the state should not be the one to give out consequences of that degree. That is not what the state is here for. The state is here for our protection, which can still be achieved without killing these people.
First you advocated ...just way is a punishment that equals the crime committed?
What, so the killer is dead, and the family is still there grieving for there loss? It seems to me, the punishment isn’t fair. Death is a punishment we shouldn’t give out. This punishment does not equal the crime committed. Would you argue that people who have committed rape should be raped themselves? People who steal millions of dollars should just have that money stolen back? No, I wouldn’t say their punishment is worse than the crime. They get to live, they get to reflect, and they get to change! These people are given a chance to at least evaluate their life, a right that is theirs from birth, which no government should take away from any man.
Thankfully, and contrary to what you seem to believe, I... as well be nobody receiving justice?
No, I am not coldy searching for an efficient way to dispose of hundreds of murders. I have already stated, I do not support this system. But that this system, if it is to continue, should at least have a fairness to it. You’re not searching for justice, because you only consider one alternative. That doesn’t sound like searching to me. I don’t argue that a few people receive justice, I’m arguing that the few who are sent to their deaths aren’t receiving justice. That everyone should receive justice under a fair system.
Earlier you argued . ... indication that this line has already been drawn.
The line hasn’t been drawn, the line is decided by one man. Prejudices can result from this. This gray area should not exist, nor should a line. This line has not been drawn. It is not well defined. Instead we have a gray blob in which a judge can decide a man’s fate.
To kill a person is never a good thing, ...done is not the right thing to do, be my guest.
Wait, if killing is never a good thing, than how can you support the capital punishment? If your so against the killing of a person, I don’t understand how you can support this system. No, I do not want to argue that seeing justice done is the right thing to do, obviously it is. However, our ideas of what justice is, differs.
Where is this argument going? Are you advocating the death penalty ...who kill because of mental illness?
Where did the mentally ill even enter the equation? Who are you to say that the people who are killed from emotional heightening are as mentally ill as the person who plans it? I advocate the treatment of everyone. I don’t bias myself towards one killer or the other. I was merely saying that I’d probably rather meet and be killed by someone would plan my death. There, I will admit, I got a bit off subject.
Again you show that you would rather a murderer be given a grimmer... compared to your suggestions, humane.
Your system doesn’t advocate fairness, how can you? And I don’t think their punishment will be grim, so to speak. They won’t be physically tortured, and I do care, otherwise I wouldn’t be making an argument for their lives. Your punishment isn’t just or humane. No one has the right to take another mans life. If the man has committed a wrong, he should be punished, but his life should not be forfeit. If we hold life so dear, than there shouldn’t be an issue as to whether not we should kill the man. He has a life, and we shouldn’t take it away.
Because the written laws that are based on the moral will of the people aren't good enough for you?
I don’t recall being asked to write a sentence or two in the laws that mandate the death penalty. If I conclude that these laws are immoral, than isn’t my will, and the will of other with my ideals, good enough for you?
Mainly because you have proved neither of the points you make in that paragraph.
There is no such thing as proof. But look at the system. The rule, by which a mans life or death are given or taken aren’t well defined. One man decides if this person should live or die. This is not a fair system. The states have shown not to deter criminal action. There are no conclusive results to show that the death penalty is an affective way of lowering crime.
Now lets consider an alternative, that doesn’t kill the criminal, and justice is done for the family.
CUADP (Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty), is an organization that is trying fight this system. There is more than one way to solve this.