so ive changed my position on the death penalty

[actsnoblemartin]

I've decided that It is up to hashem (G_d) to decide when someone's life ends, and that even though i feel rage, at murderers and others for committing heionous crimes, killing them wont bring the victims back.

Therefore, I oppose the death penalty in all circumstances, with no exceptions

[Microcosmos]

I'm for it. Especially today with DNA evidence, and all of the appeals, it makes it pretty certain that we got the right one. And murder, especially mass murder, serial murder, or the murder of a child, should be punished by death not only because of revenge, but because there is no way someone like that can be rehabilitated. Why clog up an already overburdened prison system? I look at clear-cut cases like Tim McVeigh & Saddam Hussein as vindication that the system is doing good.

[actsnoblemartin]

this is the toughest issue for me, :coffee: and why i have so much respect for both sides of the issue.

what decided it for me was, even if i kill the worst scum of the earth, it wont bring back the victims, but i have nothing but respect for those who are for it


I'm for it. Especially today with DNA evidence, and all of the appeals, it makes it pretty certain that we got the right one. And murder, especially mass murder, serial murder, or the murder of a child, should be punished by death not only because of revenge, but because there is no way someone like that can be rehabilitated. Why clog up an already overburdened prison system? I look at clear-cut cases like Tim McVeigh & Saddam Hussein as vindication that the system is doing good.

[diuretic]

"Pretty certain" still isn't enough for me. An innocent person can and will be killed by the state where the death penalty is in place. The logic of the trial is all about probability, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is basically a statement of probability. We convict people where there is no reasonable doubt - not "no doubt". I'm fine with that because to ask for no doubt at all would mean no criminal justice system. If someone is imprisoned in error, as bad as that is, at least they can be let out and compensated. Mistakes are made in any criminal justice system and that's why I oppose the death penalty.

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. But nope.
2. To murder is evil.
3. And the guilty will pay for it, sooner or later.
4. Innocent blood is never forgotten.
5. If a court fails to punish, and starts stacking the guilty in *Prison Hotels*.
6. It is a hideous injustice for all.
7. To live in a world where your death doesn't matter in the light of justice.
8. Makes life worthless and cheapens it to a degree, that no one will soon have any reason to even send the murderers to the *Prison Hotels*.
9. Society will then rule, that if there is a God, and even so this person murdered their own child, let the person roam free, without society footing the expense of harboring them in the *Prison Hotels*.
10. Let God sort it out, if indeed there is a God, all the while the murderer will murder others.
11. Bringing more innocent blood on his own hands and those who had no personal judgement to be able to make a judgement call on those who murder.
12. So be careful what you will look to other way for, the guilty will always have to pay, never doubt that.
13. But if you're careless about those who commit pure evil, by murdering innocent lives, and are unable to do them justice, be prepared to die from those same hands, and have injustice rewarded you for your injustice towards the already murdered.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[shattered]

I've decided that It is up to hashem (G_d) to decide when someone's life ends, and that even though i feel rage, at murderers and others for committing heionous crimes, killing them wont bring the victims back.

Therefore, I oppose the death penalty in all circumstances, with no exceptions

Death will ensure those that killed won't do so again.

Quit flip-flopping just to get attention.

[actsnoblemartin]

quit being a judgmental bitch, just cause you can.


Death will ensure those that killed won't do so again.

Quit flip-flopping just to get attention.

[actsnoblemartin]

I dont need your permission to change my mind or make a threat, and i dont give a dam what you like or dont like, or whether you respond or not, but if you wanna be a bitch about, prepare to be negged.


Death will ensure those that killed won't do so again.

Quit flip-flopping just to get attention.

[manu1959]

one room one gun lots of ammo....send em in single file.....

[pegwinn]

I've decided that It is up to hashem (G_d) to decide when someone's life ends, and that even though i feel rage, at murderers and others for committing heionous crimes, killing them wont bring the victims back.

Therefore, I oppose the death penalty in all circumstances, with no exceptions

Good for you. No exceptions makes the discussion easy. Obviously me trying to change your mind would be pointless. Cheers.


"Pretty certain" still isn't enough for me. An innocent person can and will be killed by the state where the death penalty is in place. The logic of the trial is all about probability, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is basically a statement of probability. We convict people where there is no reasonable doubt - not "no doubt". I'm fine with that because to ask for no doubt at all would mean no criminal justice system. If someone is imprisoned in error, as bad as that is, at least they can be let out and compensated. Mistakes are made in any criminal justice system and that's why I oppose the death penalty.

This is why the fifth amendment needs modification to allow interrogation with drugs, voice stress analysers, polygraphs etc. ITA that there is no reason to take a chance on a capital case.


one room one gun lots of ammo....send em in single file.....

Place a set of knives on the floor of a smoothly finished concrete room. Note the sprinklers on the ceilinag and drain on the floor. Lead in the death row inmates five to eight at a time. Close the door and tell them that the last man standing is to be set free. Check back every two hours to confirm that only one or none are left alive. Remove the bodies and the winner. Let the winner out the front door. Disregard his victims armed family waiting for him. Fire off the sprinklers with muratic acid then water to clean the room. Sharpen the knives, and bring in the next group. As a PPV event the taxpayers get a break.

[diuretic]

pegwinn - the problem with the use of those things is that they're not foolproof either. The fact is we're not omnipotent and at this stage it doesn't look as if we're going to be.

[gabosaurus]

Geez Martin, to think I actually agree with you on something.
It's like I said before. Only God creates life, only God can take life. Humans should not play God.

[avatar4321]

Geez Martin, to think I actually agree with you on something.
It's like I said before. Only God creates life, only God can take life. Humans should not play God.

I disagree with the premise. God isn't the only one who creates life. He is the over all Creator of life, but we too act in creation: procreation.

God's laws have ordained marriage to be the seal that allows men and women to lawfully procreate. There are, of course, many who procreate unlawfully. This is what we call fornication/adultrey, or in other words sin. It's a violation of the Eternal laws.

As there are laws governing the creating life, so are their laws governing the taking of life lawfully. We are, of course, forbiden by God to end life in cold blood. However, God has created circumstances where the taking of life is permitted. Self-defense for example.

The debate isn't whether God allows men to righteously take life at times. the question is whether our government has that moral authority from God to enforce capital punishment.

But the idea that God is the only one who creates life, so He is the only one who can take it away just doesn't computer with reality. He clearly reserves the rights to regulate how life is created and ended, but men and women create and end life all the time, with or without God's sanction.

The creation and termination of life is very sacred. But they are also very connected. Neither is something that should be lightly. Because the consequences of these actions not only effect the person involved, but can effect generations of lives.

[diuretic]

So, is God in favour of the death penalty?

[shattered]

I dont need your permission to change my mind or make a threat, and i dont give a dam what you like or dont like, or whether you respond or not, but if you wanna be a bitch about, prepare to be negged.

Oooh. The big, scary rep whore brings out the big, nasty negative rep card.. That the best youve got, puppy? Bring it.

If you don't want responses you disagree with posted, stop posting threads that reek of idiocy, and incite them. :fu:

[actsnoblemartin]

with the sincerest of respect, god gives us freewill, he does not rule over us like a communist state. we have the right to procreate, and do whatever we want, but he will be the ultimate judge, and if we kill someone for committing murder, we are taking his away his role as i sit it.

god should be the ultimate judge not us, i respect where youre coming from immensily, but giving the death penalty wont end the pain.

:salute:


I disagree with the premise. God isn't the only one who creates life. He is the over all Creator of life, but we too act in creation: procreation.

God's laws have ordained marriage to be the seal that allows men and women to lawfully procreate. There are, of course, many who procreate unlawfully. This is what we call fornication/adultrey, or in other words sin. It's a violation of the Eternal laws.

As there are laws governing the creating life, so are their laws governing the taking of life lawfully. We are, of course, forbiden by God to end life in cold blood. However, God has created circumstances where the taking of life is permitted. Self-defense for example.

The debate isn't whether God allows men to righteously take life at times. the question is whether our government has that moral authority from God to enforce capital punishment.

But the idea that God is the only one who creates life, so He is the only one who can take it away just doesn't computer with reality. He clearly reserves the rights to regulate how life is created and ended, but men and women create and end life all the time, with or without God's sanction.

The creation and termination of life is very sacred. But they are also very connected. Neither is something that should be lightly. Because the consequences of these actions not only effect the person involved, but can effect generations of lives.

[pegwinn]

pegwinn - the problem with the use of those things is that they're not foolproof either. The fact is we're not omnipotent and at this stage it doesn't look as if we're going to be.

Each alone has flaws. But, when used in tandem? I see it kind of like drug testing? 99.9% is good enough to bust you. I think that it is very possible to create a foolproof truth machine. It just needs an impetuous. Read "The Truth Machine (http://www.truthmachine.com/)" by a guy named Halpernin.

[diuretic]

Each alone has flaws. But, when used in tandem? I see it kind of like drug testing? 99.9% is good enough to bust you. I think that it is very possible to create a foolproof truth machine. It just needs an impetuous. Read "The Truth Machine (http://www.truthmachine.com/)" by a guy named Halpernin.

I suppose using a battery of tests like they do in psych evaluations would work. I admit I'm still doubtful but it's not a bad idea but I suppose a statistician would be able to enlarge on probability but since numbers make my brain hurt I'll stay away from that.

On the Truth Machine - can you imagine what havoc would break lose if this existed :laugh2:

[pegwinn]

I suppose using a battery of tests like they do in psych evaluations would work. I admit I'm still doubtful but it's not a bad idea but I suppose a statistician would be able to enlarge on probability but since numbers make my brain hurt I'll stay away from that.

On the Truth Machine - can you imagine what havoc would break lose if this existed :laugh2:

That's exactly the point. I don't have a problem with folks taking the fifth amendment in court. But, the jury has the right to hear the truth. Thus when someone speaks in court a truth machine should be considered essential. Most especially in a capital case.

As to imagining havoc...... Halpernin did that, hence the novel. The link is to get you a free download of the book.