Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<if it can be PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt that a convicted murderer is doing this, then execution becomes a moral option. But killing them out of revenge is wrong, imoral and uncivilized.>> Execution may fit the dictionary definition of revenge, but I do not support the death penalty out of bloodlust. I merely accept it as the law, and it is the law of California and elsewhere. The majority of the people living in those places seem to feel that execution is a just punishment for the crime of murder; the people don't see it as revenge, but as justice, and a moral punishment for the ultimate crime.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss I might add that while most of the world does not employ the use of the death penalty, most of the world also does not enjoy the magnitude of freedoms as Americans do. With more freedom comes more responsibilty and accountability, IMO.
Originally Posted By peeaanuut yeah alot of the world doesnt support the death penalty, they jsut cut off your limbs instead.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss And some who do support the death penalty only cut off a limb as well... if you consider a head as an appendage.
Originally Posted By barboy "most of the world also does not enjoy the magnitude of freedoms as Americans do" I invite you to reconsider your naive position. Last I checked it is unlawful to change out 1 single electrical outlet in my own home without gov't authorizatrion(city issued building permit) I could give 1000's of more examples of the lack of freedoms we have.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >><<if it can be PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt that a convicted murderer is doing this, then execution becomes a moral option. But killing them out of revenge is wrong, imoral and uncivilized.>> Execution may fit the dictionary definition of revenge, but I do not support the death penalty out of bloodlust. I merely accept it as the law, and it is the law of California and elsewhere. The majority of the people living in those places seem to feel that execution is a just punishment for the crime of murder; the people don't see it as revenge, but as justice, and a moral punishment for the ultimate crime.<< It is a sorry excuse to say, "it's the law" and wash your hands of it that way. Great moral evils are conducted under the auspices of "the law." That's why there is such a thing as a "higher law." In the US, it's the Constitution, which is, I hate to say, not a perfect document. As an example of its imperfections, I submit these examples. A little over 100 years ago, it was lawful under the Constitution to OWN another human being. A little over 75 years ago, it was lawful under the Constitution to prevent a woman from voting. The question, then, becomes, how and why did slavery get abolished and women gain the right to vote? Could it be that slavery was immoral and that women having the right to vote was not immoral? I would definitely think so. The point is, laws can change as a society evolves and advances. I think it's beyond time that our society evolves to eliminate the death penalty entirely and replace it with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole in solitary confinement.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan No one's going to address the case of Clarence Ray Allen? Orchestrated murders while serving a life sentence? Oh well. I give up.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy K2man, I was kind of making the same point you are making regarding Ray Allen and the fact that people who are allowed to live in prison have killed MANY innocent people both inside and outside of the prison walls. Thus my point that people who don't support the death penalty have the blood of innocent people on their hands.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<Great moral evils are conducted under the auspices of "the law.">> This is a law that has been agreed upon by the society at large. If you feel this law is unjust, I wouldn't stop you; I wouldn't I be outraged if the death penalty were abolished. <<laws can change as a society evolves and advances. I think it's beyond time that our society evolves to eliminate the death penalty entirely and replace it with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole in solitary confinement.>> I agree that laws can change as society changes. Funny... I find the death penalty less abhorant than I do boxing.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<No one's going to address the case of Clarence Ray Allen? Orchestrated murders while serving a life sentence? Oh well. I give up.>> Sure... I'll bite (even though I know nothing of the case). It would seem that since murderers with a death sentence generally spend 10-20 years in prison before the sentence is carried out, it really doesn't make much difference. There is plenty of time for them to direct stuff from their cell even when they have been sentenced to death.
Originally Posted By cstephens Kar2oonMan wrote: > No one's going to address the case of Clarence Ray Allen? Orchestrated murders while serving a life sentence? Oh well. I give up. Hey, I tried to back you up! /cs
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Thus my point that people who don't support the death penalty have the blood of innocent people on their hands. << See there K2M? You and beau have found some common ground! >> There is nothing more offensive than Mike Tyson. << Come to think of it, so have I.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>There is nothing more offensive than Mike Tyson. << I can think of a few things...
Originally Posted By patrickegan In my drinking days it was always Moet or Mumm, if it ain’t French it ain’t Champaign. Years ago in what I like to call the salad days I didn’t need a special occasion such as this to cork a bottle.
Originally Posted By cmpaley A rare drawing from San Quentin's death chamber the other day. <a href="http://www.mattbors.com/archives/153.html" target="_blank">http://www.mattbors.com/archiv es/153.html</a>
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<No one's going to address the case of Clarence Ray Allen? Orchestrated murders while serving a life sentence?>> Again, this can be solved without having to resort to the death penalty if we really wished to. Unfortunately, most Americans seem to be content with the status quo. But even the death sentences have proven to fail in this regard, as you illustrated. The option is to implement immediate sentencing (or at least very swift justice) as some of the more fanatical individuals have implied. OR, send these murderers to out of society completely. No contact with the outside world whatsoever. We just have to decide which we feel is the more ethical. Seems to be the only way to completely alleviate the problem you pose Kar2oonman. Personally, I feel the first option is not a proper course as our criminal justice system has been proven to make mistakes. I used to be in favor of the death penalty until I began noticing some cases being overturned and prisoners being release from prison 30 or so years AFTER the case. Then I thought, what if this were to happen in a death penalty case? Once sentencing has occurred in such a case, there is NO possible restitution. On the other hand, in a life sentence there is a mean to correct a circumstance such as this. I simply do not want to take a chance at executing an innocent person, even if all current evidence states the contrary.
