|
Post by janecobain on May 20, 2013 16:08:09 GMT -6
The crimes of rape, torture, treason, kidnapping, murder, larceny, and perjury are all crimes punishable by the death penalty. Given that those sentenced to life without parole have an indefinite period of time to appeal, unlike a death row inmate, in the long run the financial cost of housing a a criminal will be wayyy more expensive than housing a death row inmate , and us as Americans could be spending out tax dollars on something way more important , like our public school system . && although you do have some good points about hipocracy , lets not forget JUSTICE for the victim. Victims of murder cannot avenge themselves, its up to society , the government and our justice system to not allow people who take lives , to continue their own .
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a toothâ (Exodus 21:23-25) , its also in the bible , just thought i would put that out there
|
|
|
Post by Cain on May 20, 2013 16:12:41 GMT -6
Well cain you opened up an entirely new door, prison overcrowding It's all relative though, no worries You're messing with their life when you imprison them in jail for the rest of it, some prisoners even prefer death over that. Again, I don't disagree there are cases where its been misapplied, and those who are killed falsely do deserve justice You'd really have to reform a ton of things to the point you'd be pandering and making concessions to the criminals. It should be the other way around. Why should society reform its laws to reduce the amount of criminals incarcerated instead of the people simply following the laws to stop being incarcerated? Let me give you an analogy. Say you have children, and you give them a curfew of 9:30 pm (You have your reasons for doing this). If your children continually come home past the curfew, let's say at 11 pm. Would you change the curfew because of that and make it 11 pm so they won't be breaking your rule or continue enforcing the rule you alreay established?
|
|
|
Post by Newport Jackson on May 20, 2013 16:14:01 GMT -6
Jane it the next chapter the book of leviticus it says THOU SHALT NOT KILL! eye for an eye doesnt necessarily mean kill someone. that scripture speaks to karma.
|
|
|
Post by Cain on May 20, 2013 16:16:03 GMT -6
I may be mistaken, but doesn't the Bible also state that one should follow the rules/regulations of one's society also?
|
|
|
Post by kendra09 on May 20, 2013 16:16:04 GMT -6
Good point jane, raping a murder victim is punishable the the death penalty not just rape.Good points the other ones. And the whole eye for an eye things is a good point also, but is it up to us? to take that into our hands? Sharia laws are horrible, you want to live like that? For us to be such a strong nation and developed we sure dont act like it. We think we have too much power, when we dont, so when we fall, and TRUST we will, we will fall hard. Justice for the victims? so killing a person will bring the person back? I bet if you talk to those families some, maybe not most, but some won't even want to take another persons life. My point is, its too much power to have, I would not want to be responsible for saying who lives or who dies.
|
|
|
Post by kendra09 on May 20, 2013 16:21:53 GMT -6
Good point justin, one of the ten commandments, i can honestly say if it came down to it, my life for someone elses, i wouldnt be able to kill that other person, id have to get kilt. But cain you make some good points society shouldnt have to reform its laws, but when the laws are unjust and the institutions are bias based on race, or socialeconomic status it does make a difference. Our justice systems is flawed, again back to our prior discussion. So going off your example, if I have 3 kids, one being white, mexican and black, and i enforce the curfew harsher and more frequently on the black and mexican child, isnt that unfair? especially when all three of them are breaking the curfew, or doing the same crime, its UNFAIR, but life is unfair, its human error, it will never be corrected.
|
|
Redd... like, zuhhh.
Guest
|
Post by Redd... like, zuhhh. on May 20, 2013 16:22:10 GMT -6
I totally disagree, Cain. It is actually a lot cheaper to hold inmates rather than execute them. Each prisoner up for death row is offered years worth of appeals, which means we taxpayers must pay for their day-to-day living (eating, holding, etc.) on top of the price of killing them. If it's, say, a million dollars to hold and kill a single inmate, we'd easily max out 100's of millions of dollars on murder (which is in no way, shape, or form justifiable under any circumstance as it is cruel and unusual punishment [as Kendra stated before]) -- how immoral!
Crime has existed as long as people have simply b/c it is in our nature to experiment with things -- to disobey sometimes. Capital Punishment hardly deters crime, for true criminals are certainly looking far beyond any negative consequences. Aside from that, though, what does this teach? To me, murdering a murderer for murdering someone else is rather redundant, and I think it teaches that people should kill when they feel it is necessary. If our judicial system finds cruel and unusual punishment justifiable, why wouldn't the next murderer feel anything to the contrary? We reap what we sow.
Lastly, brushing morality off to the side is no more sensible than brushing humanity off, as we are creatures capable of moral reasoning (*even without the Bible's teachings*). So there's no way you can empathize with those of us who disagree with the death penalty from a moral standpoint... especially by contradicting it with expressing that you feel "it's pretty much essential".
Any criminal sentenced the death penalty should spend the remainder of their years incarcerated to preserve humanity, save money, and practice what we preach. :-)
|
|
|
Post by Newport Jackson on May 20, 2013 16:36:53 GMT -6
I totally disagree, Cain. It is actually a lot cheaper to hold inmates rather than execute them. Each prisoner up for death row is offered years worth of appeals, which means we taxpayers must pay for their day-to-day living (eating, holding, etc.) on top of the price of killing them. If it's, say, a million dollars to hold and kill a single inmate, we'd easily max out 100's of millions of dollars on murder (which is in no way, shape, or form justifiable under any circumstance as it is cruel and unusual punishment [as Kendra stated before]) -- how immoral! Crime has existed as long as people have simply b/c it is in our nature to experiment with things -- to disobey sometimes. Capital Punishment hardly deters crime, for true criminals are certainly looking far beyond any negative consequences. Aside from that, though, what does this teach? To me, murdering a murderer for murdering someone else is rather redundant, and I think it teaches that people should kill when they feel it is necessary. If our judicial system finds cruel and unusual punishment justifiable, why wouldn't the next murderer feel anything to the contrary? We reap what we sow. Lastly, brushing morality off to the side is no more sensible than brushing humanity off, as we are creatures capable of moral reasoning (*even without the Bible's teachings*). So there's no way you can empathize with those of us who disagree with the death penalty from a moral standpoint... especially by contradicting it with expressing that you feel "it's pretty much essential". Any criminal sentenced the death penalty should spend the remainder of their years incarcerated to preserve humanity, save money, and practice what we preach. :-) i agree totally, but the government doesn't care about it's constituents. Morality and Government usually doesnt go hand in hand
|
|
|
Post by janecobain on May 20, 2013 16:54:45 GMT -6
I do agree with you redd , that it can be expensive to house a inmate on death row , and the appeal process can be a costly strain on the court system. However, death penalty cases account for only 1% of the cases on the docket , are trialed as death penalty appeals , so clearly , its not putting that much of a strain on taxpayers , not to mention , that the fact that most criminals who have been sentenced to death, appeal for life imprisonment, therefore exemplifying that they clearly would rather spend the rest of their life in jail , than be put to death . now is it our judicial systems responsibility to cater to the criminal ? the criminal that murered someone , the same criminal that took a life . are we going to allow this criminal to live off the government for the rest of his life in jail , with no bills , free meals , and a place to sleep every night , while the victim is dead ?
should we show more sympathy , for the criminal , than we do the victim ?
|
|
|
Post by Cain on May 20, 2013 17:58:23 GMT -6
I totally disagree, Cain. It is actually a lot cheaper to hold inmates rather than execute them. Each prisoner up for death row is offered years worth of appeals, which means we taxpayers must pay for their day-to-day living (eating, holding, etc.) on top of the price of killing them. If it's, say, a million dollars to hold and kill a single inmate, we'd easily max out 100's of millions of dollars on murder (which is in no way, shape, or form justifiable under any circumstance as it is cruel and unusual punishment [as Kendra stated before]) -- how immoral! Life without parole, you pay for the same things (Food, Holding, Board, etc) over a longer period of time. While Death Row cases cost much more upfront, equivalent cases of life imprisonment without parole exceed that. It's a double-edged sword For comparisons sake, you'd have to compare the costs of crimes that would otherwise warrant death-row sentencing, as such criminals are more expensive to house than those with lesser crimes (Needing Max. Sec. Prisons and such). Not just comparing average criminal costs to death row inmates, that'd be a biased sample If you've ever not done something because you feared repercussion, then that is proof that punishment deters crime. This isn't 100%, but the idea of punishment does deter crime. It's the same concept applied to why your parents whoop you when you're a child, and you become more likely to obey them as a result (Or at least, not do what got you whooped again). Sure, people will rebel and disobey, that's natural and expected. I disagree. This assumes capital punishment is almost equivalent to revenge, and while some may think of it that way that's not my perspective nor the position I'm supporting. Capital punishment isn't revenge, not every murderer is sentenced to death row, so it's not really an eye for an eye thing It's a case of severity of the crime committed. Not every crime is equal, otherwise every sentence would be (Then you'd get the same sentences for stealing and tax evasion that you would murder). The more severe the crime, the harsher the punishment. There's no contradiction in me recognizing the moral viewpoint of the opposing side's argument, but disagreeing with that being grounds to abolish the death penalty Of course we're capable of moral reasoning, however whats morally correct isn't always what's best, or vice versa. It may be morally correct for me to give my last $100 to a homeless man, but that doesn't mean it would benefit me or my situation Exactly
|
|