The Death Penalty

[Cheri]

Do you as mother would do like what she/he suggest?

He is entitle to his opinion and if he says he would disown his own child, that's his call, He said "If" it's your fault for exposing him/her into serial killer, then you should be in jail and I agree, because everyone is responsible for their own actions, and if you lead him to be a killing machine then you should be responsible too, that's what he means.

 

[jillio]

Yes, it is.

unambiguously - Definitions from Dictionary.com

Okay, it was used incorrectly.

 

[Jiro]

Yes, and have already done so. You cannot be absolutely certain that everyone put to death in the justice system has been guilty of the crime for which they died UNLESS YOU RUN DNA FROM THE CRIME SCENE. Since that has not been done, and they have failed to exhume any executed individual in order to ascertain this, then you DO NOT KNOW FOR CERTAIN that each person put to death was unequivocally guilty. And given the people who have been released from lengthy prison sentences in the lighjt of new DNA evidence proving their innocence and wrongful conviction, it is quite evident that our criminal justice system makes grave errors. If we have made such errors in non-death penalty cases, resulting in people being incarcerated for 26 or more years wrongfully, then the chances are great that at some point over the last 108 years that you have cited, at least one innocent person has been put to death that could have been exonerated by additional evidence. To believe that the possiblity is not real is to be nothing more than naive. To refuse to believe it in light of the facts of recent exonerations and errors that have come to light is to choose to remain ignorant. The fact of the matter is, our criminal justice system is capable or error, and therefore, there is always the risk of executing an innocent person any time the death penalty is resorted to as a form of punishment. No amount of naivete can get rid of that risk. It is ever present, because it is inherehnt in a system that is subject to error.

and it is quite evident that our way of life is troubling when our divorce rate in USA is approximately 40-50% (or 0.38% divorces per capita)... we ought to ban marriage! It is quite evident that our education system is useless, according to National Geographic Society and Roper Organization survey found that 83% of Americans aged 18-24 could not find Afghanistan on map, we ought to ban schools! OH! OH! It is evident that our driving skill SUCKS! that 42,642 died in 2006 due to vehicle accidents, we ought to ban vehicles! PLEASE stop that ultra-liberalism crap. It makes me think you're tree-hugger, whale-hugger, anti-abortion, anti-corporation, anti-gun, anti-anti-anti. The world ain't fair and we just try to balance it the best we can. Remember - there are handful of criminals on death penalty row or life imprisonment who will kill you for your nice shoes you're wearing. Hell! they'll even kill you for sympathizing them. They don't care about your sympathy. we all make mistakes but thing is - Nowaday, the chance of wrongfully-executing somebody is very improbable. If you recall - I stated that our success rate was 96% and growing lot higher. That's why I collected some stats from anti-death penalty sites which was ACLU to make it fair for you. However - officially, 0 has been wrongfully-executed since 1900. If you want to argue about technicality of "in the light of DNA evidence" and such... bring it up to them and correct it. I'm just seeing what I see on statistic report.

It's not the naivete but our beloved Constitution and legal system allowed the criminals to appeal which drastically reduce that risk of wrongful execution. Thanks God for that! At least it's not like China! and thanks God that we continue to improve our technology rapidly such as DNA testing. We made mistakes long long time ago and it was in "new" at that time. We pretty much fixed bunch of kinks (and still improving) and now... I repeat - the chance of wrongfully-executing somebody is very improbable.

Maybe you should be a pro-bono lawyer for them! Since you have a strong view on such issue, have you done anything for it? did you write letter to your congressman/woman? did you participate at public forum?

Evidently, you have a very lax criteria for what you consider to be "proof". You continue to claim proof when you haven't even managed to support well, let alone "prove" anything. If you are capable of making such errors,and use such a lax crierion for deciding that which is proof of fact, then God help anyone on whose jury you should serve. Your inability to see the holes in your own logic is simply more evidence of the flaws within our justice system as juries are made of individuals such as yourself. To think that a man's life could rest with someone who cannot even adequately define proof is frightening indeed, and does nothing but support my position that errors are made on a daily basis, and the risk of an error being made in a death penalty case is ever present.

Evidently, you should not be on jury. You fail to be impartial and you let your emotion clouds your judgment even though truth is there. God help victims if you were to acquit the killer just because you did not want death penalty. If you recall - I exercise extreme hesitance to shoot to kill when defending myself and my family. I don't take elimination of life lightly but mistakes do happen but that doesn't mean we should ban my gun or anything.

Funny thing is you claim that I fail to to support the proof when I have already shown you statistics, graph, and studies. 16 pages of this forum and you have YET given me 0 proof. I'm really enjoying your obfuscation.

BTW, started on those articles that you demanded yet?

again - nope!

Now who wants their homework done for them? If you had kept up with your studies all along, you wouldn't need to cram at the last minute in order to pass a final exam. You get no sympathy from me on that one. I work 2 jobs, am in the middle of a dissertation, and teach 2 classes.

maybe you should pay attention to that!

I managed to look the articles up and provide you with formated citations. All you have to do is go to the library and read them. I've already made it easier for you than I would make it for one of my students. Show some responsibility for your own education.

Because of my responsibility for my education, maybe I'll read your cites after the finals.

on the last note - I have repeatedly stated my position. If the errors outweigh the benefits, then I will stand by you to abolish the death penalty. All you have done for me is dismissing the graph/statistics/reports that I have given you and you still have not convinced me any single bit. CONVINCE ME! CONVINCE US ALL!

Oh by the way - I believe death penalty should be reserve for serial killer/rapist/etc. and hardened merciless bloodthirsty dangerous criminals. Murdering 1 person does not qualify for it unless it's like Scott Peterson.

 

[Jiro]

Okay, it was used incorrectly.

not really. If it was "ambiguously," that implies Judge Scalia is against death penalty. If it was "unambiguously," that implies he is NOT against death penalty.

1. Washington, DC - "You want to have a fair death penalty?" U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia asked an audience of nearly 500 academics and others at a January 25 conference on religion and the death penalty. "You kill; you die. That's fair."

2. "The legal issue for me as a judge is whether the death penalty, as it is administered, violates the Eighth Amendment," he said. "Does it constitute cruel and unusual punishment? The answer is no."

3. As a Roman Catholic, Scalia disagrees with the recent teaching of the Catholic catechism and Evangelium Vitae "that the death penalty can only be imposed to protect rather than avenge," and therefore is almost always wrong.


need any more clarification on Judge Scalia's position on death penalty? I think we both know what side of fence he is on.

 

[Reba]

Okay, it was used incorrectly.

 

[jillio]

and it is quite evident that our way of life is troubling when our divorce rate in USA is approximately 40-50% (or 0.38% divorces per capita)... we ought to ban marriage! It is quite evident that our education system is useless, according to National Geographic Society and Roper Organization survey found that 83% of Americans aged 18-24 could not find Afghanistan on map, we ought to ban schools! OH! OH! It is evident that our driving skill SUCKS! that 42,642 died in 2006 due to vehicle accidents, we ought to ban vehicles! PLEASE stop that ultra-liberalism crap. It makes me think you're tree-hugger, whale-hugger, anti-abortion, anti-corporation, anti-gun, anti-anti-anti. The world ain't fair and we just try to balance it the best we can. Remember - there are handful of criminals on death penalty row or life imprisonment who will kill you for your nice shoes you're wearing. Hell! they'll even kill you for sympathizing them. They don't care about your sympathy. we all make mistakes but thing is - Nowaday, the chance of wrongfully-executing somebody is very improbable. If you recall - I stated that our success rate was 96% and growing lot higher. That's why I collected some stats from anti-death penalty sites which was ACLU to make it fair for you. However - officially, 0 has been wrongfully-executed since 1900. If you want to argue about technicality of "in the light of DNA evidence" and such... bring it up to them and correct it. I'm just seeing what I see on statistic report.

The divorce rate, the educational system, and car accidents are not the topic of discussion. The death penalty is the topic of offer proof of discussion. Your argruments are completely fallicious. And you keep claiming proof of something that can on;ly be assumed, not proven. I have already explained to you why it cannot be proven, and it light of the number of wrongful convictions that have been overturned since the use of DNA evidence, it is highly unlikely that your claim would ever play out as factual. You statistics and graphs offer proof of nothing, because there is inofrmation missing that could very well change the entire nature of those statistics and graphs. Therefore, they can only be used to support your position, not as absolute proof[/COLOR]. It would appear that the college from which are going to graduate has failed to teach you critical thinking skills.

It's not the naivete but our beloved Constitution and legal system allowed the criminals to appeal which drastically reduce that risk of wrongful execution. Thanks God for that! At least it's not like China! and thanks God that we continue to improve our technology rapidly such as DNA testing. We made mistakes long long time ago and it was in "new" at that time. We pretty much fixed bunch of kinks (and still improving) and now... I repeat - the chance of wrongfully-executing somebody is very improbable.

Again, you need to read a bit more c arefully. You seem to read the words, but totally lack comprehension of the meaning. No one ever said that the constitution was naive. I said you were naive. And jsut because a chance is improbable does not mean it is nonexistent.[/[/B And that is the whole point. The risk exists that an innocent person could be executed, which make the death penaly no more than legally sanctioned murder.COLOR]

Maybe you should be a pro-bono lawyer for them! Since you have a strong view on such issue, have you done anything for it? did you write letter to your congressman/woman? did you participate at public forum?

I actively advocate for everything in which I strongly believe. It is called living by one's ethics. Perhaps you will develop that much of a principled existence. Obviously, you haven't arrived there yet.


Evidently, you should not be on jury. You fail to be impartial. If I were on jury and if I was shown sufficient evidence and testimony beyond reasonable doubt, yes I will vote guilty (no matter what the punishment is). If you recall - I exercise extreme hesitance to shoot to kill when defending myself and my family. I don't take elimination of life lightly but mistakes do happen but that doesn't mean we should ban my gun or anything.

Once again, stick to the topic. We are not discussing the concept of guiilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We are discussing the death penalty. Nor are we discussing the banning of guns. I have served on several juries in my time. How many have you served on?

Funny thing is you claim that I fail to to support the proof when I have already shown you statistics, graph, and studies. 16 pages of this forum and you have YET given me 0 proof. I'm really enjoying your obfuscation.

And, as I said, and have explained numerous times, but which you seem to be incapable of comprehending, statisitics and graph do not constitute proof. And support for my side has been provided. You have simply failed to take the time to read it. You have chosen to remain ingnorant.


again - nope!

You demand support, and then you fail to utilize that which has been provided. Like I said, you have made a choice to remain ignorant.


maybe you should pay attention to that!
Pay attention to what, exactly?

I managed to look the articles up and provide you with formated citations. All you have to do is go to the library and read them. I've already made it easier for you than I would make it for one of my students. Show some responsibility for your own education.

hmm 3.45 GPA with honors and resume as long as your arm... yea i'm doing quite fine. I guess your psychology degree isn't doing great for your assessment on me. Because of my responsibility for my education, maybe I'll read your cites after the finals.

Funny, with a 3.5 GPA, you should have opted out of your finals. No, sweetie, my psychology degree has enabled me to assess you quite accurately. You are naive, inexperienced, and overly confident in your knowledege. And that is not a clinical diagnosis. It is simply what you have made apparent from your posts.

Maybe you will read them. Oh, yeah, that shows a great deal of responsibility for your education! Like I said, the choice to remain ignorant is yours.

on the last note - I have repeatedly stated my position. If the errors outweigh the benefits, then I will stand by you to abolish the death penalty. All you have done for me is dismissing the graph/statistics/reports that I have given you and you still have not convinced me any single bit. CONVINCE ME! CONVINCE US ALL!

One can not convince one whose mind is closed. Ignorance is a choice.

Oh by the way - I believe death penalty should be reserve for serial killer/rapist/etc. and hardened merciless bloodthirsty dangerous criminals. Murdering 1 person does not qualify for it unless it's like Scott Peterson.[/QUOTE]

There are your inconsistencies again. I believe in ONLY, and then you turn right around and say UNLESS. No courage of your convictions, and not sure what you truly believe, obviously. Perhaps when you become as learned as you believe you are now, you will actually be capable of deciding what it is you believe, and sticking to it.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

He is entitle to his opinion and if he says he would disown his own child, that's his call, He said "If" it's your fault for exposing him/her into serial killer, then you should be in jail and I agree, because everyone is responsible for their own actions, and if you lead him to be a killing machine then you should be responsible too, that's what he means.

You do not need to coninvce me because I already understood his/her post... I pasted both of his/her posts and ASKED you as mother: Would you do like that what he/she suggest...?

 

[Jiro]

I have served on several juries in my time.

Really? lemme guess - petty stuff like assault, robbery, and such. Any murder-related trial?

Once again, stick to the topic. We are not discussing the concept of guiilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We are discussing the death penalty. Nor are we discussing the banning of guns.

I merely corrected your assumption that I do not care for life being executed. I used the concept of banning gun just because it kills people is silly just as much as banning death penalty just because of risk of executing innocents when there has been 0 wrongfully-executed since 1900s (or 96% success rate based on ACLU statistic). I'm sorry but the law doesn't mostly operate on emotions. We need hard facts, hard statistic, hard studies to decide on laws that is fair for all. You certainly don't want right-wingers to make laws for all. I certainly don't want left-wingers to make laws for all either!

No, sweetie, my psychology degree has enabled me to assess you quite accurately. You are naive, inexperienced, and overly confident in your knowledege. And that is not a clinical diagnosis. It is simply what you have made apparent from your posts.

Interesting... But I'm sorry to say it's not the assessment you're making. It's the judgment. I think your professor would scold you for that. I believe I stated previously in #366 that my life experience and knowledge have taught me to be strong and have common sense with logic. I've seen all ugly stuff that no child should witness.

and yes I am overly confident in my knowledge that I am open to all and will agree with any argument that makes most sense to me. At first long time ago, I believed gay life is morally wrong but as I listened and talked with gay people, I quickly accepted them. I support them in every way - gay marriage rights, legal rights, etc.

Maybe you will read them. Oh, yeah, that shows a great deal of responsibility for your education! Like I said, the choice to remain ignorant is yours.

hmmmm..... Judge Scalia (Harvard Law School and Roman Catholic), Reba, and I have exactly same view. Considering Judge Scalia has far more experience and qualification in this matter than both of you and I combined... and yet he has same view as Reba and mine. Interesting... Interesting... so you're saying we're dumbass and ignorant? and that our ethics are of sub-human? and you basically believe you're on high horse following behind God on Crusader Mission? and you believe you are right in every way? I don't know about you but I think anybody with psychology degree would believe you are delusional and have a distorted view of the world.

Do you know why I am flexible in what I believe in? Think about back in 1900s where white people STRONGLY believed black people were TRULY inferior - scientifically and genetically. and they strongly believed blacks were Devil's creatures out to rape their women and eat them. Think about back in 1500s where Europeans strongly believed it was God's duty to colonize the world and to enslave the inferior natives. Heck! in old time, they believed women should be a GOOD WIFE and stay in kitchen and bed which you would be doing if Women's Rights weren't recognized! Boy! were they so wrong!!!

I actively advocate for everything in which I strongly believe. It is called living by one's ethics. Perhaps you will develop that much of a principled existence. Obviously, you haven't arrived there yet.

Are you saying your ethics are better than us - or in fact you are closer to God? In my opinion, I think my ethic makes better sense than yours.

Scenario 1
"Oh no.... poor deer... laying on the street, all messed up from getting hit by a car, dying. What should I do? What should I do?"
your "ethic" - you call 911 and hope for best even though deer is FUBAR
my "ethic" - I mercifully end his agony and let the God takes care of him and scoot him over to forest (been there twice )

Scenario 2
"A dying patient with terminal cancer is in extreme agony and no amount of morphine can relieve him of pain. He begged you to end his life because he can't take the pain anymore."
your "ethic" - no! don't take easy way out! duke it out!
my "ethic" - may the God be with you and I mercifully end his agony

Scenario 3
"John Doe was charged with brutally raping and murdering 2 women. He escaped the prison and killed 1 person to take his car. Now he got caught and he's back on trial again for that person he recently murdered."
your "ethic" - Not Guilty because I do not believe in death penalty
my "ethic" - GUILTY! GUILTY!

I am done with Jillio. 16 pages so far and still no statistic/studies/etc. Only your "principle" and "ethics." I'll resume debate once you have given me that.

I suppose you're one of those people with such silly rigid view. Maybe you should stop being over-educated behind papers & books and start being over-experienced with the world?

well I'm going to take your advice to go to library (not to read your cites ) so I can finally start studying for my final exam BTW - Jillio, I don't hate you but I enjoy debating and exchanging our ideals/beliefs/etc to hopefully come to mutual agreement. My family gets sick of debating convo so I guess that's why I have my own dinner table.... j/k

 

[jillio]

Really? lemme guess - petty stuff like assault, robbery, and such. Any murder-related trial?


I merely corrected your assumption that I do not care for life being executed. I used the concept of banning gun just because it kills people is silly just as much as banning death penalty just because of risk of executing innocents when there has been 0 wrongfully-executed since 1900s (or 96% success rate based on ACLU statistic). I'm sorry but the law doesn't mostly operate on emotions. We need hard facts, hard statistic, hard studies to decide on laws that is fair for all. You certainly don't want right-wingers to make laws for all. I certainly don't want left-wingers to make laws for all either!


Interesting... But I'm sorry to say it's not the assessment you're making. It's the judgment. I think your professor would scold you for that. I believe I stated previously in #366 that my life experience and knowledge have taught me to be strong and have common sense with logic. I've seen all ugly stuff that no child should witness.

and yes I am overly confident in my knowledge that I am open to all and will agree with any argument that makes most sense to me. At first long time ago, I believed gay life is morally wrong but as I listened and talked with gay people, I quickly accepted them. I support them in every way - gay marriage rights, legal rights, etc.


hmmmm..... Judge Scalia (Harvard Law School and Roman Catholic), Reba, and I have exactly same view. Considering Judge Scalia has far more experience and qualification in this matter than both of you and I combined... and yet he has same view as Reba and mine. Interesting... Interesting... so you're saying we're dumbass and ignorant? and that our ethics are of sub-human? and you basically believe you're on high horse following behind God on Crusader Mission? and you believe you are right in every way? I don't know about you but I think anybody with psychology degree would believe you are delusional and have a distorted view of the world.

Do you know why I am flexible in what I believe in? Think about back in 1900s where white people STRONGLY believed black people were TRULY inferior - scientifically and genetically. and they strongly believed blacks were Devil's creatures out to rape their women and eat them. Think about back in 1500s where Europeans strongly believed it was God's duty to colonize the world and to enslave the inferior natives. Heck! in old time, they believed women should be a GOOD WIFE and stay in kitchen and bed which you would be doing if Women's Rights weren't recognized! Boy! were they so wrong!!!


Are you saying your ethics are better than us - or in fact you are closer to God? In my opinion, I think my ethic makes better sense than yours.

Scenario 1
"Oh no.... poor deer... laying on the street, all messed up from getting hit by a car, dying. What should I do? What should I do?"
your "ethic" - you call 911 and hope for best even though deer is FUBAR
my "ethic" - I mercifully end his agony and let the God takes care of him and scoot him over to forest (been there twice )

Scenario 2
"A dying patient with terminal cancer is in extreme agony and no amount of morphine can relieve him of pain. He begged you to end his life because he can't take the pain anymore."
your "ethic" - no! don't take easy way out! duke it out!
my "ethic" - may the God be with you and I mercifully end his agony

Scenario 3
"John Doe was charged with brutally raping and murdering 2 women. He escaped the prison and killed 1 person to take his car. Now he got caught and he's back on trial again for that person he recently murdered."
your "ethic" - Not Guilty because I do not believe in death penalty
my "ethic" - GUILTY! GUILTY!

I am done with Jillio. 16 pages so far and still no statistic/studies/etc. Only your "principle" and "ethics." I'll resume debate once you have given me that.

I suppose you're one of those people with such silly rigid view. Maybe you should stop being over-educated behind papers & books and start being over-experienced with the world?

well I'm going to take your advice to go to library (not to read your cites ) so I can finally start studying for my final exam BTW - Jillio, I don't hate you but I enjoy debating and exchanging our ideals/beliefs/etc to hopefully come to mutual agreement. My family gets sick of debating convo so I guess that's why I have my own dinner table.... j/k

You have lost your little mind. Making assumptions that are not only incorrect, but unfounded. You should be more careful. You really should know more about people before you challenge them. You really have no idea who you are dealing with. But that is typical of unexperienced overly confident people such as yourself. Snap judgements, and thinking you know it all. You are in for a rude awakening in your lifetime.

What does Roman Catholic have to do with anything? You seem to think that you can sound more intelligent by diverting the topic. Its an expected tactic from one who doesn't have a leg to stand on. LOL.

 

[Jiro]

You have lost your little mind. Making assumptions that are not only incorrect, but unfounded. You should be more careful. You really should know more about people before you challenge them. You really have no idea who you are dealing with. But that is typical of unexperienced overly confident people such as yourself. Snap judgements, and thinking you know it all. You are in for a rude awakening in your lifetime.

What does Roman Catholic have to do with anything? You seem to think that you can sound more intelligent by diverting the topic. Its an expected tactic from one who doesn't have a leg to stand on. LOL.

oh? not defending what I said about Judge Scalia, judgement/assessment and scenarios? I suppose you just got zinged. Oh well

Death Penalty/Murder is against every religion' belief, as claimed by abolitionists. I merely pointed out that Judge Scalia is a Catholic and I'm sure he doesn't take death penalty lightly either. so I'm not sure where in my post that I diverted the topic but I'll let the audience judges it for us.

 

[jillio]

oh? not defending what I said about Judge Scalia, judgement/assessment and scenarios? I suppose you just got zinged. Oh well

Death Penalty/Murder is against every religion' belief, as claimed by abolitionists. I merely pointed out that Judge Scalia is a Catholic and I'm sure he doesn't take death penalty lightly either. so I'm not sure where in my post that I diverted the topic but I'll let the audience judges it for us.

Catholics, as a group, are against the death penalty. Your point is?

And if it makes you feel better to believe that I got zinged, you just go right ahead and believe that. You can add it to your extensive list of other mistaken beliefs. Like I've said, ignorance is a choice.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

You and Jillio confuse murder with many different type of killings. We're under assumption that "murder" is a brutal killing of victim in merciless way - wrong place at wrong time. In your example, a spouse killing an abusive person is pretty different.

and believe me - NO JURY will convict her to death penalty. If they did, maybe the prosecutor proved sufficiently that the spouse did not sufficiently sought for help or alternatives to stop him - called police, called for help, run away, etc.

Yes I understand there are circumstances in every case which is why we have choices - It is up to jury, judge, and family to determine the fate of criminal. I don't support death penalty as an answer for everything but I support the option of death penalty on the table.

Under what circumstances would you NOT support the death penalty?

 

[Jiro]

Under what circumstances would you NOT support the death penalty?

it can be:
1. 1 innocent wrongfully executed per year consecutively
2. if proven or shown beyond reasonable doubt by statistics and extensive studies that it causes crimes (only crimes that are punishable by death penalty) to increase
3. uuuummmm..... can't think of anything else

but I think you know what I'm saying. For now - I've seen statistics, arguments, and studies that death penalty does decrease murder rates and it is proven effective as bargaining chip when negotiating with criminals. More importantly, the error rate of executing innocent is IMPROBABLE.

If you can prove to me otherwise with substantial statistics/studies/etc. and convincing arguments (beside some religious belief and so-called ethics), then I'm on your side without question, without hesitation, without pause. That's the deal

 

[Jiro]

Catholics, as a group, are against the death penalty. Your point is?

I'm..... afraid you're wrong. Gravely wrong. Horrendously wrong. Quite a handful of Catholics and Christians support death penalty. In Old Testament, it clearly supported death penalty. In New Testament, well it did support death penalty in a way but it's BIT ambiguous.

1. "Thou shalt not kill" - actually.... accurate translation is "Thou shalt not murder"
2. "He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death." Ex. 21:12
3. "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed... Gen. 9:6
4. so on... so on.... so on....

I believe it is pretty clear that Jesus Christ supported death penalty but he does not judge. He forgives but not all the time. But it gets tricky along the line where he said "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first" - but that was toward to a woman who committed adultery. But of course... there are many branches of Christians/Catholics who interpret it to their own way to be against or for death penalty. THAT'S why we have a hotly debate about this issue when the GOVERNMENT stepped in to execute the people.

We can spin this around and around which is why I said please do not use religious belief/ethic as your argument support. It's tiresome and subjective. I like number. Girlfriend lies to me. Numbers doesn't lie. Number is my best friend. Number told me death penalty is beneficial for all!

Like I've said, ignorance is a choice.

Ignorance is a choice? So you're ignoring the pain and suffering that victim's families and friends and community have to deal with while murderer's alive and enjoying 3 square meals a day and warm bed? You're ignoring the community's and families' fears for the safety of their lives that there is a chance murderer could escape or could be released to public due to some loopholes in laws? :Ohno:

 

[Cowpuppy]

She said....."as a group". Meaning 'generally speaking'. You chose to view the statement in some other way that suits you. To view it in a way to twist it for your need.

 

[Cheri]

She said....."as a group". Meaning 'generally speaking'. You chose to view the statement in some other way that suits you. To view it in a way to twist it for your need.

:roll: Why is it every time you disagree with their views, you think the other party is twisting every question that are asked to them in their answer that suits them better. That's non-sense.

 

[Jiro]

She said....."as a group". Meaning 'generally speaking'. You chose to view the statement in some other way that suits you. To view it in a way to twist it for your need.

oh of course... but Jillio chose to view the statement in some other way that suits her. So it is not "twisted" to one's view but New Testament was rewritten to the point where it's ambiguous - it's open to one's interpretation. Jesus Christ supported death penalty BUT...... he also said to forgive and not to judge. So... nobody's right. It's pretty much up to you to judge somebody's fate.

If he murdered your child, you can either kill him or forgive him. It's up to you! Neither of these choices makes one any less of a man. Neither is sinful. The only sin is that man murdering your child.

 

[jillio]

I'm..... afraid you're wrong. Gravely wrong. Horrendously wrong. Quite a handful of Catholics and Christians support death penalty. In Old Testament, it clearly supported death penalty. In New Testament, well it did support death penalty in a way but it's BIT ambiguous.

1. "Thou shalt not kill" - actually.... accurate translation is "Thou shalt not murder"
2. "He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death." Ex. 21:12
3. "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed... Gen. 9:6
4. so on... so on.... so on....

I believe it is pretty clear that Jesus Christ supported death penalty but he does not judge. He forgives but not all the time. But it gets tricky along the line where he said "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first" - but that was toward to a woman who committed adultery. But of course... there are many branches of Christians/Catholics who interpret it to their own way to be against or for death penalty. THAT'S why we have a hotly debate about this issue when the GOVERNMENT stepped in to execute the people.

We can spin this around and around which is why I said please do not use religious belief/ethic as your argument support. It's tiresome and subjective. I like number. Girlfriend lies to me. Numbers doesn't lie. Number is my best friend. Number told me death penalty is beneficial for all!


Ignorance is a choice? So you're ignoring the pain and suffering that victim's families and friends and community have to deal with while murderer's alive and enjoying 3 square meals a day and warm bed? You're ignoring the community's and families' fears for the safety of their lives that there is a chance murderer could escape or could be released to public due to some loopholes in laws? :Ohno:

Once again, you need to read more carefully. I said "Catholics as a group". I said nothing about individuals who claim affiliation with that group holding differing viewpoints.

Perhaps you should also refresh yourself on the concept of separation of church and state. The death penalty falls under civil law, not religious law, and therefore, your Biblical references are decidedly innapopriate to a discussion regarding the death penalty.

More educated and well informed people than you than you have attempted to interpret Biblical writings. I think I'll rely on their expertise.

You are the one that brought religious concepts into the argument by pointing put the fact that Scalia was a Catholic. I suggest you abide by your own advise. Likewise with your ramblings about what Jesus Christ believed.

 

[jillio]

it can be:
1. 1 innocent wrongfully executed per year consecutively
2. if proven or shown beyond reasonable doubt by statistics and extensive studies that it causes crimes (only crimes that are punishable by death penalty) to increase
3. uuuummmm..... can't think of anything else

but I think you know what I'm saying. For now - I've seen statistics, arguments, and studies that death penalty does decrease murder rates and it is proven effective as bargaining chip when negotiating with criminals. More importantly, the error rate of executing innocent is IMPROBABLE.

If you can prove to me otherwise with substantial statistics/studies/etc. and convincing arguments (beside some religious belief and so-called ethics), then I'm on your side without question, without hesitation, without pause. That's the deal

So, we have to kill several innocent people and compile those statistics before you support abolition of the death penalty. I wonder if the people who would be wrongly put to death would agree that it is necessary to sacrifice their life in order to convince you?

It is not a matter of whether it increases crime or not. It is a matter of whether it serves as a deterrent. You have a distorted view of the intent of punishment.

And once again, improbable does not equate to non-existent. Perhaps your refusal to consider ethical considerations is your biggest problem.

 

[jillio]

:roll: Why is it every time you disagree with their views, you think the other party is twisting every question that are asked to them in their answer that suits them better. That's non-sense.

In this case, because it was twisted.