[greenamp]

Originally Posted by Moderator

Let me get this straight. the government can't teach a kid to use a condom because it condones sex outside of marriage. But it can condone murder by executing people.

Any reasonable human being knows that the government ought not condone killing people. If they are a danger they ought to take them off the street and put them away for life.

Hell I wouldn't mind if you put them in solitary for life. But first we have the conservative "Christian" right condoning torture and now you're condoning murder..because thats what it is...justified murder.

Its so abundantly clear to any reasonable observer that you guys have a lot more in common with Islamic Fundamentalists then you'd care to admit.....two peas in a pod...

When did this become a religious debate? As far as fundamental christians go, they are very much divided on the issue of capital punishment, and both sides produce convincing biblical evidence for or against the death penalty as they see fit.

It's absurd to assume christianity is the common denominator amongst those who support capital punishment.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Tookie Williams was doing a lot more by being alive and urging his message of reform than he ever will dead.

The mainstream media has been misportraying Tookie's "helping thousands of kids shun gangs with his books".

Apparently, these thousands of children are masters of a nation-wide, mass-sharing network, for Tookie only sold less than 300 books. That's not even enough to go around his prison, let alone deeply penetrate nation's youth.

[placebo1969]

He really reached out to the Bloods and Crips that I worked with.

[typoon]

It's kind of interesting that I hear "put these people in Jail for life." Whose paying for that? You and I are. We're paying to put food on there table, to in some cases let them have a TV WITH Cable, We're allowing them free workouts at a gym. WHose paying for appeal after appeal after appeal after... Well you get it.

I would rather have my money spent on helping our country's farmers or the poor or other things that need to be taken care of in this country instead a bunch of people on Death row many of whom will probably be in prison for life if they aren't executed.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by typoon

It's kind of interesting that I hear "put these people in Jail for life." Whose paying for that? You and I are. We're paying to put food on there table, to in some cases let them have a TV WITH Cable, We're allowing them free workouts at a gym. WHose paying for appeal after appeal after appeal after... Well you get it.

I would rather have my money spent on helping our country's farmers or the poor or other things that need to be taken care of in this country instead a bunch of people on Death row many of whom will probably be in prison for life if they aren't executed.

In California, it costs more to execute someone than to lock him in jail for life.

[typoon]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

In California, it costs more to execute someone than to lock him in jail for life.

Everything in California seems to cost more in general so it's not very surprising. Those injections are not cheap. I mean there's nothing a firing squad and some 30 cent bullets couldn't handle. Of course that'll never happen because it's "cruel and unusual punishment."

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by greenamp

When did this become a religious debate? As far as fundamental christians go, they are very much divided on the issue of capital punishment, and both sides produce convincing biblical evidence for or against the death penalty as they see fit.

It's absurd to assume christianity is the common denominator amongst those who support capital punishment.

Christianity in aqnd of itself isn't, religious fundamentalism absolutely is. Look at this list again and tell me religion doesn't play a role. Social conservatism goes hand in hand with religion fundamentalism, and, not coincidentally, authoritarianism.

You'd have to be delusional to be able to look at the list and not see something wrong.

Kuwait
China
Iran
Singapore
Saudi Arabia
Vietnam
Belarus
Yemen
United States
Pakistan
Egypt
Bangladesh

[typoon]

Originally Posted by Moderator

Christianity in aqnd of itself isn't, religious fundamentalism absolutely is. Look at this list again and tell me religion doesn't play a role. Social conservatism goes hand in hand with religion fundamentalism, and, not coincidentally, authoritarianism.

You'd have to be delusional to be able to look at the list and not see something wrong.

Kuwait
China
Iran
Singapore
Saudi Arabia
Vietnam
Belarus
Yemen
United States
Pakistan
Egypt
Bangladesh

I wonder what the crime rate in all those countries (other than the US) is compared to the rest of the world. Governments not withstanding.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by typoon

Everything in California seems to cost more in general so it's not very surprising. Those injections are not cheap. I mean there's nothing a firing squad and some 30 cent bullets couldn't handle. Of course that'll never happen because it's "cruel and unusual punishment."

It's actually because of the strenuous legal requirements to get somebody executed. All the appeals and confirming guilt and all that add up to more than it takes just to feed somebody potatoes for the rest of his life. Texas is somewhat less cautious about it, from what I understand, but they also have a higher rate of killing innocent people by mistake, so California's precautions seem to be necessary.

[typoon]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

It's actually because of the strenuous legal requirements to get somebody executed. All the appeals and confirming guilt and all that add up to more than it takes just to feed somebody potatoes for the rest of his life. Texas is somewhat less cautious about it, from what I understand, but they also have a higher rate of killing innocent people by mistake, so California's precautions seem to be necessary.

30 years of appeals is what you call necessary precaution? Is That many years of precautions is necessary? Please explain how that would necessary?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by typoon

30 years of appeals is what you call necessary precaution? Is That many years of precautions is necessary? Please explain how that would necessary?

Apparently even that's not good enough, considering the hundreds of people who had lengthy appeals and were only released after DNA tests confirmed they convicted the wrong person.

[saab95]

Originally Posted by Dork.

Catholics in particular (like the Cardinal you quoted) put a high value on life, and believe that everyone's life has value. Everyone is worthy of respect, because they were all made in God's image. They also take that "Thou Shalt Not Kill" thing very seriously, seriously enough to hold that killing is worse than any injustice the killing is supposed to "correct".

It has nothing to do with enabling the criminal. A Catholic would have no problem with giving a murderer the harshest of penalties short of death. They also believe that anyone can be redeemed, so that if the criminal honestly comes to terms with his action, accepts responsibility and the fact that he needs to serve out his sentence, and turns his life around while in prison, maybe when he dies in prison his immortal soul will not be condemmed.

All that's true, and all of that is where I disagree with the moral code drawn up by the Catholic Church.

The sole purpose of any prison sentence, or death sentence, is to punish the offender.

In extreme cases where murder was committed without any regard to the right to life of the victim, the death penalty is justified. It is the ultimate punishment. The Catholic Church does not recognize this. Therein lies an inconsistency in their moral code.

The punishment of the criminal should always preceed any forgiveness to the criminal.

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by Moderator

Christianity in aqnd of itself isn't, religious fundamentalism absolutely is. Look at this list again and tell me religion doesn't play a role. Social conservatism goes hand in hand with religion fundamentalism, and, not coincidentally, authoritarianism.

You'd have to be delusional to be able to look at the list and not see something wrong.

Kuwait
China
Iran
Singapore
Saudi Arabia
Vietnam
Belarus
Yemen
United States
Pakistan
Egypt
Bangladesh

You're wrong. Hardcore christian fundamentalists lean more towards being against the death penalty than being for it, as they adhere to the strictest interpretation of Christ's teachings as found in the bible. They would cite Christ's teachings of forgiveness and mercy to those who have truly changed, regardless of the crime.

The best example of Christian fundamentalism we have in the United States is the Amish and Mennonites. The next time you see one ask them their views of the death penalty and you will be surprised at their response.

And once again, providing a rough list of world wide state sponsored execution rates alone in an attempt to prove a point isn't a valid argument because it assumes a common legal system with common execution criteria amongst all the listed governments. 10 executions for 1st degree murder is quite different than 10 executions for speaking out against your government, even though in both cases 10 executions were carried out.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Moderator

Christianity in aqnd of itself isn't, religious fundamentalism absolutely is. Look at this list again and tell me religion doesn't play a role. Social conservatism goes hand in hand with religion fundamentalism, and, not coincidentally, authoritarianism.

You'd have to be delusional to be able to look at the list and not see something wrong.

Kuwait
China
Iran
Singapore
Saudi Arabia
Vietnam
Belarus
Yemen
United States
Pakistan
Egypt
Bangladesh

Interesting indeed. Of the nations you mention, fully half of them -China, Singapore, Vietnam, the United States, and Belarus- have no official religion at all, yet they still support the death penalty. If we consider ten nations out of the 74 which currently support the death penalty to be a representative sample, then it would imply that religious fundamentalism does not play a role.

[Spliffdaddy]

zzzzzzzap!

the sound of a vicious murderer meeting his maker.

well done!


(and he was)

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Rolling Bones

Tookie is in Heaven now.

If he accepted Christ as saviour he is. I hope he did. I hope everyone does.

Capital punishment is wrong. It is murder.

PS: please remove my quote from your sig. It's nice to see that you have embraced the fact that people recognize you as a racist, but it is against the rules to have quotes from other members in your sig. would you like me to put your racist comments in my sig so everyone can see in all of the other forums that you are a racist?

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Interesting indeed. Of the nations you mention, fully half of them -China, Singapore, Vietnam, the United States, and Belarus- have no official religion at all, yet they still support the death penalty. If we consider ten nations out of the 74 which currently support the death penalty to be a representative sample, then it would imply that religious fundamentalism does not play a role.

Relative sample? This is a top ten list bro. If half of the top ten are states based on religious law..that certainly does imply a relationship. US law is still largely driven by religion...please. China obviously has its own issues...and Belarus is an ex-Soviet state with an authoritarian president. Even Singapore has tight controls on freedom of expression.

So yes, religion in government plays a big role in the use of capital punishment, and when it doesn't authoritarianism still does.

There is not a country on that list that is not a abuser of human rights..Singapore is the only arguable case. I would like to believe the US is the exception...but we are what we are. Make all of the excuses you need to make you feel better..but when those countries on that list are our peers, well, i'd say its time for a little introspection.

[Spliffdaddy]

I'd say it's time to execute *all* murderers.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Moderator

There is not a country on that list that is not a abuser of human rights..Singapore is the only arguable case.

Hold on; are you actually trying to say that Singapore is arguably not a habitual abuser of human rights?

[typoon]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Apparently even that's not good enough, considering the hundreds of people who had lengthy appeals and were only released after DNA tests confirmed they convicted the wrong person.

WHile that is true. I still think that People shouldn't get more than 2 or 3 appeals. Also I don't think the number of those found innocent using DNA testing is as significant as those who ARE guilty. Mistakes unfortunately can and will be made.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by saab95

In extreme cases where murder was committed without any regard to the right to life of the victim, the death penalty is justified. It is the ultimate punishment. The Catholic Church does not recognize this. Therein lies an inconsistency in their moral code.

No, therein lies the CONSISTENCY in their moral code. It would be very INCONSISTENT of them to condone capital punishment.

This makes me wonder, did you make a spelling error or do you have an agenda against the Church? If the latter, lying or making up things about your nemesis does not help you cause.

cheers

W-Y

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Hold on; are you actually trying to say that Singapore is arguably not a habitual abuser of human rights?

No i just don't know enough to say eitherway..I'll take your word....you've made my case.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by typoon

WHile that is true. I still think that People shouldn't get more than 2 or 3 appeals. Also I don't think the number of those found innocent using DNA testing is as significant as those who ARE guilty. Mistakes unfortunately can and will be made.

So are you saying you have no problem with the state executing an innocent man?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by typoon

WHile that is true. I still think that People shouldn't get more than 2 or 3 appeals. Also I don't think the number of those found innocent using DNA testing is as significant as those who ARE guilty. Mistakes unfortunately can and will be made.

Killing innocent people by mistake is not acceptable. That really does put us on the same level as the people on death row. Even from a utilitarian point of view, the death penalty is not sufficiently effective at reducing crime as to make such a tradeoff even worth considering.