One related to the joke thread controversy

[Oglethorpe]

And from the other side of the house, the "higher authority" is no more an authority than it is a figment of our imagination. What if, God forbid, we all just go in a 6' hole when we're dead?

If a lunatic takes it upon himself to prematurely end lives (as Tim says, of the "societal family"), then it is our job to protect what's left of society from the same danger. That person needs to be judged now, and the threat needs to be eliminated (not released on parole due to good behavior in 15 years).

I realize I am riding a fence because it's scary that innocent people have been put to death. My solution would be that only in the most absolute and extreme cases should capital punishment be leveraged -- IOW, where evidence is absolute and it's not just a case of a prosecutor cowboy shifting his weight in his own legal system.

Has anyone read "Innocent Man" by John Grisham?

[JimR]

Thats kind of how I feel. Either every step you take is a potential pitfall or you do what you have to do and trust that a higher authority than humans will sort it out in the end.

But...you don't HAVE to kill people. There are options. You really can lock them in a cage and leave them there. Then, if you found out you made a mistake there's still a chance to make some kind of amends...as a society, murdering people "just in case" is not something I think we can justify.

It sounds like you're saying it doesn't matter if you kill the wrong person, because God will take care of your mistake in the end. In which case, there is no reason not to kill anyone you think might be dangerous, because God will be there to mop up afterward. And that is a very very slippery slope.

[JMS]

But...you don't HAVE to kill people. There are options. You really can lock them in a cage and leave them there. Then, if you found out you made a mistake there's still a chance to make some kind of amends...as a society, murdering people "just in case" is not something I think we can justify.

It sounds like you're saying it doesn't matter if you kill the wrong person, because God will take care of your mistake in the end. In which case, there is no reason not to kill anyone you think might be dangerous, because God will be there to mop up afterward. And that is a very very slippery slope.

I will reiterate. We all must do what we must, as we see fit for any given situation and in the end we will be judged for our actions.

I would rather step forward based on what I see as right and end up being wrong than hesitate at every step.
More traffic accidents are caused by a hesitant driver than the c0ck sure idiots who fly by at breakneck speed weaving through traffic.
Now don't get me wrong. I dont want to be the c0ck sure idiot, but I won't endanger anybodies life by my hesitations either.

[JimR]

I will reiterate. We all must do what we must, as we see fit for any given situation and in the end we will be judged for our actions.

I would rather step forward based on what I see as right and end up being wrong than hesitate at every step.
More traffic accidents are caused by a hesitant driver than the c0ck sure idiots who fly by at breakneck speed weaving through traffic.
Now don't get me wrong. I dont want to be the c0ck sure idiot, but I won't endanger anybodies life by my hesitations either.

I am talking about the death penalty, you are talking about self defense (I hope). Killing without hesitation, when there is no immediate danger, is the mark of someone with absolutely no regard for human life, and thus a true danger to society.

[JMS]

I am talking about the death penalty, you are talking about self defense (I hope). Killing without hesitation, when there is no immediate danger, is the mark of someone with absolutely no regard for human life, and thus a true danger to society.

You are confusing hesitation with thoughtfulness and due consideration

[JimR]

You are confusing hesitation with thoughtfulness and due consideration

You brought hesitation into the conversation, not I.

It is a fact that, with thoughtfulness and due consideration, innocent people have been convicted of crimes. It is also a fact that several people have been sentences to death despite being absolutely innocent. Luckily, this is often found out due to the diligence of people outside the justice system; but that diligence is a recent phenomenon. It is almost certain that innocent people have been killed by our justice system, by a jury of 12 normal people, with thoughtfulness and consideration. The fact that this is NOT NECESSARY, that you can have a healthy society without the death penalty, makes this murder--can you tell me it's otherwise? That the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of innocents? Or do you honestly believe that without the death penalty, society would crumble and murderers would run wild and free to kill as they please?

Because let me ask you--if the death penalty is an effective deterrent, why is there still murder in Texas?

[JimmyHAD]

But...you don't HAVE to kill people. There are options. You really can lock them in a cage and leave them there. Then, if you found out you made a mistake there's still a chance to make some kind of amends...as a society, murdering people "just in case" is not something I think we can justify.

It sounds like you're saying it doesn't matter if you kill the wrong person, because God will take care of your mistake in the end. In which case, there is no reason not to kill anyone you think might be dangerous, because God will be there to mop up afterward. And that is a very very slippery slope.

I go back to retribution. A case in point. About five years ago 2 guys went into a little restaurant across the street from the tattoo shop I work in. They sat down a half hour before closing and ate. When they were done they herded the lady who owned the place, the waitress and the dishwasher (a 17 year old girl) into the kitchen. They shot the three women in the head, took approximately $120.00 and got away.

They were caught because one of the two was proud of what they had done and bragged to a friend who dropped a dime on them. They did not deny the crime. These two were sentenced to life in prison. They are breathing air. Maybe one or both is taking high school or college classes. Perhaps playing baseball, lifting weights or maybe they have acting classes and a theater group within the prison.

The three innocent victims can't do any of those things. They are deprived of their lives and their loved ones only have the bitter memories. For most victims ( they seem to have been left out of the conversation) there are loved ones left behind to grieve and always remember how the death came about.

I abhor the thought of anyone being imprisoned for a crime that they didn't commit much less put to death. I, like the majority of the people in the USA, am pro the death penalty. I understand your point of view but taken to the logical .... or is it an illogical.....conclusion we had better not incarcerate anyone lest we mistakenly imprison an innocent person.

[JimR]

Jimmy, in the first case you're addressing a point I didn't make, and in the second you're setting up a straw man.

I never said I oppose the death penalty on principle. I believe that there are those who do, in fact, don't deserve life. I can't judge whether those two scum bags do or not, though...the power over life and death is not one I wish to hold.

I oppose the death penalty in practice, because the wrong people die. People (prosecutors? defense attorneys? Police?) lie, or are lazy or venal or just plain wrong, and innocent people losing their lives is not, under any circumstances, the way a society should deal with its problems.

As for "not incarcerating anyone", Jimmy please. No one made that argument, and it does not in any way follow from what I said. I wish you would show me more respect than that. I could as easily say that Mark advocates killing everyone on earth, because God will sort it out anyway.

Death is irreversible. The end. If we kill an innocent person, God's not going to say,"Nope, sorry guys, let's give those kids their father back because you screwed up." But if we lock them up, and then figure out that they are, in fact, INNOCENT--they still live. It's not over.

[Kees]

For one to "deserve" death and for it to be morally acceptable for a man (or a state) to pass out said punishment are two things that, at least for me, are entirely separate and distinct.

According to his own laws, the sharia, Theo van Gogh's assassin deserved a death penalty. Now he is costing Dutch society over 1000 Euros a month in gaol.

[Rajagra]

According to his own laws, the sharia, Theo van Gogh's assassin deserved a death penalty. Now he is costing Dutch society over 1000 Euros a month in goal.

This is another thing that angers me. Why does it cost so much to lock someone in a cell and give them three meals a day?

If the cost wasn't so artificially high, they wouldn't be releasing offenders so early. (At least that is the case here.)

I don't actually want the death penalty. I just want murdering scum kept off the streets.