I actually don't believe in the death penalty at all. To me, death as a punishment is no punishment to the individual being killed, but is a solace or a revenge to the victim and/or their family. As humans, the greatest punishment, IMO, is the loss of freedoms, ESPECIALLY to Americans for whom more freedoms exist than pretty much anywhere on Earth.

 

I could agree with this stance if this was a person with a conscience that would live with guilt every day for the rest of his life. That's how I feel about the Shawn Windsor case here wher I think he is a coward becuse he didn't have the stones to kill himself and he is now asking the state to do it. However this person showed no remorse at all in his comments when arrested and likely feels nothing. Maybe it's vengeful but I say let him go.

No death penalty. Too easy an out.

 

Put a helmet on him, give baseball bats to 5 of the nastiest inmates in Stark, then put him in a cell with them. Allow them to beat him to within an inch of his life, note head trauma not allowed (can't make this something he won't feel or remember), doctor him up, and repeat the process until his body can't take it anymore or he dies of old age.

 

No death penalty.

No death penalty. Too easy an out.

 

Put a helmet on him, give baseball bats to 5 of the nastiest inmates in Stark, then put him in a cell with them. Allow them to beat him to within an inch of his life, note head trauma not allowed (can't make this something he won't feel or remember), doctor him up, and repeat the process until his body can't take it anymore or he dies of old age.

 

No death penalty.

Agreed.. Death is to easy. Torture him daily..

There is a story in the Old testament of a righteous man who was traveling along the road that was carrying the Ark of the Covenant. The Oxen stumbled and the man reached out to keep the Ark from falling. He did this and God struck him dead.

 

The Flood wicked people died.

 

Sodom...same as above.

 

Each death penalty case is different and should be looked as that, but throwing a baby out of a moving car? He has got to go.

 

The wages of sin is death.

Call it revenge or whatever you want. I just don't see the value this guy adds to a society. In my mind he has given up all his rights, including the right to live.

 

This part is definitely revengeful, make him die the exact same way. IF there is some form of after life, maybe this will give him something to think about while he spends eternity there.

The bolded is a dangerous, dangerous statement that can lead to eugenics. I'll take it in context, but keep in mind that most wouldn't.

 

FKY- as someone who believes that the government should stay out of our lives, why do you think that the state has the right to determine who deserves to live? Isn't that the ultimate intrusion of state into our lives?

I actually don't believe in the death penalty at all. To me, death as a punishment is no punishment to the individual being killed, but is a solace or a revenge to the victim and/or their family. As humans, the greatest punishment, IMO, is the loss of freedoms, ESPECIALLY to Americans for whom more freedoms exist than pretty much anywhere on Earth.

Theoretically- psycho killer is in prison and, despite, 24/7 isolation, still manages to attack (and/or kill) a prison guard. Do we continue to let him live?

 

Another hypothetical- you have a poor, poor country without the means to imprison anyone for life (whether reasons are financial or anything). The man continues to escape from prison and continues to kill innocents. Do we continue to let him do so?

There is a story in the Old testament of a righteous man who was traveling along the road that was carrying the Ark of the Covenant. The Oxen stumbled and the man reached out to keep the Ark from falling. He did this and God struck him dead.

 

The Flood wicked people died.

 

Sodom...same as above.

 

Each death penalty case is different and should be looked as that, but throwing a baby out of a moving car? He has got to go.

 

The wages of sin is death.

The difference is that God gives life and can take it. We have no right to take life from others unless it is the only way to protect the lives of others.

The bolded is a dangerous, dangerous statement that can lead to eugenics. I'll take it in context, but keep in mind that most wouldn't.

 

FKY- as someone who believes that the government should stay out of our lives, why do you think that the state has the right to determine who deserves to live? Isn't that the ultimate intrusion of state into our lives?

 

Theoretically- psycho killer is in prison and, despite, 24/7 isolation, still manages to attack (and/or kill) a prison guard. Do we continue to let him live?

 

Another hypothetical- you have a poor, poor country without the means to imprison anyone for life (whether reasons are financial or anything). The man continues to escape from prison and continues to kill innocents. Do we continue to let him do so?

 

The difference is that God gives life and can take it. We have no right to take life from others unless it is the only way to protect the lives of others.

 

To be consistent, you, of necessity, must remove the bolded from your thinking. Proponents of the death penalty do say it is the only way to protect the lives of others, both for the accused and as as a deterrent.

 

You can't favor killing in self-defense if you belive taking life is always wrong. And if you believe in killing in self-defense, then you have just set a bar that must be judged by someone other than yourself. That same bar is judged by juries in death penalty cases.

What a waste of air.

The bolded is a dangerous, dangerous statement that can lead to eugenics. I'll take it in context, but keep in mind that most wouldn't.

 

FKY- as someone who believes that the government should stay out of our lives, why do you think that the state has the right to determine who deserves to live? Isn't that the ultimate intrusion of state into our lives?

 

Theoretically- psycho killer is in prison and, despite, 24/7 isolation, still manages to attack (and/or kill) a prison guard. Do we continue to let him live?

 

Another hypothetical- you have a poor, poor country without the means to imprison anyone for life (whether reasons are financial or anything). The man continues to escape from prison and continues to kill innocents. Do we continue to let him do so?

 

The difference is that God gives life and can take it. We have no right to take life from others unless it is the only way to protect the lives of others.

This person has given up all of their fundamental rights. I believe one of the only purposes of the state is safety and he is a threat to the safety of anyone he encounters.

5432. God also gave us Doctors to heal people just like he gave us the guys to throw the switch and the system that decides who gets the DP.

Here's the way I would deal with him....I'd figure out a mathematical equation to determine the baby's size and weight to that of the man, along with the speed of the car, and the impact that the baby would have upon hitting the surface, figure out how fast and high we'd have to be flying for the same impact, and throw this moron out of a plane.

To be consistent, you, of necessity, must remove the bolded from your thinking. Proponents of the death penalty do say it is the only way to protect the lives of others, both for the accused and as as a deterrent.

 

You can't favor killing in self-defense if you belive taking life is always wrong. And if you believe in killing in self-defense, then you have just set a bar that must be judged by someone other than yourself. That same bar is judged by juries in death penalty cases.

 

I hardly think I'll convince you, but I find my stance to be consistent.

 

It is not the only way simply because we have the resources to keep him locked up 24/7 for the rest of his life.

 

Furthermore, I never said taking of life is always wrong. Taking of life is always wrong if there is no other option to prevent more losses of life. This is why self-defense, just war, and capital punishment for those with whom we have no other method of stopping are fine.

 

I'm a bit unclear on what you mean by the underlined, if you don't mind further explaining it. Who else that judges it are you referring to?

I hardly think I'll convince you, but I find my stance to be consistent.

 

It is not the only way simply because we have the resources to keep him locked up 24/7 for the rest of his life.

 

Furthermore, I never said taking of life is always wrong. Taking of life is always wrong if there is no other option to prevent more losses of life. This is why self-defense, just war, and capital punishment for those with whom we have no other method of stopping are fine.

 

I'm a bit unclear on what you mean by the underlined, if you don't mind further explaining it. Who else that judges it are you referring to?

 

So you aren't against the death penalty then....

So you aren't against the death penalty then....

 

When the state has no other resources to protect society from a criminal, then I have no problem with the death penalty. Fortunately, our society has the ability to protect us without use of the death penalty in nearly all cases.

I hardly think I'll convince you, but I find my stance to be consistent.

 

It is not the only way simply because we have the resources to keep him locked up 24/7 for the rest of his life.

 

Furthermore, I never said taking of life is always wrong. Taking of life is always wrong if there is no other option to prevent more losses of life. This is why self-defense, just war, and capital punishment for those with whom we have no other method of stopping are fine.

 

I'm a bit unclear on what you mean by the underlined, if you don't mind further explaining it. Who else that judges it are you referring to?

 

A jury decides if you acted in self-defense. My language was poor.

A jury decides if you acted in self-defense. My language was poor.

I think I understand what you are getting at, and I disagree.

 

First of all, if I remember correctly, your posts have indicated a good faith in the jury system- I'm not arguing there. What you are saying is that, just as the jury has the right to determine whether or not I act in self-defense, they have the same right to determine whether or not someone deserves the death penalty.

 

Once again- just because a jury has the legal right, does not make it ethical. I think that the death penalty is too often used. It is the same view that I have on abortion- I don't think that every instance of removing the fetus prematurely from the womb should be illegal- because when the mother's life is in danger, it is necessary to save life, and every other attempt to save the baby must be made. However, >99% of abortions in this country are for other reasons, and therefore I am against them. Similarly, I don't think that every instance of capital punishment should be illegal- because when the state has no other method of protecting society, then it is necessary to prevent the loss of other lives. However, I think that we have become trigger-happy with the death penalty, handing out the sentence as an act of retribution instead of necessity.