Capital Punishment -- Proof it should be eliminated

[Alcott]

I would FAR prefer to be executed for a crime I did not commit than to spend any time close to 3 decades in prison.

 

[carpro]

You can't possibly be this stupid. This information was readily available via the world wide web and it took approximately 4 seconds to find this answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution#United_States

Except they don't name even one person who has been absolutely proven to have been innocent and executed.

You need to improve your critical reading skills and wiki is always questionable. But even wiki doesn't assert anyone's innocence just that they might have been, simply because some of the evidence may have been questionable.

Not an epic fail on your part, simply a typical fail.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Except they don't name even one person who has been absolutely proven to have been innocent and executed.

You need to improve your critical reading skills and wiki is always questionable. But even wiki doesn't assert anyone's innocence just that they might have been, simply because some of the evidence may have been questionable.

Not an epic fail on your part, simply a typical fail.

How often is a case reopened once a person has been executed? It is obvious that is 140 people on death row were released since the '70's there were others who were innocent but put to death.

Why do you defend killing people when it is obvious that there are innocent people on death row?

 

[Zaac]

Zaac - do you ascribe to "love the sinner, hate the sin"?

Where people are concerned, I keep it simple by attempting to follow God's two Greatest Commandments. Essentially love Him and love others.

I'm a fellow sinner.

 

[Jerome]

Wisdom from U.S. Senator Mark Hatfield:

Memories of Senator Mark O. Hatfield

After two weeks in DC I found a church, Capitol Hill Metropolitan Baptist. Mark Dever was the new pastor, he had yet to be installed. I soon discovered that the Senator and his wife were members of CHMBC. Obviously the Senator traveled a good bit, but when he was in town, he attended church. He even gave a Sunday evening devotional. It was about how Constantine corrupted the church by marrying church and state. Hatfield was a strong believer, and it would be wrong to say he kept his faith and his politics separate. He wore his faith on his sleeve. Nonetheless he was convinced that evangelicals too often used Christian arguments to dogmatically support positions over which Christians could, in good conscience differ.

https://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/oregon-may-vote-ending-death-penalty

Kitzhaber and Hatfield, two of Oregon's most popular political figures, have lent their names to an effort to ask voters to outlaw capital punishment in November.

Hatfield, who has opposed the death penalty throughout his political career, believes it is time for Oregon to revisit the issue, especially in light of questions that have been raised about capital punishment in other states.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Thirty years on death row and innocent. Thankfully he was not executed before proven innocent.

So you rather dismiss Gods word for your liberal view? That's warped! Go read Romans about God appointed government and bearing the sword.

 

[Gina B]

As much as I believe in capital punishment, I grow wary of it in light of the numbers of innocent people falsely convicted.
The system is not trustworthy and injustice too easily bought or coerced. Why should we let a corrupted system have the ultimate power - to take the lives of citizens? If we have to halt the death penalty until the issue can be corrected, it would merely be a side effect of already working outside of G-d's will, not a stepping out. Because corruption and injustice already places us on the outside.

 

[Use of Time]

So you rather dismiss Gods word for your liberal view? That's warped! Go read Romans about God appointed government and bearing the sword.

So because he is happy that an innocent person avoided execution after being on death row for 30 years, that is a liberal position? Are you insane?

 

[matt wade]

So because he is happy that an innocent person avoided execution after being on death row for 30 years, that is a liberal position? Are you insane?

Didn't you hear? It's 1984! Don't question the government. God's word says we have to accept and obey everything from our government!

 

[Jedi Knight]

So because he is happy that an innocent person avoided execution after being on death row for 30 years, that is a liberal position? Are you insane?

if I was a liberal I would be insane.

 

[Use of Time]

Didn't you hear? It's 1984! Don't question the government. God's word says we have to accept and obey everything from our government!

Is everybody insane? What does this have to do with anything I said?

 

[matt wade]

Is everybody insane? What does this have to do with anything I said?

I was responding to your response to Jedi Knight. He said:

"So you rather dismiss Gods word for your liberal view? That's warped! Go read Romans about God appointed government and bearing the sword."

My response was rather sarcastic, and it obviously flew over your head. Don't worry...I'm not poking fun at you. I'm poking fun at the fact that Jedi Knight thinks we should all be in lock step with our government and that we are dismissing God's word if we aren't.

 

[Don]

Where people are concerned, I keep it simple by attempting to follow God's two Greatest Commandments. Essentially love Him and love others.

I'm a fellow sinner.

Two problems with what you just answered: If you're not telling people what their sin is, then how do they know they're sinners? It's not love to let them continue in their sin. Jesus didn't say "I love you no matter what"; He said, "go, and sin no more."

Second, you and I are both fellow sinners; but we're forgiven. Unless you want to make the case that Christ has forgiven the unrepentent and those that refuse to believe on Him...in which case, you need to get ready for the next big argument about that subject.

No one takes -- or should be taking -- joy in the death penalty. But it's not just permissable; it's mandatory. God didn't just say it's okay to have a death penalty; He said the rulers are a sword for Him.

And since we've had this discussion several times in the past, I'll leave it at that.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Two problems with what you just answered: If you're not telling people what their sin is, then how do they know they're sinners? It's not love to let them continue in their sin. Jesus didn't say "I love you no matter what"; He said, "go, and sin no more."

Second, you and I are both fellow sinners; but we're forgiven. Unless you want to make the case that Christ has forgiven the unrepentent and those that refuse to believe on Him...in which case, you need to get ready for the next big argument about that subject.

No one takes -- or should be taking -- joy in the death penalty. But it's not just permissable; it's mandatory. God didn't just say it's okay to have a death penalty; He said the rulers are a sword for Him.

And since we've had this discussion several times in the past, I'll leave it at that.

Well said Don!

 

[Zaac]

Two problems with what you just answered: If you're not telling people what their sin is, then how do they know they're sinners?

No, the problem arises if you think me loving them doesn't INCLUDE me telling them about Jesus and how to be saved. I assure you that with me, that will never be an issue. :laugh:

It's not love to let them continue in their sin. Jesus didn't say "I love you no matter what"; He said, "go, and sin no more."

No disagreement from me. And I think you know that I would never do that.

Second, you and I are both fellow sinners; but we're forgiven. Unless you want to make the case that Christ has forgiven the unrepentent and those that refuse to believe on Him...in which case, you need to get ready for the next big argument about that subject.

Uggh. Why would I do THAT?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Except they don't name even one person who has been absolutely proven to have been innocent and executed.

Why would a case be reopened and expenses incurred once a person has been executed. It wouldn't and that is the primary reason no one already executed has been found innocent. Where is your critical thinking skills.

But we know that innocent people have been released from death row. Thus we know there are still innocent people on death row, but the proof has not been found and may never be found.

Thus, it is only logical to say that innocent people in the past have been executed and that innocent people in the future will also be executed if capital punishment continues.

Thus, IMNO, as long as there is the possibility of innocent people being on death row no executions should be allowed.

 

[go2church]

Firstly, I'd like to respectfully ask you to refrain from the usage of that acronym. People can say that they don't mean it as a cuss word, and insert "heck" in there, but its common usage is cursing.

The system of finding someone guilty of a crime is not what is putting them on death row. The system only determines guilt. The punishment and the system are two separate entities. Even the liberal media puts the innocent rate at 4.1%. The conservative rate is 1.6%. And that includes pardons, charges dropped, and those where more evidence was found.

With this sentence, you just contradicted yourself when you said that the system is putting people to death. You showed that you understand that the penalty is separate. However, to answer your question, let's look at the system. As I said, the system is somewhere between 95.9% - 98.4% accurate right now. Even in the opposition's estimate, it estimates 340 of the more than 8,000 death row convicts since 1973 have been innocent. (I know this contradicts my earlier post where I said less than a dozen in the last 50 years. I'm not too proud to admit I was wrong there) The system is pretty accurate, and getting more accurate all the time with DNA evidence.

I didn't mean heck. Statement of shock and or surprise.

The system in your opinion should be systemS, okay. When I said system, I was referencing both parts as I don't see how you can get to one without the other. To follow your line of thinking, my main issue is with the penalty phase, specifically with the application of death as a penalty as acceptable, knowing full well that there are mistakes being made. I find that just unacceptable, even at a best 1.4%. You seem to think that mistakes with a persons life are acceptable. The question is at what percentage does it become not okay? Couldn't those of the pro-choice camp,say the same thing? Hey, we're only killing 1.4% of the babies, what's the problem? Seems ridiculous. Be it via abortion or lethal injection, killing innocents is wrong.

 

[Sapper Woody]

Couldn't those of the pro-choice camp,say the same thing? Hey, we're only killing 1.4% of the babies, what's the problem?

No, because (using the innocence argument, which I don't) 100% of those babies are innocent. It's not even a comparison. It's not like 98% of those babies are felons.

Seems ridiculous. Be it via abortion or lethal injection, killing innocents is wrong.

I disagree. Unfortunate, yes. Sad, yes. But I don't think it's wrong. For example, a gunman grabs a hostage, and threatens to kill everyone on a plane. If the only recourse is to kill the innocent to save the others, I'm going to take that shot. It's the same with capital punishment. It's a deterrent. That's verifiable. If it saves hundreds of lives that would be murdered, I'm going to "take that shot" to take down the murderers, even if it means a few innocents have to go down, too.

It's unfortunate. It's sad. But it's not wrong.

In my opinion.

 

[Salty]

...Now as for me, I am against the taking of a human life PERIOD.

Many years ago, I escorted a young Pvt E-2 into the Commanders office. Awaiting him was an Article 15 - (non-judicial punishment). The punishment of the Cdr was a demotion to Pvt E-1.

When the PVT, came out he was complaining that the "old man" took his stripe. I told him that's incorrect. You did it to yourself.

And likewise - when a man is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - the State is NOT taking his life -the Criminal did it to himself.

 

[go2church]

No, because (using the innocence argument, which I don't) 100% of those babies are innocent. It's not even a comparison. It's not like 98% of those babies are felons.

I disagree. Unfortunate, yes. Sad, yes. But I don't think it's wrong. For example, a gunman grabs a hostage, and threatens to kill everyone on a plane. If the only recourse is to kill the innocent to save the others, I'm going to take that shot. It's the same with capital punishment. It's a deterrent. That's verifiable. If it saves hundreds of lives that would be murdered, I'm going to "take that shot" to take down the murderers, even if it means a few innocents have to go down, too.

It's unfortunate. It's sad. But it's not wrong.

In my opinion.

I'm referencing those that you said were wrongly killed, innocents.