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.
It is the system is putting people to death,
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.
who are being proven to not have committed the crime for which they are awaiting death.
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.
How can the penalty be okay, justified, if the system that leads to said penalty is flawed?
Explain please?
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.
Crabtownboy said:
So the death of a few innocent folk is just hunky wonderful with you, right? Collateral damage, right?
Your first fallacy, a strawman. I never said I was happy that innocents were killed. I have already made my stance clear. Compared to the good it has done (which is verifiable with a simple google search), those few innocents that have died are justified. Sad? Yes. But justified. This is opinion. Opinion cannot be debated.
Wonder how you would feel if you had been framed and was sitting on death row even though you are innocent.
Your second fallacy - an appeal to emotion - aside, of course I would be outraged. I would do everything in my power to appeal. But that's not the point, is it. Regardless of my personal feelings, my opinion and stance still stands.
Can you show me where it is Biblical to execute innocent people?
And the third fallacy. A strawman argument. I assume you know what this means? But just in case, I'll explain it. You took something I am NOT arguing for, and made it seem that I AM arguing for it, then attacked that instead of my actual argument. I am not even going to dignify this with an answer, as you and I both know that is not what I am saying.
You're 0/3 in this post alone, CTB. In fact, you didn't put one thing in that post that was valid for conversation. Quit trying to wrangle what I am saying and actually take what I say at face value, and discuss what I am saying, not what you want me to have said.
Zaac said:
I understand this. I do realize that it's opinion. How much gain does it take to justify loss? That's for each person to decide for himself. For some no loss can be justified. For others, it's a percentage game.
The correlation is that human life is human life. We have socially created something of a caste system that seems to value some more than others. But BIBLICALLY, human life is human life. Scripture tells us that God does not show favoritism. He has not decided that one life is more innocent than another. We have.
I can agree with this in the scope of eternity, and eternal destination. Where I diverge is in the earthly realm. Sin is sin, and all deserve Hell for it. However, while stealing an $.80 candy bar is enough to send you to Hell, it will not get you 45 years to life. On earth, we have a scaling punishment system. Even as parents we do the same thing with our children. You stayed out 5 minutes past curfew? You might get grouned for a while. You went out with your friends and got drunk? You're probably going to get something more than grounded, and not be able to hang out with those friends.
This being said, that's why I believe the death penalty is appropriate for some crimes. If you destroy a (earthly) innocent life, then your life is no longer (earthly) innocent, and is forfeit.
I am not going to discuss the Biblical portion of it, and how I believe the command still stands. This is an area in which we obviously disagree. I know the arguments saying it's not Biblical anymore, and I have come to a different conclusion.