Death Penalty??

Our Constitution is in no way based on Biblical Law. Unless by Biblical Law you mean the parts that outlaw murder and stealing and whatnot (Laws that exist in virtually every society in the world). Please show us how the Constitution is based on Biblical law. Feel free to use the Constitution as a reference.

Yes, biblical laws about murder, etc.. Read some of the history about the Founding Fathers and the use of the Bible with the Constitution. I did not say it was a “word for word” use on the WRITINGS but it was read for reference and guidance to ensure that WE were a CHRISTIAN nation. We could have said YES back then but now…..NO. It has been said many times that if someone who isn’t a Christian and does not want to have anything about the Bible and Christian prayers in schools, etc.,they can easily go to a country other than the USA. When others come to our country, they should accept it as a CHRISTIAN nation although the UCLA has did great damage to this concept. If you go to another country and break one of their laws, what happens?

Because they fight to preserve civil liberties? How dare they!

I though you would love following article as it is about the ACLU and their anti-Christian beliefs. Christian does not mean OTHER religions. There was a time when prayers were ok in schools along with bringing your Bible to school.

BATON ROUGE, LA--Acting on behalf of a family that declined to be identified for fear of retaliation, the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana today filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to end public school endorsement of prayer during graduation and award ceremonies.
“School personnel who use their official position to promote the majority Christian religion make children and their parents who believe otherwise feel unwelcome in their own community,” said Joe Cook, Executive Director of the ACLU of Louisiana.
"In other parts of the world,” Cook noted, “religion is used by local majorities to justify the mistreatment of religious minorities, including Christian missionaries. Such religious intolerance continues to destroy communities all over the world. We risk letting that happen here in Louisiana at our peril.”
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a man identified only as “John Doe,” on behalf of himself and his son, “Tom Doe.” The Doe family said they are filing the lawsuit to prevent further violations of their religious freedom. They have asked not to be identified publicly because they fear that their neighbors or others might retaliate against them for opposing the school’s prayer activities. The lawsuit asks the federal court to declare school-sponsored prayer in the public schools of West Feliciana Parish unconstitutional and to issue a permanent injunction to stop such activities in the future.
According to the legal complaint, on May 18, 2001, John Doe's adult child attended graduation ceremonies at West Feliciana High School where the principal's address to the graduates quoted Christian Bible verses and the graduation closed with a religious benediction. Prior to the graduation, John Doe had sent a letter to school officials requesting a graduation ceremony free from religious references. The Doe family fears that their second child, “Tom Doe,” will be subjected to similar actions when he graduates.
In addition, the ACLU complaint describes religious references at an award ceremony held at Bains Elementary School on May 25, 2001, just seven days after the high school incident. Prior to this occasion, John Doe had sent a letter to the school board requesting that the ceremony be conducted in a secular manner free of religious references.
Despite Doe’s request, Reverend Milton Coates delivered a Christian prayer before the awards presentation and Superintendent Lloyd Lindsey introduced himself to the crowd as a member of Grace Episcopal Church. Before presenting each award, he said, "God bless you in your academic pursuits."
"Public schools are not Sunday school, and the place for the teaching of religion belongs in the home and in places of worship chosen by the parents of children,” Cook said. “Schools can and should teach tolerance and good citizenship, but must not favor one religion over another or belief over non-belief,” he added, noting that the United States is the most religiously diverse nation in the world, home to 1,500 different religious groups, along with atheists, agnostics, and other belief systems.
The defendants in the case are the West Feliciana Parish School Board by and through Superintendent Lloyd Lindsey, Bains Elementary School Principal and Mike Thornhill, Principal of West Feliciana High School.

There are thousands of articles such as this daily where the ACLU is tearing our once Christian country apart.

God Bless…………………..Alex

 

Me, too. Another proponent of the ACLU...Atheists/Agnostics Civil Liberties Union.

The anti-death penalty, pro-abortion, anti-gun, anti-God, pro-evolution, pro-secular humanism, pro-twist the original meaning of the Constitution around bunch.

 

Me, too. Another proponent of the ACLU...Atheists/Agnostics Civil Liberties Union.

The anti-death penalty, pro-abortion, anti-gun, anti-God, pro-evolution, pro-secular humanism, pro-twist the original meaning of the Constitution around bunch. </font>[/QUOTE]Y'all(as in the South), haven't seen a reply to my post yet! May not be any??

God Bless............Alex

 

Yes, biblical laws about murder, etc.. Read some of the history about the Founding Fathers and the use of the Bible with the Constitution.

I've read much on the history of the Founding Fathers. I asked you to provide references. You have provided none.

I did not say it was a “word for word” use on the WRITINGS but it was read for reference and guidance to ensure that WE were a CHRISTIAN nation.

Really? Why is there absolutely no such sentiment in the Constitution? The Constitution is a completely secular document. Does our government resemble ANYTHING in the Bible? The Old Testament shows us a Jewish Monarchy. The New Testament shows us an occupied people under the Roman Empire. So clearly the American System isn't based on the Bible. The American system in fact has 3 primary sources to thank: English Common Law, English Parliament, and John Locke. What didn't come from those three sources was invented by the Founding Fathers. To say we were designed as a Christian nation because we have laws against murder and stealing is absurd. Every society that ever existed has such provisions.

[We could have said YES back then but now…..NO. It has been said many times that if someone who isn’t a Christian and does not want to have anything about the Bible and Christian prayers in schools, etc.,they can easily go to a country other than the USA.

Which violates EVERYTHING this nation ever stood for. "Love it or leave it" is not in the Constitution. It was never meant to be. The founding fathers, some Christian, some Deist, created a nation in which everyone is welcome.

If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mohometans, Jews or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists.
-- George Washington in a letter asking for laborers to add additions to his home

Clearly Washington believed in that evil multiculturalism.

When others come to our country, they should accept it as a CHRISTIAN nation although the UCLA has did great damage to this concept.

The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation
-The Treaty of Tripoli of 1797, written during Washington's term, signed into law during Adams' term. It was approved unanimously by the Senate.

If you go to another country and break one of their laws, what happens?

Luckily, in this nation, we have the 1st amendment which protects free speech and free thought. If you want a theocracy, Iran will embrace you with open arms.

I though you would love following article as it is about the ACLU and their anti-Christian beliefs. Christian does not mean OTHER religions. There was a time when prayers were ok in schools along with bringing your Bible to school.

Prayer is still ok in schools. You can still bring Bibles to school. What you CAN'T have is the faculty organizing prayer or organizing Bible study or whatever. At my old school, a public institution, I saw people carry Bibles all the time. They were mostly all members of Bible study. Yes, my school had after school Bible study. They were given every right the SGA or FBLA or any other group was given. They held fundraisers. They past out literature at lunch. That is their right. What is unconstitutional is the principal of a school organizing a prayer at a graduation or whatever. Now, let's read your article. My guess is that it will most certainly fit into column B instead of column A.

BATON ROUGE, LA--Acting on behalf of a family that declined to be identified for fear of retaliation, the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana today filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to end public school endorsement of prayer during graduation and award ceremonies.
“School personnel who use their official position to promote the majority Christian religion make children and their parents who believe otherwise feel unwelcome in their own community,” said Joe Cook, Executive Director of the ACLU of Louisiana.
"In other parts of the world,” Cook noted, “religion is used by local majorities to justify the mistreatment of religious minorities, including Christian missionaries. Such religious intolerance continues to destroy communities all over the world. We risk letting that happen here in Louisiana at our peril.”
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a man identified only as “John Doe,” on behalf of himself and his son, “Tom Doe.” The Doe family said they are filing the lawsuit to prevent further violations of their religious freedom. They have asked not to be identified publicly because they fear that their neighbors or others might retaliate against them for opposing the school’s prayer activities. The lawsuit asks the federal court to declare school-sponsored prayer in the public schools of West Feliciana Parish unconstitutional and to issue a permanent injunction to stop such activities in the future.
According to the legal complaint, on May 18, 2001, John Doe's adult child attended graduation ceremonies at West Feliciana High School where the principal's address to the graduates quoted Christian Bible verses and the graduation closed with a religious benediction. Prior to the graduation, John Doe had sent a letter to school officials requesting a graduation ceremony free from religious references. The Doe family fears that their second child, “Tom Doe,” will be subjected to similar actions when he graduates.
In addition, the ACLU complaint describes religious references at an award ceremony held at Bains Elementary School on May 25, 2001, just seven days after the high school incident. Prior to this occasion, John Doe had sent a letter to the school board requesting that the ceremony be conducted in a secular manner free of religious references.
Despite Doe’s request, Reverend Milton Coates delivered a Christian prayer before the awards presentation and Superintendent Lloyd Lindsey introduced himself to the crowd as a member of Grace Episcopal Church. Before presenting each award, he said, "God bless you in your academic pursuits."
"Public schools are not Sunday school, and the place for the teaching of religion belongs in the home and in places of worship chosen by the parents of children,” Cook said. “Schools can and should teach tolerance and good citizenship, but must not favor one religion over another or belief over non-belief,” he added, noting that the United States is the most religiously diverse nation in the world, home to 1,500 different religious groups, along with atheists, agnostics, and other belief systems.
The defendants in the case are the West Feliciana Parish School Board by and through Superintendent Lloyd Lindsey, Bains Elementary School Principal and Mike Thornhill, Principal of West Feliciana High School.

Yep. The article is just what I expected it to be. In this situation, you have a principal promoting Christianity. Had the Bible verses come from a student (as did my graduation in which the Vice-president of the class ended her speech with a Bible verse), that would be perfectly acceptable. But the school cannot promote one religion over another.

There are thousands of articles such as this daily where the ACLU is tearing our once Christian country apart.

Or strengthening the secular nation to ensure religious liberty for all. The state cannot sponser a religion. It is as simple as that.

 

Actually, I have a busy life outside of the internet. My apologies.

 

I'm just appalled at the troll accusations based on disagreement. Yeesh. Why have a politics forum if we're all supposed to agree?

Do some research on how much it costs to pursue a capital case. A lot more than 3 grand. It's typically double or triple the cost of what it costs to keep a person in prison for life. Your vision ($3K for the drugs and supervision during the injection) isn't based on anything. Now, if we did go back to vigilanteism and just eliminate appeals (and perhaps even the original trial?), maybe your costs would be accurate. In that case, I'll refer you to to my first argument about vengeance not being an acceptable reason for capital punishment. Besides, if we lived in a society in which we could just presume guilt and take matters into our own hands, we would be back to living in the state of nature (read Hobbes and Locke for more on social contract theory).

Whether or not the framers were Christian (which I will stipulate some, perhaps even most, of them were) is irrelevant. One of the things this country was founded on was religious freedom, which in itself negates the idea of a Christian nation - as far as government is concerned. Your conclusion that this country is a Christian nation -- because some of our laws are based on Christian beliefs and that some of the framers were Christian -- is false. The logic used to get to that conclusion is lacking.

Anyway, this conversation has really taken a downturn. No honest, open exchange of ideas here, no sirree! Just some insults hurled around to make those dissenting seem invalid.

Why Conservatives Should Oppose the Death Penalty - the money stuff is toward the bottom

I've got some cost information from various news articles on my home pc - I may post them later.

 

To the opposition:

The Founding Fathers and Deism

by David Barton

(We receive numerous requests from across the country to answer various editorials and letters-to-the-editor. The subject is usually the religious persuasions of the Founding Fathers, and the standard assertion is that they were all deists. The following is but one of many possible replies to such accusations.)

I notice that your newspaper has an ongoing debate concerning the religious nature of the Founding Fathers. A recent letter claimed that most of the Founding Fathers were deists, and pointed to Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, Hamilton, and Madison as proof. After making this charge, the writer acknowledged the "voluminous writings" of the Founders, but it appears that she has not read those writings herself. However, this is no surprise since the U. S. Department of Education claims that only 5 percent of high schools graduates know how to examine primary source documentation.

Interestingly, the claims in this recent letter to the editor are characteristic of similar claims appearing in hundreds of letters to the editor across the nation. The standard assertion is that the Founders were deists. Deists? What is a deist? In dictionaries like Websters, Funk & Wagnalls, Century, and others, the terms "deist," "agnostic," and "atheist" appear as synonyms. Therefore, the range of a deist spans from those who believe there is no God, to those who believe in a distant, impersonal creator of the universe, to those who believe there is no way to know if God exists. Do the Founders fit any of these definitions?

None of the notable Founders fit this description. Thomas Paine, in his discourse on "The Study of God," forcefully asserts that it is "the error of schools" to teach sciences without "reference to the Being who is author of them: for all the principles of science are of Divine origin." He laments that "the evil that has resulted from the error of the schools in teaching [science without God] has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism." Paine not only believed in God, he believed in a reality beyond the visible world.

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the necessity of a public religion . . . and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern." Consider also the fact that Franklin proposed a Biblical inscription for the Seal of the United States; that he chose a New Testament verse for the motto of the Philadelphia Hospital; that he was one of the chief voices behind the establishment of a paid chaplain in Congress; and that when in 1787 when Franklin helped found the college which bore his name, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning" built "on Christ, the Corner-Stone." Franklin certainly doesn't fit the definition of a deist.

Nor does George Washington. He was an open promoter of Christianity. For example, in his speech on May 12, 1779, he claimed that what children needed to learn "above all" was the "religion of Jesus Christ," and that to learn this would make them "greater and happier than they already are"; on May 2, 1778, he charged his soldiers at Valley Forge that "To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian"; and when he resigned his commission as commander-in-chief of the military on June 8, 1783, he reminded the nation that "without a humble imitation" of "the Divine Author of our blessed religion" we "can never hope to be a happy nation." Washington's own adopted daughter declared of Washington that you might as well question his patriotism as to question his Christianity.

Alexander Hamilton was certainly no deist. For example, Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great: (1) Christianity, and (2) a Constitution formed under Christianity. Only Hamilton's death two months later thwarted his plan of starting a missionary society to promote Christian government. And at the time he did face his death in his duel with Aaron Burr, Hamilton met and prayed with the Rev. Mason and Bishop Moore, wherein he reaffirmed to him his readiness to face God should he die, having declared to them "a lively faith in God's mercy through Christ, with a thankful remembrance of the death of Christ." At that time, he also partook of Holy Communion with Bishop Moore.

The reader, as do many others, claimed that Jefferson omitted all miraculous events of Jesus from his "Bible." Rarely do those who make this claim let Jefferson speak for himself. Jefferson own words explain that his intent for that book was not for it to be a "Bible," but rather for it to be a primer for the Indians on the teachings of Christ (which is why Jefferson titled that work, "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth"). What Jefferson did was to take the "red letter" portions of the New Testament and publish these teachings in order to introduce the Indians to Christian morality. And as President of the United States, Jefferson negotiated treaties with the Kaskaskia, Cherokee, and Wyandotte tribes wherein he provided—at the government's expense—Christian missionaries to the Indians. In fact, Jefferson himself declared, "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." While many might question this claim, the fact remains that Jefferson called himself a Christian, not a deist.

James Madison trained for ministry with the Rev. Dr. John Witherspoon, and Madison's writings are replete with declarations of his faith in God and in Christ. In fact, for proof of this, one only need read his letter to Attorney General Bradford wherein Madison laments that public officials are not bold enough about their Christian faith in public and that public officials should be "fervent advocates in the cause of Christ." And while Madison did allude to a "wall of separation," contemporary writers frequently refuse to allow Madison to provide his own definition of that "wall." According to Madison, the purpose of that "wall" was only to prevent Congress from passing a national law to establish a national religion.

None of the Founders mentioned fit the definition of a deist. And as is typical with those who make this claim, they name only a handful of Founders and then generalize the rest. This in itself is a mistake, for there are over two hundred Founders (fifty-five at the Constitutional Convention, ninety who framed the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights, and fifty-six who signed the Declaration) and any generalization of the Founders as deists is completely inaccurate.

The reason that such critics never mention any other Founders is evident. For example, consider what must be explained away if the following signers of the Constitution were to be mentioned: Charles Pinckney and John Langdon—founders of the American Bible Society; James McHenry—founder of the Baltimore Bible Society; Rufus King—helped found a Bible society for Anglicans; Abraham Baldwin—a chaplain in the Revolution and considered the youngest theologian in America; Roger Sherman, William Samuel Johnson, John Dickinson, and Jacob Broom—also theological writers; James Wilson and William Patterson—placed on the Supreme Court by President George Washington, they had prayer over juries in the U. S. Supreme Court room; and the list could go on. And this does not even include the huge number of thoroughly evangelical Christians who signed the Declaration or who helped frame the Bill of Rights.

Any portrayal of any handful of Founders as deists is inaccurate. (If this group had really wanted some irreligious Founders, they should have chosen Henry Dearborne, Charles Lee, or Ethan Allen). Perhaps critics should spend more time reading the writings of the Founders to discover their religious beliefs for themselves rather than making such sweeping accusations which are so easily disproven.

Thank You,
David Barton/WallBuilders

What does " In God We Trust", mean and is this a reference to Christianity?

Why is the Bible used to "swear in" those who are to be a witness, etc.?

I reference our nation as once a Christian Nation with my past life WHEN God/Jesus came first. Before I was born, this was even a greater claim. I will say again that organizatios such as the ACLU and many others like this one has slowly but surely changed what young people now see as their nation. Have there not been many changes to the constitution and thousands of laws since the founding that have literally given killers more power than Christians? To deny this is to be with them and against God and His Word. This is still a free country, so you have the right to go with or against God/Jesus. There is NO "in between" or so called "grey" areas. I will say(opinion), that when the constitution was written over 50 percent of the population, was Christian as opposed to less than twenty percent now. That is how far backwards "we the people" have gotten. Evolution has it's place in society now, as many think like apes. There is an old saying stating, " That if the shoe fits, wear it".

God Bless.............Alex

 

And yet Madison, and Jefferson, and Franklin, and Washington all opposed founding America as a Christian nation. How could such people believe in a creator and yet not want the nation to be founded on Him?

Because they knew what such nations are like. And they aren't Godly in the least. Theocracies are Iran. America is a secular nation. That's why the founders, in the treaty with Tripoli declared that the United States was not founded as a Christian nation.

That's how it was. That's how it should be. God neither wants nor needs public assistance.

And try to learn what evolutionary is about. It neither says humans are apes, nor does it say that they will or should act like apes.

 

I'm just unsure as to what Constitutional amendments or laws have taken the side of wrong-doers? Ensuring everyone has the same rights is not giving more power to those who break the law. In fact, I'd say it's actually making sure that no one can later say he or she was not treated fairly and have a judgement overruled - actually giving law-breakers less independent power (at least over the 'system'. Granted, judgements are overturned due to "technical" errors, but those are human errors, not Constitutional or the laws' errors.

I do want to make sure I get this right, so please clarify if I've gotten it wrong - are you saying that being in favor of the same rights for all citizens (even the rights of the accused and the convicted) makes a person 'on the side of the killers' and against God and his word? If you are, that doesn't seem right to me. Believing that a guilty person should have the same rights as you or I doesn't negate the belief that that guity person is a wrong-doer and should be punished. Perhaps I don't understand what you meant?

I don't think that, in this thread, it has been suggested that some or most of the framers were not Christian. Did I skip over something? Is that at issue? I just said that their Christianity is not proof that they intended this country to be run as a theocracy. Thinking that the people should be Christian is hardly the same as thinking that the country should call itself a "Christian nation."

It's interesting - as a society, I think many of the framers would have loved it if the majority of Americans were Christian. But, by creating a republic, they created a secular government, which disallows the creation of laws based solely on religious grounds. Murder can be argued against using religious belief, but it can also be argued using secular logic, which is how it should be argued in a secular system. To base laws solely on religious belief is to *ahem* establish religion. It is entirely possible to establish religion without saying "XYZ is the religion you will follow." After all, isn't that what the 9th circuit court decided?

 

Is its meaning is question? Do we really need to break it down? I think it's pretty straightforward. Yes, it is a reference to Christianity. Well, Judaism and Christianity (JudeoChristianity, for those who don't mind linking them for this purpose). After all the hoopla about its inception, are you saying you really don't know when it was first used on our money? It is yet another tidbit from the McCarthy era, like "under God" in the pledge. It'll probably be the next to go.

There is no legal requirement for swearing on a Bible, nor saying "so help me God" in an oath,
The S.C. ruled in Abington v. Schempp that use of a Bible at a swearing or affirming ceremony sould not be required. We (I actually do not, so I use the pronoun "we" loosely) do it because it is tradition. It's an old European tradition from the Dark Ages that some choose to continue. It's in no way required of anyone.

Just thought I'd answer your two questions.

 

I don't know how I would feel if I were Samantha Runnion's mother. No one can. That almost makes it irrelevant to this argument.

That aside, I can't accept that he should be put to death to ease the mother's pain, or that anyone should try to feel her pain in order to understand why Avila "should" get the death penalty. That's not a fair argument to make, and still rests on the idea of vengeance. Does that not make sense? If that's the new reason - the mother's hurting and we should kill him to ease her pain, well, that's in complete opposition to the earlier arguments about God's law being the reason. Or am I to expect the response that it's both reasons, with the pain of the mother just being a secondary one?

I would like to think that if I were in Erin Runnion's position, I would uphold my principles, yes. I might want him dead, but in our society, based on man's laws, I couldn't condone it, and would not request that death be put on the table.
But, it's almost meaningless for me to say that, since I'm not in that position and may never be (at least not in enough time to finish this debate here). In my experience, anecdotal evidence has little foundation anyway.

I don't see how Avila's death would ease the mother's pain, and the mere possibility of it doing so is not enough to convince me that he should die. I certainly don't care more for him than her, though (though that seems to be the inferrence by my opposition to the death penalty).

I also don't believe in the "what-ifs." I think it's futile. If the man is given life without possibility of parole, we should consider that enough. We could go down the slippery slope with the what-ifs and get ourselves in real trouble. If the problem is that records aren't good enough to make sure lifers (without possibility of parole) don't slip through, fix that problem. Although, life without possibility of parole is a relatively new sentence, so maybe that has something to do with it.

a few cost links, since you mentioned it again (btw, using hypothetical numbers just doesn't work - you're making assumptions on the goings-on that you really can't know):

Cost of DP in Florida

The most comprehensive study in the country found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of imprisonment for life (Duke University, May 1993.) On a national basis, these figures translate to an extra cost of over $1 billion dollars spent since 1976 on the death penalty. The study,"The Costs of Processing Murder Cases in North Carolina" is available on line at www-pps.aas.duke.edu/people/faculty/cook/comnc.pdf

Death Trip: The American Way of Execution

Death Penalty Costs on the Rise

 

That article was creative and sneaky, but inaccurate. I will respond to it, you have my word. In at least 3 of the founding fathers mentioned, it's what they leave out that's more interesting than what they put in. Jefferson's and Paine's words were taken out of context and Franklin was notorious in his fluxtuating religious beliefs. To be continued...

 

First, sorry Multimom that I lead this debate away from your original intent, so with this in mind, I will briefly address some replies to my post and get back inline with your post.

TO: Stubbornkelly and Candide: My orginal intent, was to show that murder back in the Founding Father's days was the death penality for murders, etc. and it was carried out swiftly with little or no cost as opposed to apeals that last 10 years or more and then, finally and maybe, the death penality is enforced. If you want to believe this just happened and was not Bibically inspired, then, that is your right. I choose to believe otherwise as I grew up in a God fearing society, at least for the most part. That is not so now. A murder that happened around here in the 40's and 50's was state wide news. We had a murder committed every 10 years or so. Now. locally, it is almost everyday. WHY? Because the majority get a slap on the hands and are let go.

To Galatian:

The two questions I asked were just to see what the replies would bring forth. I believe that both of these were, at one time, taken seriously as at least giving God some respect. As for secular and Christian differences, that is why we are all called sinners in the Bible. Secular views(majority), do not take into consideration the Bible. As for the negatives on the Founding Fathers, we can always find something wrong with what ANY person has done, if we only look in that direction. I would guess that our forefathers had many things that weren't kosher with God. So do I.

I am at somewhat of a disadvantage when debating with a high school diploma as opposed to the well learned college grads and scholars. I do the best I can and sometimes I get a little worked up and apologize for it. So, lets carry on with Multimom's last post!

God Bless.........Alex

[ July 29, 2002, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: Alex ]

 

Since part of the debate is about cost, here is a report on the overall cost of the death penality in different states:

Costs of the Death Penalty
DPIC Report:
Millions Misspent: What Politicians Don't Say About the High Costs of the Death Penalty (updated version, 1994)
Testimony of Richard C. Dieter, Executive Director, Death Penalty Information Center, regarding the costs of the death penalty to the Assembly and Senate of Nevada, Legislative Commission's Subcommittee to Study the Death Penalty and Related DNA Testing.

Financial Facts About the Death Penalty:

The most comprehensive study in the country found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of imprisonment for life (Duke University, May 1993.) On a national basis, these figures translate to an extra cost of over $1 billion dollars spent since 1976 on the death penalty. The study,"The Costs of Processing Murder Cases in North Carolina" is available on line at www-pps.aas.duke.edu/people/faculty/cook/comnc.pdf
The death penalty costs California $90 million annually beyond the ordinary costs of the justice system - $78 million of that total in incurred at the trial level (Sacramento Bee, March 18, 1988).
Florida spent an estimated $57 million on the death penalty from 1973 to 1988 to achieve 18 executions - that is an average of $3.2 million per execution. (Miami Herald, July 10, 1988).
In Texas, a death penalty case costs an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. (Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992).
$ Georgia Judge Notes Expensive Bottom Line in Capital Cases
A recent death penalty case in Georgia has led Fulton County Superior Court Judge Stephanie Manis to question the value of expensive capital trials. "The death penalty has great popular appeal, but I don't think the taxpayers have looked at the bottom line," she said. "The death penalty is .... expensive." Expenses for the capital trial of Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin, who received a sentence of life without the possibility of parole, included the following:
The District Attorney dedicated four prosecutors and a full-time investigator to the case during the trial and in the months leading up to it. Independent of the time spent preparing for the case, the prosecutor's salaries exceeded $74,000 for the two months of trial and jury selection.
The District Attorney's Office spent approximately $34,000 for equipment, graphic design for court exhibits, and expert testimony. An additional $43,000 was spent on overtime for investigators.
$164,000 in fees and expenses were spent for one of the defense attorneys in the Al-Amin case. Two additional lawyers have yet to submit bills and these additional charges are expected to put total legal fees well above $200,000.
It cost more than $87,000 to select and sequester the jury for this case. This amount included $63,600 for hotel rooms, dinners and drinks for jurors, $6,000 for juror lunches and beverages, $2,500 for juror transportation, $765 for entertainment expenses, and $14,300 to copy the questionnaires used to pick the jury. This amount does not include the overtime paid to sheriff's deputies who guarded the jury and the court.
(Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 12, 2002)
$ The High Cost of New York's Death Penalty
A recent review conducted by the New York Law Journal found that the 1995 reinstatement of New York's death penalty has cost the state millions in taxpayer dollars and has consumed an immense amount of time of judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. The Journal's findings include:

New York's Division of Criminal Justice Services has reimbursed more than $5 million to counties that have prosecuted capital cases.
The state spends $1.2 million annually to fund the New York Prosecutors Training Institute that provides lawyers to assist district attorneys on capital cases.
The Brooklyn District Attorney's office was reimbursed $707,259 to cover the personnel cost of one case, the prosecution of Darrel K. Harris. This total does not reflect non-personnel expenses, including expert fees and the work of Jonathan L. Frank, who served as the lead appellate attorney for the prosecution. Frank estimates that he donated more than 600 hours of time to the case.
During the preparation of its 1,181-page brief for the Harris case, the Brooklyn District Attorney's office was assisted by prosecutors in 8 other counties.
The defense team for Harris spent approximately $1.7 million to mount his defense, and the state's Capital Defender Office invested $1.2 million into producing the team's 779-page brief.
The budget for the New York Court of Appeals has increased by more than $533,000 annually to enable each of the Court's 7 judges to have an additional clerk for capital cases.
While a non-capital murder requires no more than two prosecutors, death penalty cases require at least three or four. The Queens District Attorney's Office estimates that seeking the death penalty translates into 300% to 500% more work than for a non-capital murder trial.
In addition to the funds required to try death penalty cases, the State Department of Correctional Services spent $1.3 million to construct New York's death row for 12 inmates and it pays nearly $300,000 per year to guard the unit. (New York Law Journal, April 30, 2002).
$ Philadelphia District Attorney Questioned About Death Penalty Costs
At a Philadelphia City Council budget hearing, councilman Michael Nutter questioned District Attorney Lynne A. Abraham about the costs of the death penalty. Abraham noted that in 2001 there were 309 homicides in Philadelphia, prosecutors filed initial notice that they might pursue the death penalty in 144 cases; they sought the death penalty in 67 cases; and only 2 were sent to death row. Of the remaining cases, 44 people were sentenced to life in prison for first-degree murder, 12 were convicted of 2nd or 3rd-degree murder, and 9 were found not guilty.
"Given what some of these numbers are, is the death sentence being overly applied for?" asked Nutter. "Obviously, there's a significant gap between the start of the process and the end. Is there overcharging going on?" Abraham responded: "We don't overcharge anyone, if we can avoid it . . . . We have the right to seek the death penalty in all appropriate cases, and that's what we do." With respect to the costs, Abraham responded: "We're not interested . . . . We have no intention of pursing that exercise." (Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/15/02)

$ The High Cost of the Death Penalty:

"As a growing number of local governments are discovering, there is often a new twist on an old saying: Nothing is certain except the death penalty and higher taxes. . . . Just prosecuting a capital crime can cost an average of $200,000 to $300,000, according to a conservative estimate by the Texas Office of Court Administration. Add indigent-defense lawyers, an almost-automatic appeal and a trial transcript, and death-penalty cases can easily cost many times that amount. . . . The cost, county officials say, can be an unexpected and severe budgetary shock -- much like a natural disaster, but without any federal relief to ease the strain. To pay up, counties must raise taxes, cut services, or both."
(Wall Street Journal, 1/9/02)
$ The Arizona Supreme Court recently remanded a death penalty case for re-sentencing to a county that does not have the resources to pay for it. By law, counties are required to fund a specialist to gather mitigating evidence for the defense to use at the sentencing phase. Some jurisdictions, however, do not have the money to pay for pre-sentencing investigation. The situation puts smaller counties in the position of choosing to pursue capital sentencing based on cost. This would make the application of the death penalty in Arizona arbitrary because those who commit capital crimes in the state's larger counties (Pima and Maricopa) will more likely be subject to the death penalty simply because of resources. "If you live in Pima or Maricopa county you're going to get one form of treatment, while anywhere else you're going to get a different form of treatment," said Sen. Elaine Richardson, who earlier this year sponsored a bill to deal with the issue by siphoning state financial support for capital cases. The bill passed the Senate but failed in the House. (Arizona Capitol Times, 5/29/01)


$ The Savannah Morning News recently reported that small counties in Georgia are going broke prosecuting death penalty cases. "If you're spending $300,000 for a (death penalty) case, that's $300,000 that could be used for buying road equipment, paying salaries, the fire and sheriff's departments. We don't have a lot of room to play with," said Richard Douglas, the Long County, GA, Administrator. Douglas, who had to rely on emergency state grants to keep paychecks from bouncing, added, "If you have 2 or 3 of these in a row, that can put you in a million dollar hole. We're probably not too far removed from that." (Savannah Morning News, 1/14/01)


$ "Elimination of the death penalty would result in a net savings to the state of at least several tens of millions of dollars annually, and a net savings to local governments in the millions to tens of millions of dollars on a statewide basis." --Joint Legislative Budget Committee of the California Legislature, Sept. 9, 1999 (The Catalyst, 2/22/00)

$Enforcing the death penalty costs Florida $51 million a year above and beyond what it would cost to punish all first-degree murderers with life in prison without parole, according to estimates by the Palm Beach Post. Based on the 44 executions Florida has carried out since 1976, that amounts to a cost of $24 million for each execution.
The Post's figure was derived using estimates of how much time prosecutors and public defenders spend on extra work needed in capital cases, at the trial courts and at the Florida Supreme Court, which devotes approximately half its time to death penalty cases. The estimate accounts not only for the relatively few inmates who are actually executed, but accounts for the time and effort expended on capital defendants who are tried but convicted of a lesser murder charge, and those whose death sentences are overturned on appeal. (Palm Beach Post, 1/4/00)

$The New York Daily News (which has supported the death penalty) estimated that the costs associated with pursuing the death penalty in that state could reach $238 million by the time of the first execution. If that execution is further delayed because of problems with the statute, the costs could reach $408 million. Professor James Acker, a death penalty expert from the State University of New York in Albany, noted: "There's all this money being invested up front with the intent of getting an eventual execution. But the return on the dollar of these investments is really quite poor. So the money is thrown away. If the ultimate punishment were life in prison to begin with, you wouldn't have all the added expense of a death penalty case . . . ." (N.Y. Daily News, 10/19/99)

$Colorado taxpayers have spent more than $2.5 million on five death penalty cases so far this year under the state's new three-judge-panel sentencing system. Only one of the defendants was sentenced to death.

$ The taxpayers of Suffolk County and New York State paid $2.5 million for the capital murder trial of Robert Shulman, who was sentenced to death on May 6. Because prosecutors sought the death penalty, the trial was 3.5 times more expensive than if the death penalty had not been sought. The cost was more than double what it would have cost to keep Shulman, 45, in prison for 40 years. The public cost of Shulman's sentence will continue to climb throughout his incarceration. (Newsday, 7/12/99)


$ Several lawyers in Louisiana are asking courts to postpone death penalty cases until there is sufficient funding to pay the attorneys. Because of a loss in revenue, private attorneys appointed by the court to handle death penalty cases as well as other criminal cases have not been paid in a year. The lawyers who handle these cases are concerned about the consequences for their clients: "I think poor people get poor representation. They are represented by overworked public defenders and private lawyers who aren't getting paid. That is not equal justice." (The Advocate, 4/5/99)

$Because of anticipated death penalty trial costs, Okanogan County Commissioners in Washington delayed pay raises for the county's 350 employees, then approved a 2% increase; the smallest in years. They also decided not to replace 2 of 4 public-health nurses, ordered a halt on non-emergency travel and put a hold on updating computers and county vehicles. Okanogan County shares the fate of many other rural counties across the country, where death-penalty cases are draining budgets. (Associated Press, 4/2/99)

$Thurston County in Washington state has budgeted $346,000 in 1999 alone, to seek Mitchell Rupe's 3rd death sentence. Rupe is also dying of liver disease. Washington has made extreme efforts to save Rupe from a natural death just so it can execute him. Since 1997, Thurston County budgeted nearly $700,000 for the most recent sentencing hearing alone - expenses above the daily costs absorbed by the county prosecutor's office. (Seattle Times, 3/12/99)

$ The State of Ohio spent at least $1.5 million to kill one mentally ill man who wanted to be executed. Among the costs were: $18,147 overtime for prison employees and $2,250 overtime for State Highway Patrol officers at the time of the execution. This does not include overtime for 25 prison public information officers who worked the night of the execution. The state spent $5,320 on a satellite truck so that the official announcement of Wilford Berry's execution could be beamed to outside media, and $88.42 for the lethal drugs. Attorney General Betty Montgomery had 5 to 15 prosecutors working on the case. Between 5 and 10% of the annual budget for the state's capital-crimes section was devoted to the Berry case for 5 years. Keeping Berry in prison for his entire life would have cost approximately half as much. (Columbus Dispatch, 2/28/99)

$ Many small counties are overwhelmed with the financial burden of the death penalty. "These capital-murder trials can devastate the budget of a small county," says Allen Amos, one of 55 judges from small west Texas counties in the Rural County Judges Association. "If you go to trial with an automatic appeal, you could be looking at $350,000 to $500,000 for each one of these things."(Christian Science Monitor, 2/25/99)

$ In Mississippi, the state has no system for providing lawyers for death row inmates after their direct appeal. The Mississippi Supreme Court, however, has ordered counties to start paying attorneys for post-conviction appeals. Chancery Clerk Butch Scipper of Quitman County remarked: "We're probably the poorest county in the state. We have no cash reserves and nothing is budgeted for this type of expense." He indicated they would have to raise taxes to pay for the death penalty. (Biloxi Sun Herald, 2/21/99)

$ In Indiana, three recent capital cases cost taxpayers a total of over $2 million, just for defense costs. (Prosecution costs are usually equal or more than defense costs and appellate costs will add even more expense.) Former death penalty prosecutor David Cook remarked: "If you're gonna spend this type of money in a system where there isn't much resources to go around, I think that we have a reasonable right to expect that we're gaining something by doing this. . . .We don't gain anything by doing this." (Indianapolis Star/News, 2/7/99)

$ Officials in Washington State are concerned that costs for a single death penalty trial will approach $1 million. To pay for the trial, the county has had to let one government position go unfilled, postponed employee pay hikes, drained its $300,000 contingency fund and eliminated all capital improvements. The Sheriff's request to replace a van which broke down last year for transporting prisoners has been shelved. (The Spokesman-Review, 1/19/99)

$ According to an article in the Louisiana Sunday Advertiser, prosecutor Phil Haney, who often pushes for the death penalty, says if he could be sure 'life in prison really meant life in prison,' he would be for abolishing the death penalty. It's a matter of economics, he said. "It just costs too much to execute someone." (The Sunday Advertiser, 8/23/98)

$ Jim Dwyer, columnist for the NY Daily News, recently estimated that the projected costs of imposing the death penalty on NY's first death row inmate, Darrel Harris, will be $3 million. He concluded: "After spending $3 million extra for a capital case, New York will have bought itself nothing that it could not have gotten with a sentence of life without parole." (NY Daily News, 7/28/98)
$ A report from the Nebraska Judiciary Committee states that any savings from executing an inmate are outweighed by the financial legal costs. The report concluded that the current death penalty law does not serve the best interest of Nebraskans. (Neb. Press & Dakotan, 1/27/98)

$ In a report from the Judicial Conference of the United States on the costs of the federal death penalty, it was reported that the defense costs were about 4 times higher in cases where death was sought than in comparable cases where death was not sought. Moreover, the prosecution costs in death cases were 67% higher than the defense costs, without even including the investigative costs provided by law enforcement agencies. See, Federal Death Penalty Cases: Recommendations Concerning the Cost and Quality of Defense Representation. &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;This cost in no way changes my mind about the death penality. Without Lawer's greed and the many apeals, this could be cut drastically.

God Bless............Alex

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The troll accusations have a valid past. We used to be bombarded by atheists and agnostics who trolled us just to denigrate us and try to make us defend why we believe in God on every topic, instead of sticking to the topic on hand. They were subsequently, after a long, long time, kicked off the Board. However, they do try to sneak back in occasionally and usually get caught by our sharp & ever watchful Administrators & Moderators.

BTW, Candide, I sure hope you're not going to pull up some references about the Founding Fathers off the II board.

This is kinda off topic, but I do recall that back in early American history, people used to be put in stocks for adultery. Which is (I've heard) where the common usage four-letter word was derived from...for unlawful carnal knowledge. Perhaps that is an urban legend. But if true, it shows how much our morals in this "Christian" nation have changed.

Re the death penalty...I think if one checked the actual statistics on executions, one would find the percentage very low as opposed to the number of individuals sentenced. This is because those on death row usually spend years in the appeals process...which is what Avila will end up doing. I think Bill O'Reilly is right on all his points about this BTW. Lawyers who knowingly try to distort the facts and confuse the jury so their guilty client will get off are just as evil as those they defend. And most of the time, IMO, the outcome of a capital case all depends on who has the best lawyers. Usually the poor District Attorney is underpaid, while trying to serve the citizens of the community and see that justice is served. Avila had a crafty lawyer who confused the jury and got him off the first time, discrediting the testimony of the two children he had abused. Because of that, he was free to go brutally abuse another child and ended up killing her. I just wonder how many innocent children someone like this would have to murder before some of you would say he deserves the death penalty? If no one deserves the death penalty, then does that include the Hitlers of the world, too?

Like I stated previously, it is interesting to me how pro-abortionists have no problem killing innocent human life, but oppose justice being served (death penalty) for the evil. Black is now white and white is now black. Shades of George Orwell.

 

You are correct. I confused your post with “The Galatian” because they were so similar. (We need to have photos or something… I remember the argument better than the name of the one who posted it!)

Sorry!

I said nothing critical of Bush. I merely pointed out, quite correctly, that Bush was incapable of officially pardoning prisoners, but that he was quite capable of doing it through unofficial channels. </font>[/QUOTE]Possibly – there is no legal guarantee it would work since Bush is going outside the intent of the laws.

It might be true… then it might not. You are speculating on the results of actions taken outside the legal framework.

I’m sorry if you took it as an insult, it was not intended to be an insult. In fact, it was not directed toward you at all. It was a case of mistaken identity and I wrongly rebuked you.

I am sorry if I was offensive.

 

Sorry I can't give you what you want. I can't give you exact figures on who's paid what - mainly because I'm not interested in doing all that research just to satisfy you or to "win" this argument here. If you are truly interested in finding it out in order to either consider changing your position or make a stronger case for the position you already have, you'll find it out yourself. I'll probably do the research for my own knowledge, but not this week.

For the sake of this argument, I'm willing to stipulate that the actual procedure cost is likely quite low (although I'm not willing to pick an arbitrary dollar amount). My question is - does that matter? The only way that really matters is if we want to get rid our judicial system and just go back to "he's guilty - let's hang him!" Pardon me if I'd rather not. I don't have any expectations of being tried for anything, least of all murder, but if I were, I would want the rights I have now still in place!

And since we aren't to arbitrarily pick who gets appeals and who doesn't, in order to preserve some small bit of true justice, I propose leaving the appeals system as it stands. Otherwise, we're in anarchy. We've got too many laws that aren't enforced, and those in charge pick and choose who gets prosecuted (notably, the recently overturned Child Online Protection Act) - we really don't need to make our system more arbitrary by protecting those we think "deserve" it and tossing on their ear those we think don't. Basically, if people have the right to appeal, they should be allowed to use it, no matter who they are or what they've done. Or, get rid of that right altogether, for everyone. Funny - I've made that suggestion several times and no one's yet said they think we should get rid of our current system of justice . . . does anyone think we should get rid of our current system of justice?

And alex, I don't disbelieve that many or most of the framers based their beliefs on the Bible. I'm just saying that they didn't set this country's government up to be Bible-based. If they did, why wouldn't they have just passed out a Bible instead of a Constitution? They didn't do that, nor do they mention the Bible or Biblical law anywhere in the Constitution, which implies - no, actually, it makes it pretty obvious - that the Bible wasn't intended to be the rulebook for government and legal matters.

Nota bene: whether or not the troll suspicions were (or are, if anyone still has them) valid, to suggest it in the midst of a debate such as this only serves to discredit the dissenters (it certainly gave me the impression it was meant to discredit). It's pretty insulting to me that some think that people who disagree have to be trolls. It wasn't a particularly good way to make a newcomer to this community feel welcome. Not, of course, that I assume I am.

 

Execution by lethal injection is extremely inexpensive, Multimom -- you are right on in your idea there. Electric chair is somewhat more expensive due to the manufacture and upkeep of the device. Hanging and firing squad are almost nothing.

However I am going to bump the religious intolerance to the top because I strongly feel that it should be read. It is a strong warning on the political front to anyone thinking that just because we are in a church meeting we are safe from persecution. It is no imaginary scenario; it is happening now in Australia and Sweden and could easily spread.