Deadman talking

[NickStone]

I consider myself to be a left wing liberal and therefore am concerned when I hear of people being downtrodden. It is due to my beliefes that one of the things I will always try and protest about is the death penalty anywhere in the world. It is with interst that I found the following website detailing life on death row in an American prison. Now I'm sure many here will say that it is right to kill someone who has been convicted of murder but what I say is two wrongs do not make a right. How I see it, the reason why people want the death penalty in their country is out of revenge not justice.

Anyway, if your interested you can read up on an inmates life on death row here. http://www.deadmantalking.com/

[GreyGeek]

I am against the death penalty, both before and after birth.

[DoYouKubuntu]

I've struggled with this issue forever--but I think my reasoning is different from that of many other people.

While I do believe that taking a life is wrong--the life of ANY living, sentient being, whether that be human or non-human animals--I used to think the death penalty was okay, After all, they're lowlife criminal scumbags, right? They did the crime, let 'em pay the ultimate price. But...

Then it dawned on me one day that not only do we accomplish nothing by executing criminals [as far as "teaching a lesson" to other would-be criminals--obviously, that's NOT working], we're actually giving them an easy way out. Speaking only for myself, if I did something so heinous that I went to trial and got convicted, and then had EITHER the death penalty OR life in prison without the possibility of parole as my only two possible sentences, I'd be PRAYING for the death penalty. Seriously. What's worse: a [relatively] quick and painless death by lethal injection, or spending DECADES in prison with no hope of ever getting out? I'd definitely want death.

And that's the main basis of my ambivalence about the death penalty--aside from the fact that I don't think killing a living being is okay. The bottom line is that executing someone gives them an easy out, whereas keeping them in prison with no chance of parole TRULY punishes them for their crime(s).

I guess you could say I'm a tad bit conflicted...

I've watched numerous documentaries revolving around the death penalty, such as following a defense team as they attempted to spare their client--a mentally challenged woman--from the needle (and failed), and another about final meals for people prior to their executions. I'm always left shaking my head at how wrong it is to kill people. And when you factor in the knowledge we now have that INNOCENT people have been put to death, it seems even more wrong.

One documentary I watched--and can no longer recall its setting, but I THINK it was China--showed how prisoners who are sentenced to death have NO IDEA when their sentence is going to be carried out. They literally have no advance warning. One day the guards just show up at their cell door and say, "it's time!", and off they go. I would poop in my pants every time I heard guards' footsteps if I were in a prison like that. I really think that's mental torture. Being executed is the easy part compared to never knowing WHEN you're going to be taken away to be executed.

[Snowhog]

I support the death penalty. I also believe that our system of jurice prudence needs a real make over. For those that are believers of the Christian Faith, the idea of a death penalty isn't new -- it's allowed for in the Old Testament.

[NickStone]

I support the death penalty. I also believe that our system of jurice prudence needs a real make over. For those that are believers of the Christian Faith, the idea of a death penalty isn't new -- it's allowed for in the Old Testament.

I'm fed up of so called christians quoting from the old testament to justify certain actions. Don't they read the new testament? Its the new testament that the whole Christian faith is built on. The old testament is just there as a historical document.

Snowhog, can you please tell me why you think it is right to kill someone just because a jury has found them guilty of a crime? Have you never heard of mis-carriage of justice? Blieve me it does go on.

[bsniadajewski]

IDon't know which Gospel but Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" when talking to Pharisees (I think) concerning a woman caught in adultery.

[Detonate]

I have never been able to understand why those that oppose the death penalty seem to be, in large part the very same people who support abortion.

[DoYouKubuntu]

I have never been able to understand why those that oppose the death penalty seem to be, in large part the very same people who support abortion.

Well, I'll try to enlighten you! :-)

I oppose the death penalty as I outlined above: 1) It's wrong to kill LIVING beings, 2) It's less of a punishment for the criminal to be executed than to spend their remaining lifetime in prison with no chance of parole, 3) INNOCENT people have been executed. #3 alone should be enough to bring a halt to all executions.

Now about abortion: First of all, I do not support ABORTION, I support abortion RIGHTS. I do not ENCOURAGE abortion. I would never advise someone to have an abortion. I wish abortions were only used for truly important reasons, such as the health of the mother or when the baby has some dreadful condition, or in cases of rape or incest. But I'm realistic enough to know that women will continue to have unwanted pregnancies--as they've done for millennia--and will seek abortions in some instances--again, as they have for millennia. So my thinking is that it's better to offer safe, legal abortion than to push girls/women into back alley, possibly dangerous, illegal abortions again.

And with all that said, I do not think elective abortion should be [easily] available past the point of viability of the fetus. The reason I can tolerate earlier terminations is simple: a blastocyst or zygote or early term embryo is NOT a conscious, aware, living being. Their brain and central nervous system are not developed in a way that allows for perception of ANYTHING, including pain, fear, terror, or any of the other nonsense spouted by the anti-choicers. Despite the hysterics of the anti-choice movement over the years, including such incredible bullshit as "Silent Scream," it's IMPOSSIBLE for an early term blastocyst/zygote/embryo to have conscious awareness of their "destruction" by the abortionist's tools. CAN NOT HAPPEN.

And--since this INVARIABLY comes up in any pro- vs anti-choice discussion, YES!, I do believe unborn human babies are HUMAN! That's correct, I don't think they're zebras. Of course they're human, but until they're viable they only have the POTENTIAL to become LIVING human beings. So the whole "life begins at conception!" and "they're BABIES!" hysteria has no effect on me. POTENTIAL life begins at conception. Oh, by the way, any idea how many blastocysts/zygotes/embryos are spontaneously aborted [miscarried] every year? MILLIONS. Most without the woman even knowing she was pregnant. Should it be a crime not to bury those BABIES? Or to [unknowingly] flush them down the toilet?

[Detonate]

That's exactly the kind of twisted logic I am talking about.

[GreyGeek]

My opposition to the death penalty is only because I've seen the courts in action personally, as an expert witness for both sides, and while our judicial system is (or was) one of the best and fairest in the world, the judgement of 12 people is no more perfect than the judgement of one, especially if they cannot set aside their preconcieved biases. Add to that prosecutors who supress evidence and defense attornys who are incompetent, and the possibility of sending an innocent man to his death rises dramatically. If I were unjustly convincted of a crime I would rather remain alive and be able to continue my defense. From a box six feet under you cannot do anything and most people think "it's too late to do anything". The number of men on death row who have been freed by DNA evidence 20 years later, or by proof that the prosecutor supressed evidence, is too high.

False statistics to the contrary, the death penalty DOES work. The average murder rate in the US in the late 1960s, when the SCOTUS ruled that the way the death penalty was administered was unconstitutional, was 6,000 per year. Six years later, when SCOTUS re-instituted the death penality the average rate had risen to 16,000 per year. In countries like Saudi Arabia, which enforce a swift and certain death penalty, violent crime is rare. Singapore and Los Angeles have equivalent populations, yet in one year Singapore had 58 murders (most followed by swift execution) while Los Angeles had 1,063. Criminal sub-cultures like the Mafia show that the death penalty is a powerful deterrent even among career criminals, since few will ever double-cross their superiors, fearing the repercussions. Does anyone think it wise to travel to Mexico and then speak out or write against the drug lords? No? Why not? The threat of death by those thugs is making Hispanics afraid to blog against them even here, in America! So, YES, the death penalty does work. The quicker it is enforced the less likely an innocent man would be convicted. No one could say that the 58 people convicted in Singapore were ALL innocent. Since the death penalty was re-instituted up to Jan 23, 2012 only 140 people have been freed from death row. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/inno...reed-death-row

One thing we can do is to make sentences of "life" in prison mean something is to actually MEAN LIFE, not 10 years, with parole in 7 for good behavior. LIFE with NO chance of parole. And, I don't mean a life of entitlements, either. The government feeding, clothing, educating, medicating, entertaining, and legally representing the murderers for the rest of their lives, with the families of their victims paying taxes to keep them comfortable, warm in winter and cool in summer is neither fair nor the type of punishment has scared other putative murderers.

We should eliminate the Club Fed Med atmosphere for convicted murderers. Their victims are cold in the grave, unable to do anything except decompose. No education, no entertainment, no exercise. Nothing. The murderer should serve under the same conditions. No books, comics, TV, movies, education, or any other material, except the court documents of his case, no bar bells or other gym equipment, no drinks except water and no cigarettes. To prevent the transfer of prison dope or smokes the murderer should not be allowed contact or communication with any other prisoner or person except his lawyer, who can bring nothing to the convicted except court documents he does not already have. and his lawyer should be allowed contact no more than twice per year. Maybe this would stop nonsense like "Megan's Law", which will label two teenagers as "sex offenders" for the rest of their lives just because they pulled a prank.

[ardvark71]

@DYK: Whether an embryo can feel pain or not is irrelevant, abortion is the termination of an unborn human being which the Lord was in the process of creating. That is murder. An embryo is indeed alive. Also, FYI for those who may not know, fetuses do feel pain. Please see here and here.

@nickstonefan: Not from my experience! The Old Testament is not just an historical document, it is a part of His Living Word. There are many things the Lord has taught (and currently teaching) me from the Old Testament. Scripture that impacts and transforms my everyday life! Here is example of what I mean.

Regards...

[DoYouKubuntu]

@DYK: Whether an embryo can feel pain or not is irrelevant, abortion is the termination of an unborn human being which the Lord was in the process of creating.

According to YOUR religious beliefs. What if my religious beliefs are different?

That is murder.

No, it's not:

¹mur·der noun

Definition of MURDER

noun
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

2 a : something very difficult or dangerous <the traffic was murder> b : something outrageous or blameworthy <getting away with murder>


²murder verb

Definition of MURDER

transitive verb
1 : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice

2 : to slaughter wantonly : slay

3 a : to put an end to b : tease, torment c : mutilate, mangle <murders French> d : to defeat badly

(Source: Merriam-Webster)

An embryo is indeed alive.

No, it's not...really. Its ability to "live" is wholly dependent on its mother's body; until it's capable of sustaining life on its own, outside its mother's body, it's not alive. You have to be BORN to be alive; see M-W's definition of alive and its related definition of life, which includes this:

5 a : the period from birth to death

Also, FYI for those who may not know, fetuses do feel pain.

No one's saying FETUSES don't feel pain. Blastocysts, zygotes, and early term embryos cannot feel pain or process what they're feeling as something bad or fearful--their CNS and brain aren't developed to that point yet, period, end of discussion, and all the non-scientific hysterics in the world cannot change that FACT.

By the way, I'm going to assume that you're vegetarian [like I am]. After all, one of those definitions of murder says:

2 : to slaughter wantonly : slay

and I'm sure no one who opposes murder would want to participate in that!

[GreyGeek]

...
No, it's not...really. Its ability to "live" is wholly dependent on its mother's body; until it's capable of sustaining life on its own, outside its mother's body, it's not alive. You have to be BORN to be alive; see M-W's definition of alive and its related definition of life, which includes this:

I will have to disagree.

You distinguish between lawful and unlawful killing, but in defining "lawful" killing you still have to use the word "killing". To avoid that conundrum one has to tamper with the definition of what life is. Your citations do not change the classic definitions of what is life and what is alive, so I don't understand your point on that one.

Biologically, most scientists, environmental activists, PETA, etc... recognize every avian or mammalian embryo as being alive, and have helped passed laws against killing or destroying endangered ones. Ergo, you cannot harm an Eagle's egg without suffering serious penalties if you are caught. We have become "confused" about what is life, or alive, when the embryo is human, so we disingenuously avoid the obvious by calling it a "product of conception".

The unborn baby is a parasite, in a manner of speaking, but it is definitely NOT it's mother's body (as a DNA test would prove, but that wasn't your argument, I just tossed it in because a lot of women say "It's my body, I can do what I want with it.").

But, the birth process does not change the status, function or the requirements of the baby, and it is easy to determine if the baby is alive or stillborn before birth. Some significant things happen at birth:
1) the placenta disconnects from the wall of the uterus and the baby no longer gets Oxygen, water and food from its mother's blood supply, and it no longer gives back waste products to that blood supply,
2) the foramen ovale and the ductus arteriosus close, redirecting arterial circulation into the lungs, enabling independent breathing by the baby. Before passing down the birth canal the baby's lungs were not needed but developed fully in preparation for the birth event.

But, none of those events change a baby from being not alive to being alive. Sometimes the holes don't close after birth but the baby lives, at least for awhile.

Some things don't change. Before birth the mother protected the unborn by direct and indirect actions (habits, health practices, chemical avoidance, etc... ). After birth the baby still requires the mother and/or father to feed it, (if by breast it's direct, almost like the placenta) keep it clean, keep it warm, protect it from danger, nurture it and teach it how to survive. Until the baby reaches at least 6 to 8 years of age it cannot survive on its own. If the environment is hostile and dangerous it may not be able to survive till its late teens. So, for the nine months before birth and several times that ling after birth the baby is totally dependent on the mother and/or father, or some adult or parental agency for survival.

When an unborn baby's life is terminated I see that as executing the death penalty on the baby for the crimes or inconveniences of the parents. I cannot understand how the mother or father's failures to use contraceptive measures requires the death of the baby which was so conceived. Such deaths frequently turns out to be for no other reasons that inconvenience. I cannot understand the logic that says allowing the baby's head to pass out of the birth canal into the free air, and then sticking a spatula into the hole in the base of the skull and squishing the baby's brain into pulp is not a direct, murderous assault. To me, it is identical to the propaganda that dehumanizes other human beings in order to justify their extermination. Nor can I understand why the criminal act of a rapist is justification for making two victims instead of one. My wife and I were, for several years, house parents for boys from 10 to 18 at a children's home. Forty years later one will occasionally drop by and share what has happened in their lives since we were their "parents". The most vivid memory I have in my life is the time when my mother accidently stepped on my hand as I slept on the concrete basement floor. She was leaving with my half brother (by her previous husband) and leaving behind one son (me) and two daughters by my father, whom she grew to hate. Being unwanted brings jarring and painful emotions, but being unwanted doesn't mean being unworthy of life. I grew up without my mother but she taught me one thing: your parents are the ones who raise you, not the sperm or egg donor.

[Detonate]

The OP says a fetus in not a human because it depends on its mother for survival, and has no prospect of becoming a human being until it is born. How is a criminal being held in prison different. That criminal is totally dependent on the prison system for his/her existence and survival and has no prospect of becoming a human being again until released from prison. But he opposes the death penalty but does not oppose abortion. The hypocracy here is evident..

[ardvark71]

No, it's not:

¹mur·der noun

Definition of MURDER

noun
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

2 a : something very difficult or dangerous <the traffic was murder> b : something outrageous or blameworthy <getting away with murder>


²murder verb

Definition of MURDER

transitive verb
1 : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice

2 : to slaughter wantonly : slay

3 a : to put an end to b : tease, torment c : mutilate, mangle <murders French> d : to defeat badly

(Source: Merriam-Webster)

Hi DYK...

You are looking at this from your perspective, not God's. Abortion is legal (under man's or the world's laws) in the United States because of a Supreme Court decision handed down in 1973. However, God looks at it entirely differently. Please see here.

Regards...