Political Thought for the Day: Abortion, Euthanasia, the Death Penalty, etc.

[Quetzal]

Name one murderer who has received the DP and gone on to murder more victims ...

Permanently stopping one IS a deterrent.

This post does not make sense. A deterrent is a device that is used to dissuade someone from doing something to begin with. Saying the DP is a deterrent because the person receiving it doesn't kill anymore is not accurate.

 

[Rusha]

Saying the DP is a deterrent because the person receiving it doesn't kill anymore is not accurate.

It certainly is accurate. Are he/she able to kill again?

 

[Quetzal]

It certainly is accurate. Are he/she able to kill again?

You're right. When I think of a deterrent, I only think of it as something that applies to people who are still alive.

 

[Rusha]

You're right. When I think of a deterrent, I only think of it as something that applies to people who are still alive.

In regards to the DP, this list might interest you.

http://www.wesleylowe.com/repoff.html

 

[Quetzal]

In regards to the DP, this list might interest you.

http://www.wesleylowe.com/repoff.html

I am with AB on this one. If they have evidence and they are found guilty without doubt... the risk simply isn't worth it.

 

[Rusha]

I am with AB on this one. If they have evidence and they are found guilty without doubt... the risk simply isn't worth it.

IF there is no doubt they committed the crime, how is the *risk* not worth it?

Who is at risk other than those he/she *hasn't* murdered?

Also, did you look at the list? Those were all REPEAT offenders who were allowed to murder again AFTER their first murder ...

 

[Lighthouse]

1. Contrary to "Traditio's assertion, no legal system is infallible and as in the case of Christ's crucifixion decisions can be based on political expediency - not justice.

2. According to the Mosaic Law, the legal sentence for those caught in adultery was to be stoned to death.

3. Even though we have every reason to believe that this woman was actually guilty of adultery, instead of insisting on enforcing the letter of the law Jesus showed compassion and addressed her accusers in such a manner than none dared to cast the first stone.

4. As demonstrated by the "Theif on the Cross," execution effectively terminates a person's ability to receive Christ.

5. Those who insist on capital punishment will bear a grave responsiblity on Judgement Day when asked as to why they didn't follow Christ's example and as to what rationale would justify their decision to cut short a person's opportunity to receive salvation!

Would you care to explain how, exactly, Jesus would have condemned her?

 

[Quetzal]

IF there is no doubt they committed the crime, how is the *risk* not worth it?

Who is at risk other than those he/she *hasn't* murdered?

Also, did you look at the list? Those were all REPEAT offenders who were allowed to murder again AFTER their first murder ...

You misunderstood the post. I am in favor of the death penalty with the above conditions I stated. In short, we are in agreement. Relax.

 

[Traditio]

America has 4% of the world's people but 25% of its prison population.

So what? What's your point? In order for me to find this statistic significant, you'd have to tell me that the people in prison aren't guilty. Are they (at least for the most part) guilty or not?

Americans are still of the mindset that punishment acts as a deterent and that capital punishment reduces homicides.

Fact: the death penalty is 100 percent effective at preventing further crime. Dead people can't commit new offenses. [Rusha makes the same point earlier in this thread.]

 

[Traditio]

1. Contrary to "Traditio's assertion, no legal system is infallible and as in the case of Christ's crucifixion decisions can be based on political expediency - not justice.

This point applies no more to the death penalty than to any judicial system in general.

2. According to the Mosaic Law, the legal sentence for those caught in adultery was to be stoned to death.

What's your point?

3. Even though we have every reason to believe that this woman was actually guilty of adultery, instead of insisting on enforcing the letter of the law Jesus showed compassion and addressed her accusers in such a manner than none dared to cast the first stone.

What's your point? I think that your use of the passage is about on par with the use of the parable of the laborers (each received a single denarius) and the "let them who do not work not eat" passage by economic conservatives.

If that's what you're getting from the passages, then you are simply missing the point of those passages. Jesus is not making a point about the death penalty in general in the story of the woman caught in adultery. Jesus is not making a point about economic justice in the parable of the laborers. St. Paul is not making a point about welfare and social security in the passage of the epistle.

4. As demonstrated by the "Theif on the Cross," execution effectively terminates a person's ability to receive Christ.

Do you make similar religious arguments when it comes to abortion, gay "marriage," or the various other things that social conservatives are constantly talking about?

I imagine that you probably don't. Yet, you choose to make a religious argument about the death penalty, though you probably never would accept a religious argument on any other political issue, and probably hold to nothing more strongly than a strict separation of church and state?

My answer is simply this (a point inspired by Jacques Maritain): the earthly State does not have for its end supernatural happiness. It has for its end a purely earthly beatitude. The interests of the State are public order and justice insofar as these can be achieved by the State.

Therefore, the State should not concern itself in the least about such questions as: "But if we kill him, will he still be able to go to heaven?" [Let us note, furthermore, that such questions erroneously make salvation out to be a human work; it isn't. Do you despair of God's ability to display mercy to death row inmates?]

No. Its sole questions should be: "Does this promote public order? Is this just?"

Does it promote public order for certain criminals to be put to death?
Is it just that they be put to death? Do they deserve death as the just penalty for their crimes?

If the answers to these questions is "yes," then your religious point is utterly irrelevent.

 

[Ktoyou]

Listen up fruitbat,.....serial rapist is 100% proven guilty ... then I'd have zero qualms over the DP... my reservations in regards to the death penalty stem from some secretive desire not to punish violent criminals then you're not only wrong, you're an absolute loon. Got it?

OK, let start cutting those quotes a bit. You need quote only what you respond to, like this ^

Fruit bat is funny. Now you are saying the DP issue for you is not the moral of taking lives, rather risking innocent lives?

See, I did not know that. I know these is some risk , yet I assume there is a need, in most cases for DP.

Where I disagree is always amongst any case where later, there has been error. I am, in effect, stating there are cases where error can be ruled out.

 

[Arthur Brain]

OK, let start cutting those quotes a bit. You need quote only what you respond to, like this ^

Fruit bat is funny. Now you are saying the DP issue for you is not the moral of taking lives, rather risking innocent lives?

See, I did not know that. I know these is some risk , yet I assume there is a need, in most cases for DP.

Where I disagree is always amongst any case where later, there has been error. I am, in effect, stating there are cases where error can be ruled out.

That's pretty much my yardstick. A 100% proof of guilt has to be established before taking a life IMO and that should only be reserved for the most heinous violative crimes - rape, murder, molestation. If there's any room for doubt, no matter how negligible that may happen to be at the time, then maximum secure incarceration unless or until proof of absolute guilt or innocence is established.

My opinion on this at any rate.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I wrote this today, and thought that it might be of interest to you guys:

Political thought for the day: when it comes to human life, social liberals consistently come down on the wrong side of the issue. The lives of the unborn, the elderly and the incurably sick don't matter (as evidenced by the fact that they tend to be "pro-abortion rights" and "pro-euthanasia rights"), nor do the lives of police (as evidenced by the "black lives matter" movement)...but the lives of violent criminals do matter (as evidenced both by the black lives matter movement and by the social liberal protest against the death penalty).

"But," the social liberal will tell me, "consider all those who have been acquitted because of DNA evidence." I answer: "Yes, we now have DNA evidence. Their guilt can be all but assured now! Wherein lies your objection?" Let us not kid ourselves: the social liberal only hides behind uncertainty as behind a mask. Deep down, he just doesn't think that violent criminals deserve to die (or even that they really deserve punishment) if it's not strictly "necessary." But the unborn, the eldery, the incurably sick and the police...?

Hold on, how does saying that black lives matter mean saying that they don't care about the lives of the police? Even I dont go that far and I'm beyond "anti-cop" in today's corrupt world. I know of a handful on the libertarian fringe who believe that, but not even most an-caps. Its a strawman.

I agree with the spirit of the post, but not this. For some reason "conservative" these days seems to mean blanket endorsement of the police, and that's a problem.