Death penalty lacks moral ground

BSU DAILY NEWS ^ | 4.2.03 | Ben McShane

[thepitts]

Anyone who trusts the government,state or federal, enough to allow them to put citzens to death should re-read their history books.

[Sloth]

Excellent points.

[TheDon]

That's why we have a jury system. We provide the facts, you decide.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

So..... This is Virginia..... where are all the virgins?

Virginia and West Virginia were named for Queen Elizabeth I. Dubbed "the virgin Queen" by Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584.

So in fact, there is only 1 virgin. And she wasn't all that hot.

[TheDon]

"I showed how the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent and does not make fiscal sense."

I guessed I missed that speech.

[Sloth]

...80 percent of all capital cases involve white victims, although only 50 percent of all murder victims are white. The U.S. General Accounting Office summed it up in 1990 when it reported, "In 82 percent of the studies [reviewed]... those who murdered whites were found more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks."

This is not an argument against the death penalty -- it simply shows that we need to start executing greater numbers of people who kill non-whites.

[wita]

Thanks, you save me, I was about to spell it out.

[thepitts]

That's why we have a jury system. We provide the facts, you decide.

Right, juries always get all of the facts.

[Consort]

If the death penalty is immoral....then it is an immoral imperative. Funerals, for the victims and for the murderers, are for the living; not for the dead.

[TheDon]

Oh yeah, I forgot, and endless appeals.

[sausageseller]

Write to Mouse at bbmcshane@bsu.edu

SS. Send your comments. IE. Freep him!

[Extremist]

Fact: For interracial murders since 1976 that resulted in a death sentence, 178 of the cases involved a white victim and a black defendant. Twelve cases involved a black victim and a white defendant.

That is a stupid statement. Those who commit the crime are the ones who must be punished. Do they want an affirmative action death penalty that would force authorities to grab a random white guy off the streets to executute after each execution of a black man? I can't think of one single case of a white person from my community killing a black person. On the otherhand, there have been many cases of blacks killing whites. The motive is always the same: drug money. A couple of months ago a young cab driver was shot in the back of the head and robbed of ten dollars. The three monsters then took his cab for a joy-ride. They now face possible execution.

Would this pin-head please explain to the now orphaned child of the cab driver that to rid the world of the men who killed his daddy would be wrong?

[merak]

The criteria for capital punishment cannot be "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt", which is the norm in our system. The criteria for capital punishment has to be guilt beyond any doubt, whatsoever. In particular, there are still too many white people in this country who could not tell two blacks apart if one is male and the other female, or one alive and the other dead, and that's just one of many problems involved in this sort of thing. One or two eyewitnesses cannot plausibly be the basis for hanging somebody.

That criteria would still let you hang Charles Manson and other flagrant cases, the keeping around of whom serves no useful purpose.

[paulsy]

Let me start by saying I am opposed to the death penalty for a variety of reasons.

However, regarding "morality" of the death penalty, there are plenty of moral reasons FOR it. The author of the above piece does not argue strongly against it from a moral standpoint. There is sufficient moral authority in the Bible to justify the death penalty. One scripture, Romans 13:3-4, says:

"The government has the right to carry out the death sentence. It is God's servant, an avenger to execute God's anger on anyone who does what is wrong."

In deciding how I feel about the death penalty, I try to understand when God feels it is okay to kill. I'll digress for a moment and draw comparisons to the current war situation. The Bible is full of support for killing wars if they are fought for good reasons. Structural authority for what's at hand in Iraq might be found in Acts 17:26-26, in Luke 12:48 and in a number of other places. Specifically, wars can be waged for among these reasons:

• To defend the innocent and free (Psalm 82:3-4)
• To liberate the oppressed (Psalm 82:3-4)
• To stop the spread of evil (Proverbs 25:5)
• To replace injustice with justice (Proverbs 21:15; Proverbs 28:4)

And of course Eccl. 3:8, "There is a time for war and a time for peace.". There are many others.

So with state killing, from a "moral" standpoint I am opposed to it because I don't think it is necessary to accomplish any of those things listed above, and for other moral reasons. Once a murderer is caught, it is I believe more justice to make them live out their entire natural lives in prison. Death is too easy for them, and justice served by a state agency seems too far removed from me, a surviving victim, to be of any real value.

I am not pontificating. I have lost family members to murder. My uncle was killed by a hitch-hiker in Fairfield, CA, and my cousin was murdered by someone bent on revenge for his turning them in for burglury at his home. Still I am opposed. Of course if I catch someone "in the act" I will not hesitate to unbody them with a certain brutality, I might after all be able to stop the crime; I would do the same in a righteous war for the reasons given in the scriptures above.

"Plus, it seems to me that is is more fiscally responsible to execute someone than it is to house and feed them for years."

The argument against this is, that the long appeals process is very expensive and housing them on death row is (at least it was at one point) more expensive than simply locking them up. I suppose we could cut short the appeals process and focus on DNA and modern forensic techniques. Doing this might draw the ire of civil libertarians, but who cares as long as we get to the truth. I don't really buy into the "it's expensive" argument against the death penalty.

"As long as "Life" means 15 to 20 years, society is not being protected from the predators..."

Life should mean until they die (naturally). Regrettably, in states where "natural life without parole" is not an option (as here in Texas) the death penalty should be an alternative. However I myself would lobby the legislature for the natural life without parole option.

Anyhow, just my .04 worth.

[ClearCase_guy]

Kinda ignorant aren't you? There is always some doubt. Just not reasonable doubt. There are people who doubt that this is a material world -- it could be a dream from some elephant-headed god. Who knows anything for sure, dude?

You don't even seem to be aware that Charles Manson is not in prison for murder. He didn't do the stabbing in the Tate and LaBianca murders. I don't even think he was on the scene. He's not a murderer -- he is merely dangerous. Yet, you seem to want to hang him. Yer priorities is all messed up, bub.

[Red6]

"If our nation abolished the death penalty, the consequences of the system's imperfections would not be a matter of life-and-death. Brutal murderers could still be punished and kept off the streets. True justice would be served."

What a bunch of garbage!

Liberals all have one thing in common, their hypocrites. They think things like legalized prostitution; drugs and being against capital punishment are OK. In fact there are SOOOOO many arguments for their position in all of these cases. As long as it's not their daughter that's the whore, their son pumping the drugs, and their wife that was murdered. You see, it's all-different once you’re personally affected.

1. Death will incapacitate a criminal, permanently.
2. Take the cost of all the appeal cases etcetera in a capital case and add all that up and compare that to the price of incarceration, capital punishment is more expensive than locking someone up for 80 years. Another BS fact, since you will also go through an appeal process with someone who will NOT be put to death and will be locked up for 100 years. Our justice system is expensive, and when comparing apples with apples this beautiful statistic turns to garbage.
3. It will deter crime. Many examples of that. Yet the liberal will say, “It’s for the wrong reason, they don’t respect the law, they fear it”. Who cares?
4. Rehabilitate? Some are past that point. They cannot be salvaged. Rehabilitate Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, Osama……..?
5. It creates closure for the affected individuals. Call it revenge; OK try to belittle this argument by association. It will not change the fact that the affected people often watch the execution and feel closure from that.

You know what we need to do? We need to adopt better and more humane laws like Germany. There, a terrorist who was involved directly with the 9-11 attacks received a whopping 15 years. Interesting to see how much of that he spends behind bars, since many RAF members and known abettors to murders etcetera were free before 10. Hey, their rehabilitated, right? Besides, why keep a rehabilitated person behind bars, think of the cost? Furthermore, keeping them in jail won’t deter future terrorism. What’s up with that midevil punishment thing anyway? Revenge is something for un-intellectual people. You know, why don’t we just get rid of the police while we’re at it?

Our nation won’t be a better place; it’ll be just like Germany, where the victims are made to be the criminals and the criminals into victims. It won’t make the US a safer place, won’t save money and won’t give closure to the victims. I may not be that smart, possibly psychologically off center (since I don’t share a left view), but if someone kills my wife, I want to watch them fry.

[paulsy]

I should add one more thing. A number of innocent people have in fact been executed over the years. Eliminate this concern through modern science, eliminate the fiscal arguments against the death penalty, and you're focused on the moral issues. We are almost to this point, and I may be wrong about the moral arguments, I don't know; if I am wrong about it someone here please explain how (sincerely) because, given what has happened in my family, this is an important issue to me.

[ClearCase_guy]

I should add one more thing. A number of innocent people have in fact been executed over the years.

Name 'em.

[iconoclast]

it seems to me that is is more fiscally responsible to execute someone than it is to house and feed them for years.

Not to mention heart-transplants.

[ctdonath2]

The sanctity of human life will be preserved.

The sanctity of human life is not preserved by forcing society to provide someone food, clothing and shelter for the rest of his life while his victim has nothing, not even life.