Views on death penalty

[Melusine]

Timber, just a note here, related to the being "soft" and coddling criminals thing (please let this be the last time I have to bring this up on IWs.... sigh).
Being against capital punishment has nothing to do with being soft on crime in general.
Personally I believe many sentences to be too "soft" and I am completely in favour of strict punishments for serious crimes (talking murder and the like here). I'm also in favour of life imprisonment (and I truly mean for life, without a chance of the criminal getting out) as an alternative to the death penalty in cases where it is undesirable that the criminal ever re-enter society (multiple rapists, psychopaths, serial killers).
You can disagree with that, but don't fall into the trap of thinking people are anti-DP out of "softness" or laxness. I do believe in second chances, and I do believe that people should get a second chance after a crime. But if a brutal murderer got the death penalty in your country and I argued against it (which I would), that doesn't mean I wouldn't want him sentenced to a life in prison.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: But, can Manson's followers really be held that culpable? I mean, Manson's whole genius was to brainwash others into doing his killing for him. If he *was* guilty of doing that, then how are *they* not able to argue insanity, brainwashing, or duress? Oooops... I'm sounding like a parole supporter aren't I?

Your argument for the Manson Minions represents my primary objection to "Life Imprisonment"...and that is the fact that it RARELY actually means LIFE in prison. Let's continue with your example as an illustration.

Let's say that you did decide to act as the lawyer those that did the actual killing and used your "brainwashing" defense. While the chance of success is slim, it isn't impossible. After all, these "teenagers" are now middle-aged and may very well regret the actions they took. So you go before the parole board and they appear remorseful and repentent for their actions. You argue that they weren't technically responsible for their actions because they had been brainwashed/coerced/deluded/etc by the ultra-charismatic and sinisterly manipulative Manson. Due to your brilliant analysis and defense, the parole board agrees and decides to release them.

The real problem occurs when another lawyer is inspired by your success and decides to defend Manson himself. Since Manson never actually killed the victims himself, the lawyer argues it isn't right for him to be imprisoned for life. He/She also argues that Mansons vaunted "powers of persuasion" are grossly overrated. This wouldn't be difficult since Manson has a tendency to act more than a little bit looney when given an audience. So HIS lawyer could point to the obvious irrationality of Manson's behavior and claim that the "Family" couldn't claim to have been brainwashed by a man with this type of behavior.

OK - it's a very hypothetical illustration, but I think you see what I mean. By following such logic and reasoning, it would be possible for everyone that was guilty of the murders back 196?) to be released from prison and allowed to become free members of society rather than actually spending the rest of their life in prison as per their original sentence.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by wellard: Sparhawk You touch on a theme that i think is real important here, and in part follows up Gab's question "Does anyone think their country is soft on crime?" Which is that with the odd inevitable exceptions the judges sentencing tends to mirror the country's standard of punishment for the crime. The problem always seems to be in the parole board, seemingly unaccountable and certainly unelected, releasing prisoners early. I wonder how many people who support the DP would at least accept a guaranteed life imprisonment (35 years minimum) as an acceptable alternate if they knew no parole board A$$ would set a killer free after say 6 years?

I only have one objection to that proposal, Wellard and that is the statement "guaranteed life imprisonment (35 years minimum)". The "35 years minimum" is NOT the same as "guaranteed life imprisonment". If the criminal is sentenced to LIFE....then they should serve LIFE. If the judge felt they should be eligible for parole, then the sentence should be 100 yrs (which would effectively be "life" if served to the full term) with the possibility of parole after serving a minimum amount (in which case I would accept the 35 years).

But that is the biggest problem with our penal system...and is perhaps one reason the Death Penalty is so stronly supported here - because "life imprisonment" simply does not gaurantee the criminal will be in prison for the rest of their life - even thought the sentence implies that is the case.

If our system could be adjusted so that Life Imprisonment WAS absolute and their was NO CHANCE EVER of the criminal being paroled, then I could accept that as an alternative to the Death Penalty.

Of course, they still leaves the possibility of the criminal trying to escape (after all, they have nothing to lose by trying). So it still isn't a perfect solution, but I would at least be willing to consider it.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Yorick: There is nothing Christian about supporting the death penalty. Any support for the death penalty is found in the OLD TESTAMENT which is the Law of Moses - and that which is still followed by Judaism. A person using the old testament to justify the death penalty should also be presenting sores on their head to the Priest, resting completely on saturday (the sabbath) and not eating pork. Christians are under New Testament grace. "Let he who is without guilt cast the first stone" was said by Jesus to those that were going to LEGALLY execute the alduterous woman. LEGAL EXECUTION prevented by Jesus himself. That underpins any faith-based objections to the death penalty I have. Jesus died in the place of Barabbas - a convicted murderer. Jesus died and Barabbas was freed. Those that would have stoned the adulteress, walked away. If it's good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me. I'd have been legally excecuted under old testament law, so who am I to condemn another to death?

Well, Yorick, I have to give you credit. You actually made me seriously reconsider my stance on the Death Penalty with this argument.

I disagree somewhat with the example of Barabbas because Jesus didn't offer Himself as a replacement for Barabbas. Pilate offered Barabbas in a very desperate attempt to avoid crucifying Jesus. Still, the point is semi-valid because Jesus did die for ALL of us.

The example of halting the legal execution of the adulterous woman is a better example. I could point out that adultery is no longer even considered a crime, much less one that is punishable by death. And I have pointed out that the ONLY offense that is punishable by death is the murder of another person - so the punishment does "fit the crime" much better.

But the crime is really irrelevant...the fact that the execution of the adulterer was legal IS relevant and it presents a good argument as to why Christians should not support the Death Penalty.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I just find it interesting that most people fall into one of two categories: 1. pro-life, pro-DP 2. pro-choice, anti-DP.

How interesting. I however am PRO-LIFE.

That means anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-euthenasia, anti-suicide.

Anti any human taking human life by whatever means. I hold all human life as given by God, sacrosanct and not to be taken under any circumstances by another human. Even in self defense, even in war, even public excecutions, even abortions.

That is my idealistic position.

The pragmatic realist in me accepts "stuff happens", but I would aim to have this value as a universally accepted aim and intent in society, so that the deviation from this is rare and shocking, rather than the norm it is today.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: There is nothing Christian about supporting the death penalty. Any support for the death penalty is found in the OLD TESTAMENT which is the Law of Moses - and that which is still followed by Judaism. A person using the old testament to justify the death penalty should also be presenting sores on their head to the Priest, resting completely on saturday (the sabbath) and not eating pork. Christians are under New Testament grace. "Let he who is without guilt cast the first stone" was said by Jesus to those that were going to LEGALLY execute the alduterous woman. LEGAL EXECUTION prevented by Jesus himself. That underpins any faith-based objections to the death penalty I have. Jesus died in the place of Barabbas - a convicted murderer. Jesus died and Barabbas was freed. Those that would have stoned the adulteress, walked away. If it's good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me. I'd have been legally excecuted under old testament law, so who am I to condemn another to death?

Well, Yorick, I have to give you credit. You actually made me seriously reconsider my stance on the Death Penalty with this argument.

I disagree somewhat with the example of Barabbas because Jesus didn't offer Himself as a replacement for Barabbas. Pilate offered Barabbas in a very desperate attempt to avoid crucifying Jesus. Still, the point is semi-valid because Jesus did die for ALL of us.

The example of halting the legal execution of the adulterous woman is a better example. I could point out that adultery is no longer even considered a crime, much less one that is punishable by death. And I have pointed out that the ONLY offense that is punishable by death is the murder of another person - so the punishment does "fit the crime" much better.

But the crime is really irrelevant...the fact that the execution of the adulterer was legal IS relevant and it presents a good argument as to why Christians should not support the Death Penalty. [/QUOTE]Yes... adultery destroyed the fabric of early society. Created mistrust and could potentially lead to murder - crimes of passion.

It was of course legal and demanded by the Law of Moses

Leviticus 20:10
" 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife-with the wife of his neighbor-both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. "

So if you use the old testament to cite "an eye for an eye" you can also use the old testament to cite death penalty for adultery.

Jesus clearly negated that. We live under New testament grace, not the law of Moses. The Law exists for us as Christians to see, by way of comparison, what Grace gives us. Grace very clearly has allowed me to physically live. In more ways than one.

I'm always mindful of not being the man who, though forgiven of a huge debt, went out and had a man who owed him a much smaller amount thrown in prison. The reaction of the King, who'd forgiven the man in the first place was not pretty.

In the context of a society, I do feel a society has a right to place fabric-destroying individuals in a position where they cannot destroy lives, be that prison, exile or the like. But taking the life itself, goes over the line.

The Barabbas example, I do feel is still quite pertinent. We believe God predestined Jesus to die, and that certain events were indeed prophecied in detail, such as no bone being broken, and Jesus own foretelling of Peters denial. The fact that Jesus died, quite physically, and willingly, instead of a condemned murderer is quite compelling.

But rock and roll.

What is deserving of the death penalty varies from culture to culture and person to person. The existence of it as a punishment in society means that a person at any time can "be the law" and make a split second themself. The (in my opinion) higher morality of human life itself, makes such subjectivity regarding it's termination irrelevent.

Whether the woman had commited adultery, murder, or treason, the fact is she had broken the Law of Moses and was legally going to be excecuted. Jesus prevented it using the "he that is without sin" line of thinking, rather than diminishing the nature of her crime.

Good talking with you Cerek. Be safe mate. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 03-11-2004, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by WillowIX: Her body, her decision.

Yet her body will recover from pregnancy. The baby's body will not recover from death.

Silent voices, snuffed, forever denied a choice, a voice or a life.

If I had a dollar for every woman I know who aborted who wished they knew ONE PERSON that counselled them against abortion, I'd be a rich man. Each one has said, everyone around them advised abortion, so they went with it, and forever regretted it.

Everytime we stifle discussion about it, we risk another woman having years of guilt and another life extinguished.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: quote: Originally posted by wellard: Sparhawk You touch on a theme that i think is real important here, and in part follows up Gab's question "Does anyone think their country is soft on crime?" Which is that with the odd inevitable exceptions the judges sentencing tends to mirror the country's standard of punishment for the crime. The problem always seems to be in the parole board, seemingly unaccountable and certainly unelected, releasing prisoners early. I wonder how many people who support the DP would at least accept a guaranteed life imprisonment (35 years minimum) as an acceptable alternate if they knew no parole board A$$ would set a killer free after say 6 years?

I only have one objection to that proposal, Wellard and that is the statement "guaranteed life imprisonment (35 years minimum)". The "35 years minimum" is NOT the same as "guaranteed life imprisonment". If the criminal is sentenced to LIFE....then they should serve LIFE. If the judge felt they should be eligible for parole, then the sentence should be 100 yrs (which would effectively be "life" if served to the full term) with the possibility of parole after serving a minimum amount (in which case I would accept the 35 years).

But that is the biggest problem with our penal system...and is perhaps one reason the Death Penalty is so stronly supported here - because "life imprisonment" simply does not gaurantee the criminal will be in prison for the rest of their life - even thought the sentence implies that is the case.

If our system could be adjusted so that Life Imprisonment WAS absolute and their was NO CHANCE EVER of the criminal being paroled, then I could accept that as an alternative to the Death Penalty.

Of course, they still leaves the possibility of the criminal trying to escape (after all, they have nothing to lose by trying). So it still isn't a perfect solution, but I would at least be willing to consider it. [/QUOTE]I still think prisons should be hooked up to the electricity grid, and convict labour used to create power for society.

[Yorick]

Here's an interesting thought.

Slavery. Convict labor essentially amounts to slavery - working for no pay. Right?

Yet obviously, given Americas past, any type of slavery is reprehensible, yet is it in the case of a Charles Manson? Why would you argue for killing Manson, but against forcibly using his energy to contribute to societies needs?

Are there double standards?

[Timber Loftis]

I'm all for prison labor. If we're going to pay $30 K a year to house the lousy cretins, the least they could do is earn their keep by doing road work. I really hate namby-pamby states that have succumbed to pressure to end prison labor.

Besides, I'd feel a lot better letting the f-ers out of prison if I knew they had to work the whole time they were in.

Get this, guys -- let me talk about LAZY. As you know, my wife is a prosecutor. We have a Sheriff's Work Alternative Program (SWAP) in Chicago, where you can be punished by being assigned to do road cleaning work as an alternative to jail time. Regularly -- REGULARLY -- defendants will accepts three times as many days in jail that they will doing SWAP. They HATE to work. I've seen a guy take 30 days prison over 5 days SWAP.

And, that, my friends, is a great argument for prison labor. If they get to lie around all day, it's almost as nice as sittin' on the porch -- only thing lacking is the 40. But, if they have to work in prison or out, well maybe they'll quit finding so much free time on the civilian side -- which will lead to less time for mischief.