Terminally Ill Man To Be Executed

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
anitram said:
.

The fact this man had cancer and was frail is really immaterial in the end: if you are anti-death penalty, then the argument applies equally to him and a perfectly healthy, young man on death row.

That's a good point, this could *almost* be a good argument for the merits of assisted suicide, although suicide is murder.

He's been sentenced to die, and is dying, why make him suffer anymore?

Let him move on sooner than later to the hereafter and work out with his existence with his Maker.

dbs
 
Irvine511 said:

just one thing that often gets lost -- some states execute lots of people (Texas) whereas in other states it is illegal. the federal government doesn't execute citizens, state governments do.

Point.


However, the US does have a federal death penalty for certain federal crimes.

My state, Michigan, abolished the death penalty in 1846, which I think is earlier than other countries like the UK.
 
diamond said:


yes, otherwise we would be in complete chaos.

so yes we have to exercise judgement while not being hypocrites.
dbs

you see, to a certain point, we must to avoid chaos, with something like prison.

but how are you able to judge death? how can a government judge death? why should we send a person to the afterlife earlier than supposed to? what would be the harm in letting that person stay in prison for life? have you heard of cases in which people have been let free after many years in prison because they found new evidence? it happens. so why take a life that could be "innocent"?
 
phillyfan26 said:


you see, to a certain point, we must to avoid chaos, with something like prison.

but how are you able to judge death? how can a government judge death? why should we send a person to the afterlife earlier than supposed to? what would be the harm in letting that person stay in prison for life? have you heard of cases in which people have been let free after many years in prison because they found new evidence? it happens. so why take a life that could be "innocent"?

Christ never said there should be no death penalty.

And I understand your point, it's a very good point, and that's why one has to absolutely certain that the person being put to death is guilty of the crime.
I have no problem with DNA evidence vindicating a condemned prisoner.

For the ppl that were wrongly put the death, that responsibility falls on the prosecutor's shoulder, he or she will have to answer for the innocent lives they took, what they knew, and what they did. Not a pretty sight for some prosecutors in the hereafter.

The flip side of the argument is that there have been convicted murderers that after having served their sentence went out and killed again. What do you say about that?
That wouldn't have happened if the were put to death in the first place.

dbs
 
I don't understand being for or against the death penalty based on emotional interpretations of innocence and guilt. If people are in favor of the DP, fine, that's their right, but just own up to it, don't try to sugar coat it with flawed Biblical exegesis.

Besides, NO ONE is "innocent" in the eyes of the Lord. Mayhaps we should just all nuke ourselves then?


The flip side of the argument is that there have been convicted murderers that after having served their sentence went out and killed again. What do you say about that?

The flip side is that people have been sentenced to death who were not guilty. Oh, and that there's no evidence to support that having the death penalty deters crime. I'm not saying you don't have a point worth considering, but you definitely don't have a point worth elevating above the fact that innocent people have been sent to jail to be executed and not-so-innocent people still kill people everyday and don't give a rip whether the death penalty exists.
 
Last edited:
diamond said:

The flip side of the argument is that there have been convicted murderers that after having served their sentence went out and killed again. What do you say about that?
That wouldn't have happened if the were put to death in the first place.

dbs

does that speak to the individuals themselves or to the state's criminal rehabilitation programs?
 
Well the answer to that issue is don't let convicted murderers walk free.

Personally, the possibility that an innocent person could be executed trumps everything else.
 
Liesje said:
I don't understand being for or against the death penalty based on emotional interpretations of innocence and guilt. If people are in favor of the DP, fine, that's their right, but just own up to it, don't try to sugar coat it with flawed Biblical exegesis.

Besides, NO ONE is "innocent" in the eyes of the Lord. Mayhaps we should just all nuke ourselves then?




The flip side is that people have been sentenced to death who were not guilty.

Oh, and that there's no evidence to support that having the death penalty deters crime.

I'm not saying you don't have a point worth considering, but you definitely don't have a point worth elevating above the fact that innocent people have been sent to jail to be executed and not-so-innocent people still kill people everyday and don't give a rip whether the death penalty exists.

The flip side is that people have been sentenced to death who were not guilty.

I guess you glossed over or ignored this :):
Christ never said there should be no death penalty.
And I understand your point, it's a very good point, and that's why one has to absolutely certain that the person being put to death is guilty of the crime. For the ppl that were wrongly put the death, that responsibility falls on the prosecutor's shoulder, he or she will have to answer for the innocent lives they took, what they knew, and what they did. Not a pretty sight for some prosecutors in the hereafter.


Besides, NO ONE is "innocent" in the eyes of the Lord. Mayhaps we should just all nuke ourselves then?

I don't agree with that. Children are innocent, Christ said so.

And I think we understand the what the purpose of our lives differently as well.

Even though you and I understand scripture differently and disagree on the death penalty whether the death penalty is or isn't effective as a deterent, some *innocent* ppl would still be alive had the death penalty been issued in the above noted circumstances. I'm not responsible for ppl who choose evil whether or not there is a death penalty or not. God has allowed ppl to have free will for his purpopses. It's up for us to decide in this life, whether we aceppt his Son or not, and by giving us free will he let's us govern ourselves.

dbs
 
Last edited:
diamond said:

I guess you glossed over or ignored this :):
Christ never said there should be no death penalty.



Christ never said I shouldn't get really made and kick my cat. Christ never said I shouldn't do a lot of things, but common sense says I won't. I really don't care what Christ never said I shouldn't do. I care what Christ said I SHOULD do.


And I understand your point, it's a very good point, and that's why one has to absolutely certain that the person being put to death is guilty of the crime.

So what tactical strategies can you provide that can realistically accomplish this?


For the ppl that were wrongly put the death, that responsibility falls on the prosecutor's shoulder, he or she will have to answer for the innocent lives they took, what they knew, and what they did. Not a pretty sight for some prosecutors in the hereafter.

No, that is dead wrong. IMO, that's a very immature understanding of how the courts work. The responsibility falls on the PEOPLE'S shoulder, as in, the jurors, our court system in general, the people of this country, collectively speaking. It's not the prosecutor that puts people in jail, it's jurors like you and I that allow our own biases and religious convictions to cloud our judgment and fill in the blanks.


And I think we understand the what the purpose of our lives differently as well.

I have no clue what you mean by this. I don't recall making any personal statements in this thread regarding the purpose of our lives.


some *innocent* ppl would still be alive had the death penalty been issued in the above noted circumstances.

So why not just advocate that those convicted of murder one stay in prison for life? Why is *death* so much more appropriate?


I'm not responsible for ppl who choose evil whether or not there is a death penalty or not. God has allowed ppl to have free will for his purpopses. It's up for us to decide in this life, whether we aceppt his Son or not, and by giving us free will he let's us govern ourselves.

Well, maybe this is the heart of the issue then. I'm not personally responsible for other people's actions, but as a citizen of the State and a member of the jury pool, I AM responsible for having a clear and objective understanding of our justice system. Whether or not I can sniff out Biblical references that might have something to do with killing other people has no relevance because our courts are based on legislation, statutes, precedent, etc. not the Bible. IMO, it's irrelevant and petty to make judicial decisions based on what we would prefer the court system to look like. Even if I did condone the death penalty (which I did for a very, very long time), I would snicker at the notion that it's acceptable to use Biblical exegesis as my foundation for supporting the death penalty in the courts. We are not a theocracy, and until we are, we might as well support/oppose things like the death penalty based on evidence and argumentation that is actually recognized and supported by the judicial system. Like I said, I really don't care if people support the death penalty, that's their right, but it just looks so stupid to be using Scripture like it's actually going to convince the government that their position is valid.
 
Liesje said:






So why not just advocate that those convicted of murder one stay in prison for life? Why is *death* so much more appropriate?





Because it doesn't work, and there is a finality to the perpetuator's crime.
Some convicted murderers serving life have gotten out for good behavior and killed again, some condemned killers have escaped and killed again.

Some killers who initially got sentenced with "no possiblity of parole" later petitioned their sentences were then released later for good behavior and went out and killed again.

As far as going round and round on the other issues, time constraints limit anymore dialouging at the present.

dbs


As far as rehashing other things, I won't.
 
I think Lies pretty much covered it for me.

My biggest reason for opposing the death penalty is the possibility of the innocent being put to death.

I don't see the NEED for a death penalty.

That said right now--and I'm still in flux on this--my feeling is that there are times when the taking of human life is a necessity. A horrific one, but a necessity nonetheless. Certain warfare situations, some abortions, maybe even certain death penalty situations. I also believe that taking another human life exacts a terrible toll on the humanity of the person who does it.

I realize that won't sit well with everyone--heck it doesn't entirely sit well with me, but at least it's consistent.

And I'm not going to try to use Biblical evidence to support that. It is what it is.
 
diamond said:


Children are innocent,

You've obviously never been a teacher.

diamond said:

Christ said so.


Where? He commends that faith of little children, he says he values them, He says that we must become like little children to enter heaven but none of that says anything about their "innocence."
 
diamond said:


Because it doesn't work, and there is a finality to the perpetuator's crime.
Some convicted murderers serving life have gotten out for good behavior and killed again, some condemned killers have escaped and killed again.

Some killers who initially got sentenced with "no possiblity of parole" later petitioned their sentences were then released later for good behavior and went out and killed again.

As far as going round and round on the other issues, time constraints limit anymore dialouging at the present.

dbs


As far as rehashing other things, I won't.

Well, that's a real shame because I'd like to hear some specific examples of the above having happened.
 
diamond, after that essay you wrote on the evils of racism, are you comfortable knowing that a black man is far more likely to be sentenced to death by a white jury than a white man who has committed the same crime?
 
some of you do not have the intellectual bandwidth nor girth to wrap your brain around the wisdom of my posts.

and irvine you know better to put up a weak argument like that:no:

if u have money to defend yourself, whether you're black white or purple, you usually are able to avoid the DP.
 
diamond said:

Christ never said there should be no death penalty.

C'mon, that statement is ridiculous. Did Christ really have to say every single crime that is wrong for you to be sure? Christ never said a lot of things. He spoke in generalities, hoping we people of earth would have the common sense to realize what he's talking about. As Lies said, Christ never said not to kick an animal out of fury, does that mean we can?

If you think people deserve finality, that's fine, but there's no biblical backing for it. Biblical backing would be things Christ does say, not doesn't say.

"Thou shalt not kill."
"Let him who is without sin be the first to cast a stone."
 
diamond said:


And I understand your point, it's a very good point, and that's why one has to absolutely certain that the person being put to death is guilty of the crime.
I have no problem with DNA evidence vindicating a condemned prisoner.


There is no way to absolutely know if this person was guilty, even with DNA, so your whole argument is shot.
 
diamond said:
And I understand your point, it's a very good point, and that's why one has to absolutely certain that the person being put to death is guilty of the crime.
I have no problem with DNA evidence vindicating a condemned prisoner.

For the ppl that were wrongly put the death, that responsibility falls on the prosecutor's shoulder, he or she will have to answer for the innocent lives they took, what they knew, and what they did. Not a pretty sight for some prosecutors in the hereafter.

The flip side of the argument is that there have been convicted murderers that after having served their sentence went out and killed again. What do you say about that?
That wouldn't have happened if the were put to death in the first place.

Wow.

The fact that our justice system is based around the idea that things are "beyond a reasonable doubt" as opposed to "an absolute certainty" speaks volumes about the problems with that statement.

And to state that every instance of an innocent man found guilty is a result of prosecutor lies is just as obsurd.

And to that I say, that's why we have life without parole.
 
diamond said:
some of you do not have the intellectual bandwidth nor girth to wrap your brain around the wisdom of my posts.

That's pretty insulting, when there are plenty, me included, who find your statements to not be filled with wisdom. :|

I'm 16 years old by the way.
 
diamond said:
if u have money to defend yourself, whether you're black white or purple, you usually are able to avoid the DP.



so ... why continue to suppor the death penalty if it only applies to poor people?
 
diamond said:
some of you do not have the intellectual bandwidth nor girth to wrap your brain around the wisdom of my posts.

That's because your wisdom "infra-wisdom" to us.
 
Irvine511 said:




so ... why continue to suppor the death penalty if it only applies to poor people?

i can't be responsible for a flawed system, nor the improper use of free will by rich ppl.

dbs
 
Back
Top Bottom