Galt and others are actually trying to engage you in a reasonable give and take and you dismiss it as sophistry. Come to think of it....I don't think I've ever seen you actually try to discuss a topic reasonably. Instead you just sink to your standard..."liberals bad" rhetoric. Galt has not defined "due process" according to his own conclusions. The Supreme Court has done so but you ignored that part of his post. Read the Supreme Court case law regarding death penalty jurisprudence. It states that given the 8th Amendment's admonishment against cruel and unusual punishment, the due process standards necessary to hand out a death sentence are heightened. It's not just in death penalty cases either. The Supreme Court has in many types of due process cases set up differing standards of scrutiny to be utilized. So, given that death penalty cases are supposed to pass a higher standard of scrutiny, the debate becomes how high (or how close to perfect) and is the current system succeeding or failing in that regard. These are legitimate questions despite your refusal to address them.
For one thing, I'm not a lawyer so I can only engage this argument at a certain level. I can say that if you set the standard at an impractical level, you're simply making the punishment impossible while pretending to have an open mind about it. For another thing, I was responding to other non-lawyers who claimed that a single failure is unacceptable. This is the same as setting an unreasonable standard and pretending that the conclusion wasn't predetermined by this assumption.
I am not a lawyer either. And, if it matters to the discussion -- as much as it seems to matter to you -- I am not one, who most would generally describe as liberal. That said, my earlier post sums up my main objections to the death penalty, but regarding the standard of perfection for "due process", it must be perfect; killing an innocent man is unacceptable. This does not mean we need to potentially endanger society by ever releasing death-row candidates. If the crime was bad enough for death row, they should never be released -- unless, of course, they're exonerated someday.
simply put, i believe certain people deserve to die, but no one has the right to say who should or who should not be killed.
But you'd agree that giving someone 2 life sentences in a state where there is no death penalty is crazy. I would also like to know your and/or anyone's opinion of the guy from Ohio, dubbed the volunteer. This guy waived his appeals and requested to be killed, not like one of our current bigsoccer posters btw. The other members on death row hated the guy for speeding up the process. Lawyers against the DP didn't like his willing spirit and it was noted that the guy had an IQ nearing retardation. Let's not forget that his crime got him a meager $30 after he killed his boss at a pizza shop after it closed. Now, if this guy killed for what turned out to be $30, was his boss' life worth $30? A simple Cost Based Analysis will show that all the time, effort and expense is not worth even taking this guy to jail, but justice does not work in this manner. But, where does this leave us?
I'd be quite satisfied leaving the decision to the families of the victims. LEt them decide.. And in the case of a 9/11, have an election for the families involved!
Has Santa granted Ted his wish yet, or should we all look forward to another day of bizarre threads dedicated to the painful deaths of, at last count, 4 mods, 1 SuperMod, and 9 guys all named "jesus"?
Your attitude is like that of the manufacturing safety guy who takes the noble position that no fatal accident is acceptable. The only problem is, you can only ensure that by shutting down all manufacturing. And if it's a seat belt factory, there may be consequences that are worse. Not killing these scumsuckers puts other people in danger - guards, other prisoners, and the general public in some cases. You're not being as noble as you imagine.
I came in late for this one and after looking at 6 pages of some excellent posts (and some just silly) It's still a really tough question to answer. More and more we hear of people who are on death row and for some reason or other it's been proven that they really are innocent. Try and imagine how you'd feel. Then on the other hand there are some people who just shouldn't be allowed to use up any more or our oxygen. We're all trying to think that everyone is equal in this world. Well, we might start out that way but there are some people who never got off the first rung of the evolutionary ladder. There was/is a case still going on in Washington State where a guy robbing a bank shot 2 tellers on his way out simply because they could identify him. He was sentenced to death and due to be hanged. End of story......Not quite. He made a special effort to eat every thing he could and got his weight to over 300 pounds. Then his lawyer appealed (And won) on the grounds of 'cruel and unusual punishment' Why? They claimed that if he was hung his head would come off. In this case I don't see a problem, he's just as dead.
The fact that you seem to believe one must be a lawyer before he/she can fully discuss this issue says all I need to know.
It's interesting the twists and turns that site must go through to include Christ on its list of interpretations; in other sections, it points to pre-Christ scripture as "affirming" DP; when it gets to Christ, knowing that Christ imparted a message that would make murder of any kind by disciplies of his teachings impossible, the site resorts to a strategy that submits that because Christ didn't specifically say the DP is wrong, it must be okay with Christ. What disgraceful use of Christ to front an Anti-Christ practice. 36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Pretty clear. 38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. 41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. 43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven Pretty clear. Christ didn't ask you to try and guess the result of following these clear Commands and Directives. He didn't ask you a damn thing; he TOLD you what you needed to do, and to leave the rest up to him. Just because folks lack the faith, the difficult, leap-taking faith, to do that, personally and in society, doesn't mean that revisionist history will work here; too many hotels and too many Gideons for that anyway. I think that Christ would HATE a dogma that claimed to issue from him, yet killed so many people at home and abroad, directly AND indirectly. Stop trying to include him in these dirty, anti-Christ practices. Christ taught lovingkindness and nonviolence, was born, lived and died nonviolently, in love; how can being "Christ-like" include the direct and indirect support of murder? No, for those that claim faith in Christ - in CHRIST - there is no way to take any position other than that of loving nonviolence, which by definition would prevent participation in and/or advocacy of murder. Now I KNOW that the dogma says you can kill justly. I know that. I also know that the notion of scriptural equivalency - every word in the Bible is as valid as every other - is propagated by the dogma's adherents. But the very fact of the Greatest Commandments (and the turning on its head the 'right' to 'an eye for an eye,' btw), issued by the God the dogma claims to proclaim, refutes that; Christ proclaims them "the greatest," and that all other law and all other prophetic tradition spring from those Commands...those Commands to love...to love God, and to our neighbor, to love everyone else we come across in our life and living. Indeed, Christ clarifies what "neighbor" means - specifically - by offering the parable of the Good Samaritan.** "Neighbor" does not mean merely one of the church or faith to which we belong. It has no reference to race, color, or class distinction. No reference to the determinations of society or state. Our neighbor is every person who needs our help. Our neighbor is every soul who is wounded and bruised by the adversary. Our neighbor is everyone of whom we are aware. Period. And if that's the case, then Christ's Second Great Commandment is powerful indeed. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Period. No qualification. No exceptions. No excuses, not for those striving to be Christ-like, in any case. Christ's Message, Commands and Directives are simple and clear. It offends me deeply when people intentionally confuse for others the difference between that simple clarity and the expression of a bit of Christ and a bit of "do whatever the ******** we want to do" that is most of today's "Christianity." Wake up. Take the leap. Transform the world. Or don't. But please please please; please don't try to make Christ a shield for murder. **25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? 27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. 28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. 29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour? 30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. 33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, 34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. 36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? 37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise. Pretty clear. Mercy; go and do likewise.
Mel, Christ wasn't preaching to the government, he was preaching to individuals. Bet you think Christ came to bring peace, don't ya, Mel.
... Okay, I'll bite. To the extent that statement is relevant, or even right, and not an attempt at sidetracking or sidestepping...therefore what? Sit back, everyone. This ride is gonna be a doozy.
I bet you can't ever sidestep the Great Commandments and the Sermon Directives of YOUR LORD with better dexterity and false aplomb. 9 out of 10. 4 out of 10 from the East German judge, on GP. Now get back to sanctioning and encouraging Rapturous, Glorious Murder in the name of YOUR LORD. If only you folks could keep this sensibility for just yourselves, we'd soon not have to worry 'bout ya. Problem is you want to both be possessed of these notions AND control the box that controls the nuclear weapons. Unacceptable.
No, no...that's too easy. Too quick. Sit back and enjoy this one. It's one of the few times on BS that you just know it's gonna be a whopper.
The boiled head of a Cambodian teenager, with just a little hot sauce on the hair. What? Oh, you mean the Jesus I'M talking about? I thought you meant the other one; Sgt. Christ. The one leading our troops in Iraq, leading our condemned into the chamber at San Quentin.
Government's duty is to protect the people. Our individual responsibility is not to avenge the murder of our loved ones. But it is the government responsibility to ensure justice is served. God is love, Mel. But God is also just.
Christ has told you that you are to love everyone you come across. Period. No exceptions, no qualifications. It is not love to stand by and allow law that kills which is sanctioned by US. Period. God IS Just; but to presume that we can enact anything but justice, a fallible next best thing to the Just Act that a God can manifest, is to presume God-like awareness of the ultimate Right and Wrong, the perfect Attributing, of any act. Which of course, we do not possess; we are fallible, so, even if you want to commit to the notion that Christ gave you exceptions he did not toward some earth/government-based notion of "justice," knowing that we are fallible, and commanded to love, takes the possibility of commiting premeditated murder further afield than before you started, on your own terms. Stick with the Old Testament; you'll have better success there. You'll never be able to claim Christ in the affirmation and sanction of the death penalty, particularly in a representative republic, because Christ's very words ake it impossible for anyone who has embraced his teachings AS their life to do, or approve, of premeditated murder. The discussion, such that it is, is not even in this area. It's in the area of spontaneous self-defense where the debate rages over being in relationship with Christ and being able to kill in that circumstance (and IMO, even that's not a debate. The Commands and Directives are clear, and without qualification; the debate comes down to faith; I'm not talking aobut what I'd feel I'd do if in the moment, or even premeiditated, I had to kill to save my wife or child's life...I'm talking about how that entire decision process is without question OUTSIDE and in REFUTATION of what Christ told me to do). But only folks like yourself, who want to place your OWN will upon Christ's words and acts, thus righteously justifying them in a false relationship with the Numinous, still find a debate at the level of premeditated murder by any party or proxy as justified in Christ Jesus.
He wouldn't. He'd leave it to television, like most everyone else. Otherwise his assertions that he didn't need tv and liked to spend face time with his kids would be met with whispers of "Does he think he's better than us?" and, eventually, to a trip back on the cross. Only this time it'd be in the shape of a gurney and straps, in a nice, cool, special little room. Or maybe a warm, wired chair.