+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive)
+---- Thread: For those against the Death Penalty (/Thread-For-those-against-the-Death-Penalty)
RE: For those against the Death Penalty - Millhouse - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 10:10 AM)Goalpost Wrote: I have no problem that a guy like McVey was executed. But in a general sense, I see a problem with an occasional error, which cant ever happen.
This is pretty much my opinion as well. I have no problem at all for a quick and cheap death penalty for a certain type of murderer, especially when it comes to kids and terrorists like McVey.
But when that line isn't firmly drawn on what constitutes the death penalty and then the chance of someone being innocent, it's hard to get behind it.
Imo it should be reserved for very extreme cases that needs 100% proof of guilt, like a child kidnapper/rapist/murderer or a terrorist. But otherwise like in this case here just let em rot in jail.
RE: For those against the Death Penalty - Belsnickel - 07-03-2018
If the death penalty was carried out error free and it worked effectively as a deterrent, I'd have less of an issue. Neither of these things is true, though, and so I don't support it in any scenario.
RE: For those against the Death Penalty - hollodero - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 10:37 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I get that. But I see (and we are assuming guilt here) locking someone up for the rest of their lives as an awesome use of the state's power as well.
Sure, the difference for me being that locking people away is actually a necessity. We need punishment for breaking the laws, and severe punishment for severe crimes like murder. Second, we need to protect society from these murdering individuals.
All of that can be achieved without killing them though. As I believe, that also goes for deterrence. I don't believe the death penalty helps in that regard.
RE: For those against the Death Penalty - Benton - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 10:37 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I get that. But I see (and we are assuming guilt here) locking someone up for the rest of their lives as an awesome use of the state's power as well.
Life in prison (or prison in general) goes waaay back to the days of banishment. Someone did something wrong, you banished them.
Not that some cultures didn't have a death penalty for crimes. They did. But the punishment for a lot of crimes in a lot of cultures was getting kicked out.
RE: For those against the Death Penalty - bfine32 - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 09:18 AM)CKwi88 Wrote: Life without parole....was another response expected?
There have been others. I was simply interested in knowing is a crime this cut and dry and heinous toward an innocent child; allowed anyone for "an exception to policy".
RE: For those against the Death Penalty - bfine32 - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 01:29 AM)Benton Wrote: Due (mostly) to my spiritual belief, this is the only option. Also due to my experiences with covering the legal system, this is the only option.
You don't believe in separation of church and state?
RE: For those against the Death Penalty - Benton - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 12:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You don't believe in separation of church and state?
You do?
For the record, I do.
EDIT: I figured it would be easier to go ahead and clarify while I've got a couple minutes.
There's no issue with spiritual beliefs shaping our government. Spiritual is a pretty broad term there.
I have a religion. The core of it is basically "love each other, help each other, don't hurt each other." So I don't have any issue with lawmaking that reflects that. Most of my friends who have some sort of religion pretty well fall in line with that. So while we may not worship the same, or even believe in the same things, we can (probably) both agree you shouldn't kill someone, steal their stuff, **** in their mailbox, etc.
That's not the same as church and state where we allow a religion — any religion — to shape policy. Because of my religious beliefs, I think separation of church and state is one of the most important rights we have. I've mentioned before I grew up in a pretty strict Church of Christ. There were two branches in my hometown, with about 75% of the educators belonging to one church or the other. So even though there was a lot of community outcry, there was a lot of administrative support when the district glued together pages in science books that mentioned evolution. Same when they briefly banned the prom (the CoC forbade dancing), but they gave up on that one.
RE: For those against the Death Penalty - fredtoast - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 12:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There have been others. I was simply interested in knowing is a crime this cut and dry and heinous toward an innocent child; allowed anyone for "an exception to policy".
Maybe it isn't cut and dry. Maybe this group is just blaming him to protect someone else.
Or maybe he is mentally ill.. . . "
Kinner told the judge he didn't understand the charges or proceedings. He also said he wanted to represent himself.
The judge ordered that he be appointed a public defender anyway.
"I can't explain the charges any more clearly than I just did," he told Kinner.
We don't execute people for being mentally ill in this country.
RE: For those against the Death Penalty - fredtoast - 07-03-2018
Capital punishment is not a moral issue. The criminal justice system is too flawed to decide who lives and who dies. We can't make it 100% accurate so we can't kill people based on its results.
RE: For those against the Death Penalty - Belsnickel - 07-03-2018
Lately, my reading and research have been evolving my thoughts on a lot of things. They haven't really changed my views, but given me different ways to think about them. This is one of those instances. To me, every law we have in this country, every action our government takes, should be guided by the Constitution. This seems obvious, but when we look at the preamble it helps to give us a template.
Quote:We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Forming a perfect union, establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing those blessings. What our governments, local, state, and federal do should fall into those categories. Now I have made bold the categories which someone could argue the death penalty would fall under.
The death penalty is not just as it is not implemented evenly and without error. It does not insure domestic tranquility because it fails as a deterrent. If the death penalty fails in these two things, then its existence means that we are not securing the blessings of liberty and our posterity.
That is my current position on the death penalty. It runs counter to what we, as a nation, said we stood for 230 years ago. I may say that we need a new Constitution, and I still maintain that, but those values that exist in the preamble are values that we should continue to strive for as a country.
RE: For those against the Death Penalty - michaelsean - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 01:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Lately, my reading and research have been evolving my thoughts on a lot of things. They haven't really changed my views, but given me different ways to think about them. This is one of those instances. To me, every law we have in this country, every action our government takes, should be guided by the Constitution. This seems obvious, but when we look at the preamble it helps to give us a template.
Forming a perfect union, establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing those blessings. What our governments, local, state, and federal do should fall into those categories. Now I have made bold the categories which someone could argue the death penalty would fall under.
The death penalty is not just as it is not implemented evenly and without error. It does not insure domestic tranquility because it fails as a deterrent. If the death penalty fails in these two things, then its existence means that we are not securing the blessings of liberty and our posterity.
That is my current position on the death penalty. It runs counter to what we, as a nation, said we stood for 230 years ago. I may say that we need a new Constitution, and I still maintain that, but those values that exist in the preamble are values that we should continue to strive for as a country.
If the death penalty doesn't do those things, then neither does life in prison.
Were the people who wrote the Constitution against the death penalty? If they weren't, then it's hard to say the death penalty runs counter to what we stood for 230 years ago.
RE: For those against the Death Penalty - bfine32 - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 01:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Maybe it isn't cut and dry. Maybe this group is just blaming him to protect someone else.
Or maybe he is mentally ill.. . . "
Kinner told the judge he didn't understand the charges or proceedings. He also said he wanted to represent himself.
The judge ordered that he be appointed a public defender anyway.
"I can't explain the charges any more clearly than I just did," he told Kinner.
We don't execute people for being mentally ill in this country.
Who the hell has ever suggested we execute people for being mentally ill? Are you suggesting we lock folks up for being mentally ill?
But we may want to think about drawing a line at an adult butchering a kids with a knife at her birthday party.
RE: For those against the Death Penalty - bfine32 - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 01:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Capital punishment is not a moral issue. The criminal justice system is too flawed to decide who lives and who dies. We can't make it 100% accurate so we can't kill people based on its results.
What's the difference between deciding who lives and dies and who has their freedom taken away for the rest of their lives? The court system is imperfect; but, it is our system and a fair one. I fail to see the argument of: Well we can just lock them up for the rest of their lives, just incase we were wrong.
RE: For those against the Death Penalty - fredtoast - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 02:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who the hell has ever suggested we execute people for being mentally ill? Are you suggesting we lock folks up for being mentally ill?
But we may want to think about drawing a line at an adult butchering a kids with a knife at her birthday party.
So it is okay to kill people for being mentally ill if they attack kids at a birthday party? Is that what you mean by "draw the line"?
BTW how do you know he really did it. Maybe the witnesses are lying to protect someone else. Or maybe they are afraid to say who really did it so they blame a mentally ill guy.
RE: For those against the Death Penalty - Belsnickel - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 02:16 PM)michaelsean Wrote: If the death penalty doesn't do those things, then neither does life in prison.
But if life in prison is unjustly applied, then you have more time to correct the injustice. Also, I don't agree with life in prison except in extreme circumstances. But one step at a time.
(07-03-2018, 02:16 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Were the people who wrote the Constitution against the death penalty? If they weren't, then it's hard to say the death penalty runs counter to what we stood for 230 years ago.
I know that Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, and Madison all opposed the death penalty and took measures to limit its use if not eliminate it entirely. It'd be hard to get a poll of all of the framers, but there was a substantial number of them that included some of the more influential thinkers in the group that formed the basis for our government that were opposed to it.
RE: For those against the Death Penalty - fredtoast - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 02:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What's the difference between deciding who lives and dies and who has their freedom taken away for the rest of their lives?
Because if we make a mistake locking them up we can let them go if we find out about that mistake.
I see stories about this happening all the time.
RE: For those against the Death Penalty - michaelsean - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 02:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: But if life in prison is unjustly applied, then you have more time to correct the injustice. Also, I don't agree with life in prison except in extreme circumstances. But one step at a time.
I know that Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, and Madison all opposed the death penalty and took measures to limit its use if not eliminate it entirely. It'd be hard to get a poll of all of the framers, but there was a substantial number of them that included some of the more influential thinkers in the group that formed the basis for our government that were opposed to it.
But you were talking about it not being a deterrent. That's the reason it doesn't qualify.
RE: For those against the Death Penalty - Belsnickel - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 02:29 PM)michaelsean Wrote: But you were talking about it not being a deterrent. That's the reason it doesn't qualify.
Being a deterrent is not the only way to insure domestic tranquility. That can be insured with removal from society, which can be resolved with imprisonment the same as execution. So perhaps I should have been more specific in my post, but I thought I had gotten wordy enough.
RE: For those against the Death Penalty - bfine32 - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 02:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because if we make a mistake locking them up we can let them go if we find out about that mistake.
I see stories about this happening all the time.
But what if we don't find out about the mistake? You still didn't answer if we should lock people up for being mentally ill. Do you want to answer that or do you want to concede how ignorant your reply about killing folks because of it was?
Folks go to trail by a jury of their peers and are found to be guilty or not. For someone that works in the court system you sure don't have much faith in it.
RE: For those against the Death Penalty - bfine32 - 07-03-2018
(07-03-2018, 02:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So it is okay to kill people for being mentally ill if they attack kids at a birthday party? Is that what you mean by "draw the line"?
BTW how do you know he really did it. Maybe the witnesses are lying to protect someone else. Or maybe they are afraid to say who really did it so they blame a mentally ill guy.
You didn't answer the question Fred, just asked another one.