bartshan-83 Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 The only fact is that argument is a steaming pile of crap. Since 1967 there have been 1200 executions for over 800,000 murders in the US. Of course it's not going to be a deterant if its only applied 0.15% of the time. How about executing 80% of all murderers for a few years and then figuring out if it's a deterrant? If you want to argue cost or morality or whatever, that's fine, but the 'deterant' argument is b.s. I don't necessarily disagree with you because I don't know one can possibly measure whether capital punishment is a significant deterrent for committing murders. But I'll offer my opinion: A theory of crime deterrence I read in law school has stuck with me to this day. It is the theory that the likelihood of being caught far outweighs the severity of punishment. Would you be more likely to commit crime X that carried a 25 year sentence if you were 95% sure you'd get away with it or crime Y that carried a 5 year sentence if you were 70% sure you'd get away with it? Would you cheat on your spouse in a different country/city/situation that you were sure would never come back to you or would you simply flirt with someone in a location where it was possible someone might recognize you? (Obviously there is the qualifier that you would never do either of those things, but you understand the hypothetical). I'm sure not everyone subscribes to this theory, but the more thought I've put into it, the more I believe it in. I think it explains why 'unlikely criminals' continue to commit violent crime. By unlikely criminals I mean people that don't otherwise engage in usual criminal behavior. When someone has decided to commit a murder (or allowed themselves to enter the mind state where such an act is now possible), I believe that they are primarily (if not exclusively) considering their odds of being caught, rather than what will happen to them if they are. A related point is coupling the above theory with the very human behavior of compounding a bad situation into a worse one rather than dealing with any unpleasantness. Take Scott Peterson or Rae Carruth...two men who (theoretically) murdered their wives/girlfriends to avoid dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. Whatever social/emotional/financial or other hardships they would have endured by having a child OBVIOUSLY paled in comparison to facing the death penalty. But I believe in their minds they did this: Situation A (having the child): Unpleasant situation x 100% probability = unacceptable Situation B (murdering the s/o): (Unpleasant situation x 0% probability) + (severe punishment x low probability) = acceptable Surely breaking this down into a mathematical equation is artificial, but you get my point. It explains how people can become capable of such heinous behavior and WHY they actually follow through with it. Now, I'll wrap this up because I'm getting long-winded, but I do believe/concede that capital punishment is a great deterrent AFTER someone is caught. I believe that once someone's brain moves past considering the likelihood of being caught and into the reality that they have been, THEN the severity of the punishment clearly comes into play. That may be an obvious point, but I think it is where the correlation truly lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 You know I was referring to his argument about the supposed contraction between being anti-abortion and pro-DP, right? Yes, when I read it the second time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 From what I've read, there appears to have been enough evidence that would of been stricken from court to have changed jurors opinions. As a matter of fact, a few of the jurors stated that if those people who were "witnesses" hadn't testified who later changed their story, that they wouldn't have found him guilty. This is a human life we are talking about here, I don't see the problem with reviewing it further, other than possibly killing an innocent person. But how many more times are they going to review it. He and his lawyers have had around 20 years to review it and get him off death row, and they never could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 How is it possible to be a Christian, be pro life and pro death penalty all at the same time? I don't know much about this guy or the case but I do know that there's weren't any special exceptions to the "Thou shall not kill" commandment. I also know for a FACT that history has shown for almost 400 years that the death penalty does absolutely nothing to deter crime. Sure, it gets rid of the perpetrator but if I remember Sunday school correctly I'm pretty sure I was told not to judge others. So then no one should ever be convicted or jailed for anything ever? Is that what they meant in Sunday school or is it possible you missed the point or maybe it was a Wednesday afternoon Sunday school session taught in Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveinElma Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 How is it possible to be a Christian, be pro life and pro death penalty all at the same time? The unborn is innocent, Troy Davis is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike in Syracuse Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 (edited) The unborn is innocent, Troy Davis is not. And where exactly in the bible does it say you have the right to take someone's life? I can't seem to find that passage. The "child" is innocent the convicted murder is not. It's really pretty simple Actually, in most of these cases you can't be 100% certain that the convicted person is not innocent. That's really irrelevant. There's no provision in the bible that says it's ok to kill someone under these circumstances. Jesus never mentioned a loophole that allows us to execute convicted felons. You can't say you believe in a religion and it's teachings and just ignore the parts that are inconvenient. Edited September 22, 2011 by Mike in Syracuse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike in Syracuse Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 (edited) The only fact is that argument is a steaming pile of crap. Since 1967 there have been 1200 executions for over 800,000 murders in the US. Of course it's not going to be a deterant if its only applied 0.15% of the time. How about executing 80% of all murderers for a few years and then figuring out if it's a deterrant? If you want to argue cost or morality or whatever, that's fine, but the 'deterant' argument is b.s. It's not and you're wrong. To evaluate the efficacy of capital punishement you have to go back a LOT farther than 1967. In medevial England there were hundreds of crimes that were punishable by death. Pickpocketing was one such crime. As people were watching public executions of people accused of being pickpockets, other pickpockets were working their way through the crowds. The death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent because the individuals who commit capital crimes don't believe they'll be caught. Our law enforcement system does not prevent crime, it reacts to it. Very rarely does a cop walking down the street or a passing patrol car actually prevent a crime from occuring. We have a response based system. Unless you can invent a system that insures that every criminal will be caught within hours of committing a crime you're never going to get deterrence. Edited September 22, 2011 by Mike in Syracuse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 we can give them season tickets to the dolphins........ It's not and you're wrong. To evaluate the efficacy of capital punishement you have to go back a LOT farther than 1967. In medevial England there were hundreds of crimes that were punishable by death. Pickpocketing was one such crime. As people were watching public executions of people accused of being pickpockets, other pickpockets were working their way through the crowds. The death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent because the individuals who commit capital crimes don't believe they'll be caught. Our law enforcement system does not prevent crime, it reacts to it. Very rarely does a cop walking down the street or a passing patrol car actually prevent a crime from occuring. We have a response based system. Unless you can invent a system that insures that every criminal will be caught within hours of committing a crime you're never going to get deterrence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 And where exactly in the bible does it say you have the right to take someone's life? I can't seem to find that passage. Actually, you can't be 100% certain that the convicted person is no innocent. That's really irrelevant. There's no provision in the bible that says it's ok to kill someone under these circumstances. Jesus never mentioned a loophole that allows us to execute convicted felons. You can't say you believe in a religion and it's teachings and just ignore the parts that are inconvenient. I guess I have to repost this: How is it possible to be a Christian, be pro life and pro death penalty all at the same time? I don't know much about this guy or the case but I do know that there's weren't any special exceptions to the "Thou shall not kill" commandment. I also know for a FACT that history has shown for almost 400 years that the death penalty does absolutely nothing to deter crime. Sure, it gets rid of the perpetrator but if I remember Sunday school correctly I'm pretty sure I was told not to judge others. If we're going to continue executing people I would hope that there would be capital punishment for all those involved in executing someone who is later proven to be innocent. After all, capital punishment is the ultimate form of pre-meditated murder. That included cops, prosecutors and jurors along with whoever pulls the switch or injects the drug. 1) What does this line of argument have to do with anything? The United States is not a Christian / New Testament theocracy. 2) Actually, there were several exceptions to the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" commandment. The Lex Talionis / "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth." War / National conflict. Self-defense. Granted, these were in the Old Testament, but.... 3) Do you really want to get into that argument? They are people each doing their part in a long chain of upholding a system of laws. If you don't like the laws, then try to change the laws through the proper channels. How in the world could you condone killing people for their discrete parts in adjudicating a capital case? You would hope for that? What is wrong with you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 You can't say you believe in a religion and it's teachings and just ignore the parts that are inconvenient. Funny, because this is the exact premise most religions are based on. Take an earlier version, eliminate the parts you don't like, and a new religion is formed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 .... Now, I'll wrap this up because I'm getting long-winded, but I do believe/concede that capital punishment is a great deterrent AFTER someone is caught. I believe that once someone's brain moves past considering the likelihood of being caught and into the reality that they have been, THEN the severity of the punishment clearly comes into play. That may be an obvious point, but I think it is where the correlation truly lies. Not to mention that the death penalty is an immensely important prosecutorial tool in plea bargaining. When capital punishment is off the table, they can lose the ability to plead a potential capital crime down to murder 1 and life in prison... so it becomes a matter of life in prison that can get pleaded down to murder 2 and the possibility of parole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Actually, in most of these cases you can't be 100% certain that the convicted person is not innocent. You can't say you believe in a religion and it's teachings and just ignore the parts that are inconvenient. In both of these cases you absolutely can. You ever hear the term Cafeterian Catholics. There are plenty of Christians that are pro abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 I really don't like abortion but think it should be legal. I also don't like the "Death Penalty" but think it should be legal. There are varying reasons for each, most are pragmatic. Yet at this point I don't care if they use dead fetus goo to choke convicted murderers to death. How's that for a lack of respect for human life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 (edited) I am at an absolute loss for words by that penultimate statement...speechless and I cannot put into words the disgust I am feeling right now... so help me if another living human being ever utters the phrase "dead fetus goo" while I am eating again, I will reign down terror on your pathetic hiney I really don't like abortion but think it should be legal. I also don't like the "Death Penalty" but think it should be legal. There are varying reasons for each, most are pragmatic. Yet at this point I don't care if they use dead fetus goo to choke convicted murderers to death. How's that for a lack of respect for human life? Edited September 22, 2011 by The Poojer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 am at an absolute loss for words by that penultimate statement...speechless and I cannot put into words the disgust I am feeling right now... so help me if another living human being ever utters the phrase "dead fetus goo" while I am eating again, I will reign down terror on your pathetic hiney Honestly, I thought it was kind of funny. Ended up with a bit of spittle on my monitor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 it almost made me vomit up my alfredo...... Honestly, I thought it was kind of funny. Ended up with a bit of spittle on my monitor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Who says anti-abortion folks necessarily consider ALL life to be sacred? Isn't it possible to believe the life of an innocent child is sacred and the life of a murdering thug to be worthless? no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Who says anti-abortion folks necessarily consider ALL life to be sacred? Isn't it possible to believe the life of an innocent child is sacred and the life of a murdering thug to be worthless? Why should ANY life be considered sacred? With seven billion people on the planet, each one with an expiration date, it's pretty damn easy to argue that life is one of the cheapest commodities on the planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 no. There are things that are impossible to believe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sig1Hunter Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 How is it possible to be a Christian, be pro life and pro death penalty all at the same time? I don't know much about this guy or the case but I do know that there's weren't any special exceptions to the "Thou shall not kill" commandment. I also know for a FACT that history has shown for almost 400 years that the death penalty does absolutely nothing to deter crime. Sure, it gets rid of the perpetrator but if I remember Sunday school correctly I'm pretty sure I was told not to judge others. If we're going to continue executing people I would hope that there would be capital punishment for all those involved in executing someone who is later proven to be innocent. After all, capital punishment is the ultimate form of pre-meditated murder. That included cops, prosecutors and jurors along with whoever pulls the switch or injects the drug. Maybe this helps: "The rendering of the sixth commandment in the King James was very unfortunate. "Thou shalt not kill" in recent versions (like the NKJV, NIV, RSV, ASB, NASB, etc.) is accurately translated "You shall not murder" (Ex. 20:13). In Hebrew, as in English, the words for "murder" and "kill" can be used interchangeably, but their different meanings are easily understood from the context. The Hebrew word for murder (ratsach, which appears in Ex. 20:13) is translated by the King James as murder/murderer 17 times, slayer/slain/slayeth 21 times, kill/killing 6 times, manslayer 2 times, and death once. The Hebrew word for kill (which appears in Ex. 13:15-harag) is translated by the King James as slay/slayer/slain 132 times, as kill 27 times, murder/murderer 3 times, destroyed once, out of hand once, and made/put/surely 3 times. The Ten Commandments forbid murder, not killing1. The chapter following the giving of the Ten Commandments has a number of commands from God to execute criminals, including: "He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death." Ex. 21:12 "He who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death." Ex. 21:15 "He who kidnaps a man... shall surely be put to death." Ex. 21:16 "He who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death." Ex. 21:17 "[if an unborn baby is killed] you shall give life for life." Ex. 21:23 It is not plausible to suppose that God contradicted Himself just a few sentences after delivering the Ten Commandments to Moses. Clearly God prohibited murder but insisted upon execution of murderers and others. Some Christians, however, are so influenced by the world's philosophy that they are ashamed of the Lord's own words in Exodus 21. Others talk as though God was a bad God in the Old Testament but that now in the New, He is a much nicer God, as though He has gone through a rite of passage. God forbid murder, and commanded the lawful execution of murderers." http://www.theologyonline.com/DEATH.HTML Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts