I have no words.

[Lueyen]

Hi, I *am* thinking for myself. Taking a human life is wrong, whether it's by a premeditated gang-rape assault or a premeditated murder by a government executioner in a quiet underground room in a texas prison. Wrong is wrong is wrong. That's MY opinion. We are here debating these opinions... how the fuck is that not 'thinking for (my)self?' The only 'not thinking' here is your failure to argue any of my points - outside of the constant, "HE KILLED, HE NEEDS TO DIE!!!" I've given you a hundred points and you keep going back to that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hopkinson

While I understand your opinion on killing for purposes of vengeance or punishment I am curious how you would view this case. I felt the man needed to be put to death, not as punishment or for vengeful purposes, but to protect people. While Mr. Hopkinson maintained that he was innocent until he was put to death, there was monumental amounts of evidence against him. Granted I was a bit closer to this situation then simply reading about it or seeing it on the news. I lived in Evanston at the time he was put to death, I knew people who were directly involved in the case, people who testified against him, and people who feared for their lives, even when the man was behind bars (Due mostly to the mentioned murder of Jeffery Green).

It is a slightly different angle, since in cases of this nature it is akin to self defense.

Mindia something for you to chew on >:-)....

Most of what you talk about as justification for killing, and a basic sanctioning of such by God comes from the Old Testament. I've always found it curious the angle the Old Testament seems to take on God the Father's wrath and the somewhat stark contrast you see in Jesus's teachings such as "But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also." I've always looked on it as sort of a clarification, something along the lines of "no you misunderstand, let me make it clear for you".

Also notice that in the scripture you quoted the emphasis is not so much on the Israelites killing their enemies, but God doing it for them and defending them. The message I believe is not so much that God will help you kill your enemies (although that is admittedly stated) but that God will defend you, you do not have to do so yourself. This very much fits with the later teachings of Christ which are much more pacifistic.

Understand that much of this is really playing devils advocate, simply because I am not a pacifist by nature, I guess you could say I subscribe more to the idea that the Lord helps those who help themselves, and I’m not going to wait on God to save me if someone is trying to kill me… I’ll just trust that he’s going to help me strike true.

Now after chewing on that for a while... think of this, where would Christianity be if never in the history of mankind had putting someone to death for crimes been practiced.

[Lyion]

How is he a danger locked up behind bars for the rest of his life?

I know nothing of the case, but the worst homicidal murderer is just as safe behind bars as on a slab, and it also, as Vonk pointed out, is cheaper to keep him in jail for life than to execute him.

So, given the infallibility of our judicial system, the cost savings, and the human rights consideration, why should we ever execute anyone?

[Lueyen]

How is he a danger locked up behind bars for the rest of his life?

I know nothing of the case, but the worst homicidal murderer is just as safe behind bars as on a slab, and it also, as Vonk pointed out, is cheaper to keep him in jail for life than to execute him.

So, given the infallibility of our judicial system, the cost savings, and the human rights consideration, why should we ever execute anyone?

While he was never convicted of anything in relation to the murder of Jeffery Green, I to this day believe he did "order" it if you will. It has been a few years and I don't remember the intimate details, but from what I understood, the case against him for the bombing of the Vehar's home (and the resulting deaths of the family) was so cut and dry the prosocuting attorney didn't pursue charges in the Green case because it was so much less concrete... and the Vehar case was such a virtual gaurantee on a conviction that Hopkinson would be facing death anyway.

As it was, those people closely involved with the case (a few of which I knew personally) absolutely believed Hopkinson had a hand in Jeffery Green's murder, basically along the lines of ordering it. What was so perplexing about it is that while undergoing trial, in prison even with no visitation access, he somehow managed to get a hit called on the man. This had others surounding the case worried and rightfully in fear for thier lives. Admittedly this is somewhat a case of a difference of what you know and what you can prove, and so probably not the most bullet proof example of what I was getting at, yet it was what I was thinking of when the question came to mind. If someone is a mortal danger to the population even under lockdown, does that change your view on the validity of the death penalty?

[vonkaar]

If someone is a mortal danger to the population even under lockdown, does that change your view on the validity of the death penalty?

Of course not... 'holes' like that can be fixed. Holes in the back of a human skull cannot. I'm not going to suddenly change my stance on such a delicate matter simply because some random prison guard can't be trusted. We can fix those holes... there are maximum security prisons where people like that can be kept. Nothing gets in, nothing gets out - in theory. If that's breached, well we just keep trying harder.

where would Christianity be if never in the history of mankind had putting someone to death for crimes been practiced.

Well, I'd probably be paying less than a dollar at the fucking gas station .

[Lyion]

Well, I'd probably be paying less than a dollar at the fucking gas station .

Sherman, set the wayback machine to 1979 and splain to Vonk that has nothing to do with anything.

[kaharthemad]

Ok, frankly the reason why we have death sentences costing so much is all the goddamn appeals. Cut it to 2. If in 2 years you cant puke up any more testimony or evidence...ZAP! Spanky rides old sparky...
I know, I know, the hippies will scream what if one person dies thats innocent? Hey its the price we pay baby. I would rather clear our prisons out of this useless trash then pay for their fucking college education and their cable tv in the 'lounge' Hell, I work 50 hours a week and I dont get a fucking lounge.


You want justice, fine. No more cushy prisons, no more fringe benefits. These bitches go in and they dont see anything but the infomercial channel for their sentence. screw the damn cable bill. No more computer access, nothing more then sitting on your ass in a 8X5 cell staring at the fucking walls till you freak and kill yourself.

[vonkaar]

I'm just going to keep quoting past debates from here on out because it's a lot easier than repeating myself forever...

found guilty of?

Dude

I feel like I need to explain the entire judicial process to you...

A person who is submitting an appeal is requesting a HIGHER ATHORITY to examine the case - for various reasons. Maybe evidence was ignored... maybe bias was shown... maybe new facts have come up... it doesn't matter. EVERY case, for ANY dispute HAS to be given EVERY chance to be fair. GUILTY until proven innocent - beyond any shadow of doubt. If that means that a case has to be taken to the supreme court, that's what has to happen. Limiting a case to 1 appeal SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION is twisting our judicial process so abhorrently... I can't believe someone of your education would suggest it.

Would you die for that system? If you were framed for murder and found guilty in a biased court of law - given your one (denied) appeal to a local magistrate, would you take your decapitation with pride? With a full knowledge of your innocence... would you be 'okay' with your unjust murder? Put your wife in that situation... you know she's innocent, would you be willing to sacrifice her - so long as 'most' criminals lose their head in your weighted appeal system?

Amazing.

[vonkaar]

Would you Kahar? Would you die for that system? You were pulled over for what you 'thought' was a random traffic stop... you were going 68 in a 60... and so you stop... cop pulls you out of the car, throws you to the ground and reads you your rights. You later find out that you are being charged with a triple homicide - and their case is STRONG. Where were you that night? You were at a bar, shooting pool... unfortunately, nobody can come forward to speak for you because nobody remembers. You have no alibi... you have no chance. Boom, guilty. Death penalty. You'd swallow that with pride? Take your TWO chances at appeals? YOU ARE INNOCENT. The STATE fucked up. Somewhere, there is a one-armed man... killing people... if only you could escape... become a fugitive... hunt him down... prove your innocence...

[Snero]

You want justice, fine. No more cushy prisons, no more fringe benefits. These bitches go in and they dont see anything but the infomercial channel for their sentence. screw the damn cable bill.

you can have this, without the death penalty. The options are not fry everybody, or let them eat cake.

[kaharthemad]

frankly it has to be better than what you are trying to do.

And yes, I would die, if that is what it takes I would.That is the difference in personalities between me and you. I would profess my innocence on the chair of the firing line but yeah I would take one. Going to the showers does not bother me as much as it does certain other people.

The fact of the matter is you are pulling one innocent 'victim' out of the multitudes. I would rather be fried then live in prison anyways.

Would you Vonk? would you 'die' for what you believed in? Nope because unfortunately you are all about appeasement. most of your ilk are so in a hurry to crush the skull of a baby because hey we cant prove he is alive at the second trimester, but you are so unwilling to kill someone who is guilty.

Lets look at a list of people that should have been executed for thier crimes.

Ted Bundy (albeit he did die later but im sure the prisoners that killed him were soooooo much more just)

Charles Manson.

Tookie Williams (cause writing a childrens book goes along way to making what he did to that convienice store ower so much better)

those are just three of the big ones..

lets look at the most famous one. Manson. Exactly what is this asshole ever going to do to contribute to society? So instead of snuffing this prick we just continue to feed and clothe him in prison. But yeah thats the humane thing to do...just keep him in a cagelike a rabid animal. brilliant thats so much more humane.

If the person admits to the crime, then yeah drag him out back and put a bullet in him. trust me snuffing the fucker does not bring total closure but it sure fucking helps, esp when it is one of your family laying on the slab there in the autopsy room.

[Zanchief]

Why not have a bunch of ninja vigilante's running around killing people they think are evil doers. Oops we fucked up and killed your wife ‘cause we thought she was a child molester. Suck it up, Kahar. It's all part of the greater good.

You're way too emotional about the whole thing. The judicial system can't be governed on a person's emotions. It doesn't matter that you really really hate someone, or think he's a total waste of life. Let him sit in his cell where he won't affect you, or anyone else, for the rest of his life. Changes nothing to your life at all if he’s still alive.

As for the pound me in the ass prison theory. Question for you, Kahar. If there was substantial proof that people who went to prison for 2 or 3 years came out way more fucked up, and way more prone to violence and other undesirable behaviour because of the way the penal system worked, would you still be in favour of letting em get cornholed and beaten and whatever else they "deserve"? Meaning, even though it presents a greater danger to society to mistreat and torture the bad people, would you be happier if it happened so your idea of justice would be satisfied?

[vonkaar]

Would I die for what I believe in? Uh, sure... if the conviction is correct... 'strong enough'. But I'm not going to die for every stupid little belief I have. I mean... I don't shop at wal-mart... but would I die for that?

If you were a father of 4, the only breadwinner of the family - husband to a loving wife... completely wrongly convicted... framed by your friends... you were TOTALLY innocent, you would be 'okay' with dying, just because of some belief? That's nutty. Like... uh... seriously. I don't even get what point you think you'd be making? You die in the name of justice, even though justice isn't being served because you were innocent? But then, the 'average' executed prisoner is PROBABLY guilty, right? So... take that needle? Holy shit dude. You don't even get 'martyr' status by some random religion... you simply, die... your kids remember you as a murderer... your family name is tarnished... your legacy is ruined... all so you can make a point to 13 people who 'might' care, but they think you are a murderer too, so...

holy shit

Blahblahblah... random evil people should be dead...

I disagree because I have different morals. I think that killing them makes us just as bad... just as EVIL as them. At Manson's age, he'd probably LOVE to die. Giving him food and water and keeping him around for another 20 years until he slowly and painfully dies from testicular cancer is a much worse fate.

[Yamori]

If the person admits to the crime, then yeah drag him out back and put a bullet in him

Are you aware that very fragile/weakminded people can (and have) been pressured into false confessions?

Hell... there was even a recent news thing about it.

One case was a 20 year old retarded fellow who was accused of murdering a female friend. He didn't ask for a lawyer because he just thought cooperating would be fine - after all, the police are the good guys, right?

Well, the police told him that they had concrete evidence that he was present at the girl's murder (which was a total lie, done to get a confession - common practice btw). They interrogated him for 18 hours straight, yelling at him, swearing at him, refusing to let him leave, demanding he confess. He finally did.

The kicker? He was out of the country when the girl was murdered. On vacation, with his parents. There were dated passports, dated family photos/videos, several dozens of out of country witnesses, the whole shabang. Yet this guy spent 9 months in prison. They had him as a suspect in the first place because the (later) real murderer had dropped his name to the police.

Another case was a 14 year old boy accused of murder. He was arrested in the middle of the night and interrogated for a dozen hours. They lied to him about his lie detector test results. He was so bewildered that he began questioning himself if he actually had done it. He later confessed as the long hours went by. And was later proven innocent after about a year in prison.

Another case was a redneck sort of a person who was interrogated for such a long time that they broke down and confessed to a murder they didn't commit. And implicated 3 other people (pressured by the police to do so). They all went to jail for years. DNA tests were later done that found absolutely no link to any of the men. Oops.

I wonder what would have happened to those two if they didn't have families willing to do the work to prove them innocent? Or if their states had the death penalty and had a limited number of appeals?

[Drem]

I would love it if this were still a world where we could challenge people to duels. But not with guns. Guns are really boring.

[Arlos]

I read somewhere a doubtless apocryphal, but still amusing story related to that. According to the story, Abraham Lincoln (who was 6'4" or so) was challenged to a duel by someone who was quite short, like 5'2".

As challenged, Lincoln had the choice of weapons, time & location. So, since he thought the whole thing was silliness, his choice was: Sledgehammers in 5 and a half feet of water. rofl

Talk about stacking the deck in your favor.

-Arlos

[Drem]

hahaha

[Minrott]

Not modern guns, I agree. But black powder pistols at 20 paces and sabers sounds good.

[Adivina]

I read somewhere a doubtless apocryphal, but still amusing story related to that. According to the story, Abraham Lincoln (who was 6'4" or so) was challenged to a duel by someone who was quite short, like 5'2".

As challenged, Lincoln had the choice of weapons, time & location. So, since he thought the whole thing was silliness, his choice was: Sledgehammers in 5 and a half feet of water. rofl

Talk about stacking the deck in your favor.

-Arlos

Brilliant

[vonkaar]

My 7th grade history teacher told it as, 'wrestling' in chest high water.

good stuff still

[Drem]

Not modern guns, I agree. But black powder pistols at 20 paces and sabers sounds good.

just the sabers sounds better

[Captain Insano]

Could death sentences somehow involve angry pirates? I would be all for them if that was the case and they were televised.

[Lueyen]

Just a side note Vonkaar but judging from your later responses, you would be willing to die for your convictions concerning the death penalty?

Ask yourself a similar question to the one you asked Kahar:

Imagine you were one of several key witnesses in a murder trial. One of the other witnesses was murdered, and for whatever reason or evidence you were confident that the person on trial had orchestrated the murder, would you be willing to stand up still for your belief (not even necessarily dying but likely risking death) and let the person go to jail with possible vengeance on their mind? Would you have faith enough in the system that you could feel safe and secure in that it would plug any holes or leaks? Remember this is the same system that you cite and it's fallibility being reason for not putting someone to death, how infallible is it going to be in protecting you?

While we all like to think we know how we would react when placed in someone else’s shoes, the stark reality of being there can sometimes change our perspective very quickly. I truly hope both you and Kahar never have to answer those two respective questions for real, and likely you won’t.. meh just food for thought really.

[vonkaar]

Remember this is the same system that you cite and it's fallibility being reason for not putting someone to death, how infallible is it going to be in protecting you?

uh, what?

Fuck no I don't trust the system. But, I'd trust the witness protection program well enough to testify. No problem. Whether or not I want to live the rest of my life as a complete stranger to everyone around me is another story. That would dictate my willingness to testify or not.

Even still, it's a weak analogy... Kahar said he'd be willing to take a bullet to the head and be remembered as a murdering psycho by his family for the rest of history, just to prove a point to himself... I don't know if you even can come up with a 'would you die to oppose the death penalty' scenario. That's pretty silly. We abolitionists believe that murder is murder, whether it's at the hand of an enraged psycopath or a calm government executioner. It's still murder. It's still wrong.

[smiley poster=yawn]this is getting boring[/smiley]

[Lueyen]

uh, what?

Fuck no I don't trust the system. But, I'd trust the witness protection program well enough to testify. No problem. Whether or not I want to live the rest of my life as a complete stranger to everyone around me is another story. That would dictate my willingness to testify or not.

In the situation I was referring to, and honestly one of the main reasons that solidified my feelings on the subject, these people were not in any witness protection program, they did rely on the same criminal justice system that was prosecuting the man to keep them safe from his influence. Keep in mind what some of these people were facing was not a decision to testify, they had already done so before the witness was murdered. But hell I like your way better, it involves not standing up and dying for what you believe but a major sacrifice none the less.

Even still, it's a weak analogy... Kahar said he'd be willing to take a bullet to the head and be remembered as a murdering psycho by his family for the rest of history, just to prove a point to himself... I don't know if you even can come up with a 'would you die to oppose the death penalty' scenario.

Most what if's are weak in nature, they generally revolve around the worst case scenario. The difference between my scenario and the one you posed to Kahar however is that mine paralleled a situation that not only happened, but also one that I knew the people involved. Trust me I could easily come up with fictional scenarios along the lines of "would you die to oppose the death penalty" but I don't want to bore you further then I probably already will with this post~.

That's pretty silly. We abolitionists believe that murder is murder, whether it's at the hand of an enraged psycopath or a calm government executioner. It's still murder. It's still wrong.

Don't get me wrong, I highly respect your views and approach on the matter. They are very noble, and I do wish I could view things in the same light. Unfortunately for me when I look deep inside I realize that to take that sort of view for my own, for me would be a lie. Chances are in day to day life it would not be exposed as such, but there is that chance. Again I'll state that you never really know how you will react to an extremely adverse situation until you find yourself in that position. While I would like to think otherwise, I do see it as a strong possibility that given a heinous act being committed toward someone I loved and cared for, especially if it resulted in their death, I would react in direct contradiction to the ideals you profess.

[Tossica]

If the person you are testifying against is that dangerous, you will have armed guards during the trial and possibly the option of witness protection program.