PDA

View Full Version : Was he guilty?



Nowhere
21st November 2005, 18:07
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3472872.html

That's why I find death penalty highly controversiall...

Brian Ellis
21st November 2005, 23:34
Obviously, I can't pronounce on whether the guy was guilty or not. However - and this applies to every country - at least 10% of the people in clink for serious (and especially violent) crimes, including capital ones, are innocent. The police are often pressured to obtain convictions for political or statistical reasons and they often simply don't care whether the right guy is dragged before the courts, especially if their victim isn't intelligent enough to understand what the words fall guy mean. Britain has had some enormous miscarriages of justice, as the unconsecrated graveyard in Pentonville could testify. Some of the ones in the last 50 years involve IRA activities. Several people have been freed and whitewashed after having served many years behind bars: they are the lucky ones, because they would have had their necks stretched had it happened a few years earlier.

However, although this is the strongest argument against capital punishment (or summary execution), there are many others that the more civilised nations have listened to.

Marshmallowman
21st November 2005, 23:50
I think the very last dude excuted in Australia was proven to be innocent afterwards. I guess thats why we got rid the death penalty.

KvHagedorn
22nd November 2005, 00:59
Obviously, I can't pronounce on whether the guy was guilty or not. However - and this applies to every country - at least 10% of the people in clink for serious (and especially violent) crimes, including capital ones, are innocent. The police are often pressured to obtain convictions for political or statistical reasons and they often simply don't care whether the right guy is dragged before the courts, especially if their victim isn't intelligent enough to understand what the words fall guy mean. Britain has had some enormous miscarriages of justice, as the unconsecrated graveyard in Pentonville could testify. Some of the ones in the last 50 years involve IRA activities. Several people have been freed and whitewashed after having served many years behind bars: they are the lucky ones, because they would have had their necks stretched had it happened a few years earlier.

However, although this is the strongest argument against capital punishment (or summary execution), there are many others that the more civilised nations have listened to.

I abhor injustice as well. If someone was truly innocent, certainly they should not be executed.

Now, back to reality. We are not all-knowing, perfect beings who can dole out justice in anything like a perfect way. Every sentence will be imperfect. Yet, because of this, should we abandon trying? Should we not do our best to assure that violent criminals will not bring the rest of us down? Is this not our duty to our wives and children, that we should not see them or other innocents raped or murdered because we were too lily-livered to act? If 10% are not guilty as charged (I won't use the term "innocent,") Then 90% are guilty and were rightly convicted. Your solution to this dilemma would be to incarcerate all these people for life, rather than take the off chance that you are executing the wrong person. This might salve your idealism, but what does it do to save such people from an even worse fate being exposed to the brutal inhumanity of prison for the rest of their lives? Many would say that any sane person would rather be executed than live in such hopelessness and squalor. And someone must pay for these people to be incarcerated. If someone does not take up their case and prove their innocence, what difference does it make for the wrongly convicted? Might as well execute them and end their misery, as well as the drain on resources better used elsewhere.

Nowhere
22nd November 2005, 01:13
So let me get this straight...you prefer to see one innocent person dead, than 9 killers getting life sentence instead of 10 - 15 years + death? (not that much cost difference...)
And reality of prison life is completelly another topic/problem.

KvHagedorn
22nd November 2005, 01:28
I am saying that idealism is for college freshmen. It's very nice, but we must deal with our limitations in the real world, and our limitations will always bring about some injustice. We should work hard to rid our society of those things which foster injustice, such as corruption and such, but letting 90% of violent criminals rot in prison and anally rape and eventually murder the 10% who are innocent is not justice for the innocent, now is it?

Nowhere
22nd November 2005, 01:31
As I've said, conditions in some prison systems is different topic.
The big problem with your approach is...whre we drove the line of "it's good enough"? And why do you think you know better what this 10% wants?

KvHagedorn
22nd November 2005, 01:37
I do not think it is a totally different topic. In fact, we are addressing the very practical question of what to do with a convicted murderer here. Do we execute him or put him in prison? You think it's wrong to execute someone, and I say life in prison for some might be a fate worse than death, especially if they are truly innocent.

Umfriend
22nd November 2005, 02:12
[...]life in prison for some might be a fate worse than death, especially if they are truly innocent.I must say that this is by far the most convincing argument I've heard supporting the death penalty. ROFLMAO

So we should prolly all convict them to prison and only if they turn out to be innocent we kill them becuase prison is so hard on them. :D

Nowhere
22nd November 2005, 02:36
:shakes head:


edit: I might as well comment a bit...

I do not think it is a totally different topic. In fact, we are addressing the very practical question of what to do with a convicted murderer here. Do we execute him or put him in prison? You think it's wrong to execute someone, and I say life in prison for some might be a fate worse than death, especially if they are truly innocent.

So now you're turning killing innocent people into practical issue? Guess what, Nazis did also :rolleyes: (yeah, a big stretch - but OTOH you seem to specifically talk about innocent ones...) Not to mention that, if doubts are correct (I'm not getting into that), you are adressing the very practical question of what to do with a man convicted for murder, but who is not a murderer.

Umfriend
22nd November 2005, 02:53
I don't think a comparison with Nazis in this discussion is relevant, practical, warranted or neccessary or benficial in any other way imaginable.

Nowhere
22nd November 2005, 03:39
So...execute me. ;)

Damien
22nd November 2005, 03:51
I do not think it is a totally different topic. In fact, we are addressing the very practical question of what to do with a convicted murderer here. Do we execute him or put him in prison? You think it's wrong to execute someone, and I say life in prison for some might be a fate worse than death, especially if they are truly innocent.

Ok let us put that to the test. Your wife or child have been wrongly convicted of murder. She or the child, have been spared the death penalty. Do you fight for their freedom or fight for their execution?
If what you say is true you would want them executed as fast as possible just to spare
them from the nightmares of prison. Fighting for their freedom would be pointless because of the time it would take for anything to happen and the damage of prison would be already done.

Umfriend
22nd November 2005, 04:16
So...execute me. ;)I can't: you are guilty.

Brian Ellis
22nd November 2005, 04:18
Well, if we take KvH's argument that execution is better than imprisonment to its logical conclusion, let's just close all the jails and murder every Tom, Dick or Harry who would otherwise go there. A good-looking 18-y.o. who robbed the local convenience store because he was hungry, would be easy meat for the sodomists, but you would consider it more humane to kill him in cold blood. Thank God I don't live in a country with such a lack of Christian ideals (before you reply to this, as you claim to be a good Christian, please read and digest the Gospel according to St Matthew from chapter 5 onwards).

Please answer me one thing, if life in prison is less preferable than death, why do many persons awaiting execution, often for many years in inhumane systems, are always trying to get their sentences commuted or, at least, stays of execution?

As for the thought that any jurisdiction would have a legal system that would allow the death penalty to be executed, in the knowledge that 10% of the victims were innocent, it makes the gorge rise. It is barbaric, and I'm not a college freshman but a thinking septuagenarian - and I've been against the death penalty for over 50 years. Maybe, had you lived 2000 years ago, you would have been one of the Sanhedrin crying to Pilate for our Lord to be crucified.

schmosef
22nd November 2005, 05:00
Maybe, had you lived 2000 years ago, you would have been one of the Sanhedrin crying to Pilate for our Lord to be crucified.:eek:

Why do we have to drag the Joos into this?

Wasn't it God's plan? Where would the Christians be today if he hadn't been sacrificed?

Anyway, back on topic.

I'm against capital punishment. I read something in a news article once that said that public costs for Capital trials exceeded the cost of keeping a prisoner in jail indefinitely. Also, I'm not happy with the idea of the statistics of innocent people convicted.

And our prison system is messed up. I don't understand why the State isn't required to ensure the safety of inmates. Seems like it should be a legal responsibility. Furthermore, the prison system isn't designed to rehabilitate offenders. Those that are rehabilitated are the exception, not the rule.

Umfriend
22nd November 2005, 05:29
Costs really depend on how you want to do it. It is quite possible to execute at low cost. Hell, some might even be willing to pay for the opportunity to kill provided they dcould have their way. Just saying cost may not be that important an argument in this discussion.

Nowhere
22nd November 2005, 07:31
I can't: you are guilty.
Oh, so you just gonna get rid of all polite and not trolling participants (hey - they only might be guilty!) of this discussion, including you, in execution room and leave me alone to argue?! This would bring this soci...uhmmmm....thread right into Temp!

Umfriend
22nd November 2005, 07:34
When the nazis kick in, I'm not interested in the discussion is all.

Nowhere
22nd November 2005, 08:05
Oh c'mon, I didn't use this as a real argument ("stretch"...), isntead I posted provoking and controversiall analogy/food for thought, that is technically quite accurate, when dealing with cited "practical questions of what to do with a convicted someone". And overall, post to which I replied. Paraphrazing: "You think it's wrong to execute someone, and I say life in camp (my edit) for some might be a fate worse than death, especially if they are truly innocent".

For sure this wasn't practised in some places Nazi name-bashing, at least I didn't intended it like that.

Umfriend
22nd November 2005, 09:07
Dude, whatever you may think of KVHs POV, the fact is that he is discussing people who have been found guilty of performing crimes normal people abhor. Nazis murdered for totaly different reasons *even if* they also killed for above. I do not think you would have used it against me had I posted KVHs post.

It is not provoking and controversial in that it contributes to the argument. It's plain flame-baiting and that is the technically accurate name. If you can only argue KVHs point using Nazis, then I guess you can;t argue a whole lot.

Do what you like, but do not expect my respect for this type of "arguing".

Nowhere
22nd November 2005, 09:22
I've had a strong impression KvH was discussing case of someone innocent, thus the analogy seemed somehow of use to me, you might of course not agree with that (of course Nazis killed for other reasons...but I was describing what happened, not motives behind it - it was definatelly killing of "sentenced" (in light of law back then), but innocent people; of course they were killed in completelly different scale, but I seem to remember a sentance "who saves one life, saves the world entire"...).
And when it comes to controversial and provoking - I guess I was mostly hoping it would make KvH start wondering about it, nothing more.

And I don't see compelling reason why I wouldn't post it, other than knowing (now) your views on the matter of using such arguments.

Umfriend
22nd November 2005, 11:36
OK, guess we understand each other then. I'm pretty sure that if you sleep over it a little you'll find better ways to have an argument with KVH. It ain;'t that hard :D

Damien
22nd November 2005, 13:59
The death penalty is supposed to teach the hardest lesson lust like getting your hand chopped off for stealing. It is one of those measures that does not seem to be very effective. People still steal and take life knowing the consequences. Maybe there needs to be a new approach to crime and punishment. why for instance put Martha Stewart in prison. Is she a threat to society? If bad taste is threatening then by all means lock the woman up. The only problem is that the tax payer ends up paying for her. She would be much better suited to community service. Petty drug crime is filling many prisons around the world at the cost of the tax payer. This stubborn hard approach is not working. We are just creating hardened criminals. Empty the prisons of all the non lethal prisoners and then maybe we could afford the cost of keeping all the bad people in prison.

schmosef
22nd November 2005, 14:03
Costs really depend on how you want to do it. It is quite possible to execute at low cost. Hell, some might even be willing to pay for the opportunity to kill provided they dcould have their way. Just saying cost may not be that important an argument in this discussion.
I mean court costs to present a capital case.

Umfriend
22nd November 2005, 14:10
Oh, was not aware that that was more expensive? Not sure it is everywhere, if anywhere. I'm ignorant on this.

schmosef
22nd November 2005, 14:14
I read this somewhere. A long time ago. Not sure how inflation may affect the numbers if crunched today. Not sure it it's even accurate or biased. It's not the only reason I have for being against capital punishment. Before I knew this, I believed that capital punishmet was cheaper than keeping someone in jail until they died, and that made me for capital punishment. Knowing that my assumption might be false made me rethink the whole thing.

Umfriend
22nd November 2005, 14:19
I am pretty sure one does not need to be more expensive than the other: the cost is really realted to how you do it. Sure, if you trim down on both completely, one will be the cheapest (unless they are as dear which is as likely as, uhm, unlikely). Bu tat that level, I would venture, both are dirt cheap and the difference is irrelevant,

If this is all true, then we can focus on the question whether, and under what conditions, a death penalty is acceptable in prinple. Just to keep it clean from something as base as monetary considerations.

schmosef
22nd November 2005, 14:25
I am pretty sure one does not need to be more expensive than the other: the cost is really realted to how you do it. Sure, if you trim down on both completely, one will be the cheapest (unless they are as dear which is as likely as, uhm, unlikely). Bu tat that level, I would venture, both are dirt cheap and the difference is irrelevant,

If this is all true, then we can focus on the question whether, and under what conditions, a death penalty is acceptable in prinple. Just to keep it clean from something as base as monetary considerations.
via google: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7#From%20DPIC

KvHagedorn
22nd November 2005, 19:47
If lawyers were really crusaders for justice and not money grubbing bastards, most trials would be cheap and swift.

Let's just take the open and shut cases, like when some scumbag who was there with blood on his hands brags to his buddy how he tortured some poor woman to death. Shoot the ****er in the head! NOW!

But NO! it turns out he was ONLY 17 years and 361 days old at the time and therefore an IRRATIONAL CHILD who could not possibly have known what he was doing or the consequences of his actions. If he had been 5 days older, he would have been fully aware of this when he twisted that knife in that poor womans guts, and would have then been eligible for the death penalty. Now? Out in 7 buddy! OOOrah! :up: :mad:

This actually happened right here not long ago, too. dunno about the out in 7 bit, but the death sentence was commuted because he was a couple of weeks shy of that magical age of 6574.5 days, at which he goes from utterly irresponsible minor child to fully empowered and rational adult in an instant. This was an absolute scumbag who thought it would be cool to rape and murder a 50 yo teacher and then brag about it. He was caught IN HER CAR using HER credit cards with HER BLOOD stains on his clothes. If a case can make it into this kind of clear cut category, put a bullet in the evil lowlife's head right now.

Brian Ellis
23rd November 2005, 03:33
Would you commit that act of premeditated murder against the "scumbag" yourself, knowing that your religion forbids you to kill, thereby jeopardising your own relationship with God, and that you may be preventing a soul from acquiring the knowledge of Christ?

Even if you did not pull the trigger yourself, your advocacy of the act, allowing someone else to do it with your approval, is equally sinful, according to Jesus' teachings. He asked you to forgive him seventy times seven times (Matt. 18 v21), rather than to act against the guy. How do you reconcile that?

Nowhere
23rd November 2005, 03:48
If lawyers were really crusaders for justice and not money grubbing bastards, most trials would be cheap and swift.

But that would mean they'd be tool tool for anyone that defines what is "justice" at the time (I'll mention this in incoming political thread about our recent elections)


Let's just take the open and shut cases, like when some scumbag who was there with blood on his hands brags to his buddy how he tortured some poor woman to death. Shoot the ****er in the head! NOW!

If this would be all...well, look at this way, perhaps his buddy is behind it and all...


But NO! it turns out he was ONLY 17 years and 361 days old at the time and therefore an IRRATIONAL CHILD who could not possibly have known what he was doing or the consequences of his actions. If he had been 5 days older, he would have been fully aware of this when he twisted that knife in that poor womans guts, and would have then been eligible for the death penalty. Now? Out in 7 buddy! OOOrah! :up: :mad:

This actually happened right here not long ago, too. dunno about the out in 7 bit, but the death sentence was commuted because he was a couple of weeks shy of that magical age of 6574.5 days, at which he goes from utterly irresponsible minor child to fully empowered and rational adult in an instant. This was an absolute scumbag who thought it would be cool to rape and murder a 50 yo teacher and then brag about it. He was caught IN HER CAR using HER credit cards with HER BLOOD stains on his clothes. If a case can make it into this kind of clear cut category, put a bullet in the evil lowlife's head right now.
But by having more details regarding specific case, I have a question - you don't have a law that permits treating underage offenders as adults in special cases of such crimes?

As a side note - he probably get many years, but couldn't get death penalty, right? In that case I'm somehow glad you don't have a law permitting to treat him like adult...

Nowhere
23rd November 2005, 03:52
The death penalty is supposed to teach the hardest lesson lust like getting your hand chopped off for stealing. It is one of those measures that does not seem to be very effective. People still steal and take life knowing the consequences.
...
Hmm, I wonder if one way of looking at it wouldn't be "if they don't respect lifes of other people, they don't care about possible consequences to their own life in the way we would"

And BTW:

Ok let us put that to the test. Your wife or child have been wrongly convicted of murder. She or the child, have been spared the death penalty. Do you fight for their freedom or fight for their execution?
If what you say is true you would want them executed as fast as possible just to spare
them from the nightmares of prison. Fighting for their freedom would be pointless because of the time it would take for anything to happen and the damage of prison would be already done.
KvH, I'm eagerly waiting for your response to this one.

KvHagedorn
23rd November 2005, 14:22
My perspective is a practical one.. remove this type of person from existence ASAP. No torture, no long wait. In clear cut cases, execution should be swift. They should be able to appeal, of course, and have access to a good lawyer, but this process should be swift and inexpensive.

If someone were wrongly convicted, the chance is much less that it was clear cut. In less than certain circumstances, or if the suspect was NOT some hateful-mannered tattooed gang member with a history of violence, like Bjork in the extremely unrealistic, illogically conceived film Dancer in the Dark, hell, yes, take a second look! Sweet, dutiful women do not just blow someone away with no motive like that. It was utterly ridiculous.

Brian Ellis
24th November 2005, 00:38
KvH

I take it that, as you have reiterated your view but not answered any questions from others or myself, your logic has failed to reach a valid conclusion; you are therefore simply sticking to your illogical guns.

Nowhere
25th November 2005, 09:43
:up:


PS. Also, KvH, you might look at this map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Death_Penalty_World_Map.png) . Notice some interesting pattern?

Also, you might rethink your statement "no torture" based on this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_injection#Controversy) .
And I still think that "swift and inexpensive" would in practise mean "the decision was alredy made"

Nowhere
25th December 2005, 12:30
The map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Death_Penalty_World_Map.png) above changed a bit (http://www.counterpunch.org/ross12232005.html).
But...still no reply from KvH (anyway, no rush, I won't be dissapointed by lack of response for a few days - after all Good Christians (tm) have to contemplate their deep beliefs in ideals of Jesus and so on...)

TransformX
26th December 2005, 01:07
A few months ago, a 16 year old boy raped and murdered a beautiful 15 year old girl here:
http://www.local.co.il/rehovot/images/mainpage/maayan_sapir1.jpg
He was drugged at the time, on vacation from a institution for criminal youth.
Minor or not, this one should rot in prison for eternity, or at least till he's too old and weak to be able to walk an pee on his own, no vacations, no special treatment, no nothing. He had a record of violence and the fact he was drugged means sh1t to me.

Dr Mordrid
26th December 2005, 09:43
The fix is simple enough: require forensic and/or multiple eyewitnesses in death penalty cases and do not allow it when the main evidence is an alleged co-conspirator involved in a plea negotiation.

That takes care of lying crooks, single mistaken ID's and the vast majority of other circumstances.

Some states are changing their laws so that forensic evidence connecting the killer to the crime is required. Some will be requiring DNA, which in most murders isn't a real problem since you can get epithelials off most murder weapons.

Several states have tried the "hard life imprisonment" route by setting up "SuperMax" prisons like the one in Marquette Michigan. Here they house prisonsers like John Norman Collins, a particularly brutal serial killer caught in Michigan during the late 60's. Many would know him as "The Co-Ed Killer" who was the subject of the the book "The Michigan Murders".

Amazon "Michigan Murders" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671734806/qid=1135618478/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-4493002-6982428?n=507846&s=books&v=glance)

CourtTV article on "Co-Ed" killings.... (http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/collins/body_1.html)

In SuperMax prisoners are locked in their cells 23 hours a day minimum and 24 hours if they're being "bad". They are basically in solitary confinement. Of course the same "human rights" people who are against capital punishement also rail against SuperMax because they see it as torture.

You can't freakin' win with these people :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Interesting side note:

At the time of the Michigan Murders I was doing a student rotation in the nuclear medicine dept. Our secretary there had been bragging about this guy she had been dating. Bright, handsome and very charming. One day we were listening to the radio during a break in the action when it came over that someone named John Norman Collins had been arrested for the serial killings.

JNC was her new boyfriend :eek: :eek:

Needless to say we ended up taking care of her until her family arrived. She was absent for over a week getting "help". Even after she came back the girl wasn't "right" for months.

Under Michigans law at the time JNC was sentenced to life with a minimum of just 20 years. Needless to say no parole board member is willing to put their career at risk by actually voting to release him :rolleyes:

Since this an other high-profile cases the law has been changed to life meaning "natural life"; until death. Even so there are petitions in Michigan to get the death penalty on the ballot for one of the upcoming elections (we have public initiatives that can ammend the State Constitution or change laws).

Dr. Mordrid

Nowhere
27th December 2005, 11:13
I can imagine even your simple fix not working as it should sometimes...

KvHagedorn
9th September 2006, 09:28
I can imagine even your simple fix not working as it should sometimes...

Fine. Sometimes. The problem with death penalty opponents is that they are also usually atheists and think that people need to fill the role of God. Nobody's perfect, and there will be innocent people executed sometimes. If there is a God, He will sort out the innocents. All we can do is see that they meet their final judge and do no further harm here.. not even to the extent that they poison others with their mentality inside a prison. If we take the measures Doc has spoken about, and make some of the legal reforms I've touched upon, this should be minimised as much as humanly possible.

Death penalty opponents usually have never had contact with lowlife criminals, either. When you are an 18yo college student filled with idealistic emotion or someone who has lived in ultra-civilized countries all your life, you probably just have no idea about the kind of people I am talking about. It's for damned sure not someone like Bjork's character in Dancer in the Dark. The very existence of this film and its fan base among death penalty opponents tells the tale of how ignorant Europeans are of the type of people who really are on death row. The film is complete propaganda without any basis in reality.

Here is the reality:

http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/usexecute.htm

Just read some of these cases. Lowlives like this exist. They really do. And they really should NOT. :mad:

KvHagedorn
9th September 2006, 10:17
PS. KvH, I wonder if you have any ground in discussing death penalty untill you'd reply to questions in this thread... (and just to be clear - similarly to az, I don't think we should bring this thread further in this direction...but you're welcome to, for example, respond in linked thread )


(Brian)Would you commit that act of premeditated murder against the "scumbag" yourself, knowing that your religion forbids you to kill, thereby jeopardising your own relationship with God, and that you may be preventing a soul from acquiring the knowledge of Christ?

Even if you did not pull the trigger yourself, your advocacy of the act, allowing someone else to do it with your approval, is equally sinful, according to Jesus' teachings. He asked you to forgive him seventy times seven times (Matt. 18 v21), rather than to act against the guy. How do you reconcile that?

Jesus was an idealist, and His concern was for the soul of the one who would inflict retribution. If I could prevent the death of other innocents, what type of person would I be to stand by and watch them be murdered when the killer should have been put down for previous offenses? We do not live in an ideal world (especially here in the US) and we do the best we can, and ask God for forgiveness if we have sinned. Jesus also said that we are all sinners.. this is true, because we live in an imperfect world.

I did not respond to this before because it was asked by the "devil's advocate" in just such a way. I am not interested in bandying scripture about with someone who does not adhere to it himself in all particulars, but just uses it as a tool to bring up arguments to support his own agenda, supposing for some reason that I am an utterly unintelligent dolt (insulting my intelligence really pisses me off.. please don't do it) who can be bullied with such crap.

I HAVE ANSWERED THIS "QUESTION"!


Originally Posted by Damien
Ok let us put that to the test. Your wife or child have been wrongly convicted of murder. She or the child, have been spared the death penalty. Do you fight for their freedom or fight for their execution?
If what you say is true you would want them executed as fast as possible just to spare
them from the nightmares of prison. Fighting for their freedom would be pointless because of the time it would take for anything to happen and the damage of prison would be already done.

Unrealistic, but of course I would fight for their freedom. You are arguing with a pragmatist as if he were a dogmatist. Again, why should I address such foolishness?

KvHagedorn
9th September 2006, 10:24
:up:


PS. Also, KvH, you might look at this map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Death_Penalty_World_Map.png) . Notice some interesting pattern?

Yes.. the US is grouped with all the countries you deem "uncivilized." Is this your "point"?


Also, you might rethink your statement "no torture" based on this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_injection#Controversy) .
And I still think that "swift and inexpensive" would in practise mean "the decision was alredy made"

So because lethal injection is the current form of execution, you are supposing it is the method I would use? I have said before (and no joke) that the one method of execution guaranteed to be painless is a pile driver to the head. Dramatic, too. But a shotgun to the head would probably do just as well.

Brian Ellis
10th September 2006, 01:09
Fine. Sometimes. The problem with death penalty opponents is that they are also usually atheists and think that people need to fill the role of God.

I have never heard such utter rubbish in all my life. The leader of the Church to which you claim to belong, the Archbish of Canterbury, as well as the Pope, the Archbish of York, Desmond Tutu, the Dalai Lama and many other church leaders of many faiths are opposed to it.


The Catholic Church opposes the death penalty in nearly all cases, and Pope John Paul II often speaks out against capital punishment. Read Catholic teaching, personal stories and a prayer to end the death penalty. The American Catholic Org see http://www.americancatholic.org/News/DeathPenalty/


However, this does not mean that governments have an unlimited right to take life. Nor does it mean that governments must punish crime by death. We increasingly question whether the death penalty has been and can be administered justly.
http://www.elca.org/socialstatements/deathpenalty/ (Evangelical Lutheran Church Association, somewhat less categorical)


At this moment the U.S. Bishops renew the call for measures to restrain, restrict and end the use of the death penalty in the United States. We support many of the recommendations articulated by the Commission, as well as legislation such as the Innocence Protection Act that promote greater fairness and stronger safeguards in capital cases. We have other means to protect society and we have an obligation to protect the innocent. There is no way to reverse an execution after new evidence comes to light. US Conference of Bishops http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/101reasons.htm


BE IT RESOLVED that the Twelfth General Synod of the United Church of Christ reaffirm opposition to the death penalty, and that it call upon its brother-in-Christ and United Church of Christ member, the Governor of Florida, to cease the authorization of additional executions in Florida, and further call upon governors of all states to refrain from the authorization of executions;http://www.deathpenaltyreligious.org/education/statements/ucc.html


In view of our Christian responsibility to value all human life we are compelled to set forth our opposition to all capital punishment. The Mennonite Church of the USA http://peace.mennolink.org/articles/resdp.html


WHEREAS, a consensus exists across the Christian faith traditions of the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches calling for society to abolish the death penalty;...THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: The Illinois Conference of Churches calls upon elected officials, community leaders, and all people of good will to abolish the death penalty from our criminal justice system in the State of Illinois and within our nation.
http://www.icadp.org/page296.html

And I could continue for ever. And note that all these quotes and hundreds more I could have found come from the Good Ol' USA, not from a namby-pamby, liberal, multicultural Europe. The established mainstream churches, even in the States, are practically unanimous to oppose the death penalty, except for some Southern Baptists (but not United Baptists), a few minor Pentecostal churches and the Latter Day Saints. The Mennonites, Amish, Society of Friends (Quakers), and Unitarian Universalists have historically been among the most active groups in opposition to the death penalty. Interestingly, the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church is the only retentionist group within the Lutherans.

The American Friends Service Committee's Criminal Justice Program maintains a list of faith and ethical groups which are opposed to the death penalty They include: American Baptists, American Ethical Union, American Friends Service Committee, America Jewish Committee, Amnesty International, The Bruderhof Communities, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Disciples of Christ, Church of the Brethren, Church Women United, Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Fellowship of Reconciliation, Friends Committee on Natinal Legislation, Friends United Meeting, General Conference of General Baptists, General Conference of Mennonite Church, Mennonite Church, Moravian Church in America, YWCA, , Orthodox Church in America, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), The Rabbinical Assembly, Reformed Church in America, Reorganized Church, Union of American Hebrew Congregations, Unitarian Universalist Association, United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church, and the United States Catholic Conference.

There must be an enormous number of atheists in the ~170 million US members of the churches I cited, according to your lights. :rolleyes: