The Death Penalty? What do you think?

by Country Girl 101 Replies latest jw friends

AGuest

May you all have peace!
FlyingHighNow: Those of you who are parents and grandparents, ask yourselves, if my child or grandchild were on death row, how would I honestly feel? I can say that I would not want for a child of mine to be executed.
SammieLee24: but on the flip side - if it were my little baby girl at 4 years old that was picked up, brutally raped repeatedly and then laid in the ground alive while someone buried her.....I know I'd crave the death penalty. As much as the offenders family want them to live - the victims and their families wanted their loved ones to live also.
AGuest reiterates: Were it you or your loved one, you would most probably choose whichever side applies... at the time... which could differ greatly from what you would choose now. [Emphasis edited]
With that said, okay, well, since I’ve been putting in my "personal" $.02 these days (dear Lord, help me, why? I should know better!) here is my personal truth (wait, let me put on my Kevlar coat first, please - okay, then):
If my child were murdered (i.e., not accidentally, unintentionally and/or absent malice)… I would to my utmost to forgive the person(s) responsible. I would tell the both the person and the state that I will try my best to forgive them… and I would work on doing that. I cannot say, however, TRUTHFULLY… that I would fight the state should they decide for the death penalty. In my mind, that person lived by the “law” of the world, and so is subject to being judged… and condemned… by the law of the world. I would ask the Most Holy One of Israel for their forgiveness… truly, I would… BUT I would NOT try to fool the Holy Spirit by pretending that I AM “forgiving”... if I am not. Rather, I would also pray for the “right" heart about it… and forgiveness should I fail. In essence, I would forgive the person as best I could - for me to sit here and say that I absolutely WOULD forgive them would, in my case, most probably not be the truth. I know me… and I know that I would have to work at it (I have been totally honest - I am a sinner!). But I would work at it (this is the truth)… because first and foremost, I am a sinner myself… and wish forgiveness from those I “sin against”… and second, because NOT doing so would wreak havoc on MY life… which I cannot allow: I have another beautiful child… a loving husband… loving friends and family (in laws - I'm pretty much an "orphan")… and a little doggie (Louie!!)… that I LOVE... and would still want to be totally present and available for - physically, mentally, spiritually, psychologically... and emotionally.
If my child were on death row as a result of being falsely accused, I would do all that I could to help them be exonerated. I would dedicate my life to it. If I failed, I would grieve, of course – this is my child -but I would NOT lose my faith in God. I understand how the Adversary works...what he's up to and why... and it would take more, MUCH more… than the loss of a child… however that loss comes about. It would take much more than the 10 Job lost... and I only have 2.
If my child killed anyone, for any reason other than accidentally or in self defense… I would not have the state or anyone else put him or her to death. I would do it myself… and welcome the consequences (life in prison, death, whathaveyou). It was my child who committed such a crime and, therefore, it is MY responsibility to deal with it. I don’t believe that in such circumstances my child’s fate should be in anyone's hands... but mine. It doesn’t matter whether I “created” the “monster” (maybe I was a good mother!). What matters to ME is that NO ONE else has to bear the burden… or suffer the consequence (including that of a bad conscience)... of having to do it. Thus, if my child is judged by this world to be put to death for a crime they committed, there is no one to look at… or blame… but me. If my child should die, then I am the one to do it, and no one else. Because I would most probably be "dead" inside if I lived anyway - how could a child of mine do such a thing??!!! - and, IMHO, anything else would be saying that I believe my own life… is worth more than my child’s… or his/her victim's... and, IMHO, that could never be.
I have told each one of these "truths" to my children almost from the time they came into this world. Each one. And it might be why, to this date, I have not had a single bit of trouble out of either of them. I mean, maybe they knew I really meant it when I repeated to them the mantra used by many African Americans and others: “I brought you into this world… I WILL take you out.”
Again, this is my personal truth and, again, may you all have peace.
A slave of Christ,
SA, on her own (and wishing she probably shouldn't have been. I think I'll keep the Kevlar cost on just a little while longer...)
jaguarbass

I think an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth. I dont think sexual assault equals the death penalty.
I suspect those that would do the sexual assaulting would be the children of elders whose fathers spent all their free time tending someone elses garden and ignoring their own. You can extrapolate those sentiments outside of the organization also.
sammielee24

There's a great article in the Sacramento about this subject. It offers up both sides - a mother who had her daughter abducted and murdered 27 years ago and the effect it has had on their lives while waiting for the murderer to die. He was to be given lethal injection but that was held up in court - she wants him dead for her loss. The other side of no death penalty comes from someone in the legal end of it. sammieswife.
avishai

Oy. Oy gevalt, folks, what I said was that children "rarely" lie in these cases, not "never". I've worked in group homes for years, for abused children. There are other indicators when a child has been abused, too. That includes having ideas crammed into their heads by corrupt therapists and attorneys with an agenda, which I feel is damn near as abusive as the actual act.
I was against the death penalty for a long time for the same reasons many of you are against, i.e, giving the government, etc. the "right" to kill. They already have it, though, and use it liberally, just look at Iraq. With as many people as DNA is exonerating, though, (which is FANTASTIC!) It also can convict with far more accuracy. For instance, in several cases recently, they've found the DNA INSIDE kidnapped, dead little kids. In those cases? Kill the bastards. Once again, I've worked with these kids, and to see how this kind of abuse ruins lives... It's awful. Remember the guy that killed the family in front of the kids so he could kidnap them in WA state, and then killed the little boy in front of his sister (shasta groene was her name, look it up) and had been blogging about abusing kids, was already a serial molester? Give me one good reason we should keep this scum alive.
inrainbows

burn
Yes. To draw a line at "rodent size brain" and say "smaller than this not human, larger than this, human" is arbitrary and artificial. The brain's development is a continuum from birth to death.
Oh, the rodent brain size thing is what's called 'an example'. A technical term I know, sorry if it's confusing. I could have chosen cats, horses, cows. None of them are 'people', except to someone with an emotional investment in them.
And yes, as my whole argument hinges around a feotal brain being yay big at a certain point and getting bigger, you stating the same is kinds superflouous. It just points out your 'magical thinking' (that an insy-weeeny dot of brain matter can be regarded the same as, say, a newly born baby) is unsustainable outside of a paradigm where someone holds emotions or quasi-religoious supersticion as equal to scientific fact.
Human life begins at conception. It is unique and individuated.
Yes, on a genetic basis, but genes do not make living human tissue something worthy of the same rights and privelges as, say, a newly born baby.
You really seem to fail to comprehend this simple fact.
Of course, you're entitled to a contray opinion. To believe that some form of magic makes a fertilised egg cell the same as a new born baby in terms of its rights. That you can approve of killing a fully developed adult for breaking laws even when you say 'To destroy a human is murder'. You are entitled to any poorly thought-out, inconsistent, unsustainable quasi-religious, judicially vindicitive argument you want.
When in doubt, CHOOSE LIFE.
Remember that next time you advocate the death penalty.
Gladioli
Omne ignotum pro magnifico est, cloaca sanis
Gregor
I love your argument of 'it's the law in our country, deal with it'. Same sort of argument enjoyed by supporters of Sharia law and Facism.
Isn't it great how all you 'yay, let's kill people and call it law' advocates don't dare go near the point I've made about how out-of-step the US is with (other?) civilised Western democracies, and how in-step they are with totalitarian reigiemes?
I know it must make you brain hurt; cognotive dissonance does that. But don't you feel the least bit embaressed not even trying to defend your country? Of ignoring an uncomfortable fact that doesn't fit in with your world view?
You got out of a cult for Pete's sake, don't stop the critical thinking now.
BurnTheShips

Oh, the rodent brain size thing is what's called 'an example'. A technical term I know, sorry if it's confusing. I could have chosen cats, horses, cows. None of them are 'people', except to someone with an emotional investment in them.
All those are arbitrary! Human life begins at conception, of this there can be no doubt and there is none. You want to arbitrarily define when "personhood" begins and allow state-sanctioned murder before that point. So what is your line?
And yes, as my whole argument hinges around a feotal brain being yay big at a certain point and getting bigger, you stating the same is kinds superflouous. It just points out your 'magical thinking' (that an insy-weeeny dot of brain matter can be regarded the same as, say, a newly born baby) is unsustainable outside of a paradigm where someone holds emotions or quasi-religoious supersticion as equal to scientific fact.
You are talking out of your ass. There is no superstition here. None is necessary. I can believe that the fetus becomes a person at any point, but can I prove it? You say that I have magical thinking, but you can't tell me when that human life becomes a person, you can only create an arbitrary point in time during fetal development but you can never prove it. That makes your assertion arbitrary. Is it at 8 weeks? 16? 6 months? Delivery? Prove to me the point in time it becomes a person and the point in time before which it is not murder.
You are driving down the road, you see a large trench coat draped on the road and an unknown mass underneath it. Is it a person under there? Or a pile of garbage? Or something else? You can't know. Would you drive over the trench coat?
You are hunting, you see a bush move and rustle, you do not know what is in the bush. Is it an animal you are hunting that is in the bush? Or a human person? Is it moral to shoot into the bush without knowing?
When in doubt, CHOOSE LIFE.
Burn
inrainbows

burn
All those are arbitrary! Human life begins at conception, of this there can be no doubt and there is none. You want to arbitrarily define when "personhood" begins and allow state-sanctioned murder before that point. So what is your line?
Simply repeating yourself does not mean you have a good point. A human life can be a fertilised gamate OR a brain-dead adult kept respirating through mechanical means. Some people think wearing a condom is wrong because they believe that fertilisation is an arbitary point. FLDS believe you should knock up a girl as soon as she menstrates as they believe anything else is an ungodly waste of fertility and potential little cultlings. So YOU have as arbitary line in the view of some people as I may have in yours. And yet I have a single valid fact; a few grams of brain a human individual with personality does not make. You have no facts, only supersticion.
You can BELIEVE that these two examples (or just one of them) should be protected the same way as a new-born baby or adult or 24 week-old fetus. This means that you personally should not switch of relative's life-support if they are brain dead or get an abortion.
But as you cannot PROVE that the first two examples are the same as the latter three examples in any of the ways that make a human life an individual person (i.e. having a brain capable of functioning and supporting a personality), you cannot in a secular society force your quasi-religiousn supersticious beliefs on others.
Prove to me the point in time it becomes a person and the point in time before which it is not murder.
It can be stated with assurance that before 16 weeks a fetus is not a person as it doesn't have the required hardware to run the software of personality. That's the entire point I am making about the size of a foetal brain at that stage of gestation. Please prove me wrong; show that a few grams of brain can sustain a human personality.
Between then and 24 weeks there is fairly rapid growth, especially after 20 weeks. For me, in a well-ordered medical system (which the US has not got) most abortions can take place before 16 weeks and are of no ethical concequence. I think the figure is between 80 and 90% in Europe. After 20 weeks for me the grey is too grey, and unless we were dealing with a baby with profound disablement that would only live with heroic modern medical measures, abortion would be wrong. I see little moral high-ground in condemning a child to short painful life over termination. Given the coice between a clean death and a long-drawn out painful death most adults choose a clean death, so why should we allow a different standard for our children?
You are driving down the road, you see a large trench coat draped on the road and an unknown mass underneath it. Is it a person under there? Or a pile of garbage? Or something else? You can't know. Would you drive over the trench coat?
That large mass might be a live adult with an individual personality. A crisp packet could conceal a 16 week-old foetus. Do you swerve for crisp packets? I don't, but I would for a trenchcoat or even a small anorak. Bad example. Next.
You are hunting, you see a bush move and rustle, you do not know what is in the bush. Is it an animal you are hunting that is in the bush? Or a human person? Is it moral to shoot into the bush without knowing?
Legally speaking it would be manslaughter (term varies in different legal systems if you shot the bush without knowing and killed a live adult with an individual personality. A 16 week-old foetus would not be walking in the woods without it mother, and it is not manslaughter to abort a 16 week-old foetus as it is not held to be equivalent to a live adult with an individual personality. Bad example, next
When in doubt, CHOOSE LIFE.
Like I say, think of that next time you advocate the destruction of a live adult with an individual personality.
Now, you'all can go on saying "I think judicial killing is okay", and refusing to think about the points made re. the US being like a totalitarian state with no respect for human rights as far as execution goes. The United Shame of America...
Why not go the next step and introduce the death bus? This is how the Chinese do it. Given the thousands of people on death row you'll need to order a fleet of them.
Vengence is not justice. Killing people is wrong. People who stay in prison don't reoffend. Countries without death penalties do not suffer massive murder rates. It's time to change. But unfortunately you'all too conditioned (just like the 78% of Germans in 1948 who opposed the abolition of the death penalty) to accept that. Will you accept that? No, or course not, no more than a Dubbie can accept they might be wrong due to their conditioning.
If you had a decent arguement for America persistenting in the death penalty someone would have made it at somepoint. Deterent; no. Cost, no. Justice, hell no. All you keep on saying is you THINK it's right.
Now, can you remember another time you THOUGHT you were right and avoided arguments that showed you weren't with facile reasoning, thought stopping and cognitive dissonance?
Turn and face the strange...
Country Girl

There are some people who simply cannot or will not be rehabilitated. They are not remorseful for their actions, and given the opportunity, they will repeat them. For these people, the death penalty is not a punishment, but a protection for society.
Read this story.... Google "Kenneth McDuff" in Texas. CG
BurnTheShips

That large mass might be a live adult with an individual personality. A crisp packet could conceal a 16 week-old foetus. Do you swerve for crisp packets? I don't, but I would for a trenchcoat or even a small anorak. Bad example. Next.
You obviously don't get it. You can't prove a 16 week old fetus is a person. Prove it. If you can't prove it, then the possibility exists that it is a person. Just like the possibility of a person under the trenchcoat or in the bush.
I am so glad you can ethically write off the right to life of another. It is also wonderful how you can judge if someone else's life is worth living.
Witness 007

Everyone on death row will do and say anything to get off! It is worse torture to have it drag on with years of appeals knowing each night that you are waiting to die....many deserve it.....here in Australia murders sometimes can get out after 10 - 12 years is this too soft for murder? I think so in America you get 40 - 50 years which is a death sentence anyway since what are you going to do when your an old man who spent his life in jail?

The Death Penalty? What do you think?

Share this