As I remembered Uprising is a Christian. Guess I was mistaken. Not saying I think Christian values make a good justice system, just wondering if there is a conflict of interest there, as what he said doesn't jive with that credo. Fact: State executions kill innocent people, and will continue to kill innocent people, based on human error, both purposefully and accidentally, as well as racial, social and economic bias. If you think it is ok sacrifice the lives of innocent people to kill the guilty, then that is just indescribably effed up.
I will fully agree that executions should no longer be performed without DNA evidence. Hell, they have technology to find skin cells these days. But I've no problem with destroying filth in this country, and it is one of the reasons I will never be on a jury where that penalty exists. Hypocritical? Perhaps. But it is my stance.
first one I clicked: I know it's tasteless, but LMAO @ the way they wrote what he said.. fo' fo', huh?
I know someone has to die if an officer of the law is murdered, but since when is a mug shot enough evidence to put someone on the chair? Officers are above the law, whether you like it or not.
wow.. that's all i can say it's crazy how some of these men robbed such a small amount of money and ended up killing someone for it. just stupidity..
My wife and I argue about the death penalty all the time. Perhaps I'm just a heartless b*stard and I still fall under some of the influence of my parents who were staunchly conservative and loved the old-testament eye-for-an-eye policies of a pre-Jesus angry-ass God who would kill people just for trying to steady a cart containing the Arc of the Covenant. Then again I've never experienced having a loved-one murdered like she has, and she says its all about revenge and it doesn't help anything. Justice? Revenge? Is it within the hands of the state to execute criminals? It certainly is within the hands of the state to execute thousands of people via senseless wars, etc. That is certainly not a justification for continuing to abide by a flawed system, but it does show that the state is certainly not always about individual rights. Perhaps the threat of losing your life isn't a deterrent for some of these people who committed these acts, but does that mean they deserve a second chance? Should the punishment fit the crime? Does taking any life require a certain set of repercussions? Hell, some people feel that Michael Vick should be given the same punishment as a man who raped and murdered children. The fact is that all crimes ARE subjective because they are given to a (hopefully) competent jury to reach a conclusion. I don't believe in moral absolutes. I cannot say for a fact that no man deserves to be killed by the state, because there will always be a situation that proves to be the exception to the rule. Killing innocent people should never be justified, the system has cracks so therefore an imperfect system cannot always be correct. Innocent people will still die. However, if it is indeed proven without reasonable doubt and the evidence is obvious (DNA, or and other concrete indicators), then I really do not have a problem with the death penalty in extreme cases of complete and utter disregard for human life. It is hard to say just why in those extreme cases, a crime so heinous can warrant a person losing their life. If a person shows remorse for their actions and is labeled reformed, I applaud them for accepting their fate, but what they have done can never truly be "forgiven" in the eyes of the law. You surrender your right to life after you make a decision to maliciously take away somebody else's right to life. At any rate, the quote I posted earlier certainly made me rethink some of my stances.
A very relevant and thought provoking thread started by SamFisher in the D&D: Texas Killed An Innocent Man; What Should It Do About It?
The same people who take such a black-and-white moral high ground against the death penalty probably support the ability of the state to kill people in wars or conflicts. And they probably don't flinch when a homeowner kills someone who breaks into their home to steal something. The worst thing about the death penalty is it turns a bunch of people who are quite literally the worst criminals in society into martyrs who are mourned by those who would otherwise abhor them.
I've met people who are against the death penalty, but are pro-choice when it comes to abortion. Thoughts?
What gets you the death penalty? I would figure every robbery death case does not get you the death penalty.
innocent people have also served life terms and died in prison...so are you against life in prison too?
Yeah, now we're going to bring abortion into the argument. This thread is on life support in the hangout now.
Only certain murders warrant the death penalty. It either has to be pre-meditated, murder of a child or police officer
Not really relevant. The state didn't kill them. Just because one injustice is terrible and another is only slightly less terrible doesn't mean you can't still be opposed to the worse of the two.
Last time I checked it is easier to unlock a prison cell than it is to bring a dead guy back to life. How's that for nit picking.
