Another Oklahoma Fail

[tschu]

JJ you're now operating under the assumption that we could ever be 100% sure of someone's guilt, and that all juries, judges, and lawyers could ever perform their jobs with 100% accuracy. This will never happen, so legal system inefficiencies are inherently part of the discussion. Again, not the main reason and nobody is basing their entire argument on it. It's just one more nail in the coffin (okay I didn't mean to write that phrase but I did so I'm just gonna roll with it) for the death penalty argument.

[knapplc]

Could we please not turn this into another bash-the-Christians thread? This topic has enough fuel for discussion without throwing that log onto the fire.

[BigRedBuster]

Could we please not turn this into another bash-the-Christians thread? This topic has enough fuel for discussion without throwing that log onto the fire.

Thank you.

[tschu]

Could we please not turn this into another bash-the-Christians thread? This topic has enough fuel for discussion without throwing that log onto the fire.

I'll +1 this and apologize.

[carlfense]

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann

[carlfense]

Could we please not turn this into another bash-the-Christians thread? This topic has enough fuel for discussion without throwing that log onto the fire.

Good call. Edited that post.

[JJ Husker]

5- Once again that is an indictment of our legal system and not the death penalty. Kill them the next day, without appeal, and this becomes a moot point.

Wow.

 

Not much else to say.

 

Bunch of good christian folks up in here.

Some people get too hung up on thinking death is the absolute worst thing. I guess that is natural for people who have no belief in eternal life.

 

Now if we want to talk about questionable morals, let's visit about people who are opposed to the death penalty (for people who have proven through their own actions that they don't deserve to live) but have no problem with abortion of an innocent fetus who has harmed absolutely no one. Talk about mind blowing......

 

The hypocrisy found in Christendom is what drove me far, far away. It's "pick and choose what you want to believe." At best. Love your neighbor as yourself, and Jesus forgives us all for our sins. Unless you're a convicted killer, then murder that bastard. No appeals. Kill him now. But alas, let's stick to the topic at hand shall we.

 

It's sure a good thing YOU don't pick and choose what you want to believe yet you expect others to fall in line with some ill conceived notion of what you think Christianity is all about. You're making the mistake of relating earthly punishment for crimes with forgiveness and salvation from God. Two WAY different things there. I've got no problem with thinking some crimes deserve the death penalty and also believing that person may receive forgiveness from God. Oh, and when somebody raises an inconsistency you can't really defend, please feel free to continue calling those things strawmen and red herrings. It's come to be expected.

 

Too summarize your positions;

A) It is wrong to kill people convicted of heinous crimes. Because? It costs too much, it is cruel, an innocent person may be executed.

B) No problem killing unborn babies who have not harmed anyone.

Apparently raping, murdering, and dismembering other human beings is not as bad as possibly becoming a financial burden on an unwed mother.

 

Somehow your claims of hypocrisy found in Christendom are not making much of an impression on me.

 

Edit- Sorry, but I had already typed this response before reading the last few posts about not turning this into a Christian thing. But I'm leaving it because I think it needed to be said.

[carlfense]

Too summarize your positions;

A) It is wrong to kill people convicted of heinous crimes. Because? It costs too much, it is cruel, an innocent person may be executed.

B) No problem killing unborn babies who have not harmed anyone.

So you think killing an innocent baby (fetus, actually, and generally not "alive") is horrendous . . . but killing an innocent adult is an acceptable risk.

 

Somehow that makes sense, I guess.

[BigRedBuster]

Too summarize your positions;

A) It is wrong to kill people convicted of heinous crimes. Because? It costs too much, it is cruel, an innocent person may be executed.

B) No problem killing unborn babies who have not harmed anyone.

So you think killing an innocent baby (fetus, actually, and generally not "alive") is horrendous . . . but killing an innocent adult is an acceptable risk.

 

Somehow that makes sense, I guess.

 

How about this...let's not kill either one.

 

Deal?

[carlfense]

How about this...let's not kill either one.

 

Deal?

If we're talking about viable humans, I'm with you.

[Ulty]

Abortion and the Death Penalty are both totally separate issues (with a common concept at their roots, admittedly); I think discussing them both at once obfuscates the debates over both issues.

 

There is some truth to saying that someone who is morally against DP but supports abortion rights shows a little inconsistency, but at the same time, the "pro-life" folks who support the death penalty are equally inconsistent. Both sides own some hypocrisy, but then again, these are two different subjects.

 

But consider this, I don't think anyone who supports abortion rights is actually a proponent of more abortions or killing babies. However, a lot of people who support the death penalty, including discussion in this very thread, do advocate killing more people. If you support that and claim to be pro-life, I would suggest that is more hypocritical than the other side. The true pro-life position would be against the death penalty AND against abortion.

[EbylHusker]

If you think that part of the reason for the death penalty is because of overcrowding then other ways of reducing overcrowding has everything to do with this.

Part of the benefit of the death penalty is reducing inmates, not part of the reason for it.

 

 

We killed a whole 39 people in 2013. Hardly helping the overcrowding issue.

We should be executing a good deal more. If we were, that number would go up and it wouldn't be quite so insignificant.

[carlfense]

If you think that part of the reason for the death penalty is because of overcrowding then other ways of reducing overcrowding has everything to do with this.

Part of the benefit of the death penalty is reducing inmates, not part of the reason for it.

Why do you think that is a significant difference? If the benefits aren't a reason for it . . . why bring them into the discussion?

[knapplc]

We're bringing abortion into this? I'm out.

 

[JJ Husker]

Too summarize your positions;

A) It is wrong to kill people convicted of heinous crimes. Because? It costs too much, it is cruel, an innocent person may be executed.

B) No problem killing unborn babies who have not harmed anyone.

So you think killing an innocent baby (fetus, actually, and generally not "alive") is horrendous . . . but killing an innocent adult is an acceptable risk.

 

Somehow that makes sense, I guess.

 

Let's just work with numbers here.

How many innocent adults have actually been killed by the death penalty? How many innocent babies have been killed by abortion?

It is not acceptable that an innocent person may be put to death but I don't think the fact that we will never be 100% accurate is enough to preclude it. If that is the case, then why even have a legal system at all? I mean we'll never get it 100% right so screw it, let people do what they want with no repercussions.

 

We probably shouldn't even begin to delve into your claim of a fetus being actually and generally not alive. I think that has been covered ad nauseum in other threads and you should've known better than to bring it up here.