Why do we have a death penalty? | Napa Valley Register

Home » Opinion » Phoebe Harper

Why do we have a death penalty?

Friday, July 17, 2009

Comment

By PHOEBE HARPER

A Mind of My Own

November 11th, 2009

Questioning my beliefs

September 29th, 2009

My guidelines for legalizing marijuana

September 17th, 2009

College classes are easy, thanks to a New Tech education

September 11th, 2009

A very special birthday message

August 22nd, 2009

Are college parties worth it?

I have often wondered about the logic behind the death penalty.

A basic tenet the Christian majority in the U.S. lives by is, “thou shalt not kill.” This isn’t just a little snippet embedded somewhere in that holiest of books either — it is one of the Ten Commandments.

We live in a society where we attempt to find justice for everyone. If a person can prove they are innocent, we let them go. If a person is proven guilty, we mete out what an impartial judge believes is an appropriate punishment. It would seem to me, however, that killing someone is hardly an appropriate punishment for anything. What message does that send? “It’s not okay to kill, unless you already did it, and then we get to do it to you.”

There’s more than just a moral issue, too. The death penalty, it would seem, just isn’t a deterrent. People will commit crimes whether they can be put to death for them or not. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, which got its information from the CDC, “the United States has the highest rates of childhood homicide, suicide, and firearm-related death among industrialized countries. Almost all of these other industrialized countries have stopped using the death penalty.”

More than 80 percent of experts surveyed (representing the American Society of Criminology, the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, and the Law and Society Association) believe the existing research fails to support a deterrence justification for the death penalty. Similarly, over 75 percent of those polled do not believe that increasing the number of executions would create a deterrent effect. Take Holland, where the death penalty is not used, drugs are decriminalized, and prostitution is legal. They have literally laid off government law enforcement employees because the crime rate is so low.

Why do we continue, when there’s little, if any evidence from the experts that it is working, when the system is heavily prejudiced against people of different races, when innocent people are put to death, and when it goes against a fundamental principle of the majority of the people in this country?

Is it vindictiveness?

Is it natural bloodthirstiness?

I have trouble believing it is really because we as a society are truly seeking justice or peace of mind. Were that the case, there would be stiffer sentences for child molesters. Prisons would not have cable television or yard time for inmates. Lawyers would be more honest and those who prosecute criminals would not stoop to illegal tactics in order to convict them.

I don’t live in a fairy tale. People do horrible, horrible things. There will always be those people who deserve never to see the light of day — but does that mean we have a right to make that judgment? Do we have a inherent ability to take the lives of others based on arbitrary decisions about morality and a purely emotional need for revenge? I don’t think so. Deliberately killing another human being is murder. There is no gray area there.

We call ourselves evolved, but when we take the lives of other human beings in the name of “justice,” I only see the characteristics of animals.

192 comment(s)

diehard4ever wrote on Jul 8, 2009 7:09 PM:

" "Take Holland, where the death penalty is not used, drugs are decriminalized, and prostitution is legal. They have literally laid off government law enforcement employees because the crime rate is so low."

Then decriminalize EVERYTHING!!! Make stealing legal!!! Don't complain when your flat screen gets jacked, because at least the crime rate is still low!!! That kind of thinking disgusts me. The Bible (Christianity, you mentioned it first, not me so don't say I'm bringing religion into places it doesn't belong) also says something about "Eye For An Eye" being the perfect justice system. I have to check this, but I believe it is "thou shalt not kill INNOCENCE". I don't find scumbag rapists/murderers INNOCENT.

BTW-
Cable is required in all prisons(Most likely made up by someone who is totally anti-gun but also has bodyguards with things that resemble bazookas). I like "Sherrif Joe's" ideas. Tent city. Pink boxers. No porno magazines. Basically what prison should be. Ugly. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jul 8, 2009 9:53 PM:

" diehard4ever- Please explain why some folks who call themselves 'Christians' tend to love their OLD TESTAMENT vengefull God punishments instead of the teachings of the man they say they follow?

The US Supreme Court recently ruled that a person convicted of a felony did not have the right to have DNA testing at his own expense to definitively prove his innocence.

Until we care more about innocent prisoners more than embarrassing DAs and sloppy police work, I don't think Jesus would approve of killing people we can not bring back the way he did.

~Ruff "

dudleysharp wrote on Jul 8, 2009 10:41 PM:

" Ms. Harper:

You have assumed or been misled.

Death Penalty Support: Modern Catholic Scholars
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/
and

"The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx
and

Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx
and

"Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html

People support the death penalty because they find it just and appropriate for some crimes, the same foundation as for all sanctions. "

krusty wrote on Jul 8, 2009 10:53 PM:

" diehard4ever, Sheriff Joe's policies have killed over 11 inmates and resulted in payments of more than $43 million in settlement claims during his tenure. These people didn't die as a result of prison violence, they died because of his policies. He's hardly a poster child for prison efficiency. "

pharper wrote on Jul 8, 2009 11:07 PM:

" If the crime rate is low, Angelina, Holland is doing something right, clearly. Yes, drugs are decriminalized, but apparently in doing so it has not raised the number of other types of crimes. Holland is often considered one of the world's "happiest countries." In the last ranking of the world's happiest countries, America was 110th. Kinda dismal, don't you think?

Then Christians need to figure out where their loyalties lie, don't they? Either it's "eye for an eye," or it's "thou shalt not kill." Can't be both. And in using the death penalty, we have before and will continue to murder innocent people. That really doesn't fly with me, nor should it with you. What if that innocent person was your father, or neighbor, or God forbid, you?

Even so, what right do we have to give the ultimate judgment? I thought that was up to God. "

pharper wrote on Jul 8, 2009 11:27 PM:

" dudleysharp, all of those articles come from pro-death penalty sites, and are opinion pieces...I don't see how those are factually-based in any way. They're certainly not impartial. Also...they're all by the same person...not sure how those are reliable sources. I got my sources from the CDC, by way of the Death Penalty Information Center.

Here's a link from Amnesty International - not an impartial relayer of information, but with citable and impartial sources.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/the-death-penalty-and-deterrence/page.do?id=1101085 "

kevin wrote on Jul 9, 2009 5:02 AM:

" As if the B.O. run CDC is "impartial" or "reliable". LOL. "

diehard4ever wrote on Jul 9, 2009 7:27 AM:

" pharper-
Look around.We have SO MUCH technology now that it is virtually impossible to convict the wrong person. We have DNA, video cameras everywhere. I believe that they have a machine that can tell if a person is telling the truth from the tone of their voice and the dilation of their pupils. Watch the movie 'An Eye For An Eye". It's available from Blockbuster and Netflix.

Eye for an Eye and "thou shalt nor kill innocence" go hand in hand. If you've murdered someone, you are definitely not innocent. Therefore that rule doesn't apply to you.

"I got my sources from the CDC, by way of the Death Penalty Information Center"

Uh, yeah. Gov't programs. A gov't that is failing miserably from lack of intelligence. Very reliable source.

Krusty-
I didn't know it was possible to die from a lack of TV? Think about it this way: Our troops live in the same condition, and they're doing it by choice, to protect your FREEDOM to BASH them. I'd be grateful. The country we're fighting believes in running over people's arms with Ford F150s as punishment. "

diehard4ever wrote on Jul 9, 2009 7:38 AM:

" pharper-
I also find it funny, hilarious even, that you are standing behind the Bible to defend sicko murderers, but we are not "allowed" to use it to defend marriage, babies (abortion) and our rights? Your points are valid when we are "allowed" to use the Good Book to defend our points. Gotcha. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jul 9, 2009 8:59 AM:

" Back in England, they used to hold public executions, hangings, beheadings and more.

They often killed innocent people, and always gathered a crowd.

I'm not sure that the folks screaming for blood back then are much different than the folks screaming for blood now.

"Give us Barabas!"

~Ruff "

OU now wrote on Jul 9, 2009 9:16 AM:

" pharper.".thou shalt not kill " was a faulty translation.. should be "thou shall not commit murder" An "eye for an eye" can also mean that if you cause a person to loose an eye, limb ect. that you are responsible for their welfare from now on. Your eyes will be their eyes, your legs will be their legs(sounds fair). So much of the bible has been translated to english wrong. The bible does have the death penalty for many crimes, but justice was quick and cheap then. Today I agree that the death penalty does not work in our justice system today. Only because of the amount of money spent on appeals. You are young, and a liberal idealist( a very good thing to be when you are young) but I have met death row inmates, and have talked to them. Many love to re-live the crime. Like The brutal rapist, where he bit off his victims nipples before he slit her open. I really see no reason to keep "hatch" alive. But I also see no reason to spend millions of state funds for his defense. If we kept them in total isolation from human contact I would be happy. but some liberal group would say it is cruel and unusual punishment. "

Napagrrl wrote on Jul 9, 2009 10:22 AM:

" One poster mentions all the technology available to us to prevent innocent people from being accused/convicted, yet another says, "The US Supreme Court recently ruled that a person convicted of a felony did not have the right to have DNA testing at his own expense to definitively prove his innocence. " So with all the tools we now have, one man was not allowed to use it.

And Phoebe's mention of the Bible? I believe she's simply pointing out that those who believe in the Bible often believe in the death penalty. That and her other comment that Christians need to figure out where their loyalties lie indicate to me that she's not behind the Bible at all. "

O/U now wrote on Jul 9, 2009 10:41 AM:

" diehard4ever.... Dont taunt pharp on the bible. She has said that she does not know if their is a God. She does not understand it (like so many christians) because she probably never read it with prayer. So many (Ruff) never look at the history of the region, of how wars were fought and victory defined for that period. And see only a cruel, blood thirsty god. When compassion was seen by your foe to be weakness,you can't afford to show compassion. Also the sins of their foe condemed them all in Gods eyes.(child sacrafice): The new testiment does teach forgivness,but Jesus did not refute the death penality or the laws of the bible. The death penality today IS a joke, can we afford it. "

alucawanza wrote on Jul 9, 2009 11:20 AM:

" The death penalty makes the state take a life. Why? Life in prison with no possibility of parole seems more logical. It has been proven not to be a deterrent. It puts an enormous responsiblility on a jury. Contrary to Angelina's posts mistakes are made and innocent people are on death row.

The death penalty also costs much more than a life sentence. The Polly Klaas murderer is still there after how many years? Appeals, court costs, imprisonment costs, special protection cells, lawyer costs...unbelievable. Yet it is all legal. If he had received life he would have cost $40,000, or so, per year. He has cost millions.

But that's not really your point Phoebe. I think the death penalty is vindictive and bloodthirsty. It appeals to the dark side of our characters. I am not in favor of it. There's something basically uncivil about it. What's the term...cruel and unusual punishment? In the end it doesn't bring back the victim or reallly provide closure for the families. It's payback...Is that how we want to see ourselves? Many will say yes. Not me.
But I haven't lost anyone to a crime. Perhaps that would change my mind. That's where walking the walk comes in.
Powerful post.. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jul 9, 2009 11:28 AM:

" O/U now- You make claims about my knowledge of "the history of the region, of how wars were fought and victory defined for that period" that do not come from knowing or discussing anything with me beforehand.

I've spent years studying Christianity, the other religions and history of the Middle East both with prayer, and later, without prayer.

And all my studying has brought me to the conclusion that the Old Testament God was displaying a decidedly different persona in the teachings of Jesus.

You say Jesus did not refute the death penalty, but neither did he call for it when the Pharisees came to him calling for the stoning of the harlot. He was sinless yet refused to cast the first stone and thus partake of a taking of human life 'legal' under the Old Testament law.

I make the point repeatedly that since we can not bring people back to life if we make a mistake, we should NEVER deny anyone the right to prove their innocence using proof that was not available at the time of conviction.

We don't need to be 'efficient' when it comes to taking human life. A true penality of 'Life without Parole' protects society from predators while giving a mistakenly-convicted prisoner a lifetime to eventually prove their innocence.

~Ruff "

pharper wrote on Jul 9, 2009 12:17 PM:

" The Angelina, find me an impartial website unaffiliated with the government. By that logic, no one can provide any sources that won't be shot down for having whatever affiliation with President Obama. Would you have complained if Bush were still president?

Also, I used the Bible to emphasize the very real hypocrisy going on here, in what is a country with a Christian majority. It is not impossible to convict the wrong person. It is very, very possible. And since every criminal will maintain their innocence, in many cases (particularly those with circumstantial evidence) we have no way of knowing. How can we justify murdering all these people without being certain? I don't understand. Because it makes us feel better? Does taking another person's life help death penalty supporters sleep at night? What twisted logic!

O/U, I've read the Bible cover to cover more than once. You're right, never with prayer in mind, but the Bible's pretty clear on what it says...sort of. See, here's the thing. I don't understand expecting other people to live by certain standards when Christians themselves can't even agree on what the Bible says. Until such a time as Christians can understand and follow the Bible on a level that shows a thorough and widespread understanding of some translation, there's no way they can possibly expect the rest of us to follow the garbled version communicated to us by their various churches' members. "

O/U now wrote on Jul 9, 2009 12:54 PM:

" pharper...You got it part way, the bible is clear in what it teaches, religion is not clear or standard. The reason is because people are sheep(for the most part) following men(not God) that seek glory and power. Most christians have not gone as far as you in reading the bible. They do as they are told by men,not God. And you are right not to live by other peoples standards, I TRY to live by Gods. But being young and idealist do try to look at both sides of everything. You do not have many life experiances yet,and this is how we draw our opinions. And never use stats. that you read as fact. there are no facts, only estiments of what we can see. "

O/U now wrote on Jul 9, 2009 1:16 PM:

" ruff...So you study history,good. So you understand the wars and why they were so bloody. This is why so many of the city's that fell to jews sued for peace and mercy and did not die. They saw that there was no mercy for the ones that fought. Thus saving many jew warriors. Jesus did not come to destroy the letter of the law, but to give heart to the law. Much like our justice system today is ruled more by the "spirit" of the law than the word or letter of the law. P.C. 832 at napa JC is a good class to understand some of our laws and problems in the justice system. And for the harlot, this was a perfect example of forgiveness and compassion, much like the forgivness and compassion shown by God in the old testament. "

glenroy wrote on Jul 9, 2009 10:49 PM:

" Seems lately every newspaper has suddenly taken up this issue…must be Democrat talking points to distract from their horrible track record on virtually everything else they’ve ruined from the economy to Obama‘s bogus stimulus scam, and in the case of war on terrorism….in the process of ruining as former GITMO residents are once again killing our guys in Afghanistan. While Obama recently forced the release of half a dozen Iranian terrorist being held in Iraq who were responsible to building and planting road side bombs! That’s why we need the death penalty here and abroad…because there will always be the vocal ignorant who seem to always be on the wrong side of reality wedging the issue for personal/partisan gain.

In the history of mankind there has only ever been one effect means to stop murder recidivism……and that is the execution of the perpetrator….by the way, execution was also very effective in stopping horse theft, rape, molesters and all around general nuisances in the territories.

Life in prison doesn’t stop murder…. inmates murder each other everyday….except those that were executed….

If libs would spend half the time taking care of their own business they spend running around worrying about everybody else’s business, they would be half as much dependant on the rest of us…. "

Raven wrote on Jul 9, 2009 11:33 PM:

" so all you proponents of the death penalty...explain to us why the states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates than those that have the death penalty?

diehard, you willing to bet your life on the accuracy of science?...the best DNA evidence is only as good as the technicians that gather it and the labs that process it. "

diehard4ever wrote on Jul 10, 2009 9:00 AM:

" Watch Eye For An Eye. This is the reason I HATE the judical system in this country right now. Criminals are portrayed as victims. They get a year or so in prison and then they're back out on the streets. Is someone kills a member of my family, I want them DEAD.Not in prison. Not on parol. DEAD. As soon as they are convicted guilty, they are taken to a room and simply shot in the head. No pain. Not "cruel and unusual". Definitely not unusual. Our soldiers get shot in the head ALL THE TIME because they basically have to ask permission in order to shoot something. ENOUGH. Let them shoot people with knives, people with guns. People that would be more than happy to kill you.

Most murderers/rapists start out abusing animals. When they're teens/early adults. When you catch them, you don't send them to therapy, you send them to Army Training Camps until they learn to appreciate the rights they have in this country.

No more classifying murderers as "mental" and putting them in hospitals. They killed someone. If they are "mental" enough to do that, they deserve to die, not live the rest of their lives out with good food and nice nurses that they fantasize about killing. "

alucawanza wrote on Jul 10, 2009 10:41 AM:

" Interesting how Angelina's post exactly proves Phoebe's points. Vindictiveness and bloodthirstyness....That shouldn't be the basis of a justice system.
Who, of us, should decide who deserves to die?

BTW Angelina: Those who are killing animals as children and young adults are sociopaths or psychopaths. No amount of Army Training Camps will cure them. They are incurable. They are without empathy or conscience. Just imagine Hannibal Lector in an Army Training Camp..... "

freeport56 wrote on Jul 10, 2009 10:48 AM:

" We have the death penalty to punish the worst of the worst criminals in our society.

Charles Manson, the Hillside Strangler are just a couple of the types of I crimes I grew up with in L.A. The man who murdered Polly Class, Parents who murder children, gang murders...etc.

I do not believe in letting them live lives of comfort and privilege in prison. We can get involved in the argument that if the DP was used frequently it maybe a deterrent, we will never know until it is tried. These people have destroyed not only the lives of their victims, but the families of those murdered. Would you want to travel to a prison every five years to face the person that murdered a family member during a parole hearing. reliving that moment in time again and again?

Society is better off without them. Besides, the FBI estimates their are no fewer than 200 serial killers roaming our country at any given time. I think that number maybe higher. With our porous boarders who knows what types of inhuman individuals are coming onto our country.

Justice should be swift and final for those that commit murder! "

OU now wrote on Jul 10, 2009 11:55 AM:

" alucawanza...You are right,to a point. Vindictiveness is a sickness, but punishment must be the price people who live outside the law pay. punishment swift and fair, no matter how severe. they make their bed,they must lie in it. The problem is not the death penalty, but how long and who gets it. Family of the victims should never be in on the punishment decisions. Our goverment is run by lawyer's(not by us) and they make the laws to protect their fellow lawyers...not us. This is why so many people feel like Angelina, they are afraid. My own opinion on sociopaths and psychopaths is that they may not be curable, but they can be taught to have a place in society. It is dangrous to lable them as uncurable...We might just "get rid" of them when they are young before they commit a crime. The anger and vindictive nature of the letter is why we as humans, should never punish our child 'till we have thought about what and why they did what they did, let them think about it, and then let the punishment fit. And always remember how to think like child, you may save them from making the mistakein the first place! "

pharper wrote on Jul 10, 2009 12:02 PM:

" Angelina, you are exactly proving my point. It is not justice. It is not "eye for an eye." It is vindictiveness. It's a need for revenge.

Many victims of crimes (or families of victims) forgive the people who harmed them. That doesn't mean they excuse it, but it means that they find it in their hearts to do what a carpenter thousands of years ago did - forgive. I know some people are not able to do that, and it's okay. But it doesn't give them or anyone else the right to decide whether another person lives or dies. That isn't our judgment to make. That decision belongs to God, or fate, or whatever you believe in. We are human beings, and therefore fallible. We make mistakes. We do the wrong thing sometimes. Unless we can be positive, unless we can call ourselves perfect, we cannot make the decision to kill other people, no matter what they did or who they are.

I'll say it again - we are not perfect. We do not always do what is right and just, and we frequently, frequently make mistakes. If we can't be certain whether we've got the right person, or whether we're doing the right thing, how can we possibly justify doing it? It is the ultimate judgment. We can't take that lightly. We can't use it so flippantly, especially if there's any possibility we might be wrong.

As to the mentally insane and those "nice nurses" - have you ever been to the State Hospital, Angelina? It isn't "nice." And the people there are deemed criminally insane. That means that in trial or otherwise, it was proven that they are too crazy to know right from wrong. Jail is for people who can make the distinction. "

diehard4ever wrote on Jul 10, 2009 1:55 PM:

" You decide your own fate when you are BLOODTHIRSTY enough to kill an innocent person who had family, friends, a life and a future. Your life is over when you take that away from them. I want you off this planet, not because I want revenge, not because I am "bloodthirsty", but because I want to protect the lives, futures, families and friends of MY family and friends. I do not want ANYONE to mess with that.

alu-
At least they will be somewhat useful if they are in our army killing terrorists rather than us. Maybe it will give them a different outlook on how lucky they really are. Maybe they will find God again, and with that a soul.

pharper-
If they are too crazy to tell right from wrong, they are a danger to society. Besides, nowadays, with the manipulation of money and power, every other murderer is criminally insane. And pharper, I haven't been to the state hospital, but I do know someone who is insane. As soon as she wants to snap out of it, she will. No amount of counseling can do that, only you can make that decision.

No person that kills another human being out of something other than self defense (that includes the army. They are defending our country) is mentally sound.

Have you seen the movie yet? "

alucawanza wrote on Jul 10, 2009 2:42 PM:

" Angelina:
The army doesn't take psychopaths or sociopaths. These people are unable to find God. It's as if they have a birth defect or are born with a missing part. They have no conscience. They don't care about right and wrong. They are amoral. You want to share a foxhole with a sociopath?

Movies for you to watch:
Dead Man Walking
The Green Mile "

freeport56 wrote on Jul 10, 2009 2:53 PM:

" I will add one more movie. We lived just the canyon where the Tate murders happened.

Helter Skelter "

pharper wrote on Jul 10, 2009 3:37 PM:

" You don't "snap out" of being crazy. Sometimes it's treatable, often it's not. That's like telling a terminal cancer patient to "snap out of it." It's every bit as much an illness as anything else you can think of. It's also a combination of nature and nurture - take the Iceman, for example, Richard Kuklinski. Here was a man born with a mental tendency towards fearlessness. Had he been born into a loving family, it's likely he would have grown to be something like a fighter pilot or skydiver, or something where that trait would be an asset. However, he was born into a family where both parents beat him and threatened, and he grew up to be a violent sociopath who killed hundreds of people for the Mafia.

Criminally insane and completely bonkers are two different things. Jeffrey Dahmer was a nutcase, but he was not criminally insane. He knew what he did was wrong, he just didn't care. The definition from Nolo.com (a website for lawyers) is:

criminal insanity: A mental defect or disease that makes it impossible for a person to understand the wrongfulness of his acts or, even if he understands them, to distinguish right from wrong. Defendants who are criminally insane cannot be convicted of a crime, since criminal conduct involves the conscious intent to do wrong -- a choice that the criminally insane cannot meaningfully make.

You don't "snap out of it." And psychopaths and sociopaths aren't like dogs, for example. You can't direct their anger or tendency for violence in another direction. They are what they are.

As for "protecting the lives" of others, I don't believe that. That's what a life sentence without the possibility for parole is for. You don't need the death penalty for that. "

antipc wrote on Jul 10, 2009 7:13 PM:

" We ain't hangin' horse thieves here folks.

These people will never contribute to society. The heinous crimes they've committed are worthy of execution on that basis alone. They've been fairly judged by a jury of their peers to be a danger to society in or out of prison & have no redeeming qualities much less any remorse.

The only relief from whatever their affliction is the long dirt nap. "

Bill wrote on Jul 10, 2009 10:17 PM:

" Does society have the right to punish those that have transgressed its laws? Most rational people would answer in the affirmative. The death penalty is one punishment that is irrevocable; there is no pardon after its implementation, no reprieve, no hope for return or escape from the final act of the sentence’s execution. I believe that society has the right to invoke such a sentence. It has the right to extract both justice and vengeance no mater how imperfect. Whether it should is the real question. The death penalty is constitutional but its morality is questionable as is all morality and executing the mentally ill is not constitutional. Life for the unborn regardless of the control one should have over ones body, death for the most heinous offender of an arbitrary judgment that can never be recalled because mistakes are made. What calculus justifies the random execution of an innocent?

Punishment as deterrence or non-deterrence can not be adequately demonstrated by any statistical analysis for many crimes. There are enough reputable studies, pro and con, to befuddle the most astute statisticians from many sources. Probably more sources than the contradictory references found in the bible and the thinking of many Christian and biblical scholars.

We ask for justice and we ask that it be equal this is not always possible in an imperfect world. If we should err should we not err on the side of caution? "

Bill wrote on Jul 10, 2009 10:20 PM:

" One poster uses a variation of the classic saw, “what if your” loved one was brutally and horrendously murdered would you favor mercy or the most severe punishment. She brings light to the crux of the problem between justice and vengeance. Do we ask that the quality of justice be served by leaning to vengeance in its implementation? If so than justice can not extract vengeance for society and the sentence of death should reside in the hands of those most offended. Make those who have suffered the most harm the executioner because vengeance is truly theirs and therefore the justice that accrues to all does not make all complicit in extracting vengeance. If they have the will to slaughter and their psyche the ability to cope with the act then that is just punishment and no recrimination should fall upon the executioner should they prove capable of completing the act. It is not justice to make all complicit in a hypothetically impartial act performed dispassionately and antiseptically passing as humane.

If the truly offended should cry out for such an ultimate penalty then it should be theirs to implement. I would remind all that while it is easy to seethe in the mind and imagine the cold capacity to physically take the life of another, especially when removed from the offense by the reason of justice and the application of rational thought, the act itself takes a toll on the avenger’s humanity. Always, between the act and the deed falls the shadow. "

zist707 wrote on Jul 11, 2009 12:14 PM:

" I've never seen the death penalty as justice. It's always seemed more like revenge to me. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jul 11, 2009 1:43 PM:

" Good points Phoebe.
I am especially concerned about how it contributes to a culture of violence. By saying it is alright to kill if you have a good reason, that gives societal permission to kill to those who are so inclined. The death penalty is not necessary to protect us from someone who has been captured. And just because they have been convicted does not mean they are guilty, as has been demonstrated hundreds of times. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jul 11, 2009 5:26 PM:

" glenroy- Few liberals are worried about 'your business' and I expect few liberals are depending on you for a living.

When you look at the states that depend on assistance from other states (via the federal government) why those dependent states are states who majority vote for Republicans.

In other words, 'conservative' states are the deadbeats, sir.

When you look at states with the highest rates of divorce, abortion, etc, guess which ones they are?

Please, glenroy, Republicans talk a pretty good game and a lot of people fell for the bullstuff, but when it comes to walking the walk... well, let's say that there is a lot left to be desired.

~Ruff "

suze wrote on Jul 12, 2009 8:41 AM:

" All of you folks in favor of the death (revenge) penalty should probably read "The Innocent Man" by John Grisham. It is a work of non fiction by this ex-lawyer where he examines a case where the justice system fails badly through sheer incompetence and yup - stupidity. It is a gripping read with some startling statistics on the death (revenge) penalty.
Having said that, I am very much in favor of better filters for who gets sent to prison, and once they are there, make it punative! "

software wrote on Jul 12, 2009 2:39 PM:

" You know why the death penalty does not work, because they execute it wrong. Drag them on the street in front of everyone and kill them, then it will scare people, don't take 15 years and kill them with respect! Also, they need to expand the death penalty. Child Molesters and rapist...public hangings, bring it back! I'm not trying to be cynical, I am dead serious. (No pun intended) Great conversation! "

WorksInNapa wrote on Jul 12, 2009 4:57 PM:

" Years ago the Napa Fair had photos showing public hangings taking place in front of the Napa courthouse. I don't know why they pulled those photos. One thing for sure - no repeat offenders. That's the one postive thing about the death penalty. "

alucawanza wrote on Jul 12, 2009 5:11 PM:

" There you go Phoebe. Read software's post. Proves your points once more.

This is not a cynical post. It is "dead serious". Just what we need! Please don't drag them down my street.....Kill them, drag them, hang them publicly. We are just so civilized... "

diehard4ever wrote on Jul 12, 2009 6:31 PM:

" That's it! I give up! This is IMPOSSIBLE!!! There's seriously no point in arguing with you guys. What happens when the "life sentence" turns into 10 years? What happens when the guy gets let out and goes after the families of the people he killed? What happens when he finds a new victim and destroys THAT family???

Even if they do stay in jail forever, why should TAXPAYERS, which include the VICTIM'S FAMILY, have to pay for food and medical that keep the scumbag that killed their loved one alive??? Why not just simply put a bullet through their head after the perp is proven guilty by either DNA (legalize it), witnesses or cameras, or maybe even all three? From what people say (TV... I like the cop shows.. Leverage looks cool), a bullet through the head causes instant death and no unnecessary pain, which sure eliminates the cruel and unusual punishment excuse...

Learn to prioritize, victims before killers. If you kill an innocent person, you have already decided your own fate. Until you can learn to accept that, I'm done fighting a war that you won't let me win, even if I am right. "

winooak wrote on Jul 12, 2009 9:02 PM:

" I used to believe in the death penalty when it was used. Now I think all the scum bags should get life without paroll in general population. "

XMAN wrote on Jul 13, 2009 1:59 AM:

" The death penalty is a punishment for a crime. The righteously condemned party may be kept in an 8 by 10 foot cell and given food till they die. Or, they may be placed in a small room and given cyanide or toxic injections till they die. In the end, either way - they are dead. Meanwhile, society is being protected from their psychopathic and homicidal selves. Persons who are convicted on shaky grounds or with lame defense counsel should be given every opportunity to challenge their verdict and sentence - including any defense by use of DNA evidence. There have recently been a number of innocent findings when DNA re-exam cleared inmates of any guilt for a whole variety of crimes.. "

5th generation napan wrote on Jul 13, 2009 7:46 AM:

" I read years ago that the commandment was misinterperted from the hebrew version. It should have read "thou shalt not ""murder"". Kill was put in place for murder because the translators though it was the same.

Gee, now if you apply "tho shalt not murder" then its ok to "kill" murders.

These are not soldiers fighting for freedom or defending their families, they are murderes taking Gods most precious gift away for no valid reason.

So the death penalty is right in certain cases. "

pharper wrote on Jul 13, 2009 1:02 PM:

" Angelina, first of all, you have to understand that television is not real. Crimes are not solved in an hour (or even twenty-four hours). DNA does not come back within a few minutes, it takes weeks. Trials can take months, even years. If you're going by television, you need to be very, very careful what you're taking as the gospel truth.

Second - it's more expensive to kill someone on death row than to house them in prison. If it's money you're concerned about, victim's families pay more for the death penalty. Life sentences also do not turn into ten-year sentences very often, either. We're talking ultimate punishment here, for a crime so heinous that the perpetrator should never be allowed out into society again. That's what life without the possibility of parole is for, so there's no chance of someone being released back into the public. You don't need to kill someone to make sure they can't commit a crime again.

Thirdly, innocent people will always be convicted. It's the nature of human error. People make mistakes. People are unscrupulous. Some defense attorneys and lawyers will do or say anything to advance their careers. Witnesses will not always tell the truth. Technology can only go so far; we still need people to be perfect before we can say every person who is convicted is guilty - and we all know human beings are not and will never be perfect.

The judgment of who lives and who dies does not belong to people. It does not belong to fallible creatures who are out for revenge, not justice. We do not have a right to kill, ever. "

pharper wrote on Jul 13, 2009 1:05 PM:

" By the way, Angelina, you said, "Until you can learn to accept that, I'm done fighting a war that you won't let me win, even if I am right." First of all, why would I EVER "let" anyone win a "war" against me? I'm not a pushover. Second, that's hardly a way to make your point sound valid; it's rather petulant and doesn't make you sound as though you really have the facts to back it up. Simply giving up because you claim that you're right doesn't mean you are, and it doesn't mean I'll give up as well. I don't have to change your mind; this is for expressing my opinion. If I can manage to change someone's feelings, that's great, but it's not my job and if I can't, then so be it.

But I don't think that's a very good way of proving your point. "

downtownsupporter wrote on Jul 13, 2009 2:04 PM:

" Glenroy wrote:"That’s why we need the death penalty here and abroad…because there will always be the vocal ignorant who seem to always be on the wrong side of reality wedging the issue for personal/partisan gain." It sounds as if he is speaking of himself. Judging by his comments, He makes everything a partisan issue. "

5th generation napan wrote on Jul 13, 2009 2:36 PM:

" We as a people do have the right to defend ourselves, from foreign aggressors and home spun preditors.

Its not an eye for an eye since we give the "accuses" every benifit of the doubt and people are constantly trying to make sure trials are fair and right. The protection of the innocent causes many more preditors to be release than innocent peole killed.

And if it were still eye for an eye mentality then the muderer of my friend would have to be stabbed 27 times in his vital organs with a screwdriver. But we are beyond that, so when the "fourth" trial is done and he is convicted "again" then maybe the 52 people over the last five years (48 jurors for four trials and four judges) that there "verdic" might actually be done. And he will be held to the death penalty that was given, now problably life in prision. Humm "LIFE" in prision. A better deal than he issued to my friend.
Oh by the way the crime was my friend got his life straighed out and wanted to move out and was giving his 30 day notice.
You may want to live with these animals, I certanly do not. "

alucawanza wrote on Jul 13, 2009 6:04 PM:

" 5th generation napan;
If they're in prison for life without parole we certainly are not living with them. I'm sorry for what happened to your friend. I hope you do find closure to all of this. Going through so many trials is inconceivable to us who have not had this experience.

Angelina: Everyone thinks their opinion is right! Keep on with the critical thinking and writing. I wish more young people would learn about current issues and form opinions. "

diehard4ever wrote on Jul 13, 2009 7:35 PM:

" How is a bullet more expensive than medical, food, TV, dental and water for 50+ years.

My point is plenty valid. You kill people who have killed and they don't kill again. We don't have to pay for them. The money we save can go to the schools. How HARD is that? Why are you protecting murderers and rapists that destroy lives? WHY OH WHY would you rather have them spend the rest of their lives in prison rather than killing them. It's more "humane". ;)

As for the cop/TV thing... I'm not STUPID! I know that stuff takes time, but even in the real world, people tend to die instantly when they get shot point blank in the head.

You make it sound like people are wrongly convicted every day. The only time I've seen someone wrongly convicted is... you guessed it! TV.

Tell me why you want these murderous scumbags who, like I said before, decided their own fate when they killed an innocent person to live? "

OU now wrote on Jul 13, 2009 8:34 PM:

" I knew people who lost loved ones in the Oklahoma bombing. I have seen the destruction first hand. I visit the memorial. Did Tim Mcvey deserve to live? Is there any question of his guilt? NO, on both counts. But I really did not care when he was executed april 2001. But when the twin towers went down, I wished he was still alive to see he was not the biggest bomber in america any more. This was so much a part of his ego. Live in prision for life,or death. It really does not matter that much. We all end up dead sometime. But sometimes life can be worse than death. And if our law makers and bleeding hearts would quit giving killers more rights than our service men there would not be so much outcry for death. All of you that want vengence...once your victim is dead, you can't kill or maim him anymore. Prision with no human contact( less than 5 min. per day) is a slow death. Punishment is served cheaper than the death penalty. and the public is safe. The bullet in the back of the head will never happen in america, so get real. "

zist707 wrote on Jul 13, 2009 9:50 PM:

" Since when was shooting ANYONE in the head humane? That's sick.
Doesn't matter if the death penalty is right or not, it's sick to even consider shooting someone is the head like an animal (even they get humanely euthanized) "

post-it wrote on Jul 13, 2009 10:18 PM:

" Christians, read Romans 12 (especially 19-20) "

XMAN wrote on Jul 14, 2009 1:31 AM:

" A bullet in the brain has the same effect as when you unplug a computer. Death is instantaneous. The lights go out in a milli-second. The State of Utah once used the firing squad and some condemned persons preferred it and even requested it. "

aknra wrote on Jul 14, 2009 6:42 AM:

" It worked on Stanley Tookey Williams; that criminal hasnt taken another life since meeting his maker; sounds like it works to me... "

PastNapan wrote on Jul 14, 2009 8:00 AM:

" Pharper : Your quote "We do not have a right to kill, ever."

Ever ? Oh really? What about abortion. That's ok though right? "

5th generation napan wrote on Jul 14, 2009 8:19 AM:

" The court system is so convoluted, and the appeals keep coming, witnesses get old, judges disalow eviedence that was once allowed and time marches on.

Alucawanza I'm not convinced at this point he will be locked up for life without parole. Someday he may or maynot get out of jail. If he does he may or maynot have learned his lesson. How many time do we need to read in the paper, "X people killed by convicted parolee that should have never been released". The last few months alone I can thing of a few cases like this.

If there is no ultimate penalty then why do we even bother with police, armies and any type of protection at all? We self govern and set up laws but only to a point. Beyond that point we're saying it's more humane to let someone rot forever in a hole and let them go insane? But we seem to say we can't do that either, so lets give them books, tv, exercise, food, medical, and protection from others that would do them harm. I believe the 10 commandments are the guidelines for society. And when one takes Gods gift of life away, (thus tho shalt not murder) then they forfit they rights, and its ok to "kill" them. Because God did not intend for murderers to live with us if they are unrepented. People like Richard Allen Davis, Polly Klass's murderer should not still be with us. Its not revenge if your trying to protect society. "

diehard4ever wrote on Jul 14, 2009 8:30 AM:

" zist-
No pain. Sounds a heck of a lot better than spending the rest of your life in a dark cell. Less "emotional trauma", ads you call it. "

diehard4ever wrote on Jul 14, 2009 8:32 AM:

" OU-
I agree with all but the"punishment is cheaper"... how is food, water and medical for that long of a time period cheaper than a bullet? "

pharper wrote on Jul 14, 2009 8:43 AM:

" PastNapan, I don't believe abortion is killing, so yes, I think women should have that choice. That, however, is an entirely separate issue.

A bullet in the brain does NOT mean instant death, for those of you who claim it does. It's often a slow and painful one, if the murdered person even dies. There are many stories about suicide attempts where the person does NOT in fact die from a bullet to the head, and when/if they do, it's after a slow process of bleeding out.

Angelina, the same thing happens if you put people in jail for life without any possibility of parole. They don't ever kill again (and if they do, it's other prisoners in the same situation, which, when we shove a bunch of violent criminals in a common area and expect them to get along, is sort of to be expected). Plus, if they're in jail for life, if someday we have new technology to prove their innocence, they aren't dead. We can give them their freedom. We can't do that if we've already murdered them.

I don't think I'm protecting murderers and rapists. I don't believe that anyone has the right to take another life, innocent or guilty. I don't believe in the murder of anything - people, animals, or criminals.

People are wrongly convicted every day. I already explained why. Mistakes are made, people lie, and technology sometimes fails us. We just don't always have a way of knowing for sure if someone's actually guilty, or just convicted of a crime. If we're going to say we have the right to kill murders, we need to be certain that every person we kill is a murderer. How would you like to be the innocent person who dies? "

OU now wrote on Jul 14, 2009 10:50 AM:

" diehard... How much have we spent on R.A. davis? we could keep him in prison two life times for what we have spent. I agree that we spend too much on convicts "coddeling" them. If they were all in 8x10's ALONE, with only Rush Limbaugh to listen too, no medical. This would be justice. But bleeding hearts would cry. pharper....A bullet in the back of the head, just above the brain stem is quick and sure. People who were shot this way did not suffer. A shot in the front,below the nose with a slight upward angle is better( sniper shot for hostage situations ) If we are going to kill, I do believe this would be most humane, but messy. I do agree with you that the D.P. is out dated, but for different reasons. When somebody is really guilty I could care less about their death. And we have reached a point where we can know for sure(99.99%) of their guilt. But the appeals cost is too high. You must understand that I believe that their is really no such thing as death, I do not have a soul, I am a soul, I HAVE a body that I will leave. "

5th generation napan wrote on Jul 14, 2009 3:17 PM:

" pharper -
yep your right this says it all:

"How would you like to be the innocent person who dies? "

How come this protection only applies to the criminals?

The term beyond a shadow of a doubt and several appeals not good enough for us? "

Tom Riley wrote on Jul 14, 2009 4:26 PM:

" Phoebe, I’m against the death penalty – although my reasons for being against it may bear further explanation.

But even if I weren’t, I’d wonder about you.

Every time correspondents to the Register disapprove of abortion, you ask them what they think about the death penalty.

Your implication is clear: if they’re against abortion, but for the death penalty… why, then, they’re inconsistent!

But that works both ways, Phoebe.

If you’re against the death penalty, but for abortion, then you’re inconsistent yourself.

And the inconsistency reflects more unfavorably on you than on those other inconsistent folks, since you’re supporting an offense against innocent human life and rejecting an offense against life adjudged guilty of a capital crime.

It gives me the willies!

Pro-aborts are fond of raising the issue of pregnancy by rape. They howl that hard-core pro-lifers are inhuman monsters for denying rape victims the right to terminate their prenatal children.

But doesn’t the rape victim have an even more compelling claim on the filthy, no-good life of the accursed rapist who attacked her?

I’m not trying to tweak you here, Phoebe. I’m genuinely interested in a real response to my objection. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jul 14, 2009 5:01 PM:

" Opponents of the death penalty like to say the Catholic Church opposes capital punishment.

In fact, the Church maintains (as do all the historical Christian communions) that the death penalty is licit.

There’s lots of support for the death penalty in the New Testament. Examples: the good thief tells the other thief that they both deserve their fate as a punishment for their crimes, whereas Christ is an innocent man. And St. Paul tells us that the magistrate bears the sword to punish evildoers.

But lately, theologians (and popes) have been opposing the application of the death penalty because (1) it is now less necessary than it was in more primitive times and (2) it promotes a general disrespect for human life.

I’d like to say that I’m following papal teachings on this matter.

But it was really repeated reading of “The Lord of the Rings” that turned me against the death penalty.

“Many who die deserve life. Can you give it to them?”

I can’t – so I don’t want to take life.

Hence, I’m “against” capital punishment. Though I recognize it as licit in theory, I think the application is unwise.

Ultimately, if applied consistently, it will indeed have people howling for blood - and that can't be healthy for a society.

But capital punishment is not murder. It is not intrinsically unjust. "

diehard4ever wrote on Jul 14, 2009 5:12 PM:

" pharper-
If people are wrongly accused every day, find 20 that have happened in the past decade. The only one I have was on Dr. Savage's sight where are boy accused his father of abuse to get him out of the way so he could sexually assault/abuse people. That was 30 years ago. Things have changed. Technology has advanced far beyond the reaches of what we thought possible. My laptop has a finger print reader for crying out loud! You talk like every other person is wrongly accused. For petty crimes, maybe, but for murder and rape? No way! We can get DNA through sperm for rape, skin left under finger nails for murder, hair that was yanked out, the possibilities are endless. All you have to do is legalize using DNA as evidence! If yo catch the scumbag, the DNA should match up. NO need for appeals, since they are definitely guilty. All you have left to do is shoot them, the victim's family can relax. No one is coming after them. They can grieve for their lost one and get their lives back in order.

OU-
I agree with you, but even the cost of food and housing are unnecessary. The money we save could go to schools. If we kill them, God can give them what he believes they deserve. "

Raven wrote on Jul 14, 2009 9:47 PM:

" diehard, one of the reasons the gov of Illinois put a halt to the state's death penalty was the large number of 'guilty' persons who were found to be innocent after DNA testing and witnesses recanting their testimony....and despite what you may believe from watching the telly....DNA evidence is only as good as the technicians that collect and the labs that process it.

Pope Benedict has stressed time and time again the church's opposition t the death penalty, in any form. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jul 14, 2009 11:35 PM:

" Raven, here's the actual teaching of the Church, as detailed in "The Catechism of the Catholic Church":

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."

Sounds pretty much like what I described.

Catholic opposition to the death penalty is a prudential matter. The Church has never taught that the death penalty is intrinsically immoral. "

XMAN wrote on Jul 15, 2009 2:46 AM:

" Today there is a death penalty in California. Not always though. It was once struck down by a very emotional woman who was State Supreme Court Chief Justice. She lost her job because of it. The voters got rid of her and reinstated the death penalty. It isn't used much these days but it is there just in case there is no reason to not use it. That Justice's actions allows Charles Manson to go on living today. He cannot be executed. He will die of old age; the same sociopath he was on those days when he murdered all those poor, innocent souls in Southern California.

In the early days of San Francisco there were no lawmen. Only vigilantes. They hanged many an innocent person and those victims lie buried in the cemetery at the Mission Dolores. When the first state legislature met at Benicia they had a death penalty but directed that it be used as little as possible. They found it to be a distasteful solution to crime and even considered it to be a form of vigilanteism. But, there would be exceptions. Eventually they decreed the penalty be used under certain prescribed circumstances.

This is said as history and a fact. It is NOT said to advocate the death penalty. That decision is up to the will of the people. Firing squads are sometimes used by military bodies for execution because they are immediatly effective. They rarely aim for the head out of respect for the appearance of the corpse afterwards. Generally, they shoot for the heart. They claim it is painless. I wouldn't know for sure. "

OU now wrote on Jul 15, 2009 10:52 AM:

" Reading comments by many, I see revenge as a reason given to kill. This is the wrong reason. But it is not the only reason. Once I had a horse that ate loco weed in its hay( moon flower ). this horse went nuts,sometimes ok, other times she would try to kill me. I could have tried to keep her penned up, I could have sold her and let her kill somebody else. But with Two young children I could not take the chance. I shot her in the head. No malace, no hate. But for my safety, my kids, and the public, I could not risk her getting out and having a flashback. Rose Bird the justice that xman was talking about, Opened the barn door for Archie Faine, Chas. Manson, Singelton and others. We can prove they were guilty. But they lived because She and Gov. Brown thought anybody could be cured and gave them parole dates. Two got out to commit other crimes. This is why so many can not trust "life in prison" anymore. Justice has been a joke in this state. So if you want to abolish death, First work to gain trust with the public....P.Harper, Tom riley on the 14th @ 4:26pm made a good point, I would like to read your comment. I know you hate to lose, so this is a fight you need to fight. I could give you ammo for this from the bible. But I want to see what you are made of because You do seem to "choose" what you feel will win your point one time and omit an other time. Be carefull, this is why so many lib's lose in real debates! "

alucawanza wrote on Jul 15, 2009 10:52 AM:

" Angelina
Michael Savage is not an objective resource to be quoting. He has an agenda that he will promote using distorted references and hysterical, emotion-laden rants. Look out for fanatics. "

PastNapan wrote on Jul 15, 2009 11:25 AM:

" PHarper. Thanks for the clarification
Killing a baby is acceptable, killing the murderer, rapist or pedophile is not. I sure do love the liberal logic. "

aknra wrote on Jul 15, 2009 12:10 PM:

" PastNapan, thank you for saying what I have been TRYING to post here on two different occasions, but have apparently been censored with no explanation so far; alucawanza is the typical left leaning humanist who calls all who do not fit the CNN, CBS, MSNBC nor NBC mold fanatics. True liberal tolerance on display. "

alucawanza wrote on Jul 15, 2009 12:40 PM:

" PastNapan
Abortion is a separate issue. The death penalty for murder is the issue of this post. Connecting the two is apples and oranges. Is there a death penalty for rape or pedophilia?
Why don't you write a blog on abortion? I promise not to post a statement regarding the death penalty for murderers. "

diehard4ever wrote on Jul 15, 2009 1:03 PM:

" alu-
The article was on his page, it wasn't a story he wrote. It was from a big paper. I'll find the link for you, if you want. Or you can go to his site.

Abortion has everything to do with the death penalty. Murderers ultimately make the choice to kill themselves when they kill someone, a baby doesn't have that choice. If you were that baby, would you make the choice to get flushed down a drain? Or would you choose life? "

diehard4ever wrote on Jul 15, 2009 1:08 PM:

" Raven-
Ill. was being dumb. If you're guilty, you're guilty, and we can use the money we save fromnot having to feed, house and medicate murderers to get the best labs and technicions. "

MamaKing wrote on Jul 15, 2009 4:41 PM:

" Those of you waiting for a response from Phoebe are going to have to wait a bit longer; she's out of town for a few days and asked that I post this.

However, to respond to one comment about inconsistency, Phoebe, within this thread, said, "PastNapan, I don't believe abortion is killing, so yes, I think women should have that choice. That, however, is an entirely separate issue." "

MamaKing wrote on Jul 15, 2009 5:05 PM:

" For everyone hoping to hear from Phoebe, she is out of town and has asked me to send this. She was able to read responses but had trouble replying from her phone. The following comment by OU was of particular interest.

"I know you hate to lose, so this is a fight you need to fight. I could give you ammo for this from the bible. But I want to see what you are made of because You do seem to "choose" what you feel will win your point one time and omit an other time. Be carefull, this is why so many lib's lose in real debates! "

you know, of all the people I know, Phoebe is one of those who is most gracious accepting defeat. "

Raven wrote on Jul 15, 2009 5:05 PM:

" Tom, take a look at the Pope actual statements on the death penalty. he opposes it. Quite simple.

O/U, The reason Manson is eligible for
parole was the 1972 case, Furman v. Georgia, where the US Supreme court concluded that the arbitrary application of the death penalty and the disproportionate number of minorities that were executed made the death penalty "unusual." In response to this decision, the death sentences of about 600 death row inmates were commuted to life, among them Manson. The no-death penalty period lasted about 4 years.

diehard ... I hope you never have the need to see the bars of a prison from the wrong side and have people with your beliefs saying , "hey, if you're guilty, you're guilty."

Do you honestly believe there is no chance there is at least one person whose has been declared guilty may be be innocent of the crime and should not be put to death? Have you ever actually done a research on the number of people released each year throughout the country after been declared innocent of the crimes they were imprisoned for?

Take a serious look at cases such as those from from Illinois before you make such a ludicrous statement like that, it does your position no good. The most serious thing the state can do is take some one life, so it doesn't seem to be too much to ask that we take the time to make sure the person is actually guilty. "

MamaKing wrote on Jul 15, 2009 5:47 PM:

" Sorry for the two similar posts, everyone. It's not that I thought what I was saying was so important, it's that my computer froze when I sent the first one and I didn't realize it was delivered.
(I didn't get the red "we may or may not approve of this" message.) "

Tom Riley wrote on Jul 15, 2009 6:28 PM:

" Thanks, MamaKing. I saw that post. It was of course an entirely inadequate answer to an earlier post than mine.

Phoebe has absolutely no business telling anyone that abortion and capital punishment are separate issues. Every time someone writes to the paper about abortion, Phoebe brings up the issue of capital punishment. If they’re separate issues, why does she do this?

Also, Phoebe reports that, when she sees anti-abortion demonstrators on the street, she asks them what they think of capital punishment. If these are separate issues, what’s the point of asking them that question? Hmmm?

Please note: Phoebe says she doesn’t believe that abortion is killing. She doesn’t state that abortion isn’t killing. Why does she put her excuse this way? Because her “belief” is held contrary to fact.

Proponents of capital punishment can play exactly the same game, with the same justification. Just retreat into subjectivity and no objective truth can touch you. This was done in the Jim Crow South, when black men were typically lynched for “raping” white women. The lynching practitioners professed not to believe that black men were fully human – so lynching wasn’t really killing a human being.

Many of the lynching specialists were no doubt sincere. Isn’t that a comforting thought?

Let’s hear it for the primacy of personal belief! "

Tom Riley wrote on Jul 15, 2009 6:35 PM:

" Now Raven, are you claiming that Pope Benedict teaches the intrinsic immorality of the death penalty? If you are, you dig up the quotations and present them -- as I did in presenting the official teaching of the Church.

I never denied that the Pope opposes the death penalty. Why would I? I oppose it, too.

But the Pope and I oppose the death penalty for prudential reasons. You must put some stock in prudential reasons yourself -- since you present a lot of them yourself. What is all this argument about unjust convictions if not a prudential reason?

If you understood the development of Catholic moral theology, you'd realize that the Pope can't teach the intrinsic immorality of the death penalty -- since numerous previous popes and councils have maintained explicitly that the death penalty is licit. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jul 15, 2009 6:43 PM:

" Here's the first papal quote I found by googling:

"Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. There may be legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not... with regard to abortion and euthanasia."

Pope Benedict XVI

Seems to support my argument, Raven, and not yours. "

Raven wrote on Jul 15, 2009 8:59 PM:

" no, Tom, I said that Pope Benedict has come out as opposed to the death penalty, for whatever reasons he deems relevant.

He is following the footsteps of previous pontiffs, such as John Paul II, who said in a speech in 1999, during a visit to the United States
"I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary," he said. "Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform."

and the US Bishops issued a position paper in 1980,1980 statement, Capital Punishment, saying ""abolition of the death penalty is further testimony to our conviction, a conviction which we share with the Judaic and Islamic traditions, that God is indeed the Lord of life." And so human life in all its stages is sacred, and human beings are called to care for life, that is, to exercise good stewardship and not absolute control. The bishops recognize that abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty are not the same issue, but they each point to the same fundamental value: safeguarding the sanctity of life.

and this..."we believe that abolition of the death penalty is most consonant with the example of Jesus." "

XMAN wrote on Jul 16, 2009 8:30 AM:

" Had there been no death penalty - Jesus would not have died for our sins.
Is there such a thing as "death" or is it just an illusion? "

diehard4ever wrote on Jul 16, 2009 8:59 AM:

" Raven-
I know for a fact that the wrong people have been put to death numerous times... in Middle Age England. My guess is that very, very few if any innocent people have been put to death since maybe the mid 80's. Technology is too far along. I believe that even if one person was wrongly convicted every year,(if that's even possible to do with DNA testing) it would be worth it to get rid of the thousands of murderers and rapists we catch all over the country every year.

"the need to see the bars of a prison from the wrong side and have people with your beliefs saying , "hey, if you're guilty, you're guilty."

Huh? 1. I know I will NEVER kill anyone unless it's out of self defense. 2. DNA can be almost 100% sure if you're guilty. I will make sure that if I am wrongly convicted to pass that and make it right.

Ill. is dumb if they ended DNA because they found that murderers were innocent. So what if they were? And the judicial system is seriously messed up there if that many people were wrongly convicted. "

pharper wrote on Jul 16, 2009 10:21 AM:

" Turns out the hotel's internet is free!

First of all, I'm amazed by the responses, so thank you to everyone. My mom covered a little bit of what I wanted to say (thanks, Mama!) but I guess I'll just start in order:

Tom Riley - Most recently about me, you said, "Phoebe says she doesn’t believe that abortion is killing. She doesn’t state that abortion isn’t killing. Why does she put her excuse this way? Because her “belief” is held contrary to fact."

If that's what you want me to say, I'll say it. Abortion isn't killing. I don't believe that it is. The death penalty is very much killing - it is directly taking the life of a living, breathing human being, with potentially a family, who may or may not be guilty. That is murder. If a vigilante killed a registered sex offender, we'd still try them for murder. But when it's state-sanctioned, it's okay?

Mr. Riley, I bring it up because although I believe they are separate issues, they should not be to someone who claims "life is scared." If it is sacred, that's that. A person can't deny women the right to abortions on the basis that it is killing and still defend a practice that is blatantly and obviously murder.

I hope that answers your question. Although I believe the two are separate issues, they cannot be to someone who is pro-life, based on the content of their arguments. "

pharper wrote on Jul 16, 2009 10:31 AM:

" Angelina –
How would you like being the one innocent person? Okay, great, it’s good by you if innocent people die, as long as you can sleep at night knowing many others were killed too.

What logic is that? The death of other people, sanctioned by our own government (which you claim to mistrust) actually helps you feel safer? And people accuse me of stretches of logic!

You are severely overestimating DNA evidence. Yes, actual DNA identification is very accurate. Whether or not it proves guilt is very iffy. First, you’re assuming that there even is DNA evidence in some cases, which is often not true. Second, most people are killed by those they know. Oftentimes, DNA evidence is just evidence that two people saw each other, not that one killed the other. Third, DNA evidence alone does not prove guilt. There has to be a motive and other evidence.

You also overestimate the labs across the country. Most don’t even come close to having the high-tech abilities of the ones who see on CSI and even Law & Order. It’s enormously expensive, both to purchase the equipment, and to find or train someone capable of operating it.

And what about those previously found guilty who no longer have the opportunity to prove themselves innocent with new DNA technology?

There are too many flaws. I will not die for your peace of mind. If I’m the innocent person on death row, it is NOT my burden to carry. Not my job. Not my responsibility. Nor is it yours. You cannot ask another person to die like that. Can’t do it. Not your decision to make.

Just as who lives and who dies isn’t any of ours to make. "

pharper wrote on Jul 16, 2009 10:40 AM:

" O/U Now, I'm trying to sound courteous so forgive me if I get a little upset.

If I thought I was wrong I would say so. I would be the first to admit it if something changed my mind, or if I thought I had misspoken. (In the issues of pit bulls in dog parks, for example, I now recognize that I was wrong in defending their right to be there. Based on what I found on other websites, it’s true that pit bulls are not good dogs to bring around other strange dogs in an unfamiliar setting. I was wrong.)

But in this case I don’t think I am.

It’s a sticky issue to defend, because it’s hard to be “right” or “wrong” about this. It’s a belief. I try to base my opinion and my arguments as much as I can off of fact, but that only goes so far.

I’m sorry that you’ve gotten the impression that I “hate to lose.” If I learn something, and if it means I’ve truly been wrong, I’m okay with losing. But if or until such a time as I find myself misspeaking or being wrong, I will not stop expressing my opinion, you’re right. I won’t back down from what I believe.

Sorry if that comes off as hating to lose. That is not the impression I was hoping to make. "

OU now wrote on Jul 16, 2009 10:53 AM:

" raven... after the repeal of the D.P. Jerry Brown said life without parole was not a good thing and gave everybody a parole hearing. Rose Bird threw out every D.P. verdict that came before the bench. Fed or state it does not really matter who, but what, how and why. It is now up to the state to protect us. If they don't, then you will have folks going overboard protecting theirself. Xman @ 8;59 cool opinion ! diehard4ever.... Chill out some dude... I really know the frustration you feel, but at such a young age you are at risk becomming the flip side of a liberal fascist, a conservitive fascist. I know you feel you can't win your point over, but if you have a strong opinion you are already a winner in todays world for not going along with the crowd. Don't just think about getting there, think how best to get there. To use truth without anger or hate to make the sheep follow you. Most lib's can't win if you use truth, and don't let them lie or twist to other subjects. MamaKing.... pharper was the one who said she fights to win. I feel she is on the ropes with this one, Tom R. has made a good point about her past blog's. "

O/U now wrote on Jul 16, 2009 11:22 AM:

" Pharper.... sorry to upset you, my fault, bad choice of words... should have been"fights to win" and this should be how every fight should be fought. But I feel T.R. had a point that you just flew over in your last response. What about late term when the now breathing/crying child is left to die? Or it's skull is piericed with a rod before it can take it's first breath? There are some that say if you shoot a woman in the belly,the baby dies but she lives, its murder. I can use the bible to prove to myself and others that its not murder. But when you kill it out of the womb,it is. I know you don't use the bible for knowledge of right and wrong, but some of us do. PS you were very courteous, but don't think I try to attack you, I just sound that way. "

PastNapan wrote on Jul 16, 2009 11:29 AM:

" alucawanza PH harper opened the door when she said and I quote "We do not have the right to kill EVER" A baby,embryo, fetus, whatever you wish to call it- is HUMAN, if you abort it what are you doing? You are killing it, ending its life etc. I'm not debating whether abortion is right or wrong with PHarper I'm pointing out that ending a life is ending a life period. She finds ending the life of a baby ok and ending the life of a murderer unacceptable. I find that logic unbelievable. "

PastNapan wrote on Jul 16, 2009 11:43 AM:

" Alucanza : Is there a death penalty for rape or pedophilia?

No there isn't but many murderers are also rapists and pedophiles. I can provide you with a list of names if you wish.

Why don't you write a blog on abortion?
No thanks, I'll l just point out liberal hypocritical views on abortion compared with the death penalty. "

Raven wrote on Jul 16, 2009 11:56 AM:

" look forward from the middle ages diehard...and do more research, because the vast majority of these cases do not use DNA evidence for their convictions. Also, Illinois did not end the DNA, they ended the death penalty, because of the numbers of innocent persons on death row being freed by, among other reasons, DNA evidence. (and hope you are never in the position you state of allowing one innocent person is worth it to make sure the 'guilty' one are punished.)

Getting the facts straight is what makes intelligent discussion possible OU, and if you look at the facts, the states w/o the death penalty have a lower homicide rate than those that have the death penalty, so one could argue, those states are doing a better job of protecting their citizens.

It was the courts, not brown, that commuted the sentences to life with the possibility of parole. Brown never faced a clemency hearing while serving as Governor from 1975 to 1983, so he could not have commuted the sentences to life with parole. "

OU now wrote on Jul 16, 2009 12:36 PM:

" raven... remember Browns speech on the subject? Then the rose bird court went along. Lower murder rates are more than just the job of the DOC. It is also soc/econo. Ca. is out of control with crime and the death penalty will not help or hurt. I don't feel we need the death penalty, but only for economic reasons only. Using the Pope for the argument to me is dumb. It was the catholic church that has killed so many in the name of God. It was they who killed anybody that translated the bible so they could stay in power. I would never let any man bow and kiss my ring, no man has that power. why does he? Do you know what the plans are for some states if a natural disaster takes out a prison? Shoot the inmates, don't give them a chance to escape. I feel most people are more in favor with this than letting them out. Will the guards be guilty of murder? NO! The whole point is what will make us safe, if the death penalty stays on the table, and the state wants to rid itself of it, the state will have to find a way to keep the murders in PAST life. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jul 16, 2009 2:52 PM:

" Phoebe, your responses are becoming almost funny. Look at what you wrote: “Abortion isn’t killing. I don’t believe that it is.” You find it necessary to repeat the whole personal belief shtick because you offer no objective reason to say that abortion isn’t killing. I’m keeling over here, Phoebe! Have mercy on an old man and try to answer sensibly!

I know you have it in you.

You do sort of suggest a real answer when you tell us that the murderer slated for execution is a “living, breathing” human being. You’re trying to imply that the target of the abortionist is not living and breathing. But you are, biologically, dead wrong, and I think you’re smart enough to know it. The target of the abortionist definitely is living – because it’s growing. Whether it’s breathing or not depends on which of the standard definitions of breathing you apply: the poor little guy is certainly respiring before he’s expiring.

In addition, the target of the abortionist is certainly human (check his DNA) and an individual organism distinct from his mother (check that DNA again).

So what grounds do you have for “believing” what you very conveniently believe?

If we get going here, Phoebe, we can get into all the details of fetal development and abortion methods that pro-aborts hate to examine. It’ll be very uncomfortable and every bit as horrifying as anything you can say about methods of capital punishments. Surgical abortions are as cruel not as modern executions but as the executions of priests and other avowed traitors in Elizabethan England.

Do you really want to go there? "

Tom Riley wrote on Jul 16, 2009 2:53 PM:

" As a fellow opponent of capital punishment, Phoebe, I think you should be very careful about calling the death penalty “murder.” That makes people think you are crazy – because it obfuscates the distinction between the innocent and guilty.

You yourself admit that this is an important distinction when you argue that the person to be executed may have been wrongly convicted.

I’m still cracking up over your assertion – nearly explicit – that anti-abortionists are required to be consistent whereas you yourself face no such obligation. All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jul 16, 2009 2:54 PM:

" Thanks, Raven, for the clarification. We now agree on capital punishment.

Okay, OU: give us your biblical reason for distinguishing between prenatal and postnatal human life. I think I know what it is but I won’t answer until you relieve me of the awful suspense. "

Raven wrote on Jul 16, 2009 3:09 PM:

" so the states without the death penalty appear to have a better handle of all aspects to judge by the lower homicide rates.

as for the Pope...my point is the catholic church is consistent in opposing both the death penalty and abortion. How you relate to the Pope and what authority you feel he has is up to you.

btw, you have 1) a citation for your plan for inmates in a natural disaster and 2) the speech by brown? you say he said that when?....no source I have found seems to have a speech with those words in it? "

alucawanza wrote on Jul 16, 2009 5:13 PM:

" PastNapan
Hypocritical? I think not. Liberal...yes.

I could not cause another person's death. I could not serve on a jury for a capital case nor could I pull the lever or insert the needle. I could defend myself if attacked which I had to do once. Therefore, I cannot support anyone else doing what I could not.

I also made a choice that abortion was not an option in my life. I believe that all other women should also have the option to choose. My choice was never tested by life's circumstances.

I also view the death penalty as a big financial problem for California. If it were eliminated millions of dollars would be saved. Life sentences without the possibility of parole is a more financially sound answer.

The two issues should be addressed separately. Certainly laws on both issues are written separately.

I won't write a blog either. I'll just point out self-righteous right-wing views. "

antipc wrote on Jul 16, 2009 7:26 PM:

" Alu, you seem to have no problem excoriating Angelina for her right-wing views, yet have no problem praising Phoebe for her left-wing views.

Phoebe can find compassion for trees, animals, rapists, pedophiles, & murderers yet none for unborn biologically growing humans.

Angelina's' viewpoint shows compassion for the victims or would be victims. "

O/U now wrote on Jul 16, 2009 7:35 PM:

" Tom Riley... If you think you know, you do. The living bible has a closer translation to hebrew than NKJ. Sorry but I won't give you the book, I don't want to give them fodder for something they won't understand. My belief is it is wrong, but with a monetary value, not murder. If I follow the word, I must also see this subject this way. The bible to me is consestent, men and religon are not. This is why so many bible religons upset me calling the death penilaty murder... death is the justice given many times, and the reason is given as to why. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jul 16, 2009 8:49 PM:

" Yes, O/U, I understand. And I’m glad to see you settled on the more rational of the two Old Testament interpretations that make a distinction between abortion and murder. The other one – having to do with the breathing of life into Adam in Genesis – strikes me as ingenious but a little nutty.

I wish to point out that, in the book you’re considering, a monetary value also is placed on the death of a slave. And I wish to suggest that the distinction made is not between the human and the non-human, or even the human and the imperfectly human, but between those who are and are not members of the covenant community.

Although I am willing to use the formulation, “Abortion is murder,” in a loose sense, I recognize that, in a strict sense, it’s not accurate. Abortion is homicide – and unjust homicide. But, for good reason, it has never been treated as murder in the law. I don’t want to prosecute abortionists for murder. But I think a compassionate society will have sensible laws against abortion.

Regarding the weregild – or price of a man’s life – I’ll have more to say when I check my sources. "

pharper wrote on Jul 16, 2009 9:35 PM:

" Glad to see you find my argument amusing, Mr. Riley. That's a mark of maturity. I don't think I've been anything but courteous to you. I'd expect the same from an adult.

First:

Abortion is entirely a matter of whether or not you believe life begins at conception. No matter what science says, only you can decide whether or not you believe a fetus is a viable human being.

I'm sticking with the state of California on this one, which recognizes a fetus as an independent person only after 28 weeks, or unless it can be proven the fetus would have survived outside the womb. Based on the research I've done on fetal development, 28 weeks seems like a reasonable stage in pregnancy to determine that a fetus is an actual baby.

You can horrify me all you want with pictures and stories, but the fact remains that I don't see abortion as killing anything.

Second - I am nothing if not consistent, and I'm a little surprised you'd say the opposite. I don't believe in killing. Ever. I don't eat meat (I even gave up tuna completely after the conversation with John Roberts), I don't wear leather or fur, I don't support the death penalty, and I don't believe in hunting. I've never even seen Bambi because I couldn't stand to see the mother doe die.

If I truly believed that abortion was murder, I'd be against that too. You can bet on it. I think my track record is pretty spotless in terms of consistency.

If the person is wrongly convicted, it's even more of a stretch to say we can kill them. But I believe guilty or not, we don't have a right to kill someone. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jul 16, 2009 11:30 PM:

" Well, Phoebe, I’m sorry I find this argument so laughable, but I can’t help it. Here you are telling the world that it’s more wrong to eat tuna than to flush a human embryo down the toilet. You can’t tolerate the death of a cartoon doe – but little arms and legs passing through the suction curettage machine? Hey, no big deal! Don’t you understand how this must sound? If I didn’t laugh, I’d have to cry.

Your appeal to the authority of the State of California is an even weaker argument than those you’ve previously suggested. What difference does it make whether the prenatal human organism can survive outside the womb or not? It’s a completely arbitrary standard – and it isn’t even stable. Despite Obamacare, medical technology will eventually push that standard back until embryos prior to the fetal stage survive outside the womb. Will that alter the essentials of human life?

Here’s what’s really happening, Phoebe. You subscribe to an ideology known as feminism which currently insists on abortion as a right. You reason backward from this supposed necessity and accept any rationale, however feeble, to justify it. You are being inconsistent – grievously inconsistent – and your inconsistency becomes more and more glaring the more you argue for it.

The funny thing is that the original feminists all recognized abortion as a crime against human life and opposed it. You know: the Elizabeth Cady Stanton crowd. How benighted they were to face facts first and consider the consequences afterward! "

Tom Riley wrote on Jul 16, 2009 11:31 PM:

" When Aristotle considered the question of when human life began, he reasoned as follows.

For a life to be human, it has to inhabit a human body.

When do we know when a body in the womb is human?

Well, we have to tell by looking. Using the naked eye – remember that the Ancients had no microscopes – and examining miscarriages shipped back to us in wine by our former student Alexander, we see that the embryo truly looks human (and distinct from lower species) at about 40 weeks gestation.

So we’ll say that a human life is present at this time.

This was the theory of mediate animation, held by most scholars for millennia – until the improvement of scientific instruments tended to show that, on a microscopic level, a human body was present much earlier. This process of microscopic examination culminated in the discovery of the discovery of the mechanism of human genetics.

Science marches on! We knew at last that human lives – like the lives of all other organisms – commence at fertilization. It’s not a “belief.” It’s just a fact of biology. No one ever denies it in any context – except that of wanting to take prenatal human life. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jul 16, 2009 11:33 PM:

" I’ll pray for you, Phoebe.

But I ain’t gonna pray for no tuna! "

Tom Riley wrote on Jul 17, 2009 12:22 AM:

" Sorry for that discovery of a discovery under the Aristotelean heading.

I know I should proofread more carefully. "

pharper wrote on Jul 17, 2009 12:32 AM:

" I wouldn't bother praying for me, Mr. Riley. From what you say, that ship has sailed. I'd feel better if you prayed for the lives of the countless defenseless animals who die so you can have steak for dinner.

You can make it sound just as horrible as you like, Mr. Riley, and at this point, frankly, I'm not interested in hearing your assumptions about what I do and don't subscribe to. We've come quite a long way from Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

Here's the thing: you're right, in a sense. I'm not a doctor. I can't back up my opinion with anything more than what I can find on the internet and hear from people with more experience. I'm not going to go to medical school, and I don't expect to ever be in a position where I'll need an abortion.

You can believe whatever you want about human fetuses. I believe, based on what I've learned, that abortion doesn't even scratch the surface of what we consider murder. I'm not "clinging" to anything. When it can think, then it's a human. When it can survive as an actual living being outside its mother's womb, that's a human being.

I don't have to justify my beliefs to you. I'm attempting to because you demand it. You clearly don't like hearing what I have to say, which really doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that you are attempting to prove an opinion wrong, which you can't do. I am not wrong any more than you are, Mr. Riley. What I believe is what I believe. You don't have to like it, but there it is. "

Raven wrote on Jul 17, 2009 12:51 AM:

" So, Aristotle didn't think it was a human until after a 10-month (40-week) gestation period? I would hope so since most would have been born at about that point. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jul 17, 2009 8:02 AM:

" Sorry, Raven. I guess I should be paying you to be my proofreader. It was really 40 days, not 40 weeks.

I thank Phoebe for being honest about what she believes -- but I do wonder why she won't extend the same courtesy to those who are for the death penalty.

I'm not among them -- but I don't have to attribute evil motives to them. They've done a lot more to justify their viewpoint than just to say, "Well, there it is." "

OU now wrote on Jul 17, 2009 8:36 AM:

" Tom Riley.... Then I feel we agree on that subject... But on why you oppose the death penilaty I cannot agree. I feel if you use fiction to make life decisions your decisions will be fiction. The lord of rings is good reading with a lot of cool sayings, but its fiction. pharper draws a lot upon "Johnny got a gun" composed by a man who never even lost one leg. How can reflections of people who sit and write fiction have anything to do with the real world? We must get out and live, enjoy life in MANY ways before we can even start to understand it. I have about 125 students per year. Its sad to see how many plan to stay in the 'station" they were born in and not take the train to new places. We worry that if we take a life we can't give it back, and this IS a big responsabilty. But we need to be run to responsabilty, not away from it. ALU said she cannot take anothers life, so she can't ask another to do it for her. I could, would not want to but I could. But if I can do this does it give me the right to ask another to do it just because I could? We must do what it is in us to when asked, for the better of the state. "

LocalNapa wrote on Jul 17, 2009 8:54 AM:

" Phoebe,

I can appreciate that at this point, your greatest reference to understanding fetal development is from the internet. I am guessing that you may likely have a greater reference within your own circle of family and friends. Many babies are born prematurely due to a variety of complications. I think if you asked around, you may find that you know a child that was born at 25 weeks or earlier. Their ability to survive and thrive outside the womb is there. As someone who spent weeks in NICU with one of my own children, and getting to know other parents and babies, these babies have an amazing strength and will about them. I am not arguing for or against your personal stance on abortion, I just want to help widen your understanding of the development of pre-term babies. "

localnapa wrote on Jul 17, 2009 9:56 AM:

" Tom,

I think you've been great on this post. You are clear, articulate and consistent. My only caution in your debate with Phoebe is to have a greater appreciation for her stage in life. Her experiences are limited. She has not yet branched out into the world on her own. I do not say this to demean or minimize her perspectives or opinions in any way. It's just that going through life and having challenges and experiences thrown at us can change our views on things, or it can reaffirm the ones we already have.

It's a bit like a parent trying to explain to someone without kids what the love you have for your child feels like. You just can't do it and there's no way someone else can experience that feeling until that experience happens to them.

Passion and idealism are great traits and once coupled with life's experiences you gain wisdom.

Phoebe - I fear you may feel I am belittling your points and I want to be very clear in saying that I am not. I do not necessarily agree with everything you say, but I commend your passion and willingness to learn more. "

diehard4ever wrote on Jul 17, 2009 10:17 AM:

" pharper-
A baby's heart is beating at 10 weeks. It is alive. It needs the help of it's mother to survive, but it IS alive. By your logic, people with respirators are not "people" because they cannot live without the help of something else.

My mom has a friend who's daughter was born at a little over 4 months, or around 17-20 weeks. She lived, and has no signs of a disability, she's just small because she was born to early. Miracles happen every day.

Once again, you make the decision to kill yourself when you kill an innocent creature.

Back to the criminally insane that cannot tell right from wrong: Animals cannot tell right from wrong, yet when one kills or hurts a human or another animal, we put them down since they are a danger to society. Once the idea of killing makes its presence known, it doesn't let up. No amount of counseling can stop that. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jul 17, 2009 11:28 AM:

" Localnapa: I don't judge Phoebe harshly. I have a very high opinion of her. I am at pains only to illustrate that people can be against abortion and not against the death penalty without any intrinsic logical inconsistency. If left-wing pacifist types can make consistency arguments, then so can I.

O/U: I certainly wouldn't oppose capital punishment in the proper context, where a covenant community with a proper regard for divine will were in existence. As I said somewhere above, capital punishment is not murder. But I'm suspicious about capital punishment in a modern nation state.

And, like Frodo, I don't want to kill out of vengeance or deny pity.

Tom Shippey is a good critical author on the significance of Tolkien's work. But you're right that we can't allow neat fictions alone to guide our judgments. "

O/U now wrote on Jul 17, 2009 11:55 AM:

" Tom... thank you for making your thoughts clear. I now have great respect for your opinions! "

Napagrrl wrote on Jul 17, 2009 12:04 PM:

" I dunno, my ultrasounds showed my kids' hearts beating at six weeks' gestation. "

alucawanza wrote on Jul 17, 2009 12:10 PM:

" antipc
So I support Phoebe and not Angelina. I support both. I want them to think critically, form opinions, and express themselves sequentially and logically. As a teacher I enjoy their writing styles and the development of ideas.
If I have a different opinion than Angelina I will state it. This is an open forum and everyone who joins it should be ready to encounter disagreement.
You say: Angelina's' viewpoint shows compassion for the victims or would be victims. "

Sorry, we all have compassion for victims. That goes without saying. My wish is for Angelina to broaden her view of this issue. It isn't simple or easy to form a conclusion about capital punishment. How about compassion for the families of those put to death? How about compassion for the families of those who were executed and were innocent?
Well I'm finished explaining or rationalizing my posts to you, antipc. We don't agree and that's o.k. You're entitled to your opinions. I look forward to future posts. "

alucawanza wrote on Jul 17, 2009 2:21 PM:

" Here is another viewpoint to consider:

As one whose husband and mother-in-law have died the victims of murder assassination, I stand firmly and unequivocally opposed to the death penalty for those convicted of capital offenses. An evil deed is not redeemed by an evil deed of retaliation. Justice is never advanced in the taking of a human life. Morality is never upheld by a legalized murder.
–Coretta Scott King "

pharper wrote on Jul 17, 2009 2:28 PM:

" Mr. Riley, I don't think your "high opinion" of me has been well expressed. By all means, please do not coddle me, but I'd think you would extend the same courtesy I believe I've shown you. I've been polite and courteous, and I don't think it's the mark of a great debater to belittle what I say by laughing about it.

LocalNapan, thank you for your kindness. As you said, I may not agree with you, but there's nothing that says we can't be civil and kind to each other just because we disagree.

I don't believe that abortion is murder. If I believed it was killing, I would be against it. But even if that were the case, I still think it's a decision other women have to make for themselves. It's a very personal thing to decide, and I can't choose to do so for other people.

The death penalty, on the other hand, is definitely and obviously what we define as murder - purposeful harming of another, full-grown and fully-functioning human being with the intent to end their lives. It is as I previously stated - if a vigilante were to kill a registered sex offender or paroled murderer, we would try that vigilante for murder. Yet, when the state does the exact same thing, it's okay? That doesn't make any sense to me.

Angelina - you just stated exactly what I and alucawanza were saying to your suggestion of putting psychopaths and sociopaths in the military - "Once the idea of killing makes its presence known, it doesn't let up. No amount of counseling can stop that." That's exactly right. You cannot cure someone of being criminally insane, and you must understand the difference between that and being crazy. "

diehard4ever wrote on Jul 17, 2009 4:16 PM:

" napagrrl-
Huh. Cool. I'm willing to bet that if you had lost one of them at that time, you would have grieved for them as you would a beloved family member you had known, loved, and trusted all your life? "

post-it wrote on Jul 17, 2009 5:25 PM:

" A philosophical question:

If you are pro life, how can you make an exception for rape or incest (or any exception for that matter) if you claim that life starts at inception? By what authority do you get to split the baby so to speak? "

Napagrrl wrote on Jul 17, 2009 6:18 PM:

" I'm sure I'm going to regret saying this, but over the years I did lose several pregnancies at gestations up till about 12-13 weeks. While it was horribly disappointing and very sad, no, it was not like losing a full-fledged family member. It was not at all like grieving for someone I have known even part of my life. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jul 17, 2009 7:37 PM:

" "Murder" is defined in the common law as the unlawful and premeditated killing of a human being. As the common law also recognizes several crimes as capital crimes -- not only murder, but treason and rape -- it's pretty hard to maintain that capital punishment is murder by any traditional definition.

Same with the authority Phoebe originally cited -- the Mosaic Law, which does indeed say, "Thou shalt not kill," but also stipulates death as the penalty for a wide variety of crimes, including adultery. The Noachidic Law, which is prior to the Mosaic and applies to all mankind, not just the covenant community, likewise stipulates death as the proper punishment for the murder of an innocent. "He who sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed."

Hard to maintain, then, that, biblically, capital punishment constitutes murder.

Nor is abortion murder. It is a crime against human life, but it does not meet the legal definition of murder. It's always been punished as a separate crime.

The Persian Empire at one time punished abortion more harshly than murder -- by impalement. It's a very unpleasant way to go and sometimes takes days.

The word "murder," by the way, ultimately derives from the severity of the penalty imposed on the crime. It's related to the word "mordant," meaning "biting." Hence the usage, "Boy, this weather is murder!" It doesn't mean originally that the weather is killing you, but that it constitutes a very harsh punishment, suitable for a capital crime. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jul 17, 2009 7:47 PM:

" As far as I can tell, Phoebe, your argument boils down to this:

You're against capital punishment because it's killing.

Whenever someone is against abortion, you can legitimately require them to be against capital punishment.

But people can't require you to be against abortion.

It can't be killing because if it were killing you would already be against it.

Or, in other words...

Anti-abortionists who support the death penalty are inconsistent.

But death penalty opponents who support abortion aren't inconsistent.

Why?

Because you're one of them -- and you're consistent.

Why not just admit -- as is now painfully obvious to everyone -- that your rhetorical habit of demanding anti-abortionists oppose the death penalty is a mistake?

It opens a bag of snakes that you really have no intention of handling.

Then you could believe what you want about both issues without falling under the condemnation of your own invidious comparison.

Wouldn't that be nice? "

Bill wrote on Jul 17, 2009 8:57 PM:

" Several posters here have managed to change the tone and attack the person and not the argument; A juvenile game of “gotcha!” won by changing the subject with a cute retort and drawing the beliefs of the author into ridicule rather than reason.

Phoebe has presented an honest belief in an attempt to explain her concern and is met by sneering attempts at one up-manship. No party has presented a viable justification for or against the death penalty.

The thirst for revenge, even justifying it with attempts at biblical scholarship fires its strongest advocates but the sniping manner of ridicule is not a convincing presentation of why we should have the death penalty.

Even the anti death penalty advocates can not deflect its use with there own biblical understanding. A good reason to avoid it’s ambiguous pronouncements as a basis for a convincing explanation. Striking a moral tone in an amoral universe never convinces especially when relying upon ecclesiastical fallacies.

What ever you believe about other parts of your life does not enhance any argument for or against the death penalty. Whether you are a Christian, a Jain or a vegan does not present any reason to either sustain or deny the use of the death penalty. "

Bill wrote on Jul 17, 2009 9:08 PM:

" Riley, where is your convincing argument for the use of the death penalty? Instead of attempting to belittle and subject the argument to scorn where in this voluminous attack is the convincing argument for is use. Prefering to bait the author and taunt instead of laying out a persuasive justification for its use you make the authors personal view you modus of attack. You have essentially said nothing to justify its use yet you have successfully alienated anyone from seeing your words as a serious reason to join you point of view.

Abortion is only used to attack and turn the debate to personal belief instead of a supportive argument for or against the death penalty. The pro life advocates refuse to see the nuance of a double standard in advocating the primacy of all life and favoring the unborn to the living. Here the pro choice advocates must realize there is a difficult connection to be made as to the sanctity of life at any stage and are perhaps more conflicted and uncertain than those who would be pious and righteous in their certainty of the application of the death penalty. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jul 17, 2009 11:30 PM:

" Bill, haven't you read the previous posts? I'm not for the death penalty. I'm against it. You can read my reasons for being against it -- not for it, Bill -- up above.

I introduced abortion into the debate because -- in many previous threads, as she also admits up above -- Phoebe has insisted on introducing the issue of capital punishment into any discussion of abortion. I'm just serving Phoebe the same dish she's served to many others, by her own testimony.

In a thread on a another issue, Phoebe once told me that she didn't want me to patronize her. So here I am, treating her like a big girl who can take the heat -- and you complain that I'm being unfair. If I'm being unfair, then Phoebe was being unfair in the previous threads where she compared the two issues. And if I were to refrain from holding her feet to the fire in this connection, I really would be patronizing her.

I'm sorry. I still don't believe that Phoebe is that fragile.

Also, I think it's important to distinguish between capital punishment and murder -- which capital punishment definitely is not.

I also distinguish abortion from murder. (Again, see above.)

To repeat, Bill, just so you have it straight...

I am against capital punishment (for prudential reasons).

I am against abortion.

I distinguish both capital punishment and abortion from murder.

I think people who insist on consistency from others should demonstrate consistency themselves.

Now it's your turn to argue against what I actually think rather than against what you presume that I think.

Go ahead, Bill. "

zist707 wrote on Jul 18, 2009 12:06 AM:

" Ditto Bill "

diehard4ever wrote on Jul 18, 2009 11:00 AM:

" pharper-
You put them in counseling, I make sure they never kill again. God will take care of them, He will do what He believes is right. Counseling doesn't help, it just makes you really ticked off. I know, I had a friend who was assigned to a school counselor, for reasons that should remain private, and the whole "just talk about it and it will be all better" attitude did nothing. I've never had to have "counseling" or "therapy" and I guarantee I never will. The human mind is a powerful thing. "

diehard4ever wrote on Jul 18, 2009 11:02 AM:

" pharper-
Also, I neglected to mention it, but the military training is for those kids who abuse their pets and siblings. They still have a little bit of a soul left. I've seen that hard work can make a person think a lot more clearly, maybe they'll find themselves. "

Bill wrote on Jul 18, 2009 11:23 AM:

" Yes Riley you have made that claim but you have not supported it. In your first post you immediately launch in to changing the subject to abortion and baited and ridiculed the author. No where have you substantiated or supported a reason for opposition to the death penalty. Rather you make the author the subject of your argument.

The prudential reasons are not exactly clear. Non moral argument is what I would like to see not attempts to sustain a nebulous point by a biblical examination, which is the major thesis provided. I am all for secular justice but find the associations with a Biblical Sharia facetious. Especially when touted as prudential.

A straight forward agreement on the definition of murder would be a sounder basis to move the argument forward, preferably from a dictionary or a law dictionary.

The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.

A cut and paste definition but find another that all can agree on. Limit the scope of the death penalty to this and begin again. Tell me why the death penalty should not be used I am uninterested in your need to discredit Phoebe or follow her from other posts but I am interested in a good straightforward presentation of why we should not have the death penalty. So far both of you have failed to reasonably demonstrate why anyone should support your positions.

You can take my position as supporting the death penalty even if hesitant, Read my first post.

I do not presume to know what you think or what you know you will find me adamant about that. So where is the convincing argument for not using the death penalty Mr. Riley? Persuade me. "

Bill wrote on Jul 18, 2009 8:05 PM:

" Why should I not take the position that the death penalty is desirable? If I am able to limit the debate to a less emotional basis such as using the death penalty as punishment for murder. On its face it appears a sound punishment for the unlawful taking of a human life. The state exists to exercise and administer law and punishment as a form of protection and deterrent. Fear of being killed my self should I commit murder seems a proper view as a deterrent. It certainly frightens me. The fear of death seems a very basic premise it serves justice as punishment, an equal application conforming to the crime.
Justice fairly applied is not compromised by capital punishment and justice not revenge should be its primary attribute. The restriction of its application and the methods of its use are within the covenant we make as a society to live in a lawful manner, provided that its use is limited and applied fairly. With in our system of governance it can be demonstrated to be both constitutional and a deterrent. Belaboring these points with controversial statistical data will not be convincing to either party. The constitution does not force capital punishment upon the population it merely authorizes it. Elected bodies are left to decide to authorize it or not.
Many laws and policies narrow its use with the legal definitions of homicide and the specific degree of murder applied along with prohibitions of its applications to minors, the infirm and those of diminished mental capacity to insure that much of the revenge factor within the law is alleviated.

Persuade me otherwise. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jul 18, 2009 11:48 PM:

" Gee, Bill, last night you were against the death penalty and trying to get me to say why I was for it.

Now you're for the death penalty and trying to get me to say why I'm against it.

You not only haven't read my posts. You haven't even kept up with your own.

What are you going to say tomorrow night? "

Raven wrote on Jul 19, 2009 12:50 AM:

" military training for kids who abuse animals and their siblings? And this would accomplish what? "

pharper wrote on Jul 19, 2009 8:57 AM:

" Mr. Riley, you are twisting my statements and you are smart enough to know it.

If you want to continue to debate on the merits of the death penalty, I would be more than happy to, but I'm done being accused of inconsistency and treated unfairly. By all means, don't treat me like a child, but common courtesy is appreciated at all ages.

But here's a boiled-down version of what I believe, just so we're clear.

I believe that the death penalty is state-sanctioned murder. Guilty or not, another full-grown human being is willfully killed by another. That is the definition of murder.

I don't believe we have the ability to judge something like who lives and who dies anyway...

..And if we're going to say that we get to make that decision, we can't be wrong. Unfortunately, we make mistakes, and people who we don't intend to kill (innocent people) end up dying.

The death penalty is expensive and ineffective as a deterrent.

As for abortion - I do not believe it is murder. Harp on me for the choice of vernacular I use all you want, but it's still a belief, just as you believe that it is. If I believed it were murder, I'd be against it. I'm very consistent in being against killing and murder.

If you're going to play, Mr. Riley, play fair. Otherwise there's no point. "

Bill wrote on Jul 19, 2009 11:36 AM:

" Come on Riley, it's an invitation to a decent debate. As you can see if you have read my posts especially the first one I am uncertain on capital punishment.

Because of this uncertainty I am willing to approach the subject with an open mind.

Your posts often obscure your view with a vendetta you appear to bear with Phoebe.

I will do you the courtesy of rereading you posts and also not insult you with cut and paste out of context method so popular out here. I will also attempt to avoid my usual arrogance if you will avoid descriptions such as laughable when responding to a point but civilly illustrate why the point does not work for you.

You have done me the favor of laying out historical and biblical backgrounds that would tend to support capital punishment. I shall read your posts more closely to see if you have given me more support. I will not beat you over the head with your own words or try to present what you know or believe. Rather I will attempt to illuminate a great degree of doubt about holding only one strong conviction or perhaps as you have referred to as consistency.

If you choose to continue there will be times we must agree on the meaning of our words or we will forever be at cross purposes. Would this not be more in line with your intent of, I believe you have stated in your text in some way, having Phoebe tighten up her argument. Sorry if this appears as a violation of paraphrasing what you may or may not have written but I think there is at least a trend of this wanting to improve someone else in your many posts. "

alucawanza wrote on Jul 19, 2009 12:15 PM:

" Bill
You are a mentally healthy person with reasonable thinking. A sociopath or psychopath doesn't think like you do. There is no right or wrong for them. Consequences are not thought or considered. Do you think Richard Allen Davis is remorseful? He can't feel that. There is no cure for people like this. There is no deterrent for people like this. They need to be locked up forever. It's cheaper than a death penalty. Save the state some money.

BTW: The death penalty is always vengeful. "

Bill wrote on Jul 19, 2009 1:03 PM:

" The first post appeared reasonable those that follow become increasingly vindictive, personal and obscure your good points. Perhaps a better track would be to pose the question as does society have the right to impose capital punishment? How the question is phrased is important. That might lead to a narrowing of emotion but open a more difficult and basic question. To correct my self a lead question should have been for or against the death penalty.
So many good points lost because of a need to teach some one a lesson? One can be against capital punishment and against abortion. Maybe I just got lost in the need for derisiveness that accompanied many of the posts. Still I need to be convinced as to why capital punishment should not be used. I think there is ground work for this position. I find prudential as in prudential belief and contract to be intriguing elements. Consistency is not necessarily a virtue and here it is an attempt to discredit, as one opinion does not match some accepted standard of another opinion. Phoebes’ need to inquire of the antiabortion position on capital punishment may be a need to find consistency but the issue is far too conflict-ridden and divisive to introduce as an example of consistency or inconsistency.

If the lessons we are to learn out here are to be about the presentation of argument why not tighten up all of the arguments (mine included) and try to eliminate the clever need to have the “gotcha” moment, derision, offers of prayers or “leftwing pacificist types” the libs and lefties etc. all this reveals is a personal agenda and a frozen point of view. In the end is never persuasive it merely plays to an audience. "

Bill wrote on Jul 19, 2009 3:16 PM:

" This was posted 1st but lost in cyberspace.
Riley, it's an invitation to a decent debate. As you can see if you have read my posts especially the first one I am uncertain on capital punishment.

Because of this uncertainty I am willing to approach the subject with an open mind.

Your posts often obscure your view with a vendetta you appear to bear with Phoebe.

I will do you the courtesy of rereading you posts and also not insult you with cut and paste out of context method so popular out here. I will also attempt to avoid my usual arrogance if you will avoid descriptions such as laughable when responding to a point but civilly illustrate why the point does not work for you. Your post have laid a basis for support of the penalty.I shall read your posts closely to see if you have given me more support. I will not beat you over the head with your own words or try to present what you know or believe. Rather I will attempt to illuminate a great degree of doubt about holding only one strong conviction or perhaps as you have referred to as consistency.

If you choose to continue there will be times we must agree on the meaning of our words or we will forever be at cross purposes. Would this not be more in line with your intent of, I believe you have stated in your text in some way, having Phoebe tighten up her argument. Sorry if this appears as a violation or paraphrasing what you may or may not have written but I think there is at least a trend of this wanting to improve someone else in your many posts. "

Bill wrote on Jul 19, 2009 3:46 PM:

" Again Phoebe, your original piece was closer to being convincing but you do a disservice to your argument by mixing you belief on abortion as a defense of not using capital punishment.

In any debate we must agree upon the terms or we merely shout at each other. This does not convince me that capital punishment is not viable or unjust. Leave abortion for another thread and I will stay out of it because it is a more salient moral issue than even the death penalty and I see no manner under which a proper debate can be waged on it in this forum.

Again convince me, persuade me but lay down some rules on what we can begin to agree upon. Try accepting the definition of murder first off and avoid the appeal to emotion. "

alucawanza wrote on Jul 19, 2009 7:31 PM:

" According to Amnesty International's annual report on official judicial executions, in 2004 there were 3,797 executions in 25 countries. More than 90 percent...about 3,400...took place in the People's Republic of China. The remainder of the top four were Iran at 230, Vietnam at 64, and the United States at 59, followed by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Kuwait, Bangladesh, Singapore, Yemen and Egypt.

Do we like the company we're keeping? Do we share their values and philosophy? Just adding another view to this issue.

Bill: Comment Guidelines are to the right of the conversation box. We all agree to those rules or we are deleted.
Phoebe is doing very well. She did not introduce the issue of abortion, and I agree the focus should be narrowed to the one issue of capital punishment. Others will not agree. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jul 19, 2009 11:39 PM:

" Phoebe, if you admit that someone can oppose abortion and support capital punishment without necessary self-contradiction, then perhaps I have misinterpreted your words – though it sure wasn’t intentional on my part.

If you don't admit that, then I stick by everything I posted. You are, in that case, every bit as inconsistent as the people you have accused of inconsistency. You may be even more inconsistent.

You tell us which is the case.

As to your question, Bill, I answer that, of course, society has the right to impose capital punishment for a capital crime. To deny that would be to deny the severity of the crime. It would also be to separate yourself from the common assent of mankind – which has always recognized the justice of such retribution.

Here are my prudential reasons for opposing capital punishment – not in principle, but only in the practical application available in modern society.

(1) I personally (like Frodo) have come to recognize that, while some people might deserve death, others who face death deserve life. I don’t want to be so arrogant as to impose death when I cannot supply life.
(2) I recognize that, in modern culture, we have other, less drastic means of defending society against deadly threats. Earlier societies had very little capacity to imprison – but we have a vast capacity. We can, if we choose, impose solitary confinement on all convicted murderers. Hence, we don’t really need capital punishment.
(3) I don’t trust the modern state to impose capital punishment fairly. (I really don’t trust the modern state to do anything right.)

I could probably come up with more reasons – but I have to get up and work in the morning. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jul 19, 2009 11:50 PM:

" Alcuwanza:

If I should not have introduced the issue of abortion into this thread about capital punishment...

Then Phoebe should not have introduced the issue of capital punishment into previous threads about abortion.

Is there something wrong with my logic here?

If there is, then tell me where my error lies.

If not, then all Phoebe has to do is admit that standards of consistency apply both ways. I'll immediately go away.

Or, if Phoebe doesn't want to do that, she can just say: "I can't take this relentless, evenhanded logic, Mr. Riley! Please just back off!"

And I'll just back off.

Otherwise, let Phoebe be a big girl and deal with the comparison which she herself first raised in other threads. "

opiniagirl wrote on Jul 20, 2009 9:36 AM:

" What about crimes that bring about the death of unborn babies?

Rape assault attempted murder to name a few.

Abortion is legal far beyond the beating heart of life, 6 weeks or so.

Criminals that take the life of an unborn child, via their crime, are charged with the additional crime of murder or manslaugter depending on weather or not the criminal knew about the pregnancy. Some of them get off by lawyers doing their manipulative "not a real baby" dance, using legal abortion as a pedastool...what "choice" did those moms have?

Under Phoebe's logic there would be no additional crime.

What makes a fetus alive is not whether or not the fetus is wanted or unwanted.

Ending life is ending life. Fetuses are alive. "

Bill wrote on Jul 20, 2009 4:21 PM:

" Riley;
As a persuasive argument I would have to discount Frodo’s reasoning primarily because it has been many years since I read Tolkien and did not see the movie nor have I studied any examination of his work at great length in order to draw from it. I do not know how either Frodo or Tolkien view justice. It might be worth expanding and does not negate your reasoning. It suggests there are deeper reasons that capital punishment should not be imposed. The benefit of choosing one or the other is not described merely assumed or not clear. Is Frodo administering justice or making a decision to legally take a life?

Because of modernity we have evolved beyond the necessity to impose the death penalty makes sense and is persuasive. Greater alternatives to the ultimate punishment offer more latitude to the imposition of justice. Still what is the benefit? If we are to accept prudential reasoning by choosing any of the alternatives to capital punishment there must be a benefit that would be greater by choosing one over the other. I might add that our vast capacity to imprison raises many other thorny issues for society to wrestle with and that the exercise of capital punishment could be viewed as lessening that impact.

Trust in the state, modern or historic, is another issue and leaves little choice this becomes not a matter of prudential belief but a matter of fact. We all live in a world with many faults and must manufacture justice as we can. We make a contract and are expected to live by it or accept the consequences. We cannot obey or disobey at our pleasure the laws of the state with out the recognition that there is a price to pay. "

XMAN wrote on Jul 20, 2009 4:25 PM:

" We have a death penalty because it is the will of the voting public. "

Bill wrote on Jul 20, 2009 5:02 PM:

" As a thought, an if then syllogism may be correct in its construction but that does not make it a valid argument, If you kill my mom than I can kill your mom is a correct syllogistic statement but has little logical validity and would probably make a couple of people feel very bad. To be a logical argument takes three distinct connections the premises; the supporting propositions and then, therefore, it follows that, coupling the final proposition. "

Raven wrote on Jul 20, 2009 5:37 PM:

" Another sign that the voting public doesn't always make the most rational of decisions, XMAN "

Tom Riley wrote on Jul 20, 2009 7:02 PM:

" I'm not recommending defiance of any laws. But if we're asking about public policy, I have to make me decisions as a citizen and a voter. I don't want to trust the modern state with any more power over life and death than I have to. "

Raven wrote on Jul 20, 2009 9:19 PM:

" so.....the same govt that many here have said cannot do anything right, efficiently, etc., is the same one you want to trust to make sure only the guilty are executed?

Or is it more of kill a few innocent people to make sure ya get the guilty one? "

pharper wrote on Jul 20, 2009 10:28 PM:

" Standards of consistency apply both ways, Mr. Riley.

I am being consistent.

If we could get back to the issue currently in front of us (that is, the death penalty) I think we all would benefit from it. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jul 20, 2009 11:09 PM:

" Wow! Raven, I'm surprised at you.

Even you haven't read the previous posts.

I'm not arguing for the death penalty.

I'm arguing against it.

I don't trust the government to distinguish innocent from guilty.

Where have I said anything that would make you think otherwise? "

XMAN wrote on Jul 21, 2009 3:14 AM:

" Respect your opinion Raven. Exercising one's right of dissent is the heart and soul of the beloved process of this much appreciated posting board. Keep up the good work. You too, Phoebe. "

Raven wrote on Jul 21, 2009 9:21 AM:

" Tom, my last post wasn't addressed to anyone in particular, but if there was anyone I would have pay attention to it in particular it would be those with that firm conviction that only guilty people get sent to jail. "

Bill wrote on Jul 21, 2009 10:17 AM:

" I can empathize (I realize that an unpopular word to many right now) with Riley’s view of government, especially the modern corporate state, but in and of itself mistrust or distrust does not move me to accept that the death penalty is unjustifiable or unjust, principally because if there was a government or state that we could trust then capital punishment could be justifiable. Is there a State that we can make a covenant with that is acceptable to all where the circumstances, application and implementation of justice will satisfy the need for trust? If the answer is no must we demand perfect justice and is that attainable or even possible? Is it even prudent?

Does The Government i.e. The State in its administration of justice have the right to administer punishment and as part of that punishment does it have the right to take a life?
Can we constrain justice to such an extent that it will not apply such a punishment inconsistently and unfairly? If we can is that an acceptable premise for the imposition of the death penalty? "

winemd wrote on Jul 21, 2009 10:17 AM:

" OK, I am trying to wrap my head around this consistency issue. Phoebe believes that killing another human is wrong (and killing other things, but that is off topic at the moment). So she is against the death penalty. She believes that killing a fetus is not killing another human so is fine with abortion. She believes this is consistent.

Phoebe also believes that those who support the death penalty are okay with killing another human being (found guilty through a trial). But at least some of them also believe that killing a fetus is killing a human being and are not okay with taking (an innocent) human life under those circumstances. So she believes they are inconsistent in their beliefs, because they are okay with talkign human life under some circumstances but not others. They believe they are consistent because of the question of established guilt. They also believe Phoebe is inconsistent because a fetus is human life and "she" won't take human life under some circumstances but is fine with it in others.

In reality, however, some people oppose the death penalty and support abortion, some people oppose the death penalty and abortion. Some people support the death penalty and support abortion, and some support the death penalty and oppose abortion. So the topics should be considered separately. I believe that Tom's point that the issue of the death penalty not being brought up in the abortion threads is valid, because they are separate issues. For the record, I am against the death penalty (because establishing guilt absolutely can be very tricky), and only support abortion under very limited circumstances. "

apartmentguy wrote on Jul 21, 2009 2:21 PM:

" "Kill" is a poor translation from the Hebrew to the English as most modern Biblical Language scholars would agree. The proper translation is "Murder" or "to cause human death through carelessness or negligence". These are far different from kill...People who commit capital crimes should expect capital punishment. It people don't want the death penalty, then people they shouldn't commit the crime. Our system is broken for many many reasons far beyond this one issue of capital punishment. "

Anchorman wrote on Jul 21, 2009 5:22 PM:

" Unless you have lost a son or a daughter to a senseless murderer then you have absolutely no idea the hatred that one can feel towards the convicted. Keep these people in prison for their life using my tax dollars? I don't think so!!! "

OU now wrote on Jul 21, 2009 6:05 PM:

" As a person who is against the death penalty only because of the cost to the state, I'll bite "bills" bait and argue for it. SOME PEOPLE need killing! read my post 7/9@ 9:16 and for pharper 7/15@10:52(pharper, what would you do with the horse?) Why are people so against dying? This is a part of life. For the famliy of the accused we want to be correct in our verdict, and punish only the guilty. and for the famliy of the victim punishment must be sure and fair. If we can be sure of guilt(much easier today) why must bear the burden of taking care of them for life? Are we cruel for killing a killer horse or mountian lion? OH, but this is a human! By what standard do we judge what is human or not. A human will Run with the herd like a horse. And will work for the saftey of the herd. If one cannot be trusted to do no harm, he must not be allowed to do harm. The things I have seen people do to others could make me think they are sub-human. And if we do not remove them with as little "fan-fare" as possible, others will join their herd. Is this not what we see with gang's, manson groupies, and hitler's followers? We decide every day on life and death for others. Just because we don't put a needle in their arm does not mean we did not kill. War, allowing starvation, or not giving your kidney to a stranger. Its easy to say "I care" but the truth is,we don't. We can accept one ore more of these, why can't accept that some people need killing. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jul 22, 2009 8:34 AM:

" My compliments, phoebe, for picking a subject that brings out such a volume of comments.

When you thanked your dad on Father's Day, it was a little recognized post.

But, question the urge to kill people who are by US Supreme Court ruling PREVENTED from absolutely proving their innocence and...

WOWIIIEEE!

My compliments! The 'Force' is strong within you!

~Ruff "

Bill wrote on Jul 22, 2009 9:20 AM:

" OU brings up a good point. To exactly what group are we applying the death penalty or capital punishment: The inclusive all things, all things living, certain subsets, horses, cows, monkeys, sub humans, humans?

To understand capital punishment and its application in a system of human made justice could we not agree upon a definition of a set of say all rational beings? This would definitely narrow the scope of the argument. We could eliminate horses from its application even monkeys and I am uncertain how to define sub human. Would that be a person that appears to be human but has limited, impaired or not fully developed rational capacity?

Bait? No, a convincing argument yes. Can we accept that we are speaking or arguing about the group of rational beings along with the definition of murder and move on from there? "

OU now wrote on Jul 22, 2009 10:25 AM:

" Bill ... Let's say murder is taking of a life, by a group or individual, outside the confines of the law's of this nation. The "sub- human" was only a way for me to rationalize their behavior in my own mind, The last sub-human's were neanderthal. I feel that in todays world, people belong to religions that preach the view's of just a few people. The sheep that follow feel that they have to go along with ALL the teachings or their religion is all wrong and they will have nothing to believe in. This is why some subjects draw such fire from both sides. Nobody can say they are wrong, or the other side is right. The Religions? Far left liberal, far right conservative,buddest, baptist, and jew. We all seem to believe in something,but we should also believe in ourself. To everybody... Are YOU happy with life? Start looking at what is real, and not how you want it to be. Life is not perfect nor should it be, this makes life fun. The ones that want to bring terror in to our lives should be removed without remorse on our part. Without hate or anger, Just distain for their actions. How this is done does not matter, Only the overall cost to the state. We are at war always with evil, they use death... We should not disarm our self from having their weapon as our own. "

5th generation napan wrote on Jul 22, 2009 11:38 AM:

" "Why do we have the death penalty?"

Because some preditorial, unremorsful individuals, DESERVE to fry!

Simple as that. "

Bill wrote on Jul 22, 2009 2:16 PM:

" Sorry OU, Riley and I pretty much agreed (or I hope we did) on the definition of murder as the unlawful taking of human life. We need to agree upon definitions found in standard authorities or we are at cross-purposes. I suggested rational being instead of humanbeing in the hopes that we could avoid over characterization. It helps tone down the emotion.

A rational being is a description or definition that describes a broad category with several subsets. Kant has used it so I thought it might be helpful I think we are talking about minds perpetrating just and unjust acts and how to apply or not to apply capital punishment. If you have another workable definition or can find a short elaboration on rational beings, which is what we are talking about, then by all means let us see it.

I am not trying to bait you or anyone else I only want to see a serious, hopefully convincing argument for or against capital punishment.

Notice that Riley uses the description prudential as his basis. It refers to what is prudent or a prudential argument being one that is rationally self interested as in the safest arrangement being one that is mutually advantageous. Blaise Pascal and William James have variations of this if we need verification or understanding it is used to derive benefit to the person or persons involved. See Rational Being for person or persons. "

alucawanza wrote on Jul 22, 2009 4:35 PM:

" Who should decide who must die? So many have said that some folks just deserve to fry. Says who? Why do you have the right to decide life and death?

OU now
I don't know if killers group together as you describe in your post. I think sociopaths and psychopaths are loners. Life sentences are cheaper. That's a statistical truth.

Bill: This is a simple argument. The state will save money if they do away with the death penalty. It costs about $40,000 per year to house a convict. It costs millions plus the cost of housing for a death row convict due to court costs for appeals. Death row is more expensive to operate than general population. There you have it. A simple argument. "

Bill wrote on Jul 22, 2009 11:29 PM:

" A valid point Alucawanza, especially if we are looking for a cost effective system of justice, also prudential as economic efficiency benefits accrue to society, the prison system, legal system and… well I am sure I am forgetting some one.

But, what price justice? Is justice fair or responsible because it is cheap? Is the quality of justice measured by the monetary savings of its application? Certainly I pose rhetorical questions but they are serious and I am not challenging your numbers or sources.

Still I do not find it compelling in and of itself to deny the implementation of capital punishment. The application of an economic equation to murder of any person by a rational being does not convince me that the death penalty is not cost effective. What is the price of a life that justice can be relieved of its mandate to avoid a costly execution?

Does this not open the door to cost effective and perhaps privatized prison systems? A whole new can of worms? "

5th generation napan wrote on Jul 23, 2009 7:51 AM:

" What really disgusts me is how you all have turned life and death into an economics class. The argument of who decides what, well are system is very good. Your innocent UNTIL PROVEN GUILITY! You have APPEALS and a whole line of defence and arguments and reasoning. The a whole sentencing process. Hundreds are involved in the process and at the end a group of individuals have been determined to be unrepentent, dangerous, and a plague to society.
The only thing missing in our system is the search for THE TRUTH. Are these people, capable of horrific crimes? Will they do it again? Will they ever benefit society or just prey on it? When your done with the smoke and mirrors and answer these questions then you come up with Are they a Murderer? Did they take away Gods most precious gift to us. God or whoever you believe created our mind gave them freedom of choice to do right, wrong or horrific wrong. So we should have the same freedom of choice to protect ourselves and "humanly euthanize them". Yes "kill" them! How many times does someone have to kill innocents, get away with it and do more the next time before we say no more!
We are not saying to kill everyone with a life sentence, get real. But the ones on death row got there for a reason, and it was not one person that determined it, it was many. "

alucawanza wrote on Jul 23, 2009 11:59 AM:

" 5th generation napan
The answers to your questions are all yes. But putting them away for life without the possibllity of parole doesn't make the state a murderer too. They are on death row for a reason. Twelve people decided their fate. It isn't the freedom of choice that decides who dies. It is the opinion of twelve people and subsequent appeals judges.
BTW: Sociopaths and Psycholpaths have not been given the freedom of choice to do right or wrong. It is absent in their psyches. They are amoral, have no conscience, or empathy. They are missing a component in their psychological make-up. How does killing them help society more than locking them up for forever?

I didn't turn this into an economic problem for the sake of economics. A question was asked in a previous post for a reasonable reason to do away with the death penalty. So...I suggested one. I stand by what I say for many reasons. "

misfit wrote on Jul 23, 2009 11:00 PM:

" Two of the best movies I have ever seen on the topic are, "Dead Man Walking" and 'Monster's Ball". They are very sad movies that really illustrate the futility and tragedy of it all. There is no way to get the victim back and although some find closure in the execution of a murderer, it's just more tragedy.
I don't know the answer but, killing somehow just doesn't seem to be the thing to do. With that logic, why don't we cut off the organs of rapists? Now that just might be a real deterrent. But you see, men don't hold each other accountable for that crime. In fact, it's almost justifiable in their eyes.
We live in a world where man's instinct to hunt and kill, to defend his territory and to rule, is no different than it was when man was first on this Earth. We are trying to make sense of things while living in an overpopulated world. Everything is spiraling out of control and why? It all points to overpopulation. We cannot support it anymore, not with enough jobs, enough resources, enough money, enough education or enough assurance that we can look out for the welfare of other human beings not even our children. Our climate and the Earth are affected as well. Try as we might, there are no answers, only more questions. We can rationalize the short term fix. We can pretend to have control over the chaos but, it is futile. In killing another human being as punishment, there is a very short lived satisfaction but it will not save other victims. It only multiplies the pain. It's all very sad. "

misfit wrote on Jul 23, 2009 11:13 PM:

" The death penalty for child rapists and molesters was rejected last year because it is known that with that possibility, the perpetrator would simply kill the child,(witness). Kind of a different perspective, huh? "

funnyme wrote on Jul 24, 2009 6:33 AM:

" misfit,
IF we could HEAR Poly Klaas's perspective on Richard Alan Davis, what do you think she would say?

Talking movies? I'm in!

How about "Primal Fear" with Richard Gere and Ed Norton?

Or, "Double Jeopardy" with Ashley Judd and Tomy Lee Jones?

Or, "Sleepers" with Kevin Bacon and Brad Pitt?

Or, "A Time To Kill" with Samuel L. Jackson, Sandra Bullock and Matthew McConaughey? "

Rocketman wrote on Jul 24, 2009 8:17 AM:

" We have a death penalty for one reason and one reason only.........to punish the perpetrator in the same fashion as he/she punished their victim. I call that justice. "

alucawanza wrote on Jul 24, 2009 11:41 AM:

" other movies:
Dead Man Walking
The Green Mile

A Time to Kill: When the state executes a murderer it is not an emotion charged event. It is cool, calm, controlled delivery of death. It is not done with anger, blind fury, and hate. This was an extrordinary movie about racism....not the death penalty. The rapists were certainly sociopaths... The father was the symbol of fathers everywhere. What father could not identify with him? But the underlying theme of the movie was racism.
Extraordinary acting in this film. The book was even more compelling. "

Bill wrote on Jul 24, 2009 2:51 PM:

" This is meant constructively and is not an attack.

The opening sentence of Phoebe’s argument was an appeal to logic. Following that the premises were primarily religious, then an attempt at empirical statistical evidence followed by some rhetorical questions encapsulated in the headline. Finally winding into a vague moral appeal in the conclusion. The result, in my opinion, was unconvincing.

The statistical research fails to support the death penalty as a deterrence to murder (homicide is not the issue) is an acceptable observation, but it also fails to support that capital punishment is not deterrence. There is simply no viable demonstrated study other than the opinion of experts that supports this statement. Even the opinion quoted uses 80% of those experts agreeing leaving considerable room for doubt.

It is also unclear what fundamental principal of the majority capital punishment violates, as it is never elaborated.

We have a twofer here, majority opinion and majority principals both rather obscure. Numbers do not guarantee truth or justice, the majority often votes for policies that are inherently unjust.

Justice is not arbitrary but deliberate and does not rely on an inherent ability to take a life rather its mandate to extract punishment.

The deliberate killing of another human being is murder but the lawful killing of a humanbeing is not murder and there are always gray areas unless we are absolutists. A rationally impaired being may murder but justice does not demand the execution of that individual (i.e. Minors, the mentally impaired, etc.) but can demand the execution of a rational being.

While it may be true that we are animals and share many characteristics, animals do not seek revenge, experience remorse or seek justice, rational beings do. "

freeport56 wrote on Jul 24, 2009 2:52 PM:

" PH-

For the last 400 years this country has evolved from the rule of a King to self-goverence. During that period of time much blood has been shed. Some for good reason, some a shameful part of our past. We humans grow over time and learn many things in that process.

What we have evolved into is a nation of laws. These laws were written to maintain order, guide our livews and most of all guide our actions. The discourse of how these laws developed would take more than 300 words, so we will skip that part.

Part of our laws deal in the punishment of those that comit haneous crimes againest another person(s). Kidnapping a child, raping, and killing them to protect yourself is awful and deserves the maximum punishment. guiding us in that quest for justice are ordinary citizens sitting on a jury.

Those men and women weigh the evidence presented and make a dtermination of guilt or innocence. I am a firm believer that if the Death Penalty was used more frequently, it's message would be loud and clear. but, alas it is used so infreqwuently the message has been lost. "

109823 wrote on Jul 24, 2009 3:41 PM:

" Just my opinion, but when it comes to justice being served to a murderer I'm all for the death penalty. Why does this individual continue to breath and get three meals a day and whatever else our taxdollars will afford him/her when his/her victim(s) do not? I also feel it is closure for family and loved ones. "

alucawanza wrote on Jul 24, 2009 8:02 PM:

" The death penalty makes the state a killer. We are the state. Therefore we are all killers.
Just my opinion.....that's the message of the death penalty.

Killers don't hear any other message. How many felons have said they haven't killed because they fear the death penalty. How about some data? "

alucawanza wrote on Jul 24, 2009 8:05 PM:

" http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty

Law Enforcement attitudes on deterrence

A national survey of police chiefs from around the country discredits the assertion that the death penalty is an important tool. Some of the conclusions of the police chiefs are:

•Police chiefs rank the death penalty last as a way of reducing violent crime, placing it behind curbing drug abuse, more police officers on the streets, lowering the technical barriers to prosecution, longer sentences, and a better economy with more jobs.
•Police chiefs do not believe that the death penalty significantly reduces the number of homicides.
•Police chiefs do not believe that murderers think about the range of possible punishments

Go to the site to read more. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jul 24, 2009 10:22 PM:

" I was up in the mountains killing my own meat, Bill, and there really wasn't any internet access there.

Your definition of murder and mine may agree in essentials, but I'd be a lot more comfortable with yours if it explicitly contained the notion of premeditation.

I wonder whether we're becoming too deeply involved in utilitarian arguments for or against the death penalty. If the death penalty is unjust, then no number of good results can justify it. If it's just, then only doubt and mercy can restrain us from using it.

Have you ever eaten rattlesnake? "

Rocketman wrote on Jul 25, 2009 8:19 AM:

" alucawanza wrote on Jul 24, 2009 8:05 PM:

" http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty

Law Enforcement attitudes on deterrence

A national survey of police chiefs from around the country discredits the assertion that the death penalty is an important tool.

Now survey the cops on the street instead of the political management and see what kind of results you get!! "

Bill wrote on Jul 25, 2009 2:12 PM:

" Ok I guess I’ve played the devil’s advocate long enough and should step up to the plate with my opinion to help clarify my uncertainty.

Both pro and con on capital punishment share a common desire, the demand that justice should be perfect. The punishment should fit the crime in an impassionate justice. Few on either side would argue that justice should be without mercy despite some of the most adamant calls for executions.

It is my contention that justice can not be perfect, even if it were my desire. Truth is rarely evident, doubt is always reasonable and impassivity seldom achieved. There are no mathematical formulas for the application of justice. no calculus that predicts balance or proper outcome. The long shadow of doubt is never eliminated only subjectively modified as if we could get beyond its edges. Does a single innocent’s execution justify a hundred or a thousand righteous ones?

Justice is imperfect which subjects it to great error; because of that great error the irreversible demand of death is not justified.

I have not seen anyone who is adamant about the necessity of the death penalty take up the challenge to be persuasive on this thread although I am aware of excellent and persuasive arguments in its favor.

Those who I would of expected to have legitimate arguments have been either absent or condescending. The attempt to force this subject into a political divide has not materialized in any force which could be a good omen but the number of supporters of capital punishment here have relied on the premises’ of vengeance rather than punishment and the necessity of justice, preferring to holler their ill conceived feelings instead of coolly taking the opportunity to analyze them. "

alucawanza wrote on Jul 26, 2009 7:46 PM:

" Condescending?
I think not. Passionate and reasonable. Not vengeful but thoughtful. Not absent, just overlooked.
Check out the man in the mirror. "

Bill wrote on Jul 26, 2009 11:05 PM:

" Alu,
Were you being accused or are you, like others finding offense, where there is none. Being personal is not following the thread how ever much you believe it might be about you or me.

What does this comment have to do with capital punishment? How does it move the argument? If you disagree with my reasoning please do so. You have made some informative points but none of this is about you. Those who are vehement in support of the death penalty are absent and many others will only chime in as cheerleaders and not attempt to support their opinion other than to attack the other and not reason with the opinion. It would be easy to slip into criticism of some arguments but that does not move or persuade. I think my only remarks to you were that I was not convinced if you find this condescending by all means be offended. "

Bill wrote on Jul 26, 2009 11:24 PM:

" Riley,
I have not eaten rattle snake, I have eaten dog. I have never killed Bambi or his mother but have looked for his dad. Many species of aves fear me. I have wreaked havoc upon them especially the duck, pigeon, pheasant and grouse families. I have attempted to be a killer of fish, with only mild success enjoying their meat when purchased and will admit to succumbing on at least one occasion to the wonton slaughter of prairie dogs. I did not partake of their flesh.

Please excuse the use of your surname, no disrespect is intended. I am many times to wordy for the likes of many and one name helps with the word count. A poor excuse but the best one I have.
Utilitarian arguments, as from prudence, help keep a focus as you have demonstrated. Certainly they are not restrictive as there are prudential moral arguments. I have attempted to avoid the emotional moral in an amoral world. It could be a futile effort. I do not tend to Bentham or Mills when it comes to Justice, or much else. The greatest good many times causes more harm than can be justified. Rather, I tend to Rawls. I would also accept your modification to the definition of murder.
Our words often offend and I am no stranger to arrogance or offense but there are times when a calm dialogue can be honestly approached without the attempt to bait or draw the other into a barking at the fence slats exchange. I have tried not to engage in that manner which does not mean that I am innocent or incapable of doing so.
This has been a long thread; it could be that such an opinion oriented format is not conducive to persuasive argumentation. "

magnum wrote on Jul 27, 2009 7:55 AM:

" I support the Death Penalty but in California, it's a waste of money and time. Unless it is used properly, like in Texas, it serves no purpose in California. Too many appeals for the inmates and too many riskd for the guards in prison that has to work death row. When a convict does get executed, his crime took place so long ago, one can remember the severity of the incident. "

5th generation napan wrote on Jul 27, 2009 8:09 AM:

" Vengence?, Yes, for the victims family and friends most likely.

The role of law, and all involved with proceedure of the court system, is not vengence but, the application of an appropriate penalty if all are convinced that an action occured and they are convicting the right purpertrator is held responsible for their part.

In the most extreme cases and for real people the death penalty is not dispensed like candy as a lot of you are making it out to be. It is the final judgement (by us imperfect mortals) that death is an appropriate penalty for a persons actions. Mentally challenged people are exempt for reasons describe earlier, so dont play that card.

We are talking about people (all innocent) that were proven guilty of horriffic crimes against society. As far as I am concerned the murdering of one life is the same as the murdering of a 1000 or million lives. The purpertrator had a choice and choose to take a life for no vailid reason. NO VALID REASON. As far as I am concerned they then forfit their life. We have learned from out past hopefully and the cards are weighted in favor of the accused.

But when proven, its time to act.
If you dont want to make the decision then you can live a life time without being on a jury for your own reasons.
Let the people that can make the decision do it then. But it would be much fairer if you people that can't make the decision on the death penaltiy be on the jury and express your opinion. Maybe just maybe you will see evidence that will change your mind.

Its not vengence its the application of an approropriate penalty for the crime committed! "

alucawanza wrote on Jul 27, 2009 12:02 PM:

" Bill
This is an opinion page. People voice their opinions. My opinion is the death penalty is wrong. I believe that it is a vengeful act that does not have a connection to justice. I don't believe that citizens should decide that death is an appropriate penalty for a crime. I believe in life terms without parole. I believe that the death penalty, no matter how it is carried out, or how soon it is carried out is murder in itself. No matter how heinous the crime the state (people) cannot become a killer too.
I'm not trying to convince you. You don't know me. Why would you agree if your opinion differs? Instead of evalulating others' posts why not join in the conversation and tell us your opinions? "

Bill wrote on Jul 27, 2009 12:03 PM:

" The law certainly can extract vengeance and implement punishment; there is agreement on this point. Many times justice demands not the repayment of damages but punitive measures beyond the original damage. This is not done to make the victim whole but to extract a certain cold punitive vengeance upon those who violate the law. Some view this as preventative justice.

No life once taken can be made whole again. Monetary values have been used for lesser crimes of homicide when they were deemed appropriate. The point that remains unresolved is the error of executing an innocent person.

How is that resolved? "

Bill wrote on Jul 27, 2009 2:15 PM:

" 9Alu,
I did, see the July 25 post that offended you.

Is this solely an opinion page or a conversation page? Is it both?

Why can I not agree with points that appear sound but do not alone convince?

Are we merely absurdly shouting our opinions at each other without hope of resolution?

Is there always to be no attempt at dialogue no attempt to find common ground?

Is opinion forever divided exactly between yours or mine or anyone else’s?

I have been accused of loving my thesaurus a little too much and will admit that I do love words, So here is one for everyone;

Eristic, referring to a type of dialogue where the participants have no reasonable goal, they wish solely to win the argument not discover true or probable answers to any question. The sole effort is conflict, fighting and who can yell the loudest.

If you find something in my argument is not reasonable please say so.
I will repost it for you. "

Bill wrote on Jul 27, 2009 3:09 PM:

" repost

Both pro and con on capital punishment share a common desire, the demand that justice should be perfect. The punishment should fit the crime in an impassionate justice. Few on either side would argue that justice should be without mercy despite some of the most adamant calls for executions.

It is my contention that justice can not be perfect, even if it were my desire. Truth is rarely evident, doubt is always reasonable and impassivity seldom achieved. There are no mathematical formulas for the application of justice. no calculus that predicts balance or proper outcome. The long shadow of doubt is never eliminated only subjectively modified as if we could get beyond its edges. Does a single innocent’s execution justify a hundred or a thousand righteous ones?

Justice is imperfect which subjects it to great error; because of that great error the irreversible demand of death is not justified. "

alucawanza wrote on Jul 27, 2009 4:52 PM:

" Bill
Of course this opinion page is for conversation. I agree with you that justice is not perfect. I just heard on the news today of a man released from prison after many years due to a new look at forensic evidence. He was innocent.

The following comment you made is profound:
Justice is imperfect which subjects it to great error; because of that great error the irreversible demand of death is not justified. "

But I do also think there are no righteous executions. The two words together seem incompatible. Many disagree. This discussion doesn't seem to bring out the highest level of humanity in people. There's a bigger picture of this issue that isn't often addressed. The focus is narrow. It points only to the exacting of revenge rather than justice.
Thank you for your interesting posts. I personally enjoy reading your thesaurus aided writing! "

Bill wrote on Jul 28, 2009 7:05 PM:

" I questioned Phoebe’s argument directly, which is what you do if you seek an understanding, this is not to be done? Where the offense, there is is no mention of the personal? Blindly agreeing with a shared opinion is the height of condescension. Recognizing it as a point in criticism is well within the expression of opinion and the attempt to establish a differing perspective, if similar in focus. To argue, define your terms, agree upon them and limit the scope other wise there is no argument.

I find fault in my own argument but it is a fault of the argument not the reflection in the mirror. Arrogant it most certainly is but not profound. It is not a reticent attempt to gain favor with those who do or do not share it. Opinion is argument and if it fails to persuade on some level it is reduced to mere belief, a straight forward act of faith, relegated to the realm of unquestionable ideology, the domain of the ideologue, those certain they own, beyond doubt, the truth. “This I believe” is a glorious beginning to an essay but unless that belief is sustained by a decent and persuasive argument, it is only a pretty beginning.

We fail to persuade because we are more interested in winning, in appearing clever and never in analyzing the argument. Soliciting empirical evidence, authority references, heart felt convictions and even personal experience (the worst of all ploys) is great but unless accompanied by the ability to use words to convince, not bludgeon, the argument fails.

This is an important topic far more important than the sniffing, snarfing and barking at the fence slats. This forum does not lend itself to debate much less the euphemism of conversation. "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: