Capital Punishment

[Bernard Gui]

I'm iffy on capital punishment... some cases yes, some cases no. I'm sad people are celebrating for a death though. Yeah, maybe he did deserve it, but it doesn't mean you celebrate it =/.

How can you be iffy?

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

As a general rule I oppose Capital Punishment except in the most grievous of circumstances.

Many live that deserve death, and some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them?

How does one sit on both sides of this fence?

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

I'm not trying to advocate celebrating the death of any life form, but at what point is it acceptable to celebrate that a threat is ended?

That's not my point. I'm asking why there is no outcry from the anti-death penalty crowd, and there

are plenty of them out there, and they make there position known quite frequently and publicly.

Where are they now?

Bernard

[frankenstein]

How can you be iffy?

Bernard

It is easy to be "iffy" or rather, in some circumstance yes, and in some circumstances no. Look up William Cunningham, put to death. But later 3 indenpendant experts conclude he did not commit the crime he was accused of.

and some already stated no on death when evidence is circustantial

[Balzer]

How can you have it both ways?

He was given the death penalty by the order of the chief law enforcement

officer of the USA. The order was carried out without trial or conviction.

Bernard

You've got it all wrong Bernard. Osama most certainly did not receive the death penalty. He was a casualty of war.

Respectfully,

Balzer

[elguanteloko]

We LDS, generally, believe in the justice of capital punishment. Sometimes our critics mock the

Church by bringing up "blood atonement" or pointing out the fact that capital punishment in

Utah used to include death by firing squad.

Yet today, I hear many lauding the death of Osama bin Laden as a final step of justice for those

killed on 9/11. Some of these who nod their heads in agreement are opposed to capital

punishment for heinous crimes in our country.

Is this consistent?

It could be consistent. The fact that I feel relief or the bliss of vengeance for a murderer's death doesn't mean I think it would have been right to kill him without a trial when we were able to give him a trial. Now, if we are very well able to give him a fair trial instead of giving him the bullet but we choose to just kill him, then that's inconsistent. In other words "I didn't want it to happen like that, it definitely wasn't the best that could have turned out, and if I could have had a choice I would give him a fair trial, but.... what the heck, let's celebrate!" No inconsistency there.

[ERayR]

How can you have it both ways?

He was given the death penalty by the order of the chief law enforcement

officer of the USA. The order was carried out without trial or conviction.

Bernard

He was a confessed killer. He admitted killing thousands of innocents and promised to do it again. By his own testimony he was convicted in absentia. He could have come forth at anytime.

That said and although I am releived that he is dead and think it fitting, I do not think it seemly to be dancing in the streets.

[Bernard Gui]

You've got it all wrong Bernard. Osama most certainly did not receive the death penalty. He was a casualty of war.

Respectfully,

Balzer

He was executed by direct order of POTUS without trial or conviction. That is clearly a

death penalty. In the US anyone given a death

sentence must have been tried and convicted by a jury of his/her peers.

How is this a consistent

position?

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

He was a confessed killer. He admitted killing thousands of innocents and promised to do it again. By his own testimony he was convicted in absentia. He could have come forth at anytime.

I don't disagree. I'm asking how a person could oppose the death penalty on moral grounds yet condone the

execution of this mass murderer.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

It could be consistent. The fact that I feel relief or the bliss of vengeance for a murderer's death doesn't mean I think it would have been right to kill him without a trial when we were able to give him a trial. Now, if we are very well able to give him a fair trial instead of giving him the bullet but we choose to just kill him, then that's inconsistent. In other words "I didn't want it to happen like that, it definitely wasn't the best that could have turned out, and if I could have had a choice I would give him a fair trial, but.... what the heck, let's celebrate!" No inconsistency there.

Are you opposed to the death penalty?

Bernard

[elguanteloko]

Are you opposed to the death penalty?

Bernard

Yes.

[ERayR]

I don't disagree. I'm asking how a person could oppose the death penalty on moral grounds yet condone the

execution of this mass murderer.

Bernard

Yes it certainly does seem a little incongrues but then the same crowd approve abortion on demand.

[Bernard Gui]

Are any of our readers here actually opposed to the death penalty?

Has anyone ever joined in a protest or vigil at a prison? Does anyone

believe it is immoral to take human life including the life of a heinous criminal?

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

Yes.

But you condone the execution of UBL?

How do you reconcile the two? Is there a line he crossed for you to

approve of his death? What was the line?

Bernard

[elguanteloko]

But you condone the execution of UBL?

How do you reconcile the two? Is there a line he crossed for you to

approve of his death? What was the line?

Bernard

The thing is, I don't approve of his death but I'm glad it happened. If the choice was mine to take I would have given the guy a fair trial and put him in prison. I'm not saying the people who are against capital punishment but delight in Bin Laden's death are being congruent or that they aren't. All I'm pointing out is that those two are not mutually exclusive. Now, if someone is against CP but approves the killing OBL without giving him a trail and life in prison when they very well could have held one for him, then they are being inconsistent.

[Anijen]

Are any of our readers here actually opposed to the death penalty?

Bernardfe

I used to be for it, now I am against it. I believe taking a life causes others to suffer and does little for closure.

Having said that we know that Laban had no trial either. I am not saying I disagree with the Lord (I definitely do not).

[Balzer]

He was executed by direct order of POTUS without trial or conviction. That is clearly a

death penalty. In the US anyone given a death

sentence must have been tried and convicted by a jury of his/her peers.

How is this a consistent

position?

Bernard

Have you ever been in the military Bernard? (I'm guessing no) Ever fought for your country in a war? (I'm gonna guess no again) Even still, surely you realize that this country is at war? Killing the enemy in war is simply not the moral equivalent of the imposition of the death penalty as you suggest. Therefore, how a person feels about the death penalty is really irrelevant to how they might feel about Osama finally getting killed. Orwell said "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." There is a fundamental truth to that statement that cannot be denied by good intentions and ivory tower principles. The Bible teaches that there is a time for everything, including a time for war, and a time to kill. The death penalty is a reasoned, moral response to "murder." The United States Government did not "murder" Osama.

Respectfully,

Balzer

[elguanteloko]

Have you ever been in the military Bernard? (I'm guessing no) Ever fought for your country in a war? (I'm gonna guess no again)

I haven't but I'll respond. I hope this doesn't sound too frivolous to you but this is a blunt ad hominem red herring. That one has or hasn't served or killed or fought in war doesn't mean one's reasons are stronger or weaker. I'm talking about REASONS here, not emotions or persuasions.

Even still, surely you realize that this country is at war? Killing the enemy in war is simply not the moral equivalent of the imposition of the death penalty as you suggest.

Surely you realize that just because one is at war doesn't mean one can "kill the enemy". Prisoners of war? Disarmed enemies who can be easily taken prisoners instead of just shot?

Therefore, how a person feels about the death penalty is really irrelevant to how they might feel about Osama finally getting killed.

Since your 'premises' are weak there is no reason to take your "therefore" seriously.

Orwell said "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

I agree with this but, don't you realize this quote is just way too general to be used as a support for your view here? No one here is questioning if violence should be used or not. The problem is when to use it, how to use it, how much of it to use, etc. Then, you haven't solved the problem here presented.... seems like you don't even get what the point is, in the first place.

There is a fundamental truth to that statement that cannot be denied by good intentions and ivory tower principles. The Bible teaches that there is a time for everything, including a time for war, and a time to kill. The death penalty is a reasoned, moral response to "murder."

...and the reason why we should practice the death penalty is...??? Do you just expect people to obey you all the time or just this time?

The United States Government did not "murder" Osama.

Bernard Guy, in the post you responded to, did NOT say Osama was "murdered" by the Gov.

[Jeff K.]

In war, there are circumstances understood by all involved. You will attempt to kill them, and they will attempt to kill you. This should be considered in the context of act of taking a life.

Other issues and contexts would change the question of taking a life considerably.

[Balzer]

I haven't

Then maybe you should just say "thank you" and "thank God for Navy Seals" and push on.

Surely you realize that just because one is at war doesn't mean one can "kill the enemy". Prisoners of war? Disarmed enemies who can be easily taken prisoners instead of just shot?

Talk about your red herrings. Are you suggesting that President Obama made a bad call here? What does killing Osama have to do with prisoners of war and disarmed enemies? (or the death penalty?)

Since your 'premises' are weak there is no reason to take your "therefore" seriously.

Since you (and I'm guessing yours) have never felt obligated to defend your country in the face of an enemy's rifle there is no reason to take you seriously. Tell you what, instead of two years on a mission, why not do two years in the Marines? Talk to me after you get back from the sand. I'm relatively certain you'll have a different perspective.

I agree with this but, don't you realize this quote is just way too general to be used as a support for your view here? No one here is questioning if violence should be used or not. The problem is when to use it, how to use it, how much of it to use, etc. Then, you haven't solved the problem here presented.... seems like you don't even get what the point is, in the first place.

The issue presented was why was it ok to kill Bin Laden if you're against the death penalty. I suggested that the premise of the question was false. And it is.

...and the reason why we should practice the death penalty is...??? Do you just expect people to obey you all the time or just this time?

Not really getting this comment. Sorry.

Bernard Guy, in the post you responded to, did NOT say Osama was "murdered" by the Gov.

No, he didn't. He was attempting to figure out how someone could support Osama's execution yet not support the death penalty. Again, apples and oranges.

Respectfully,

Balzer

[elguanteloko]

Then maybe you should just say "thank you" and "thank God for Navy Seals" and push on.

hahaha! that was really funny.... but now to the actual point.

Talk about your red herrings

.

yes, I talk about them because you made them.

Are you suggesting that President Obama made a bad call here?

Brother, you definitely are not getting it. WIth all due respect, go back to the previous posts and see what the point is. NO ONE is saying Obama made a bad call or anything of the sort. The only point is that it seems inconsistent to be against the death penalty and rejoice and/or prefer Bin Laden dead than give him a fair trial IF we have the option. Clear?

What does killing Osama have to do with prisoners of war and disarmed enemies? (or the death penalty?)

I was responding directly to your comment that made it sound as if just because we are at war we are justified in killing "the enemy". I gave examples in which it is CLEARLY not the right thing to do to kill them. Furthermore, I will say it now in case you don't see it, it would have been wrong to kill Bin Laden IF we clearly had a chance of giving him a trial and we didn't.

[LeSellers]

In war, there are circumstances understood by all involved. You will attempt to kill them, and they will attempt to kill you. This should be considered in the context of act of taking a life.

This isn't quite true. The point of war is not to kill the enemy, but to make it economically, culturally, or otherwise impossible for him to continue to wage war against you.

The best thing to do with an enemy soldier is to wound him badly enough that he cannot help himself and will be hors de combat, ideally permanently, but will require a great deal of attention to maintain his life.

This diverts resources from the battle field in several ways:

• he is no longer there shooting at you.
• others are not shooting at you, either, because caring for him.
• it takes money to buy bandages and blood plasma, money that cannot now be used to buy bullets and bayonets.
• his mother wants him home, and the only way for that to happen is to stop the fighting.

The only reason to kill an enemy soldier is to avoid getting hurt (including killed) yourself (or your unit members). In the case of O'sama, it appears (but the stories are getting more and more contradictory, so we don't know—we surmise, at best) that he was attempting to reach a weapon. It is also possible that he was "wired" and may have been capable of blowing up himself, his wife, and his attackers. Hitting the "off switch" (i.e., an instantaneous nervous system destruction) is the only way to avoid such an outcome, if it was set up that way.

Bin Ladin deserved to die, but it was not necessarily the best thing to have killed him in Pakistan. A better plan, in my view, would have been to have pretended to kill him (to avoid any rescue attempts), to have interrogated him as harshly as necessary to break his will, and to extract as much information ("intelligence") as possible. He'd never see the light of day again, under my plan, he would not become a martyr (because he'd die of old age or disease), even if many might think him so. And he would pay, he would pay over and over again, for the turmoil and destruction he has caused.

Lehi

[Balzer]

hahaha! that was really funny.... but now to the actual point.

.

yes, I talk about them because you made them.

Brother, you definitely are not getting it. WIth all due respect, go back to the previous posts and see what the point is. NO ONE is saying Obama made a bad call or anything of the sort. The only point is that it seems inconsistent to be against the death penalty and rejoice and/or prefer Bin Laden dead than give him a fair trial IF we have the option. Clear?

I was responding directly to your comment that made it sound as if just because we are at war we are justified in killing "the enemy". I gave examples in which it is CLEARLY not the right thing to do to kill them. Furthermore, I will say it now in case you don't see it, it would have been wrong to kill Bin Laden IF we clearly had a chance of giving him a trial and we didn't.

You said: ". . . it seems inconsistent to be against the death penalty and rejoice and/or prefer Bin Laden dead than give him a fair trial IF we have the option. Clear?"

I said: "The issue presented was why was it ok to kill Bin Laden if you're against the death penalty. I suggested that the premise of the question was false. And it is."

Never having been shot at in war, or watching your friends get shot, I suppose I shouldn't expect you to understand the difference between catching a criminal, putting him on trial, and giving him the death penalty, vs killing the enemy in war. But, heck, can you at least try? I have had the unique opportunity to experience both first hand and I'm here to tell you, it ain't the same. There is simply no application of the moral principles at play in a courtroom on the battlefield. And, thank God, there is no application of the moral principles at play on the battlefield in the courtroom. Can someone be against the death penalty yet be happy when the enemy is killed in war? Absolutely. Is this an "inconsistent" view? Absolutely not. There is no comparison to be made between the two scenarios.

Anyway, I take it back. DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT join the marines. I'd feel much safer if you didn't.

Respectfully,

Balzer

[Balzer]

The best thing to do with an enemy soldier is to wound him badly enough that he cannot help himself and will be hors de combat, ideally permanently, but will require a great deal of attention to maintain his life.

All due respect, I'd much prefer he was dead. He can't kill you or your family when he's dead.

Respectfully,

Balzer

[USU78]

All due respect, I'd much prefer he was dead. He can't kill you or your family when he's dead.

You miss the economics of the situation: If you badly injure an enemy soldier, he requires something like 2-4 people to care for him during his convalescence. You thus take 3-5 people off of the front lines for every one you injure. Those 3-5 needs feeding, clothing, training, and supervision. And don't forget their paychecks and pensions and such. The point was made earlier in this thread about winning a war by destroying economically the ability of your enemy to wage war. Injuries do this.

Such was the theory behind the "jumping landmines" the Viet Cong employed. When stepped on they'd jump up crotch high and explode, badly injuring and often unmanning US troops, but rarely killing them. Killing's far too efficient when the point is to bog the enemy down.