Capital Punishment

[LinuxGal]

What sins?

 

Isn't denying the Holy Ghost the only act that the scriptures speak of that is unforgivable.

 

Well, then the solution presents itself.  For every sin that one proposes isn't covered by the blood of Christ, one need only define that sin as blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

[tonie]

But tonie, you already pointed that out. You have not addressed the replies which propose, quite reasonably, that the options chosen by the other 96% are compatible with "serve justice". It appears that you wish not to analyze the other options so as to make it seem that 96% of the respondents cared nothing for whether justice is served. Such a view is not credible.

 

Well-reasoned proposals are often well reasoned, and very often are wrong. I experience this almost daily in my employment - a well-reasoned proposition is offered, others buy into it, defend it, and expand on it; only to be shown that they were wrong.

 

As I stated earlier, IF "serve justice" was not a clear and specific choice, then I believe you would have well-reasoned proposal. However, "serve justice" was a clear and specific choice, and only 4% of the people elected that choice.  So as it stands, only 4% of the proponents of the death penalty view it as "serving justice"

 

(The methodology of the poll could reveal, with the addition of psychology analysis of the poll, why only 4% selected "serve justice". Was it the manner of the question? Was it the order of the choices? What did the person "think" the choice meant? If a person meant "serve justice" why didn't they select it? There could be some scientific explanation. However, nothing suggests to me that anyone here is qualified to make that explanation. And without further, scientifically qualified and verified analysis, we just take the poll at face value.)

 

And interesting year is 2001, why did "serve justice" drop to 1% in that year, but jump back up to 4% in 2003 and remained the same in 2014?

 

We should recall to mind, that the purpose of your citing the poll, was an apparent attempt to refute "sleeper cell's" assertion that death penalty proponents were affirming the need for justice

....

 

Sleeper cell "Most advocates of capital punishment ... are seeking justice"

 

And the Gallup demonstrated, that when given the clear and specific choice "serve justice" to defend the death penalty, only 4% pick that choice.

[ERayR]

So there are some crimes where the atonement of Christ is insufficient, rather than his blood, we must use the blood of the offender to atone.  Check!

No your statement is incorrect.  Capital punishment (death penalty) does not atone for anything.  It is a consequence of committing crimes deemed too heinous to allow the perpetrator to remain in society.

[3DOP]

Well-reasoned proposals are often well reasoned, and very often are wrong. I experience this almost daily in my employment - a well-reasoned proposition is offered, others buy into it, defend it, and expand on it; only to be shown that they were wrong.

 

As I stated earlier, IF "serve justice" was not a clear and specific choice, then I believe you would have well-reasoned proposal. However, "serve justice" was a clear and specific choice, and only 4% of the people elected that choice.  So as it stands, only 4% of the proponents of the death penalty view it as "serving justice"

 

(The methodology of the poll could reveal, with the addition of psychology analysis of the poll, why only 4% selected "serve justice". Was it the manner of the question? Was it the order of the choices? What did the person "think" the choice meant? If a person meant "serve justice" why didn't they select it? There could be some scientific explanation. However, nothing suggests to me that anyone here is qualified to make that explanation. And without further, scientifically qualified and verified analysis, we just take the poll at face value.)

 

And interesting year is 2001, why did "serve justice" drop to 1% in that year, but jump back up to 4% in 2003 and remained the same in 2014?

 

 

 

....

 

Sleeper cell "Most advocates of capital punishment ... are seeking justice"

 

And the Gallup demonstrated, that when given the clear and specific choice "serve justice" to defend the death penalty, only 4% pick that choice.

 

Sleeper cell said they were "seeking justice". Since we aren't willing to accept synonyms for "seeking justice", I am compelled to point out that "serving justice" has a word in it (one out of two words!) that is different from "seeking justice". The poll you cite does not, according to the way you approach it, speak to sleeper cell's claim. Why don't you start a poll here and ask those who are against total abolition of the death penalty if they are "seeking justice" or "seeking vengeance"?

Edited November 23, 2014 by 3DOP

[emarkp]

I do think it is civilized, though we may differ in how we interpret what that word means.

 

Edited to add: The 21-year sentence is not final and may be extended for as long as it takes.

The first statement is laughable. I actually hope if someone murders someone close to you, you'll think about it more deeply.

The second statement is false. The sentence can be extended if he's considered to be a threat at that point. But he's already made his political statement, so why would he be a threat?

How about a 1-year sentence for mass murder? Does that satisfy your bizarre logic?

The right thing would have been to shoot him in the head as soon as police were on the scene, and toss the body in the sea, to be forgotten with other trash.

[Sleeper Cell]

Well-reasoned proposals are often well reasoned, and very often are wrong. I experience this almost daily in my employment - a well-reasoned proposition is offered, others buy into it, defend it, and expand on it; only to be shown that they were wrong.

 

As I stated earlier, IF "serve justice" was not a clear and specific choice, then I believe you would have well-reasoned proposal. However, "serve justice" was a clear and specific choice, and only 4% of the people elected that choice.  So as it stands, only 4% of the proponents of the death penalty view it as "serving justice"

 

(The methodology of the poll could reveal, with the addition of psychology analysis of the poll, why only 4% selected "serve justice". Was it the manner of the question? Was it the order of the choices? What did the person "think" the choice meant? If a person meant "serve justice" why didn't they select it? There could be some scientific explanation. However, nothing suggests to me that anyone here is qualified to make that explanation. And without further, scientifically qualified and verified analysis, we just take the poll at face value.)

 

 

If we take this poll at “face value,” there is no reason to conclude that choices like “fits the crime” and “fair punishment” are incompatible with “serving justice.”  I cannot think of any example of a “fair punishment” that wouldn’t also “serve justice.”  Can you?  Or for that matter, any way our criminal laws could “serve justice” without providing for a “fair punishment.”

 

Frankly, had I taken this poll, I might have chosen  “depends on the type of crime they commit.”  Another choice that is not incompatible with “serve justice.”  But because the respondents preferred to use a number of different phrases to express much the same idea, you insist on discounting  all those who didn’t choose a particular wording?  The phrase:  “make a man an offender for a word” comes to mind. 

 

 My original use of the phrase “seeking justice” was in response to an attempt to demonize the motives of death penalty supporters (wanting vengeance and “reacting at the lowest, basest, instincts”).  You responded with your poll and your interpretation of the results..  When others pointed out that many of the poll choices were essentially variations of the concept “serve justice,” you repeatedly insisted they were not,  and even suggested that short of “psychology analysis” to determine what the respondents thought the phrases meant., we unqualified people need to accept the poll at “face value” (i.e., what you think they thought they meant).  Most people rely on their education and experience (with occasional help from a dictionary) to understand the written word, not “psychology analysis” by a third party -- but let that pass. 

 

So, let us cut to the chase. Do you or do you not believe that most supporters of the death penalty are motivated by a desire for vengeance and “the lowest basest animal instinct level of humanity?“

 

And interesting year is 2001, why did "serve justice" drop to 1% in that year, but jump back up to 4% in 2003 and remained the same in 2014?

Might I suggest you review the notes you took during your classes in statistics?   And perhaps try to be a little less presumptuous in judging the scientific qualifications of people whom you don’t know. 

Edited November 23, 2014 by Sleeper Cell

[strappinglad]

The terms " serve justice" are not clear at all. Also note that the choice of justice is 8th in the list which means most people would have found their choice within the first half dozen choices and would have looked at " serve justice " as an equivalent to what they had already chosen in another form. How was the original poll formatted?

It is also to be noted that in most polls there is a margin of error such as " +/- 3% 19 times out of 20 " so an outcome of 4% could be as little as 1% and as high as 7%.

To quote a previous thread, this poll is deeply flawed.

Edited November 24, 2014 by strappinglad

[LinuxGal]

No your statement is incorrect.  Capital punishment (death penalty) does not atone for anything.  It is a consequence of committing crimes deemed too heinous to allow the perpetrator to remain in society.

 

For that we have life in prison without parole as a consequence, and death penalty advocates know that.   So they want "closure"...which is atonement.

[The Nehor]

If someone was to kill my son or wife in a premediated way, the only justice that would appropriate would be the death penalty.  If my wife or son do not get a chance to eat, wake up on the morning, go to sleep at night, the murderer also should not have that right.  Anything less including life in prison without parole would be spitting on their grave.  I would not even attend the trial if the legal system decided to mock them by not rendering justice to them.

 

That is the emotional reaction and one of the reasons we do not let the offended party set the punishment for crimes.

 

It is also anti-Christian. We are commanded to forgive everyone....of everything. In fact we are told we will not be forgiven ourselves if we do not forgive. Forgiveness does not mean we shouldn't punish wrongdoing or prevent further wrongdoing but the need to hurt, to spite, to inflict damage equal to what we have suffered (even if we cloak it in words like justice) needs to die in us.

[Vance]

Yes,  and here is why.

 

Matt 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

 

The implication is simple.  If you murder someone, you are implicitly authorizing that your own life be taken.

[LinuxGal]

Yes,  and here is why.

 

Matt 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

 

The implication is simple.  If you murder someone, you are implicitly authorizing that your own life be taken.

 

On the contrary, it is written (3 Nephi 12):

 

[38] And behold, it is written, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth;

[39] But I say unto you, that ye shall not resist evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

[ERayR]

That is the emotional reaction and one of the reasons we do not let the offended party set the punishment for crimes.

 

It is also anti-Christian. We are commanded to forgive everyone....of everything. In fact we are told we will not be forgiven ourselves if we do not forgive. Forgiveness does not mean we shouldn't punish wrongdoing or prevent further wrongdoing but the need to hurt, to spite, to inflict damage equal to what we have suffered (even if we cloak it in words like justice) needs to die in us.

 

Forgiveness does not mean absolution from consequences.  It is irrelevant to whether the death penalty.is imposed or not.

Edited November 25, 2014 by ERayR

[3DOP]

I agree that individually we will be much the worse for it, if we respond to evil with the same. We must not be overcome of evil, individually. We must as Christ's disciples, overcome evil with good.

 

But i Jesus recommends that His disciples "turn the other cheek", it in no way implies that He is advocating that Caesar has the same obligation. It seems like most of us should recognize, even if we come from different traditions, that there are different obligations which are designated for "Caesar" than for the "Church". To the disciples of Christ is assigned the task of mercy. To Caesar is assigned the task of justice. Disciples of Christ have the option to show mercy to our own oppressors and it is recommended that we should. Caesar has no legitimate task if he is unwilling to guard individuals against violent oppression. One can acknowledge the need to individually "turn the other cheek" without it following that we must advocate that the state has any similar responsibility. 

Edited November 25, 2014 by 3DOP

[LinuxGal]

I agree that individually we will be much the worse for it, if we respond to evil with the same. We must not be overcome of evil, individually. We must as Christ's disciples, overcome evil with good.

 

But i Jesus recommends that His disciples "turn the other cheek", it in no way implies that He is advocating that Caesar has the same obligation. It seems like most of us should recognize, even if we come from different traditions, that there are different obligations which are designated for "Caesar" than for the "Church". To the disciples of Christ is assigned the task of mercy. To Caesar is assigned the task of justice. Disciples of Christ have the option to show mercy to our own oppressors and it is recommended that we should. Caesar has no legitimate task if he is unwilling to guard individuals against violent oppression. One can acknowledge the need to individually "turn the other cheek" without it following that we must advocate that the state has any similar responsibility. 

 

Our modern civilization has sufficient resources that we can lock away convicted murderers for life.  This has the benefit in that if DNA evidence appears, years later, exhonorating the inmate and fingering another suspect, we don't have to shrug and say, "Oh well, too late!"

[3DOP]

Our modern civilization has sufficient resources that we can lock away convicted murderers for life.  This has the benefit in that if DNA evidence appears, years later, exhonorating the inmate and fingering another suspect, we don't have to shrug and say, "Oh well, too late!"

 

I am only against any misconceived notions of "total abolition". I don't disagree with what you say. I am against executing every murderer without regard to mitigating circumstances as well as ability to safely incarcerate. But I do not believe that Caesar can be utterly stripped of the authority to bear the sword and to use it. There have been occasions in my opinion, that demand it, and I cannot say that the sword should never have been used before, or must never be used again. As I said earlier, if sorely provoked, and especially if "sufficient resources" are unavailable, I cannot exclude as universally immoral, the option for Caesar to execute. I will go no farther than that, nor will I retreat from that position.  

Edited November 25, 2014 by 3DOP

[LinuxGal]

I am only against any misconceived notions of "total abolition". I don't disagree with what you say. I am against executing every murderer without regard to mitigating circumstances as well as ability to safely incarcerate. But I do not believe that Caesar can be utterly stripped of the authority to bear the sword and to use it. There have been occasions in my opinion, that demand it, and I cannot say that the sword should never have been used before, or must never be used again. As I said earlier, if sorely provoked, and especially if "sufficient resources" are unavailable, I cannot exclude as universally immoral, the option for Caesar to execute. I will go no farther than that, nor will I retreat from that position.  

 

I respect that, but if we ever reach the point where our society does not have the resources to incarcerate a criminal for life, we will be back to the 18th Century and there will be bigger problems on our plate.

[The Nehor]

Forgiveness does not mean absolution from consequences.  It is irrelevant to whether the death penalty.is imposed or not.

 

No, it is relevant because if it is used as a kind of vengeance (even if we call it justice) then we are stepping on God's turf. I am not completely opposed to the practice but when I see how many in the US seem to relish or rejoice in killing I am guessing there is more then strict justice being considered.

[The Nehor]

Our modern civilization has sufficient resources that we can lock away convicted murderers for life.  This has the benefit in that if DNA evidence appears, years later, exhonorating the inmate and fingering another suspect, we don't have to shrug and say, "Oh well, too late!"

 

Actually, we kind of do. We talk about death as permanent but imprisonment cannot be undone either. If I were locked up for forty years for a crime I did not commit and then towards the end I am exonerated that exoneration won't give me my adult life back. In fact if I were innocent of a crime but was convicted and due to be incarcerated until I was a senior citizen I think I would personally prefer the death penalty. The death penalty means freedom from bondage at that point. If I were guilty I would prefer to die and start dealing with my sins rather then sit in a cage for a few decades.

[Sleeper Cell]

On the contrary, it is written (3 Nephi 12):

 

[38] And behold, it is written, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth;

[39] But I say unto you, that ye shall not resist evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

If you really believe that this scripture applies to capital punishment, why wouldn’t it also apply to prison sentences?  For that matter, why arrest criminals at all?  Isn’t this “resisting evil?“  

[Sleeper Cell]

Our modern civilization has sufficient resources that we can lock away convicted murderers for life.  This has the benefit in that if DNA evidence appears, years later, exhonorating the inmate and fingering another suspect, we don't have to shrug and say, "Oh well, too late!"

 

Sort of like we do every time we hear about someone being murdered in prison?  Absent the death penalty, if a convicted murderer serving life without parole commits another murder, what punishment would you suggest? 

 

Yes there is a  risk that an innocent person might be executed.  But there is also a risk that innocent people will be killed as a result of imprisonment.  Has any anti-capital punishment organization ever complied a list of innocent people murdered in prison?  Yet, in all probability, far more innocent people have been killed while serving prison sentences, than executed.  Especially if we define “innocent” in the same way for both groups (innocent of capital murder, not necessarily innocent of other serious crimes).  

 

Life without parole (usually proposed as the alternative). creates a class of prisoners who have nothing to lose by committing additional murders. It also creates an incentive for those who commit the most horrific non capital crimes (those who would never be paroled, even if theoretically possible) to eliminate eyewitnesses (murder their victims).  After all, absent capital punishment, what is the downside?   

 

Even if one believes that there is no statistical evidence that capital punishment deters murder, does anyone seriously believe that fear of capital punishment has never deterred a single murder?  At the very least, those who compile lists of executed innocent people should make the same effort to identify people whose lives were saved by the death penalty.  

 

If you are going to oppose the death penalty on the grounds that it has resulted in innocent people being killed, shouldn’t you apply the same standard to the proposed alternatives?  

[The Nehor]

Yes there is a  risk that an innocent person might be executed.  But there is also a risk that innocent people will be killed as a result of imprisonment.  Has any anti-capital punishment organization ever complied a list of innocent people murdered in prison?  Yet, in all probability, far more innocent people have been killed while serving prison sentences, than executed.  Especially if we define “innocent” in the same way for both groups (innocent of capital murder, not necessarily innocent of other serious crimes).  

 

Life without parole (usually proposed as the alternative). creates a class of prisoners who have nothing to lose by committing additional murders. It also creates an incentive for those who commit the most horrific non capital crimes (those who would never be paroled, even if theoretically possible) to eliminate eyewitnesses (murder their victims).  After all, absent capital punishment, what is the downside?   

 

It is doubtful this is even an issue. Those in prison for life or on death row do not generally interact with other prisoners much.

 

Even if one believes that there is no statistical evidence that capital punishment deters murder, does anyone seriously believe that fear of capital punishment has never deterred a single murder?  At the very least, those who compile lists of executed innocent people should make the same effort to identify people whose lives were saved by the death penalty.  

 

Do you honestly believe that someone weighs the pros and cons of murdering someone before committing a murder? During a crime of passion this isn't considered. Even in cases of premeditated crime studies show there is one primary determinant for whether someone commits a crime: whether they believe they will get caught. They usually believe they won't. Harsher sentences don't seem to factor into people's choices. There might be a few out there who were deterred from killing someone out of fear of the death penalty but the statistics show it is a very small or non-existent group. Murders per capita do not go down in states where the death penalty is legal.

 

To put it in terms of ourselves think about speeding. Do we slow down more when we are in an area with harsher speeding fines or in areas we believe have a lot of traffic cops on patrol or where there are usually speed traps? For almost everyone it is the latter.

[bcuzbcuz]

It is doubtful this is even an issue. Those in prison for life or on death row do not generally interact with other prisoners much.

 

 

Do you honestly believe that someone weighs the pros and cons of murdering someone before committing a murder? During a crime of passion this isn't considered. Even in cases of premeditated crime studies show there is one primary determinant for whether someone commits a crime: whether they believe they will get caught. They usually believe they won't. Harsher sentences don't seem to factor into people's choices. There might be a few out there who were deterred from killing someone out of fear of the death penalty but the statistics show it is a very small or non-existent group. Murders per capita do not go down in states where the death penalty is legal.

 

To put it in terms of ourselves think about speeding. Do we slow down more when we are in an area with harsher speeding fines or in areas we believe have a lot of traffic cops on patrol or where there are usually speed traps? For almost everyone it is the latter.

I think your idea of comparing capital punishment to speeding has definite merit. We all slow down when flashing red lights (blue in Europe) come into view on our rear view mirror. The fear of getting caught awakens only when there is an immediate threat. I have a relative that speeds, always, but goes into a rage every time he gets a speeding ticket....as though it was the fault of the police for catching him. He definitely thinks and says "Why did they stop me? Every body else was speeding just as much as I was."

I have an acquaintance who served a life sentence, 25 years, for executing a drug dealer. Getting caught wasn't part of his plan.

[LinuxGal]

If you really believe that this scripture applies to capital punishment, why wouldn’t it also apply to prison sentences?  For that matter, why arrest criminals at all?  Isn’t this “resisting evil?“  

 

I offered the scripture from the BoM to answer Vance, who stated that the act of murder was consent to be executed, and he in turn based that on this  scripture:

 

Matt 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

I don't find where Christ specifically rolled back the death penalty, but he did definitely roll back the eye-for-eye, life-for-life ethic that underpins it, and in one case he intervened to prevent the death penalty from being carried out against an adultress.  

[ERayR]

It is doubtful this is even an issue. Those in prison for life or on death row do not generally interact with other prisoners much.

 

 

Do you honestly believe that someone weighs the pros and cons of murdering someone before committing a murder? During a crime of passion this isn't considered. Even in cases of premeditated crime studies show there is one primary determinant for whether someone commits a crime: whether they believe they will get caught. They usually believe they won't. Harsher sentences don't seem to factor into people's choices. There might be a few out there who were deterred from killing someone out of fear of the death penalty but the statistics show it is a very small or non-existent group. Murders per capita do not go down in states where the death penalty is legal.

 

To put it in terms of ourselves think about speeding. Do we slow down more when we are in an area with harsher speeding fines or in areas we believe have a lot of traffic cops on patrol or where there are usually speed traps? For almost everyone it is the latter.

 

Question:  If capital punishment is not a deterrent why do those who murder go to great effort to conceal their crime?

[tonie]

Question: If capital punishment is not a deterrent why do those who murder go to great effort to conceal their crime?

Question: If capital punishment IS A DETERRENT to commission of murder, why did the person trying to cover up the murder, commit the murder?

Edited November 25, 2014 by tonie