Thinking Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 59 minutes ago, rodheadlee said: Yeah, a guy carjacks two women and their car. When he is all done using it, he locks them in the trunk, lights the car on fire and walks away. Life in Prison
Bobbieaware Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 16 hours ago, rongo said: I was just asked by our high school's JSA club to debate a really sharp faculty member next Wednesday night in the lecture hall, with $3-$5 tickets sold. Knowing the colleague, I'm probably going to have my head handed to me (he's really sharp). I am supposed to take the negative side of the question "Should the death penalty be abolished?" (In other words, I'm supposed to argue in favor of it). I actually don't have strong feelings on this subject. I think my views on this subject have become a little more liberal over the years, but I'm not rabidly anti-death penalty. Off the top of my head, the arguments in favor of it are: 1) Deterrent effect (questionable, in my opinion) 2) Satisfaction and retribution for victim families (what I suspect is the main reason for it, whether people want to admit it or not) Arguments opposed would be: 1) Morally wrong 2) Ineffective I'm sure some here have given this a lot more thought (or feel much more strongly about it). What are the strongest points on both sides of the question? Good studies or resources? Since they're charging admission, I think they want this to be something better than amateur night at the high school. I'm flattered and honored that they asked me to go up against this colleague. Any expertise or opinions from anyone here are very welcome! No, I'm not going to get into blood atonement, but what is everyone's sense of where most LDS come down on this? I would think that a majority of U.S. LDS support it, but not fervently. I would think that LDS outside of the U.S. oppose it, as much of the world thinks it is barbaric. Just curious. Thanks in advance! For what it's worth, the following verses on this subject are from the Topical Guide. Whoso sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed:Gen. 9:6; ( JST, Gen. 9:12–13; ) The murderer shall surely be put to death:Num. 35:16; Murderers who deliberately kill shall die:2 Ne. 9:35; Thou art condemned to die according to the law:Alma 1:13–14; He that murdered was punished unto death:Alma 1:18; The law requires the life of him who has murdered:Alma 34:12; He that kills shall die:D&C 42:19;
The Nehor Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 (edited) 9 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: Ok fine. We can take the knives out. I have other ideas to help with prison problems. For example to lower violence in prison, take about a pint of blood from them every other day. Keep their hematocrit levels to around 25%. They have enough red blood cells to live and do basic stuff but they will be too tired to fight with each other let along stage a riot. At this level of dehumanization you seem to be advocating the death penalty might be more humane. A better and more proven way to reduce violence in prison is to feed them more. Meals barely achieve satiation in most prisons and nothing aggravates the instinct to attack like your body telling you it is barely surviving. Unfortunately that aggravates the 'tough on crime' crowd who somehow ignorantly imagine prisons are like hotels. Edited March 3, 2017 by The Nehor 2
The Nehor Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 21 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: For what it's worth, the following verses on this subject are from the Topical Guide. Whoso sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed:Gen. 9:6; ( JST, Gen. 9:12–13; ) The murderer shall surely be put to death:Num. 35:16; Murderers who deliberately kill shall die:2 Ne. 9:35; Thou art condemned to die according to the law:Alma 1:13–14; He that murdered was punished unto death:Alma 1:18; The law requires the life of him who has murdered:Alma 34:12; He that kills shall die:D&C 42:19; Which is why I do not have a moral problem with the death penalty. I think it is just and that it is even merciful to the accused as it gets them to the next life and the rehabilitation there quicker. I do have serious moral qualms with how it is implemented in the United States to the point where I think it should be ended until we can use this power responsibly.
Thinking Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 29 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: For what it's worth, the following verses on this subject are from the Topical Guide. Whoso sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed:Gen. 9:6; ( JST, Gen. 9:12–13; ) The murderer shall surely be put to death:Num. 35:16; Murderers who deliberately kill shall die:2 Ne. 9:35; Thou art condemned to die according to the law:Alma 1:13–14; He that murdered was punished unto death:Alma 1:18; The law requires the life of him who has murdered:Alma 34:12; He that kills shall die:D&C 42:19; I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men. D&C 64:10
RevTestament Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 1 hour ago, rongo said: So, I've never done a formal debate before. Here are more details about the format: --- Topic: "Resolved: The death penalty shall be abolished." Pro- -------- Con- rongo We are the main event, preceded by several "undercard" student debates. They have requested that we submit entrance music (I called dibs on "Gonna Fly Now" from Rocky, the theme song) to make it fun. The debate itself will be serious and formal. Pro opening statement: 6 minutes Con cross-examination: 3 minutes Con opening statement: 6 minutes Pro cross-examination: 3 minutes Pro rebuttal: 2 minutes Con rebuttal and closing argument: 6 minutes Pro closing argument: 4 minutes Structurally (setting aside the evidence and arguments, which are the most important factors), is there an advantage to either side? Pro opens and closes, but Con may have an opening in the 6 minute block at the end to seal the deal before the Pro closing (if he can pull it off). My dad and his brother did debate in high school, and really enjoyed it. Sounds like it will be fun! Always best to get the last argument - can respond to points in the cons closing. That is why criminal defense gets the last argument.
The Nehor Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 2 minutes ago, Thinking said: I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men. D&C 64:10 You can forgive someone and still execute them. In fact that is what we are currently required to do.
RevTestament Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 2 minutes ago, Thinking said: I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men. D&C 64:10 As I have pointed out, then it would be morally wrong for society to put anyone in jail. Societal punishment is in the interest of society - not the individuals. Individuals are better off if they forgive and move on with their lives. However, to let people run around and commit any crime they want without consequences would be complete anarchy - that is not a good formula. You will notice that the Nephites continued to defend themselves after our Lord came. I guess you can argue that wasn't the best thing to do, but really the only other option sometimes is to die. While I might lay my own life down, it is not right for me to ask that of my family. If they want me to defend them, I will. Indeed this is the job we give governments.
JLHPROF Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 8 minutes ago, Thinking said: I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men. D&C 64:10 D&C 42: 18 And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come.
Bobbieaware Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 56 minutes ago, Thinking said: I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men. D&C 64:10 Do you see these two commandments as being mutually exclusive?
thesometimesaint Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 19 hours ago, rongo said: I was just asked by our high school's JSA club to debate a really sharp faculty member next Wednesday night in the lecture hall, with $3-$5 tickets sold. Knowing the colleague, I'm probably going to have my head handed to me (he's really sharp). I am supposed to take the negative side of the question "Should the death penalty be abolished?" (In other words, I'm supposed to argue in favor of it). I actually don't have strong feelings on this subject. I think my views on this subject have become a little more liberal over the years, but I'm not rabidly anti-death penalty. Off the top of my head, the arguments in favor of it are: 1) Deterrent effect (questionable, in my opinion) 2) Satisfaction and retribution for victim families (what I suspect is the main reason for it, whether people want to admit it or not) Arguments opposed would be: 1) Morally wrong 2) Ineffective I'm sure some here have given this a lot more thought (or feel much more strongly about it). What are the strongest points on both sides of the question? Good studies or resources? Since they're charging admission, I think they want this to be something better than amateur night at the high school. I'm flattered and honored that they asked me to go up against this colleague. Any expertise or opinions from anyone here are very welcome! No, I'm not going to get into blood atonement, but what is everyone's sense of where most LDS come down on this? I would think that a majority of U.S. LDS support it, but not fervently. I would think that LDS outside of the U.S. oppose it, as much of the world thinks it is barbaric. Just curious. Thanks in advance! I could argue either way too. Plus it is terribly expensive in terms of money. In the long run it is much cheaper to just keep them behind bars for the rest of their lives than to execute them.
Thinking Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: Do you see these two commandments as being mutually exclusive? I only see one commandment - we are required to forgive all men. The statement about the Lord forgiving who he will forgive is not a commandment.
Calm Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 4 hours ago, CA Steve said: Given your topic I would suggest you not allow a format where you are labeled on the "con" side, if you know what I mean. Btw it would be really funny if you could have on a stripped prison type T-shirt with a convict number on it underneath another shirt. When you started the debate you could ask for a minute, stand up and take off the other shirt revealing the prison garb. I am guessing it gets you a big laugh, given your audience. But might taint the response even though they realize it is a joke.
CA Steve Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 5 minutes ago, Calm said: But might taint the response even though they realize it is a joke. Given the audience, a bit of levity is probably a good idea. I think encouraging the students to participate in this sort of thing in the future by making the presentation interesting, is more important than scoring a win for a side Rongo didn't even choose. Of course he knows better how serious the event is and can elect to do as he thinks best suits the occasion.
VAUFLDS Posted March 4, 2017 Posted March 4, 2017 I have not read every response but I'll offer my thoughts. I'd gone back and forth on the issue until some years ago, I watched the movie Twelve Angry Men. To this day, it remains my favorite movie. I'm speaking of the 1957 original and not the remake. Great actors and great acting. That movie showed the prejudices and priorities many of us have. It also demonstrated that eye witnesses can be wrong. Yes, it was only a movie but to dismiss it as not representative of anything that ever takes place in a deliberation room would be a stretch, to put it mildly. To simply say that a jury is supposed to be certain beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean that will happen. DNA evidence has been used to overturn many cases. Thankfully, many who were wrongly imprisoned were saved in time. I'm no longer in favor of the death penalty unless there are multiple eye witnesses, irrefutable DNA evidence, or the person admits guilt or requests death. I'm interested to know who else has watched the movie.
RevTestament Posted March 4, 2017 Posted March 4, 2017 47 minutes ago, VAUFLDS said: I have not read every response but I'll offer my thoughts. I'd gone back and forth on the issue until some years ago, I watched the movie Twelve Angry Men. To this day, it remains my favorite movie. I'm speaking of the 1957 original and not the remake. Great actors and great acting. That movie showed the prejudices and priorities many of us have. It also demonstrated that eye witnesses can be wrong. Yes, it was only a movie but to dismiss it as not representative of anything that ever takes place in a deliberation room would be a stretch, to put it mildly. To simply say that a jury is supposed to be certain beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean that will happen. DNA evidence has been used to overturn many cases. Thankfully, many who were wrongly imprisoned were saved in time. I'm no longer in favor of the death penalty unless there are multiple eye witnesses, irrefutable DNA evidence, or the person admits guilt or requests death. I'm interested to know who else has watched the movie. Don't need to watch that movie to know that innocent people sometimes get railroaded, framed, or are victims of prejudice or poor evidence. I agree with you about the evidence. The criteria would be up to the states which decide to impose the death penalty. I said as much in my post: On 3/2/2017 at 5:39 PM, RevTestament said: 1) Deterrent effect has probably lost virtually all power in the United States. Now in countries like Saudi Arabia, where they hang headless bodies up in public, there is probably a deterrent effect. To have much of a deterrent effect the perpetrators would have to feel an immediacy to their actions, and in the states I think most criminals are just worried about not getting caught. Then they hear in the news that most people on death row sit there for years while filing appeals. The process has become so legally encumbered that the death penalty has little feeling of immediacy for perpetrators. To keep it, I think this needs to change - for instance in cases proved by strong scientific data or video surveillance, etc, the appeals might get limited somehow. The problem of cruel and unusual punishment might get solved by offering perpetrators a variety of execution choices. 3) I do believe individual states should have the right to impose this penalty if they wish. Circumstances may arise which makes the death penalty the most judicious solution... If it is morally wrong then is it morally wrong to forcibly take away people's freedoms, or punish them at all? If society is morally justified in locking up people and punishing them, then there is some moral justification for the death penalty for heinous crimes such as murder...Therefore perhaps it would be more effective if the penalty were limited to the most heinous pre-meditated crimes with the best evidence which would tend to limit appeals. Most appeals are based on lack of evidence, and new evidence such as DNA. Limiting the penalty to cases with the best evidence would eliminate the legal wrangling.
bsjkki Posted March 4, 2017 Posted March 4, 2017 I've changed my mind on the death penalty and no longer support it in most cases. If I were to argue for the pro death penalty position, I would not fail to appeal to emotion. The biggest argument for the death penalty is the heinous nature of the crime. Focus some time on the victims of these murderers and, it is hard not to be angry and feel the sentence is just. In Arkansas, eight men are set to die in a ten day time period. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4277096/Arkansas-Supreme-Court-No-stay-place-blocking-executions.html Don Davis, 54, was sentenced to death for shooting Jane Daniel dead while burglarizing her home in Rogers. Davis broke into the house and used a stolen .44 caliber Magnum revolver to shoot her once in the head in a basement storeroom in the house. Mrs Daniel's husband Richard found her body when he returned from a business trip. Due to be executed on April 17. Bruce Ward, 70, a motorbike-riding perfume salesman, who was convicted of strangling to death 18-year-old Rebecca Doss at a convenience store in Little Rock in 1989. Due to be executed on April 17. Ledelle Lee, 51, was sentenced to death in 1995 for beating and strangling to death of Debra Reese, 26, in Sunnyside. He was also convicted of raping two Jacksonville women and was tried an acquitted of the murder of Christine Lewis, daughter of Alderman Robert Lewis. Due to be executed on April 20. Stacey Johnson, 48, was sentenced to death for stabbing to death Sergeant Scott Grimes, 41, at the Department of Corrections' Tucker Unit in November 1995, where he was serving a life sentence for killing businessman Charles R. Colclasure, 47. Due to be executed on April 20. Jack Jones, 52, was convicted of raping and murdering a bookkeeper, Mary Phillips, 34, and beating her 11-year-old daughter in June 1995. Mrs Phillips and her daughter, Lacy, were at an accounting office in Bald Knob when Jones tried to rob it. Lacy lost consciousness and was left for dead. When she awoke, police were taking photographs of her. Mary Phillips was found nude from the waist down with a cord from a nearby coffee pot wrapped around her neck. Due to be executed on April 24. Marcel Williams, 46, held up Stacy Errickson, 22, at a gas station in November 1994. She was then forced to drive to several automated teller machines and forced to withdraw a total of $350. The mother-of-two was raped and then shot. Due to be executed on April 24. Kenneth Williams, 35, was jailed for life without parole for murdering University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff cheerleader Dominique Hurd. In October 1999 he broke out of the Cummins Unit at Varner and killed 57-year-old Cecil Boren before being recaptured. Williams later sent a 512-page letter to a local newspaper, claiming he shot and killed Jerrell Jenkins, 36, of Pine Bluff in 1998. Due to be executed on April 27. Jason McGehee, 40, was convicted of the 1996 kidnapping and murdering John Melbourne Jr, 15. McGehee, then 21, was the leader of a group of six friends who lived in Harrison and survived by cashing stolen and forged checks. Melbourne was a member of gang but was killed when they suspected he had snitched on them. McGehee and two others took turns strangling him until he died. Due to be executed on April 27. This crime happened very close to where I lived. The suspects were apprehended in my ward boundaries at an apartment complex I would often visit. The absolute gruesome and callous nature of these crimes, makes it hard for me to this day not to feel these two deserve to die. I remember the absolute fear in our community because of these acts. The details of this crime are too graphic to share with a high school audience. http://www.murderpedia.org/male.C/c/carr-brothers.htm
rpn Posted March 4, 2017 Posted March 4, 2017 (edited) The death penalty means that at some point the family of the victims will be free of followup news articles. It gives a life for a life in circumstances where anything less doesn't feel like justice at all. It protects others from exposure to pure evil --- which inherently continues while the murderer remains alive. It stops the children and family from being exposed publicly to the ugliness that comes from being related to the perp, or to either guilt for not going or actual visits to him/her It means that victims that remain alive need no longer fear they'll get out and do something again.. The argument that it deters is ludicrous. We have way too many murders to believe that the chance of getting the death penalty prevents any of them. One argument against is that it gives them one last chance at notoriety and news coverage of their bad acts, one more time to risk some idiot to idolize and want to be like them. Edited March 4, 2017 by rpn
carbon dioxide Posted March 4, 2017 Posted March 4, 2017 (edited) 23 hours ago, Thinking said: I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men. D&C 64:10 True but that forgiving does not mean take away the prescribed punishment. Otherwise one should be against even prison sentences since forgiving would include not putting someone who steals to prison for even a week. Edited March 4, 2017 by carbon dioxide
Ahab Posted March 4, 2017 Posted March 4, 2017 On 3/3/2017 at 8:07 AM, Thinking said: I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men. D&C 64:10 Forgiving is about wanting to do only what is good for someone, with no desire to do something that would not be good for them. It doesn't mean that when we forgive someone they haven't done what they have done or that there shouldn't be any punishment if what they did had a punishment affixed to their actions. Killing someone who murdered someone, or who was trying to murder someone, is a good way of teaching them the consequences for their harmful actions so that hopefully they will not try to do it again.
Thinking Posted March 4, 2017 Posted March 4, 2017 1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said: True but that forgiving does not mean take away the prescribed punishment. Otherwise one should be against even prison sentences since forgiving would include not putting someone who steals to prison for even a week. I am not advocating taking away punishment. In an earlier post I opined that life in prison would be sufficient.
carbon dioxide Posted March 5, 2017 Posted March 5, 2017 8 hours ago, Thinking said: I am not advocating taking away punishment. In an earlier post I opined that life in prison would be sufficient. I think the victim or the family of the victim should have a heavy say in what the punishment would be. If in the case of murder, if the victim family is against the death penalty, then the death penalty should be off the table. If they want the death penalty, it should be an option. I am for the death penalty. If someone was to torture and murder one of my kids, anything less than the death penalty is unacceptable. In fact I would not even bother attending the trial if it was off the table. I would consider not allowing for the death penalty to be its own insult and crime against my dead kid.
MiserereNobis Posted March 5, 2017 Posted March 5, 2017 On 3/3/2017 at 8:57 AM, The Nehor said: At this level of dehumanization you seem to be advocating the death penalty might be more humane. A better and more proven way to reduce violence in prison is to feed them more. Meals barely achieve satiation in most prisons and nothing aggravates the instinct to attack like your body telling you it is barely surviving. Unfortunately that aggravates the 'tough on crime' crowd who somehow ignorantly imagine prisons are like hotels. Reminds me of some lyrics from that guy who used to be rasta but now in the afterlife is LDS (thanks for letting us know, MormonLeaks! ): "Them belly full, but we hungry, a hungry mob is an angry mob." 1
MiserereNobis Posted March 5, 2017 Posted March 5, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said: I think the victim or the family of the victim should have a heavy say in what the punishment would be. I disagree strongly with this. The victim or family of the victim are incredibly biased. Punishment should be based on justice, not bias. The ideal is objective, impartial justice. The reasons why people who have any connection to the alleged crime aren't allowed to be on the jury are the same reasons why people who have any connections to the crime shouldn't be involved in punishment, either. Edited March 5, 2017 by MiserereNobis 1
Five Solas Posted March 5, 2017 Posted March 5, 2017 3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: I disagree strongly with this. The victim or family of the victim are incredibly biased. Punishment should be based on justice, not bias. The ideal is objective, impartial justice. The reasons why people who have any connection to the alleged crime aren't allowed to be on the jury are the same reasons why people who have any connections to the crime shouldn't be involved in punishment, either. Lemme guess, you didn't vote for President Trump... ;0) --Erik PS. If so, please know that Utah isn't on your side (and most of the LDS posters on this forum live therein). PPS. Something tells me this may be my last post on this thread (and it won't be my choice). But this observation is worth making! :0)
Recommended Posts