Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Im not morally opposed to taking a guilty persons life. I am opposed to taking an innocent persons life. As such, I would be more supportive of the death penalty only if DNA evidence can be obtained. Its the only thing thats fool proof.
Well, certainly. Nobody wants an innocent person executed. That should go without saying.
Well, certainly. Nobody wants an innocent person executed. That should go without saying.
But it has happened and probably will happen again. To that end, as much as Im ok with executing people for the worst of crimes, the idea of executing someone innocent bothers me to the point where I am against the death penalty.
Death penalty is only a punishment if you believe in hell. Otherwise death isn't a punishment. There's no suffering involved once the condemned has died. So what's the point?
Meanwhile you end the lives of innocent people, as a matter of fact.
=L210;35778415]Who said anything about hating gays? Polls are now showing that the majority of Americans support same-sex marriage. By the way, polygamy has been around for thousands of years in polyandry and polygyny forms. Slavery has been around for thousands of years and is still in existence. Why don't we just hold true to whatever has always been for thousands of years?
No, You didn't say anything about "hating gays"...but that is the implication or outright assertion of many. Very much akin to that those of us who oppose affirmative action or object to unguarded borders are, respectively, "racist" or "xenophobic"...and etc.
Yes, polygamy has been around for quite a while. And again, if that is what some want in some states? Then fine. But you prove a certain point of mine as well. I really have no problem with civil unions and what two or three consenting adults do behind closed doors is up to them. I couldn't care less. My point is, that once the dam is broken, then there is no end to what the definition of marriage could embrace. And it will be extended to the absolute sick (such as no age of consent restrictions).
Slavery? Oh pleeese, spare that silly analogy. Strangely enough though? The places where slavery still exists are much in the sub-Saharan African countries, not in the Western world we live in. The very ones who sold their fellow Africans into slavery to begin with. This is a total non-sequitur. But since you bring it up? Those countries also have strong restrictions on marriage definitions.
But anyway, the main point is that institutions (such as male/female marriage as the standard) which have been the universal standard since the dawn of time, have a certain built in wisdom about them. And the next move (already underway as it is), would be allowing homosexual couples to adopt innocent kids. That is obscene. No way around the fact that reproduction requires a male and female. And to think two men can raise a girl from birth, or vice-versa, as well as the natural balance that comes with a male/female relationship, is just to violate a simple and wise adage: Never did nature say one thing and wisdom another.
Quote:
Of course voters in Texas would not support same-sex marriage; that is why I would leave. This doesn't affect me personally since I'm not gay, but it does affect the friends I care about.
You honestly think you are the only person who has gay friends, and care about them as friends? Don't get holier than thou. Really, one of the main things (among others), is the position of some of the homosexual lobby for whom it is no longer just to tolerate and accept it (which almost all of us do, anyway, as in the sense of the correct definition as acceptance within specified limits)...but now demand that we straights must openly embrace it and celebrate it with them, as if it is some sort of badge of courage or some such. Sorry, it isn't.
On a related tangent, sometimes (many times, as it is), the militant gay lobby are their own worst enemies. That is, on "Gay Pride" parades and "Gay Days", they make a point to outrage public sensibilities for shock value. The liberal mainstream media tried to keep this carefully censored, until they no longer could, given the increasing amount of cell video capability. What they show is a larger than average bunch of sick perverts openly having sex and dressing in the most outlandish manner.
Quote:
This line of reasoning sounds illogical to me. I used to support the death penalty until I became more educated about it. I'm working on a PhD in criminal justice, so it's not like I came to this decision all willy nilly. I also wasn't brainwashed by liberal professors like some would assume. I changed my stance based on independent research. You're just making a lot of assumptions for why people oppose the death penalty. Many people are opposed to the death penalty simply because it is irreversible. Some people don't even think the death penalty is a real punishment.
So what? It sounds illogical to you. And I am not questioning that you may not have come by your opinions honestly. That is fine and respected BUT...my original minor was criminal justice too, so I am not really awed by yours. Yes, many people are opposed to the death penalty. On the other hand, a majority are for it. So what is your point.
And I said earlier, I can actually agree -- if there was a guarantee it would work -- that life without parole at hard labor, might actually be a more just punishment. But -- to use the phrase again -- all too many death penalty opponents just use it as a stalking horse. So answer directly...would you personally support life without parole and hard labor and no royalties off their sick books? Pray tell...
Quote:
All I'm reading in your links are ultra right wingers bashing those who are anti-death penalty. There is no actual refutation of my reasoning for my stance in those articles. The Dennis Prager article is just dumb. Is he really comparing car accidents where people choose to drive to the state purposely putting people to death. I can't even wrap my mind around how stupid that is. He provides no proof that life in prison without parole kills more people than not sentencing death penalty eligible murderers to death. He provides NO statistics as you suggest. Prisoners do kill each other, but most convicted murderers are not eligible for the death penalty even though it is legal in most states. That's a huge flaw in his argument.
Yes, you are reading right wing editorials. On the other hand, you have furnished nothing more than left-wing biased articles. Why can't you accept that you are really not proceeding from a morally superior position?. Ted Bundy? His death sentence was commuted to life. He escaped and brutally murdered several college girl. THAT is the reality of what can happen. So, again, just using this one, answer if their innocent lives were less important than your philosophical objection to capital punishment to spare the likes of a monster like Ted Bundy...?
Just curious, what is the response from the pro-death penalty crowd when an innocent person is executed?
The cases where a person condemned to die is proven innocent?
Name the innocent person and only then there is a legitimate question involved. But as it is, the better question is what is the response of the anti-capital punishment crowd when a person like Ted Bundy (only one of many) is given a pardon, and escapes to kill innocent people in the most brutal way...and for no reason other than the sheer sadistic pleasure it gives him. That question is of much more relevance as to reality...
No, You didn't say anything about "hating gays"...but that is the implication or outright assertion of many. Very much akin to that those of us who oppose affirmative action or object to unguarded borders are, respectively, "racist" or "xenophobic"...and etc.
I guess I can't express disagreement with same-sex marriage opponents without being accused of calling people haters. Whatever.
Quote:
Yes, polygamy has been around for quite a while. And again, if that is what some want in some states? Then fine. But you prove a certain point of mine as well. I really have no problem with civil unions and what two or three consenting adults do behind closed doors is up to them. I couldn't care less. My point is, that once the dam is broken, then there is no end to what the definition of marriage could embrace. And it will be extended to the absolute sick (such as no age of consent restrictions).
The slipper slope fallacy?
Quote:
Slavery? Oh pleeese, spare that silly analogy. Strangely enough though? The places where slavery still exists are much in the sub-Saharan African countries, not in the Western world we live in. The very ones who sold their fellow Africans into slavery to begin with. This is a total non-sequitur. But since you bring it up? Those countries also have strong restrictions on marriage definitions.
This whole paragraph is just bizarre. What do you feel so guilty about that would make you so defensive? I'm talking about slavery being in place for thousands of years, and you feel the need to defend colonies and countries that are/were in existence for only a few hundred years. I don't see how going on a rant about Africa furthers your argument. It's not like I said I was moving to Africa because it's a bastion of social freedoms.
Quote:
But anyway, the main point is that institutions (such as male/female marriage as the standard) which have been the universal standard since the dawn of time, have a certain built in wisdom about them. And the next move (already underway as it is), would be allowing homosexual couples to adopt innocent kids. That is obscene. No way around the fact that reproduction requires a male and female. And to think two men can raise a girl from birth, or vice-versa, as well as the natural balance that comes with a male/female relationship, is just to violate a simple and wise adage: Never did nature say one thing and wisdom another.
You can't legislate family structure. We have many single-parent households. It's not ideal, and even less ideal than same-sex parents, but it happens anyway. Staying in foster care is also less ideal than having children in homes with same-sex couples. It's not natural for children to be in foster care with strangers. Foster care is so detrimental to a child's well-being that he or she is most often better off in a dysfunctional home with a biological parent.
Quote:
You honestly think you are the only person who has gay friends, and care about them as friends? Don't get holier than thou. Really, one of the main things (among others), is the position of some of the homosexual lobby for whom it is no longer just to tolerate and accept it (which almost all of us do, anyway, as in the sense of the correct definition as acceptance within specified limits)...but now demand that we straights must openly embrace it and celebrate it with them, as if it is some sort of badge of courage or some such. Sorry, it isn't.
On a related tangent, sometimes (many times, as it is), the militant gay lobby are their own worst enemies. That is, on "Gay Pride" parades and "Gay Days", they make a point to outrage public sensibilities for shock value. The liberal mainstream media tried to keep this carefully censored, until they no longer could, given the increasing amount of cell video capability. What they show is a larger than average bunch of sick perverts openly having sex and dressing in the most outlandish manner.
Because straight people never act promiscuous in public. Let's use those women flashing people at Mardi Gras to judge all women.
Quote:
Yes, many people are opposed to the death penalty. On the other hand, a majority are for it. So what is your point.
Yes, a majority of people support the death penalty when only asked about the death penalty. When they are asked to choose between life in prison without the possibility of parole and the death penalty, a slight majority choose the former. New Low in Preference for the Death Penalty - ABC News
Quote:
And I said earlier, I can actually agree -- if there was a guarantee it would work -- that life without parole at hard labor, might actually be a more just punishment. But -- to use the phrase again -- all too many death penalty opponents just use it as a stalking horse. So answer directly...would you personally support life without parole and hard labor and no royalties off their sick books? Pray tell...
I believe that royalties from books should be used for restitution. We already tried having extensive prison industry. The biggest opponents of that are businesses. They do not want to compete with free labor. We also don't have the staff levels in Texas to monitor hard labor activities because we can't even hire enough people now.
Quote:
Yes, you are reading right wing editorials. On the other hand, you have furnished nothing more than left-wing biased articles.
It would be easier to take those editorials more seriously if they provided the depth of information the Death Penalty Information Center provides, but they do not. I believe there are pro-death penalty websites that are comparable to DPIC, so there is no need to resort to political commentators.
Quote:
Why can't you accept that you are really not proceeding from a morally superior position?. Ted Bundy? His death sentence was commuted to life. He escaped and brutally murdered several college girl. THAT is the reality of what can happen. So, again, just using this one, answer if their innocent lives were less important than your philosophical objection to capital punishment to spare the likes of a monster like Ted Bundy...?
This is an interesting poll, and I would like to explain my vote as being that of a native who "could" possibly support such a thing.
A few years ago, I might not have voted this way. But watching and seeing how the federal government is ever more treating the sovereign states as nothing more than provinces to be controlled and used, then I have re-thought my position. To say nothing of an administration totally out of control.
I still cling to some hope that it will change, but I doubt it. History teaches that when power centralizes, it never reverses. I feel a lot like our Texas/Confederate ancestors -- in another era -- must have agonized over making the choice of breaking the Union or submitting to invasion and shame.
Some on here have said (and I totally understand it, even if not agreeing), that their identity as "American" supersedes their identity as a Texan. And that if Texas ever left the Union, they would pack up and move to another states. Fair enough...but I want to present another side....
I too am proud to be an American. The problem is (and ONLY in my opinion), is that the United States I love is not the one it is increasingly becoming. The notion that to dispute what America is today as opposed to what it was intended to be, is a creation of those who -- for their own power and wealth -- try and present it as being unpatriotic. Nothing is more stupid and groundless.
But ok. Take it realistically. Be honest with yourself. To preface, I make no bones at all about the fact I am a Texan/Southerner first. It is and always has been Texans/Southerners who have been the ones who disproportionately have served in our nations armed forces, and those who are the most traditionally patriotic in the old-fashioned sense.
Anyway, the point being, that why in the hell would I leave my state and region -- the place and homeland which I know, love, and feel at home in with both custom, manners, history and culture...to go to a place like Iowa, Massachusetts, California, or New York? Just because they might claim the title "United States" by default (same as they did during the War Between the States). I don't understand this way of thinking, even if it might have some superficial emotional appeal.
Sorry, but the America/United States I know is that best exemplified by Texas and the other Southern states (as well as the rural Midwest).
God Bless the United States, but if it is to endure, it must be what it was intended to be, not an empire. My allegiance is to the Constitution as written and intended by our Founding Fathers...
Who says you have to go to MA, CA, or NY if TX secedes? Louisiana is right there, and the culture of Louisiana is very similar to SE TX, Houston, Galveston anyways.
Ozarksboy? You definitely seem a good and intelligent man, but I must add, I believe you misunderstand some things. And your sarcasm and irony, while amusing, are not exactly applicable.
Let me backtrack a bit. I said I "could" support such a movement. Not that I amat the moment. It will take quite a bit more before I would actively go in that direction...
BUT? You damn right that that option is on my dinner table if things continue to proceed as they are. And I really see no chance to reverse it. The federal government, the one which was intended to be limited in scope and power and taxing powers and etc. ad nauseum is under the control of those who couldn't care less about the Constitution. This nation is bankrupt and sooner or later (getting sooner all the time) the bill will come due. Our currency is a joke as is our foreign policy. Our borders are nothing more than an opening for illegal aliens (yeah, that is what they are) to pour in and become a new voting block for politicians who have long since stopped having to pretend they are nothing more than their stalking horse to keep themselves in power...and spend public dollars to do it.
But ok, anyway, what makes you think Missouri would not join? Not saying it would, but major point being that if a true secession movement ever started, it would not be in the sense of what happened in 1861. It would be the result of the total collapse of the federal government, likely because of financial reasons (which is a mathematical certainty, anyway), or the country turning into a Third World consideration. And if that happened, it would be certain states (see below) who would naturally ally with one another.
Soooo, just to think on, as the vast majority of the real fighting men/women in the armed forces are from Texas/South/rural Midwest, what makes you so sure they would obey an order to fire upon their on kin and friends...which is what it would take to keep the entities you mention? Where would the so-called "Blue States" get their oil and gas and food? Yeah, they look down on "rednecks", but they would beg if they ever actually had to survive on their own. They would starve to death and freeze in the dark.
Actually, the whole thing could be settled if the states (the red ones, anyway), got together and used the power of a Constitutional convention to systematically undo the obscene harm done by the federal government.
Liberal Canada has more oil than the US and pipelines would be built from Ft. McMurray, etc... to northern US cities.
So the idea an innocent person is scary but not so scary that its unacceptable?
Weve executed innocent people. It has happened. Statistically, around 4% of death row inmates have been found innocent. This is a HUGE problem. Until that number is zero, I cannot support the death penalty.
Exactly.
Cathy needs to answer:
Executing innocent people (state murder) is about the same as an individual murdering someone. If you want to "punish" the murderer, then be consistent. What kind of "punishment" does the state get for murdering an innocent life?
Executing innocent people (state murder) is about the same as an individual murdering someone. If you want to "punish" the murderer, then be consistent. What kind of "punishment" does the state get for murdering an innocent life?
And my answer is that I don't have one. I don't know what the answer is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
