Being pro-life does NOT mean opposing death penalty and war!
Posted by Cynical on Fri, 07/04/2008 - 5:37pm in 1. MOST IMPORTANT ONE Our founding fathers killed people above them to achieve freedom, so anybody who thinks killing is always wrong ought to be killed, because they don't know what they are talking about.
2. Capital punishment is PUNISHMENT. There's no hypocrisy in teaching what's wrong about killing INNOCENT victims by killing GUILTY criminals. To say murderers have the right to live is some implication of approving or tolerating murder. People who are retarded enough to say death penalty violates "thou shalt not kill" or cannot tell the difference between innocent victim and a guilty murderer ought to spend more time bitching about imprisonment and lying (which would be equally sinful and criminal if there's no difference between an innocent victim and a murderer).
Nobody says they are "pro-freedom of mobility" when they are "pro-imprisonment", so why would being pro-life have any conflict with being pro-death penalty?
3. Nobody considers innocents when at war, therefore the fact a person has decide war is the answer, nothing can stop his decision. He's already forgotten he's killing people for whatever stupid excuse you can think of. There is no point in telling a person that you can't be pro-life and pro-war. Because nobody is pro-life unconditionally, they're mostly only pro-life when it's not them pregnant and they'd like to see more beautiful white babies born.
4. Oh, so what's my view? I'm pro-death. I'm for abortion, death penalty, suicide and euthanasia. In fact, I have no problem with wars that serve no purpose but genocide, I'm only against the hypocrisy of our government lying about why they murder. If Bush were to actually say "I want to kill Iranians and Iraqis simply because I hate Arabs, I hate Aryans and it'll be good for Jews" I'd support him. Not because I support murder, but I respect honesty.
I am not against this war because it kills innocent people, I'm against this war because people are unwilling to admit the cruelty of killing innocent people. I'm against this war because are government lied to us about why we're in it. Furthermore, I am not against killing people when it means holding criminals accountable for their harms done, this means lynching officials in our federal government, executive and legislative. It's BECAUSE we have such respect for life that we are in this mess today, some people are only alive because it's illegal to kill them. Had these people have to answer to a noose, we'd be better off.
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 162 reads
****
Fact of the matter is, nearly 200 people have gotten off death row after DNA evidence confirmed their innocence. Think of the number of cases where DNA evidence was not available.
There is always some degree of doubt in any case. Life in prison allows new technologies to reflect on older cases. Simply killing someone is in no way ever just. There is no 100% certainty. Combine this with the fact that generally it is cheaper to hold someone in prison for life, and I see no reason for the United States to ever execute a single individual.
so by this logic, if we didn't have DNA evidence, we shouldn't imprison people who we're not 100% sure are guilty, and those falsely accused should be repaid for their time and suffering, right?
cheaper to hold a person for life? please explain this one to me, I couldn't be more surprised. You're saying that paying for electricity, food, water to hold a person for 20 years is cheaper than having a person dead?????
So by your logic we should execute people for traffic violations?
Reducto ad absurdum. Read it.
And yes, counting all the fees paid to lawyers and court staff in the numerous appeals and reviews to have some executed, it actually cost the state more to execute than to hold someone in prison for life. This has been studied extensively, but is stated only to head off arguments that claim efficiency in execution.
Doesn't it cost even less to not punish at all?
Do you really weigh justice by costs?
"The government should be afraid of its people, not the other way around".
Why don't we just execute for all crimes?
We don't execute all crimes because not all crimes deserve death, some are more serious than others. But many crimes do deserve death (do you agree or disagree?), for those that do, it should be an available option. It is absurd to measure justice by costs, this would be putting a price on a victim's life.
"The government should be afraid of its people, not the other way around".
The argument that it costs more to execute a person because it costs so much to appeal is ridiculous.
Yes, it may cost more to appeal, but this assumes that a person who is sent to life in prison will not appeal (ridiculous).
If costs to appeal are the only "costs" of concern for death penalty, the solution is simple, DON'T ALLOW APPEAL.
The costs of the penalty itself, simply comparing holding a person in prison than executing a person dead is a no brainer. But to compare costs of appeal is OUTSIDE the argument of the justice and costs of the penalty itself.
This argument at least is admitting that execution is far more serious than life in prison, which makes an argument FOR executing a person to show the seriousness of the crime. And taking this logic that you should be close to 100% sure of a crime, should apply to all cases and all crimes, it's equally wrong to falsely imprison a person as it is to falsely execute a person (that does not mean, however, that they are equally harsh punishments).
"The government should be afraid of its people, not the other way around".
What are losses in taxes that a productive, innocent, person being executed would cause?
You conveniently ignore the fact that innocent, hard working people, such as yourself HAVE been executed for no crime other than having the wrong skin color, or being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The cost associated with a loss in trust of a government due to false convictions is hardly calculated in your analysis. Does a population that knows justice is a game strive to follow its laws more closely? This is what we are seeing in many inner cities. I would argue inconsistent drug laws are a larger problem, but both are a piece of the puzzle that is the failure of the inner city and liberty as a whole.
Wouldn't any person executed and imprisoned already naturally cost us in taxes?
I definitely acknowledge that many wrongful convictions have been made, and nothing can bring that back. But that's a problem with our system of HOW a person is convicted, not WHETHER a guilty person should be punished. I do want every execution to be 100% sure, just as I would want every imprisonment and fine to be sure.
Lost of trust in the government is not a "cost" of the state, or a case, this is really going down a slippery slope to irrelevant issues. I never disagreed inconsistent drug laws are a problem.
I believe death penalty is morally just and legally consistent, that's not to say I don't care about innocent people, or why would I care for punishing people if I don't care about innocent victims?
"The government should be afraid of its people, not the other way around".
Yes, if we could be absolutely 100% sure, then the death penalty would be an option. But even executing one person in 1000 wrongly is unacceptable. No system will ever be perfect. Being convicted beyond a resonable doubt by a jury of your peers is nowhere near rigorous enough to take someone's life, and it will never be.
That's just one reason I'm not in favor of the death penalty. With 2.5 million people in jail, not only is our system not 100% perfect, but I'll go so far as to say that we've convicted millios of innocent people of crimes that they did not commit (not just of the present jail population, but including people that have been jailed before). We have an addiction to coercion in this country, which manifests itself in our growing federal government. Everything we don't like is an excuse for us to resort to the coercion of government, which should be the last resort, not the first.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
Our system IS far from perfect, and wrongful convictions that lead to fines, imprisonment are just as unacceptable as wrongful executions. But that's not to say we should put punishment aside, I'm asking whether you find it morally just or not. Are there ever extreme cases that justify death penalty, I'm amazed this is still worth debating.
I can understand you let a person live for one murder or one child molestation, but how about serial killing of 20 or 200 people, bragged about it and all the evidence you need to even convict him for half of the crimes (many of which are caught in the act)? Will you execute this person or waste money letting this animal live? This is not a trick question. I am not disagreeing with you our system needs to be more careful and government coercion should be last resort, I AM ASKING YOU IS DEATH PENALTY EVER ACCEPTABLE IF THE CRIME IS EXTREME AND THE PERSON IS SURELY GUILTY.
And if you don't like state sponsored execution, let me know and I'll be happy to volunteer my lynching services. The idea that death penalty is ok so long as the state isn't doing it is laughable.
"The government should be afraid of its people, not the other way around".