What's new
By:

Is the death penalty morally wrong?

Eenie-Meenie said:
Yes, most likely. In fact, I went to a Catholic university and 15 credit hrs of Theology was required, and this was something discussed in one of my courses.
Click to expand...

....so you and your colleagues are more informed and in a better position to determine or figure out the exact age of Mary...RATHER...than the historical record and accuracy of the Bible?
 
carolinajazz said:
....so you and your colleagues are more informed and in a better position to determine or figure out the exact age of Mary...RATHER...than the historical record and accuracy of the Bible?
Click to expand...

Holy crap

^ and I mean that literally
 
If I believed in a God up in Heaven, I imagine he and all his Angel pals up there would be rolling on the floor laughing their asses off as they read through this thread.


(and probably enjoying some of Gameface's homebrew IPA while they're at it)
 
LogGrad98 said:
The idea I have bolded above always interests me. Are you saying that we are executing far too many innocent people of color or lower income? Is it that we let too many people of higher income and that are white get away with crimes that would deserve the death penalty too frequently? Is it a matter of people with means and of the "right" color getting more favorable sentences? Or should we be letting some people of color or with lower incomes skate to even out the percentages? I am always interested in hearing 1) how this comes to be and what is implied/inferred through such statements, and 2) what needs to be done about it, if anything.
Click to expand...

jimmy eat jazz said:
So what's your point, other than to buttress your already sterling reputation as the board's resident racist?

The death penalty is unfarily and inequitable administered among the more marginal members of society who cannot afford access to skilled representation and against whom the legal system is systematically biased. I oppose it regardless who the perpetrator is and who the victim is.

That American society continues to allow this barbaric relic to be perpetrated unfairly and inequitably is a moral stain and (along with things such as state sanctioned torture, another barbaric relic of the past) undermines our moral authority/credibility as a nation.
Click to expand...

I asked you a question about this but you ignored or skipped it. See above.

See what you are saying sounds great from a purely philosophical standpoint. From an in-the-trenches standpoint it is much harder to remedy than just stopping the death penalty. I should like to hear your reasoning behind it, evidence for it (such as what percentage of blacks that receive the death penalty were innocent compared to the percentage of whites, etc.) and how to remedy it. I know there are some statistics on this topic out there. But I have also seen stats that show it is not as black and white (excuse the pun) as it is portrayed.

Edit:

I decided to google a bit and found this really good piece about it:

https://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/de...ite-who-lives-who-dies-who-decides#Conclusion

And I have a solution.

Require than in every state with the death penalty a panel of law experts be established to review only capital cases. They are given the facts of the case, with all names redacted (using only victim, defendent, etc.) and any details that may indicate race or even sex (such as names of schools if applicable, and street addresses, etc.) and the final verdict of the jury as to guilt. This panel would be cross-race and gender and consist of 5 or 7 individuals (more or less as warranted). They would then review the case academically according to the laws of the state and determine if the death penalty would be warranted based on precedent according to the case facts. If it is warranted it would be sent back to the trial judge as an option for sentencing. If it is not warranted, it is eliminated as a possible sentence entirely. This would not be that difficult to establish, would not be overly costly, and would go a long way to being fair to the defendents and victims alike. The panel could be built to represent the statistical makeup of the population of the state in general, but would be required to have at least 40% non-white.

In states with higher numbers of capital cases annually they could establish multiple panels. Could do so in other states as well. It could be a voted position or appointed. If they required a minimum of 5 panels, let's say, and they rotated through, then it would minimize the chances of lobbying of the panel. And if it kept the schedule of the panels secret.

The same panels could be used to periodically review case work of judges and find racial trends, which could be a way to police this issue among the trial judges themselves.
 
Last edited:
I don't think the death penalty is morally wrong, and I would not want to see it completely abolished in the United States.

But I do agree that there are problems with its implementation, and particularly with regard to racial disparities in its application.

Funny though, the two most prominent cases that come to my mind where I feel it was justified both involved caucasian men: John Wayne Gacy, a serial killer in Illinois in the early 70's and the OKC bomber Timothy McVeigh.


anyhow, I'm reading the article Log referenced above but it's long and I don't have the time to read it through right now
 
fishonjazz said:
Then that's their own fault and they deserve what they get for being dumb enough to confess to a murder they didn't commit
Click to expand...
False confessions are pretty common. A lot of it can be avoided by not using interrogation tactics that generate false confessions, but all the same, a confession doesn't always equal guilt. I don't want to kill a person who was manipulated (essentially tortured) into giving a false confession.
 
Gameface said:
False confessions are pretty common. A lot of it can be avoided by not using interrogation tactics that generate false confessions, but all the same, a confession doesn't always equal guilt. I don't want to kill a person who was manipulated (essentially tortured) into giving a false confession.
Click to expand...
Ok.
Like log said though..... What about ones caught in the act? How about someone caught on video?
 
fishonjazz said:
Ok.
Like log said though..... What about ones caught in the act? How about someone caught on video?
Click to expand...

I'm not against the death penalty because I think murderers don't deserve to die. I could care less what happens to murderers. I have no sympathy for them.

I'm against the death penalty because I'm not a killer. I don't want anyone's blood on my hands. I don't think killing people is good for our society. I don't think setting up systems and machines and facilities to execute other humans is good for us, the innocent. I think the desire to kill is unhealthy, regardless of the guilt of the ones we kill.

There are many other ways to deal with murderers. Once they are our prisoners they are powerless. They may have killed someone, but we've already beaten them. They are already at our mercy. At that point whatever happens is on us. It says something about who we are. Killing them when they are powerless brings us down, not up.
 
Gameface said:
I'm not against the death penalty because I think murderers don't deserve to die. I could care less what happens to murderers. I have no sympathy for them.

I'm against the death penalty because I'm not a killer. I don't want anyone's blood on my hands. I don't think killing people is good for our society. I don't think setting up systems and machines and facilities to execute other humans is good for us, the innocent. I think the desire to kill is unhealthy, regardless of the guilt of the ones we kill.

There are many other ways to deal with murderers. Once they are our prisoners they are powerless. They may have killed someone, but we've already beaten them. They are already at our mercy. At that point whatever happens is on us. It says something about who we are. Killing them when they are powerless brings us down, not up.
Click to expand...

I see the issue pretty similarly, though I am not in favor of abolishing the death penalty. It is one of those conundrums of life. I do agree that when the "state" commits murder, we are all to some degree guilty of complicity in that murder.

If I ever had to serve on a jury in a death penalty case, I'm pretty sure I would find it very difficult, if not impossible, to recommend a death sentence.
 
Gameface said:
I don't think setting up systems and machines and facilities to execute other humans is good for us,
Click to expand...
This is kind of what a gun is.

How do you feel about people being killed by military forces at war? Do those people deserve to die?
 
fishonjazz said:
This is kind of what a gun is.

How do you feel about people being killed by military forces at war? Do those people deserve to die?
Click to expand...

To me it's never really about people deserving to die. If you are threatened and must use force to stop the threat then that's one thing. If you stop the threat and then kill, you're a murderer.

You've said a bunch of times that guns are killing machines, or things to that effect. I've countered that argument before. If you can address the points I've made in the past I'll get into it again, but if it fell on deaf ears then it'll most likely fall on deaf ears now, so there's no point. No disrespect, but my points have been ignored over and over on this one so...
 
Gameface said:
To me it's never really about people deserving to die. If you are threatened and must use force to stop the threat then that's one thing. If you stop the threat and then kill, you're a murderer.

You've said a bunch of times that guns are killing machines, or things to that effect. I've countered that argument before. If you can address the points I've made in the past I'll get into it again, but if it fell on deaf ears then it'll most likely fall on deaf ears now, so there's no point. No disrespect, but my points have been ignored over and over on this one so...
Click to expand...

I'd love to hear the argument as to how a gun isn't a killing machine.

Of course it is. How is it anything else? That's what's it was made for, and that is what it is used for.

You can't spin that.
 
Hack said:
I'd love to hear the argument as to how a gun isn't a killing machine.

Of course it is. How is it anything else? That's what's it was made for, and that is what it is used for.

You can't spin that.
Click to expand...

Explain your understanding of my response to that assertion many times on this board and I'll be happy to address any issues you have with my stand. I'm happy to stand by my previous statements, which have never been challenged, without having to repeat them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top