I agree with a lot of what you say above, until you decide to commit murder. That's where you lose me. It's simpler than you seem to understand.
Unlike you, I am really against murder. All murder. And I never mentioned reforming murderers. I do not expect humans to come up with deterrents either.
Most murders occur in emotional situations between people that know each other, not by people cavalierly killing 3 year old bystanders because they have no fear of repercussions. Murderers need to be permanently removed from society, that will prevent repeat performances as effectively as the death penalty.
What is really frickin' simple is that I am truly against murder, you are not. The death penalty is legalized murder, and that is sooo close to an oxymoron that it makes me sick. You willingly support certain murders, I detest that. The State is not God. The State is not perfect in its judgement.
frankj1 wrote:
OK, while we are injecting God into this...
...the Bible is FULL of "murder" (as you define it)
sanctioned by God. Many of the punishments in the Old Testament explicitly state terminating one or more lives for a violation of Mosaic Law. In fact, the New Testament - especially Revelations - also mentions Godly "murder" (again this is YOUR definition, not mine) during the Great Tribulation.
Christ mentions in a couple of places where someone should "hang a millstone around their neck and jump into the sea" for false teachings.
The difference between what is sanctioned by God and what is not is the simple application of what we define in this nation as "Due Process." That is a simple hearing with evidence and witnesses. In fact, the Biblical application of this is unique and distinct from many ancient practices (we get out jury system from the Norse, I believe).
You talk like simply removing someone's liberties is no big deal. I dunno if you've ever seen what the inside of a maximum security prison is like, but I guarantee you it is not Club Med. And in some instances, sentencing someone to a maximum security prison is basically sentencing them to death. I'd say, "just ask Jeffrey Dhamer" but...uh...he's dead. You can't ask him anything now.
The same is true of many hit men for the mob. They know that going to jail is basically a death sentence.
So, if you are going to stay committed to your principle of "simply" removing criminals from society of they commit murder, you may have to go to some pretty extraordinary lengths to keep that commitment. Otherwise, you may be just as guilty of murder as the people you condemn.
Tell me, in that emotionally heated exchange when did the victim get all of that "due process" given to the perpetrator? I'll answer that for you: never.
Tell me where the emotion was when a gang-banger or a outlaw biker murdered an innocent victim as part of their initiation? Or how about those who do paid contracts for organized crime?
Lovely ideal you have their. Unfortunately, I live in the real world.
And what if the convicted is possibly innocent? Trials are by humans and humans are imperfect. No appeals can help that victim of your state. Check out how many executed murderers and others on death row are now known to have been incorrectly convicted now that modern inconveniences like DNA testing exist. Prosecutors get new contracts based on conviction percentage, not based on the truth. Keeping the convicted alive but incarcerated satisfies both arguments, unless the argument for death in 60 seconds is from rage rather than rational thought processes.
frankj1 wrote:
Yeah, that's a lovely argument.
Then again, someone breaks into the home of an old woman, beats her to death after raping her, and your answer is for that to feed, clothe, educate, and keep that wonderful specimen of humanity alive for the next 50-or-so years. Oh, and tax the family of the victim for the criminal's upkeep. What a humanitarian you are.
Yeah, you want to compare numbers of people supposedly wrongly convicted against the masses of people who shouldn't be sharing the same air as the rest of us? I'll take that challenge...
