May-be the Mexican government should warn illegal imigrants that thing like this happen when you go to a foreign country to rape and murder their citizens.

A heck of a lot more than you can ressurect a dead man.

Chap, this is where you lose me. You are passionately defending not destroying the life of someone who has been tried, convicted, been through the appeals process, and now awaits their penalty FOR THEIR ACTIONS.

However, on the other thread, you are unwilling to protect the life in the womb b/c you’re not sure when life begins. We both know that abortion is also irreversible, and at least one person dies each time an abortion is successful. A totally INNOCENT child/fetus/zygote whatever you wish to term it. One dead, one wounded every time.

BrianNY,

-Comments, IMHO, thoughtfully made by those who defend innocent life in the womb, but who cannot extend the same privilege to those found guilty, rightfully or wrongly, of some of the most heinous crimes heaped upon society.

I think the point has been made several times that the difference is between killing an innocent in the womb versus exacting justice on someone because of their ACTIONS. You’re comparing apples and oranges here. All life is sacred, but sometimes the things we do while on this earth warrant that we lose that privilege. It’s not a pleasant idea, but a civilized one, and dependent on the individual’s own choices, not the whims of others.

Before I get flamed for that last statement, I must remind you that not one person has identified an innocent person who has been executed, esp. in recent years. Yet over 50 million lives have been snuffed out in this country, a whole generation of citizens is gone, merely for the “crime” of being inconvenient or unwanted.

Recognizing the futility of butting into any one conversation so late in the game, I still feel compelled to comment on my ceaseless fascination with the many arguments that have been made on both recent threads regarding abortion and capital punishment:

-Comments made by those who defend life, all the way from a “zygote” to a detestable rapist and destroyer of little, innocent girls.

-Comments made by those who are willing to terminate life for many different reasons…again, from a “zygote” to a detestable rapist and destroyer of little, innocent girls.

-Comments excruciatingly made by those who are willing to terminate life in the womb for many different reasons, but who feel compelled to defend those who face capital punishment, even after an arduous trail of due process and appeal.

-Comments, IMHO, thoughtfully made by those who defend innocent life in the womb, but who cannot extend the same privilege to those found guilty, rightfully or wrongly, of some of the most heinous crimes heaped upon society.

-Comments prematurely ejaculated by pimply-faced, high-voiced agitators like Rob and Steve456, from behind their Charles Atlas Excercise Manuals and Ho-Ho wrappers. (By the way Steve456, I thought that I can get emotional on a thread or two…but you are one creepy dude, dude. If I was Andy Dufresne, I wouldn’t want to bump into you and the “sisters” at Shawshank.)

Perhaps the strongest reflection I impart with, after reading y’all tonight, is something equidistant between free will and the knawing awareness of something greater than myself. I can’t help thinking that this entire ball of wax is something akin to an open book, final exam:

-Some of us choose to transcribe the entire open book onto the test paper, for fear that anything less than perfect adherence isn’t passable.

-Some of us complete our test answers by interpreting the book to the best of our abilities, but mostly relying on our better judgements.

-Some of us reject the book outright, feeling that we alone have all the right answers.

Give the textbook any cover you want, and pick the exam method that you are most comfortable with. But be honest. Before you fall asleep…you know you’re thinking about that report card that will eventually be showing up in your mailbox someday.

On August 7th, 2008 at 1:23 am, chapoutier said:
Can you give a man back the 25 years of his life you took with a wrongful conviction?

A heck of a lot more than you can ressurect a dead man.

Then you have a very high and totally undeserved opinion of yourself.

BTW, got a name for this innocent that has been executed, Chap?

Can you give a man back the 25 years of his life you took with a wrongful conviction? Can you let him see his children grow up in a happy home, instead of getting in fights at school all the time because “NaNaNaNa, your daddy’s in prison!!!”???

A heck of a lot more than you can ressurect a dead man.

And it is far too radical an idea that it be abolished, simple because you want 100% certainty that it is right.

And ultimately, this is where I disagree.

On August 7th, 2008 at 1:11 am, chapoutier said:

We can never have infallibility in conviction. I am glad you concede that. Now, accepting that and considering that the death penalty is the only truly irreversible punishment, I don’t think it too radical to ask that it be taken off the table.

First, the death penalty is not the only truly irreversible punishment. Can you give a man back the 25 years of his life you took with a wrongful conviction? Can you let him see his children grow up in a happy home, instead of getting in fights at school all the time because “NaNaNaNa, your daddy’s in prison!!!”???

The death penalty is the ultimate punishment, reserved for only those heinous crimes deserving of it. And it is far too radical an idea that it be abolished, simple because you want 100% certainty that it is right.

We can never have infallibility in conviction. I am glad you concede that. Now, accepting that and considering that the death penalty is the only truly irreversible punishment, I don’t think it too radical to ask that it be taken off the table.

On August 7th, 2008 at 1:00 am, chapoutier said:

The concept of whether one “deserves” an ultimate punishment is a different one from whether we as a society and as a justice system are able to carry that out in an infallible, fair manner.

As the most reviewed, retried, and appealed sentence in all of legality, I’d say the death penalty is the most fair punishment of all.

And infallibility is a lofty goal, but not in the perview of the legal system. Do you stay at home in bed until there is a 100% chance you will arrive at work alive? If we seek perfecting in sentencing, in any case, there would be no convictions. Only proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Nice try at introducing a foreign concept into the discussion, but that strawman won’t hunt!

There are murderers that can and will see the free light of day again. But others that should not.

Agreed.

That small percentage are the ones being discussed here, and the ones that deserve the ultimate punishment.

The concept of whether one “deserves” an ultimate punishment is a different one from whether we as a society and as a justice system are able to carry that out in an infallible, fair manner.

On August 7th, 2008 at 12:40 am, chapoutier said:

I didn’t say that it did. But what does that mean? Please explain. Is that simply “eye for an eye”? And if so, should every single person that has ever killed someone be put to death?

No, as there are various kinds of murder, from involuntary manslaughter to 1st degree of capital murder. And in recent years, the list of crimes for which the death penalty is applicable as been decreasing. Just killing someone is not enought. It has to be premediated, particularly heinous, involve more than one victim, etc.

There are murderers that can and will see the free light of day again. But others that should not. That small percentage are the ones being discussed here, and the ones that deserve the ultimate punishment.

The punishment has not fit the crime.

I didn’t say that it did. But what does that mean? Please explain. Is that simply “eye for an eye”? And if so, should every single person that has ever killed someone be put to death?

These people are being punished.

3 hots and a cot, workouts in the gym, TV, cards, etc., doesn’t sound like much of a punishment to me. If the only reason these people are being housed by the state vs. executed is to prevent the tiniest fraction of them from being wrongfully put to death (as discussed earlier that possibility is even more remote nowadays), then the system has failed. Justice has not been served. The punishment has not fit the crime.

On August 7th, 2008 at 12:20 am, chapoutier said:

Certainly someone that is alive (whether in prison or not) is more likely to murder someone than a person who is dead. But our justice system does not punish people for crimes they have not yet committed. Or at least it shouldn’t. And in any case, the chances of that happening are super low, so we should probably err on the side of the most likely, right?

Convicted and not executed murderes have…
1) Been parolled and murdered again.
2) Escaped and murdered again.
3) Murdered while in prison.

A live, unexecuted murderers get to eat meals, watch TV, talk to family, and live… all thing they denied their victims.

Super low? The innocent victims of these non-executed murderers would disagree.