Years and years and years ago (archives?)we had opposing views regarding the death penalty. You were staunchly against it, and I was staunchly for it. I finally realize that you were right, and I was wrong. I bow to you, Abner :smile:
A lot of Pondering I guess you could say. After reviewing reports on the effectiveness of the Death Penalty, I determined it has been an absolute failure at a HUGE cost. Another fact was hearing the author of the death penality bill here in California admit the Death Penalty has not been effective as a crime deterrent. See below: Death Penalty : Author of CA Death Penalty Law Has Change of Heart Also, that fact that mistakes and mixs up seem to happen Gotta run, Have a good one!!! P.S. P.S. Plus the fact that Steve is highly intelligent and make excellent arguments. A
Obviously I can't help be pleased when someone agrees with me, but I'm more struck by your willingness to consider opposing points of view. You're a man of many rare and impressive qualities!
Thank you all for your kind comments However, I do not deserve the praise. I appreciate it though. Once again, I thank you for your comments, and for reading my post. Have a great weekend! :smile: Abner
Thank you JWC :smile: Within the last few years, I have been hit with a rapid succesion of unfortunate events. In trying to cope and deal with these events, my posts, responses and arguments have degenarated. I have come to realize that many of the criticisms foisted upon me recently are well deserved. In other words, I have become a mental dwarf surrounded by cerebral giants. In short, my aim is to pick myself up and move forward in a more positive and constructive manner. Perhaps one day I can return to being a gentleman and scholar. :smile: I bid you adieu! Abner :smile:
I used to be a STRONG death penalty advocate, until about 14 years ago. The idea of the State executing an innocent person is what convinced me to be against the death penalty. I would rather have even the most heinous murderers serve life in prison with no parole than risk one innocent man being executed by the state. The Cameron Todd Willingham case is one that really brought this home, and showed me that my fears were well founded. PBS did an EXCELLENT documentary on the case. Death By Fire | FRONTLINE | PBS
The logical next question is then, is it more humane to have a human spend their entire life caged up in what could easily be described as one of the most stressful, violent places on earth?
That question's built-in assumption is that American prisons have to remain medieval dungeons with no regard for rehabilitation or socialization for the incarcerated. Besides, if it really is better to be dead than in one, what good is the Eighth Amendment?
As I understand it, there are very few people on death row who opt to suspend their appeal process and simply accept death. This suggests to me that most people would prefer to live even that kind of life than to leave this existence.
I'm not sure how logical this question really is if it assumes the only possible treatment for a life convict, circa 2012, is a physically tortuous existence possibly worse than death. Further, a negative answer to the question would seem to lead to the conclusion "We'd be doing them a favor by killing them." "We are or we'd be doing them a favor by {killing them, or being seriously violent to them}" is a common enough argument through history, I guess. But can you think of one issue other than the present one, where this argument has been deployed, where it hasn't been a rationalization for a terrible wrong?
Oh, gosh, no, Brother. "Only knowledge can save us, and knowledge depends on the scientific method—gathering the facts, evolving a theory to explain them, and applying standards of verification which other competent observers can repeat. The process is cumulative, and perhaps the major characteristic of the participant is the ability to say: 'I was wrong.'" – Stuart Chase, 1951.
Well, it seems my well articulated post was just eaten by the Internet gods that be. So let me paraphrase what was otherwise a brilliant point (if I do say so myself). The American prison system is a hell hole, not concerned or designed for rehabilitation nor socialization, but that is an different argument altogether. My point in the question (which was obviously not well made) was that the stance that opposing the death penalty because someone innocent might be put to death is in my opinion, illogical and does not address the actual problem, when the outcome of being deprived of life and liberty is equally as certain. It is the system which may allow for such an outcome that is at fault. Placing an innocent person in prison for life rather than putting them to death does not further the cause of liberty or justice as in either circumstance both are violated. A "sanctity of life" argument in opposing the death penalty makes a little more sense, but discounts the value of the life victim but I digress. Suppose a person murdered someone else, caught in the act and was in turn themselves killed (a popular concept in Hollywood action and drama films). This concept does not seem to offend seem to offend most people as the certainty of guilt is established. The "punishment" for the guilt is not the issue at hand, but instead the certainty of guilt and the methods by which guilt was established. To that end I find abolishment of the death penalty on the grounds of the possibility of innocence to be a hollow gesture of little substance. It serves neither the cause of justice nor liberty.
Are you saying that if you were falsely convicted of a capital crime that you wouldn't prefer incarceration to being executed?
What I'm saying is that opposing the death penalty is no solution. And would I prefer a death penalty to life in prison without the possibility of parole? I'm not in the position to choose but being that I believe in heaven and all of that, I could see how choosing a death sentence would be the easy way out...and inmates have done so before.
