« Slammed at work open thread | Babalu Blog - Main Page | Yon Goicochea awarded the Milton Friedman prize »

I'm also not a fan of the death penalty, although I gotta tell you I had a tough time with that guy that abused and killed the five year old.

The death penalty is abhorrant. That we have it says much more about our values as a society — or lack thereof — than it ever could say about a murderer. Bottom line, it is not up to us to decide who lives and who dies, and I defintely don't want to trust the government to always get it right.

That we share this practice with a regime like the castro dictatorship makes it that much worse.

These verses come to mind when I think of the death penalty. The state has the authority and obligation to systematically punish evil without malice.

Romans 13:3-5 (King James Version)

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

The commutation of the death penalty in Cuba is a joke. We all know that when the Cuban government considers someone to be a threat they "suicide" him while being incarcerated.

I also consider myself a weird person that follows conservative principles but it's against the death penalty.

Totally agree with Marc: we're nobody to decide who lives and who dies, much less I would never ever trust any government to do so. Cuba is one of the best examples of how that power can be abused. And after these commuted death penalties, I also bet that there will be an increase of the "suicidal prisoners".

On the other hand, I quite don't get some facts at the AI story. They said Cuba has not killed any women since 1959, but I recently read (don't remember if it was in "Unvanquished" or in "The real che guevara and the useful idiots..." that 12 women were sent to the paredon, including one that was six month pregnant.

Did I miss interpret something in the AI posting or someone else is missing something here?
Please, enlight me if you can.

OK Todo el Mundo -

I am generally "anti" as regards Capital Punishment.
I make exceptions, more or less for those whose actions are or "wannabe" - coups d' etat. By that standard, Fidel would have faced a firing squad. Guess Batista was either merciful or a wimp.

-S-

Glad to know I'm not alone and agree with you on the Death Penalty.

From a practical matter, it is not a deterrent. From an economic matter, the appeals in death penalty cases cost much more than it does to house one of these creeps. From a humanistic view, the risk that one innocent life will be taken outweighs any benefit. Due to the lack of competent counsel and the foibles of the system, people get wrongly convicted all the time. Finally, at least for me, on a religious level, because I do believe in the sanctity of human life, the death penalty is inconsistent with that view. Frankly, a life sentence should be a life sentence and prison should be prison. Let murderers, etc. want to prefer death by putting them in isolation for life. no tv, no radios, zip.

23 hour lockdowns. no windows.

I am a Christian and I reluctantly favor the death penalty. It was very clearly prescribed for cases of murder in the Old Testament and I do not find anything in the New that speaks against it.

I am reluctant because Jesus can redeem anyone, but I don't see any other way to make plain to society how serious murder is than to tell the people that you forfeit your own life if you deliberately take someone else's.

It's true that it is possible for an innocent to be killed, but, as harsh as it may sound, that's not reason enough to oppose the death penalty, and here are my reasons:

1) Letting a murderer live frequently results in the murderer killing someone else, either in prison or out, so someone innocent of at least this particular crime still dies and thus innocent blood is still on the government's hands.

2) Someone said that execution of one innocent outweighs everything else. I disagree -- what if we were that purist about everything? Hundreds of thousands of innocent people have died on our roads and highways over the years but no-one is suggesting that is a reason to ban cars. (Or choose any lawful product or activity that results in accidental or preventable deaths.)

3) Between DNA testing and decades of appeals, the chance of the government getting it wrong is getting darn near infinitessimal. (Plus all that extra time does allow the accused to get right with God.)

4) We don't know if it's a deterrent or not because it is carried out so rarely and often only after the convict has lived another lifetime. One way to find out though, as one criminologist put it, would be to pass a law saying that you get the death penalty only for murders committed on Sundays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. Then see how many murders are committed on Monday, Friday and Wednesday.

As Dennis Prager put it once, if I take someone's bicycle, am I allowed to keep my own bicycle? No. If I take something infinitely more important from someone, his or her life, should I be allowed to keep my own life? Reluctantly, I have to say, no...

Z:

your analogy to the car accidents is fallacious since those are accidents caused by negligence of drivers. An execution is an intentional killing of a human being. If an innocent is intentionally killed, that is murder. Hence my argument, that the rish of death of one innocent life outweighs any benefit the death penalty has, and as I say, it has none.

As for the New Testament, Matthew 5:38-39

38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[a] 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

Not every capital case has DNA and the govt. gets it wrong all the time by innocent people being falsely convicted. Nothing is fool proof.

"Letting a murderer live frequently results in the murderer killing someone else, either in prison or out, so someone innocent of at least this particular crime still dies and thus innocent blood is still on the government's hands."

if a murderer is given life in prison in isolation, there is little risk of that.

Human life is sacred or it is not. There is no in between in my opinion.

"your analogy to the car accidents is fallacious since those are accidents caused by negligence of drivers. An execution is an intentional killing of a human being. If an innocent is intentionally killed, that is murder."

It is only murder if government KNOWS he or she is innocent. If the government DOESN'T know this, it is a very tragic mistake. Otherwise, there can be no difference between accidentally running someone over with your car and doing it intentionally.

"Hence my argument, that the rish of death of one innocent life outweighs any benefit the death penalty has, and as I say, it has none."

That is also not true because as I stated earlier, dead murderers do not kill again, but live ones frequently do.

The passage in Matthew has nothing to do with the death penalty. Taken in context with John Chapter 2, where Jesus gets rather violent with a whip, the passage does NOT state or imply that violence is always unjust. It has to do with developing a mindset of being slow to anger and not giving into impulses of the moment. But there is still a time and place for righteous violence, as Jesus demonstrates in both John 2 and throughout Revelation.

"Not every capital case has DNA and the govt. gets it wrong all the time by innocent people being falsely convicted. Nothing is foolproof."

Of course nothing is foolproof, but there has yet to be a case where an innocent was executed.

"if a murderer is given life in prison in isolation, there is little risk of that."

How often does that actually happen? There are countless convicted murderers walking the streets right now. Thus there is a far greater chance that the killer will kill someone in prison or on the outside than that he will get life in solitary confinement.

"Human life is sacred or it is not. There is no in between in my opinion."

On this we agree, life is certainly sacred. But so is the life of the victim, and even more urgently, future victims. Keeping murderers alive sends a message that the life of a murderer is more sacred than the life of his past and future victims.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: