Capital Punishment

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Do you argee or disagree with capital punishment?


    • Total voters
      0

    The Meach

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Feb 23, 2009
    1,093
    38
    Nobletucky
    Last time i checked "Thou Shalt Not Kill" doesn't have a popular sovereignty clause.

    The sensation of the Death Penalty even has biblical president in the New testament. As i remember it he put an end to the stoning of a woman because Only he without Sin may cast the first stone. As in Only God has the right to decide life and Death.

    On top of it I think the same man who said that was Killed by state instituted Capital Punishment?

    On top of it all what about the innocent who are put to death wrongly accused of their crimes?

    There is no way to tell how many of the over 1,000 people executed since 1976 may also have been innocent. Courts do not generally entertain claims of innocence when the defendant is dead. Defense attorneys move on to other cases where clients' lives can still be saved. Some cases with strong evidence of innocence include:

    Carlos DeLuna Texas Conviction: 1983, Executed: 1989

    A Chicago Tribune investigation released in 2006 revealed groundbreaking evidence that Texas may have executed an innocent man in 1989. The defendant, Carlos DeLuna, was executed for the fatal stabbing of Texas convenience store clerk Wanda Lopez in 1983. New evidence uncovered by reporters Maurice Possley and Steve Mills casts doubt on DeLuna’s guilt and points towards another man, Carlos Hernandez, who had a record of similar crimes and repeatedly confessed to the murder. A news piece aired on ABC’s "World News Tonight” also covered this story.

    The new evidence casted strong doubt on DeLuna’s guilt. This is the fourth investigation in the past two years pointing to the execution of a probably innocent man. Similar questions have been raised in the cases of Cameron Todd Willingham and Ruben Cantu in Texas, and Larry Griffin in Missouri.

    See the Chicago Tribune's Investigation, "Did This Man Die...for This Man's Crime?"
    Watch ABC's "World News Tonight" (June 24, 2006)
    Watch "Did Texas Execute Innocent Men?" - Dan Rather Reports reveals new details surrounding two capital murder cases in Texas - leading to the executions of Ruben Cantu and Carlos De Luna that may have occurred as the result of flawed evidence (September 2007).

    Ruben Cantu Texas Convicted: 1985, Executed: 1993

    A two-part investigative series by the Houston Chronicle casts serious doubt on the guilt of a Texas man who was executed in 1993. Ruben Cantu had persistently proclaimed his innocence and was only 17 when he was charged with capital murder for the shooting death of a San Antonio man during an attempted robbery. Now, the prosecutor and the jury forewoman have expressed doubts about the case. Moreover, both a key eyewitness in the state's case against Cantu and Cantu's co-defendant have come forward to say that Texas executed an innocent man.
    Juan Moreno, who was wounded during the attempted robbery and was a key eyewitness in the case against Cantu, now says that it was not Cantu who shot him and that he only identified Cantu as the shooter because he felt pressured and was afraid of the authorities. Moreno said that he twice told police that Cantu was not his assailant, but that the authorities continued to pressure him to identify Cantu as the shooter after Cantu was involved in an unrelated wounding of a police officer. "The police were sure it was (Cantu) because he had hurt a police officer. They told me they were certain it was him, and that's why I testified. . . . That was bad to blame someone that was not there," Moreno told the Chronicle.

    In addition, David Garza, Cantu's co-defendant during his 1985 trial, recently signed a sworn affidavit saying that he allowed Cantu to be accused and executed even though he wasn't with him on the night of the killing. Garza stated, "Part of me died when he died. You've got a 17-year-old who went to his grave for something he did not do. Texas murdered an innocent person."

    Sam D. Millsap, Jr., the Bexar County District Attorney who charged Cantu with capital murder, said he never should have sought the death penalty in a case based on testimony from an eyewitness who identified a suspect only after police showed him Cantu's photo three seperate times.

    Miriam Ward, forewoman of the jury that convicted Cantu, said the jury's decision was the best they could do based on the information presented during the trial. She noted, "With a little extra work, a little extra effort, maybe we'd have gotten the right information. The bottom line is, an innocent person was put to death for it. We all have our finger in that." (Houston Chronicle, November 20 & 21, 2005 and Associated Press, November 21, 2005).
    Read "Did Texas Execute An Innocent Man?" by Lise Olsen, Houston Chronicle (2005)
    Watch "Did Texas Execute Innocent Men?" - Dan Rather Reports reveals new details surrounding two capital murder cases in Texas - leading to the executions of Ruben Cantu and Carlos De Luna that may have occurred as the result of flawed evidence (September 2007).
    UPDATE: Bexar County District Attorney Susan Reed issued a report in 2007 finding that Ruben Cantu was guilty of the crime for which Texas executed him in 1993. However, critics have noted that Reed was formerly a judge who handled Cantu's appeal and set his execution date, raising a conflict of interest in conducing an investigation of his guilt. For more information see: "Report Fails to Erase Doubt that Texas Executed an Innocent Man."

    Larry Griffin Missouri Conviction: 1981, Executed: 1995

    Larry Griffin Missouri Conviction: 1981, Executed: 1995
    A year-long investigation by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund has uncovered evidence that Larry Griffin may have been innocent of the crime for which he was executed by the state of Missouri on June 21, 1995. Griffin maintained his innocence until his death, and investigators say his case is the strongest demonstration yet of an execution of an innocent man. The report notes that a man injured in the same drive-by shooting that claimed the life of Quintin Moss says Griffin was not involved in the crime, and the first police officer on the scene has given a new account that undermines the trial testimony of the only witness who identified Griffin as the murderer. Based on its findings, the NAACP has supplied the prosecution with the names of three men it suspects committed the crime, and all three of the suspects are currently in jail for other murders. Prosecutor Jennifer Joyce said she has reopened the investigation and will conduct a comprehensive review of the case over the next few months. "There is no real doubt that we have an innocent person. If we could go to trial on this case, if there was a forum where we could take this to trial, we would win hands down," stated University of Michigan law professor Samuel Gross, who supervised the investigation into Griffin's case. (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, July 11, 2005).

    See "NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Report on Larry Griffin"
    Listen to "Missouri Execution Case Reopened" from NPR: All Things Considered (July 12, 2005)
    Read "Did Missouri Execute An Innocent Man?" by Associated Press (July 12, 2005)

    UPDATE: On July 12, 2007 the St. Louis Circuit Attorney concluded that Larry Griffin was guilty after an extensive review. Circuit Attorney report: Summary
    Circuit Attorney report: Factual and legal history
    Circuit Attorney report: Appellate process
    Circuit Attorney report: Investigative findings, analysis and conclusions
    Circuit Attorney report: Appendix A through C
    Circuit Attorney report: Appendix D through G



    Joseph O'Dell Virginia Conviction: 1986, Executed: 1997

    New DNA blood evidence has thrown considerable doubt on the murder and rape conviction of O'Dell. In reviewing his case in 1991, three Supreme Court Justices, said they had doubts about O'Dell's guilt and whether he should have been allowed to represent himself. Without the blood evidence, there is little linking O'Dell to the crime. In September, 1996, the 4th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals reinstated his death sentence and upheld his conviction. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review O'Dell's claims of innocence and held that its decision regarding juries being told about the alternative sentence of life-without-parole was not retroactive to his case. O'Dell asked the state to conduct DNA tests on other pieces of evidence to demonstrate his innocence but was refused. He was executed on July 23rd.

    Read "Virginia Inmate Executed Despite International Campaign" by CNN (July 23, 1997)
    See "Commonwealth v. Joseph O'Dell: Truth and Justice or Confuse the Courts? The DNA Controversy"by Lori Urs, New England School of Law: Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement (Winter 1999)

    David Spence Texas Conviction: 1984, Executed: 1997

    Spence was charged with murdering three teenagers in 1982. He was allegedly hired by a convenience store owner to kill another girl, and killed these victims by mistake. The convenience store owner, Muneer Deeb, was originally convicted and sentenced to death, but then was acquitted at a re-trial. The police lieutenant who supervised the investigation of Spence, Marvin Horton, later concluded: "I do not think David Spence committed this crime." Ramon Salinas, the homicide detective who actually conducted the investigation, said: "My opinion is that David Spence was innocent. Nothing from the investigation ever led us to any evidence that he was involved." No physical evidence connected Spence to the crime. The case against Spence was pursued by a zealous narcotics cop who relied on testimony of prison inmates who were granted favors in return for testimony.

    Read "A Closer Look at Five Cases That Resulted in Executions of Texas Inmates" by Raymond Bonner and Sara Rimer, New York Times (May 14, 2000)
    See The Muneer Deeb Case

    Leo Jones Florida Convicted: 1981, Executed: 1998

    Leo Jones Florida Convicted: 1981, Executed: 1998
    Jones was convicted of murdering a police officer in Jacksonville, Florida. Jones signed a confession after several hours of police interrogation, but he later claimed the confession was coerced. In the mid-1980s, the policeman who arrested Jones and the detective who took his confession were forced out of uniform for ethical violations. The policeman was later identified by a fellow officer as an "enforcer" who had used torture. Many witnesses came forward pointing to another suspect in the case.

    Read "Questions of Innocence: Legal Roadblocks Thwart New Evidence on Appeal" by Steve Mills, Chicago Tribune (December 18, 2000)


    Gary Graham Texas Convicted: 1981, Executed: 2000

    Gary Graham Texas Convicted: 1981, Executed: 2000
    On June 23, 2000, Gary Graham was executed in Texas, despite claims that he was innocent. Graham was 17 when he was charged with the 1981 robbery and shooting of Bobby Lambert outside a Houston supermarket. He was convicted primarily on the testimony of one witness, Bernadine Skillern, who said she saw the killer's face for a few seconds through her car windshield, from a distance of 30-40 feet away. Two other witnesses, both who worked at the grocery store and said they got a good look at the assailant, said Graham was not the killer but were never interviewed by Graham's court appointed attorney, Ronald Mock, and were not called to testify at trial. Three of the jurors who voted to convict Graham signed affidavits saying they would have voted differently had all of the evidence been available.

    See "Guilt of Texas Inmate Gary Graham Debated as Execution Draws Near" by CNN (June 21, 2000)
    Read "Death Row Man Executed" by BBC News (June 23, 2000)
    See DPIC's Capital Punishment in Context: The Case of Gary Graham

    Cameron Willingham Texas Convicted: 1992, Executed: 2004
    After examining evidence from the capital prosecution of Cameron Willingham, four national arson experts have concluded that the original investigation of Willingham's case was flawed and it is possible the fire was accidental. The independent investigation, reported by the Chicago Tribune, found that prosecutors and arson investigators used arson theories that have since been repudiated by scientific advances. Willingham was executed earlier this year in Texas despite his consistent claims of innocence. He was convicted of murdering his three children in a 1991 house fire. Arson expert Gerald Hurst said, "There's nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire. It was just a fire." Former Louisiana State University fire instructor Kendall Ryland added, "[It] made me sick to think this guy was executed based on this investigation.... They executed this guy and they've just got no idea - at least not scientifically - if he set the fire, or if the fire was even intentionally set."
    Willingham was convicted of capital murder after arson investigators concluded that 20 indicators of arson led them to believe that an accelerent had been used to set three separate fires inside his home. Among the only other evidence presented by prosecutors during the the trial was testimony from jailhouse snitch Johnny E. Webb, a drug addict on psychiatric medication, who claimed Willingham had confessed to him in the county jail.
    Some of the jurors who convicted Willingham were troubled when told of the new case review. Juror Dorinda Brokofsky asked, "Did anybody know about this prior to his execution? Now I will have to live with this for the rest of my life. Maybe this man was innocent." Prior to the execution, Willingham's defense attorneys presented expert testimony regarding the new arson investigation to the state's highest court, as well as to Texas Governor Rick Perry. No relief was granted and Willingham was executed on February 17, 2004. Coincidentally, less than a year after Willingham's execution, arson evidence presented by some of the same experts who had appealed for relief in Willingham's case helped free Ernest Willis from Texas's death row. The experts noted that the evidence in the Willingham case was nearly identical to the evidence used to exonerate Willis. (Chicago Tribune, December 9, 2004).

    Read "Texas Man Executed on Disproved Forensics" by Steve Mills and Maurice Possle, Chicago Tribune (December 9, 2004)
    Read "Was an Innocent Man Executed in Texas?" by Anderson Cooper 360 Blog (April 9, 2007)
    See The Ernest Willis Case


    Georgia Board to Pardon Woman 60 Years After Her Execution - The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles has announced that it will issue a formal pardon this month for Lena Baker (pictured), the only woman executed in the state during the 20th century. The document, signed by all five of the current board members, will note that the parole board's 1945 decision to deny Baker clemency and allow her execution was "a grievous error, as this case called out for mercy." Baker, an African American, was executed for the murder of Ernest Knight, a white man who hired her . Baker was tried, convicted, and sentenced to die in one day by an all-white, all-male jury. Baker claimed she shot Knight in self-defense after he locked her in his gristmill and threatened her with a metal pipe. The pardon notes that Baker "could have been charged with voluntary manslaughter, rather than murder, for the death of E.B. Knight." The average sentence for voluntary manslaughter is 15 years in prison. Baker's picture and her last words are currently displayed near the retired electric chair at a museum at Georgia State Prison in Reidsville. (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, August 16, 2005).

    Now just these stories represent almost 1 percent of the people KILLED under the death penty in the united states since 1976. Now 1 percent doesn't sound like alot but only a 99% chance of getting right isn't good enough when a person's life is involved. How many other "mabyes" have there been in the last 40 years? the last 50? 100?

    How many innocent people have we killed in the name of "justice"

    Even if they are truly Guilty. These are not "Sick or Rabid Animals" They are Human beings. Who are we to Judge them and hand out death? What gives us the right to play God?

    Nothing.

    Thou Shalt not Kill.

    The Death Penalty is Wrong.
     

    jeremy

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Feb 18, 2008
    16,482
    36
    Fiddler's Green
    Last time i checked "Thou Shalt Not Kill" doesn't have a popular sovereignty clause.

    The sensation of the Death Penalty even has biblical president in the New testament. As i remember it he put an end to the stoning of a woman because Only he without Sin may cast the first stone. As in Only God has the right to decide life and Death.

    On top of it I think the same man who said that was Killed by state instituted Capital Punishment?

    On top of it all what about the innocent who are put to death wrongly accused of their crimes?



    Now just these stories represent almost 1 percent of the people KILLED under the death penty in the united states since 1976. Now 1 percent doesn't sound like alot but only a 99% chance of getting right isn't good enough when a person's life is involved. How many other "mabyes" have there been in the last 40 years? the last 50? 100?

    How many innocent people have we killed in the name of "justice"

    Even if they are truly Guilty. These are not "Sick or Rabid Animals" They are Human beings. Who are we to Judge them and hand out death? What gives us the right to play God?

    Nothing.

    Thou Shalt not Kill.

    First off it is thou shall not commit MURDER, not Thou shall not KILL. There is a world of difference between Killing and Murder. :D

    And Secondly when someone fails to live as a human being then sorry they are a cur animal and should be dealt with accordingly. No ifs, no ands, and no butts. If you choose to live like an animal then do not be surprised when you are killed like an animal. :twocents:

    Since you wanted to quote scripture here are some for you to think over.

    Capital Punishment in the O.T.
    The first recorded murder was that of Abel, and God directly took care of Cain’s punishment (Gen. 4). In Genesis 6, God Himself executed the death penalty on humanity for the wickedness of the general populace. Then, after the flood, God stated the general principle regarding capital punishment: "Whoever shed man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man" (Gen. 9:6). So, the death penalty was stated specifically for all who would murder. The reason is also stated: God made man in His image. This tells us of the value of life, and that one cannot go unpunished who murders another. He must be punished with a penalty befitting the crime. The penalty was not identical to the crime; capital punishment is not itself murder. But the penalty fits the crime.
    In the Ten Commandments, God said, "You shall not murder." "Murder" here is better than "kill" (see NASB, NIV, NKJV), as not all killing was considered to be murder. Under Moses, God stated many crimes for which capital punishment was to be exacted, including striking a parent (Ex. 21:15), kidnapping (vs. 16), witchcraft (Ex. 22:18), Sabbath-breaking (Ex. 31:14), idolatry (Lev. 20:2), premarital sex (Deut. 22:20-21, 232-4), adultery (Deut. 22:22), rape (vv. 25-27), incest (Lev. 20:11-12), homosexuality (Lev. 20:13), bestiality (vv. 15-16), blaspheming God (Lev. 24:16), false prophecy (Deut. 13:1-5), and murder (Ex. 21:12).
    In Numbers 35, six cities were to be selected to allow someone, who had unintentionally killed another, a place to run. In giving instructions for this, God makes a distinction between killing by accident and murder. In verses 16-21, God defines the actions of a murderer, one who intentionally struck another so as to kill him. In this case, the "blood avenger" was to put the murderer to death when he met him.
    Verse 22 begins a description of one who had no intent to kill or injure, but who accidentally does something resulting in the death of another. This "manslayer" may then go to a city of refuge to live until the death of the High Priest. However, if this person leaves the city before then, the blood avenger would not be guilty of murder should he find the man and put him to death.
    The end of the chapter shows how adamant God was about this: "the murderer shall be put to death" on the evidence of witnesses (not just one). "Moreover, you shall not take ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death" (vs. 31). Allowing for this would pollute the land, and "no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it" (vs. 33). There was to be no plea-bargaining for the life of a murderer.
    Ecclesiastes 8:11 states, "Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed quickly, therefore the hearts of the sons of men among them are given fully to do evil." This could explain why capital punishment in America has not served to deter crime very much. It has not been used consistently or executed quickly. Still, crime calls for punishment; and punishment not only punishes the guilty, but warns others about the cost of committing crime.

    Capital Punishment in the N.T.;
    Jesus acknowledged the right of civil government to exist. He acknowledged Pilate’s right to rule, even in matters of life and death (Jn. 19:10-11). But Pilate needed to be reminded that his power ultimately came from God. This thought should keep rulers from abusing their positions (cf. Dan. 4 and Nebuchadnezzar).
    Individuals are not to get involved in personal revenge. Vengeance belongs to the Lord, and He will repay evil (Rom. 12:19). One of the means of God’s vengeance is in the hands of civil government (Rom. 13:2-4). Such government is a "minister of God." Involved in this power is the "sword": "for it does not bear the sword for nothing." This should be a reason for evil-doers to fear. It implies the right to punish; it is the power of life and death in punishment (cf. 1 Pet. 2:14). This right lies in the hands of governing powers, not in an individual’s personal sense of vengeance.
     

    Phil502

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Sep 4, 2008
    3,035
    63
    NW Indiana
    Last time i checked "Thou Shalt Not Kill" doesn't have a popular sovereignty clause.


    On top of it I think the same man who said that was Killed by state instituted Capital Punishment?






    Thou Shalt not Kill.

    The Death Penalty is Wrong.

    Thats why we have a separation of church and state. Hey the Muslims think it's okay so what about that?

    Yea Meach that's a good analogy Jesus is the same as a guy that kills some woman taking out the garbage.
     

    The Meach

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Feb 23, 2009
    1,093
    38
    Nobletucky
    First off it is thou shall not commit MURDER, not Thou shall not KILL. There is a world of difference between Killing and Murder. :D

    And Secondly when someone fails to live as a human being then sorry they are a cur animal and should be dealt with accordingly. No ifs, no ands, and no butts. If you choose to live like an animal then do not be surprised when you are killed like an animal. :twocents:

    Since you wanted to quote scripture here are some for you to think over.

    Capital Punishment in the O.T.
    The first recorded murder was that of Abel, and God directly took care of Cain’s punishment (Gen. 4). In Genesis 6, God Himself executed the death penalty on humanity for the wickedness of the general populace. Then, after the flood, God stated the general principle regarding capital punishment: "Whoever shed man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man" (Gen. 9:6). So, the death penalty was stated specifically for all who would murder. The reason is also stated: God made man in His image. This tells us of the value of life, and that one cannot go unpunished who murders another. He must be punished with a penalty befitting the crime. The penalty was not identical to the crime; capital punishment is not itself murder. But the penalty fits the crime.
    In the Ten Commandments, God said, "You shall not murder." "Murder" here is better than "kill" (see NASB, NIV, NKJV), as not all killing was considered to be murder. Under Moses, God stated many crimes for which capital punishment was to be exacted, including striking a parent (Ex. 21:15), kidnapping (vs. 16), witchcraft (Ex. 22:18), Sabbath-breaking (Ex. 31:14), idolatry (Lev. 20:2), premarital sex (Deut. 22:20-21, 232-4), adultery (Deut. 22:22), rape (vv. 25-27), incest (Lev. 20:11-12), homosexuality (Lev. 20:13), bestiality (vv. 15-16), blaspheming God (Lev. 24:16), false prophecy (Deut. 13:1-5), and murder (Ex. 21:12).
    In Numbers 35, six cities were to be selected to allow someone, who had unintentionally killed another, a place to run. In giving instructions for this, God makes a distinction between killing by accident and murder. In verses 16-21, God defines the actions of a murderer, one who intentionally struck another so as to kill him. In this case, the "blood avenger" was to put the murderer to death when he met him.
    Verse 22 begins a description of one who had no intent to kill or injure, but who accidentally does something resulting in the death of another. This "manslayer" may then go to a city of refuge to live until the death of the High Priest. However, if this person leaves the city before then, the blood avenger would not be guilty of murder should he find the man and put him to death.
    The end of the chapter shows how adamant God was about this: "the murderer shall be put to death" on the evidence of witnesses (not just one). "Moreover, you shall not take ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death" (vs. 31). Allowing for this would pollute the land, and "no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it" (vs. 33). There was to be no plea-bargaining for the life of a murderer.
    Ecclesiastes 8:11 states, "Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed quickly, therefore the hearts of the sons of men among them are given fully to do evil." This could explain why capital punishment in America has not served to deter crime very much. It has not been used consistently or executed quickly. Still, crime calls for punishment; and punishment not only punishes the guilty, but warns others about the cost of committing crime.

    Capital Punishment in the N.T.;
    Jesus acknowledged the right of civil government to exist. He acknowledged Pilate’s right to rule, even in matters of life and death (Jn. 19:10-11). But Pilate needed to be reminded that his power ultimately came from God. This thought should keep rulers from abusing their positions (cf. Dan. 4 and Nebuchadnezzar).
    Individuals are not to get involved in personal revenge. Vengeance belongs to the Lord, and He will repay evil (Rom. 12:19). One of the means of God’s vengeance is in the hands of civil government (Rom. 13:2-4). Such government is a "minister of God." Involved in this power is the "sword": "for it does not bear the sword for nothing." This should be a reason for evil-doers to fear. It implies the right to punish; it is the power of life and death in punishment (cf. 1 Pet. 2:14). This right lies in the hands of governing powers, not in an individual’s personal sense of vengeance.

    Obviously you use the NIV version of the Bible. I was reading from the Catholic New American version.

    In the NA it is Translated as "Thou Shalt not Kill"

    However if we want to boil down the Hebrew it would most accurately be stated "Thou shalt not commit a malicious and unlawful killing"

    But that is arguing semantics. My belief in the Sanctity of life is deeply rooted in my Catholic faith, so my best argument for my cause it to draw directly from Catholic Teachings

    CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
    SECOND EDITION

    PART THREE
    LIFE IN CHRIST SECTION TWO
    THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
    CHAPTER TWO
    "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF"

    Legitimate defense
    2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65
    2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

    If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66

    2265
    Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
    2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67
    2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
    If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
    Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

    65 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II,64,7, corp. art.
    66 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II,64,7, corp. art.
    67 Cf. Lk 23:40-43.
    68 John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56. 69 Cf. Gen 4:10.
    That is where i draw my opinion on this. While I do not agree with the whole of the Catechism I agree whole heartedly with the sections on Respect for Human Life, Respect for the Dignity of Persons, and Safeguarding Peace


    Like I said. I am pro-life across the Board. The Death Penalty is Unnecessary and Malicious and in my eyes morally equivalent to Murder.


    {And before anyone starts. If you wish to have a religious debate this is not the place. So if you have any questions, comments, or arguments about Catholic Teaching in a holistic sense. PM me and i will open a thread on the topic. Until then Lets just debate OP's topic}
     
    Last edited:

    rambone

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    18,745
    83
    'Merica
    I would imagine that since the reliable use of forensic DNA evidence in convicting criminals, the rate of false imprisonment is lower now than ever before. The late 90's was when it really evolved in courtrooms. The death penalty should only be assigned when convicted with conclusive DNA evidence.
     

    finity

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 29, 2008
    2,733
    36
    Auburn
    I would imagine that since the reliable use of forensic DNA evidence in convicting criminals, the rate of false imprisonment is lower now than ever before. The late 90's was when it really evolved in courtrooms. The death penalty should only be assigned when convicted with conclusive DNA evidence.

    Unfortunately, DNA isn't even "conclusive" (i.e. 100%) proof of a match.

    I guess the SCOTUS agrees. They made it so there is no Constitutional requirement to give a person access to DNA analysis to prove their innocence. The vote was 5-4 (guess which side the conservatives were on).

    Alito wrote a concurrence that extensively detailed potential flaws in DNA evidence, seeking to refute its reputation as offering virtually certain evidence of innocence or guilt. "Alas, it is far from that simple," wrote Alito, citing issues of sample contamination, human error and laboratory backlogs. "My point is that requests for postconviction DNA testing are not cost free."

    So, I wonder what "cost" Justice Alito puts on a viable innocent human life?

    Here is part of the liberal's dissent:

    Justice John Paul Stevens, in dissent, countered that "the DNA test Osborne seeks is a simple one, its cost modest, and its results uniquely precise." Stevens wrote, "It seems to me obvious that if a wrongly convicted person were to produce proof of his actual innocence, no state interest would be sufficient to justify his continued punitive detention. If such proof can be readily obtained without imposing significant burden on the state, a refusal to provide access to such evidence is wholly unjustified."

    Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer joined Stevens' dissent.

    I guess "justice" isn't the goal of some of the Justices.

    The conservatives don't get that, while not 100% effective at proving guilt (100% match) it can be used to establish innocence. At least beyond a reasonable doubt, and frankly, that's the goal in our legal system.



    The Seminal » New Report Analyzes Texas Wrongful Convictions Exposed by DNA

    New Report Analyzes Texas Wrongful Convictions Exposed by DNA


    It is difficult to fathom that thirty-nine innocent Texans have spent more than five hundred years in prison for crimes they did not commit. This alarming figure is detailed in a new report issued this week by The Justice Project: Convicting the Innocent: Texas Justice Derailed.
    Unfortunately, five hundred years does not reflect the actual amount of time all innocent people have spent wrongfully imprisoned in Texas because the report only focuses on individuals who were exonerated by DNA evidence, which is available in only a fraction of cases. Each DNA exoneration exposes flaws in our criminal justice system that lead to unreliable evidence and inaccurate verdicts in our courts. It is time Texas and the rest of the country confront these flaws and learn from these costly mistakes.
    The costs of wrongful convictions are profound, and begin with the devastation suffered by the wrongfully convicted person and family. Everyone involved in these cases is affected, from jurors who are presented with faulty evidence, to the crime victims who are denied the justice of seeing the real perpetrator convicted. Further, every wrongful conviction undermines public safety. When the wrong person is prosecuted and convicted, the actual perpetrator remains free to commit more crimes—crimes that could have been prevented.
    While some error is inevitable in a system run by human beings, many of the mistakes leading to wrongful convictions can be prevented with the right safeguards in place. An analysis of all wrongful convictions in Texas reveals distinct patterns in the types of mistakes that lead to convicting the innocent. As a result, these patterns guide a clear path toward reforms that will improve the reliability of evidence in our courts.
    The overwhelming majority of wrongful convictions in Texas, as is the case in the rest of the country, are a result of eyewitness misidentification. Decades of research on eyewitness memory reveals that changes in the way we present photo and live lineups can reduce the risk of error.
    Despite the fact that more accurate procedures have been endorsed by the U.S. Department of Justice and other organizations for years, most police departments do not follow them. In fact, the vast majority of police departments in Texas do not have any written procedures for conducting lineups. By requiring police to follow written policies that include proven strategies for reducing error, Texas can improve the reliability of eyewitness evidence and significantly reduce the risk that a false identification will lead to another wrongful conviction.
    Eyewitness reform is a small part of the broader reform needed to effectively prevent wrongful convictions in Texas. Texas is long overdue in requiring electronic recording of custodial interrogations to false confessions, which are a documented reality. Unreliable testimony from informants must be subjected to greater scrutiny and more transparency. Forensic oversight should be improved and its standards strengthened. Until these reforms are implemented, Texas will continue to make preventable mistakes in criminal trials, and wrongful convictions will continue to occur. Each wrongful conviction undermines public confidence in our criminal justice system. It is time the state of Texas to takes action to restore public confidence and ensure that no more innocent people are convicted of crimes they did not commit.
    More than five hundred years of time spent for wrongful convictions is more than enough of a reason for Texas to take action.
     

    JBob77

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 7, 2009
    402
    18
    Scott County
    I don't understand how people who congregate in an area Where self defense and Legal firearm carry is one of the main topics, can say they do not agree with capital punishment. Saying killing is wrong, unless I have to do it, is hypocritical. You can't have your cake and eat it too!!
     

    MacMan

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Feb 15, 2009
    52
    6
    I'm all for the death penalty.

    I believe locking people up for the rest of there lives is also treating them like animals.

    The crime should definitely fit the punishment, and there should be strict guidelines to follow.
     

    public servant

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    23   0   0
    I don't understand how people who congregate in an area Where self defense and Legal firearm carry is one of the main topics, can say they do not agree with capital punishment. Saying killing is wrong, unless I have to do it, is hypocritical. You can't have your cake and eat it too!!
    The OP was about death as a form of punishment rather than as the result of self defense. There is a big difference.

    We all agree that by choosing to carry a weapon, there may come a time when we are faced with the decision to take another life as the result of our actions to protect our own life or that of another. I can only assume that we also all agree we hope that situation never presents itself.

    The question here is...is the death penalty justified as a form of punishment by the justice system?
     
    Last edited:

    The Meach

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Feb 23, 2009
    1,093
    38
    Nobletucky
    Oscar Wilde - "One is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that the wicked have committed, but by the punishment that the good have inflicted."
     

    public servant

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    23   0   0
    Oscar Wilde - "One is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that the wicked have committed, but by the punishment that the good have inflicted."
    I would be more sickened by an individual who chose to murder and then have sex with the dead bodies or eat parts of his 17 victims (J. Dahmer) or one who murders 33 innocent young boys then buries the bodies in his basement. (J.W. Gacey). :twocents:

    Do you believe these animals could be rehabilitated back into society?
     
    Last edited:

    The Meach

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Feb 23, 2009
    1,093
    38
    Nobletucky
    I would be more sickened by an individual who chose to murder and then have sex with the bodies or eat parts of his 17 victims (J. Dahmer) or one who murders 33 innocent young boys then buries the bodies in his basement. (J.W. Gacey). :twocents:

    Do you believe these animals could be rehabilitated back into society?

    No.

    However once they were caught it was/is not necessary for the public protection to put them to death.

    Life imprisonment is preferable.
     

    The Meach

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Feb 23, 2009
    1,093
    38
    Nobletucky
    How much money does it actually cost to house 1 inmate for a year in a supermax facility.

    Well if we start killing human beings just because it is convenient or cost effective I'd say we are worse than they are.

    I don't see where a price tag has any place in the issue.
     

    jeremy

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Feb 18, 2008
    16,482
    36
    Fiddler's Green
    Well if we start killing human beings just because it is convenient or cost effective I'd say we are worse than they are.

    I don't see where a price tag has any place in the issue.



    See there you go assuming things again. I actually am curious to find this out. Since we are paying to house all these convicts for the rest of their lives that is got to be expensive.

    If we were worried about cost effective ways to kill inmates we all ready have that one figured out. Rope is cheap and you can reuse it...
     

    mconley

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Aug 17, 2008
    643
    18
    Hendricks Co.
    I am for cp, but aginst the way this country does it... First off if you are convicted of a crime punishable by death, you then get to have another trial. If convicted at your 2nd trial, you get to have a third. If you are convicted at the 3rd, you have up to 10 years sitting in prison on death row to think about how you can win your 4th trial. It should be swift, and effective. I say bring it back to the streets like it was in the old days, it would be a much more effective deturant of crime if everyone saw the punishment for the crime, which is what the death is supposed to do right?
     

    haldir

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 10, 2008
    3,183
    38
    Goshen
    Jeremy, per your request.

    CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND ITS COSTS:

    There's a claim that it is more expensive for the state to execute a criminal than to incarcerate him for life. Many opponents present, as fact, that the cost of the death penalty is so expensive (at least $2 million per case?), that we must choose life without parole ("LWOP") at a cost of $1 million for 50 years. Predictably, these pronouncements may be entirely false. JFA (Justice for All) estimates that LWOP cases will cost $1.2 million - $3.6 million more than equivalent death penalty cases.

    And life without parole prisoners face, on average, 30 or 40 years in prison while the annual cost of incarceration is $40,000 to $50,000 a year for each prisoner or more! There is no question that the up front costs of the death penalty are significantly higher than for equivalent LWOP cases. There also appears to be no question that, over time, equivalent LWOP cases are much more expensive - from $1.2 to $3.6 million - than death penalty cases. Opponents ludicrously claim that the death penalty costs, over time, 3-10 times more than LWOP.

    The $34,200 is conservative, if TIME Magazine's (2/7/94) research is accurate. TIME found that, nationwide, the average cell cost is $24,000/yr. and the maximum security cell cost is $75,000/yr. (as of12/95). Opponents claim that LWOP should replace the DP. Therefore, any cost calculations should be based specifically on cell costs for criminals who have committed the exact same category of offense - in other words, cost comparisons are valid only if you compare the costs of DP-equivalent LWOP cases to the cost of DP cases. The $34,200/yr. cell cost assumes that only 20% of the DP-equivalent LWOP cases would be in maximum security cost cells and that 80% of the DP-equivalent LWOP cases would be in average cost cells. A very conservative estimate. The $60,000/yr., for those on death row, assumes that such cells will average a cost equal to 80% of the $75,000/yr. for the most expensive maximum security cells. A very high estimate. Even though we are calculating a 75% greater cell cost for the DP than for equivalent LWOP cases, equivalent LWOP cases appear to be significantly more expensive, over time, than their DP counterparts. For years, opponents have improperly compared the cost of all LWOP cases to DP cases, when only the DP equivalent LWOP cases are relevant.

    Annual cost increases are based upon: 1) historical increases in prison costs, including judicial decisions regarding prison conditions,and the national inflation rate; 2) medical costs, including the immense cost of geriatric care, associated with real LWOP sentences; 3) injury or death to the inmate by violence; 4) injury or death to others caused by the inmate (3 and 4 anticipate no DP and that prisoners, not fearing additional punishment, other than loss of privileges, may increase the likelihood of violence. One could make the same assumptions regarding those on death row. The difference is that death row inmates will average 6 years incarceration vs. 50 years projected for LWOP); 5) the risk and the perceived risk of escape; and 6) the justifiable lack of confidence by the populace in our legislators, governors, parole boards and judges, i.e. a violent inmate will be released upon society.

    $75,000 for trial and appeals cost, for DP-equivalent LWOP cases, assumes that the DP is not an option. It is believed that this cost estimate is very low. It is over-estimated that DP cases will cost twenty times more, on average, or $1.5 million. This exaggerated estimate states that the DP will have twenty times more investigation cost, defense and prosecution cost, including court time, guilt/innocence stage, sentencing stage and appellate review time and cost than DP equivalent LWOP cases. Even though abolitionists have greatly exaggerated the cost of DP cases, DP cases still prove to be significantly less expensive, over time, than the DP equivalent LWOP cases.

    6 years on death row, prior to execution, reflects the new habeas corpus reform laws, at both the state and federal levels. Some anti-death penalty groups speculate that such time may actually become only 4 years. If so, then DP cases would cost even that much less than the DP equivalent LWOP cases. However, the average time on death row, for those executed from 1973-1994, was 8 years. Therefore, 6 years seems more likely. Even using the 8 year average, the DP equivalent LWOP cases are still $1 million more expensive than their DP counterparts ($2 million @ 2% annual increase).

    So the death penalty costs reside mainly in appeals costs. Life without parole prisoners get the same appeals and should be considered to bear the same costs.

    And if the death penalty is abolished, abolitionists will turn to eliminate life without parole as well and will drive the appeals costs higher than death penalty appeals since there is no execution to end the process of a life without parole prisoner.

    Lastly, the cost for justice does not have to be so high for the execution of murderers. If we only allowed appeals that are relevant in proving one's innocence and eliminated the many more that are used merely as delaying tactics, it would save millions in taxpayer dollars.
     
    Top Bottom