Death Penalty – Pro Life
Something that i often find perplexing is the position commonly held by certain parties or groups and how they don’t seem to hold up together in a comparison of morals. I do my best not to agree with an issue based solely on where my political or social standing falls on the issue at hand. This in of itself is one of the biggest problem facing America as so many have lost the ability to really think for them selves and just follow the color they have fallen in with.
However the issue i always find to make no sense is the predominantly conservative support for the death penalty. These are the same folks who want Jesus in the class room and are anti abortion and stem cell research BUT they do think hooking another human being up to a execution machine is not only the just thing to do but they are adamant and passionate about the murder of these admittedly detestable people. This is really a question to the people who either do or just happen to know the reasoning behind this position. I can not see how any Christian or spiritual person can attest to believing that the death penalty is the right and just thing to do or support. Ignoring the issue that there could be a wrongful conviction which i am sure there a many cases of this, but just on a spiritual ground to argue for the saving of life on the one hand in the case of abortion and the taking of it on the other with the death penalty.
Please shed some light on this for me.
June 23, 2008 at 6:47 pm
hypocrite:
1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.
Strange how some believe children are not born innocent, but must be saved, being inherently bad straight from the womb.. yet are vehemently anti-abortion. And somehow strongly support things like the death penalty and starting wars with sovereign nations who have never attacked us, because it somehow makes them feel ’safer’.. they discount tens or hundreds of thousands of dead civilians for some false notion of being safer.
June 24, 2008 at 1:05 am
I had reason to become interested in John Stuart Mill recently who put forth the idea that your individual freedom extends to the point at which it infringes on an others’ freedom. People are stupid, not all people, but enough to elect a George W. Bush. This is why they adopt contradictory positions on issues, like teaching abstinence only while excluding birth control in high schools in an effort to reduce teen pregnancy. The day these jackasses are out of office won’t come soon enough they are so profoundly incompetent it boggles the mind.
Mill in his own words:
The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” — John Stuart Mill, Essay on Liberty (Library of Liberal Arts edition, p.13)
June 24, 2008 at 3:59 am
some believe in killing violent criminals and saving babies
others believe in killing babies and saving violent criminals
both sides are flawed and unjust. think about how many innocent people capital punishment has claimed??
June 24, 2008 at 12:38 pm
but look at it from the other side, too. the anti-death penalty and pro-abortion crowd supports…
1. letting someone who has stolen life from someone else not only keep their own life, but be supported by the tax payers he has killed
2. supports the killing of a child who has done nothing wrong to society except become a “burden” to a mother who doesn’t want to take responsibility for her actions
i support the death penalty if that person is found WITHOUT A DOUBT guilty of a crime that’s ruined (molested children) or ended (cold blooded murder) a life. and if they are without a doubt guilty, end their life the day they are found guilty. that releases the burden on the tax payer and it doesn’t crowd our prisons.
i don’t necessarily agree with abortion as birth control, but at the very least….it should not be tax payer funded.
and with war… no one likes war. period. but if you think sitting back and doing nothing will fix the problem, you’re crazy. if we didn’t fight the nazis, how many more innocent lives would’ve been lost? sitting back and doing nothing is more often worse than actually fighting when it comes to war.
now with iraq… one thing the left seems to continually confuse is the thought that the right believes iraq was involved in 9/11. i don’t know anyone who thinks that. bush and cheney don’t even believe that. bush’s speech after 9/11 clearly stated that anyone supporting terrorism will be held accountable.
do i agree 100% with us going into iraq? no. do i think we should pull out immediately? no i don’t. and i don’t think we should have military bases in other countries, either.
June 24, 2008 at 3:21 pm
I am afraid to say that i just don’t see any justification for murdering anyone. I guess any principle of “do as i say not as i do” is just not something i can get behind. I am sure there are going to be arguments of murder in self defense etc. which those situational arguments may have some merit. However as the government which should be on the forefront of morality and justice, the very idea that they can teach us that murder is in fact a justifiable act is in my opinion one of the many contributing factors to the heightened violence in America. I understand that it is costly to keep people in prison but the numbers we are talking about on death row is not significant enough to make a monetary dent but as for the morality issue i believe it is enormous!
I would agree the whole penal system needs changing and that it should somehow be used to be a benefit to society in form of labour etc.
I am specifically interested in someone who claims to be Religious and also in favor of the death penalty and how they find it fits into their faith. I may write a quick follow up blog to that effect..
Thanks for the comments. This is a interesting forum.
June 27, 2008 at 2:21 pm
There are many valid objections to the death penalty, several of which are articulated here. However, I think a question that needs closer examination is whether there is any rational reason why the death penalty should be in force. Surely it is the role of advocates of capital punishment to justify the sanction on both a moral and a practical level, rather than for opponents to identify the flaws in the system?
I for one do not believe that it is proper for the state to hold the power of life and death over its citizens – this seems to be totally inconsistent with the libertarian ideal of the state being the servant of the people. I find it rather ironic that in general terms, advocates of the death penalty happen to favour “small government” policies, yet they are seemingly happy to give the state ultimate jurisdiction over their lives!
The death penalty creates a second set of victims who, with the focus of the attention squarely on the condemned and the family of the original victim, are almost invariably forgotten. I am referring to the family of the condemned. Obviously there is going to be considerably variance in the family circumstances and in members’ attitudes towards the condemned, however the fact remains that there will likely be at least a few who will mourn their death.
An earlier contributor stated that he agreed with the death penalty in cases where there is no doubt as to the accused’s guilt. I will offer a couple of responses to this. Firstly, no judicial system is perfect. There will always be some element of doubt, which is why the burden of proof is not set this high – otherwise it would not be possible to convict anyone. Secondly, even if we were to adopt such a stance, it would result in the death penalty being imposed even more inequitably than it is at present. If two people were facing a capital murder charge, why should one of them be spared the death penalty simply because he was more successful in disguising his tracks?
June 27, 2008 at 2:55 pm
It is hard to find responses from people i am questioning. By questioning i don’t necessarily mean “judging” but i really am interested to hear the flip side to the argument. I try to claim to seeing as many sides of the story as i can. I know where my feelings and morals lie on a issue but i would like to understand how other justify these things to themselves. I mean there must be a majority of support out there for the death penalty otherwise how is it part of a democratic society. So i guess in a slight diversion i see two things come from this i) pro death penalty people do not read this blog ii) we are all made to feel so isolated that despite the overwhelming majority of people feeling that the death penalty is morally reprehensible and against the beliefs of the predominantly Christian nation, that we cannot fight against another big government decision made for us by our “elected leaders” We are always made to feel too small and insignificant to really deal with this. The point was made earlier to the effect of maybe i would be pro death if it was someone who had hurt me, but what if it is you or your child on death row? How do you feel then, especially those who may be innocent. Good movie to watch: ” The Life of Davd Gale”
June 28, 2008 at 11:55 am
“Bush’s speech after 9/11 clearly stated that anyone supporting terrorism will be held accountable.”
-The United States has been guilty of suporting terrorists throughout our history. Some would argue that the Taliban and Bin Laden were started and initially funded by the United States in an effort to defeat the Soviets. We gave weapons to Iran for hostages, and may be responsible for giving them nuclear technology. We continue to pay for oil from the Middle East. We play both sides, and always change the rules, so long as it meets our current need. And we don’t hold ourselves accountable.