I'm conflicted with the death penalty
 

I used to be very gung-ho about the death penalty, but that has been tempered somewhat over the past several years.

I'm not sure in all instances that the death penalty is the best way to serve justice.

In the case of Tookie I feel the 20 year appeals process was a joke, thus more a testatment to the bloviated appeals process than any. I'm a little surprised at many opponents who were quoted to being more concerned with the $Cost of the process, than actual justice being served.

While that's certainly a pertinent issue, I'd think that the victims in all of this often get lost by those who oppose the death penalty and often it seems the sympathy is often directed toward the blatant offender of the crime, which is beyond my capactiy to understand.

A strong part of me feels that instead of the death penalty that the convicted ought to be shackled, given a pick and made to bang rocks everyday, all day til they fall over and die. Maybe hard labor would be a better deterrent, but I really don't know.

I can't honestly say for myself had a close family member of friend of mine been raped and murdered, or killed in cold blood, that over my lifetime I'd have the capacity to forgive as we've been commanded to. I don't think I could.

I feel as a society we have a responsibility to put persons, through fair and impartial judicial procees, to death. I also believe that there are crimes which demand swift and lethal justice regardless of whether the person may be redeemable.

A responsibility to whom? I just don't understand that thingking. The only way I would every embrace the death penalty is if I thought it were a real deterrent, but I don't think it is. The streets are not any safer when convicted killers are dead as opposed to being locked up for life.

People cry about justice, but who determines what is just? One man's justice is another man's barbarism. I'm convincd that it's a lot more about revenge than it is about justice. If that's the case, is revenge really an appropriate reason for taking the life of a convicted killer?

I'm fine with the death penalty, but I wouldn't call myself a proponent. I think life in prison without parole is just fine as a punishment. Plus, it's cheaper, and I think a life-long love affair with your cell mate, Brutus, may, indeed, be a fate worse than death.

I sure hope you're conflicted about the death penalty. It isn't exactly something that should be celebrated.

The death penalty is to society what removal of a brain tumor is to the body. I am not aware of anybody who is particularly excited about the opportunity to undergo brain surgery, but if the tumor is not removed it can have disastrous effects.

I think your analogy might be a little stretched. Are you saying that society will collapse if we remove the death penalty? Probably not, but I don't necessarily see how capital punishment necessarily prevents any societal ills. Is there any evidence that supports the assertion that it does?

o

Justice is universal ... we can no more escape justice in society than we can escape eternal justice throughout our existence.

The death penalty is not about revenge it is a consequence. Society is commanded of God to met out punishment as a consequence for actions detrimental to the societal body as a whole. If one Murders with malicious intent he or she forfeits the right to his or her own life as a consequence. Such justice should not be misconstrued as a determent but nothing more than a consequence.

Who determines what is justice? If I steal a loaf of bread in some countries my had will be cut off? Is that justice? In some countries justice requires that adulterers be executed; is that justice?

The notion of justice may be universal, but the determination of what constitutes justice is far from universal. The severity or leniency of any punishment is determined by man and usually drawn from religious and cultural customs.

No one argues that there should not be a consequence for murder. Our society has decided that that consequence is either life in prison or execution, depending on the state in which you live. The severity of any consequence is determined by what people in a society decide is appropriate. It has nothing to do with fulfilling some sort of eternal cosmic duty.

So when you say, "If one Murders with malicious intent he or she forfeits the right to his or her own life as a consequence" I would respond by asking, "Says who?" It is certainly not a natural consequence. It is only a consequence because some people say it is.

Ultimately the issue of capital punishment comes down to public policy. What do we want to do to people who kill other people? The only natural consequence of murder is what people determine that consequence should be.

Brilliant post.

o

My opinion is admittedly biased
 

because some members of my family were murdered, but I have no problem with capital punishment whatsoever. The scumbags who murdered these people claimed to be "reformed" and "Christians" while in prison, but we had access to the records of the things they did and the type or reading materials they requested while in prison, and they were hardly reformed. They bragged about how they murdered, tortured, raped and mutilated their victims. They bragged about all of the guys they had raped while in prison, and the reading material they requested in prison consisted of nothing but hard-core pornography. It took 20 years before they were executed, and during those 20 years, they and their co-horts outside of prison continued to torment the families of their victims and make threats against their lives. The next time you see a "reformed" prisoner like victim on TV, realize that there is a good chance you're being played for a sucker by a ruthless ingrate.