Posted on 03/14/2014 9:18:55 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
You often hear it said, “Let the punishment fit the crime.” Well, what punishment “fits” the crime of willfully taking a human life? The death penalty.
That being said, it should only be reserved for cases involving “malice aforethought”/premeditation and eyewitnesses (plural) to the act. Barring these, the state cannot act in good conscience in taking the life of the guilty. This threshold having been reached, appeals should be fast-tracked and, if the original finding of guilt is maintained, executions should occur quickly.
The goal is justice. Justice should be swift, clear, right.
And
Matthew 10:34 " Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword"
“EXCUSE: The death penalty serves justice because it’s an “eye for an eye.”
ANSWER: Fair enough except for one problem: Somebody has already paid “an eye for an eye” for those criminals and their heinous acts, so unjust double jeopardy is in play here.”
Can you please elaborate on this point. What do you mean by somebody has already paid for those criminals? Are you referring to Jesus?
There was also the Vehm - a vigilante society.
All free men were eligible to join
Would post notices informing miscreants to surrender Had
45 days to turn oneself in. Otherwise would be outlawed
and could be hunted down and killed
Would meet in secret conclaves to pss judgement (and sentence) on those brought before it
A failure to impose a death penalty for the most heinous crimes such as serial murder shows that society no longer values human life highly, in particular the human life of the victims.
It is of a piece with a society that condones killing millions of babies in the womb and through Obamacare is in the process of giving government officials the power to terminate the lives of very sick people in the interest of saving money on medical care.
The most sound argument against the death penalty is the risk of executing wrongly convicted persons.
However, this risk must be weighed against the ability of the justice system to function effectively. Philosophers of law like to recite the maxim that “it is better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted.”
In my view, this type of standard is not useful. The system of justice should require simply that the elements of the crime be proven beyond reasonable doubt in the particular case at bar. There will be mistakes made, because the system of justice is administered by human beings. The only way to avoid mistakes being made is not to make an attempt at a system of justice at all.
In the case of the most heinous crimes, if ten guilty murderers should go free in order to avoid any possible mistake as to a single innocent person, and if several of the freed murderers go on to murder further victims, is that really an effective justice system?
“I prosecuted a number of death penalty cases.”
My understanding of the legal system is that it has little power to induce people to turn on their partners in crime or to plea a deal. So, the prosecutor has the ability to bargain lower charges with death vs life as a tool. If the prosecutor loses that tool what does it mean to the legal system based on having it?
My concern with the legal system is that the win rate of public defenders is nil. But having your own lawyer costs $5,000 down and $500/hour. For practical purposes 95% of the people simply can’t afford a defense. The George Zimmerman prosecutor used a hammer, apparently in an attempt to get Zimmerman to accept jail time. (Let’s face it, jail for Zimmerman would have been a death sentence.) The prosecutor abused her power and, in my opinion, should herself be prosecuted for the abuse and for her inflammatory statements before, during and after the trial.
But the choice is not the death penalty versus nothing. Life imprisonment would serve justice.
The overwhelming majority of the planet does not have and/or use capital punishment. Many (but not a majority) of states also do not have/use capital punishment.
The state does screw up everything it touches, and that includes the death penalty. However, there needs to be a provision for the death penalty, but it should require absolute proof before it is carried out, and it should require absolute knowledge of circumstances of a murder for it to be carried out.
If there is no death penalty at all, then there is no way to affirm how precious life is. Life for life.
Your argument is specious. Christ died for those who will accept Him. A murderer has shown utter disregard for the creation that God has made and has been condemned to die by the Word of God Himself. There is no 'double jeapordy' becuase the criminal has never suffered a just punishment for his crime.
The death penalty serves justice because it's an "eye for an eye."
Strawman argument. The punishment for murder is "Life for Life". Christ forbid vengeance, not justice. We, His children are forgiven. That forgiveness is not delivered to the unrepentant.
Countless personal and professional examples testify to the fact that there is only one way victims of savagery can recover from the hurt and angst of victimization: forgiveness.
Agreed. But forgiveness comes AFTER repentance. God Himself has said "Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord." Acts 3:19
You lock up dangerous criminals to protect society.
So, no murderer has EVER gotten out of prison? Released to Kill Again
prisoners should be productive and at least pay their way in prison.
Concur. Murderers should pay with their lives.
See my post (#19). The job of DA should not exist at all.
If Jesus’ death covers for all murderers in this life then how can you justify any punishment at all?
Yes.
"God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them" (2 Corinthians 5:19).
"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2).
The fact that a “majority of the planet” does or does not do some particular thing is not a sound argument, in my view, for whether that thing in principle is right or wrong.
Even setting aside the Willie Horton-type possibilities, we are still left with the question of whether merely confining someone in prison is a just penalty for a heinous crime like serial murder.
A silly crack.
Since lifers in prison murder their guards and fellow prisoners, what would you suggest as punishment? The death penalty has its purpose. Society has the right to protect itself.
This criteria, “1. Guilt should be beyond any doubt whatsoever; the usual criteria of guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” doesn’t cut it for hanging somebody.” is impossible to meet. Short of a video of the crime and a confession, and even then a good enough lawyer can get a percentage of jurors to doubt themselves. If you question or ridicule the idea, some people will doubt the sun will come up tomorrow.
As a prosecutor told me once,(approximate words) “Suspects usually are suspects because they’ve come up on the radar repeatedly. They’re not your aunt Mildred. They have a police record for similar crimes. Did they all do the one they’re accused of? Maybe, maybe not. But they’re not lilly-white innocents.”
Utter rubbish. The military is part of our government. I have over 23 years of honest and faithful service. Are you saying I am screwed up? How about my brother Marines that died in service to this Country? Were they screwed up?
Our government has some serious flaws, but that does not automatically indict every man and woman who serves some branch. While I generally dislike lawyers, they serve a purpose and many of them are honest and faithful, believing in a higher purpose, not simply chasing money or fame.
Provide a case in the US system since 1900 where an innocent person has been executed. You make an absolute statement with no proof.
But I think the starting point is doing away with the death penalty for the reasons I gave.
Those criminals that you lock up to protect society murder their guards and fellow prisoners.
Fact is we do not live in a theocracy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.