This Is Why We Must Have The Death Penalty

So killing a cop is more reason for the death penalty? Or what? I don't understand your thread title.

Nevertheless, there are many more heinous crimes around this country which better justify the DP.

 

How does this sad story prove we need the death penalty anymore than the hundreds of others like it? It isn't a deterrent, otherwise Texas would probably be free of any murders. The only way I see this justifying it is for vengeance, which is God's alone. Killing murderers is like hitting a child to teach him not to hit others. Counterproductive and just wrong.

 

Alright, Yes or No: Should we legislate and govern according to God's law?

If a burglar breaks into a house and carries off a computer to his own home, and the cops have evidence that he was the criminal, should they get a warrant to go into his home to retrieve that computer.... or is it wrong to forcibly enter a home to retrieve an item because you can't commit the same act to show an act is wrong?

 

The death penalty is the best deterrant in the world.

There is a 0% rate of recidivism for those executed.:thumbs:

We might finetune the laws for the crimes that are eligible for capital punishment, but keep it. Murdering cops should always be on it.

Some people, to loosely use the term, just need to be eliminated from the gene pool.

 

Being a deterrent, doesn't guaranty 100% effectiveness, and you know that. And everywhere the DP is in effect has a lot fewer instances of murder.

Society must punish offenses, theft is punished under our judicial system. We don't rely on God to extract judgment.

Extremely weak argument, particularily in light of "spare the rod, spoil the child"

 

I do usually agree with MP on a lot of things but on this one I see that Hillclimber is pretty much right on, with maybe the exception about "We don't rely on God to extract judgment" I believe that God can and does use people as instruments to carry out his will.

 

The death penalty has proven 100% effective in prevent repeats by the perpetrator.

 

If you had your way, over a hundred innocent people would have been executed. They were convicted and imprisoned, condemned to death, but the interminable rounds of appeals gave them enough time that new evidence was found, and they were eventually exonerated.

Granted, several thousand other guilty killers would have more swiftly dealt with.

The question is: "is it worth killing a hundred or so innocent people to more swiftly kill a few thousand guilty ones?"

That's not a rhetorical question. I'd like your opinion.

 

Source, please.

 

Except where they execute the wrong person.

 

Yes it is a deterrent! Timothy McVeigh hasn't blown up any more buildings since he was executed on June 11, 2001. :thumbs:

 

Some are misusing the word "deterrent". Of course execution prevents a person from committing any more crimes. But the idea of deterrence is that the threat of execution would discourage criminals as they thought about the possible consequences of their actions. I do not see this happening ... although it is difficult to prove a negative. That is, how would you ever gather statistics on people who would say, "I was gonna kill .... until I thought about being executed"? Not possible.

But the main point here is that in those states where executions are rather common, it would seem that there are plenty of people who are not deterred from committing crimes. One might ask the same thing about hell ... is there no fear of being consigned to hell when a person blatantly takes another's life? Evidently not.

The irreversibility of the death penalty makes it suspect, for me. And the hope that Christian witness might eventually reach the heart and mind of the killer, even while he is in prison, and bring him the gift of salvation, energizes me against the death penalty.

 

So do determinate life sentences (that is, those without possibility for parole). And life sentences can be undone in light of new evidence. People who favor the death penalty seem to completely ignore human error.

 

That does not need a source. It is such a well known fact. A good source is www.google.com

A friend of mine represents people already on death row because of poor representation. How would you like to be represented by a lawyer who is half drunk and paid a few dollars? My friend has told me about cases he has done where he honestly believe the person was truly innocent. If you have ever listened to the new the past few years you have got to know about lawyers who have had political aspirations who flunked in trying a case at the stake of an innocent person's life. The fact is that it costs more to try a death penalty case than to have them in prison for life.

Knowing that what would you propose for a completely flawless unbiased judicial system to get it 100 percent right all of the time?

 

One does not have to go very far to find out where crime is the highest, teen pregnancy the highest, and poverty is the highest. My hunch is that they are in the same states as the death penalty. I have a hunch they are the same states that were the last to abolish slavery and segregation too.