Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]



This is an archived forum, so it is here for read-only purposes only. We are not accepting new members and members cannot post any longer. Members can, however, access their old private messages. Strawberry Fields was open from 2006 until 2011. There is a Strawberry Fields Beatles Forum on Facebook. If you are registered with Facebook, join us at the group there!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Lethal Injections On Hold in California, Florida; WARNING: This May Be Hard To Read
Topic Started: Dec 16 2006, 11:42 AM (1,511 Views)
Deleted User
Deleted User

Bill
Dec 18 2006, 10:10 AM
Hicks is an illustration of how the slogan "the worst of the worst," is misused.

You have eloquantly stated the case for why Camm deserves to die and I have no argument with that. You have not shown me how that gives another the right to kill him.

Proponants of the death penalty always focus on the right to live. What is at issue is the right to kill. And I thought we agreed that it's wrong to kill. That's the ethical paradox that can never be got around.



The State of Indiana has the right to kill David Camm as long as what he's found guilty of falls within the boundaries of law set forth by them. It's that simple to me. It may be un-Christian, but I am prepared to be judged on my death bed for it as there are several un-Christian activities this Christian should probably atone for.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
Iluvpeter
Dec 18 2006, 03:15 PM
No i disagree with the notion that it is wrong to kill. If one accepts that it is right to kill in self defence how can one say it is wrong to kill.

I don't believe that anyone considers it right to kill in self-defence. If you have no option but to kill or be killed, then no jury should convict you of murder - but I'm sure that plenty have - which brings me back to my first point.

My main objection is - and always will be - lack of faith in the judicial system to get it right. Let us ponder a few names here;

Cameron Todd Willingham

Carlos De Luna

Roger Coleman

Ruben Cantu

Now, I conceed that all of these four people may not be innocent of their crimes, but all have been executed and a pardon really is no good to any of them. If just one out of the four of them have been unjustly executed - and any level minded person would have to admit that it really is a distinct possibility - is there anyone here who is willing to say that the death of one of those innocent people is a justifiable cost of killing many people who are guilty beyond doubt... and were they really guilty beyond doubt?

When state officials execute, they kill in your name. You have to ask yourself - are you happy for potentially innocent people to be killed in your name? I know I certainly wouldn't be.
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
Bill
Dec 18 2006, 05:11 AM
Don't avoid the question Heidi. Yo know very well what I'm talking about.

Who has the right to kill the guilty? What they deserve is neither here nor there. We are talking about the right to kill.

Who has the right to kill?

I believe I have already answered your question, not avoided it.

NOBODY has the right to kill the innocent.
Society has the right to punish by varying degrees all the way up to death for "payment" of the most henious of crimes.

Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
theonlyfab4fan
Dec 18 2006, 05:16 AM
Bag O' Nails
Dec 18 2006, 05:06 AM
theonlyfab4fan
Dec 18 2006, 04:47 AM
Heidi, I can only bring myself to respond to your last argument in your lengthy breakdown of the points you were trying to make.



What makes you think you (or anyone else for that matter) have the right to decide who lives or dies?

Is that a yes or no on those murderers I mentioned?

I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, but I really want to know what you think about that.

I could ask pro-choice people the same question you asked me. Who decides?
Society.

Well , then let me ask you this. What have we as a society learned to improve the future and possibly identify markers that can pinpoint an individuals propensity to commit the crimes that these people did that you have mentioned by executing them?


Of course there is also the old adage that 2 wrongs do not make a right.


And one more thing. Do you think that any of the victims families felt any sense of peace once those individiuals had their own lives ended. I can only speak from my own personal experience, and that answer is an unequivocal NO!!!!! So, if you have had a family member of your own brutally murdered and can honestly say you feel differently then perhaps we can reach an understanding. I can only speak from my own experience. I have not had a moments peace since that horrid day on September 29, 1980 when my dear dear cousin (who was more a brother to me) was found dead and rotting in a ditch on interstate I95 in Fayetteville North Carolina. He was bound, gagged and shot 5 times in the head execution style. So, tell me. What is your personal experience with this hot topic?

Betsy,
First of all, I'm sorry you had to personally experience such a horrible tragedy in your life. Am I correct in assuming that the murderer was caught, convicted and executed?

If so, I'm sorry it didn't bring you peace in your circumstance. However, l'm sure that for many other people, it does bring some sort of closure. I cannot speak from personal experience like you, but it doesn't mean that I don't have feelings or an opinion about it.

I do realize that executions aren't the "solve-all" solution for henious crimes. I'm not "execution-happy," but I definitely feel that the punishment should fit the crime. Murderers don't rot in prison; it's too good for them in comparison for the crime they committed.

Since I haven't gotten a direct "yes" or "no" about your opinions on the executions of people like Gacy, Bundy, etc. I guess you would've preferred them to still be alive and well in prison?
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theonlyfab4fan
Member Avatar
I AM THE BIGGEST JOHN FAN!
Quote:
 
Since I haven't gotten a direct "yes" or "no" about your opinions on the executions of people like Gacy, Bundy, etc. I guess you would've preferred them to still be alive and well in prison?


First of all thankyou for you sympathy concerning my personal situation. I appreciate that very much.

Secondly, I think my answer to above quote goes without saying, but since you seem to not be sure what my answer would be, it is yes.
You say you want to save humanity but it`s people that you just can`t stand
John came to me in a dream and this is what he said. "I had a vision of a man on a flaming pie, and he told me that Betsy with a B not Lisa with a L is the biggest fan of mine". John trumps 'the boss' !

I WAS ROBBED BY THAT DEVIL WOMAN

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Bag O' Nails
Dec 18 2006, 04:44 PM
Bill
Dec 18 2006, 05:11 AM
Don't avoid the question Heidi. Yo know very well what I'm talking about.

Who has the right to kill the guilty? What they deserve is neither here nor there. We are talking about the right to kill.

Who has the right to kill?

I believe I have already answered your question, not avoided it.

NOBODY has the right to kill the innocent.
Society has the right to punish by varying degrees all the way up to death for "payment" of the most henious of crimes.

If the person was wrongly convicted, wouldn't the state be killing the innocent?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dorfliedot
Member Avatar
Beatlelicious
Betsy, I am sorry about what happen to your cousin.. :cry:
Posted Image
Add Glitter to your Photos
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
tonyhemp
Dec 19 2006, 01:46 AM
Bag O' Nails
Dec 18 2006, 04:44 PM
Bill
Dec 18 2006, 05:11 AM
Don't avoid the question Heidi. Yo know very well what I'm talking about.

Who has the right to kill the guilty? What they deserve is neither here nor there. We are talking about the right to kill.

Who has the right to kill?

I believe I have already answered your question, not avoided it.

NOBODY has the right to kill the innocent.
Society has the right to punish by varying degrees all the way up to death for "payment" of the most henious of crimes.

If the person was wrongly convicted, wouldn't the state be killing the innocent?

Yes, that goes without saying. And that's why I have repeatedly said that capital punishment should be limited only for those with proven guilt (Bundy, Gacy, etc etc).
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BEATNUT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diaz’s attorney, Suzanne Myers Keffler, reacted angrily to the findings.

“This is complete negligence on the part of the state,” she said. “When he was still moving after the first shot of chemicals, they should have known there was a problem and they shouldn’t have continued. This shows a complete disregard for Mr. Diaz. This is disgusting.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The above was quoted from the article.

Is this b*tch Myers for real? "A complete disregard for Mr. Diaz"? Disgusting?

I say they should give her a lethal injection while they're at it. What about Mr' Diaz's total disregard for the man he shot and killed while robbing him? That's not disgusting?

How about the man's family who has to grow up without a Father? That's not disgusting? That's not complete disregard?

Screw Myers and screw Diaz. The world is a better place without that piece of crap.

Location: Self-Imposed Exile.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ogoble
Member Avatar

I am for the Death Penalty.
Especially in cases where someone has comitted premeditated murder.
Posted Image Beatles/Paul McCartney & Wings Fan Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

beep
Dec 19 2006, 02:26 AM
Bill
Dec 18 2006, 10:10 AM
Hicks is an illustration of how the slogan "the worst of the worst," is misused.

You have eloquantly stated the case for why Camm deserves to die and I have no argument with that. You have not shown me how that gives another the right to kill him.

Proponants of the death penalty always focus on the right to live. What is at issue is the right to kill. And I thought we agreed that it's wrong to kill. That's the ethical paradox that can never be got around.



The State of Indiana has the right to kill David Camm as long as what he's found guilty of falls within the boundaries of law set forth by them. It's that simple to me. It may be un-Christian, but I am prepared to be judged on my death bed for it as there are several un-Christian activities this Christian should probably atone for.

And by what authority does the state claim such a right?

What other "un-Christian" acts are we willing to turn a blind eye to so long as the state says it's okay? If the law makes it okay, then why to we protest abortion?

That's my main point here - the schism of values. I can't understand how a vegetarian can be in favour of abortion and I can't understand how a Christian can be in favour of the death penalty. It just doesn't make sense.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Bag O' Nails
Dec 19 2006, 08:44 AM
Bill
Dec 18 2006, 05:11 AM
Don't avoid the question Heidi. Yo know very well what I'm talking about.

Who has the right to kill the guilty? What they deserve is neither here nor there. We are talking about the right to kill.

Who has the right to kill?

I believe I have already answered your question, not avoided it.

NOBODY has the right to kill the innocent.
Society has the right to punish by varying degrees all the way up to death for "payment" of the most henious of crimes.

As I said to Peter, I'm a member of society. So following that logic, it's okay for me to hunt down and kill a convict. Is that how it works?
Who gave society the right to kill?

I'll tell you who has the right to kill:
He who is without sin.
It's in the book.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

ogoble
Dec 19 2006, 01:42 PM
I am for the Death Penalty.
Especially in cases where someone has comitted premeditated murder.

How is the death penalty not premeditated murder?

Trivia: when I describe execution as Homicide, I am not doing it to be emotive. That's what it's called on the death certificate. Under Cause-of-death, they tick the box marked "Homicide" and write beside it, "legal."
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BEATNUT

Bill
Dec 19 2006, 03:49 AM
beep
Dec 19 2006, 02:26 AM
Bill
Dec 18 2006, 10:10 AM
Hicks is an illustration of how the slogan "the worst of the worst," is misused.

You have eloquantly stated the case for why Camm deserves to die and I have no argument with that. You have not shown me how that gives another the right to kill him.

Proponants of the death penalty always focus on the right to live. What is at issue is the right to kill. And I thought we agreed that it's wrong to kill. That's the ethical paradox that can never be got around.



The State of Indiana has the right to kill David Camm as long as what he's found guilty of falls within the boundaries of law set forth by them. It's that simple to me. It may be un-Christian, but I am prepared to be judged on my death bed for it as there are several un-Christian activities this Christian should probably atone for.


and I can't understand how a Christian can be in favour of the death penalty. It just doesn't make sense.



Being a Christian means having faith in God. It also means we're human and have emotions. Just because you are a Christian doesn't mean your emotions don't come first.

I'm a Christian but i'm in favor of the death penalty. I can't understand how a parent who has a child that is murdered doesn't want their child's murderer put to death. That's emotions. If God forbid some asswipe murdered my son I would vow to kill my son's murderer no matter how I had to do it.

Being a Christian also means not being perfect or without sin. In this case i'm glad the State seperates itself from the Church. Put the bastid to death.
Location: Self-Imposed Exile.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JanaW
Member Avatar

I agree 100% with Bill.

If you are handed two books...one in each hand:

One is the Bible giving you the laws of your God, and those laws state that it is unlawful to kill. Killing is killing, no if ands or buts..dead is dead.

The second book is the laws in your state or country. Those laws state that it is okay to kill someone...if the state or country passes judgement on a person for their crimes and the state or country hands you a paycheck to do the killing.

Which book are you going to abide by? Think about this very carefully.......

If slaughterhouses had glass walls the whole world would be vegetarian.
Linda McCartney
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

That's a good point Beat. To have the urge is human and natural. To give in to the urge is un-Christian.

As we have been told, those without sin get to do the executions. And none of us are without sin. That's being human. Being Christian, to me, means doing my best (and regularly failing) to rise above.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Bill
Dec 18 2006, 10:49 PM
beep
Dec 19 2006, 02:26 AM
Bill
Dec 18 2006, 10:10 AM
Hicks is an illustration of how the slogan "the worst of the worst," is misused.

You have eloquantly stated the case for why Camm deserves to die and I have no argument with that. You have not shown me how that gives another the right to kill him.

Proponants of the death penalty always focus on the right to live. What is at issue is the right to kill. And I thought we agreed that it's wrong to kill. That's the ethical paradox that can never be got around.



The State of Indiana has the right to kill David Camm as long as what he's found guilty of falls within the boundaries of law set forth by them. It's that simple to me. It may be un-Christian, but I am prepared to be judged on my death bed for it as there are several un-Christian activities this Christian should probably atone for.

And by what authority does the state claim such a right?

What other "un-Christian" acts are we willing to turn a blind eye to so long as the state says it's okay? If the law makes it okay, then why to we protest abortion?

That's my main point here - the schism of values. I can't understand how a vegetarian can be in favour of abortion and I can't understand how a Christian can be in favour of the death penalty. It just doesn't make sense.

The Bible says to obey the law of the land.

No amount of "moral badgering" is gonna change my mind, Bill. I agree with the death penalty and think that man has the authority from God to decide who dies, so long as the evidence is irrefutable and the punishment fits the crime. And one interpretation of "turn the other cheek" was that Jesus said it to prove a point to the Pharisees, not condemn the death penalty. But I'm not a Biblical scholar, so don't ask for a dissertation about it.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

I'm sorry if you feel I'm badgering you Chad, I'm just trying to understand your reasoning. I'm no scholar either, but I know of nowhere where God devolves the power of life or death to man. Vengeance is Mine.

The Bible does tell us to obey the laws of the land, but it also say to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to god what is God's. God has already claimed vengeance for himself and allows man to kill criminals so long as he is without sin himself.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JanaW
Member Avatar

Let's change directions for a moment...and one moment only. Assuming that we could all come to the conclusion that the Death Penalty is ok....then what becomes the chosen method to kill someone? Where does your vengence end? Do you propose letting family members kill the person as they killed the victim..with knives, guns,ropes,torture, suffocation? do you continue to let the state do it? How do you propose we extract our last little bit of hatred and vengence over the original murder? And once we say that the Death Penalty is ok...why don't we start executing dope dealers? Don't you think they ruin as many lives and kill as many or more people than actual murderers?
If slaughterhouses had glass walls the whole world would be vegetarian.
Linda McCartney
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Many Asian countries do execute drug traffickers. They kill the mules while the cartel bosses go free to round up another batch of desperate idiots to risk their lives for them.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BEATNUT

JanaW
Dec 19 2006, 05:03 AM
Let's change directions for a moment...and one moment only. Assuming that we could all come to the conclusion that the Death Penalty is ok....then what becomes the chosen method to kill someone? Where does your vengence end? Do you propose letting family members kill the person as they killed the victim..with knives, guns,ropes,torture, suffocation? do you continue to let the state do it? How do you propose we extract our last little bit of hatred and vengence over the original murder? And once we say that the Death Penalty is ok...why don't we start executing dope dealers? Don't you think they ruin as many lives and kill as many or more people than actual murderers?


Now you're talking.
Location: Self-Imposed Exile.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User



Before Jesus says this:

Matthew 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

He says this:

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Something else:

The story of the woman caught in adultery is interesting. Keep in mind that adultery does not necessarily lead to the death penalty. Joseph, who suspected Mary of adultery, “put her away secretly” (Matt. 1:19). It’s obvious by the story in John that Jesus was being set up. Notice that Jesus did not abolish the death penalty in anything He said. He asked for witnesses. None came forth. Where was the man? The scribes and Pharisees claimed she had “been caught in adultery, in the very act” (John 8:3–4). It takes two to tango. We’ve already seen that it was the Pharisees who were lawless. They favored their own traditions over against the written law.

The requirement that only a person who is sinless can cast the first stone is misunderstood. If this were the requirement for adjudication, no witness would be worthy to testify in any criminal case. Jesus was identifying their duplicity and complicity in the crime. They, too, were adulterers. Was one of them the other adulterer? Was she a prostitute that all of them “used” on a regular basis? How does a group of men find a couple in the very act of adultery unless they know where to look? Jesus knew their hearts, because “He Himself knew what was in man” (John 2:25). They walked away because they could not meet the standards of the law. In the end, there were no witnesses against her. What is different about similar judicial proceedings today? If there are no witnesses willing to testify, a prosecutor has no case. Even so, Jesus tells the woman, “from now on sin no more” (8:11).

Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Point taken, but in saying to the woman, "Sin no more," He accepts that she has sinned. He would have known whether she had or hadn't.

Jesus preached mercy and forgiveness.

Also, I don't mean to be cheap here, but Jesus himself was a victim of abuse of the death penalty - as judged by a jury of his peers. "Crucify him!"
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Bill
Dec 19 2006, 12:22 AM
Point taken, but in saying to the woman, "Sin no more," He accepts that she has sinned. He would have known whether she had or hadn't.

Jesus preached mercy and forgiveness.

Also, I don't mean to be cheap here, but Jesus himself was a victim of abuse of the death penalty - as judged by a jury of his peers. "Crucify him!"

Thank God for the death penalty, Jesus was executed for my sins.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

The commandment "thou shall not kill", means "thou shall do no criminal homicide" in the Hebrew, meaning "to lie in wait." The very word "kill" (fonyonce) actually means "criminal homicide" in the original language. This is one of the reasons Bible teachers need to be linguists. Also, there were to be at least two witnesses to the crime.

The New Testament is adament that there be no change in the written laws of Moses. Jesus said, "I change not one jot (tittle or iota) of the law." This means not even the dot above the "i" is changed. Moses was the "Law Giver." I paraphrase from, I believe, John 1, "one who kills (criminal homicide) has no salvation while he liveth." This means the murderer must be sent to the Father. It's interesting to note that when a person murders someone, they are denying him or her from having children. So, one could say that not only did they kill a human being, but they also killed the child or children he or she may have had. So, there are many variables for which to look into. But, dispersing a murderer to the Father is only right in the eye of the one murdered - after all, although God is the final Judge, the murdered person will have a say about what happened to him or her - that would only be fair.

Finally, we live in a democracy, not a theocracy, and problems will always arise in a government run by people. And until the second advent comes, we will have to abide best we can, as we have done since the days of King Saul. It's not perfect, but all we can do is have faith that God is in control, and allow this dispensation (flawed as it is) to play out.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dorfliedot
Member Avatar
Beatlelicious
tonyhemp
Dec 18 2006, 09:25 PM
Bill
Dec 19 2006, 12:22 AM
Point taken, but in saying to the woman, "Sin no more," He accepts that she has sinned. He would have known whether she had or hadn't.

Jesus preached mercy and forgiveness.

Also, I don't mean to be cheap here, but Jesus himself was a victim of abuse of the death penalty - as judged by a jury of his peers. "Crucify him!"

Thank God for the death penalty, Jesus was executed for my sins.

Yes, isn't sad he had die for us. I rather die for my sin without him being killed.. But, if adam and eve didn't sin them selves then jesus wouldn't had to shed his blood for us..
Posted Image
Add Glitter to your Photos
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
Bag O' Nails
Dec 18 2006, 09:44 PM
Society has the right to punish by varying degrees all the way up to death for "payment" of the most henious of crimes.

That is an opinion, it is not fact. You may say society has the right, I say it doesn't.

I'm surprised that nobody has responded to my last post on this thread - I may be being slightly egotistical, but I thought the content would have spurred at least a couple of replies. :mellow:
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JanaW
Member Avatar

Andy, in the heat of the argument, I missed your post. I'm sorry...and it certainly does bear a response. I agree with you totally. When the state kills they are killing in my name....and no I am not comfortable with it. How could I be comfortable letting the state make a decision this critical for me, when I am not even comfortable with how they run the government. I mean, come on people, would you let the state tell you what food to eat, how to wear your hair, what clothes to wear, what car to drive, etc? Then why in heavens name would you let them kill someone in your name with your blessing?
If slaughterhouses had glass walls the whole world would be vegetarian.
Linda McCartney
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
Thanks Jana - I spent a long time compiling & researching that post. Many pro-death penalty advocates will proudly tell you that no innocent person has been executed in recent times. I would have to say that I'm not so sure, and I would be astonished if anybody could look at those four cases I highlighted (and there are more) and say with 100% certainty that those people were all guilty as hell.

I have no sympathy for murderers, rapists and drug dealers... but I certainly do not have the right to demand that anybody, even the worst elements of society, should die. I agree with Reverend Dave that we need to be fixing the cause of the problems, not just dealing with the problems themselves.
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Cord
Dec 19 2006, 04:29 PM

The New Testament is adament that there be no change in the written laws of Moses. Jesus said, "I change not one jot (tittle or iota) of the law." This means not even the dot above the "i" is changed. Moses was the "Law Giver."

The meaning of the Old Testament has always been sound. However, the way it was interpreted is not.

Cord
Dec 19 2006, 04:29 PM
I paraphrase from, I believe, John 1, "one who kills (criminal homicide) has no salvation while he liveth." This means the murderer must be sent to the Father.

By whom and on whose authority? It's too much of a stretch to take this to mean "Kill the bum!" Catholics have reconcilliation.


Cord
Dec 19 2006, 04:29 PM
It's interesting to note that when a person murders someone, they are denying him or her from having children. So, one could say that not only did they kill a human being, but they also killed the child or children he or she may have had. So, there are many variables for which to look into.

I don't accept that premise. I agree that when you kill someone, you are taking not only everything they have, but everything they could be.
But what if someone murders me? Do they get a lesser penalty because I have no plans to have children? What if I don't plan to have children but would have ended up having them anyway? It's too much. The law should not have to concern itself with Quantum theory.
Taking another's life is hienous enough without bringing temporal mechinics into the equation.
Note that there were no qualifications to that statement. B)
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dorfliedot
Member Avatar
Beatlelicious
I had a friend shot in a back at a bar. The guy she was seeing cuse her of stealing his money which she didn't and he shot her in the back. but, I hated him for awhile for it . I still did not wish him dead..
Posted Image
Add Glitter to your Photos
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JanaW
Member Avatar

Andy, do some research on Leonard Peltier.
Leonard Peltier (born September 12, 1944) is a Native American activist and member of the American Indian Movement. In 1977 he was convicted and sentenced to two consecutive terms of life imprisonment for the murders of two FBI Agents who died during a 1975 shoot-out on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. There has been considerable debate over Peltier’s guilt and the fairness of his trial. Some supporters and organizations, including Amnesty International, consider him to be a political prisoner. Numerous appeals have been filed on his behalf; however, none have been ruled in his favor. Peltier is currently incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania

Thank God Leonard was sentenced to life...This is an innocent man! Read all the reports and you will see. If he had been given the death penalty....well........ :(
If slaughterhouses had glass walls the whole world would be vegetarian.
Linda McCartney
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Peltier is guilty. There's no DNA evidence, but he killed 2 FBI agents. His is another case where people take a small bit of info and shape their case with total disregard to the actual facts.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

JeffLynnesBeard
Dec 19 2006, 06:11 AM
Bag O' Nails
Dec 18 2006, 09:44 PM
Society has the right to punish by varying degrees all the way up to death for "payment" of the most henious of crimes.

That is an opinion, it is not fact. You may say society has the right, I say it doesn't.

I'm surprised that nobody has responded to my last post on this thread - I may be being slightly egotistical, but I thought the content would have spurred at least a couple of replies. :mellow:


no it didn't concern me. from past experience a common factor in the states was lawyers not doing a proper job of defending their client.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
JeffLynnesBeard
Dec 19 2006, 06:11 AM
Bag O' Nails
Dec 18 2006, 09:44 PM
Society has the right to punish by varying degrees all the way up to death for "payment" of the most henious of crimes.

That is an opinion, it is not fact. You may say society has the right, I say it doesn't.

I'm surprised that nobody has responded to my last post on this thread - I may be being slightly egotistical, but I thought the content would have spurred at least a couple of replies. :mellow:

Andy,
So you think that society shouldn't punish those who commit crimes? I say we as a society certainly do have that right and duty to protect the innocent from those vicious people who kill and destroy others lives.

Of course, I agree with Rev Dave that we need to be fixing the cause of the problems, not just dealing with the problems themselves. But...while we may possibly decrease the number of murders and henious crimes, they will never cease to occur! So, the dilema remains...what do you do with Bundy?

Bundy "repented" of his sins and crimes; that's good and fine. But there are severe consequences for taking innocent life.


Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
JanaW
Dec 19 2006, 06:19 AM
Andy, in the heat of the argument, I missed your post. I'm sorry...and it certainly does bear a response. I agree with you totally. When the state kills they are killing in my name....and no I am not comfortable with it. How could I be comfortable letting the state make a decision this critical for me, when I am not even comfortable with how they run the government. I mean, come on people, would you let the state tell you what food to eat, how to wear your hair, what clothes to wear, what car to drive, etc? Then why in heavens name would you let them kill someone in your name with your blessing?

Jana,
Sadly, the state does abortions in my name every day...and I am not happy with that! There are things that are out of our control. Society in general votes for what is and isn't okay...like abortion and the death penalty. It doesn't always make it right, but that's why it's important to vote and speak up for what you believe in.

I certainly am not a cheerleader for the death penalty per se. However, I don't feel any pity for those who have committed henious, brutal, pre-meditated murder of innocents!
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
Bag O' Nails
Dec 19 2006, 05:45 PM
JeffLynnesBeard
Dec 19 2006, 06:11 AM
Bag O' Nails
Dec 18 2006, 09:44 PM
Society has the right to punish by varying degrees all the way up to death for "payment" of the most henious of crimes.

That is an opinion, it is not fact. You may say society has the right, I say it doesn't.

I'm surprised that nobody has responded to my last post on this thread - I may be being slightly egotistical, but I thought the content would have spurred at least a couple of replies. :mellow:

Andy,
So you think that society shouldn't punish those who commit crimes? I say we as a society certainly do have that right and duty to protect the innocent from those vicious people who kill and destroy others lives.

Of course, I agree with Rev Dave that we need to be fixing the cause of the problems, not just dealing with the problems themselves. But...while we may possibly decrease the number of murders and henious crimes, they will never cease to occur! So, the dilema remains...what do you do with Bundy?

Bundy "repented" of his sins and crimes; that's good and fine. But there are severe consequences for taking innocent life.

Of course I believe that society has the right and a duty to punish those who commit crimes, but I do not believe that society has the right to put people to death. I would be excluded from a jury because I would not be willing to hand out the death penalty and, to be frank, I believe that this excludes people who are inclined to be more compassionate from sitting on a panel which has the ultimate decision of life over death. Personally, I believe that no person or persons should have either that responsibility nor power.
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bag O' Nails
Member Avatar
MaccaMomma
JeffLynnesBeard
Dec 19 2006, 05:50 PM
Bag O' Nails
Dec 19 2006, 05:45 PM
JeffLynnesBeard
Dec 19 2006, 06:11 AM
Bag O' Nails
Dec 18 2006, 09:44 PM
Society has the right to punish by varying degrees all the way up to death for "payment" of the most henious of crimes.

That is an opinion, it is not fact. You may say society has the right, I say it doesn't.

I'm surprised that nobody has responded to my last post on this thread - I may be being slightly egotistical, but I thought the content would have spurred at least a couple of replies. :mellow:

Andy,
So you think that society shouldn't punish those who commit crimes? I say we as a society certainly do have that right and duty to protect the innocent from those vicious people who kill and destroy others lives.

Of course, I agree with Rev Dave that we need to be fixing the cause of the problems, not just dealing with the problems themselves. But...while we may possibly decrease the number of murders and henious crimes, they will never cease to occur! So, the dilema remains...what do you do with Bundy?

Bundy "repented" of his sins and crimes; that's good and fine. But there are severe consequences for taking innocent life.

Of course I believe that society has the right and a duty to punish those who commit crimes, but I do not believe that society has the right to put people to death. I would be excluded from a jury because I would not be willing to hand out the death penalty and, to be frank, I believe that this excludes people who are inclined to be more compassionate from sitting on a panel which has the ultimate decision of life over death. Personally, I believe that no person or persons should have either that responsibility nor power.

I understand where you're coming from. I would not want to particularly sit on a jury that would impose a death sentence, either. However, if I happened to be on a jury like that, and Ted Bundy was sitting there.... <_<
Posted ImagePosted Image
One sweet dream came true....London & Liverpool '08
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
Thanks for understanding my point - and, for the record, I understand yours. While I believe myself to be a compassionate person, I hear about cold-blooded murderers, child abusers and rapists and I'm filled with so much revulsion and sorrow for the victim(s) that I think that the criminals don't deserve to live... but even so, I still believe that it is wrong for the state to kill in our name. Lifetime incarceration in one of America's finest maximum security prisons is a far more cruel punishment, in my opinion. That's a lifetime of utter misery.
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JanaW
Member Avatar

Beep, I'm not sure where you get your information, but you are wrong. Leonard is a political prisoner of the United States Government, a scapegoat. I am posting a link for those who would like to read the facts, and decide for themselves.


I fully believe with every fiber of my being that if the United States Government actually believed, had hard evidence, and could prove that Leonard killed those two FBI agents...he would have been executed many many many years ago. The would have done it to make an example of Leonard; they would have done it to appease the law enforcement community; and they would have done it on general principal. Since Leonard has been sitting in a cell for over 30 years, I tend to believe they have no concrete evidence against him. Thank God they have not executed him for crimes he did not commit!

http://www.freepeltier.org/peltier_faq.htm
If slaughterhouses had glass walls the whole world would be vegetarian.
Linda McCartney
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BlueMolly2009
Member Avatar
LOLcat Freak
I would love to ask you guys a question that don't agree with the death penalty. What if one of your relatives was a police officer and they were killed by someone? Would you honestly tell me that you would want them to be sent to jail and not killed? Dig deep down and don't give the answer, "Oh yeah, I would want them to spend their lives in jail."
I ask this question, because Ralph "bucky" Philips was sentenced to life in prison (only because NY State doesn't have the death penalty) for shooting two cops and killing one. Their wives were in court and I would BET they wished NYS has a death penalty.
Molly
Myspace
My Twitter
My FriendFeed
My Facebook
Posted Image
Boston Chihuahuas (I took this while at a Starbucks)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JanaW
Member Avatar

BOTH of my sons ARE police officers. I have thought about this many times. I do not believe that any justice would be served in killing someone who killed one of my sons. If the death of the suspect would bring my child back to life...I might feel differently. but since it would not, then no purspose except revenge would be served. I would be more interested in making sure that while spending his life in prison the suspect would not be afforded the finer things in life....television, computers, exercise equipment, fine meals, conjugal visits, etc. Make him wish he were dead, but don't kill him.
If slaughterhouses had glass walls the whole world would be vegetarian.
Linda McCartney
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
BlueMolly2006
Dec 19 2006, 06:47 PM
I would love to ask you guys a question that don't agree with the death penalty.  What if one of your relatives was a police officer and they were killed by someone?  Would you honestly tell me that you would want them to be sent to jail and not killed?  Dig deep down and don't give the answer, "Oh yeah, I would want them to spend their lives in jail." 
I ask this question, because Ralph "bucky" Philips was sentenced to life in prison (only because NY State doesn't have the death penalty) for shooting two cops and killing one.  Their wives were in court and I would BET they wished NYS has a death penalty.

Have you actually read my thoughts on this subject, Molly? It doesn't matter what people have done, I will never agree with the death penalty. Just as I don't believe that Ralph Philips had the right to kill those police officers, I don't believe that the state has the right to kill Ralph Philips.
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

JanaW
Dec 19 2006, 01:47 PM
Beep, I'm not sure where you get your information, but you are wrong. Leonard is a political prisoner of the United States Government, a scapegoat. I am posting a link for those who would like to read the facts, and decide for themselves.


I fully believe with every fiber of my being that if the United States Government actually believed, had hard evidence, and could prove that Leonard killed those two FBI agents...he would have been executed many many many years ago. The would have done it to make an example of Leonard; they would have done it to appease the law enforcement community; and they would have done it on general principal. Since Leonard has been sitting in a cell for over 30 years, I tend to believe they have no concrete evidence against him. Thank God they have not executed him for crimes he did not commit!

http://www.freepeltier.org/peltier_faq.htm

Jana, here is my rebuttal:

noparolepeltier.com

The guy's guilty. He did it.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
JanaW
Member Avatar

Beep this is an argument for another day...not to be held here, I imagine. You say he is, I say he's not......we are at a standoff. I did go to the website you provided and looked over it. I must say it did not convince me of a thing. My original intent in bringing up Leonard Peltier was to provide and example of the fact that it is entirely possible that were Leonard Peltier to be executed...we could be killing an innocient man. I state that not as fact, for you, but as a fact that having read both sides, it is clearly a possiblity, because the facts are mostly he said...he said.
If slaughterhouses had glass walls the whole world would be vegetarian.
Linda McCartney
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

JanaW
Dec 20 2006, 10:26 AM
Beep this is an argument for another day...not to be held here, I imagine. You say he is, I say he's not......we are at a standoff. I did go to the website you provided and looked over it. I must say it did not convince me of a thing. My original intent in bringing up Leonard Peltier was to provide and example of the fact that it is entirely possible that were Leonard Peltier to be executed...we could be killing an innocient man. I state that not as fact, for you, but as a fact that having read both sides, it is clearly a possiblity, because the facts are mostly he said...he said.

OK, Jana. Truce. B)
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Reverend Dave
Member Avatar

BlueMolly2006
Dec 19 2006, 06:47 PM
I would love to ask you guys a question that don't agree with the death penalty.  What if one of your relatives was a police officer and they were killed by someone?  Would you honestly tell me that you would want them to be sent to jail and not killed?  Dig deep down and don't give the answer, "Oh yeah, I would want them to spend their lives in jail."

I think most people who disagree or even agree with capital punishment have thought about how they would react if a family member of theirs was murdered.

My wife wasn't a police officer, but her death was horrible all the same. She was killed by a drunk driver and I never once thought that he should be executed. Believe me when I say I did dig deep down inside and think about it. I still believe that this man should spend the rest of his life in prison, but that was never an option since he committed involuntary homicide and not voluntary homicide.

When this man is parolled in about 4 years I'll have to do some more deep thinking, but even then and even now I do not want him executed.
With great power comes great responsibility. With great age....
What was I going to say?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Register for Free
« Previous Topic · Things We Said Today · Next Topic »
Add Reply


"Treasure these few words"