@221B:
This has become interesting to me in many respects.
First, I find myself totally in contradiction with Mary - I’m for the death penalty (in rare circumstances only) and against abortion. Mary, unless I am mistaken about your views (correct me if I am wrong) you take the opposite view.
True
I’d really like to understand how you conclude that abortion of an innocent baby is OK, but capital punishment for the worst mass murdering crack-addicted pedophile imaginable would not be acceptable
.
Because a one-celled organism is not a person. A “mass murdering crack-addicted pedophile” is. I’m a reincarnationist, so my beliefs about ending life early are pretty outside the norm. An aborted fetus’s soul simply occupies the next available body (think of it like a bunch of people in a butcher shop waiting for their number to be called).
But even on a non-reincarnationist viewpoint, it is VERY hard to argue that a zygote should have the same rights as a person. At most you can argue that it is a potential person, which doesn’t really mean much when stacked up against the rights of an actual person. If I buy a lotto ticket, I’m a potential millionaire, but I doubt anyone will give me a loan because of it.
As much as people hate to admit it, a “mass murdering crack-addicted pedophile” is a person and should be treated as such. Is it not possible for them to be truly repentant? To understand what they did was wrong? I would rather give them a lifetime to ponder what they did, then cut it short before they ever can come to terms with it (but this is because I believe people should learn from mistakes for the next life).
But Christians should be against the death penalty as well, since it runs counter to everything Jesus preached. And on a Christian level, if you kill someone before they “accept Christ”, you’ve condemned them to hell. Where is the harm in giving them time to eventually repent? If they never do, they’re still going to hell, but even the most wicked sinner can reach heaven, if they are truly repentful. Why take that oppurtunity away from someone?
Lastly, yes they did horrible things. Should the state stoop to their level and finish them off? What good could it possibly do? Make the families feel better? If someone harmed my kid, hurting them badly might make me feel better, but should I be allowed to? Where does it end? An Old West shootout? We should be careful executing people for reasons of “closure” (which, I think, is just a equphemism for revenge).
Secondly, I really think the point about normal procedures vs. rare exceptions does apply. It is rare (I hope and the few statistics available tend to show this) for atrocities as you describe in the US. And how do you know this doesn’t happen in France? And at what rate in France? As these things are usually hidden, we probably will never know for certain, but it seems the normal cell is better in the US than in France in all ways Chengora described. But again, the comparisons of the % of population favors France. Also, the death penalty is a rare occurance, even in Texas, and usually takes several decades of appeals. When people can die of old age before their penalty, I’m not sure why this is an issue.
I don’t know where you’re going with the first part. France doesn’t have a death penalty, so they never have a chance to wrongfully kill someone. We do, and every so often, we DO wrongfully kill someone. It may be rare, but how often should a govt. be killing innocent people? Never is a good answer, I think.
Some prisoners want to die because of guilt for their crimes - a life sentence could be viewed as worse.
Could be, but we don’t exactly let condemned people choose to be executed or not. I’m betting most people would opt for the life-sentence, given the choice.
If we take the approach that prison should be a deterent to crime, perhaps this is better?!
Is the death penalty a deterrent to crime? Both sides can cite studies all day. I simply don’t think the government should be in a position to execute innocent people, even if it IS a deterent.
For that matter, how can France think to judge us (both in the States and Gitmo) if this is the best they can do for their prisoners? It does cut both ways here, although to be fair I am not sure how much of the Gitmo criticism is from France and how much from other places.
I didn’t know the French were complaining about us. But our practice of holding people for years without even CHARGING them is shameful.