Death Penalty: All in Favor? All Opposed?

[lforrest]

No, it’s not as the OP explained. You think a bullet costs more than housing someone in security for 50 years? Bless your heart.

It’s pure propaganda by the Prison Industrial Complex to claim killing someone is more expensive than housing them for decades.

And if we accept a substandard quality of justice due to the severity of the punishment that is a whole other problem.

 

[marks]

I am fully aware of the corrupt PROCESS in an attempt to AVOID capital punishment. I simply reject the claim that avoidance cost is the cost of executing someone.

A debate maxim is that if you accept the terms of your opponent, you’ve already lost the argument. So, I reject the implied premise of the terms.

If your opponent's "terms" are correct and appropriate, well . . . I guess you are just trying to win the debate then. Makes sense!

You are talking about a choice to execute, and a choice to not execute. Either choice has a far greater cost then just the electricity to throw the switch. So how is this not disengenuous?

I'll calc the cost this way for this side, and that way for that side, so I can show the exaggerated difference.

Sigh!

Like so much on forums. What's the point?? Inviting us to play, and stacking the deck?

 

[Button]

Exactly! This thread is about the morality of the death penalty, not embracing the existing PRISON INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX schemes to keep the expensive PROCESS going. As Christians, we should have discernment rregarding such propaganda.

If execution was morally justified, the cost of AVOIDING it should be minimized. Under Trump, we’ve seen many expedited court cases with appeals resolved within days, not years. While I don’t want this thread‘s scope to I dread to entirety of PRISON INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, it is somewhat avoidable. For instance, decades ago, I learned that most people in prison where there for non-violent drug offenses. (Don’t know if that is still true).

Again, I’m against the death penalty but I’m holding the claim of cost as false argument.

It's not a false argument. And there can be two reasons to oppose the DP. One of which is the excessive cost.

And again,denying cost is a factor in the application of the DP process is intellectually dishonest.

It's costly and it's immoral.

How do we show people killing people is wrong by killing people for killing people?

 

[Wrangler]

And if we accept a substandard quality of justice due to the severity of the punishment that is a whole other problem.

No one said anything about substandard. Did you read about the reference to Trump’s many expedited appeals?

 

[Wrangler]

If your opponent's "terms" are correct and appropriate

Yes, they’re not.

 

[Wrangler]

You are talking about a choice to execute, and a choice to not execute. Either choice has a far greater cost than just the electricity to throw the switch.

Huh? Seems you’re confusing cost with value. Cost is what you pay; value is what you get. Brakes cost $50; the value is immeasurable.

 

[marks]

Huh? Seems you’re confusing cost with value. Cost is what you pay; value is what you get. Brakes cost $50; the value is immeasurable.

Just pointing to a double standard being used to skew an argument . . .

No matter, and never mind . . .

 

[Wrangler]

It's costly and it's immoral.

How do we show people killing people is wrong by killing people for killing people?

I agree it is immoral. To claim it is more costly is false, base on a rigged American process that doesn’t inherently apply.

 

[Button]

Huh? Seems you’re confusing cost with value. Cost is what you pay; value is what you get. Brakes cost $50; the value is immeasurable.

First the McNamara Fallacy ,only to be followed by Bernoulli's fallacy.
Cute.

 

[Button]

I agree it is immoral.

Yeah,I got that.

To claim it is more costly is false, base on a rigged American process that doesn’t inherently apply.

You can continue with that claim, but it isn't true. And will not become true through repetition.

 

[PS95]

I read that. How easy then was it to conspire with another person against someone. Too easy.
Thank goodness in today's courts they need more than that to prove someone's guilt I think. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard used these days

Yes, and unfortunately- the reverse is also true if it is applied wrongly.
Aunty Jane should know. Her religion still uses the 3 witness rule today in their congregations when a minor brings charges to the elders of sexual abuse.
The minor is dismissed if there are not 3 witnesses to that sexual abuse. Even if there are 3 children accusing the very same pedophile-- Since it is 3 different occasions and since none have 3 eye witnesses- the pedophile is let go.
This has been going on for decades.. it is very hushed. Most jw children who were molested have succeeded in court but are put under gag orders under the threat of appeal by jw attorneys -so we don't hear much from them once they win.. However there are plenty of court records about investigations into this practice and much documentation.

 

[Triumph1300]

Do you support the death penalty...
------------------------------------
While Jesus was on the cross the Romans inflicted the death penalty on the two criminals next to Him.

Christ said nothing in their defense, or against their crucifixions.

One of those two mocked Christ.
In response, the other criminal (whom Jesus would immediately declare righteous, Luke 23:43) said of their punishments, "we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong" (Luke 23:41).

What did this forgiven criminal, this newly justified man, say about the death penalty?
Bottom line: the criminals were getting their just punishment. The dying criminal knew the truth, as he said, "we indeed" are "justly" punished.

 

[Gottservant]

"Death is wise, in the eyes of the Law" (selah)

In other words, though we don't want to be legalistic, the Law is still ultimately inevitable and if that means putting the flesh to death, to save the soul, then so be it.

 

[Button]

"Death is wise, in the eyes of the Law" (selah)

In other words, though we don't want to be legalistic, the Law is still ultimately inevitable and if that means putting the flesh to death, to save the soul, then so be it.

What a horrific godless ideology.

The same one the RCC used during the inquisitions.

 

[Wrangler]

You can continue with that claim, but it isn't true. And will not become true through repetition.

Posts like this show how effective propaganda is by the PRISON INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. While the death penalty is more than 99.9% cheaper than holding someone in prison for 50 years as the OP stated, you're adamant that it is not true, confusing the NATURAL with the MANMADE. Consider this bit of Scripture Numbers 15:32-36

32 One day while the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they discovered a man gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 The people who found him doing this took him before Moses, Aaron, and the rest of the community. 34 They held him in custody because they did not know what to do with him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, “The man must be put to death! The whole community must stone him outside the camp.” 36 So the whole community took the man outside the camp and stoned him to death, just as the LORD had commanded Moses.​

I suspect "the whole community" is not the 600,000 men freed from captivity in Egypt.
Although the text is not specific, it suggests the man sentenced to death was only held in custody for a very short time, minutes, if not hours. And these ancient men did not even incur the cost of death weapons as the LORD provided NATURAL.

Odd that the all-knowing God did not realize this death penalty was more of a financial burden to the fledgling Hebrews than holding him for decades. It's odd that the Hebrews did not appeal on account of the cost isn't it? Or does @marks want to be cute again playing with the meaning of cost?

• Did they carry out this work on the Sabbath? (Where there was no out of work cost)
• Were they working on the Sabbath or did they take time out of their busy work day to do the LORD's work?
• When you multiply non-productive time, lost wages in taking "the whole community" outside the camp, there is a cost to that.
• Yet, cost was not considered as a factor in the decision-making per the text. Maybe non-financial cost was all that mattered, DO JUSTICE and obey the LORD your God?

My, how times have changed.

 

[quietthinker]

Death Penalty: All in Favor? All Opposed?​

I guess the devil wants all dead and no doubt aligning with that sentiment reveals ones alignment.

 

[lforrest]

No one said anything about substandard. Did you read about the reference to Trump’s many expedited appeals?

If the cost were actually higher just because someone is on death row that would mean a different standard is being used.

 

[Armour of God]

If the cost were actually higher just because someone is on death row that would mean a different standard is being used.

I think people on death row are in isolation compared to general population where there are fewer guards per inmate. I read that in California holding prisoners on death row costs 90k more than in general population. Maybe thats why. The article also said it costs almost 300k to execute someone. Details are in my first post of this thread on page 1

 

[Behold]

One of the benefits of having a REAL Death penalty, whereby people are not just kept on Death Row, for 15 or 20 yrs.... is that the FEAR of being put to death for a crime, will stop a lot of murderers from committing murder. Whereas, if they know that all that will happen is that they end up in a prison, with a laptop, and 3 meals a day.......= that does not cause them to be afraid of the consequences of murdering someone.

 

[marks]

you're adamant that it is not true, confusing the NATURAL with the MANMADE.

No, I'm speaking pragmatically. Don't get confused about what I'm saying.

Besides, why are you so hung up on the costs? You already believe capital punishment is morally wrong, so who cares what the price tag is?

Much love!