No Frills
January 20th, 2007 by Nancy ClevelandWith apologies to Randy Nelson (I only managed to catch that last part of this segment due to work commitments) it was interesting…and heartening…to hear (the last part of) his interview with the gentleman opposed to the death penalty. Couldn’t agree more and I hope, sooner rather than later, we are a country proud to say we no longer have it.
We try someone for murder because it is WRONG and, if found guilty, we sanction the govt. to become the murderer. What kind of morality is this or sense does this make? One argument often heard is “why should we pay to keep a murderer in prisonâ€â€¦and the fact is, it costs more to execute than life without parole will.
“It’s a deterrentâ€..another heard. Proof? Yet another is “an eye for an eyeâ€â€¦if that be so why, then, not allow the person most affected by the victim’s loss to decide penalty for the perpetrator, once found to be truly guilty? In the rare cases when vengeance has been wrought by a victim’s loved one, who’s next up before a jury? Why? Because it’s WRONG and “thou shalt not killâ€â€¦still okay for the govt. though and all other death penalty proponents to advocate.
Frankly, seems fair to say our prisons do nothing to encourage a sway from the death penalty to life imprisonment…not when they have few deprivations. Prisoners have exercise facilities and equipment, three squares a day, tv, socialization, medical care, dental care, legal services, computer access, education to most levels and even bringing in entertainment. I’d remove that last, computers, gyms, tv…at a minimum. (To be honest, I must confess at times I envy them having a private cell, all the books they care to read and the peace and time to do so! TIC). We don’t need to pamper them…imprisonment IS punishment, after all. Work or educational programs are fine, even desirable; allow them books…censoring selections…feed them. Crimes that warrant life imprisonment to mean just that…the only way that person is coming out of prison is old, feet first, in a box. Nothing more, nothing less.
January 20th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
“It’s a deterrentâ€..another heard. Proof?
Sure- no one who has ever been executed has then gone on to commit another crime. The recidivism rate for executed criminals is zero.
January 20th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Besides that “given”, the drop in murder stats?
January 20th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
We try someone for murder because it is WRONG and, if found guilty, we sanction the govt. to become the murderer. What kind of morality is this or sense does this make?
Oh, maybe about as much as abortion does!
January 20th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
virtually every definition of murder contains the word “unlawful.” Words mean things. The death penalty is legal, therefore not murder.
January 21st, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Murder is premeditated killing; the death penalty is premeditated killing, therefore the death penalty is murder, murder by the state.
That said, you need to study the dictionary definition of ‘murder’ very closely: Meaning #1: the unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another. Please focus on the word ‘or’!
Your statement that “virtually every definition of murder contains the word “unlawful” is just plain false: “premeditated killing of one human being by another” does not contain the word unlawful.
Moreover, we are talking about morality here; a given law does not necessarily represent a valid moral position, depending on the standard used for comparison.
More importantly than dictionary definitions, however, is the “thou shalt not kill” statement of morality that Nancy mentioned, a moral traditional position accepted to this day by most ‘civilized’ nations on the globe, except our own and a few others.
What ever happened to the principle of the sanctity of life that the anti-abortionists proclaim, but then frequently drop when it comes to the death penalty, and wars?
Thus, the death penalty represents an ideological inconsistency that defies logic, and a moral statement/position that defies righteousness, in my view!
January 21st, 2007 at 10:21 pm
 Are you trying to tell me that you think the “or” separates “unlawful and malicious” and “premeditated”???? that sentence is VERY CLEAR. it means that murder is 1. unlawful. PLUS 2. it is either malicious or premeditated.
your intellectual dishonesty is appalling.
If you want to talk about morality that’s fine, but as soon as you use the word “murder” you are now talking about the law. Please cite the definitions you find that do not mention the law. Until you do, I assume you made them up.
January 21st, 2007 at 10:24 pm
New topic: “Thus, the death penalty represents an ideological inconsistency that defies logic, and a moral statement/position that defies righteousness, in my view!”
You are correct! being against the death penalty and for abortion is completely untenable. It’s ok to kill innocent babies, but we dare not kill convicted murderers.
January 22nd, 2007 at 8:01 am
I will grant you that the interpretation of ‘or’ in the definition could also be taken your way; however, to assert “intellectual dishonesty” is way over the top, but typical of your arrogance.
You have correctly noted that I switched the emphasis to morality, a higher ethical standard than codified law, therefore infinitely more important for doing that which is right.
I suggest you read or listen to the thoughts of brain surgeon and philosopher Sherwin Nuland: http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/biologyofthespirit/index.shtml
You might also be interested in the works of journalist and philosopher Jon Meacham: http://www.jonmeacham.com/about.html
To set you straight on where I am: I stand against both the death penalty and abortion. Where do you stand, CS???
Next shall we take up a discussion on the topic of initiating violence and war to resolve disputes? I suspect we shall find you wanting on this as well, although I hope I am wrong about you!
January 22nd, 2007 at 8:20 am
Perry: Are you pro-choice of pro-life??
January 22nd, 2007 at 11:47 am
As I said, “I stand against both the death penalty and abortion”. Likewise, I stand against violence and war to resolve disputes, except in certain cases where self-defense is required to counter an imminent threat. Better stated, I stand for the sanctity of life. Where do you stand, Hube?
January 22nd, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Thanks, Perry — the post where you said that wasn’t up when I asked my question. FYI.
January 22nd, 2007 at 6:49 pm
i dont care about this death penalty argument at all. i just needed to point out that “murder” is the wrong word. make your points, but use the right words; the issue doesnt need anything added to make it more dramatic.