Post Reply
Page 18 of 22  •  Prev 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 ... 22 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Ohio Wants a Second Try at Executing Inmate - Your Thoughts?
5 years ago  ::  Dec 27, 2009 - 2:18AM #171
jane2
Posts: 14,295

Dec 26, 2009 -- 2:48PM, Beautiful_Dreamer wrote:


Dec 21, 2009 -- 1:58PM, Christianlib wrote:


Sorry, appy, I can't join you in that blood lust.


I'm all for locking someone up forever.  Killing is simply uncivilized vengenance.  It is in no way "justice."




I'm just playing devil's advocate here...


I'm not for capital punishment either. I'm in the boat with CLib when she quoted Sister Perjean when she said that it's not a question of whether or not someone deserves to die as much as whether we deserve to be able to kill them. However, a class of mine in college once toured the state prison in NC...the stories the guards told and seeing the weapons they had confiscated from prisoners, well let's just say I didn't want to eat afterward.  The prison population tended to react even more strongly to people who were in for killing or raping children...either the person would be put in protective custody or solitary confinement, either way they'd spend the vast majority of the time alone. 


That IMO is another point for why keeping someone locked up can be more of a punishment than executing them.  Sometimes I wonder if that might actually be the more *merciful* thing to do, given how inmates can treat each other.


I agree with the others who've mentioned death being a choice offered to a prisoner who would otherwise be in prison for life, especially if they were in solitary confinement. That could be an example of possibly being merciful.*




I've read both books by Sister Helen Prejean and donated DEATH OF INNOCENTS to my former parish library. Loved the discussion in the second book in which she engages Justice Scalia, who hunts and fishes with her brother. Sister Helen is from Louisiana as is Scalia. That state is one of the top four in executions; Texas leads the list, followed by Louisiana, Virginia and Georgia. I live in Georgia now. For those who don't remember Susan Sarandon played Sister Helen in the movie of her first book DEAD MAN WALKING.**


I know more about Federal penitentiaries than I bargained for. We lived on the grounds of two then Federal pens: Lewisburg and five years at Leavenworth, where my husband was the Chief of Classification and Parole. Anyone interested might want to read HOT HOUSE, LIFE INSIDE LEAVENWORTH by Pete Earley for a real picture of what goes on. It backs up the story told here.


*Timothy McVeigh chose execution. My husband and I worried about the warden at Terre Haute because he was a protogee of my husband.


In the end I think a second try at executing the prisoner in Ohio is more than barbaric. It is cruel and unusual punishment, prohibited by law.


**THE GREEN MILE, starring Tom Hanks is also very powerful.




discuss catholicism
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 27, 2009 - 2:25AM #172
Roodog
Posts: 10,168

They blew their chance to put the prisoner down.


Why go through the cost and hassle of trying it again?


If Life w/o parole is cheaper than the Death, just weld the door shut.

For those who have faith, no explanation is neccessary.
For those who have no faith, no explanation is possible.

St. Thomas Aquinas

If one turns his ear from hearing the Law, even his prayer is an abomination. Proverbs 28:9
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 27, 2009 - 12:17PM #173
mountain_man
Posts: 40,209

Dec 27, 2009 -- 1:06AM, rangerken wrote:

Bad analogy MM...with Bundy. You're comparing a lawful government with a psychopath.



That's what makes it such an apt analogy... but it wasn't me that made the analogy, it was someone else that wanted to kill people with the same lack of remorse and ease as Bundy did.


We should always regret  taking anyone's life no matter how necessary it may be.



We should never take anyone's life. It's wrong. Every time they do, the whole society becomes closer to being a Bundy.


Sometimes it is, in my opinion, necessary. Whether or not it is ever necessary for a level of government to take life through a judicial process is debatable. Ibelieve it may be justified. but it is never a good thing and even if the circumstances are such that it is clearly justified (for those who are willing to ever justify it...like me) it should always be done with regret that it is necessary at all. You understand, I trust MM, that when I talk about taking life I am not being the least bit hypothetical. It is never a good thing, no matter how 'legal' etc.



There is never a good reason for a government to kill one of it's own citizens. I've seen absolutely not one bit of regret from the majority of those that support the death penalty. Some show glee. The government never shows any remorse and some in that government use it for their political gain.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 27, 2009 - 6:01PM #174
SatanicStalker
Posts: 719

Dec 23, 2009 -- 4:52PM, mountain_man wrote:

Not a very good try. Taking a life is far more extreme than removing someone that has shown they cannot participate in a normal society from that society. Killing to show that killing is wrong is where the hypocrisy lies.



It's not killing to show that killing is wrong. It is simply a more complete way to remove a person from society. 


~Stalker

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 27, 2009 - 6:27PM #175
Christianlib
Posts: 21,848

MM is right.

Democrats think the glass is half full.
Republicans think the glass is theirs.
Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 27, 2009 - 6:48PM #176
mountain_man
Posts: 40,209

Dec 27, 2009 -- 6:01PM, SatanicStalker wrote:

It's not killing to show that killing is wrong. It is simply a more complete way to remove a person from society.



That can be done without killing.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 27, 2009 - 9:04PM #177
Idbc
Posts: 4,597

Howdy MM


Dec 22, 2009 -- 6:01PM, mountain_man wrote:


Dec 22, 2009 -- 4:45PM, Idbc wrote:

I will decide wheter the words I put in quotes "need" to be put in quotes.  No they do not "need" to be put in quotes.



Then don't put them in quotes.




I will continue to put them in "quotes"  beause I like to do it for "emphasis".   It is a matter of "style" rather than "neccessaity".  


_____________________________________________________________________________


The authority for the state to use capital punishment has been in practice for the vast majority of human history.  In the Holy(?)Scripture both tand very ancient there numerous stories of capital punishment.   


It is the responsibilty of "the state" to protect socieity from criminals.   In the past the way to do it was to impose capital punishment.   I do not think there is a "neccesarity"  to impose it   now.  


Have A Thinking Day And My Reason Guide You Wink

HAVE A THINKING DAY MAY REASON GUIDE YOU
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 27, 2009 - 9:39PM #178
mountain_man
Posts: 40,209

Dec 27, 2009 -- 9:04PM, Idbc wrote:


Howdy MM


Dec 22, 2009 -- 6:01PM, mountain_man wrote:


Dec 22, 2009 -- 4:45PM, Idbc wrote:

I will decide wheter the words I put in quotes "need" to be put in quotes.  No they do not "need" to be put in quotes.



Then don't put them in quotes.




I will continue to put them in "quotes"  beause I like to do it for "emphasis".   It is a matter of "style" rather than "neccessaity". 



That's fine. Do what you want. It's just that I do not need someone to help me to read by pointing out certain words. It's an irritating style that "assumes" I, and others, are not bright enough to figure things out for ourselves.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 28, 2009 - 2:05PM #179
Lonesentinel
Posts: 2,423

Dec 27, 2009 -- 9:39PM, mountain_man wrote:


Dec 27, 2009 -- 9:04PM, Idbc wrote:


Howdy MM


Dec 22, 2009 -- 6:01PM, mountain_man wrote:


Dec 22, 2009 -- 4:45PM, Idbc wrote:

I will decide wheter the words I put in quotes "need" to be put in quotes.  No they do not "need" to be put in quotes.



Then don't put them in quotes.




I will continue to put them in "quotes"  beause I like to do it for "emphasis".   It is a matter of "style" rather than "neccessaity". 



That's fine. Do what you want. It's just that I do not need someone to help me to read by pointing out certain words. It's an irritating style that "assumes" I, and others, are not bright enough to figure things out for ourselves.





*chuckle*....there are a few assumptions made in the above quote...

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 28, 2009 - 2:12PM #180
rangerken
Posts: 16,408

Can we PLEASE get back on the thread topic!!!!!!!


I'll try...


Having thought about it, I don't think Ohio should try again. In my opinion that would really be cruel and unusual... and I AM a death penalty proponent. Life in prison without parole in a not very nice place should be what this guy receives now.


Ken

Libertarian, Conservative, Life member of the NRA and VFW
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 18 of 22  •  Prev 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 ... 22 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook