I can't tell who you're helping with this. Lol. Soirces, giggles, winks, ad, & "tin foil hat society". You should've held that in. To tie it in to this thread, I agree with the death penalty. Let's add ignorant silly people who can't spell and grammar check to the list.
Yeah it's funny you say 9 states with no death penalties have less violent crimes rate.. Out of those 9 how many touch a boarded to a out side country ??. When u have illegals at your border , u will have more violent crimes.. So im thinking those 9 states with no death penalties can thank the ones that do. I was apart of the Justice system for 7 years. When a American kills someone he is found guilty and sentenced . In my 7 years i had 1 illegal get charged 4 times for murder, 2 was in the same week. He was deported 3 times.. Not sentenced , but deported. After the 4th murder, they sentenced him. If I could have done the death penalty myself, I would gladly face my maker when I die.
I fully support the death penalty and believe more crimes should be added. Rapist and pedophiles to be exact. Still think it's pretty hypocritical that most people that believe in no capital punishment, do how ever support abortion. I also don't care to much about the humaneness used in the execution. Tbh, I hope it hurts like hell for a while. Let's think about the victims not the offender. I say bring back quartering. Eye for an eye.
@Magic Mike. We could start a whole new thread about the reality of what the states that border Mexico deal with. Lots of misinformation through out our own country. Look at the hate Sheriff Joe Arpaio gets outside the state of Arizona for his stance on immigration. I don't think most Americans have any idea the degree of violence happening right across our borders. And the sad part is, these cartel members and affiliates slip back and forth our borders and commit heinous crimes. Like you said, what happens when they are caught? We deport them to do it again and again. Next time any of you drive down through El Paso, swing on down to Juarez and spend a night. Your outlook on violence might change completely.
So many times I've heard "an eye for an eye" on this thread, and it disturbs me because its a misapplication of scripture. An eye for an eye is the Old Testament law, and that law was divinely instituted (according to the Jews) HOWEVER, Christ came to fulfill the Old Testament law, which he did through his perfect life and crucifixion. When Christ died on the cross, he fulfilled all the "eye for an eye" requirements of the old testement for the entire world. So, since the old testement law has been fulfilled, the literal "eye fir an eye" is no longer valid. This doesn't mean that those guilty of breaking the Law are consequence free. Far from it. Society should still exact some consequence for those actions. Such consequences can be imprisonment and even death. But, "an eye for an eye" no longer applies to Christians, as the Christ fulfilled all old testament requirements for all of us. An eye for an eye doesn't apply to atheists either, as it would be silly for atheists to suddenly adopt old testiment religious law. And "an eye for an eye" doesn't apply to the Jewish community either because if the Jews try to Estsblish Old Testament laws in America's legal system, they would in essence be turning America into a "theocracy" and theocracy is a bad thing. I'm sure this post won't stop people from ignorantly spouting the phrase "an eye for an eye" like drunken parrots on a pirate ship, but for those who have an inquisitive mind, at least it will offer some insight into why that reasoning falls flat
If you want to consider some blog called "populartechnology.net" more credible than the National Academy of Sciences, that's up to you. I don't. And no, each source wasn't independently researched. In fact, the skepticalscience link actually confirms what I posted. You obviously didn't even bother to read it. This is from your own link: "A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming." The WSJ journal link is debunked here: http://www.salon.com/2014/05/28/wsjs_sh ... ot_a_myth/ And here: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -consensus And the Forbes link basically refers to the populartechnology.net Enjoy. If you google it, there's plenty of information pages. But you actually have to read them in order to avoid making embarrassing mistakes like posting links that actually disprove the claim you're trying make.
Eye for an eye predated Judaism. The law of retribution was one of the first attempts at civilized law - whether or not it had anything to do with religion. So a refutation of an eye for an eye based on religious grounds is ludicrous. Now that we have that out of the way. An eye for an eye was replaced in civilized societies back in the classical era. People who spout eye for an eye nonsense are merely trying to find excuses for their gruesome vicarious bloodlust. It expresses the exact type of savagery that civilization has been trying to shed since its inception.
I do not support the death penalty in any way shape or form. However, I'd like to point out op has basically undermined his own argument. The lethal injection administers three chemicals - an anaesthetic, a paralytic and a fatal solution. It is debated if the anaesthetic works which is where the controversy comes from. How is anyone meant to know for sure unless they could read minds lol It is the same method they use as when doctors do surgery on a patient except doctors don't use a lethal solution obviously.
Keep editing. And quoting the same tired stuff. The guardian. Wikipedia. And anything else you can fix or that's been fixed to your narrow view. Even your "National Academy of Sciences" owns up to the fact their study was their own 2200 or so members of this private non profit group focused on a "global warming initiative". Gee, I wonder why 97% agreed they thought it was a due in large part to mankind. Where else would funding come from? In the 1970s their initiative was battling the coming ice age, maybe you should jump on that too. Drink the Kook-Aid. Lol. You should donate to them as well. Cheers.
I bet you two are fun at parties and when no one argues with you. Reminds me of a playground argument. And entirely off this thread. Isn't there one about that?? Thanks for the support and responses moose on my earlier post. Lots of good points in all directions on this thread. And heated!
Eye for an eye, not all claiming as religious belief, more a figure of speech. But since Moose is talking religion, which Christian denomination is correct on their stance regarding Capital Punishment? You lump Christians as all having the same beliefs. Here are just a few things I see major differences in philosophy within Christianity. 1. Same 5ex marriage. 2. Polygamy. 3. Capital Punishment. You can go from one end of the spectrum to the other on this one depending on your interpretation of the the scripture your are reading and to which particular Christian Denomination you belong.
We say that it is uncivilized because it was thought out for different civilizations than our own. When we call it civilized we simply mean that it fits our civilization; not that it is unequivocally 'Good.' We are making a value statement not a factual one. The law of retribution is found for example in Hammurabi's code and it reflects a different political economy of legitimate repression from the one that we have today. In these ancient examples a less capillary and more tenuous penetration of the repressive apparatuses of the state meant that death was used more often as a punishment because 1) it tended to have a longer and stronger deterrent effect on potential criminals, 2) of the lack of concepts like human rights, and 3) it protected an important 'scarce resource' - people. Today, many of these instances do not apply: the state has a continued and capillary presence of legitimate repression on its territory, there is in fact an overpopulation, and democracy is in place. Hence, we use a model that tends to aim at modifying the behaviour of individuals. In fact the modern state (say since the 1880s) has progressively rejected the idea of eliminating violently its opposition with the principle of guiding and modifying behaviour in a way that is deemed beneficial for the social and political systems. Democracy is a good example of it: by accepting infrequent direct electoral participation (every 4 or so years) in order to select the executive and legislative branches the masses effectively renounce their right to resist violently the state. Something that was rather common in the past - so common in fact that it was codified in the right of resistance. So, if you move the right of resistance from the 'physical' realm of revolt to the electoral one, the focus naturally shifts to the foundational principle of the modern political systems: managing the behaviours of the masses. In this context the death penalty is 'uncivilized' because it is the mirror image of the violent revolt: it signifies the abandoning of a 'basic' principle. i.e., it shows that anti-societal behaviours cannot be modified using non violent means. That in and of itself brings into question another basic idea of the modern state, i.e., that it is 'good' for rational citizens and that everyone should be able to be rationally convinced that the laws and limitation created by the modern state are positive for them. Prison is in fact supposed to do that: change the minds of the inmates towards 'seeing the light' and embracing the principles and values of the system.
This is a great topic because almost everyone has an opinion and many feel quite strongly about it. What I value are the articulate opinions on both sides
don't know if this was mentioned yet or not but misspell in thread title lol as for actual topic there are better ways and more human ways as well, a bullet between the eyes never hurt anyone :twisted:
Actually, it said "Six of the nine states with the lowest murder rates are states without the death penalty." not that they had less violent crime. And all other countries are "outside" the US. We don't have any inside the US. If you're trying to say that states that border Mexico have higher violent crime rates than non border states, the data doesn't support that. Based on the FBI's 2013 Uniform Crime Report the states with the highest violent crime rates were: 1. Alaska 2. New Mexico 3. Nevada 4. Tennessee 5. Louisiana 6. South Carolina 7. Delaware 8. Maryland 9. Florida 10. Arkansas http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bus ... /21214169/ Only one of those states borders Mexico.
Absolutely. I was talking about the off topic source quoting people being carried over from another thread onto this interesting debate.
So moose, if someone slaughtered your significant other, parents, siblings, or children. You won't want to get your hands on them?