This is what you get when people rail and sue based on separation of church and state.

A governor is not allowed to commute a death sentence based on their religious beliefs..

Don't blame them..

Everyone living will suffer the death penalty.

That karma comes down to us all.

Live well!

"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends."

Wise man he was, this Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire...

how is killing justified and whats so different about that and revenge? isnt killing killing? thou shall not kill. doesnt say thou shall not kill, unless someone else kills

there is actually some dispute about the interpretation, some books have thou shalt not kill and some have thou shalt not murder


killing is killing unless its murder, or self defense,,or even an accident etc

just like

taking is taking, unless its stealing, embezzlement,,,etc

or sex is sex, unless its rape, incest, etc,,,


like the english language, the 'context' of an action makes alot of difference

revenge is when one is acting to punish someone else, defense is when one is acting to save themself,,,big difference

Matthew 7, Verse 1: "“Judge not, that you be not judged."

Deuteronomy 32:35: "Vengeance is mine, and recompense, for the time when their foot shall slip; for the day of their calamity is at hand, and their doom comes swiftly."

So far about "Take an eye for an eye..."

I dont support vengeance (eye for an eye,judgment)

I do support self protection/defense

msh, my posting wasn't directed to you... and self protection/self defence are very important to me, I do a lot of work in that area... does self defence, whether it works or not, justify the killing (if even by the State) of ONE innocent delinquent, or even the possibility that you might execute an innocent person?

Apart from that - statistics here in Germany, where we do not have death penalties, as well as in other states around the world show, that the rate of reoffenders in murder and other homicide delinquents is extremely low - I found numbers in the area of 7/1000, meaning 7 people who were convicted in homicide cases would be committing homicides again. That means, to prevent 7 people from killing people (for whatever reason - might as well be a traffic accident!) you kill 993 people who would never kill again...

Protection/Deterrence? Canada abandoned death penalties in 1976. Their rate of homicides is sinking constantly, in spite of this fact. Actually, the homicide rates inside the U.S. are WAY lower in states that do NOT have a death penalty than in those that do!?

It's supposed to be: "Thou Shalt Not Murder".
"Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a misinterpretation.

Unless you are a vegetarian, you've broken this commandment a thousand times over.

"Murder" isn't the same as "Killing".

Killing is the act.

Murder is done by premeditating the act.

The Bible speaks of both killing and murder.
"Murder" is the sin.
"Killing" can be "pardoned" depending on the "cause".

..where did you get that statistic? o.O

Philadelphia, PA: 31 Homicides in the first 25 Days of this year (2012)

Dallas, TX: 148 victims throughout the ENTIRE 2010 year.

PA - No Death Penalty.

TX - Death Penalty.

?

You bring up an interesting point. When I was on my way out after doing my 6 years, the new privates coming in from boot camp, generally aged 18 - 23, increasingly said they joined "so they could kill people". No politics, no animosity... A generation of young soldiers raised on MWF3 and Gears of War, from where I'm standing they already have virtual combat training and a lack of separation between fantasy and reality. I'd say they're in the right place.

As for murderers and sex offenders, just kill them and be done with it. We already justify killing thousands of innocent people abroad because they were painted as enemies by the government and its various media channels. How hard is it really to flip a switch or inject someone who ****ed with someone's kids or murdered people for ***** and giggles? I guess I don't see the point in moral pretense anymore. We live I a ****ed up world with many many sick people in it.

The problem with arming a convicted killer lies in some simple facts:

A. Loyalty - What would they be fighting for? Who's to say they wouldn't flip sides given the chance? Not to mention, if they are wearing a U.S. uniform; what if they start killing the wrong people? Would that not be entirely counter-productive?

B. Control - You have "limited" control of that type of situation. One General and 50,000 convicted felons? No one sees an issue with this? o.O

C. Restraint - They don't have any.

D. Friendly Fire - As I somewhat stated before, they could ultimately, for example, start killing the people of Israel. Then what?

E. Money - You believe we'd be "saving" money, but perhaps you should look into how much it actually costs to equip one soldier, deploy him overseas, and watch him with video surveillance. Now we do that same technique with uncontrollable, cold-blooded, murders and convicts. Yeah... that's gonna work.

According to my sources, PA HAS death penalty, if even rarely used!?

Apart from that, look at FBI's statistics on violent crime by large cities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Large_cities) - for these alone there are examples for both ways, as I read i. You can name a city with a low crime rate and death penalty, I name one with low rate without dp. So at least there seems to be no definite pro argument for dp!?

Do two wrongs make up one right if combined? And, apart from that - are you a quitter, or are you willing to make your world better, if not for you, then maybe for your kids?

Holy chit!!

I lived in PA my WHOLE life and didn't know we even had the DP.

xD

We only executed 3 people since 1976. :O

1. Scottsdale, AZ
2. Plano, TX
3. Virginia Beach, VA
4. Fremont, CA
5. Honolulu, HI
6. San Jose, CA
7. Anaheim, CA
8. Fort Wayne, IN
9. Santa Ana, CA
10. Garland, TX

These ten cities, of the United States have the lowest OVERALL crime rates out of ALL the cities in the Country.

Texas, on this list twice - Death Penalty.
Virginia - Death Penalty.
California, on this list four times - Death Penalty.

Not sure about Arizona, Indiana, or Hawaii though.

Maybe the Death Penalty doesn't "stop" murder, but it lowers "overall" crime?

:D Happy to be helpful ;)



Indiana, Arizona have, Hawaii does not.

Hmmm my personal opinion is, that killing a person, even with judiciary consent, ist the absolutely last possibility - would it stop murder, I would be definitely in favor. If it doesn't, no way I am gonna agree... "lowering overall crime rate" is no excuse for killing humans (again, my opinion!)

Apart from that, there is still the possibility of error - I WORK in the judiciary system, and I know we err. If you had a way of finding judgment without the possibilty to err, I would love to learn it, but I think you folks are just as fallible as we are. So I'm always happy if I have a possibilty to correct an error... kind of hard if the victim of my error has been buried!?

One of my professors used to say: "I would hate to see a delinquent that I judged after ten years of imprisonment for murder and say 'I´m sorry, I erred!'. But I would hate even more to see his widow and orphaned daughter to say the same thing!"

In dubio pro reo...

Now that I do agree with, and, fyi, I never said I was pro-DP.

However, at the same time, I also don't believe in having as many convicts as we have, and every working man/woman/teenager having to personally PAY for them to be kept "prisoner". That's pathetic in itself.

"FREEDOM" in itself is actually one of the MOST expensive things ever it would seem.

I feel before being adjudicated beyond help they should have required long-term treatment through a psychiatric facility before sentencing into a death penalty. Prisoners do not receive treatment, they receive lesson on how to further their criminal careers and become more skewed than ever. From the aspect of one that had murderous thoughts as an abused teenager towards my parents, I can almost relate. I, also, do believe if I had done what my thought were......I would have been able to be rehabilitated through psychiatric care.

I absolutely agree with that, and (once more a personal opinion - I fear to be treading into some fecal tank once again) I think you might get away with a lot less cost if you decided to pay the money on the other end of the chain - by PREVENTING the crime in the first place, by changing the reasons for people to become criminal... I don't work criminal law any more since I finished my education, but few of the eople I met when I did became criminals because they thought being criminal was cool - they just plainly didn't "see another way out", mostly because they never even knew other ways existed.

I agree, you pay about 5 bucks out of 10 for people who probably wouldn't have become criminal at all, and you could call that money wasted... but for each of said ten bucks, you save 20-50 in jails and corrections...

..so your idea on how to lower crime is by charging the hard-working people of this nation even more of their own hard-earned money?

Psychiatrists/Psychologists aren't cheap to begin with.

..and granted, it does seem like a "viable" idea; however, do you really think people are really going to desire to have more of their money taken and placed in an idea/program that may or may not even work?