Ack wrote:jp1 wrote:I also don't believe in the death penalty because it is hypocritical and barbaric. Who should ultimately be the judge of who lives and who dies? If you are a right wing conservative because of Christianity, there is only one correct answer here. If you aren't a Christian there are no correct answers for that question.
I am not a conservative Christian, though I do support the use of the death penalty, albeit in extreme circumstances. It is my opinion that the death penalty should be viewed not as a tool for punishment but one of societal protection, reserved for only the worst offenders who commit the most heinous of crimes and lack the ability to show empathy or remorse. Serial murderers, serial rapists, mass murderers, etc., who show extreme levels of psychopathy are the types of people whom I think the death penalty should be reserved for, but only in conjunction with both the court's approval and with the consent of qualified psychiatrists and psychologists.
I'm also in favor of removing three strikes laws, because the evidence doesn't appear to support their working, and I think non-violent drug offenders should be offered treatment options instead of prison sentences, both as a means to help them recover and contribute economically to our society and to lower the costs associated with our justice and penal systems.
I'm afraid that I have a hard time seeing it as anything but revenge. You don't teach a child that violence is wrong by beating them. There are so many alternatives to ending the life of another person as "justice". For instance, prisons routinely implement work programs that are quite lucrative. A death row inmate might be required to work in a program which earns enough to sustain themselves and provide a contribution to the society they have harmed. Not all of these work programs are designed to put inmates in contact with the community, they could be providing cheap or even free labor as a means to sustain the prison, which in return provides jobs for the community. This is only one scenario that is plausible, there are countless other ways to keep society safe without killing someone, and without putting a strain on our wallet. The problem is that the human imagination is much more productive when it comes to destructive measures, and we are hardly impartial when it comes to convicts who have committed serious crimes.
How many innocent men do you believe have been sent to death? With the rising number of people who were convicted and sentenced to death before DNA evidence was available being proven innocent and receiving a pardon, what time frame would you propose is plausible to kill a man or woman with confidence that no mistakes have been made in their conviction?
The backlog of cases along with the small number of people who are willing to reconsider them leaves people waiting years for even a first chance at a new trial with newly available evidence. Many times if a detective intuits that a suspect is guilty, they will have tunnel vision and not even examine other possibilities, especially when presented with circumstantial evidence that supports their narrative. It's bad enough that innocent men go to prison, even worse that they may never get a chance to clear their name.
On a personal note, being a Christian, I don't believe in murder in any circumstance. Non-lethal measures are rarely explored because they aren't demonstrative of power and authority in the same way a bullet or a missile are. I find this to be the fault of a lazy mind, with little care for becoming a more enlightened society. We are still barbarians, we just pretend that we aren't.
I'm torn on self defense issues, because it is a gray area for me, the preservation of life is an instinct as much as a choice and one probably shouldn't be held accountable for something they can not help. Further, if my children or my wife were faced with grave danger, I am certain that my Christian beliefs on the matter would take a back seat. Sadly, for me, that means eternal damnation, yet I still couldn't watch as my family was attacked. I realize there is some hypocrisy in that as well, but I am a flawed man. With that said, I definitely empathize with the families of victims, and their plight is not lost on me at all. It's a tough choice to make, and one I hope to never be faced with. Ideals are simple in a vacuum. The intricacies of emotion are the difficult part, I'd like to think I'd have the strength to follow my convictions...in the moment, I can't say for sure.
On all the other matters, such as non-violent drug offenders and three strikes I agree completely.
