How can anyone support the Death Penalty if there is even the slightest chance an innocent life could be ended??
Especially if you are against abortion?
The two are moral equivalents, like it or not. Babies are innocent. Unless the condemned gives a full confession, there is the chance that person may also be innocent.
Your thoughts??
2006-09-20 12:16:26 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Innocent people have been put to death in this country, I am sure. As there are no absolutes, how can we be absolutely sure of a person's guilt if they insist otherwise?
Better to err on the side of caution.
2006-09-20 12:21:24 · update #1
In my opinion, and lets face it folks, what we offer here is opinion....they ARE moral equivalents. In both instances, a life is ended.
2006-09-20 12:23:13 · update #2
Blackacre...that's your opinion. And I have mine. That's the beauty of this forum. We all have opinions, and we can share them respectfully.
2006-09-20 12:35:53 · update #3
Googly....thank you. I'm even happier now that I didn't tag you!!
2006-09-20 12:37:24 · update #4
Button....do me the honor of explaining how I could possibly have anger issues?? I'm not following you here. Have I made you uncomfortable or something??
2006-09-20 12:39:01 · update #5
USBaptist....Exactly!
2006-09-20 12:40:06 · update #6
Chanteuse...we find people guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable is the key word here. There is still some doubt, however minute.. Unless there is a full confession, there is no absolute certainty that the condemned is indeed guilty.
2006-09-20 12:43:27 · update #7
kingreef7....I never said that I felt babies were not born innocent. They Are. I was agreeing with the points the answerer made.
2006-09-20 12:46:44 · update #8
I NEVER SAID WE SHOULD LET MURDERERS WALK FREE.
Please quote me if I have.
2006-09-20 12:48:03 · update #9
If you execute even ONE innocent person, then the system is wrong, and it is not a good idea!!
2006-09-20 12:49:22 · update #10
Not true. Execution of a criminal is ending a viable life. Abortion prior to end of the first trimester is preventing life from becoming potentially viable. Big difference.
You are merely creating a false moral equivalency. The moral equivalent would be executing murderers and executing young children...
To your addendum: a life is NOT ended in each case. In one case, a life is ended and in another, the potential for a viable human life is ended. By your reasoning, condoms would constitute execution as they prevent a potential life from taking root...
2006-09-20 12:18:13 · answer #1 · answered by Blackacre 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
All that really says is that the death penalty should only be invoked when the person is clearly guilty. Such as with multiple witnesses, camera footage, and the like. There probably does need to be reforms within the system as to who does get the death penalty, though I do think it's less cruel than life imprisonment.
The two are not moral equivalents. The possibility of killing an innocent and the certainty of it are separate things. However since you think they're the same and you seem to be against the death penalty does that compel you to be pro-life.
2006-09-20 12:20:37 · answer #2 · answered by westfallwatergardens 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You're right, it is the taking of innocent lives. A lot of times we Christians can be hypocritical. Some people think that if a person has killed a lot of people, they should be killed. Didn't Jesus teach us to turn the other cheek? I'd say we need to work on our prisons. Make the prisons more like Sheriff Joe's Tent City and I'd say life in prison is worse than the death penalty. These murderers don't deserve to die, but they also don't deserve a 5-star-meal, nice beds, and a gym where they can exercise to become bigger than the guards overtake them, and escape. There is a risk of escape when a person gets life in prison rather than death, but maybe that risk wouldn't be so high if we didn't give prisoners such a cushy lifestyle.
Oh, and I completely disagree with abortion. I like the motto "Choose life. Your mother did." The same goes for serial killers and such. Only God has the right to decide when a person's time is to die.
2006-09-20 13:02:08 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They (fetuses) may be innocent, but according to law, they are not people until they are born. The justice system is what condemns a person. If they break a law, are tried in court, and found guilty, then according to the justice system, they are guilty and must pay the price, whether that be time served, a fine, community service, or, depending on the state, the death penalty.
History shows that there will be a few innocent lives taken in order to deter people from a life of crime.
Unfortunately in today's society, if you are proven guilty in a court of law, you are guilty. Even if you didn't do it.
2006-09-20 12:52:16 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good question.I do not think there is a "pat" right or wrong answer to this. My belief is should you remove the death penalty you obviously remove some of the deterrent for taking a life. I would suggest there must be more than circumstantial evidence in order to sentence someone to death. There would have to be eye witnesses to the crime or else the suspect would have to be found at the scene of the crime with the murder weapon in their possession. Of the two topics I believe abortion to be the more hideous. The baby is made to be the guilty party for something they did not do or have any say in. Hope you get some satisfying responses.
2006-09-20 12:33:12 · answer #5 · answered by Steiner 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Allowing criminals to walk free leads to the death of innocents when the criminals repeat their crimes.
Lifetime imprisonment of criminals leads to the death of innocents when resources are diverted from feeding and lodging the needy to feeding and lodging criminals.
The death penalty leads to the death of innocents when an innocent person is convicted of a crime he didn't commit.
It isn't possible to prevent every innocent person from dying. The only three options are described above. The choice which should be chosen is the one that leads to the death of the least innocents, but there will always be some innocents who will die.
As long as MOST convicted criminals are truly guilty of their crimes, the death penalty is a good idea. It should be used far more often than it is today.
...
It isn't possible to avoid killing all innocent people. For every criminal who is given lifetime food and lodging in prison, there is a poor, starving child somewhere in the world who will die. Surely our resources would be put to much better use by feeding and lodging the starving innocent children and executing the known criminals.
2006-09-20 12:45:41 · answer #6 · answered by scifiguy 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Mr. Duchovny,
I keep getting from you questions that I am compelled to answer, though they are of moral judgement, as if we Christians are speaking for God. But you place the importance of the questions on us as if they are values that are to be counted against us. If find you questions as wishes answered by a genie in a rolled up carpet; bound to end in disaster.
You haven't pointed this one at Christians per se, but you have mentioned a key point that most Christian gather together on. The points you have gathered on this one, no exception.
And I thought that you agreed with another answer previously that stated that babies are NOT born innocent. So there seems to be a disparity in your own sense of morals.
Criminals are that, because they have been found by a jury, in the USA, and I believe Canada, to be guilty of a crime. I would not think it very nice if I was found guilty when I was innocent, but that's the law of the land.
A vast appeals system is supposed to protect those who are actually innocent from being executed, and that has, I believe, worked for the most part.
As faith works into the picture, as I have said before, I trust my God, whether I am guilty of a Capital Offense or not. And I will join Him, guilty or not, as He has promised.
I don't meet Him in a state of being saved because I am moral. The babies of the world have at least their inability to take lives purposefully to defend them.
2006-09-20 12:44:15 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
very true because in the Bible it says for you to judge no man so who are we to decide who lives or dies. You're right this person could be innocent or in the wrong place at the wrong time and now not only does he suffer but so do the loved ones he leaves behind. People are so quick to look at situations as the victim. Such as abortion. The mother is the victim and has ended up somehow in this situation. The situation could sometimes not be her fault(depends) but she decides to get rid of her thinking of herself only and then she has supporters making it her way so the child wil die. Second Scenario, a man is to believed to have killed a woman because he was the last person seen leaving not knowing there was someone else. Now he is charged with the murder because he was there and if he fails a lie detector he is as good as gone. If he was innocent and dies his family grieves as well but people are for the victim receiving justice. It is an eye for an eye and that was left in the old testament of the bible. It is not fair.
2006-09-20 12:24:42 · answer #8 · answered by Miss T 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i agree with you in spirit. i detest the death penalty, but there are some crimes that i believe deserve such treatment. i will not judge their soul as i am not qualified to do so, but crimes must be punished...and sometimes very harshly.
there has not been proof of an innocent person being put to death in the united states. there are speculations but no concrete proof.
that is why we have the checks and balances in place, to catch the wrongs and right them.
i grieve in advance for the innocent put to death for a crime they did not commit, and i would stop the punishment if there were sufficient evidence to warrant a delay for new evidence to be provided.
and morally, i do not believe for a moment that abortion and the death penalty are anywhere near being equal....the unborn child has not committed any crime, except to be warded to an uncaring mother.
-eagle
2006-09-20 12:25:02 · answer #9 · answered by eaglemyrick 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Personally, I don't think a murderer should be executed unless there's absolutely no doubt they did it, such as a confession and dna evidence. I also don't think pedophile child murderers deserve the pampered lives they get in prison. They're segregated so the other prisoners don't hurt them, have their own tv's, but those kids are dead. If they ever get out, they'll kill again. Should we spend millions of dollars to keep them happy? Sorry, as far as I'm concerned, once they have proof positive, they should be executed immediately, no constant, expensive appeals.
And no, its not in the least the same as abortions, obviously.
2006-09-20 12:41:56 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Having been in the Gospel ministry for 13 years I still have a problem with this issue. Sometimes I support the death penalty, sometimes I don't. It would be hard for me not to want the death penalty for someone who has murdered my mother (for example). However, it's not a natural thing in my opinion to strap a person down and take their life. The process is so morbid to me. I'm thankful that I don't have that responsibility. If God wants a persons death I would rather have Him do it himself, and leave mankind out of it. God forgive me.
2006-09-20 12:34:03 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋