• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Latest: Texas executes man for 1998 dragging death

TheParser said:
Like many other people, I am GLAD that Texas still has capital punishment.

Like many other people, I am SORRY that the 700+ murderers on California's Death Row will never be executed.
Click to expand...

There is a good reason I am against the death penalty. 2 cases immediately jump out and meet my eyes:

1) Sacco and Vanzetti - Italian immigrants who were executed, and later it was found that they were innocent.

2) Julius and Ethel Rosenberg - Executed for selling nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union. It was later found out they didn't do it.

Those are the poster children for abolishing the death penalty, but hardly a month goes by that you don't read or hear in the news about someone on death row being released because he was proven innocent. Those were just the errors that were caught. Nobody knows how many errors made it all the way to the death chamber, but they do exist. Look, if the death penalty and it's application were infallible, I would volunteer to throw the switch myself, but it isn't. Along with the bathwater goes the baby in some cases, and that is not acceptable to me. Therefore, I am staunchly against the death penalty. In this case, we can agree that justice has been done, but for those innocents who are executed, even if it's only a few, let's call it what it is - State sanctioned murder.
 
danarhea said:
There is a good reason I am against the death penalty. 2 cases immediately jump out and meet my eyes:

1) Sacco and Vanzetti - Italian immigrants who were executed, and later it was found that they were innocent.

2) Julius and Ethel Rosenberg - Executed for selling nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union. It was later found out they didn't do it.

Those are the poster children for abolishing the death penalty, but hardly a month goes by that you don't read or hear in the news about someone on death row being released because he was proven innocent. Those were just the errors that were caught. Nobody knows how many errors made it all the way to the death chamber, but they do exist. Look, if the death penalty and it's application were infallible, I would volunteer to throw the switch myself, but it isn't. Along with the bathwater goes the baby in some cases, and that is not acceptable to me. Therefore, I am staunchly against the death penalty. In this case, we can agree that justice has been done, but for those innocents who are executed, even if it's only a few, let's call it what it is - State sanctioned murder.
Click to expand...

Those are definitely the poster children cases. Been lots more too, I bet, that haven't come to light.
I'm just against giving the state the power of life and death over the citizens. I don't trust the government to pick up trash in the streets or mow the grass in the parks without graft, corruption and incompetence, I sure don't want them to have that power.
Back before there were prisons they'd have public executions in the town square and while they were hanging thieves there were pickpockets working the crowd. Capital punishment doesn't discourage any crime- if it did there'd be less crime where there's more executions but there isn't.
 
Grand Mal said:
Those are definitely the poster children cases. Been lots more too, I bet, that haven't come to light.
I'm just against giving the state the power of life and death over the citizens. I don't trust the government to pick up trash in the streets or mow the grass in the parks without graft, corruption and incompetence, I sure don't want them to have that power.
Back before there were prisons they'd have public executions in the town square and while they were hanging thieves there were pickpockets working the crowd. Capital punishment doesn't discourage any crime- if it did there'd be less crime where there's more executions but there isn't.
Click to expand...

I can trace my ancestry all the way back to before the Battle of Sterling. My ancestors on my father's side were Scottish, but fled to Ireland when the British started hanging everybody named Elliott. The Elliott Clan were thieves, so the British decided that everybody with the surname of Elliott were thieves and did their best to hang them all. Luckily my ancestors escaped. Were my ancestors thieves? I don't know, but I do know that, had they been caught by the British, there would have been no trial. They would have been executed on the spot. My ancestors on my mother's side were Jewish, and we all know what happened to the Jews over the last couple of millenia.
 
danarhea said:
There is a good reason I am against the death penalty. 2 cases immediately jump out and meet my eyes:

1) Sacco and Vanzetti - Italian immigrants who were executed, and later it was found that they were innocent.

2) Julius and Ethel Rosenberg - Executed for selling nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union. It was later found out they didn't do it.

Those are the poster children for abolishing the death penalty, but hardly a month goes by that you don't read or hear in the news about someone on death row being released because he was proven innocent. Those were just the errors that were caught. Nobody knows how many errors made it all the way to the death chamber, but they do exist. Look, if the death penalty and it's application were infallible, I would volunteer to throw the switch myself, but it isn't. Along with the bathwater goes the baby in some cases, and that is not acceptable to me. Therefore, I am staunchly against the death penalty. In this case, we can agree that justice has been done, but for those innocents who are executed, even if it's only a few, let's call it what it is - State sanctioned murder.
Click to expand...


You are right: Our system of "justice" is far from "just."

a. Some prosecutors want to make a name for themselves.
b. Some police want to close the case, so they choose one suspect and make the "facts" fit.
c. Some witnesses are mistaken or liars.


But in most cases, there is NO doubt.

In those "no doubt" cases, those individuals should be executed. And as a Supreme Court justice just said, if the murderer suffers some pain in the process, tough cookies!
 
maxparrish said:
But the crime committed has everything to do with why the death penalty is right.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't. The simple fact that innocent people are executed makes the death penalty wrong.

The moral issue is further reason for it to be wrong - if it's so wrong for someone to kill someone else, then why should you and I be allowed to kill via the state?

The consequential issue is further reason. Killing someone isn't going to have any impact on the crime they already committed, and the death penalty is more about us than anyone else because it's only about us and our feelings. The only difference between life in prison without parole and execution is that the latter makes some people feel better, which isn't really an argument for ending another human's life. Especially in light of the other reasons.
 
danarhea said:
I am still against the death penalty for a number of reasons, but I have no pity whatsoever for this thug...
Click to expand...
To me, the amazing thing is that Texas apparently has never executed a white man for the murder of a black man.
 
Visbek said:
To me, the amazing thing is that Texas apparently has never executed a white man for the murder of a black man.
Click to expand...

Actually, Texas has. In 2011, Texas executed one of the partners of the asshole they put down last night.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
The moral issue is further reason for it to be wrong - if it's so wrong for someone to kill someone else, then why should you and I be allowed to kill via the state?
Click to expand...
I think most would agree that it's often not wrong for someone to kill someone else.
 
danarhea said:
There is a good reason I am against the death penalty. 2 cases immediately jump out and meet my eyes:

1) Sacco and Vanzetti - Italian immigrants who were executed, and later it was found that they were innocent.

2) Julius and Ethel Rosenberg - Executed for selling nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union. It was later found out they didn't do it.

Those are the poster children for abolishing the death penalty, but hardly a month goes by that you don't read or hear in the news about someone on death row being released because he was proven innocent. Those were just the errors that were caught. Nobody knows how many errors made it all the way to the death chamber, but they do exist. Look, if the death penalty and it's application were infallible, I would volunteer to throw the switch myself, but it isn't. Along with the bathwater goes the baby in some cases, and that is not acceptable to me. Therefore, I am staunchly against the death penalty. In this case, we can agree that justice has been done, but for those innocents who are executed, even if it's only a few, let's call it what it is - State sanctioned murder.
Click to expand...

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg may not have passed nuclear secrets to the Soviets. They were, however, Soviet spies and did pass on other defense secrets. They were convicted of espionage, which carries the death penalty. For me they make very poor poster children.

There have, however, been many far less famous cases of people executed and then later proved not guilty. It's the main reason I'd like to see the death penalty go. The perpetrator in the dragging case is a horribly twisted human being who should never be out in society. But killing him doesn't fix anything or make our society better.
 
One of the oldest-known prohibitions against murder appears in the Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu written sometime between 2100 and 2050 BC. The code states, "If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed." This is the state taking revenge out of the victim's families hands. It was an alternative to the blood feuds of the time and, in that way, was a benefit to society.
One could ask how not executing this individual fixes anything or benefits society. From what I understand he was an avowed racist up until the end and was spreading his hatred to other like-minded 'good people'.
That he can no longer do this is indeed a benefit to society. Personally I think murderers like this should die the same way their victims did, may not fix the problem but could slow it down and make it more manageable, imho!
 
Khayembii Communique said:
But it doesn't. The simple fact that innocent people are executed makes the death penalty wrong.

The moral issue is further reason for it to be wrong - if it's so wrong for someone to kill someone else, then why should you and I be allowed to kill via the state?

The consequential issue is further reason. Killing someone isn't going to have any impact on the crime they already committed, and the death penalty is more about us than anyone else because it's only about us and our feelings. The only difference between life in prison without parole and execution is that the latter makes some people feel better, which isn't really an argument for ending another human's life. Especially in light of the other reasons.
Click to expand...

You're likely aware of how I feel about racists, and I don't think he should die.

Very well said. Better than I could do. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
Actually, Texas has. In 2011, Texas executed one of the partners of the asshole they put down last night.
Click to expand...

How did this guy manage to string this out for another 8 years?
 
Grand Mal said:
I'm just against giving the state the power of life and death over the citizens.
Click to expand...

That's a very good point.

I've noticed that many of those who are happiest about this man receiving the death penalty, are the same people that argue vociferously against universal healthcare because the government is too big of a screw up to do it correctly.

Yet they're willing to give the government the ultimate power, that of life and death. It really exposes how weak and illogical their thinking is.
 
Visbek said:
To me, the amazing thing is that Texas apparently has never executed a white man for the murder of a black man.
Click to expand...

No way. Surely even Texas isn't that racist. Do you have a reputable source? Thanks.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
But it doesn't. The simple fact that innocent people are executed makes the death penalty wrong.

The moral issue is further reason for it to be wrong - if it's so wrong for someone to kill someone else, then why should you and I be allowed to kill via the state?

The consequential issue is further reason. Killing someone isn't going to have any impact on the crime they already committed, and the death penalty is more about us than anyone else because it's only about us and our feelings. The only difference between life in prison without parole and execution is that the latter makes some people feel better, which isn't really an argument for ending another human's life. Especially in light of the other reasons.
Click to expand...

First, the death penalty for a particular crime is not wrong just because, on occasion, an innocent person is executed. After all, as a matter of justice, ANY amount of punishment of a person for any crime they did not commit is morally wrong - but since when did wronging an innocent somehow morally invalidate that punishment for the guilty?

What is wrong is not that a penalty exists BUT that an innocent person is punished for it, sometimes death or life in a penitentiary. Therefore, no punishment need be abandoned, rather the certainty of guilt must change; the burden of proof of the person's guilt must be increased proportionate to the extreme punishment sought.

So the criteria and proof for capital punishment in the penalty phase should be raised; not just in consideration of mitigating circumstances, but to "a certainty without any doubt, reasonable or unreasonable". What that might specifically require is a matter of added law, but clearly one can find clear guilt in the actions of the Las Vegas sniper and mass killer - a guil5 so factual as to be undeniable except by the insane.

I will comment on your other points as time permits...
 
Last edited:
EMNofSeattle said:
I struggle with this because I am a faithful Catholic and the Church has recently changed teaching to say the death penalty is wrong in all circumstances, otherwise I would say fry him with no second thought.

His crime is textbook case for the existence of the death penalty though
Click to expand...

So the "Church" says it's not acceptable now, in all cases...why? And why do you just accept it? Did God speak to somebody personally?

I'm not criticizing support against (or for) the DP...I'm just trying to understand why the change affects your belief?
 
Lursa said:
So the "Church" says it's not acceptable now, in all cases...why? And why do you just accept it? Did God speak to somebody personally?

I'm not criticizing support against (or for) the DP...I'm just trying to understand why the change affects your belief?
Click to expand...

Because Jesus established a church with teaching authority to guide the faithful Christians of this world. When the Church declares a teaching it is to be accepted as Christ’s teaching.

Because the Pope is part of a succession from St Peter who was chosen by Jesus to establish the Church. (Mathew 16:18)

Without a Church with teaching authority of this sort we get heresies like Jesus was not divine (jehovas witnesses) or that we can become Gods (Mormons) or that abortion is acceptable (mainline Protestants) or that divorce and remarriage (specifically condemned by Jesus) is acceptable.

Therefore since Christ chose to establish a Church when this church infallibly defines an issue I will accept the teaching
 
Last edited:
EMNofSeattle said:
Because Jesus established a church with teaching authority to guide the faithful Christians of this world. When the Church declares a teaching it is to be accepted as Christ’s teaching.
Click to expand...

But this is not new knowledge, it's a moral observation. So who brought the "word" that now that is acceptable and why?

And thank you for the civil answer, my post was and is, meant the same. I'm curious.
 
Lursa said:
But this is not new knowledge, it's a moral observation. So who brought the "word" that now that is acceptable and why?

And thank you for the civil answer, my post was and is, meant the same. I'm curious.
Click to expand...
There are many moral observations that emerge from new issues.

In the old hebrew laws in Exodous there are divorces, but Jesus said divorce and remarriage is adultery. So in Jesus’s ministry he applies God’s moral standards over man’s

The Church’s teachings on the Trinity are not explicitly stated In scripture, but the only way to explain the god as described in the Bible is with a Triuine god.

Pharmaceutical contraception did not exist in biblical times, which is why the Church was here to make a decision on that issue.

The physical act of masturbation is not mentioned in the Bible but since it emerges from lust the Church says it is sinful.

We have the church to look at the scripture and the basis and determine the morality of these issues
 
EMNofSeattle said:
There are many moral observations that emerge from new issues.

In the old hebrew laws in Exodous there are divorces, but Jesus said divorce and remarriage is adultery. So in Jesus’s ministry he applies God’s moral standards over man’s

The Church’s teachings on the Trinity are not explicitly stated In scripture, but the only way to explain the god as described in the Bible is with a Triuine god.

Pharmaceutical contraception did not exist in biblical times, which is why the Church was here to make a decision on that issue.

The physical act of masturbation is not mentioned in the Bible but since it emerges from lust the Church says it is sinful.

We have the church to look at the scripture and the basis and determine the morality of these issues
Click to expand...

Thank you for explaining.
 
dixon01767 said:
Of course its in the bible. King James translation is probably the most widely used.

13 Thou shalt not kill.
Click to expand...

And the King James translation is in error. The Hebrew word in Exodus 20:13 is "ratsach", which means murder, defined as unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt. Accidental killing can also result in bloodguilt, where the remedy is for the person who accidentally killed someone to be killed himself, but in this case, he is allowed to go to a sanctuary city, where friends and relatives of the victim are not allowed to carry out their revenge. Also, an accidental killing can be atoned by "eglah arufah", in which a heifer is killed in the place of someone who accidentally killed another. The context of what constitutes which types of killing (and there are several types of killing defined) are a bit complicated in Jewish law, as depicted in the Torah, but the meaning of "thou shalt not kill" in the Ten Commandments clearly means to not commit murder.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom