Should killing in self-defense be removed too?

[wuapinmon]

I voted: Every person is justified in killing another person in self-defense of his life and others.

I still oppose the death penalty. It is hard to understand why anyone supports the death penalty any more. It is just so unnecessary.

I support the death penalty as punishment for:

1. Treason
2. Assassination of the President, VP, SOTH, SCOTUS members, or anyone in the First Family.
3. Murder of a sitting judge
4. Aggravated rape of a pre-pubescent child, with DNA confirmation
5. Any murder involving a child and aggravated sexual assault before death
6. Acts of terrorism (e.g. Oklahoma City. 9-11)
7. Wholly pre-meditated, calculated, and willful murder with a unanimous jury decision, and the punishment decided by a different jury coupled with the opinion of a judge--all decisions would have to be unanimous.
8. Larceny/Embezzlement over $1 million
9. Trafficking in human beings

I have no problem with the death penalty, especially since it gives prosecutors a major bargaining chip when they negotiate plea agreements. I think it's about deterrence and about retribution, and I'm fine with both. People like Madoff who wreck people's lives via their greed should have to pay a stiffer penalty than 20 to life. I don't look at the death penalty as vengeance for the victim. I look at it as punishment for the guilty. We could debate, endlessly, the which-is-worse argument, but I am squarely on the side of death, whether or not it's a deterrent, it is a fit punishment for certain crimes. Evil men should be scared of just punishment.

I also think that felony convictions that include prison time should be at hard labor until the people prove they can behave, and then get them educated and have them leave prison with a real job and a future.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I have no problem with the death penalty, especially since it gives prosecutors a major bargaining chip when they negotiate plea agreements.

This point needs highlighted, as it has some real, practical application to solving some crimes.

[SeattleUte]

Really? Lebowski is correct, it is a terrific book. You should read it.

I know. I am very familiar with it though I have used it more as a reference book. I should read it cover to cover.

[RobinFinderson]

I know. I am very familiar with it though I have used it more as a reference book. I should read it cover to cover.

Don't be so hard on yourself! I'm sure you read the front cover and then immediately flipped it over and read the back cover. That is 'cover to cover,' no room for debate.

[SeattleUte]

I see the death penalty as a kind of litmus test, along with gay marriage. No doubt there are good people who favor the death penalty or oppose gay marriage. But they certainly lack that special profound and sensitive perspective on civil liberties that inevitably comes from intense study and thought. I hate to generalize, but I think that's generally true. They lack that gift. To me this is the redeeming virtue of Christianity: I think the creators of the Gospels and Paul's letters had this gift. To hear purported Christian belief invoked in favor of the death penalty is sickening, revolting. It's a good example of how American Protestantism has utterly distorted Christianity beyond recognition.

[Indy Coug]

I hate to generalize,

BWAHAHAHA!!!

[SeattleUte]

BWAHAHAHA!!!

It's funny you think you need to do this when I acknowledged what I was doing. In this instance, I think generalization is fair.

[Indy Coug]

It's funny you think you need to do this when I acknowledged what I was doing. In this instance, I think generalization is fair.

I was amused by your professed distaste for generalizations.

[SloanHater]

If one person is facing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, as the person with the gun pointed at him is, another person is permitted to "step into the shoes" of that person and defend them as though it were himself. Defense of another is something people don't hear as much about, but if the guy who has the gun pointed at him could shot (he clearly could) then another can do it for him.

Don't others face imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm when you whip out your pistol in vigilante justice? What if our 'hero' had accidentally shot an innocent bystander?

What if someone mistook me for a criminal and drew a weapon on me, am I justified in shooting them to preempt personal harm?

I could possibly see defending a home invasion with lethal force, but what is the point of law enforcement if we allow murder in the public arena under the guise of 'self-defense?'

Let's not oversimplify the issue based on the example provided.

(My comments are not specifically directed at you, Utahdan. In fact, I very much appreciate your post and opinion.)

[falafel]

There are some crimes that are so heinous and despicable that the only action that can help the community begin to heal is putting the perpetrator to death.

[SeattleUte]

I was amused by your professed distaste for generalizations.

Here's another valid one for you. A high percentage of people executed by the state in this country are put to death in a small handful of southern states, have low IQ's bordering on mental retardation, suffered physical and/or emotional abuse as children, committed their crimes where they were younger than 25 years old, are people of color. Meanwhile, many of the most heinous criminals, not so disadvantaged, such as Mark Hoffman and the Green River killer, aren't sentenced to death. This is inevitably done for reasons of political expediency. Sometimes, as in the the case of Hoffman, it's done to spare the rich and powerful from embarrassment.

But the better argument may be the number of innocents who have been sentenced to death.

In any event, state involvement in ritualized killing ought to be repugnant. If it's not to you, you may be a good person nevertheless, but it says something about you nevertheless. Maybe you like what it says.

It's interesting to me that in Europe, where represenative government prevails, and systematic killing by the state is a more intimate part of their history, they have decided they don't want any part of any death penalty regime. In this respect, the US's company is the likes of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and China.

[il Padrino Ute]

Here's another valid one for you. A high percentage of people executed by the state in this country are put to death in a small handful of southern states, have low IQ's bordering on mental retardation, suffered physical and/or emotional abuse as children, committed their crimes where they were younger than 25 years old, are people of color. Meanwhile, many of the most heinous criminals, not so disadvantaged, such as Mark Hoffman and the Green River killer, aren't sentenced to death. This is inevitably done for reasons of political expediency. Sometimes, as in the the case of Hoffman, it's done to spare the rich and powerful from embarrassment.

But the better argument may be the number of innocents who have been sentenced to death.

In any event, state involvement in ritualized killing ought to be repugnant. If it's not to you, you may be a good person nevertheless, but it says something about you nevertheless. Maybe you like what it says.

It's interesting to me that in Europe, where represenative government prevails, and systematic killing by the state is a more intimate part of their history, they have decided they don't want any part of any death penalty regime. In this respect, the US's company is the likes of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and China.

Your self-perceived moral superiority is amusing.

[SeattleUte]

Your self-perceived moral superiority is amusing.

Getting there is easy when you have someone like SOP on your side.

[wuapinmon]

I see the death penalty as a kind of litmus test, along with gay marriage. No doubt there are good people who favor the death penalty or oppose gay marriage. But they certainly lack that special profound and sensitive perspective on civil liberties that inevitably comes from intense study and thought. I hate to generalize, but I think that's generally true. They lack that gift. To me this is the redeeming virtue of Christianity: I think the creators of the Gospels and Paul's letters had this gift. To hear purported Christian belief invoked in favor of the death penalty is sickening, revolting. It's a good example of how American Protestantism has utterly distorted Christianity beyond recognition.

I'm choosing to not take offense to this opinion, even though it casts me in a very poor light.

A question though, how can something "inevitably come" from something if it is indeed a "gift?"

[il Padrino Ute]

Getting there is easy when you have someone like SOP on your side.

Thanks for proving my point.