Lakemen, I agree with you. OJ, Paris Hilton, all those stars who get in
trouble, with the law, should be given no special treatment, but put
into the general population.

New Subject, everyone, do you OJ really did it? After all, a jury of his
peers voted him not guilty.

not too sure on my last meal. I do agree that the death penalty is
necessary. If you commit and atrocious crime you need to pay the
price. Sometimes its the only way to ensure the felon will not commit
another crime. It may seem barbaric but in my mind this country needs
it.

Last meal is too hard to comprehend. Does George Clooney count as a
meal? He is yummy!

I am against the death penalty. Death is too easy and too expensive.
It costs less to keep someone in a max security prison for the rest of
their natural lives than to bring them to death (appeals, etc).

Make nice everyone...this is just a topic!

I watched the news everyday on the OJ trial, and everything they had
before that...Yes, I honestly believe OJ is guilty. He had the best
attorneys and they got him cleared of it..plain and simple. That's
another major problem concerning our laws..if your rich you usually get
by with everything. But I know in the end they will pay dearly for what
they did..their money won't be any good when they die and they face
their final judge.

I believe he was guilty...BUT his lawyers did a good job placing
reasonable doubt in the juries mind...Also his foot-ball player good guy
image probably helped in that the jury just couldn't wrap their minda
around the fact that he could actually murder his wife!!!!!!!!

There have been several issues raised within this topic.
Touched on and with some small discussion was:

The death penalty and also abortion

This led to a form of logic that attempts to tie the two together in a
manner that makes both on the same level. In other words, one can not
be pro DP and pro life.

So, for the sake of argument let's define 'pro-life'- one who does not
agree in any way shape or form that taking another's life is ever a
viable alternative.

Now in this case I can see that there is no possible logic in one's
accepting such a label if one is in favor of the death penalty.

But if the label has a definition equated ONLY to the subject of
abortion, than I can see that some could be pro-life and still be for
the DP.

It also occurs to me, that if the first definition is really what
pro-life means, than that person will die before taking anothers life.
That would be nice, no more soldiers. However, does it not seem natural
that if faced with a situation were it is kill or be killed that natural
instinct would rule the day?
Exactly how docile would one have to be to accept a label that could
some day make them face loosing their life over defending a label?

There is yet another type of death, that should be considered, just to
round out the trilogy.

death penalty : abortion : & euthanasia

Here, once again, do we group all possible situations under one label?
How many who would say they are pro-life if they thought that they may
someday be faced with a choice, to live a miserable existence, often in
agony, or to accept euthanasia?

I prefer to look at every case where death is an outcome on an
individual basis.

I would NEVER fight to kill in a war.
I would push the button that would send an lethal injection
I would not have an abortion, but I do not judge those who do and I
allow them that choice
I do believe that euthanasia should be an option and I would assist a
loved one to ease a prolonged agonizing death.

Labels must first be defined before they are used in a logical equation.

Guess I was too late - death of a topic, mm is that another
consideration?

On your search engine, type in "Final Meals" and you can see what they
had.

>> if this weren't a thread and I didn't have to type. I may not have oversimplified.

I call bullsh1t. Its not hard to type: "I disagree with people who
are both pro-life and pro-death penalty."

Instead, you called them hypocrites, and you presumed to represent
'their' (collective!) thought process, and used a straw man 'argument' -
and thats -after- I gave you an opportunity to think a little deeper
about your position.

I'm not trying to 'beat the dead horse', it s only because you
characterize my response as 'nibbling at your words' that I'd like to
clarify my view of what you did.

Typing gives you greater, not less, opportunity to think before you
speak.

>> What I said was not written on stone tablets, it would be easy enough to change

Yes! Willingness to change is (IMO) one of the marks of an intelligent
person!

>> if you believe that no one has the right to kill an unborn child, then in the next breath say that its ok to kill an adult, that is what I take issue with.

Can I substitute the phrase 'person convicted of murder' for the word
'adult', just to make it more fair?

1) Taking issue with a person is COMPLETELY different then calling them
a hypocrite. I support you taking issue with them! You think I'm
nit-picking? Sorry, bro. I saw you abusing other peoples potentially
legitimate worldviews.

2) A fetus is not an adult, so I still say that 'other persons'
statement is defensible.

>> beg you to offer your actual opinion,
that it may also come under the same type of word for word
scrutiny...just to get you to stop nibbling around the edges. If you
want to take my arguement on then Come at it straight on. Anyone can sit
in the bushes and lob grenades. So I invite you to stick your neck
out,..lol and give your firm philisophical evaluation on the topic!



Bait much?



I see legitimacy in the views of many pro-death penalty people. I feel
for those that have been wronged, and for their desire for vengeance.
Perhaps many one-time murderers are reformable... but I doubt that all
murderers are 'reformable'. I believe that different people have
different degrees of responsiveness to the threat of consequences as a
way to influence their behavior - and there are some people out there
who seem to require a fear of punishment to keep them minimally civil.
Perhaps those people could mature to the level where kindness, love, and
consideration for others (and other's points of view) are sufficient
guides for their behavior... until then, I think we benefit from using
fear of punishment as a deterrent. I do believe that, if -done a
certain way-, means of punishment such as the death penalty could also
have a deterrent effect on many would-be killers. I also think that,
generally speaking, -killing- is sometimes necessary and appropriate in
the protection of -life-. I would shoot a deer if I faced starvation;
and I would 'decide' to kill a murderous human being who was actively
trying to kill another, defenseless human being - if it appeared to be
the only way to save them. (We'll see about follow through if I ever
face that situation.)

Having said that, I'll say that on the whole - ON THE WHOLE - I would
say that I'm 'against' the death penalty. But every 'argument' I can
make in support of this position (and there are dozens), each of those
arguments I can also destroy.

Except for this:

-I- believe that it is wrong... to place that power in the hands of the
state, to kill people who are already incarcerated, who therefore pose
no active threat to anyone.

Of course, other people believe otherwise.

Redy, thats a great post!

Thanks for mentioning euthanasia and self defense. Your thoughts were
similar to my own - taking those words all the way, wouldn't that also
raise the question of killing animals? Or is only -human- life qualify
as 'life' ?

death to the establishment

With the Exception of self preservation, which covers many areas
including but not limited to war, and protecting others. Because we were
talking about people already incarcerated.(not an imminent threat.)



Do you ethically have the right to pick someone elses terminal fate?



that is about as simply and objectively as I can put it!
I am not asking for people to agree or disagree. I know that there are
strong feelings on both sides of this topic. Yes I realize that I am
playing devils advocate. My statement was to spark thinking on other
peoples part. If there was baiting, that is where it happened, more so
than what your actual stand was, I think that asking that was very
straight forward. You may use Convicted murderer or what ever else comes
to mind, because it does not change the question. If forgotten scroll
back... I generally take exception to people who decide to take a stand,
with out realizing all the other things that can and should be taken
into consideration when deciding a lifetime belief that may contradict
other strong stands already made or not.
To me this is a question of Ethics, not Semantics. If you have paid
enough attention you will realize that I have not given my beliefs on
either part of the question because my basic statement was supposed to
be about whether or not the same person should be able to pick death for
one and life for the other, like God. I just like to ask the hard
question about someones unwavering stands. That is why I enjoy political
statements so much.

This is not a political statement.....

I know the murderer didn't give the victim any choices at all. So why
should he/she/it be given kind of life if they are proven guilty. I know
the Bible states some things ..like an eye for eye,tooth for a tooth...
I don't know if I could take another's life or decide their
fate..well...I know I used to not be able to...However now...there are a
few that I could decide and maybe just help it along!! Noo..seriously..I
would do my best to make sure they were sent to prison forever-that's
for certain..now whatever the jury decides is up to them. Like I said..I
have mixed emotions on that one. I can see both sides of the issue.

Mass- just wanted to respond to your last question, you asked about
animals.

I come from a family of fishermen. At the age of 8 I so hated the idea
of harming, maiming and killing for sport that I would throw in a bare
hook when no one was looking, then sit back and read. Until one day,
the shinning metal attracted a snapping turtle. It took the hook. My
dad pulled it in, but it would not release the hook. I saw blood from
the corner of it's mouth, my dad then cut the line and let the turtle
go. I never fished again. I do not believe in killing, in hunting
for sport.

I have had to put down pets. An 18 year old dog, a 14 year old dog and
believe it or not, a white rat. They were all old and in extreme
misery. I held them all in my arms as they peacefully, quietly and
quickly succumbed to peace.

I catch bugs and throw them outside, except for unknown spiders, there
are some poisons I'm allergic to and spiders are one. So I kill in
defense.

Does that answer your question.

PTVK, well said!


Thanks, Redy and PTVK, for your responses.