...the death penalty.

The evolution go-round is tiresome (though I expect another ride today). So I went looking for an issue that, in theory, believers and I could agree on. The death penalty, which I am firmly against. The religions cited in the link for the most part do agree with me in favor of abolishing it. Some exceptions, of course, are present, and some religions inexplicably have perched on the fence!

But even when it comes to the counter-examples, their position is hardly one of 'praise god, pass the ammo.' Take the Southern Baptist Convention's resolution. Not particularly bloodthirsty; although "without reference to the race, class, or status of the guilty" could be taken as willful ignorance of the inequity in which capital punishment is applied, even as they call for such equity.

Still, it seems to me that the majority of these religions fall on undecided or against. And so I find it odd that the majority view in the U.S. is for capital punishment. Here's the most recent poll data I could find. Anyone care to comment on why that is?

I'm opposed to it because I think the state ought not be given the authority to do something it cannot correct later on. A death is final. Even one innocent life taken is too many.

Conservatives have the weirdest conception of our government. On the one hand, they don't think government can do much of anything effectively, justifying their view that it should be as limited as possible in scope.

Furthermore, it was conservatives that most often called for tort reform, citing ridiculously large awards for arguably petty lawsuits. But what they failed to acknowledge in the tort reform debate is that the reason these awards are granted is because juries, made up of citizens, decided they were warranted; all tort reform did was limit the rights of citizen juries.

Yet, despite conservatives' general view that the government is incapable of doing most things well, and their position that citizen juries cannot be trusted to make logical decisions, they turn right around and want to give the government and the jury system of justice the means to decide who lives and who dies.

It makes no sense.

I figure if society is going to have the death penalty it should be as painful and grisly and public as possible. No extended appeals, no years pending until execution, it should be as immediate a tool of punishment as possible. Otherwise the privacy, the humanness, and hiding of the process from public sight fails as a deterrent.

we therefore shouldn't have a death penalty. in a democratic state, we can't execute without due process and our constitution prohibits cruel punishment, so the death penalty can never truly act as deterrent. and since it isn't a deterrent the only function it serves is vengeance, which is intolerable in a civilised society.

Bingo.

I hope you don't expect a prize though. :)

I agree completely. People make mistakes either intentionally or not. There needs to be a way to correct these errors.

According to the Innocences Project...

There have been 213 post-conviction DNA exonerations in United States history. These stories are becoming more familiar as more innocent people gain their freedom through postconviction testing. They are not proof, however, that our system is righting itself.

The common themes that run through these cases — from global problems like poverty and racial issues to criminal justice issues like eyewitness misidentification, corrupt scientists, overzealous police and prosecutors and inept defense counsel — cannot be ignored and continue to plague our criminal justice system.

• Sixteen people had been sentenced to death before DNA proved their innocence and led to their release.
• The average sentence served by DNA exonerees has been 12 years.
• About 70 percent of those exonerated by DNA testing are members of minority groups.
• In over 35 percent of the cases profiled here, the actual perpetrator has been identified by DNA testing.
• Exonerations have been won in 32 states and Washington, D.C.
  

Haha -Monthy Python title

Vashti:

Haha -Monthy Python title

& Alfred Hitchcock's intro to the commercials

revenge is a cumulative human emotion that seeks expression through destruction of the objects of our hatreds. Throwing the followers in the cheap seats a bone is,unfortunately, more literal than figurative for those of us eschewing public placation at this low of an ethical level.

refrigerator magnet? something?

How about a body cast of Michelle Angelo? I was hoping to get one for myself.

BigShot:

There have been 213 post-conviction DNA exonerations in United States history. These stories are becoming more familiar as more innocent people gain their freedom through postconviction testing. They are not proof, however, that our system is righting itself.

BigShot, did they explain in the documents you found why these exonerations are not proof of the system working? Is it because the Innocence Project had to intervene in order to make the system do what it wasn't doing by itself?

I find the arguments against the death penalty so far interesting, albeit not quite on point. Since no one's spoken up for the other side, I did find one in prodeathpenalty.com. They have a long paper on the benefits including a section addressing xianity in particular. They offer arguments from Jesus accepting the death penalty on the cross to the OT old standards to calling Pope John Paul II wrong for his Evangelium Vitae.

I'm still interested in how the religious reconcile this issue, though I would not be surprised to see stuff from this pro-death penalty paper employed. Perhaps konark can offer her angle as well, though we have no one to speak of Islam that I know of.

I don't think this comes down on religious lines, though I'm sure most religions have a position on the issue. There are lots of old laws in the Bible that Christians no longer follow, and there is nothing in it that I can remember that would make the death penalty a matter of faith. In other words, this is not like abortion or gay marriage; ending the death penalty does not signal the demise of our "Christian nation."

Philosophically, I can't reject the idea that a person who murders must give his life in return. That makes sense, and if a loved one of mine were murdered, I might relish this kind of justice myself. But I don't trust the government, and I can't see why I should trust the government to administer the death penalty fairly and without error.

And that raises an even broader question (not that the Death Penalty is unimportant!) -- of just how reliable and fair IS our justice system.

Face it, most criminal investigations and trials are nothing at all like CSI. Lawn Ordure, etc. They tend to be "solved" based on shaky IDs from often frightened victims or witnesses, or are ratted out by someone else trying to barter for a better deal. Seems that there is pressure to improve the stats at every level, so if you can take a bad guy off the streets, even if he is not the one to have committed that particular crime, so what!

And aside from the high profile cases with expensive defense attorneys, acquittals are pretty damned rare.

Face it, most criminal investigations and trials are nothing at all like CSI.

Interesting observation. I heard a story on NPR some years ago about how CSI has distorted folks' perceptions about police investigations and whatnot. Texas has executed many convicted killers based on little more than the testimony of one or two people, and we all know how flimsy witness testimony can be.