News-Record.com

you forgot that the hardcore religious folk care.

One more time, because some of you are pretty slow:

Eighth. Amendment.

It's a concept so important to our founding fathers that they ensconced it in the Bill of Rights, right along with free speech and owning guns.

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Denzien, we're not so slow as to not understand the words of the eighth amendment, but where the rub comes in is the interpretation of it. It's an interesting concept as to consider punishment (which is clearly allowed)in the same manner as the crime committed as proportionate, as this could be considered the "Let the punishment fit the crime" punishment.

The phrase "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", a quotation from Exodus 21:23-27, expresses a principle of retributive justice also known as lex talionis (Latin for "law of retaliation"). The basis of this form of law is the principle of proportionate punishment, often expressed under the motto "Let the punishment fit the crime", which particularly applies to mirror punishments (which may or may not be proportional). At the root of the non-biblical form of this principle is the belief that one of the purposes of the law is to provide retaliation for an offended party. This early belief is reflected in the code of Hammurabi and in the laws of the Old Testament (e.g., Exodus 21:23-25. Leviticus 24:18-20, Deuteronomy 19:21).

To begin, the Exodus 21.23-27 is taken out of context above. Ex. 21.23-25 concerns harming a female who is with child. Ex. 21.26-27 concerns treatment of slaves. These are not wholesale mandates for punishment.

And yes 6string, the "religious" folk will comment. From my Christian faith tradition, it is not up to me a mere human to determine whether or not another's life should be taken. That decision is left to God and God alone!

I agree with Denzien on this one! Imagine that!

Shalom

Pretty slow? Maybe you better slow down and not skip the Fifth Amendment. The same people who wrote about cruel and unusual punishment also wrote "No person shall.... be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law;" Seems to me the death penalty (deprived of life)is written into the Constitution. You can argue about what constitutes due process all day long, but it is clearly stated that the death penalty is within Constitutional bounds. Execution by the same method a murder was committed? Interesting thought. Might be cruel, but apparently not unusual.

Denz,
You are on the mark ...AGAIN!

ORR,

Interpretation of the biblical passage aside, last time I checked it is not the government's job to carry out the writings of the old testament (or the new for that matter). And if it were -- which some in power would wish for -- isn't there something about "Thou shalt not kill"? I think I saw that in a movie once.

I'll restate what I said on this topic a few days ago. To kill is wrong (unless in defense of another or in war), and on that I see no ambiguity. For the state to kill, is every bit as wrong as for a child-killer to take his victim. And I find it particularly hypocritical that some people will ignore certain parts of the bill of rights, and treat others as though they were sacred decrees as if it's some kind of menu.

And if anyone wants to open this up to an abortion thing again, please read the stuff from earlier this week. The exact same topic was worn out over two days, so if you want to read that and can find something new to add, feel free. But I doubt there was a stone left unturned on that tangent.

I love the "pro lifers" that are lining up to execute people...some even wanting it to HURT!

Takes a lot of the credibility out of their argument for "LIFE".

"Pretty slow?"

Yes, Nic. Reread the LTE, then my comments, and then tell me where I cited the Eigth Amendment to bar execution.

I'll wait.

While you search, consider the words penned by the author: "Let's execute them in the manner that they chose to kill their victims. Think about it. What could be fairer?"

That is the point that I was addressing. The actions of an individual and the actions of the State are different things.

Damn! Denz, you are speaking the truth!
AMEN!

If this is the Chet I know, two of his sons were murdered in separate situations and hundreds of miles apart. I understand his pain and wish for vengence. Having to bury a child must be the worst thing a parent can endure.

I agree with Den, however. Nothing will bring loved ones back. Life in prison without possibility of parole is what I can live with. If the person who murdered is remorseful, they will have a life of hell on earth.

There is a difference between an innocent life and a cold-blooded murderer. Simple enough?

But it should not be to the government or any man to kill those who are deemed not innocent. Execution is murder that is legal. Taking a life is taking a life is wrong, no matter how you justify it, with the exception of self defense, imo. Lock them up for life, is that simple enough?

Simple enough for me, Carol. I agree with you regarding the death penalty. However, I believe there are major differences between abortion and the death penalty and can see why someone might believe in one and not the other. (Regardless of which way they believe it).

I also believe that you can support marriage without supporting gay marriage.

Nit,
If you see differences in state sponsored killing and pregnancy termination, then you must be "pro-birth" because you are NOT "pro-life".

DD,

I think you misunderstood me. I am against the death penalty. I'm also against abortion as a normal form of birth control. So, yeah, I guess I am pro-birth but I also consider myself pro-life.

Do you NOT see a difference between executing a grown person who was convicted of a heinous crime by a jury of his peers and an embryo (or mass of cells or baby or whatever you want to call it) being removed from a woman's uterus and effectively terminated?

I can think of a bunch of differences right off the bat:
One is an adult. One may not even quite be a child.
One has been found guilty of murder. One hasn't yet had a chance to commit a crime.
One is killed by decree of the state. One is stopped from living by the decision of his mother.
One requires cremation or burial, one requires disposal.
One has a name, the other doesn't.
One is protected from pain during the procedure, the other is not.
Some interpret that one is protected by the Constitution while the other is not.
One's termination is carried out with no jury, no appeal, no state-paid attorney arguing on their behalf. The other isn't.

I can see a difference. However, that doesn't mean I do not value the lives of both.

I'd love to hear you explain how you don't see a difference yet feel that it's okay to terminate a pregnancy but not to terminate a life.

Personally, I believe that life is precious and given to us by God. I think it should be protected. I believe that even the worst criminal or murderer has value in God's eyes.

Aside from that, I believe our court systems have too many flaws to find someone worthy of death.

I agree with your last comment, Nit...why did you change your "handle"?

Nit,
I am just plain pro-choice when it comes to most things. When I hear the "PRO-LIFER" start in with exceptions I cringe. One should never call themselves PRO LIFE if they are for the death penalty, nor should they call themselves PRO LIFE if they allow exceptions to an outright ban on abortions. Why? Because they are hypocrites, plain and simple. You can't have it both ways. It amazes me when I see men trying to exert pressure upon women about their bodies. Of course I love to exert pressure on women's bodies, but not....well, never mind.
(Guess I am PRO-WOMEN too!)

I've been cogitating about just becoming "PRO-DEATH so that I could include Euthanasia in my quiver. Okay, put me down for pro-death! I'm pro-choice, so the Right to Lifers would say I'm for killing babies. I'll take or leave the death penalty, but would err on the side of life terms. I am pro euthanasia for cats, dogs, and grumpy old people I disagree with---just kidding on that last part, but some will have a field day with it. Since I don't want to live in a nursing home someday, I would like a younger version of Dr. Kevorkian to make his round for me about the age of 87-90. Oh, and be sure to have him bring his equipment with him!
Okay, so now the hypocrisy has been removed. I am now officially Pro Death across the board!

Actually, just Pro Choice, but it took some thinking out loud to get there.
Have a great day!

Carol,

I had to come up with something that fit my personality. Comes pretty close, don't ya think?

Deacon, thanks for the response. Pro-death, huh? Heck, why not. I guess you'd have your pro-lifers on one side of the road, pro-choicers on the other side of the road, and the pro-death people standing right in the middle of the road wearing dark clothes!