Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Theocracy alive and well in Utah (and considerations of the death penalty)
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6012 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 1 of 62 (54020)
09-05-2003 12:09 PM


Well, it could have been worse...but is this how we want government to work?
quote:
U.S. National - AP
Mormon Church OKs Firing Squad Change
Thu Sep 4,11:37 PM ET
SALT LAKE CITY - Hoping to clear the way for eliminating the firing squad as a means of execution, a Utah commission asked for and received a statement from the Mormon church saying it does not oppose the change.
In a one-sentence statement provided Wednesday to the Utah Sentencing Commission, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said it "has no objection to the elimination of the firing squad in Utah."
The clarification was needed, according to one commission member, because of a purported church doctrine that held that justice was not done unless a murderer's blood was shed.
The Mormon statement removes a significant obstacle in Utah's effort to do away with firing-squad executions.
Commission member Paul Boyden said recent letters to the editor to newspapers indicate some in Mormon-dominated Utah still believe the firing squad is necessary for religious reasons. Commission members feared that belief could hurt the chances of the proposed change in the Legislature.
"If we hadn't (asked for the church's position), this probably would have been a question among some legislators and it may have not made it out of committee," Boyden said.
[end of story omitted...]


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Dan Carroll, posted 09-05-2003 12:17 PM Zhimbo has not replied
 Message 3 by Coragyps, posted 09-05-2003 12:29 PM Zhimbo has not replied
 Message 4 by Loudmouth, posted 09-05-2003 1:18 PM Zhimbo has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 62 (54022)
09-05-2003 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Zhimbo
09-05-2003 12:09 PM


Hang on... they still use firing squads?
They do have things like electricity and indoor toilets in Utah, right? I mean... ten minutes ago I would have assumed they did, but now I'm not so sure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Zhimbo, posted 09-05-2003 12:09 PM Zhimbo has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 3 of 62 (54023)
09-05-2003 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Zhimbo
09-05-2003 12:09 PM


Un-friggin-believable!
Does the New York legislature ask the Hasidim if it's OK to not circumcise baby boys? Does the Texas legislature ask the Southern Baptists if it's OK to let kids dance at the prom?
Obscenity is the only further comment I could offer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Zhimbo, posted 09-05-2003 12:09 PM Zhimbo has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 62 (54027)
09-05-2003 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Zhimbo
09-05-2003 12:09 PM


Sadly, to the people here in the great Gem State (Idaho, in case you are wondering), this is all to familiar ground. There is a strong Mormon influence here, and it has been surging in the last ten years. In fact, every five years or so a Prohibition bill is put to a vote. That's just the tip of the iceberg. I'm still surprised that Creationism in some pseudo-science guise isn't taught in the schools.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Zhimbo, posted 09-05-2003 12:09 PM Zhimbo has not replied

  
xwhydoyoureyesx
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 62 (54603)
09-09-2003 5:24 PM


I'm not sure that a firing squad isn't such a bad idea. While I guess I support more humane forms of execution, execution is execution right, as long as it is quick and not drawn out? Anyone who kills someone has forfeited his right to life because he does not acknowledge another's right to life.
But I think that the power the Mormon Church has in Utah Gov't a much more pressing matter. It's a serious issue when the government has to ask permission of a private institution and especially a religious instituion
------------------

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Dan Carroll, posted 09-09-2003 5:33 PM xwhydoyoureyesx has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 62 (54604)
09-09-2003 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by xwhydoyoureyesx
09-09-2003 5:24 PM


quote:
Anyone who kills someone has forfeited his right to life because he does not acknowledge another's right to life.
Then what do we do with the executioner? And the guy who kills the executioner? And the guy who kills the guy who kills the executioner? And so on?
Regardless, this is a silly argument. A burglar doesn't forfeit his right to property, does he?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by xwhydoyoureyesx, posted 09-09-2003 5:24 PM xwhydoyoureyesx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by xwhydoyoureyesx, posted 09-09-2003 10:26 PM Dan Carroll has not replied
 Message 8 by xwhydoyoureyesx, posted 09-09-2003 10:27 PM Dan Carroll has replied

  
xwhydoyoureyesx
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 62 (54646)
09-09-2003 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Dan Carroll
09-09-2003 5:33 PM


oops. Accidentally posted twice. see next post.
[This message has been edited by xwhydoyoureyesx, 09-09-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Dan Carroll, posted 09-09-2003 5:33 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
xwhydoyoureyesx
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 62 (54647)
09-09-2003 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Dan Carroll
09-09-2003 5:33 PM


quote:
Then what do we do with the executioner? And the guy who kills the executioner? And the guy who kills the guy who kills the executioner? And so on?
Regardless, this is a silly argument. A burglar doesn't forfeit his right to property, does he?
The victim of the murderer deserves justice. Execution should only be used after a lengthy trial a mandatory waiting period. If found guilty of not acknowledging another's right to life by means of murder, he has no right to life. Therefore the executioner is not violating anyone's right to life. I don't think it's silly
Life is not something quantifiable and so the only proper justice for murder is the death penalty. As property is something quantifiable it can therefore be punished with fines, jail and other such sentences that fit the crime.
[This message has been edited by xwhydoyoureyesx, 09-09-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Dan Carroll, posted 09-09-2003 5:33 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 09-09-2003 11:56 PM xwhydoyoureyesx has replied
 Message 10 by Rrhain, posted 09-10-2003 6:57 AM xwhydoyoureyesx has replied
 Message 11 by Dan Carroll, posted 09-10-2003 10:39 AM xwhydoyoureyesx has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 9 of 62 (54661)
09-09-2003 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by xwhydoyoureyesx
09-09-2003 10:27 PM


Your argument assumes a perfect legal justice system. Are you still anxious to support execution given that a percentage of those we send to their deaths will be innocent of their crime?
And if you support the execution of those who wrongly take a life, will you march yourself into the gas chamber when it turns out you've supported the murder of an innocent person?
To me it's unacceptable for even a single person to be executed wrongly. So I can't support a practical use of the death penalty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by xwhydoyoureyesx, posted 09-09-2003 10:27 PM xwhydoyoureyesx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by xwhydoyoureyesx, posted 09-10-2003 4:42 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 10 of 62 (54712)
09-10-2003 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by xwhydoyoureyesx
09-09-2003 10:27 PM


xwhydoyoureyesx writes:
quote:
the only proper justice for murder is the death penalty.
Says who? You? Why is there no other way to establish justice?
Be specific.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by xwhydoyoureyesx, posted 09-09-2003 10:27 PM xwhydoyoureyesx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by xwhydoyoureyesx, posted 09-10-2003 5:11 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 62 (54747)
09-10-2003 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by xwhydoyoureyesx
09-09-2003 10:27 PM


quote:
The victim of the murderer deserves justice. Execution should only be used after a lengthy trial a mandatory waiting period. If found guilty of not acknowledging another's right to life by means of murder, he has no right to life. Therefore the executioner is not violating anyone's right to life. I don't think it's silly
So how, exactly, has the murderer lost his right to life?
quote:
Life is not something quantifiable and so the only proper justice for murder is the death penalty.
You're gonna have to explain the jump in logic there. How do you get from A to B on that one?
quote:
As property is something quantifiable it can therefore be punished with fines, jail and other such sentences that fit the crime.
If the issue is the punishment perfectly fitting the crime, I should ask... are you in favor of not sending rapists to prison? Should we rather penetrate them against their will, and then send them on their way?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by xwhydoyoureyesx, posted 09-09-2003 10:27 PM xwhydoyoureyesx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by xwhydoyoureyesx, posted 09-10-2003 5:07 PM Dan Carroll has replied

  
xwhydoyoureyesx
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 62 (54790)
09-10-2003 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by crashfrog
09-09-2003 11:56 PM


quote:
Your argument assumes a perfect legal justice system. Are you still anxious to support execution given that a percentage of those we send to their deaths will be innocent of their crime?
And if you support the execution of those who wrongly take a life, will you march yourself into the gas chamber when it turns out you've supported the murder of an innocent person?
To me it's unacceptable for even a single person to be executed wrongly. So I can't support a practical use of the death penalty.
My Argument does Not assume that there is a perfect justice system, please read my comments thoroughly. I believe I said that not speedy, but lengthy trials were necessary. Also I think I said that there should be a lengthy waiting period of say 10 years before the actual execution which gives enough time to run through appeals, etc. If I assumed a perfect legal justice system there would be No waiting period.
However, I do agree with you. 1 dead innocent man does not justify 100 executed criminals. This is why we must be sure of guilt before sentencing a man to death.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 09-09-2003 11:56 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2003 6:36 PM xwhydoyoureyesx has replied

  
xwhydoyoureyesx
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 62 (54793)
09-10-2003 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Dan Carroll
09-10-2003 10:39 AM


So how, exactly, has the murderer lost his right to life?
In the refusal to recognize another's right to life he has forfeited his own. I thought I made this clear. I believe that the only proper punishment for murder is the death penalty. Others may believe life sentences are adequate.I'm sorry if I'm not explaining this well enough. If so, please clarify your question.
You're gonna have to explain the jump in logic there. How do you get from A to B on that one?
quote:
As property is something quantifiable it can therefore be punished with fines, jail and other such sentences that fit the crime.
If the issue is the punishment perfectly fitting the crime, I should ask... are you in favor of not sending rapists to prison? Should we rather penetrate them against their will, and then send them on their way?
That statement was a reply to the question you posed about the burglar's right to property. I was setting up a comparison between murder and theft.
haha funny, Although I believe there's an amendment to the constitution that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. The issue is not so much the punishment fitting the crime in termes of eye for an eye, but rather to get proper justice not revenge. I'm sure plenty of rape victims would love to have a big hulking beast of a man rape their attackers back, but that's not really constitutional. I believe that some cases of extremely violent rape deserve the death penalty, but like I said before, theft doesn't necessarily warrant fines. It could be a jail sentence instead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Dan Carroll, posted 09-10-2003 10:39 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Dan Carroll, posted 09-11-2003 10:54 AM xwhydoyoureyesx has replied

  
xwhydoyoureyesx
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 62 (54795)
09-10-2003 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Rrhain
09-10-2003 6:57 AM


I guess yeah, says me. Some people think that life sentences are the answer but i can't really reconcile the two. The victim is still dead, and as a side note It costs money (but this should not be counted as a reason for support of the death penalty.) I suppose it boils down to opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Rrhain, posted 09-10-2003 6:57 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Rrhain, posted 09-11-2003 8:56 PM xwhydoyoureyesx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 15 of 62 (54811)
09-10-2003 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by xwhydoyoureyesx
09-10-2003 4:42 PM


However, I do agree with you. 1 dead innocent man does not justify 100 executed criminals. This is why we must be sure of guilt before sentencing a man to death.
But we can never be sure. That's the problem. Even your waiting period assumes that the appeals process is sufficient to remove doubt about sentencing. It's not.
At least in a life sentence you get to stick around to argue your case some more. You've still got a chance. Execution robs even that chance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by xwhydoyoureyesx, posted 09-10-2003 4:42 PM xwhydoyoureyesx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by xwhydoyoureyesx, posted 09-10-2003 7:05 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024