Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 25 of 25
  1. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by Sherv


    Read carefully from the bottom of page 6:

    "HOW MUCH DOES THE DEATH PENALTY COST?
    The major cost studies on the death penalty all indicate that it is much more
    expensive than a system where the most severe sentence is life in prison"
    I looked at that info, but if you take the same numbers in the article and then used the number of inmates sitting on death row instead of only the ones executed the numbers would be different. The numbers do not appear to include the cost of construction for additional facilites that will be required as we continue to sentence convicted murders to life in prison (if so I missed it). Both cost the taxpayers too much money. Reduce the appeals process some and save all some money. I know there have been up to 25 innocent people executed since 1900 but progress in DNA has accounted for identifiying those individuals and therefore will also assist in not repeating those errors.
  2. #22  
    Frankly the dicussion of relative cost of incarceration versus execution is a morally bankrupt argument either way.

    If a person committed a crime deserving of the death penalty the cost doesn't play a role in whether execution is the right thing to do or not.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Frankly the dicussion of relative cost of incarceration versus execution is a morally bankrupt argument either way.

    If a person committed a crime deserving of the death penalty the cost doesn't play a role in whether execution is the right thing to do or not.
    Very true.
    I'm back!
  4. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by RicoM
    Death penalty --> For...this is going against the mainstream Catholicism but I just can't see not giving justice to another family that had his mom/dad/child murdered. Forgiveness first, but justice always.

    Abortion --> Against (pretty straight forward)

    Assisted Suicide --> Against, but this is more delicate for me. I have great pity for someone who is suffering severly, but suicide is a BIG NO-NO in Catholicism. But this goes a bit deeper...I've wondered if specifying to not be kept on life-support ahead of time would be considered suicide (i.e. I get in an accident and become a vegetable, if I told my wife that I'd want to die, would that be considered suicide?). I think it would be...and therefore have not specified what I'd want to do...hoping that if this ever happened, that my wife would end my suffering. Is that a double-standard? Yes. It's something I struggle with, but a short-term answer is...I'm against it and for totally religous reasons. Forgoing a lifetime of pain is not worth spending eternity in hell (i.e. totally religious reasons).
    RicoM, I believe we all should have written documentation identifing our desires in the event of a tragedy that would require a loved one to make a decision regarding life support. It is not fair to your loved ones to put them in that situation. IMHO witholding life support is not suicide, the medical community can maintain a heartbeat with a pacemaker and can continue to breath for you with a ventilator, but that does not keep the brain functioning if it has shut down (vegetable state). If anything the medical community can play God by keeping you alive through artificial means after your natural body has ceased to function. I am not trying to lay a guilt trip on you, the decision to withhold life support or use all available measures to sustain life is something you need to sit down and discuss with your loved ones (priest, pastor or counselor if you see the need) and put in writing so the medical community knows your desires.
  5.    #25  
    OK, so here's where I stand on all this:

    1. My first thought to discuss regarding the death penalty was a notion that I came up with that the death penalty is only of significance in a deistic/theistic world view. Here's why. If there is no "after-life" then the death penalty is merely an early departure to oblivion. However, if there is an "afterlife" (particular the judeo/christian type), the death penalty sends you to judgment...do not pass go...do not collect $200.

    2. Further, I find it intriguing to determine any of these areas of death to be immoral or inhuman without a theistic/desitic world view. I'm not sure how you define what it means to be moral or what it means to be human without an overarching framework to provide such context.

    3. On all of these topics, it comes as no surprise to anyone that I have a decidedly biblically-biased view. With that in mind, here goes on the specific topics:

    4. Death Penalty - I believe we have a responsiblity to discourage evil in our society. Discouragement includes celebrating good as well as punishing evil. If we do not actively oppose evil, evil will continue. The dilemma of course is "how do we determine what is 'evil'?" Deliberation on that question takes me back to the supposition that the discussion does not make sense outside of a deistic/theistic world view.

    5. Assisted Suicide - Whenever you give someone carte blanche to end a life, no one is safe.

    6. Abortion - Either we value the human existence or we don't. If we do, it ought be from inception to unassisted expiration, except for in the cases where one uses his/her life to destroy others. In that case, the the value of human life on a whole is preserve, though the value of that particular person's life is not fully realized.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions