Execution in Ohio

[Colonel Hogan]

There you go again with the digital justice. Zero or one. Righteous or not. You're either Jesus or Ted Bunddy - there's nothing in between. Can't you tell how utterly absurd that sounds?

But ok you got me! I'm a sinner! I have stolen - a long time ago, but still. I have committed adultery. I have lied. I have certainly coveted stuff that wasn't mine. I have worked on a sunday. I have celebrated non-christian holidays. I have fornicated without being married. I have supported a girl in getting an abortion. I have written and helped promote erotic stories. I have Tweeted in church... and that's just for starters.

And to be honest I'm complete and utterly non-repentant and would probably do it all over again if given the chance.

But how does that preclude me from putting a worthless torture-rapist like Dennis Rader to death?

Are you saying that because I fucked the wife of our local minister twenty years ago consensually I am no better than a man who raped and tortured ten women to death?

Eyer is arguing theology while you are arguing sociology. You cannot refute a theological argument with one based on sociological values.

Christian theology teaches that ALL sins carry a death penalty and that, as a result, ALL mankind requires redemption in order to live eternally in heaven. Since that redemption cannot be earned or bought by the hand of man, it is only available through the sanctification and justification imputed by Christ to those who believe in his saving grace and humbly seek it through His forgiveness of our sins.

That's what Christian theology teaches. It isn't supposed to make literal sense from a secular point of view other than to demonstrate the impossibility of living out the ideal of a perfectly sinless life, and thus recognizing the need for divine intervention on your individual behalf.

If you're a non-Christian, reconciling Christian precepts with social mores like one's support or opposition to the death penalty is likely to be a frustrating if not pointless exercise. In fact, many secularists who oppose the death penalty like to place themselves on a moral pedestal above those Christians who may support it.

That one simple aggrandizing fact, however, only demonstrates how badly the secularist continues to miss the point. Or at least how badly he misses the point from the Christian theological point of view.

 

[John Doe]

I've participated in full codes where we beat on a persons chest, injected medications that shock the body, create an acid build-up that we know is painful. We do this until we're absolutely certain that the person is dead. It has taken as long as two hours. It has never been shorter than an hour.

We could argue that 25 minutes is less torture than we give to anyone else.

Has anyone ever screamed "LIVE, DAMN IT, LIVE!"?

 

[Aquagal]

He needed a trip to Old Sparky.

 

[eyer]

There you go again with the digital justice. Zero or one. Righteous or not. You're either Jesus or Ted Bunddy - there's nothing in between. Can't you tell how utterly absurd that sounds?

Why don't you tell me...

...how absurd is it knowing that the fact of all facts dictates that you must die - just like Ted Bunddy[sic] had to die, and just like all of us humans must die to this world - one way or the other?

But ok you got me! I'm a sinner! I have stolen - a long time ago, but still. I have committed adultery. I have lied. I have certainly coveted stuff that wasn't mine. I have worked on a sunday. I have celebrated non-christian holidays. I have fornicated without being married. I have supported a girl in getting an abortion. I have written and helped promote erotic stories. I have Tweeted in church... and that's just for starters.

And to be honest I'm complete and utterly non-repentant and would probably do it all over again if given the chance.

The difference between a carnal man and a spiritual man is not your degree of sins each has committed, for - again - all have of us have sinned and will sin until the day our death sentence is delivered...

...no, the difference lies in how each man's heart views the sins he commits.

Sin has quite simply been defined as knowing the right thing to do, but intentionally not doing it...

...some of the sins you convicted yourself of above you obviously recognize as being wrongs - yet, you seem to take great glee in proclaiming your carnal love of wallowing in them.

The spiritual man, though, having committed the very same sins, recognizes the hatred in his heart for those wrongs he has committed and falls to his knees in repentance, seeking the only grace available to such a grieving heart...

...repentance is simply stopping for a second, acknowledging what one is doing is wrong, and honoring your heart's desire to do right by appealing to the Knower of your heart and asking for forgiveness in sinning against His Righteousness.

A carnal man, as you so aptly portray in your arrogant rant above...

...does not believe in God and, therefore, can never possibly begin to understand such spiritual things, let alone acknowledge any power higher than what he must create as his own.

So...

...allow me to illustrate in the secular way you better understand:

Ever known people who say they're sorry but continually prove they really aren't?

Ever known people who say they're sorry and continually prove they truly are?

Are you saying that because I fucked the wife of our local minister twenty years ago consensually I am no better than a man who raped and tortured ten women to death?

What I say/think matters just as little on the issue as does what you say/think; for the Truth is - regardless of man's existence...

...his measly input is even more inconsequential.

One other point all of us - carnal or spiritual - who ever reference Biblical points/teachings in any way on this Board need to always keep foremost in mind: there's a Reason it's called the new testament/the new covenant/the new contract...

...understanding that Fact will fully alleviate such ignorant offerings as believing "I have worked on a sunday" to be a sin (for just one of many erroneous "sin" examples continually thrown up on the wall here).

 

[unregistered]

 

[eyer]

I'm afraid all that's left is to suffer the wrath judgement of Lit's eunuch, St. Eyer the heavenly Bible thumping hack.

Not even a "Views post" this time...

...eh, poser?

 

[StrangeLife]

Eyer is arguing theology while you are arguing sociology. You cannot refute a theological argument with one based on sociological values.

Good point.

However today most religious people do have some connection to the secular world and tend to see religion as a philosophy rather than a literal thing. There are too much stuff in the Bible that doesn't make any sense as a "real" story to anybody but the most hardcore zealots.

In the case of Eyer I took notice of the fact that he referred to Jesus as "the Nazarean." That indicates belief in Jesus as a person of power rather than a devine being. That's not typical zealot behavior and it gives me hope for him...

If you're a non-Christian, reconciling Christian precepts with social mores like one's support or opposition to the death penalty is likely to be a frustrating if not pointless exercise. In fact, many secularists who oppose the death penalty like to place themselves on a moral pedestal above those Christians who may support it.

That one simple aggrandizing fact, however, only demonstrates how badly the secularist continues to miss the point. Or at least how badly he misses the point from the Christian theological point of view.

I have noticed that religious people tend to be more supportive of the death penalty, and I think it's because of their firm belief in an afterlife. Thus putting somebody to death is less of an issue since the executee isn't really dying - merely passing over - getting a one-way ticket to meet the Lord. A mightily pissed-off Lord probably, but it still doesn't sound as bad as completely eradicate another human being from the universe.

The difference between a carnal man and a spiritual man is not your degree of sins each has committed, for - again - all have of us have sinned and will sin until the day our death sentence is delivered...

...no, the difference lies in how each man's heart views the sins he commits.

Sin has quite simply been defined as knowing the right thing to do, but intentionally not doing it...

...some of the sins you convicted yourself of above you obviously recognize as being wrongs - yet, you seem to take great glee in proclaiming your carnal love of wallowing in them.

But in this there is still the issue of discrimination between different types of sin.

If we use my adulterous youth as an example again, I hurt nobody - quite the contrary - and I took nothing from anybody. Yet according to your philosophy I'm no better than Ted Bundy and will most likely end up as his room mate after I die. I find that hard to swallow given that God is supposed to be this being of love and fairness.

Basically Adolph Hitler could go directly to paradise if only he remembered to say sorry before he kicked the bucket, but a girl scout who ate one of the cookies she was supposed to sell and subsequently got run over by a drunk driver would face eternal torment in the flames of hell.

Surely you cannot say that this is ok or fair on any level?

The spiritual man, though, having committed the very same sins, recognizes the hatred in his heart for those wrongs he has committed and falls to his knees in repentance, seeking the only grace available to such a grieving heart...

...repentance is simply stopping for a second, acknowledging what one is doing is wrong, and honoring your heart's desire to do right by appealing to the Knower of your heart and asking for forgiveness in sinning against His Righteousness.

A carnal man, as you so aptly portray in your arrogant rant above...

...does not believe in God and, therefore, can never possibly begin to understand such spiritual things, let alone acknowledge any power higher than what he must create as his own.

So...

...allow me to illustrate in the secular way you better understand:

Ever known people who say they're sorry but continually prove they really aren't?

Ever known people who say they're sorry and continually prove they truly are?

Isn't it more interesting "why" sinners are sorry? Are they sorry they did it or are they sorry that they will be judged for doing it?

I mean, it makes a difference whether you're sorry because somebody is threatening you with extreme violence (Hell) or because you actually believe that you did something wrong, doesn't it?

When I see people asking God to forgive them because they're afraid of going to hell, I basically see a flock of hypocrites sucking up to a bully. Like:

"There's a big and powerful guy who can and will hurt us badly if we fuck somebody were not married to, so we'd better grovel and whine for forgiveness."

According to scripture we are all created in the image of God, so I can only assume that he feels the same as I do. If that is indeed the case, the afterlife of those @ss-kissers doesn't look too rosy... trust me.

 

[Sean Renaud]

What part of the Bible made you think God was at all interested in fair instead of ultimate power?

 

[gravyrug]

The whole reason for executing someone is to remove them permanently because they can't or won't learn from punishment. Adding extra pain does no good, and can cause psychological harm to the people who have to carry out the execution. Much better to just get it over with as quickly and painlessly as possible.

 

[StrangeLife]

What part of the Bible made you think God was at all interested in fair instead of ultimate power?

But he has ultimate power. He could simply snap a finger and make pussy taste like cod liver oil. That'd put a stop to a lot of the sex and pretty much eradicate lesbians.

The whole reason for executing someone is to remove them permanently because they can't or won't learn from punishment. Adding extra pain does no good, and can cause psychological harm to the people who have to carry out the execution. Much better to just get it over with as quickly and painlessly as possible.

I totally agree with that.

I don't think we should invest too much of an effort into the comfort of the perps - they didn't show their victims any such concerns, so why should we? On the other hand I'm all for making it quick and easy.

Hence the before mentioned guillotine

 

[GiggLeGasm]

Has anyone ever screamed "LIVE, DAMN IT, LIVE!"?

every single time.. though the screams are often silent.

The whole reason for executing someone is to remove them permanently because they can't or won't learn from punishment. Adding extra pain does no good, and can cause psychological harm to the people who have to carry out the execution. Much better to just get it over with as quickly and painlessly as possible.

interesting point. So is the "quick and easy" part really for the sake of the damned? I've wondered why we don't insert central lines for lethal injections. Medications would get to the heart more quickly, lessening this lag time that is distressing to both the "patient" and the person who administers the medication.

 

[cjh]

The whole reason for executing someone is to remove them permanently because they can't or won't learn from punishment. Adding extra pain does no good, and can cause psychological harm to the people who have to carry out the execution. Much better to just get it over with as quickly and painlessly as possible.

Insofar as our courts are concerned, there are three legitimate justifications for criminal punishment: rehabilitation, deterrence, and revenge.

Needless to say, not much opportunity for rehabilitation when you're dead.

What amazes me is the number of self-described "advocates" for the bill of rights who are ready to lower our standards as a society to those of the person sentenced to death, who would gleefully adopt the standards of the worst-of-the-worst, who are anxious to abandon the constitutional prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

 

[Sean]

Insofar as our courts are concerned, there are three legitimate justifications for criminal punishment: rehabilitation, deterrence, and revenge.

Needless to say, not much opportunity for rehabilitation when you're dead.

What amazes me is the number of self-described "advocates" for the bill of rights who are ready to lower our standards as a society to those of the person sentenced to death, who would gleefully adopt the standards of the worst-of-the-worst, who are anxious to abandon the constitutional prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

Yeah, but a disproportionate number of death row inmates are black. Everyone knows the constitution wasn't meant to apply to them.

 

[cjh]

Yeah, but a disproportionate number of death row inmates are black. Everyone knows the constitution wasn't meant to apply to them.

Who was that old mobster in Boston who just got convicted?

Definitely worst of the worst.

I don't think he was even charged with capital murder.

 

[Sean]

Who was that old mobster in Boston who just got convicted?

Definitely worst of the worst.

I don't think he was even charged with capital murder.

Whitey somethingorother? The giveaway is kinda in the name, there. And while we're on the subject, let's compare the sentencing tariffs for powder vs crack cocaine.

 

[Dazzle1]

Who was that old mobster in Boston who just got convicted?

Definitely worst of the worst.

I don't think he was even charged with capital murder.

Thats because Mass has eliminated the death penalty. However he still can go on trial in FL which does have it

 

[cjh]

Thats because Mass has eliminated the death penalty. However he still can go on trial in FL which does have it

He was tried in federal court.

The Feds try death cases in abolitionist states.

 

[butters]

Insofar as our courts are concerned, there are three legitimate justifications for criminal punishment: rehabilitation, deterrence, and revenge.

Needless to say, not much opportunity for rehabilitation when you're dead.

What amazes me is the number of self-described "advocates" for the bill of rights who are ready to lower our standards as a society to those of the person sentenced to death, who would gleefully adopt the standards of the worst-of-the-worst, who are anxious to abandon the constitutional prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

wish it amazed me.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Insofar as our courts are concerned, there are three legitimate justifications for criminal punishment: rehabilitation, deterrence, and revenge.

.

There are only two, Vengeance is not a legit function of criminal punishment.

 

[cjh]

There are only two, Vengeance is not a legit function of criminal punishment.

I agree with you. US law does not.

The death penalty is said to serve two principal social purposes: retribution and deterrence of capital crimes by prospective offenders. In part, capital punishment is an expression of society's moral outrage at particularly offensive conduct. This function may be unappealing to many, but it is essential in an ordered society that asks its citizens to rely on legal processes, rather than self-help, to vindicate their wrongs...

The instinct for retribution is part of the nature of man, and channeling that instinct in the administration of criminal justice serves an important purpose in promoting the stability of a society governed by law. When people begin to believe that organized society is unwilling or unable to impose upon criminal offenders the punishment they 'deserve,' then there are sown the seeds of anarchy -- of self-help, vigilante justice, and lynch law.

Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976)

 

[cjh]

wish it amazed me.

sound point.

 

[Sean Renaud]

US Law can kindly suck a cock. Not to mention I assume that everybody is agreement that the family and friends of the executed have no claim to vengeance because their anger is somehow delegitamized which if it's natural law as is claimed wouldn't alter anything. Eye for an eye and all that.

However thank you, I didn't know we actually codified that vengeance was a legit purpose. God we can be deeply retarded at times no?

 

[JohnnySavage]

Executing the bad guy is all fun and games until it's your ox getting gored.

There are clear cases of innocent people being wrongly accused, tried, found guilty and then executed. There's no doubt in my mind that if such happened to one of the pro-death penalty people in this thread, they'd change their minds zippy quick.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Executing the bad guy is all fun and games until it's your ox getting gored.

There are clear cases of innocent people being wrongly accused, tried, found guilty and then executed. There's no doubt in my mind that if such happened to one of the pro-death penalty people in this thread, they'd change their minds zippy quick.

I was unaware of any cases of that. I assume you can cite them?

I'm aware of plenty of cases of people being "found innocent" and but not after the execution. Presumably because the people who are working to find that evidence move on to living folks once you get put in the ground but still.

 

[JohnnySavage]

I was unaware of any cases of that. I assume you can cite them?

I'm aware of plenty of cases of people being "found innocent" and but not after the execution. Presumably because the people who are working to find that evidence move on to living folks once you get put in the ground but still.

There's a book, May God Have Mercy about one in Virginia. There was another in Texas (I think) that was executed for an arson, even though the county didn't have an arson investigator and the recognized experts throughout the country have said it wasn't arson. I've heard of others over the years, but I don't remember the particulars off the top of my head and I'm too lazy to google them up.

I'd support the death penalty if it were applied evenly, and was 100% accurate. It's not though, it can't be, and should be abolished.

As a country, just look at the company we keep.

Land of the free! O-rah!