12/02/2005

One For the Record Books

Did you know that they still hang people?

But before you start thinking how backward Singapore is, dont' forget about the good old USofA:

We've recently reached a new milestone in our attempts to stop violoence by enacting violence.


Kenneth Boyd was the 1000's person we've killed since they re-instated the death penalty 28 years ago.

Just think. We're saving tax dollars and maintaining our position as (many studies indicate) the most violent developed nation in the world.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

How can you say that executing people creates violence? It is the fear of punishment that will keep people in line and obeying the laws. Would you commit a crime if you knew that you would be executed for it? Probably not. Stop thinking that executions are wrong. When an individual murders another human being, there should only be one penalty:death.

Daniel Rudd said...

Greetings Anonymous!
You posted your comment before I was even able to load the page and check that the post had loaded correctly.

You must be a very dedicated fan.

So that gets you two points.

Unfortunately, I'll have to subtract one point for not posting your name, and one point for disagreeing with me.

This sentance (below) is probably the most convincing part of your argument:

>>>"Stop thinking that executions are wrong."

But you didn't say please.

:)

Seriously though. People are violent *because* they are afraid.

*Fear* can't end violence.

Check the data. It isn't working.

chris said...

i agree with some of what you said. i agree that we're probably the most violent developed nation and that the death penalty isn't a deterrent. i would also add that it's sick they allow the family to witness the execution. what i can't fully agree with is that it's always wrong to punish people by death. the reason i still support the death penalty in some cases is because there are some crimes that people commit where death is the only just consequence.
also, i wouldn't put all of the responsibility on the shoulders of the u.s. gov't for this guy's execution. the state made a law that said if you murder then you could be punished by death. kenneth boyd murdered, i think, two people and faced the consequence for doing that.

david rudd said...

its funny that you picked out the same sentence that i did to be convinced by anon. e. mouse. two points for you.

however, because "sentence" is not spelled "sentance", even when it refers to a "life sentence", you lose 1 point.

it does seem to me that this is an issue too complex to be definitively discussed using tongue in cheek comentary. my guess is that anonymous doesn't understand that you are just speaking this way to raise discussion and awareness of a debate that needs to happen.

clearly he/she doesn't understand that you would never be so closed minded as to paint in such wide strokes as these and mean it literally.

david rudd said...

oh yeah.

maybe instead of debating the morality of the death penalty, it would be wiser to spend energy supporting pardons for people who have been truly "rehabilitated".

Daniel Rudd said...

Good thoughts Chris.

I suppose I would hesitate to say that it is *always* wrong to kill.

But then, after I hesitated, I would probably go ahead and say it.

---

In reality I do try to shy away from all-inclusive statements. Which is why you won't have to disagree with me "that it is always wrong to punish someone with the death penallty."

...I haven't (yet said it).

What I did say was that the death penalty is a form of "enacting violence."

You can almost always categorize the non-consentual killing of a human as violence.

It seems that there would always be something better that you can do with a life than end it (no matter what).

Perhaps this does subvert justice, but in my moral heirarchy there are several things that trump justice

David:
1) I didn't know you could put HTML in comments.
2) Yes, clearly
3) Did you really get blown up at a gas station?

chris said...

my apologies for putting words in your mouth, but most bloggers that would write a tongue in cheek commentary such as yours would be completely against the death penalty across the board.

david rudd said...

no, i didn't get blown up. but the rest of the story is true. cigarette and all.

wouldn't that be something if andy was killed in a car accident and i got blowed up at the same time.

Daniel Rudd said...

ah Chris,
no apology neccesary.
It's an honor to host your comments.

And... If I were against things "across the board" , the death penalty would probably be one of them.

I just thought I'd catch you on a technicality.

---

When I think about someone hurting Isaac and Will I understand the sentiment that there are some crimes that should only be punished by death.

Right now, with Isaac and Will (safe and sound) playing happily in front of me, I am questioning how the death penalty makes anything better. I think there is a misguided idea of justice that things need to be "balanced out."

This straddles the border of justice and vengance.

That's why familiess want to to watch. They think it will give them closure or peace. I can only theorize, but I don't think it does (and I agree with your earlier assesment of this).

I don't think revenge is every a healthy way to work through grief and loss.

David: So it didn't light on fire?

Ang said...

the more i think about this topic, the more it sickens me.

there are times that i hesitate to say that i am completely opposed to the death penalty. sometimes examples from the Old Testament make me question my views...that maybe I am just thinking with my emotions. and my own inability to ever make a decision to take someone's life. maybe i am.

either way. it makes me sick. It does seem to be true that Christ would look at a life as something of great value...that "there would always be something better to do with a life than to end it."

david rudd said...

nope, didn't light on fire. lucky me. i was starting to bail out when he threw it. m- watched the whole thing from the van, said it was funny.

what about genesis 9:1-17?

b4 you dismiss it too quickly, realize it has to do with eating meat, rainbows, and leprechauns, not just death penalty.

Anonymous said...

WHAT DID GOD SAY ABOUT IT IN THE TORAH AND HOW WAS IT CARRIED OUT FOR HIS PEOPLE? WAS GOD USING IT THEN AS A FORM OF "REVENGE"?

Daniel Rudd said...

"Thou shalt not post anonymously. Take the anonyomous commentator outside the city gates. There shall he be stoned along with the adulteror, those who work on the Sabbath, and disrepectful children." (-Appenix to Leviticus 4 - found in a tuperware container in an abandoned airstream camper just 2 miles away from the dead sea scrolls cave)