QUOTE
thersis:
dallas, i refer you to exodus 21:22-25, leviticus 24:17-21, deuteronomy 19:16-21, and matthew 5:38-39. all these passages refer to the eye for an eye principal. other references may predate these, but to say the eye for an eye idea, as greatly misunderstood as it is -- it was meant to LIMIT punishment, biblically speaking -- is not biblical is truly a stretch.
and when jerry springer guests start spouting their i4i claptrap, they seldom, okay, never preface it with, \"the codes of hammurabi say...\". i assure it is the bible they are citing.
now to your question regarding alternatives...it all depends on what one's view of the purpose of our criminal justice system is. whenever i get mixed up in a death penalty debate, i contend we should be debating the purpose of the justice system. is its main purpose to punish, reduce recidivism, avenge, rehabilitate? when one settles in their own mind the answer to this question, they tend to develop a more cogent stand on the merits, or lack thereof, of the death penalty. and most people, not being vengeful to the point of murder, realize that the only purpose served by capital punishment that could not be served by other means, namely life without parole, is, in fact, vengeance. and few people would cite that as the main purpose of our justice system.
Its not a stretch for those of us who are , again, NOT CHRISTIAN or any other religion. Its a stretch to only say its biblical, when its principle was borrowed from a source thousands of years prior. If your view is so narrow that you can only harken back to sources written in references to a holy power, then you need to not use the argument. "Eye for an eye" as I said dates back to Hammurabi's code. And it wasnt added because some dude named Jehovah told him to add it. Its a just punishment code. Last I checked also, Jerry Springer doesnt make the laws and his show is not real.
Someone used a reference earlier to death penalties being used against sodomites in Islamic countries. That is not a valid comparison. Youre right, I would not agree that someone who performed a sex "crime" or stole a $1000 should die. But someone who takes a life intentionally, should suffer the same fate. Keeping them locked up in jail forever is not a severe enough punishment for them. Its simply a waste of money and time.
I would concede that those people sentenced to death before the late 90s should be given the chance of new DNA testing to prove their innocence during any last appeal they may have prior to execution, if the case involves DNA. It has been proven that of those 1001 people executed, that yes a handful may have been innocent men. But 99% of them were brutal and calculating murderers.
I find few people who can say Ted Bundy, who lured victims to die, only deserved life in prison. That Jefferey Dahmer, who ate his victims, would have only deserved his life sentence since Wisconsin had no death penalty (which ultimately led to death at the hands of another inmate). That Blanche Taylor Moore, who poisoned her husbands with cianide, only deserved life in prison. That John Wayne Gacy, who lured boys and men in a clown outfit to rape and murder them, only deserved life in prison.
Thats 1001 executed people in 29 years. An article I found using data from 2002-2003, said there were 127,677 people serving life sentences. And there were 3600 people on death row. The 1001 executions in 29 years sounds like a much smaller number in comparison to those numbers.
