Originally posted by CX:
more than that i think... the death penalty is actually a sign of respect for human life...
"To punish the guilty via the death penalty is not to condone the shedding of innocent blood. Just the opposite, in fact, since capital punishment sends a strong message that murder and other capital crimes will not be tolerated."
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/06-03-2002/vo18no11_fallacies.htmsome of the points raised in the above article are a little extreme... but ultimately, i think its a point of how a society decides to respond to violent crimes.
it is not some of the articles that are extreme. all fo the articles are extreme. in fact, the entire website is extremist pro-bush, not very objective.
number one, their "fallacy" on the Church's stance is a fallacy in itself. I have clearly read a statement that teh Church prefers reformative punnishment to the Death Penalty. n funnily, this site is the first site i have seen that actually rejects what the famous Black-rights activist Martin luther King said.
number two, being an avid reader of C.S. Lewis, i can easily tell that the writer of the article has twisted the author's word to fit his won ends. C.S. Lewis plainly mentions in many of his poems that he opposes all forms of killing. in one of his poems, he talks about genocides in Eastern European countries and the Mock trials in Russia.
number three, European Governments are poisoned in their wells by being termed as elitist. I watched teh coverage of the Hutton Report and the parliamentary sitting before that on the BBC and there is nowhere that implies that the UK government is elitist. in fact, to me, UK is beginning to look much more democratic than the Land of the Free.
number four, the writer uses a utilitarian point to talk about unusuality, which is totally irrevelevant.
number five, even biologists and people in the law profession concede that DNA testing is not very reliable in determining a criminal. that i got at a talk i attended last year on biotech.
number six, the author uses figures for Florida to unjustify the national estimate. i also have a suspicion that he only read the results of court proceddings, and not analyzed exactly what each person said. Obviously, results would show that "not one innocent person was executed".
number six, i am certain ACLU does proper research before coming up with such data. anyway, theNew AMerican is so pro-bush that i don't think it bothers to double-check statistics released byt eh WHite House.
number seven, although its argument on teh cost could be correct, nonetheless i don't thnk that cost should even be a factor considered when one is debating on morality. Does cost decide morality?
in anutshell, it is safer not to believe the New American completely, since it is extremely biased and thus, unreliable. SO CX, try to find some more reliable sources. At least Amnesty is endorsed by the UN, and thus that loans it some credibility.
the *sighing* pikamaster
yawn