Connecticut Court Upholds Abolishing Death Penalty For Existing Death Row Inmates
4,985 Views |
52 Replies |
Last: 9 yr ago by chuckd
Connecticut does not have any of the major types of abortion restrictions (such as waiting periods, mandated parental involvement or limitations on publicly funded abortions). Murderers will now have their life spared, but I am guessing this new legislation from the Connecticut Supreme Court will not be extended to the ~15,000 babies that die in the womb there each year.
quote:
Connecticut does not have any of the major types of abortion restrictions (such as waiting periods, mandated parental involvement or limitations on publicly funded abortions). Murderers will now have their life spared, but I am guessing this new legislation from the Connecticut Supreme Court will not be extended to the ~15,000 babies that die in the womb there each year.
but hey, convicted felons get to live!
quote:
Connecticut does not have any of the major types of abortion restrictions (such as waiting periods, mandated parental involvement or limitations on publicly funded abortions). Murderers will now have their life spared, but I am guessing this new legislation from the Connecticut Supreme Court will not be extended to the ~15,000 babies that die in the womb there each year.
I'm confused. Are you against the abolition of the death penalty on account of the perceived hypocrisy of allowing women to terminate pregnancies? Or are you in favor of abolishing the death penalty, but unable to express solidarity on account of overwhelming anger toward allowing women to terminate pregnancies?
quote:Being pro-life doesn't stop once the baby comes out of the womb. Abortion is a horrible act, but that doesn't mean we can't celebrate small victories like this.
Connecticut does not have any of the major types of abortion restrictions (such as waiting periods, mandated parental involvement or limitations on publicly funded abortions). Murderers will now have their life spared, but I am guessing this new legislation from the Connecticut Supreme Court will not be extended to the ~15,000 babies that die in the womb there each year.
quote:I'm pro-death penalty - Life to me is so precious that if someone knowingly and intentionally took another's life death should be the due penalty - but I would happily give it up to abortion.quote:Being pro-life doesn't stop once the baby comes out of the womb. Abortion is a horrible act, but that doesn't mean we can't celebrate small victories like this.
Quote:Connecticut does not have any of the major types of abortion restrictions (such as waiting periods, mandated parental involvement or limitations on publicly funded abortions). Murderers will now have their life spared, but I am guessing this new legislation from the Connecticut Supreme Court will not be extended to the ~15,000 babies that die in the womb there each year.
quote:That's what the death penalty is. It is knowingly and intentionally taking another's life.
Life to me is so precious that if someone knowingly and intentionally took another's life death should be the due penalty
That life, no matter how just we think ending it may be, still bears the image of our Creator. Since I'm pro-life, I can't support taking any life.
quote:
I'm pro-death penalty - Life to me is so precious that if someone knowingly and intentionally took another's life death should be the due penalty - but I would happily give it up to abortion.
I am not necessarily morally opposed to the proposition that some people deserve death, but, I approach the question from a different angle. . . .
Is the power to execute one of its own citizens a power you wish the government to have? Should a state have the right to judge someone as being deserving of death and then be permitted to carry out that sentence? How about a small homogeneous and biased group? Or an individual?
Who are you comfortable with having this power?
quote:"Pro-life" is within the realm of abortion, not any life.
Since I'm pro-life, I can't support taking any life.
quote:Biblically, that is a primary role of government - to punish evil.quote:
I'm pro-death penalty - Life to me is so precious that if someone knowingly and intentionally took another's life death should be the due penalty - but I would happily give it up to abortion.
I am not necessarily morally opposed to the proposition that some people deserve death, but, I approach the question from a different angle. . . .
Is the power to execute one of its own citizens a power you wish the government to have? Should a state have the right to judge someone as being deserving of death and then be permitted to carry out that sentence? How about a small homogeneous and biased group? Or an individual?
Who are you comfortable with having this power?
quote:
Biblically, that is a primary role of government - to punish evil.
Imprisonment is a punishment, no?
I presume that we can all quite easily identify the red flags and obvious pitfalls with a government designed to, and given power to, "punish evil in accordance with the Bible", yes?
quote:quote:"Pro-life" is within the realm of abortion, not any life.
Since I'm pro-life, I can't support taking any life.
Perhaps as you choose to view it is limited only to pre-born life. I understand that it's typically limited to that one issue in the political sense. I don't care about how it's defined politically. Life is life. All, whether a pre-born baby or death row inmate, bear the image of God. I, personally, don't see how one can be pro-life yet support practices that result in death.
quote:I'm against the death penalty in all cases (unless you can show me an instance where the violent offender cannot be safely locked-up. But,I would say that the US has a pretty extensive set of safeguards.quote:
I'm pro-death penalty - Life to me is so precious that if someone knowingly and intentionally took another's life death should be the due penalty - but I would happily give it up to abortion.
I am not necessarily morally opposed to the proposition that some people deserve death, but, I approach the question from a different angle. . . .
Is the power to execute one of its own citizens a power you wish the government to have? Should a state have the right to judge someone as being deserving of death and then be permitted to carry out that sentence? How about a small homogeneous and biased group? Or an individual?
Who are you comfortable with having this power?
quote:Amenquote:That's what the death penalty is. It is knowingly and intentionally taking another's life.
Life to me is so precious that if someone knowingly and intentionally took another's life death should be the due penalty
That life, no matter how just we think ending it may be, still bears the image of our Creator. Since I'm pro-life, I can't support taking any life.
Those who actually get executed in this counrty comes down to more about money and politics than justice.
A Saint on Death Row: The Story of Dominique Green by Thomas Cahill
quote:Absolutely. Look no further than the trial and execution of Jesus Christ. But even he acknowledged that Pilate had the power to do so and it was given to him by God.quote:Imprisonment is a punishment, no?
Biblically, that is a primary role of government - to punish evil.
I presume that we can all quite easily identify the red flags and obvious pitfalls with a government designed to, and given power to, "punish evil in accordance with the Bible", yes?
quote:One is the unlawful killing of an innocent, the other is not. Bearing the image of God did not negate God's laws with respect to the death penalty.
Perhaps as you choose to view it is limited only to pre-born life. I understand that it's typically limited to that one issue in the political sense. I don't care about how it's defined politically. Life is life. All, whether a pre-born baby or death row inmate, bear the image of God. I, personally, don't see how one can be pro-life yet support practices that result in death.
quote:OP is anti-government, even though it's a God ordained institution and God uses government as both a blessing and a judgement. He's against laws that crazy fundamentalists might back (stricter enforcement of surgical healthcare standards for abortion clinics, banning late term abortions, protection of religious liberty bills, etc). He's never tripped over furniture to run and post about any state law complicating abortion access, and states we can't declare to be pro-life unless we submit to total pacificism. Yet CT passes this bill and remains adamantly opposed to protecting life in the womb, and he acts like they've reached the pinnacle of global tranquility.quote:Absolutely. Look no further than the trial and execution of Jesus Christ. But even he acknowledged that Pilate had the power to do so and it was given to him by God.quote:Imprisonment is a punishment, no?
Biblically, that is a primary role of government - to punish evil.
I presume that we can all quite easily identify the red flags and obvious pitfalls with a government designed to, and given power to, "punish evil in accordance with the Bible", yes?
quote:Actually, the abortion is "lawful" and the death penalty, at least in Connecticut, is not "lawful". Well, as defined by man's laws. Bearing the image of our Creator is enough for me to not champion destroying such image bearers. You want to say that the state has God-sanctioned authority to do so? Go ahead, but that doesn't mean we, as Christians, should support its actual exercise.quote:One is the unlawful killing of an innocent, the other is not. Bearing the image of God did not negate God's laws with respect to the death penalty.
Perhaps as you choose to view it is limited only to pre-born life. I understand that it's typically limited to that one issue in the political sense. I don't care about how it's defined politically. Life is life. All, whether a pre-born baby or death row inmate, bear the image of God. I, personally, don't see how one can be pro-life yet support practices that result in death.
As Athenagorus of Athens said:
- "We have learned not only not to return blow for blow, nor to go to law with those who plunder and rob us, but to those who smite us on the one side of the face to offer the other side also, and to those who take away our coat to give likewise our cloakWe cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly."
- "We have rejected such spectacles as the Coliseum. How then, when we do not even look on killing lest we should contract guilt and pollution, can we put people to death?"
If I don't trust the state to mail a package for me...why would I trust them with life or death.
I don't believe in the death penalty. Not because I think the state doesn't have the authority or that some people don't deserve to die...but rather cause I think the government is inept.
I don't believe in the death penalty. Not because I think the state doesn't have the authority or that some people don't deserve to die...but rather cause I think the government is inept.
I don't trust our government enough to allow for the death penalty.
That, and it is more expensive to execute a criminal than it is to keep him locked up for life.
I do think that I could make an exception for super war criminal pieces of **** like Bin Laden or Hussein.
That, and it is more expensive to execute a criminal than it is to keep him locked up for life.
I do think that I could make an exception for super war criminal pieces of **** like Bin Laden or Hussein.
I don't think the government is inept. Just terribly corrupt.
quote:
I don't think the government is inept. Just terribly corrupt.
C, all of the above
quote:Lawful in the sense of God's laws. Abortion is unlawful killing. The death penalty is not.quote:Actually, the abortion is "lawful" and the death penalty, at least in Connecticut, is not "lawful". Well, as defined by man's laws. Bearing the image of our Creator is enough for me to not champion destroying such image bearers. You want to say that the state has God-sanctioned authority to do so? Go ahead, but that doesn't mean we, as Christians, should support its actual exercise.quote:One is the unlawful killing of an innocent, the other is not. Bearing the image of God did not negate God's laws with respect to the death penalty.
Perhaps as you choose to view it is limited only to pre-born life. I understand that it's typically limited to that one issue in the political sense. I don't care about how it's defined politically. Life is life. All, whether a pre-born baby or death row inmate, bear the image of God. I, personally, don't see how one can be pro-life yet support practices that result in death.
quote:More accurately, I view my citizenship lying with God's Kingdom and consider Him to be the head of the government I follow.
OP is anti-government, even though it's a God ordained institution and God uses government as both a blessing and a judgement.
quote:I believe laws only attack symptoms and not the real issues involved. I think it's far more effective for the church to actually live out Christ's teachings vs trying to force them via legislation.
He's against laws that crazy fundamentalists might back (stricter enforcement of surgical healthcare standards for abortion clinics, banning late term abortions, protection of religious liberty bills, etc).
quote:Such a discussion would be on the Politics board and I don't post over there.
He's never tripped over furniture to run and post about any state law complicating abortion access,
quote:Where have I said this? Link please.
and states we can't declare to be pro-life unless we submit to total pacificism.
quote:I posted a link in the OP to an article. Nothing more. Where have I acted like "they've reached the pinnacle of global tranquility"? I get that you like fabricating people's positions, but it really doesn't help facilitate dialogue at all. One can be glad the death penalty in a particular place has been abolished and still be distraught at the number of babies murdered every year in that same place.
Yet CT passes this bill and remains adamantly opposed to protecting life in the womb, and he acts like they've reached the pinnacle of global tranquility.
quote:I believe, as a Christian, supporting the killing of anyone goes against the teachings of Christ. Like I said, if you want to argue the state has such a right, go right ahead. That doesn't mean we, as Christians, should support its use. Pro-life is not just about abortion though.quote:Lawful in the sense of God's laws. Abortion is unlawful killing. The death penalty is not.quote:Actually, the abortion is "lawful" and the death penalty, at least in Connecticut, is not "lawful". Well, as defined by man's laws. Bearing the image of our Creator is enough for me to not champion destroying such image bearers. You want to say that the state has God-sanctioned authority to do so? Go ahead, but that doesn't mean we, as Christians, should support its actual exercise.quote:One is the unlawful killing of an innocent, the other is not. Bearing the image of God did not negate God's laws with respect to the death penalty.
Perhaps as you choose to view it is limited only to pre-born life. I understand that it's typically limited to that one issue in the political sense. I don't care about how it's defined politically. Life is life. All, whether a pre-born baby or death row inmate, bear the image of God. I, personally, don't see how one can be pro-life yet support practices that result in death.
quote:This too. We've seen far too many death row inmates exonerated to believe that no innocent has been killed by the state.
If I don't trust the state to mail a package for me...why would I trust them with life or death.
quote:Assuming the state has this right from God (which it does), how are Christians not supposed to support its use? That would be not supporting God's civil order.
I believe, as a Christian, supporting the killing of anyone goes against the teachings of Christ. Like I said, if you want to argue the state has such a right, go right ahead. That doesn't mean we, as Christians, should support its use.
quote:Look to the early church leaders and their views on it. They seemed to have no issue being able to do this. Like I said, if you want to believe that the state has such a "right", fine. That doesn't mean followers of the nonviolent Prince of Peace should support its exercise. We are to be an alternative to the ways of this world. Where the state murders to punish evil, we the church are to answer evil with love and reconciliation.quote:Assuming the state has this right from God (which it does), how are Christians not supposed to support its use? That would be not supporting God's civil order.
I believe, as a Christian, supporting the killing of anyone goes against the teachings of Christ. Like I said, if you want to argue the state has such a right, go right ahead. That doesn't mean we, as Christians, should support its use.
Considering I am not without sin, I will listen to Christ and not throw the first stone.
quote:You keep repeating the same thing without answering the question. Bearing the image of God did not negate his laws on the death penalty. Agree or no? He gives this power to the civil government. Agree or no? Jesus acknowledged this in his own trial in which the power was misused. Agree or no? Paul acknowledged this in his own trial in which the power was misused. Agree or no?quote:Look to the early church leaders and their views on it. They seemed to have no issue being able to do this. Like I said, if you want to believe that the state has such a "right", fine. That doesn't mean followers of the nonviolent Prince of Peace should support its exercise. We are to be an alternative to the ways of this world. Where the state murders to punish evil, we the church are to answer evil with love and reconciliation.quote:Assuming the state has this right from God (which it does), how are Christians not supposed to support its use? That would be not supporting God's civil order.
I believe, as a Christian, supporting the killing of anyone goes against the teachings of Christ. Like I said, if you want to argue the state has such a right, go right ahead. That doesn't mean we, as Christians, should support its use.
quote:Whether or not the state has such God-given authority is irrelevant to whether or not Christians should support the exercise of such an act.
You keep repeating the same thing without answering the question. Bearing the image of God did not negate his laws on the death penalty. Agree or no? He gives this power to the civil government. Agree or no? Jesus acknowledged this in his own trial in which the power was misused. Agree or no? Paul acknowledged this in his own trial in which the power was misused. Agree or no?
quote:
I believe, as a Christian, supporting the killing of anyone goes against the teachings of Christ.
I admire your devotion. I just can't get there, however. I still believe that evil needs to be checked. Strong men need to protect.
For such a general statement as yours to be true, it has to be true to the very extremes. You put me in the same room as Pol Pot in 1968, and he gets a bullet to the head, no remorse or guilt from me. So, there has to be some exceptions.
The trouble is where to draw the line. On this issue, I don't trust the U.S. government with civilian executions.
quote:If you're against the institution of government though, shouldn't you be against all forms of punishment and legally imposed penalties? In addition to being against capital punishment, I presume you're staunchly opposed to speeding tickets, municipal fines, and even court imposed community service since the state has no right to govern.quote:Look to the early church leaders and their views on it. They seemed to have no issue being able to do this. Like I said, if you want to believe that the state has such a "right", fine. That doesn't mean followers of the nonviolent Prince of Peace should support its exercise. We are to be an alternative to the ways of this world. Where the state murders to punish evil, we the church are to answer evil with love and reconciliation.quote:Assuming the state has this right from God (which it does), how are Christians not supposed to support its use? That would be not supporting God's civil order.
I believe, as a Christian, supporting the killing of anyone goes against the teachings of Christ. Like I said, if you want to argue the state has such a right, go right ahead. That doesn't mean we, as Christians, should support its use.
Considering I am not without sin, I will listen to Christ and not throw the first stone.
quote:It's directly relevant to Christians as we believe in God and his authority.quote:Whether or not the state has such God-given authority is irrelevant to whether or not Christians should support the exercise of such an act.
You keep repeating the same thing without answering the question. Bearing the image of God did not negate his laws on the death penalty. Agree or no? He gives this power to the civil government. Agree or no? Jesus acknowledged this in his own trial in which the power was misused. Agree or no? Paul acknowledged this in his own trial in which the power was misused. Agree or no?
Featured Stories
See All
6:48
2h ago
2.1k
23:10
1h ago
516
4:39
2h ago
1.1k
TexAgs Overtime: Aggie basketball's opportunity in Austin
by Billy Liucci
Senior right-hander Josh Stewart picked to wear #12 in 2026
by Richard Zane
12:22
1d ago
10k
Ask Liucci: Offseason begins with a busy portal window & more
by Billy Liucci
whoop1995
Completed my Texas A&M bowl game ticket collection - 1944 orange bowl
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
93
@coopercuffe
Aggie football player Gray Evans is 8 months cancer free
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
55